House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
1. What guidance he provides for local authorities on co-ordination across local authority boundaries.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
We have abolished Labour’s top-down regional strategies, which built nothing but resentment, and replaced them with the Localism Act 2011, which asks councils to work together and co-operate on cross-boundary matters.
Sir Nicholas Soames
May I ask my right hon. Friend to have a word with West Sussex and Surrey county councils about the importance of constant liaison on roadworks? Is he aware that in East Grinstead, which has suffered terrible inconvenience for several years as a result of roadworks, it is becoming impossible to ensure that there is a free passage for cars at all times?
Mr Pickles
My right hon. Friend has made a very reasonable point. I will of course liaise with both council leaders, and will send them a copy of Hansard. The duty not just to consult but to co-operate is immensely important, and most local authorities co-operate very harmoniously. They have a responsibility to work together: after all, the people for whom they are working together are the general population who elect them.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
As the Secretary of State knows, individual local authorities contribute to the Prevent strategy, but places of worship and community groups extend beyond local authority boundaries. How will he ensure that there is proper co-ordination between councils?
Mr Pickles
That is a very good question. The duty to co-operate was originally designed to apply to planning and to housing numbers, but it clearly has a much wider application in the context of both economic development and social policy. Any sensible authority—and metropolitan authorities in particular, given their proximity to each other—must recognise that religious establishments and community groups do not necessarily correspond with municipal boundaries.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Ellar Ghyll tip is just inside the Leeds city council boundary, but is next to Menston, in my constituency, and is heavily used by its residents. The council is happy to continue the existing reciprocal arrangement with Bradford council, but Bradford has refused to do so. That means that my constituents will have to pass a tip that is next door to them to visit one that is a number of miles away, and it will undoubtedly lead to more fly-tipping. Will the Secretary of State intervene and knock some heads together in order to reverse the ridiculous decision of the Labour council in Bradford?
Mr Pickles
I was in Leeds and Bradford on Thursday, and, had I known about it, I would have looked in on that tip.
It is immensely important to recognise the purpose of this arrangement, which is to ensure that members of the public receive a decent service. When I was leader of Bradford council, I enjoyed a very harmonious relationship with Leeds, and I hope that that relationship can be quickly restored.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
In recent months I have been contacted by more than 20 parents, all of them with children who have been housed in the borough of Slough by other local authorities because of the workings of benefit caps and the like. Parents are having real problems getting their children to school, using family networks and so on. What will the Secretary of State do to help them, and help local authorities to communicate better with each other about families who are dumped from other boroughs?
Mr Pickles
I am sure that the right hon. Lady is familiar with the authorities in question. I urge her to contact them, and try to persuade them to co-operate. It is obviously not satisfactory for children to have to travel large distances to school. The whole point of localism is that local people should be able to make decisions, and, surely to goodness, it must be possible for two local authorities to reach a sensible decision without the Government having to intervene.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
2. What support his Department provides for local authorities to encourage development of brownfield land.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
We have introduced a range of measures to support brownfield land development, including the provision of £200 million to help to create housing zones outside London and the release of enough public sector land for 103,000 homes, which is above the target that we set ourselves. The national planning policy framework encourages the reuse of brownfield sites.
Andrew Stephenson
The leader of Pendle borough council, Councillor Joe Cooney, recently announced that the council will introduce a new £1.5 million fund for brownfield regeneration, making brownfield sites attractive and viable to developers. Will the Minister join me in welcoming Councillor Cooney’s leadership on this issue and assure the House of this Government’s support for local authorities that take the initiative to prioritise brownfield, such as Pendle borough council?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and has spoken to me extensively about the excellent work being done by Councillor Cooney and that council. I am pleased to welcome their positive initiative, which will help to make the planning process faster and more certain for developers in Pendle. I am pleased that we have been able to make £5 million available to local authorities who pilot local development orders that grant planning permission for housing on suitable brownfield sites.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s response. If what he says is true, why was St Leonard’s hospital in my constituency given to PropCo—NHS Property Services Ltd—in the NHS and why has the fire station, which was closed, been sold for a rumoured £28 million, and neither for local housing? Does he not agree that the best thing for public health in the local area would be good-quality affordable housing for local families, and would he not like to see that happen?
Brandon Lewis
Our target is to have 90% of brownfield land developed by 2020. We have made great progress, particularly on affordable housing, supplying almost 220,000 in this Parliament, and we are now building at the fastest rate in 23 years, but ultimately the planning decisions are for local councils and the local authority.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the effect of local government funding changes on services since May 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
Since 2010 councils have set balanced budgets and council tax has fallen by 11% in real terms. Public satisfaction with local services has been maintained and we have increased transparency so that residents can hold councils to account.
Mike Kane
The Public Accounts Committee report in January looking into the sustainability of local government finance clearly stated that the 10 most deprived areas in England and Wales have had cuts 10 times greater than those of the 10 wealthiest areas. Does that prove that we are not all in this together?
Kris Hopkins
Both the National Audit Office and the PAC report noted that all councils had managed to balance their budgets, and we should note that the 10% most deprived councils in the country receive 40% more than the most wealthy councils.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Of course local authorities rely a great deal on central Government funding, but they also rely on budgets granted by other organisations. Will my hon. Friend have a word with Crawley borough council, which is in danger of losing £50,000 of England and Wales Cricket Board funding for new nets in Langley Green as a result of minor planning authority bureaucracy?
Kris Hopkins
I hope my hon. Friend raising that issue in the House today will buck up the council to respond in a more appropriate way.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
22. Despite being ranked in the top 10 in terms of deprivation, Hull city council has funding cuts of £279 per head, but Beverley in the East Riding, which is ranked 202 in terms of deprivation, has a cut of just £89 per head.
Kris Hopkins
The reality is that every part of local government has had to respond to the disastrous economy left by the last Government, but this Government have ensured that, despite the fact that we have had to reduce the amount of money to local government, we have given councils the opportunity to grow their economy, with retention of business rates and a reward for building houses. I encourage the hon. Gentleman’s local council to do the same.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
Despite cuts from Government to Shropshire council, council leader Keith Burrow has managed to freeze council tax for six years in a row. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the leader of Shropshire council on, despite the cuts and the freezing of council tax, maintaining and improving council services in Shropshire?
Kris Hopkins
I will certainly compliment my hon. Friend’s local leader on making that choice. Despite the challenges local authorities faced over recent years, some 64% of them have frozen their council tax in this financial period.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
17. Does the Minister agree with the conclusions of the Audit Commission, the National Audit Office and the International Monetary Fund, all of which say that the most deprived areas have been hit by the greatest cuts? Coventry is probably going to lose about 1,000 jobs and make cuts of about £75 million in the next two or three years, which will affect its basic services.
Kris Hopkins
This is now the largest growing economy in the G20. It is only through following a long-term economic plan in which we grow our economy, receive taxes for that activity, employ more people and have more apprentices that we can invest in public services.
Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)
Last week at the Local Government Chronicle awards, Cheshire West and Chester council was the runner-up for the council of the year award. Does this not show that if councils improve their efficiency and their services, they can deliver better services in a tough economic situation?
Kris Hopkins
I compliment my hon. Friend’s council for taking the difficult decisions while at the same time delivering quality services. We should note that, despite the challenges that we have faced, public satisfaction with council services has remained constant during the term of this Government.
Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)
In December 2010, the Secretary of State told the House:
“I have sought to achieve a fair and sustainable settlement for local government”.—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 679.]
How does the Minister now respond to all the evidence from the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Communities and Local Government Select Committee that those cuts have been neither fair nor sustainable? And will he come clean about the bleak future that councils would face if the Tories were to press on with their plan to return Britain to the 1930s?
Kris Hopkins
Rather than just reading reports, I have been listening to lots of councils. During the local settlement agreement, I spoke to more than 100 councils, and not one of them said that they could not set a budget. Yes, these are difficult times, but they are difficult because of the failure of the last Government to manage the economy. We have now created the largest growing economy in the G20, with more people employed and more apprentices out there. More people are getting a job. That is the route that we need to follow, and we will deliver more spending in the public sector by having a strong economy.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
4. How many people owned their own home in England in (a) May 2010 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
9. How many people owned their own home in England in (a) May 2010 and (b) the latest date for which figures are available.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
The number of households in home ownership has remained relatively steady since May 2010. There were 14.45 million in the year 2010-11 and 14.32 million in 2013-14, according to the latest available data from the English housing survey.
Pat Glass
Despite that response, the number has not remained steady. It has actually fallen by almost 4% in four years, and we now have 11 million people, including 1.5 million children, living in private rented accommodation. What are this Government going to do to support those families, and to support generation rent more generally?
Stephen Williams
The figures I gave did show a fall, so we are not disagreeing on that. The fact is that home ownership peaked in 2005 and fell dramatically in the five years of the last Labour Government. The private rental sector is an attractive part of the housing mix for a large number of people, and in the past 12 months this Government have put in place a huge number of reforms to regulate the sector. They include the regulation of letting agencies to ensure that they all belong to an ombudsman scheme, that they are completely transparent about their fees and that they publish a how-to-rent guide and a model tenancy agreement. That is a vast improvement on what we had before.
Yasmin Qureshi
I hear what the Minister says, but what would he say to those young people in their 20s and 30s, one in four of whom are still living in their parents’ home? How is he going to provide for them, given that the Prime Minister said that he wanted young people to be rewarded with a home of their own?
Stephen Williams
The Government recognise that most people want to own a home of their own. That is one of the reasons that we have put in place the Help to Buy scheme, which has now helped 88,000 people around the country. In the hon. Lady’s own constituency, 81 families have used the scheme to buy their own home.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will the Minister confirm that the number of first- time buyers is at a six-year high and that almost 192,000 households have been helped to buy or reserve a property through Government-backed schemes?
Stephen Williams
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the full range of schemes have helped a rather large number of people to get their foot on to the housing ladder. Let us not forget the situation we inherited. There was a credit bubble, through a growth in mortgages until 2007, and lots of warnings were given, including by my right hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who is now the Business Secretary, that the bubble would burst—it did. That was a catastrophe not only for the economy, but for a lot of people trying to get their foot on to the housing ladder. Our schemes have been a real help to people in buying their own home.
Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
In 2010, the Government’s then housing Minister said in his first speech on the subject that the
“age of aspiration is back”.
But under this Government we have seen home ownership falling to a 30-year low; the lowest level of house building in peacetime since the 1920s; and a record number of young people living at home with their parents. Given that this Government have broken every promise on housing over the past five years, why should anyone believe their promises for the next five years?
Stephen Williams
I like the hon. Lady very much, but she has a tendency, as do quite a few people from her intake, to wipe the slate clean from the previous five years, or the previous 13 years when she was not a Member. The fact is that house starts and completions hit rock bottom in 2008-09, when there were just 88,000 starts. Since then, starts and completions have picked up: in the last year there were 134,000 starts; and the latest information we have, for 2014, shows there are now 253,000 new planning completions for housing. So there is a strong pipeline going forward.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
5. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that the views of local residents are adequately represented within planning processes.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
This Government have radically reformed the planning system into a genuinely locally led process. Most significantly, through neighbourhood planning we have given local people a real role in shaping the areas in which they live and work; for the first time community groups can produce plans that have real statutory weight in the planning system.
Mr Evans
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Ribble Valley borough council is a small yet beautiful local authority—Tory-controlled, needless to say. Although the core strategy has been passed, giving the local authority greater powers, it still fears that where a planning application is rejected and goes to appeal, the costs associated with that are disproportionate, especially to the smaller, rural authorities. Will the Department look at ways of ensuring that local authorities are not going to be clobbered in this way in future, ensuring that they are able to make the right decisions on behalf of local people?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Developers should be able to look at a local plan and have confidence that they can develop where land is allocated in that plan, but, as he rightly says, outside that they should find it the most difficult thing in the world to do if they have not got agreement with the local authority. It is absolutely right that his local authority has its local plan in place, and I encourage villages in the area and elsewhere to look at neighbourhood planning, to give even further protection to the areas over which people want to have control.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister knows that of course we want local communities to be able to protect their environment when they are concerned about it, but the balance must be right—we need homes for people in this country today. There is a national crisis. We have young people in debt; thanks to the Liberal Democrats, some graduates are £42,000 in debt. Who is going to lend them the money? And where are the houses coming from?
Brandon Lewis
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the previous Government’s top-down approach meant that everybody spent so much time arguing about numbers that very few of them got enough houses built, and that led to the position in which we inherited the lowest level of house building this country has seen since about 1923—that is a disgrace. Trusting local people to make the right decisions for their areas is paying dividends. In the last year, 2014, we saw an almost record level of 253,000 homes getting planning permission, proving that this Government are right: trusting local people to make local decisions is the way forward.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)
Local residents in Broughton Gifford finally had their views represented earlier this month when the High Court struck down a planning consent on which Wiltshire council had inadequately consulted. Does the Minister accept that that is meaningless unless the council is prepared to take enforcement action? At the very least, proportionate action would be to ensure that the development was not operational as long as it remained unlawful.
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is vital that enforcement is dealt with properly to give people confidence that the planning system will deliver the right results. I will ensure that the Under-Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) who deals with renewable energy, looks at that case and makes contact with the hon. Gentleman directly.
Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
In 2013, the Minister said to this House about the future of high streets that
“it is also quite right for local authorities to use the powers they have to make sure that their high street or town centre is vital and vibrant for the benefit of their communities.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2013; Vol. 571, c. 7.]
Will he explain, therefore, why he has taken all those powers away?
Brandon Lewis
Well, we have not. I encourage local areas not just to take forward business improvement districts, but to take advantage of neighbourhood planning and business-led neighbourhood planning. I have seen that happen in a few parts of the country, including in Milton Keynes, where there has been some excellent work to take forward opportunities to develop the high street in a way that did not happen under the previous Government, as those opportunities just fell away or were ignored.
Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)
6. What steps his Department has taken to support local firms and shops with payment of business rates since May 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)
We have taken significant steps, including doubling small business rate relief, benefiting 600,000 businesses with 400,000 paying nothing; increasing retail relief to £1,500 for the forthcoming financial year; and giving councils powers to grant discounts, with central Government funding half the costs. Today, we also launched the business rates review—paving the way to modernising the system.
Karen Lumley
Business rates collected in Redditch are up by tens of thousands of pounds. Although we would all like to see business rates lowered, is that fact not further proof that, across Britain, our towns’ economies are benefiting under this Government’s long-term economic plan?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is right that our town centres and high streets are enjoying a resurgence. Last year’s report by Southampton university showed that our high streets have been outperforming out-of-town areas since 2013. I congratulate both Redditch traders on their achievements and my hon. Friend on her support of them. I sincerely hope that those traders will consider entering the great British high street competition this year, which we launched last week.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Will the Minister give a guarantee to the House that the criteria for the recently announced review of business rates will include the fact that there will not be a single penny’s reduction in funding to local councils as a result of that review?
Penny Mordaunt
I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are not in the business of giving rate relief to penalise other sectors, whether it is the business sector or the public sector. The relief that I have just outlined has been funded by central Government. We have not been penalising business. The hon. Gentleman can make submissions to the review, but I have to tell him that the review has been welcomed by business.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Businesses of all sizes will welcome today’s reports that there will be, as the Minister has just said, a review of the way in which business rates are calculated. Given that, may I urge her and her colleagues to rebalance the costs between small high street shops and large online retailers? I hope she agrees that it is time to re-tip that balance.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Despite being seen as the death knell of the high street, online retailers have helped to bring about a resurgence on the high street. Some 35% of all online sales are now picked up through click and collect. We have just published the Future High Streets Forum’s digital report, which outlines not only ways that big business and companies such as Google, IBM and others can assist the high street, but why it is in their interests to do so.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
19. I am sure that the Chair of the Conservative party can remember when, as Minister with responsibility for local government, he promised a high street revolution. Does the Minister think that, given that the number of empty units on our high street is rising—on some high streets, up to 25% of units are empty—we are talking about a revolution or just a flat failure?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. As well as the Southampton university report, which showed that high streets have been outperforming out-of-town areas on groceries, clothing and footwear since 2013, there is last year’s Deloitte study, which showed that re-occupancy rates are much higher on the high street than they are out of town.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
7. What assessment he has made of trends in the rate of building of homes for social rent since May 2010.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Stephen Williams)
Under our affordable rent model almost 143,000 affordable homes for rent have been delivered since April 2010. In contrast, between 1997 and 2010 the number of social rented homes fell by 420,000.
Heidi Alexander
I notice that the Minister did not answer my question. At my advice surgery on Friday afternoon, I met Mr and Mrs Conning, who have waited years to move to a decent council or housing association property. Given that roughly 29,000 fewer social rented homes were built last year than in 2010, are the prospects of the Conning family securing a suitable home getting better or worse?
Stephen Williams
The rate of building council houses is at a 23-year high under this Government. One of the flexibilities that we have given for local councils at the top of their borrowing limits on their housing revenue accounts allows them to apply to the Treasury for up to £150 million extra assistance, and Lewisham council has £43.7 million headroom in its HRA that it could be using to build houses. I suggest that the hon. Lady has a word with her colleagues back home.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I draw attention to my interests in the register. As the Minister clearly has difficulty with the figures, may I remind him that the highly authoritative UK housing review, published last week, shows very clearly the figures for the number of new social rented homes started in this country in each of the years from 2009-10 to 2013-14? In 2009-10, the last year of the previous Government, 39,000 social rented homes were started. In 2013-14, 3,961 were started. Those are the figures, so will the Minister now own up and apologise for that appalling record?
Stephen Williams
No, I will not apologise at all. I am proud of the record of this coalition Government, who have a reinvigorated affordable homes programme which between 2011 and the end of this month will have delivered 170,000 extra affordable homes. This will be the first Administration since right to buy started in 1980 to leave office with more affordable rented homes in stock than when they started, which the right hon. Gentleman’s Government failed to do in three Administrations.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Ministers promised a 1:1 replacement for homes sold under right to buy, but in fact the replacement rate is in many cases 1:4 or worse. Why have the Government broken that promise?
Stephen Williams
Local authorities have about three years in which to spend the money and as I understand it some £730 million of proceeds have been raised under the reinvigorated right-to-buy scheme. That must all be invested in building new homes for affordable rent in the borough. The previous Government did not do that. In fact, their record was pretty appalling: for every 170 houses sold under right to buy between 1997 and 2013, only one new social home was built.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
8. What progress his Department has made on resolving the dispute over firefighters pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)
The firefighters pension scheme 2015 will come into force on 1 April. The national employers have agreed to work with the Fire Brigades Union to ensure the fitness principles detailed in the national framework are incorporated into local policies. The dispute should now come to an end.
Rosie Cooper
The Minister gave a promise that firefighters would be redeployed if they were deemed unfit at the age of 55 or over. Will she tell us once and for all how many redeployment opportunities exist for firefighters in that position in England?
Penny Mordaunt
Fire authorities are devolved organisations and we do not hold that information at departmental level. The hon. Lady is incorrect, as someone would be offered a redeployment if one existed or an unreduced pension if one did not exist. The working group on firefighter fitness considers those redeployment opportunities as part of its remit and I think that the shape of the fire and rescue service in the future and the many new things that firefighters will be doing will mean that there will be roles that are more suitable for those who are not fit enough to perform all the roles that a firefighter might.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The excellent Minister has again reassured the House that if a firefighter, through no fault of his or her own, fails the fitness test after the age of 55, they will be redeployed, given help to reach the required fitness level or given a full pension. I am afraid that chief fire officers up and down the country are saying that is untrue. We are the Government and we make the decisions, not chief fire officers. How can we get them to confirm that fact, which is true?
Penny Mordaunt
My hon. Friend is correct; since the statutory instrument was laid, a firefighter can no longer be dismissed simply for losing fitness. They must also have quality fitness support and six months of remedial training if they lose fitness but do not qualify for ill-health retirement. In addition, if fire authorities comply with the national framework, no firefighter will find themselves with no job and no pension. If a fire authority does not comply, the Secretary of State will intervene. Employers are now working on guidance to show how they will implement the new principles in the framework, and that will include the process with the firefighter and the principles on which an unreduced pension would be offered. That does give a guarantee, and it is a considerable improvement on what went before.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
Woeful!
The Minister promised to negotiate with firefighters on pensions, but then she just laid the regulations regardless. She promised national fitness standards, but that has not happened either. She guaranteed either redeployment or a full pension to those who cannot retain their fitness, but fire and rescue authorities across the country are clear that that is a promise they legally cannot deliver. Broken promises, lack of action and lack of leadership: what a miserable record. Is she ashamed? If not, why not?
Penny Mordaunt
I shall run through the statutory instrument, but first I will just point out that if the hon. Lady thinks my record is shoddy, she might like to take a closer look at her own: she introduced working until 60 in 2006 without any protections at all. Since the statutory instrument came into effect, firefighters can no longer be dismissed for losing fitness, as the hon. Lady knows. They are now protected by the new principles in the national framework. [Interruption.] They are. The national employer guidance will add further weight to that. If she is still unsatisfied, I offer her this challenge: to write to me and outline a circumstance in which a firefighter would face losing their job for losing fitness and would not be protected if the fire authorities were following the national framework principles.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
10. What support his Department has provided to local communities on neighbourhood planning and community rights since May 2010.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
Our support programmes have provided nearly £50 million to help communities undertake neighbourhood planning and access community rights and associated initiatives, including £22.5 million for neighbourhood planning announced only a few weeks ago. That has funded a helpline, online resources, specialist support and grants. From 2015-16 we are investing a further £32 million to help communities take up the rights.
Stuart Andrew
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Leeds city council is currently producing a site allocation plan, but neighbourhood planning organisations in my constituency are becoming increasingly frustrated by the council’s lack of consultation with them on the issue. What measures have the Government put in place to ensure that councils work with and share the evidence with such groups, which, after all, are made up of people who will be directly affected by the plans?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend works hard to champion his local communities. I have enjoyed meeting some of the people working on the neighbourhood plans. They can have absolute confidence that a neighbourhood plan has weight in law. There is a duty on local authorities to work with a neighbourhood plan in an area. Indeed, the Government give them funding to do just that. If there are concerns about that, I will happily meet him and any of his constituents to see what we can do to ensure that the local authority does its duty.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Does the Minister understand the considerable upset and frustration from my constituents in Reddish, and indeed in Denton, at the decision by Liberal Democrat-controlled Stockport council to grant outline planning permission for luxury houses to be built within Reddish Vale country park, which is part of the Greater Manchester green belt? Is not that just another example of the Government talking the talk on community engagement but, when it comes to it, the public being locked out of the decisions?
Brandon Lewis
Obviously, the green belt is protected and the Government have made it clear that it should be built on in exceptional circumstances only. Ultimately, local planning is a decision for the local authority, which is locally democratically accountable.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
The Secretary of State kindly came to Colchester and saw how the planning process failed the residents in the Mile End area of Colchester. Can the Minister give some assurance that the same thing is not going to happen to the east of town, particularly as the land in question in partly in Tendring district and partly in the borough of Colchester?
Brandon Lewis
As the hon. Gentleman appreciates, I cannot comment on a particular planning application, but in a general sense there is a duty for local authorities to co-operate, and they should be working together on these matters. Having a local plan—and even more so a neighbourhood plan—is the most powerful way for a local community to have absolute control over planning decisions in its locality.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
11. What steps his Department has taken to minimise increases in council tax bills since May 2010.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
Under the Labour Government, council tax more than doubled. Under this Government, our council tax freeze is saving hard-working families up to £1,075 on a band D bill. In Labour-run Wales, there is no council tax freeze, and bills are going through the roof.
Mark Pawsey
My constituency is served by two district councils. Conservative Rugby borough council has frozen council tax for the sixth year in a row, saving my constituents there more than £125 at a time when the council is investing in new facilities. By contrast, my constituents in Bulkington are being hit with an average increase of £30 a year from Labour-controlled Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council. Which authority does the Secretary of State believe is doing the right thing for its residents?
Mr Pickles
It is clear to me that those residents are very lucky and fortunate in their choice of Member of Parliament, who I am sure is serving them extremely well. If all the authorities were to accept the freeze grant, they would receive £3 million in freeze grant among them to help keep down the cost for taxpayers in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That seems a much better way. Why not take money from the Government rather than from their population?
Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)
Has the Secretary of State made any assessment of the additional cost that householders have to meet because of the cuts that have been implemented in council budgets resulting in people now having to purchase the services that they desperately need?
Mr Pickles
I do not think there is any evidence of additional purchasing. This Government have been pushing councils hard to cut back on, for example, the bin tax, the tip tax and parking charges. The hon. Lady should look to the Government for reducing the cost to her constituents.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
Residents in my constituency benefited from a very welcome temporary rebate in their council tax after the floods of last year, but their houses have probably been permanently devalued and they also face very high insurance premiums. Should that not be reflected in council tax banding? Will the Secretary of State instruct the Valuation Office Agency to that effect?
Mr Pickles
It seems a good idea for my right hon. Friend’s constituents to seek a revaluation. The Valuation Office Agency is willing to consider changed circumstances and I urge him to look into that.
Mr Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)
14. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health on steps the Government are taking to improve co-ordination between social care and health care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)
I meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health regularly. The better care fund—now increased to £5.3 billion by local authority partner contributions—will transform the way in which health and social care services are provided.
Mr Holloway
I have been out several times with social services in Gravesend and I have been very impressed by the way in which those individuals often go way beyond the call of duty, yet in the House and in the newspapers we hear about them only when things go wrong. Often, that is when there is a dispute between social care providers and health care providers about who is taking the lead. How will the better care fund help this situation?
Kris Hopkins
I applaud the fact that my hon. Friend has been out there doing that. He is right to recognise the enormous contribution that social services and councils make to the well-being of elderly people. He is right to point out that in Kent £100 million has been pooled. This is about making sure that local authorities, GP practices and acute hospitals work together. Historically there have been silos; now it is about making sure that the individual person is right at the centre of these services and that those services work far more effectively and efficiently.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
The Minister will know that plans to co-ordinate health and social care across Greater Manchester have moved very quickly. In fact, the memorandum of understanding describes the plans as “groundbreaking” and “unprecedented”. He will also be aware that the national health service is built on the collaboration and co-operation of patients, charities, community groups and the public. Given how important this deal is to the people of Greater Manchester, why did he decide not to involve a single one of those groups in this decision; and what ongoing role, if any, does he see for local communities?
Kris Hopkins
I am sorry that the hon. Lady has missed the point. This is about devolving moneys to a council—in fact, a number of councils—that has the confidence to deliver services better and does not just look to Government to make decisions but stands up for people in its own community and wants to shape and deliver those services more effectively. Greater Manchester, through the devolution route it has followed, will deliver far more effective services. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady can shout as much she wants. The people of Manchester have taken control of delivering these services, and she is outside that network because she chooses to be there.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
21. Given that local government is recognised as being the most efficient part of the public sector and that adult social care is one of the principal cost pressures on local authorities, are the Government not right to integrate in the way that is proposed in Greater Manchester rather than nationalise adult social care as proposed by the shadow Secretary of State?
Kris Hopkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. People and GPs on the ground in communities, and people who are running acute hospitals and councils, know better than Government, regardless of which colour. Over the period of this Government, the number of people who are extremely or very satisfied with support of adult social care has increased from 62.8% to 64.8%. That is a direct consequence of local people on the ground taking control and delivering better services.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
15. What assessment he has made of the effect of local authority parking charges on town centre regeneration.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
The previous Labour Government told town halls to hike up parking charges and issue more parking fines. Such aggressive parking policies undermined local shops and high streets. That is why this Government have introduced a package of measures to support local shops that will come into law shortly.
Stephen McPartland
Thousands of local people have signed my campaign to introduce three hours’ free parking to regenerate Stevenage town centre. Does the Secretary of State agree that in order to provide that regeneration it is time for Stevenage’s Labour borough council to stop ripping off local people by charging £3.5 million a year in parking charges?
Mr Pickles
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Planning guidance issued by the now noble Lord Prescott told councils to hike parking charges and to issue more fines to discourage motorists. A former Minister for local government in the previous Government called for councils to charge more for services, including parking. Town centres suffer a disadvantage because of free car parking in out-of-town car parking centres. If we are to encourage people to shop locally, they have to be able to get there, and the measures we are introducing are designed precisely to do that.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)
This morning my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary announced, as promised in the autumn statement, a review of business rates aimed at keeping the system fair, efficient and effective. The review will report by Budget 2016. Preparations for the 2017 revaluation will continue as usual. The review will be fiscally neutral. The current business rates system ensures that business rates do not increase in real terms. Local authorities now benefit by nearly £11 billion under the business rates retention scheme, which is estimated to deliver a £10 billion boost to national gross domestic product by 2020.
Heidi Alexander
In the light of today’s admission by the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)—or perhaps I should say Michael Green—that he continued with a second job after his election as an MP, is the Secretary of State satisfied that it did not continue while the right hon. Gentleman served as a Minister in his Department, and can he confirm that the ministerial code was followed properly in respect of declaring any registrable interests? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski), wittering from a sedentary position, can leave me to handle these matters, which I shall do with no difficulty at all. The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) has put her point on the record, but I simply make the point that it is not a responsibility of this Secretary of State to answer. The ministerial code, rightly or wrongly, is the responsibility of the Prime Minister, but the point is on the record and Members can find other ways to raise these matters if they wish. They should not trouble Secretary Pickles with them at this time.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
T4. Today an agreement will be completed for the stock transfer of its housing by Gloucester city council to Gloucester City Homes. The new charity will enable £390 million-worth of improvements and the first new social housing on our city council housing estate for a generation. I am grateful to the housing Minister and his predecessors for their help, as well as to the Treasury for writing off £50 million of housing debt. Will the housing Minister join me in congratulating my city council, Gloucester City Homes and its tenants, led by Andrew Harley, on their vision, hard work and attention in seeing through this vital change to bring about a new and bright era for social housing in Gloucester?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s erudition is equalled only by his length. This being the fag end of the Parliament, may I just remind Members that there is supposed to be a distinction between substantive and topical questions? The latter are supposed to be much shorter. I hope that point is duly noted by Members on both sides of the House.
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
In the true spirit of your comments, Mr Speaker, I entirely support and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), who has campaigned hard on this issue with a lot of people who have done a lot of work locally.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Before the last election, the then Leader of the Opposition said:
“Any Cabinet minister...who comes to me and says ‘here are my plans and they involve front line reductions’ will be sent back to their department to go away and think again.”
Yet we now know that the social care front line has been cut, including the simple act of giving a hot meal to elderly people living at home alone, with 220,000 fewer elderly people receiving meals on wheels compared with 2010, when that promise was made. I have a very simple question for the Secretary of State: why is that?
Mr Pickles
The amount spent by councils in cash terms is roughly the same as it was in 2010-11 so far as adult social care is concerned. The net revenue on adult social care was £14.6 billion—about 30% of councils’ budgets. Individual councils have made various decisions and it is up to those councils to defend them. We have tried to ensure, with the better care fund, better co-ordination between medical care and social care, including domiciliary care.
Hilary Benn
If I may say so, that was an overly firm denial of the Secretary of State’s responsibility for what has gone on. Let me ask him about another promise to the elderly that was made in 2010—by him. In December that year, the right hon. Gentleman assured the House that the local government settlement was
“providing councils with sufficient resources to protect people’s access to care”.—[Official Report, 13 December 2010; Vol. 520, c. 680.]
Yet the National Audit Office says that spending on adult social care is being cut, most of all in the areas of greatest need, which have also seen the biggest reductions in Government funding. Is it not the truth that the Secretary of State has also broken his promise to the elderly people of England and that it has happened because in the past five years he has taken decisions about funding that have been unfair to councils and because, as many councils of all parties think, he has failed to stand up for local government?
Mr Pickles
Given that the right hon. Gentleman’s party is promising £52 billion-worth of cuts to local authorities, I do not see that he has a leg to stand on. I have to say to him that this coalition has worked hard to protect the elderly and to improve the better care programme. My desk is covered with requests from Labour councils demanding that we cease the exemption for elderly people on council tax relief and the like. Frankly, for the right hon. Gentleman to pose as a friend of the elderly is absolutely ludicrous.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
T8. Will Ministers give very serious consideration to a call-in request I have made relating to a planning application for 190 properties in Goostrey? It would generate detrimental interference to the radio telescopes and world-leading scientific work at Jodrell Bank, and is therefore a concern of national significance.
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot comment on a particular planning application, but any such request will be given full consideration. I know that she has campaigned very hard with local residents to protect what they perceive as an important piece of local infrastructure. I will obviously look at all the details that come in.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
T2. Having concluded the examination stage of the Whitemoss landfill extension as a nationally significant infrastructure application, will the Secretary of State assure Skelmersdale residents, despite eight broken promises that the site would be closed, that their voices will be given equal consideration to that of the company as he considers the decision on the application, and will he say when he will announce his decision?
Brandon Lewis
As a planning case, that matter is quasi-judicial. Again, I cannot comment on a particular planning application. However, over the next couple of days, I will write to the hon. Lady with some idea of the timeline.
Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that councils, such as my local borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, with emerging local plans and a five-year supply of housing, will not be overruled on appeal or undermined by speculative planning applications?
Mr Pickles
Provided a neighbourhood plan has been submitted, then it has considerable weight, as has been confirmed by a recent court case.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
T3. May I refer the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), to her answers to my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Rosie Cooper) and, on the Opposition Front Bench, for West Ham (Lyn Brown)? What actions is the fire Minister taking specifically to amend the statutory instrument along the lines suggested by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has scrutinised the text, to ensure that the promises she gave at the Dispatch Box to safeguard firefighters pensions can be delivered, particularly if fire authorities tell us that they cannot or will not deliver them?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Penny Mordaunt)
The SI is effective: it has been in place since 12 July. I have had no evidence at all that fire authorities intend not to comply with the national framework, but if they choose not to comply with it, the Secretary of State has powers to act under the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004.
I would say to Opposition Members that it is incredibly important for firefighters to understand the facts. We are approaching April, and they will be making decisions that affect their financial future. If any hon. Member knows an instance of an authority which they think will not comply, or if they have concerns about how the SI will work, they can come to talk to me. I will be quite happy to explain it, but I have explained it several times on the Floor of the House. It gives firefighters the protections they ought to have, and it is a vast improvement on what went before.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the Department give a ruling on the circumstances in which a sale of a village hall should be prevented? The right of adverse possession should not be to the detriment of the local community that has used the village hall, and access across the land to the village hall should be permitted regardless of who owns the land.
Brandon Lewis
National policy makes it clear that planning should promote the retention of community facilities, including meeting places such as village halls, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and look at the details of a case on which I know she has campaigned hard with her local residents.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
T6. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government, if they remain in power after the election, intend to carry on with the same level of year-on-year cuts in the next Parliament as they have applied in this Parliament, and if so, will he or the Minister of State seriously consider whether in that situation it will be possible for all councils to remain financially viable and continue to deliver their statutory services?
Mr Pickles
I share the hon. Gentleman’s optimism about the chances of there being a Conservative Government and look forward to answering him from this Dispatch Box for many years. I know, like and respect him as the Chairman of the Communities and Local Government Committee, but he was making exactly the same points five years ago and it has proved to be perfectly all right. I cannot anticipate the levels of future budgets, but one thing is certain: whether there is a Conservative, coalition or Labour Government, because of the state of the finances, improving though they are, the level of support to local government will continue to go down.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Kettering borough council, of which I am a member, and Daventry district council share a common rural boundary, immediately on either side of which Gypsies and Travellers continue to make a series of controversial applications for inappropriate development. In those circumstances, would the planning Minister expect the Planning Inspectorate to consider the cumulative impact on the rural parishes that are bisected by that artificial boundary, rather than judge the applications against the individual plans of each authority?
Brandon Lewis
Every planning application has to be considered on the merits of the case. However, I hope to make an announcement shortly on a consultation on improvements to the planning policy and guidance for Traveller sites to further strengthen the protection for the green belt and other sensitive areas, and to amend the definition of “Travellers” for planning purposes so that it refers only to those who travel.
Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
T7. This will be the last Communities and Local Government question that I shall ask. May I therefore surprise the Government by congratulating them on introducing measures to require the installation of smoke alarms in all privately rented housing, but—there is a sting in the tail—may I also ask them to explain why it took them so long to reach that decision, given that their own impact assessment shows that the measure will save more than 20 lives a year? Is it because there are forces within the Government that are hostile to regulation, even when it saves lives?
Mr Pickles
It is with some sadness that I come to the Dispatch Box. I had the honour of following the right hon. Gentleman when he made his maiden speech on his second appearance in the House, which was a daunting task. I am very pleased to be answering his question today.
These things take a little time. The private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) helped, but it took a little time to persuade colleagues. I wanted to give these alarms away for free. It makes an enormous amount of sense for firefighters to fit them. It seems to me sensible, rather than imposing a duty, to impose a charge. I wish the right hon. Gentleman and his family every success for the future.
Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)
In the light of the previous question, will the Secretary of State clarify that the measure will extend to carbon monoxide detectors, which were the subject of my private Member’s Bill that he mentioned? The subject of the Bill was chosen by the electors of the High Peak, so they will be grateful for this Government action, which I hope he will confirm for us.
Mr Pickles
It is with enormous pleasure that I confirm that that is entirely the case. I pay tribute to the difficult work that my hon. Friend did in taking that Bill through Parliament.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Back in February, Ministers criticised Birmingham for failing to collect 4.6% of the council tax that was due. I know that I will not get them to say anything nice about Birmingham, but I ask them to acknowledge that it did better than the Inland Revenue, which failed to collect 5.8% of the national insurance, basic tax and capital gains tax that was due.
Mr Pickles
I am very happy to put it on the record that I love Birmingham. It is a wonderful city. Sometimes I get a lot of pressure from its Members of Parliament, who criticise the fine council, but I try to resist that whenever possible. I look forward to visiting Birmingham again and looking at the magnificent art gallery.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Last Thursday evening, I attended the launch of Discover North East Lincolnshire, a private sector initiative that has been created in partnership with the local council. Will the Secretary of State compliment those involved and give an assurance that a future Conservative Government will build on the successes of the coalition Government in supporting such initiatives?
Mr Pickles
I congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituents on that fine initiative. That is exactly the kind of thing we should be doing, and I look forward to it going from strength to strength.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State explain why the East Riding of Yorkshire, with just over 1,500 troubled families, is getting a £200,000 grant from the Government, yet Hull city council, with nearly 3,500 troubled families, is getting exactly the same amount of money? How is that fair?
Mr Pickles
The hon. Lady should not confuse the amount of money that goes to troubled families with the amount that goes to local authorities in general. The troubled families delivery programme is based on payment by results, and she should urge Hull city council to take some of the advantages that its neighbours have taken—it is payment by results.
George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)
In August 2011 Denmead neighbourhood forum in my constituency received £20,000 from the Front Runners scheme to complete its neighbourhood plan, and it was passed on the Thursday before last with a resounding majority. Will the Minister congratulate Denmead neighbourhood forum on that fantastic achievement by local people for local people?
Brandon Lewis
I am happy to do that. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some 6 million-plus people in this country are now covered by 1,400 neighbourhood planning areas, and I want that to go further. The example in his constituency, where I know he has worked hard with the local community, shows how important it is to give local people a local say over local power and planning. That is absolutely the way things should be.
Point of Order
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a sensitive point of order, but it affects all Members of Parliament. Traditionally, in my experience of the House, when a member of the royal family visits a constituency, the Member of Parliament is apprised of that fact. That became a convention, but it seems that with the proliferation of deputy lieutenants of counties—there are many of them these days—that protocol no longer holds. Will you hold conversations with whoever is in charge of these things to remind them that Members of Parliament expect to be told when a member of the royal family is visiting their patch?
Mr Speaker
I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. There is nothing new about that, but I put it on the record. I have heard the hon. Member for, and the voice of, Huddersfield. We will leave it there for today.
Intelligence and Security Committee
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)
I beg to move,
That Dr Julian Lewis be removed from the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament under Schedule 1 to the Justice and Security Act 2013 and Mr Keith Simpson be appointed to that Committee under section 1 of that Act.
Under the terms of section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013, members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the respective House. The current vacancy for a Conservative member arises from the resignation of the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). The Prime Minister has nominated the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), following the required consultations with the Leader of the Opposition. The House is now being asked to make the appointment in accordance with the Act.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
I do not intend to detain the House for long. The Opposition support the motion on adding the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) to the Committee. We pay tribute to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who has been a hard-working member of the Committee and has worked constructively with colleagues across the House on intelligence and security matters.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I will detain the House for just a brief moment. I indicated some months ago to the Chief Whip that it was my intention not to apply to stay on the Committee if I am fortunate enough to be re-elected to another term in this House. I did so because, although the intelligence agencies are, for the most part, well-resourced, well led and do everything that we expect them to do, the situation is not so rosy for defence policy. In a choice between focusing on where I might be able to make a difference—on defence policy—and continuing with the pleasurable task of overseeing the intelligence and security services, I have opted for the former.
I should like to take this opportunity to say that it has been a fascinating five years, working with the excellent staff and under the outstanding chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). The Committee has worked harmoniously on many issues. I should like to leave my term with the Committee by putting on the record just one thought. The intelligence agencies, the Security Service and GCHQ are damned if they do and damned if they do not. I saw this in relation to two inquiries. I shall make one point about each and then sit down to allow a great deal of unused time allocated for this short debate to be applied to other matters.
In relation to the Woolwich atrocity inquiry, people asked how the intelligence services knew that the people who went on to commit the atrocity had been radicalised, yet were unable to stop them. The answer is that—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Excuse me. The right hon. Gentleman is addressing the House. It is bad manners to witter away, Mr Simon Burns, when one of your own hon. Friends is addressing the House. Try—I know it is difficult for you—to learn some courtesy.
Dr Lewis
The question was often asked why it was that the intelligence services knew certain people had been radicalised and held extremist views yet were able to go on to commit attacks. The answer is that until people break the law they cannot be locked up. We really would be living in a police state if everybody with extreme views was followed 24 hours a day, which is the only way in which low-level and uncomplicated attacks can be prevented. There has to be evidence of attack planning. If not, some such things will inevitably slip through the net.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
My only point on this matter is to say that, having tried to follow people, it takes 24 people to follow just one person. Just think of all the people in this country who we suspect of harbouring evil thoughts against us and imagine how big our security services would need to be.
Dr Lewis
That is exactly the case. It would take only a few hundred people with extreme views to exhaust the resources of any reasonably sized security service in a modern democratic state, and that must never be the case. Instead, we should look at how many complex attacks have been carried out successfully and how many have been thwarted. As far as I am aware, no complex attacks have been successfully carried out on British soil since the 7/7 atrocities.
Moving on to the inquiry on privacy and security, this leads one to the question of where to draw the boundary between the wish to preserve the people’s privacy so their innocent communications are not examined and the need to develop leads that can be investigated further. I was a little surprised—I hope you will indulge me for a moment or two, Mr Speaker—to see a short item in The Times on Saturday about a protest by some of the privacy groups that had given evidence to the ISC on this question. It reads as follows:
“Civil liberties groups demanded last night that a parliamentary committee correct its report on the surveillance state, saying they had been deliberately misrepresented. The intelligence and security committee criticised the pressure groups over their opposition to GCHQ’s collection of bulk data on communications”—
Mr Speaker
Order. I must just warn the right hon. Gentleman not to be too persuasive in his oration, because if he is, the House might vote against the motion, forcing him to remain a member of the Committee that he has declared his desire to leave. I say that by way of a cautionary note and gentle encouragement.
Dr Lewis
I assure you, Mr Speaker, that I am on my ultimate—not even penultimate—point.
The report continued:
“and suggested that they believed that terrorist attacks were a price worth paying for individual privacy. The report reprinted edited transcripts of evidence sessions with Big Brother Watch, Liberty, Justice and Rights Watch UK. Renate Samson, the chief executive of Big Brother Watch, asked the committee for an ‘immediate correction’ to its published report and said that the representation of the evidence session was ‘improper and false’. She said that the ISC’s portrayal of the evidence was ‘an attempt to undermine, discredit and damage our organisation’s reputation’. Isabella Sankey, director of policy for Liberty, said: ‘Instead of attempting to put words into the mouths of privacy campaigners, the ISC should have put its efforts into scrutinising the agencies.’”
People interested in the matter can judge for themselves. If they go to the ISC’s website, at http://isc.independent. gov.uk/public-evidence/15october2014, they will find the full transcript, and I suggest that they examine questions 19 and 20, put by the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears); questions 28 and 29, put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind); and questions 32 and 33, put by the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth). In there, they will find the following exchange. The Chairman asked:
“If evidence emerged through bulk interception that even you acknowledged had led to terrorists being arrested or prevented from carrying out their objectives, are you saying that, as a matter of principle, you believe so strongly that bulk interception is unacceptable in a free society that you would say that that was a price we should be willing to pay, rather than allowing intelligence agencies to use bulk interception methods?”
Isabella Sankey, of Liberty, replied: “Yes.” Dr Metcalfe, of Justice, replied:
“Yes. Just as you would solve a lot more crimes if you had CCTV in everyone’s houses, and if you opened everyone’s mail and e-mail and read it on a daily basis. Yes, you would solve a lot more crimes and a lot more terrorists would be in jail; that would be a good thing, but it would be bad for our society as a whole.”
The Chair then asked:
“And that is the view of your colleagues as well?”
The director of Big Brother Watch replied with one word: “Yes.”
It has been a pleasure serving on this Committee. When it was put to me that it would assist my right hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) to get his feet under the table, even for the last few days of this Parliament, I was only too happy to accommodate him. He will be a splendid successor, and perhaps he will not try the patience of the House as long as I have today.
Tom Brake
I welcome the Opposition spokesman’s support for the motion and join him in congratulating the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for his sterling contribution on the ISC. I know that his expertise and commitment to these matters will be missed.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Speaker
In thanking the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) for his comments, let me congratulate the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) on his appointment to the Committee. We look forward to his contribution based on the experience and wisdom in these matters that he possesses.
Counter-Terrorism (Statutory Instruments)
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security and Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data: Code of Practice) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.
Mr Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to consider the following two motions:
That the draft Retention of Communications Data (Code of Practice) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.
That the draft Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.
James Brokenshire
Before I open the debate on the three statutory instruments, I should like to make a few remarks about the current threat related to Syria and the Government’s response to it. It has been reported that three young men were arrested at the weekend after attempting to travel from Turkey to Syria. This reflects the good working relationship that we have with the Turkish authorities. Hon. Members will understand that I cannot comment on the specifics because there is an ongoing investigation, but I will say that those seeking to travel to engage in terrorist activity in Syria or Iraq should be in no doubt that we will take the strongest possible action to protect our national security, including prosecuting those who break the law.
The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 brought forward important new powers to disrupt the travel of those seeking to engage in terrorism-related activity. That included introducing a strengthened authority to carry scheme; I will return to that when I speak to the Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015 in a few moments. Current events are a reminder of how important and relevant these counter-terrorism measures are.
It might help our consideration of these statutory instruments if I briefly outlined what the Government seek to achieve by them, and why we have brought them forward at this time. I would like to start by turning to the two communications data codes of practice. Communications data—the “who, where, when and how?” of a communication, but not its content—is crucial for fighting crime, protecting children and combating terrorism. The House will recall that last summer we enacted emergency legislation, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014, to preserve our data retention powers, and these codes are directly consequential on that legislation.
Communications data policy can broadly be split into two areas: acquisition and retention. Acquisition is carried out by relevant public authorities such as law enforcement agencies, while retention is carried out by communications services providers. The House will immediately see that these areas are linked; if data are not retained, they cannot be accessed.
The two codes of practice we are debating today—a revised acquisition code and a new data retention code—set out the processes and safeguards governing the retention and acquisition of communications data. They are intended to provide clarity and incorporate best practice on the use of the relevant powers, ensuring the highest standards of professionalism and compliance in this important aspect of law enforcement. We are bringing these codes forward now to ensure that the important safeguards within them, some of which follow concerns raised by the European Court of Justice judgment last year, come into force before Parliament rises.
Let me turn to one of the most important new safeguards in the acquisition code: that of access to journalistic material. As right hon. and hon. Members will know, the Interception of Communications Commissioner recently conducted an inquiry into police acquisition of journalists’ communications data. The measures in the revised code are intended to give effect to his recommendations, which were accepted straight away by the Government.
The acquisition code that we are debating stipulates that, in seeking to acquire communications data to identify or determine the source of journalistic information, law enforcement must use production orders under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or its equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We are doing this because production orders require judicial approval. This will help to protect the freedoms that journalists enjoy in the UK.
Whenever law enforcement is seeking the communications data of a journalist to determine sources—this includes when police are seeking to confirm or corroborate other evidence of the identity of a journalist’s sources—the decision on the application will be made by a judge under PACE. However, that is only a stopgap until we can make the change through primary legislation in the next Parliament. We have therefore also published a draft clause that sets out how we would seek to enshrine the commissioner’s first recommendation in primary legislation.
James Brokenshire
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert).
Dr Huppert
I thank the Minister for giving way after choosing between the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and me.
I welcome the progress that has been made, because I think that it will help to protect journalists. The amendment that I tabled a couple of weeks ago referred to the protection of other communications, such as medical and legal information. Will the Minister say a little about why he is not seeking to protect such information in the same way? Would he at least be open to such a suggestion if he were involved in a future Government making the decision?
James Brokenshire
Our action reflected the recommendations of the commissioner himself. They were our lead and our guide. My hon. Friend will note, however, that the code of practice contains additional protections covering the consideration and assessment that must be undertaken by those who seek to make a request for communications data in respect of certain protected groups. An enhanced status has been conferred, in a number of ways.
James Brokenshire
I will, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman, to whom I meant no discourtesy by not giving way to him first.
Keith Vaz
I am delighted that the Minister chose the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) over me, because there is not a cigarette paper between us when it comes to these issues.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s decision, which was recommended by the Home Affairs Committee, but may I press him to go a little further? We also recommended a fundamental review of the operation of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, because we felt that it was time for that to happen.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman will know that David Anderson, the independent reviewer of counter-terrorism legislation, is examining the RIPA issue very keenly. We await his report, which we expect to be completed before May and which I sincerely believe will help to inform further consideration of the Act during the next Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman will also know that the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 has an end date of 31 December 2016, which means that Parliament will have to return to the issue—informed, I am sure, not only by the independent reviewer’s report, but by that of the Select Committee.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I appreciate that we have the commissioner’s report, that the independent reviewer’s report is imminent and that there is a time limit of December 2016. However, given the grave concern that exists about, in particular, the powers and constraints affecting journalists, will the Minister assure us that he will keep the matter under general review, and that, if a problem arose, even with these orders, by the end of the year—or, indeed, within a matter of months—he would be willing to come back to the House and look at it afresh?
James Brokenshire
I assure my right hon. Friend, whom I congratulate on becoming a member of the Privy Council, that the matter will be kept under close scrutiny and review. We have published draft clauses, which could be enacted quickly in the next Parliament, to regularise the position. We recognise that this is an interim measure, and we want it to be enshrined in primary legislation that the House would have a full opportunity to debate. I should add that the code of practice provides for requests to be flagged up to the commissioner, and thus allows additional scrutiny to take place. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend.
The commissioner also recommended further changes to the guidance in the acquisition code, and we have sought to implement that recommendation. The code is now clear about the need to consider more than rights to privacy—in particular, the right to freedom of expression must be taken into account when that is appropriate—and it also contains new guidance on the considerations of necessity, proportionality and collateral intrusion, including unintended consequences.
The revised acquisition code enhances the operational independence of the authorising officer from the specific investigation for which communications data are required. It includes new, enhanced protections for those who may have professional duties of confidentiality or privilege. However, it is important to remember that we are debating communications data, not the content of communications.
The retention code sets out how the Government implement the requirements in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and the Data Retention Regulations 2014. It covers the following issues: the review, variation and revocation of data retention notices; communications service providers’ ability to recover their costs; data security; oversight by the Information Commissioner and safeguards on the disclosure; and the use of retained data by communications service providers.
The House will be aware that both codes underwent public consultation. The Government received about 300 submissions from organisations and individuals suggesting amendments and providing comments on the codes. I am grateful to all who took part. We have published a summary of the submissions received and how the Government have responded to them. The Department considered all the responses to the consultation and many of the suggestions have been adopted in the final drafts.
I would like to address briefly the final instrument in this motion: the Authority to Carry (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015. They establish a penalty regime for breach of any requirement of the authority to carry scheme 2015, which this House approved on 10 March. A carrier may be liable to a penalty for breach of the following: a requirement to seek authority to carry a person; a requirement to provide specified information by a specified time; a requirement to provide information in a specified manner and form; a requirement to be able to receive communications in a specified manner and form; or a requirement not to carry a person when authority to carry has been refused—this is an important part of the code.
The scheme specifies that it is the requirements set out in detailed written notices issued to carriers under the Immigration Act 1971 or the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 that must be met under the scheme, rather than those requirements being specified in detail in the scheme itself.
James Brokenshire
The pre-existing authority to carry scheme has been used to prevent people from being able to travel to this country. It is important to note that the revised scheme deals with outbound as well as inbound, so this is an enhancement of the existing arrangements. Unfortunately, for operational reasons I cannot comment in detail on the use of the scheme, but I can say that requests have been made and carriers have abided by those requests to prevent people from travelling to this country. Therefore we have shown utility from the existing scheme on inbound legs, which is the point of the existing arrangement, but we are now seeking to extend it further in terms of various additional requirements, as well as also dealing with the outbound leg.
Keith Vaz
We know of the Minister’s eloquence when asked questions by Members in this House and in the Select Committee, but he did not really give me an answer. I am not after answers on operational decisions; I want to know how many times an airline has carried when we have asked it not to carry—I do not think that that would give away any state secrets about who those people were. It is a simple matter of, “Does he know the answer? If not, will he write to us?”
James Brokenshire
I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the circumstances he describes have, certainly to my knowledge, never occurred. We would not wish to see that happen. That underlines the purpose and utility of having the authority to carry scheme in place, but we think it important to have a penalty in place none the less. We clearly have a scheme that sets out those requirements, but it needs to have enforcement and the ability to rely on that to ensure that there is good compliance with the scheme.
As I have described, a carrier may be liable to a penalty for breach of a requirement. The scheme specifies that it is the requirements set out in detailed written notices issued to carriers under the Immigration Act 1971 or the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 that must be met under the scheme, rather than those requirements being specified in detail in the scheme itself.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported these regulations to the House and drawn specific attention to them. It considers that the scheme imposes some requirements
“under which the relevant matters are all to be particularised subsequently in a way that is left unspecified in the Scheme itself”.
That is correct. The scheme identifies that the detailed specifications are in the requirements imposed on carriers under the 1971 Act or the 2006 Act. Carriers subject to specific requirements to provide information under the 1971 Act or the 2006 Act fully understand the information they are required to provide, the time or times at which it should be provided and the form and manner in which the information should be provided and received. In doing so, they comply with the scheme.
These measures are not about penalising carriers. The Government work with carriers to ensure the safety of their passengers and crew, the security of their aircraft, ships and trains and the security of the United Kingdom. However, there is a need for a civil penalty regime when carriers fail, without reasonable excuse, to comply with requirements of the authority to carry scheme. When a carrier fails to comply, we should have the ability to impose an appropriate penalty up to a maximum of £50,000. That is particularly the case if the failure results in a carrier’s bringing someone to the UK, or carrying someone from the UK, whom they had been or would have been expressly refused authority to carry. It is worth noting that these aspects of the regulations were not criticised by the Joint Committee.
The two communications data codes of practice outline best practice and ensure that the right safeguards are in place concerning access to, and retention of, communications data. It is important that we bring them into force by the end of this Parliament. The authority to carry scheme civil penalties regime will ensure that carriers comply with requirements imposed on them to prevent and disrupt travel by individuals who pose a threat to the public or, in the circumstances of children travelling to Syria, who are putting themselves at risk. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to approve these important statutory instruments.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I should like to start by thanking the Minister for setting out clearly what is behind the three measures before us today. I particularly want to thank him for his remarks about the action being taken against those travelling to Iraq and Syria to become involved in terrorist activities. I am sure that the whole House will support the work that he and his Government are doing in that regard.
I shall deal first with the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data: Code of Practice) Order 2015. This reissued guidance has five laudable aims, which the Opposition support. They are: to enhance the operational independence of the authorising officer from involvement in the specific investigation for which communications data are required; to strengthen the protections for information that has professional sensitivity—particularly journalistic material; to reflect the additional requirements on local authorities to request communications data through a magistrate; to improve the record-keeping requirements for public authorities; and to improve best practice in regard to international co-operation and emergency calls.
We support those aims in the guidance, but I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about how we have reached this point in the code of practice. First, the draft guidance was put out to consultation late last year. Why has the response to that consultation not been published for Parliament to consider alongside this statutory instrument? The Minister said that it had been published, but I have had real difficulty finding it. The Vote Office could not find it for me when I requested it, and it is not next to the other documents on the Home Office website, so could the Minister tell me where I can find it? As he said during the passage of the Serious Crime Bill, there were more than 300 responses to the consultation, and it would have been useful to be able to see them.
Secondly, will the Minister explain the key difference between this guidance and that published just before Christmas? Thirdly, will he explain the timings of these changes? Why was a consultation launched while reports from the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, due out in a few weeks’ time, and further recommendations from the interception of communications commissioner were expected? I appreciate that the changes reflect some earlier recommendations from the commissioner, and there have been subsequent changes to reflect new recommendations, but why is the code of practice being treated almost like a work in progress? Why not have the recommendations first, then a full consultation and then a final code of conduct, with special interim measures, which I know we would probably all support, to protect journalistic sources? Perhaps the Minister will be able to explain how this process has worked.
Will the Minister also explain how the code of conduct has been written to ensure that it accurately reflects recent legislative changes? First, I was thinking about the recent orders extending the grounds on which the Financial Conduct Authority can access data. Is all that covered in this code? Secondly, the Serious Crime Act 2015 implements some of the recommendations from the interception of communications commissioner. Although it is welcome that the guidance goes some way to reflecting those changes, with a page added to give specific protection to journalistic sources, the Act introduced only partial and interim measures, so I want to know from the Minister whether the guidance will need to be reissued again when the final legislative measures are introduced.
On the second order before us, I want to ask about the definition of “communication” and “message”, an area where the code of practice does not address many of the issues raised during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, both in this House and in the other place, about how “communication” is defined. Paragraph 2.13 of the code of practice is very specific in relation to fixed-line telephony calls. That is fine as far as it goes, and it is probably all that was needed 20 or 30 years ago, but this code of practice is for 2015 and beyond. I am sure the Minister will accept that the way we communicate now is very different from when we just had fixed telephone lines.
Fixed-line telephone calls now are a small element of communications. When we look at internet-based communications, from e-mail to app-based messaging and social media, we see that the code of conduct is too vague in what it is trying to do. Paragraph 2.11 refers readers of the code of practice back to section 2(1) of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and to the schedule to that Act. I am not sure why a code of practice supposedly designed, to quote from the code, to be
“readily available to employees of a CSP”
to use should refer them back to an obscure part of an Act that was criticised by some right hon. and hon. Members for not being as clear as it could be.
Paragraph 2.16 is the only one I could find in the code of practice that seeks to explain what DRIPA means for internet-based communications. The paragraph is headed “Internet email” and states:
“Internet email under DRIPA is considered to be any text, voice, sound or image message sent over a public electronic communications network which can be stored in the network or in the recipient’s terminal equipment until it is collected by the recipient and includes messages sent using a short message service.”
Is that simply a definition of internet-based e-mail providers such as Hotmail or Gmail, or is it meant to include social media? If it is meant to include social media, why does it not say that, so it is clear in the code of practice?
In Committee, I asked a series of questions about social media, which the Minister did not answer, and I do not think they were answered in the other place either. Let me ask the Minister again: does the code of practice include messages sent on social media platforms such as Facebook? If it does, why is there no section in the guidance devoted to social media? As I have said, the title “Internet e-mail” is not clear in this respect. If social media are covered, does a message extend to tagging another person in a broader post? Specifically, if a person is tagged in a Facebook or Instagram post, does that count as a message for the purposes of this code? What about a person included in a tweet? Does that count as well?
Perhaps the Minister will also respond to questions on the generic forms of interaction on social media sites. I am talking about where there is no user-generated content, but there is an interaction—for example, I “love” a photo on Instagram, “like” a post on Facebook, “favourite” a tweet, or “swipe” on Tinder. Do those come within this code of practice?
When I raised those issues in Committee, the Minister said that the code covered all communications, by which he meant anything that conveyed a message—as if a message was a self-evident thing that did not need a clear definition. That rather clumsy presumption has been applied to this code of conduct. Will the Minister explain, with reference to the social media sites, how paragraph 2.16 is meant to be interpreted? I hope he can shed some light on this matter.
I also want to ask about the relationship that this code envisages between the Home Office and the communications service providers. For example, the code of practice gives the Secretary of State total discretion over the review of retention notices, but it says that factors leading to a review could include significant technological change. Can the Minister explain how an ongoing dialogue with the CSPs operates, and how it is being maintained to ensure that the Secretary of State will be aware of major technological changes?
Moving on, will the Minister explain why no impact assessment has been prepared for this legislation? Last week, we found that the impact assessment prepared for the Prevent elements of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill, vague and imprecise as they were, had not been signed off by the Home Office’s chief economist because the Home Office did not have the evidence base to support the legislation. Essentially, what that confirmed was that, after four years, the Home Office did not have that evidence about what works in terms of Prevent and so could not use that to inform and back up any legislative decisions. Is that the reason we do not have an impact assessment for the statutory instruments before us today? These codes of practice cover the process for decisions regarding compensation payments provided to CSPs, so they could have far-reaching cost and spending implications. They also have the potential to change significantly the compliance burdens on businesses.
I am very surprised that we do not have an impact assessment drafted for these orders. Perhaps the Minister can give us some background information; if he is not able to do so today, perhaps he could find it and place it in the Library. I have four questions. First, how many retention notices are currently in force, and how many are company-specific? Secondly, the code of practice talks about two years as the standard period for a review of a data retention notice. In practice, how many notices are reviewed before the two-year period? Thirdly, how many retention notices have been ended before the two-year period? Fourthly, what is the total spend on compensation agreed with the communications service providers in each of the past five years?
The Government’s explanatory memorandum to the Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015 states:
“Full guidance will be provided to industry on the operation of the Scheme. The Home Office and other agencies will continue to engage with industry on the detail of the Scheme to assist implementation.”
Will the Minister make it clear when he expects this guidance to be made available? The transport industry also made an observation in a number of responses to the consultation—I think that there were 28 in total. The memorandum states:
“The majority of carriers felt, however, that a proposed maximum fine of £50,000 was excessive and disproportionate, especially when compared to the possible fines imposed by other countries.”
Will the Minister explain why, despite the view taken by the transport industry, the Government decided to maintain the upper limit of £50,000 for a fine?
Finally, I also note that the 21-day rule was breached for introducing those regulations. I hope that the Minister will comment on why. I am sure that he will make a commitment that every attempt will be made in future to ensure that orders are introduced within the appropriate time.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I shall be brief. It seems clear that the House will approve the orders moved by the Minister today. He began by putting the situation and the reasons behind the orders in context. He knows, as Security Minister, that the country faces a severe threat.
Last week, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, in one of our last sessions of this Parliament, heard the evidence of the relatives of Shamima, Amira and Khadiza, three young ladies aged 16, 15 and 15 who left Tower Hamlets and went to Syria. Only this morning, I met the families of two of the young men who have just returned from Istanbul. The families are wonderful people, hard working and dedicated to this country, and were as shocked as any of us would have been that their children had left the country and, in the case of the girls from Tower Hamlets, reached Syria and, in the case of the three young men, been brought back yesterday. I commend the police for their work, and the Turkish authorities in the latter case.
The Turkish ambassador gave us very good evidence last week, with a timeline. The situation was much better second time around, with phone calls being made instead of e-mails being sent. We need to commend people when things go right and this is a good news story in the fight against terrorism. We do not have many of them, but everyone worked together and we commend them for what they are doing.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I am sure that we would all endorse what my right hon. Friend says and what the Minister said about the Turkish police and ensuring that the young people involved were returned to this country immediately. I cannot go further than that, as the Minister has stated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to probe further, even though the numbers are very small, and ask why it is that young people like those he mentioned, whose relatives we saw in the Home Affairs Committee last week, should wish to join a group motivated by mass murder, savage beatings, beheadings and sex slavery? More needs to be done to find the reasons why such youngsters, born and educated in this country, should wish to travel in the way they intended.
Keith Vaz
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Committee has taken evidence from all the stakeholders involved, but it is the people who have gone abroad who really matter as we need to find out why they went in the first place. We need to get into their minds in some way, as he has said and as his questions in the Committee’s evidence sessions have tried to do, to find out why they make that decision, what turns them and what the tipping point is. They are brought up in this country, and by parents who obviously love and support them, but then suddenly they decide to go abroad. If I have one regret from all my years of chairing the Committee, it is that we have never been able to take evidence directly from those who have gone abroad. Some have come back, of course, but they are reluctant to talk to us, either formally or informally. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I think that why people decide to go is something that successor Committees and the next Parliament will have to consider.
On the orders before the House, I fully support the instrument that brings into force the code of practice to enhance safeguards and ensure clear guidance on best practice with regard to the acquisition and retention of communications data. When the Committee took evidence from journalists on the matter—this is in the public domain, of course—we said that we believed there ought to be exceptions. The Government accept that the authorities need to be very careful when they stray into areas relating to freedom of the press. I think that the code does provide for that, so the Government are right to bring it before the House now rather than at some later date.
However, the Committee, in looking at the regulations before the House, strongly suggested that RIPA’s days had come and gone. Although it was acceptable at the time to pass that legislation, we felt that, frankly, it was being misused. Anecdotally, we have head about some local authorities using the powers in RIPA to spy on families deciding where to send their children to school. We felt that such misuse was probably going on in other areas, but we did not know because there was no proper and effective monitoring.
Stephen McPartland
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way—
Mr Speaker
Order. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. I blame myself; I was immersed in conversation. It was a case of mistaken identity. The hon. Gentleman is wearing a delightful white shirt, not a checked one. He is not Mr Cairns; he is indeed Mr Stephen McPartland. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, and indeed to the other hon. Gentleman.
Stephen McPartland
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I think the Minister has done an excellent job in bringing on side some of us who were not as supportive of these proposals as others, but I am still concerned about the number of organisations that will be able to use DRIPA to access information. Does the right hon. Gentleman know how many such organisations there are?
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to be wary of that. I do not know how many other organisations can do that, and I think that there is a lack of monitoring. When Parliament passes legislation for a specific purpose and it is then used for other purposes—journalists say that this could be used to spy on them, for example, thereby giving up vital information about sources—parliamentarians need to pause and reconsider, and I think that is what we have to do. As he will know, given his great experience in home affairs matters, having in a previous life been so intimate with the workings of the Liverpool passport office, the state’s use of these powers does tend to creep. We need to ensure that we are vigilant in that regard.
The Minister says that he is waiting for David Anderson to report. One way of ensuring that David Anderson does a quicker job is to give him more resources. One of the things the Select Committee has noted is that the independent assessor does not have the kinds of resources that we would have expected. If the Government—whoever is in power after 7 May—help him along his path, we may be able to get a result much more quickly. We would therefore get the review of RIPA, which I think the whole House wants. The Prime Minister certainly wants it, from what I have heard him say about it. I hope we will be able to move that forward.
Finally, on the last set of regulations before the House, the Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, I have no problem in principle with what the Minister proposes, but he told the House, in effect, that the situation in which these would take effect has never arisen—that a carrier, having been asked not to carry, has defied Government, either inbound or outbound, and said, “We are going to carry this person.” It was the previous Government who introduced the carriers’ liability regulations. I probably voted for the measure at the time—I cannot remember as it was so long ago. It was effective because the carrier tends not to put someone on a plane if that person has been told on departure from another country that they do not have the requisite visa to enter the United Kingdom, as it is the carrier that will pay the fine.
There is nothing wrong with the principle, but we should legislate when we know that there is a problem. We finally got out of the Minister the fact that there has never been a situation where that has happened, so here we are, passing legislation to stop something that has never happened. His argument is that it is important to have that power in the back pocket because we never know when we might need it. It is important for the Minister to be able to wave it in front of carriers and say, “If you don’t do this, you will be fined.”
My objection to civil penalties is that the amount collected by the Government is lamentably small. To save us having to table parliamentary questions, as we are right at the end of this Parliament and we might not get the answers before we rise, I hope that the Minister will give us some figures when he winds up showing the percentage of civil penalty fines that have not been paid by those who are subject to them. I think unpaid fines owed to the Home Office will run into millions of pounds. The last time I looked, it was a pretty high figure.
All I ask the Minister to do is to reassure the House that he is a good collector of those penalties—not the hon. Gentleman personally, but his Department. I am sure that if he knocked on my door and asked for the penalty to be paid, I would pay it immediately. He is such a nice and charming man that I would cough up immediately, but we cannot spare the Minister for Security and Immigration for that kind of work. Others have to do it, or sometimes it is done by letter. All that happens is that the letter is put to one side. Perhaps he will have the figure for the amount of uncollected civil penalties currently owed to the Home Office. If it does not run into millions, I will buy him dinner in the Members Dining Room before the House rises on 30 March. On that cheerful note, I will finish my contribution.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I will not delay the House more than a minute. Over the past 12 months I have bored the House enough, like a needle on a cracked record, on the subject of the protection of journalists.
That started with a debate on the concerns expressed by the National Union of Journalists about the volume of production orders that were being used against its members, as well as the range of organisations using and abusing RIPA, and the police moving away from PACE to avoid accountability through the courts, and then using RIPA. In addition, concerns were expressed by the NUJ about the development of DRIPA.
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing the interchange of views between the NUJ and his officials. That has helped us to move forward clearly on the codes of practice, but those do not go far enough, nor do these regulations, to meet the NUJ’s position on the protection of journalistic sources. However, the draft clauses have been published. We are about to go into purdah. Whoever is in government after the election will have to address the issue fairly quickly, as the Minister knows. Can the lines of communication between the civil servants and the NUJ remain open during this period? Also, can further meetings take place with the NUJ’s legal advisers and the NUJ representatives to ensure that the eventual legislation, or the advice on the eventual legislation, that goes before the incoming Ministers will meet with the approval of all stakeholders, as well as journalists?
James Brokenshire
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to respond to as many as possible of the various points that have been raised during this helpful debate.
Let me at the outset welcome the support that right hon. and hon. Members have given to these statutory instruments, even if, in a number of cases, they feel that further work may be required. Further debate and discussion is taking place about the communications data aspects and the report by David Anderson. I can tell the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, that David Anderson remains on course to report on time before 1 May. I underline the fact that the new privacy and civil liberties oversight board will give further support to David Anderson in his important work, which the right hon. Gentleman and many others in the House recognise in terms of the contribution that he makes.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the case of the three schoolgirls who travelled from London to Syria and the evidence that his Committee took last week. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the specifics of that recent case, not least because the investigation is still ongoing. He rightly underlines the huge distress that is caused to families by these cases. We hope that this matter can be resolved and that the girls are able to return home to their families as soon as possible. I know that the whole House would wish to underline that.
There are continuing issues on which we need to challenge ourselves as regards why people seek to travel in this way. As the evidence that has been provided to various Committees indicates, it is a complicated picture featuring the impact of social media, peers, and other influences. That is why, as a Government, we have taken a very broad view in recognising the responsibilities that we all hold in seeking to prevent people from travelling and becoming involved in terrorist-related activity. We will be able to return to this again next week, I hope, when we look at further instruments and guidance that may need to be considered further before the House rises.
Keith Vaz
I look forward to looking at the Minister’s further instruments when they become available for scrutiny.
On the point about communities and families, having looked carefully at this subject, the lesson that the Committee has learned over the past 10 days is that they should not be afraid to come forward and speak to the authorities, because the authorities will deal with them sympathetically and they will not be stigmatised. We are all in this together to fight those who seek to seduce and groom young men and women and take them out of our country.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point that I entirely endorse. Indeed, that is why the Home Office has been keen to support initiatives such as that advanced by Families Against Stress and Trauma, which has campaigned to highlight the need to come forward and report to the authorities or to others who may be able to take action to safeguard and prevent such actions.
The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised again the position of journalists in relation to communications data. He and I have rightly debated that on a number of occasions in this House. He, and others, may not feel that this is the final settled picture. As I have said, we recognise that this matter needs to be further regularised in primary legislation, and we hope that the House will be able to return to it swiftly after the general election. In his report, the commissioner said that there had been no abuse, in relation to his investigations and his inquiry, into the manner in which communications data requests are made of journalists. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion that we should ensure that there is continuing dialogue on this matter.
The draft clauses, and our desire to receive feedback on them, provide a further opportunity for those channels to be kept open. Although the House will head into purdah and Dissolution shortly, I hope communication will be maintained with officials to ensure that, when this House returns, the next Government can move forward quickly in the light not only of David Anderson’s report, but of the feedback we receive on the draft clauses. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
I will go through as many as possible of the points raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), whose broad support I welcome. As the explanatory notes make clear, a full regulatory impact assessment was made of the effect of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 and the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015.
On the difference between the consultative code and the final version, the key changes include the introduction of the requirements for law enforcement to use the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to acquire communications data in order to determine journalistic sources. Other changes include greater clarity on the additional consideration for those in sensitive professions and increased guidance on the necessity and proportionality that must be met by all applications for communications data. I assure the hon. Lady that we reflected carefully on the submissions. The codes reflect all recent primary legislation, but, as she will appreciate, if significant changes are made to primary legislation in the future, new codes may be required.
We do not provide details of which companies are the subject of data retention notices nor the detail of those notices, as it could be of considerable benefit to terrorists and other criminals if they knew which companies were under the data retention obligations, and they could adjust their behaviour accordingly. That is why we have maintained a consistent stance.
The responses to the public consultation have been published on the Home Office website and we have written to the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees. I am sorry if the hon. Lady was not able to locate them and I am happy to write to her to point her directly to them, because I specifically made sure that they were published in advance of today’s debate. I am disappointed that she has not been able to locate them, which is what I wanted her to be able to do.
Diana Johnson
I am grateful that the Minister will write to me, but I made strenuous efforts to get hold of the responses, including getting the Vote Office to look for them and having a good search of the Home Office website myself. Perhaps it is time for the website to undergo a review to make sure it is as accessible as possible.
James Brokenshire
All I can say is that the consultation responses were published. I note the hon. Lady’s challenge and I will certainly point her in the right direction.
On 4 February the interception of communications commissioner reported on the issue of journalists’ material. We are introducing the codes as quickly as possible to give as full effect as we can to the commissioner’s recommendations. Frankly, we do not believe it would be appropriate to wait. The hon. Lady asked why we are doing it now and in this way. It is being done in this way to ensure that the codes and safeguards are put in place as quickly as possible. I judged that it was right to do the initial consultation and get feedback even though we knew that the commissioner was due to report, because if we had waited for the commissioner’s response and then done a full consultation on the full code, we would not be in the position we are in today. I think that was the right approach.
The hon. Lady also asked technical questions about social media. The provisions apply to relevant communications data generated or processed in the UK by communications service providers. The codes of practice give some examples of the data to be retained and the way in which the CSPs build their systems. The communications data generated differ among CSPs and the services they provide. It is important that the Government can work with providers to ensure that appropriate data are retained. The code provides that the Home Office may give further guidance to those implementing the requirements. In other words, there can be further drill-down to give further specificity. The Home Office works closely with providers to ensure that it is aware of future technological changes that may lead to a review of a data retention notice. I will reflect further on the points made by the hon. Lady and place any additional information in the Library.
Finally, the £50,000 maximum penalty for failing to comply with the requirement under the authority to carry scheme reflects the seriousness attached to a carrier bringing someone into the UK or taking someone out of the UK when refused the authority to do so. I certainly hear the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East when he asked why we should have a penalty if compliance is already enforced. Now that we are extending the scheme to both inbound and outbound carrying, having looked at different aspects of it under the code and reflected on the issues raised, it is appropriate to have a penalty or sanction to encourage and promote the positive behaviour that right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and I want. We have brought in the penalty in that spirit.
Keith Vaz
The Minister is always generous in giving way, which helps the scrutiny of such measures. I am sorry if I missed this, but did he give the House a figure for how much is owed to the Home Office in civil penalties in total? I am eager to take him for supper before we close on 30 March.
James Brokenshire
I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that in respect of that particular provision—[Interruption.] I will come to his point. In respect of that provision, we clearly do not want there to be any unpaid penalties; we want compliance and therefore for penalties not to be levied in the first place. We are putting the penalty in place in that spirit of good compliance.
I normally try my best to meet the right hon. Gentleman’s requests for information as soon as possible, but I am afraid that I will have to disappoint him on this occasion. I note his request for the details of the various civil penalties levied under the civil penalties scheme, and I will certainly take it away and see what further information I can give him to assuage his clear desire for it.
With those comments, and given the broad welcome that the House has given to the measures, I hope that the House will be minded to support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data: Code of Practice) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.
Investigatory Powers
Resolved,
That the draft Retention of Communications Data (Code of Practice) Order 2015, which was laid before this House on 4 March, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)
Immigration
Resolved,
That the draft Authority to Carry Scheme (Civil Penalties) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 2 March, be approved.—(James Brokenshire.)
Road Traffic
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I beg to move,
That the draft Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2015, which were laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.
The instrument will include amphetamine, with a limit of 250 micrograms per litre of blood, in the new drug-driving offence of driving with a specified drug in the body above a specified limit. The new offence was provided for in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which inserted new section 5A into the Road Traffic Act 1988. The Drug Driving (Specified Limits) (England and Wales) Regulations 2014, made on 24 October 2014, specified 16 other drugs and their limits, and the new offence came into force in England and Wales on 2 March. Indeed, the first arrest was made on that very day. I recognise the positive engagement and support of the Opposition in introducing the new regulations.
As hon. Members are aware, the review of drink and drug-driving law by Sir Peter North concluded that there was
“a significant drug driving problem”
and recommended the new offence. It also recommended the inclusion of amphetamine. The expert panel on drug-driving, in its report of March 2013, also recommended the inclusion of amphetamine in the new drug-driving offence. It quoted the European driving under the influence of drugs, alcohol and medicines project—the so-called DRUID project—which suggested that amphetamine caused a medium to high risk of a traffic accident. The DRUID researchers did not find an impairment effect at therapeutic doses, but a negative driving performance could be detected at high doses.
As hon. Members are probably aware, the Government have considered carefully what the appropriate level should be for amphetamine. The expert panel recommended a limit of 600 micrograms per litre of blood if our approach was to look at when the risk of a road traffic collision was most likely to occur. However, although there is significant medicinal use of amphetamine, the Government were concerned about the amount of illegal use. The expert panel described it as “an illicit substance” and
“a long standing member of the drug scene”.
The approach to setting a limit for the drug was therefore not as clear-cut as for the other drugs, because a zero tolerance approach was taken to illegal drugs such as cannabis and cocaine, whereas a road safety risk approach was taken to drugs that were more associated with medicinal use.
The Government used the consultation in summer 2013 to seek further views and evidence on what a suitable limit might be. Many of the responses proposed a limit that was much closer to the zero tolerance approach, so we re-consulted on a limit of 50 micrograms per litre from December 2013 to the end of January 2014. However, we received several objections from the medical profession to the proposed limit.
Specialists in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, for which amphetamine is a recognised treatment, argued that the condition affects the ability to concentrate and that, although patients represent an increased road safety risk when unmedicated, they are just as safe as the general population when taking their medication. Those respondents backed up their arguments with research. Their concern was that prescribers and ADHD patients must not be discouraged from prescribing medication or taking it. We recognise that adult ADHD often goes undiagnosed and that treatment is often stopped after people have had it as a child. That presents road safety risks that need to be addressed through treatment. We concluded that the limit of 50 micrograms that we initially proposed might discourage those with ADHD from seeking or continuing with treatment.
To be clear, the amphetamine treatment for ADHD that we are talking about is not Ritalin, which is often associated with ADHD. Although similar to amphetamine, Ritalin is a methylphenidate. Amphetamine drugs, including lisdexamfetamine, which is produced by Shire pharmaceuticals, tend to be used as a second-line treatment when methylphenidate is not successful.
It is therefore appropriate to set a limit that is above the therapeutic range that ADHD sufferers are most likely to be prescribed and below the level that is most likely to be the result of people abusing the medication. After holding extensive informal discussions with specialists in ADHD and the Secretary of State’s honorary medical advisory panel on alcohol, drugs and substance misuse and driving, we have agreed that 250 micrograms per litre of blood is the most appropriate limit. The advisory panel quoted the analysis of 2,995 blood samples that were taken between 2008 and 2012 across the UK in suspected drug-driving cases, which showed an average concentration of amphetamine of 456 micrograms per litre of blood. The Government concluded from their consultation with the ADHD specialists and the advisory panel that the level of 250 micrograms would successfully balance the legitimate use of amphetamine for medicinal purposes against its abuse by those who represent a risk on the road as a result of taking it.
The House may recall that in September last year, during the debate on the regulations that specified the 16 other drugs and their limits, the Government indicated that they intended to re-consult on a limit for amphetamine. Given the extensive discussions that we have held with medical stakeholders, we take the view that we have had sufficient opportunity to consider the views of all the relevant parties and that conducting a third formal consultation on a limit for amphetamine is no longer appropriate or necessary.
The new drug-driving offence commenced on 2 March, and the Government believe it important that amphetamine is added to the list of drugs as soon as possible, so that those who abuse amphetamine and continue to drive and put lives at risk can expect to be caught and prosecuted for the new offence. I acknowledge that there is no roadside screening device for amphetamine—currently only cannabis and cocaine have an approved device that tests saliva—but should there be any suspicion of the consumption of that drug or any other specified drug, a blood test can be carried out, and a blood concentration level above the specified limit will result in prosecution.
Specifying amphetamine will create certainty in the market and enable manufacturers to consider the research and development of roadside screeners for that drug, which is one of the most significant in drug-driving cases. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to support extending the regulations to include amphetamine at the limit proposed, to send a strong message that the House, Parliament and wider society will not tolerate those who persist in drug-driving and the threat they pose to other road users. I recommend that the House approve these regulations.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Minister on this subject. He and I may have a sense that, if not groundhog day, it is perhaps groundhog piglet day because—he alluded to this—we discussed the closely related draft Crime and Courts Act 2013 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2015 only last Monday. I will therefore do my best to focus specifically on the amphetamine aspects of today’s debate, although as the Minister demonstrated, some points may overlay with the broader discussion from last Monday.
The Minister has rightly said that the order confirms the limit for amphetamines in the new drug-driving legislation—indeed, amphetamine was the only drug that the Government did not confirm the limits for in October 2014—and he spelt out in some detail and with considerable clarity the iterative process that led to the Government proposing that limit. I understand that, and the Minister dealt manfully with the various chemical substances that were referred to, and in the process he gave the House a useful insight into the risk-benefit analysis that must take place in such areas—I hesitate to call it a master class, but it was informative and useful.
I want to raise one or two points with the Minister, although as he will know the Opposition strongly support the broad thrust of these regulations and the previous ones. I do not propose to quote in detail from last week’s discussion, but he will recall that when I asked why the consultations on amphetamine limits had been cancelled, he replied that he thought the balance achieved was absolutely right. Today, he has given chapter and verse on that process and why he thought the third consultation was no longer necessary. However, that does not explain why the Department for Transport originally proposed to re-consult on the amphetamine limit, if it was already holding extensive discussions with medical stakeholders that it now says makes such consultation unnecessary.
Will the Minister clarify why the Department said in September that the consultation would take place, only to announce in March that it will not? If we had had an earlier statement, would there not have been ample time for a formal consultation to be held and still make the order today? I make that point not in a spirit of churlishness or to be slightly anorak, but because it is essential to have a broad breadth of consultation and agreement on this issue.
Will the Minister update the House on why, as amphetamine has to be treated differently from other illegal drugs, the advice of his own expert panel, which originally recommended 600 micrograms of amphetamine per litre of blood, was set aside?
I want to touch on the 50 microgram limit arrived at in the proposal. Will the Minister explain again, for the benefit of the House and Members who may not have been present at the more general discussion of the previous order, how this argument relates to the level set for the eight drugs used for medicinal purposes? Does that not perhaps occasionally undermine the Government’s continued statement that the medical defence provided to drivers on prescription drugs will be enough to ensure they will not be discouraged from seeking treatment?
On a previous occasion, I alluded to the fact that the essential element is not simply the passing of an order, but the ability to enforce it and the resources to go with that enforcement process. I do not propose to repeat the concerns we raised last week. However, the Minister made much of the fact that, although the main screening in police stations was going to cost about £3,000, 35 of the 42 police authorities—if I have the figures right—already had them, so I was not to be too concerned about the postcode lottery issue, which I had raised. He also said that the roadside tests for these substances, the so-called use-once Drugwipe device or the electronic Dräger device, would be available, quoting the figure of £20.
On enforcement, the Minister’s hon. Friend in the other place said that in most cases it was not necessary for this to be done in the station, but on roadside screening devices. However, she also said that it was up to manufacturers to market them and the police to purchase them. It is therefore still by no means certain that roadside screening for drugs will become routine across the country. How has this significant uncertainty been factored into the Government’s estimates of how many more convictions for the offence there will be, how many crashes may be prevented and how many lives may be saved?
We join the Government—and, I think, all Members—in wanting the new regulations to be imposed as speedily and effectively as possible. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure, insofar as is humanly possible, that the resources and quality of enforcement across the country are adequate and sufficient.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I served on the Committee that considered the related order. I should like to put on record my appreciation to successive Governments for legislation that has resulted in the number of deaths on our roads being today approximately one third what it was 50 years ago. The regulations are a step along the road of reducing that number still further.
We all need to emphasise that we are talking here about drugs in the round: drugs prescribed for medicinal purposes and existing illegal drugs. We need to ensure that people who are prescribed drugs realise that they could, just possibly, be in breach of the law. We need to stress that point.
I do have a regret. As we approached the 2010 general election, we were looking forward to a reduction in the level of alcohol with which people were allowed to drive legally. Unfortunately, that was never implemented, so the drink-drive limit in England is still too high. I hope that the Minister will indicate whether the next Government might want to reduce it.
I welcome the measure, but I stress again the importance of getting the message across that we are talking about drugs prescribed for medicinal purposes and that people need to ensure that they do not break the law unwittingly. The message should be, “If in doubt, don’t risk it.”
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) for raising several questions, some of which we covered in Committee last week. He asked why we did not re-consult on the level. Although we decided that 50 micrograms was not the correct limit at the end of March 2014, we had to consult informally with a range of medical experts to ensure we got the number right, and that took time. Most importantly, we are confident that 250 micrograms is correct, as it successfully balances the legitimate use of amphetamine for medical purposes against its abuse by those who represent a risk on the road as a result of its use. Given our extensive discussions with medical stakeholders, we think that we have had sufficient opportunity to consider the views of all relevant parties and that conducting a third formal consultation on the limit for amphetamine use is no longer appropriate or necessary. No additional significant risk is associated with going from 50 micrograms to 250 micrograms, as advised by the Secretary of State’s advisory panel.
Importantly, the level we have set for the eight illegal drugs effectively represents a zero-tolerance approach. We have set the level sufficiently high so that there can be no opportunity for loophole lawyers to get people off or for people to use the defence that they were accidentally exposed to drugs by, for example, sitting next to somebody who was smoking cannabis or handling an item that had been used for cocaine.
It is important to remind the House that existing legislation on impairment remains on the statute book, and many prescribed drugs will carry a warning indicating that people should not take them if they feel drowsy or their vision is blurred. That has not changed, so people taking prescription drugs below the levels set in the regulations will still be committing an offence if they are impaired. If they take levels above those set in the regulations, but are not impaired, they will have the medical defence. The advice has gone out to pharmacists, doctors and patients that if necessary they should carry evidence of their prescription as a medical defence.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I want to make a point about notices on prescription drugs. Many years ago, the message that cigarettes were harmful to health would have been smaller and much less obvious than it became. That seems to apply now to prescription drugs. Does the Minister have a view on whether the message about the danger of taking prescription drugs, even below the levels he has mentioned, should be much more obvious to users?
Mr Goodwill
We have issued specific advice to pharmacists on the nine drugs we are specifying, but there is a general warning to patients as well that taking prescription drugs can affect them. In the case of the drugs specified in the regulations, we have issued stickers to pharmacists and doctors to provide an additional reminder.
On the cost of screening, it is true that although a breathalyser now costs about 17p to administer at the roadside—we now have breathalysers that are evidential—the cost of these new roadside tests will be about £20. Of course, we want more competition in the market in terms of the number of devices available and the number of drugs that can be detected. As we get more competition and more players in the market, the cost will come down. I am sure that police forces and police and crime commissioners will take decisions based on where this equipment is deployed. Even if it is not in every police car, it will be important, particularly for fatal or near-fatal accidents, that the equipment is available, to ensure that a screening test can be quickly taken. Of course, if the two drugs that we can currently test for are not detected, there will be the option of going to the police station to take the test there. The blood test, not the roadside test, will form the basis of the prosecution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) said that this is a further step made by the Government towards improving road safety. Personally, I am pleased that we have now reached, I hope, the end of the road on this; I personally insisted that the issue should be put in the Conservative manifesto at the last general election. With a couple of weeks to go, we have finally got the matter completed and on to the statute book.
Drink-drive limits were mentioned. I shall not be tempted to speak at great length on that issue because it is not within the terms of today’s debate, but it will be interesting to take account of the experience in Scotland. It is important to note that when the drink-driving legislation came in, many people thought that drink-driving was acceptable, but we subsequently saw a great cultural change take place on this issue. If we read about the horrendous accidents that occur because of drink-driving, we often find that the driver was three or even four times above the existing limit. As I say, it will be interesting to see how things develop in Scotland. We will, of course, keep everything under review. I conclude my comments there.
Question put and agreed to.
Delegated Legislation
Transport for London Bill [Lords]
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:21 - The House divided: - Ayes: 190 / Noes: 14 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:46 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 168 - Question accordingly negatived.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—TfL assets (constraints on developments)—
“(1) Tfl, or any subsidiary of TfL, shall not lease land to third parties which:
(a) has been used in the preceding 10 years,
(b) has been considered by TfL in the preceding 10 years as suitable, or
(c) is adjacent to land in use or in use in the preceding 10 years, for the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers.
(2) Before TfL, or any subsidiary of TfL, enters into a contract involving the development of land for other than the provision or maintenance of transport services for passengers, it must carry out a public consultation seeking views on the impact of so doing.
(3) Any consultation under subsection (2) must include consultation with:
(a) local communities likely to be affected
(b) the Greater London Authority
(c) London boroughs
(d) the City of London
(e) relevant trade unions.”
Amendment 21, page 6, in schedule, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (c), at end add
“subject to the Secretary of State’s satisfaction that TfL has undertaken, or caused to be undertaken, an effective risk assessment in respect of the impact on public heath of such use.”
Amendment 22, in page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (d).
Amendment 23, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (i), at end add
“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”
Amendment 24, page 6, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (o), at end add
“provided such property is not located within the curtilage of a bus, rail or underground station.”
Amendment 25, in page 6, paragraph 1(k), line 19, after “machines”, insert
“and other property which is exploited for commercial purposes other than within stations.”
Amendment 26, page 6, paragraph 1(k), line 19, leave out from the first “stations” to the end of the sub-paragraph.
Amendment 27, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (k).
Amendment 28, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (m).
Amendment 29, page 6, paragraph 1, leave out sub-paragraph (n).
John McDonnell
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with particular regard to donations from trade unions to my constituency party. We are now in a long campaign period and although these donations are to my constituency party and are not personal donations, I wish to declare them. They will pay for leaflets in the election campaign bearing my photograph—that will probably cost me votes! I thought I had better declare those interests tonight.
Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on behalf of myself and colleagues who drafted amendments to the Bill, I would like to thank and congratulate the Clerk on the advice he provided to us throughout. He took our original ideas and my own poor drafts and turned them into the amendments that have been selected today.
I will happily curtail this debate right now if the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), representing the Bill’s promoters, can inform us whether Transport for London is willing to accept all the amendments. If it is, we will not need to spend any further time on the issue this evening. I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman if he is willing to advise us of TfL’s position.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for inviting me to intervene at this point. The sponsors of the Bill have been through the various amendments, and I have been taking advice today. The sponsors reject every single one of the new clauses and amendments.
John McDonnell
That is disappointing—in fact, I am absolutely shocked. I thought we might have been able to see some movement on at least some of these issues, given the dialogue that has taken place and that this Bill has been travelling through the House since 2011. Elements have been dropped from the Bill and the Committee insisted on having amendments at some stage.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I was very disappointed to hear the answer from the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I am not one for re-telling rumours, but I heard tell that TfL wanted to discuss some of these issues with us. Perhaps the promoter of the Bill could tell us at what point TfL expects to have serious discussions through which constituency MPs can deal with the often very detailed concerns that we might have to raise in this debate.
John McDonnell
I am concerned about the Bill’s implications for all our London constituents and constituencies. As I have said, given that the debate has lasted for four years, I would expect a dialogue to have taken place by now, along with acceptance of some of the arguments, to allow at least a degree of compromise to be reached.
Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I was shocked, but not surprised, to hear what was said by the Bill’s sponsor, which was symptomatic of the arrogance that TfL has shown towards the House. The Bill’s progress began in the other place on 29 November 2010. I think that the summary dismissal of every single one of the amendments is symptomatic of not only TfL’s attitude but the faults in the Bill, which is why I have added my name to a number of the amendments.
John McDonnell
I will not labour the point. Let me now deal with the amendments. I shall begin by outlining the general justification for the group, and will then deal with them individually.
This group of amendments was prompted by the raising of a number of issues on Second Reading, in the Opposed Private Bill Committee and in the other place. None of those issues seems to have been taken on board bar one, and that only because the Committee forced it on the promoter after its consideration of the representation of petitioners who included members of community organisations, a member of the Greater London authority and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.
Mr Slaughter
I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. I am sure that he will pay tribute to the objectors, who painstakingly gave their time in several meetings that I attended with representatives of TfL, and who were given the same short shrift that my hon. Friend is being given today. Two of them are constituents of mine, and they have become experts on this subject. They have been entirely reasonable throughout the process, but they have been treated with a large degree of disregard. Had it not been for the Bill Committee, we would not have secured even the concession to which my hon. Friend has referred.
John McDonnell
I do indeed pay tribute to the petitioners. The amendments that are in my name and those of others—and those tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), which I support—arise from the views expressed by the petitioners on particular issues.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a great deal of respect for him and for the work that we do together in opposing a third runway at Heathrow. However, it seems to me, especially given his opening remarks, that the best thing that he can do is ensure that the question is put as soon as possible, rather than elongating matters, so that Parliament can make its judgment.
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman and I have worked and campaigned on the third runway issue in close co-operation. I am grateful to him for all his support, and respect him for it. However, I think that the responsibility of a Member of Parliament is to reflect the concerns expressed to him by his constituents, and in this instance—given that we have a general accountability to Londoners overall—by the Londoners who have petitioned against the Bill. That is why the amendments have been drafted very specifically on the basis of the views expressed in the Opposed Private Bill Committee, which were not fully taken into account following the Committee’s recommendations. I had to draft the amendments, in consultation with some of the petitioners, to ensure that I captured their main concerns.
John McDonnell
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman, and congratulate him on his elevation.
Mark Field
I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have some sympathy with the broad thrust of his views. There is a risk that Transport for London could become over-leveraged and that land, which is very scarce in London, might be misused when it could be used for purposes connected with housing in particular.
I have a wider concern, however. I fear that there will be increasing hostility in other parts of the United Kingdom towards large-scale infrastructure investment here in London. Whether we like it or not, Transport for London is the only mechanism that allows us to drive that vital infrastructure forward, for the good of the capital and the good of all its residents, current and future.
John McDonnell
That is a valid point, which I will try to address when we turn to the specific amendments. I thought there were issues on which we could have had compromise; the main thrust of the first group of amendments is to secure openness, transparency and, most importantly, a consultative decision-making process. I have sat down with each of the petitioners. The whole point of these amendments is the need for consultative engagement by TfL and its subsidiaries when dealing with sites in their areas.
Mr Slaughter
May I, too, add my congratulations to the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field)? I do not think anyone objects to sustainable responsible development by TfL, but this Bill permits not that type of development, but the type that I have seen in my constituency—irresponsible development that is in hock to developers and that, to use the parallel with the Heathrow proposal, can lead to huge damage to communities: 750 homes would be destroyed in my constituency as part of the Earls Court development, similar to the number in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as a consequence of the third runway.
John McDonnell
That is it exactly. That is what new clause 1 seeks to address to a certain extent, as I will come on to. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) has got a valid point, however, in mentioning concerns about antipathy to investment in London and that we need a balance in terms of non-London infrastructure investment and infrastructure investment in London. However, I do not think that this Bill solves that—in fact, I do not think it even addresses it. It makes matters worse.
The prime principle behind this group of amendments is accountability. Why are those key elements of openness, transparency, a consultative decision-making process and accountability so important to the petitioners who have come to us and so important to our constituents who have raised these matters with us—the genesis of these amendments? It is because the Bill extends the power of TfL—and, via TfL, the Mayor of London’s power—to use an immense range and quantity of assets.
Members may wish to correct me on this, but when we last asked how many sites could be identified as being such assets, I think the figure I was told was about 3,000 sites in the ownership or control of TfL. As a result of this legislation, those sites could be used for the placement of charges and mortgages to guarantee indemnity, and therefore for borrowing to raise funds.
We will come to the other issue to arise from these amendments largely in the second block of amendments, but it relates to the first block as well. It is the concern about the vehicles that will be used, or which are proposed in this legislation. It is why new clause 1 is so crucial to the way forward. There are concerns about the range of vehicles, from the limited partnerships, which I think are the most worrying vehicle, as identified in the evidence to the Opposed Private Bill Committee, to the limited liability partnerships.
What we have in the Bill, and what this group of amendments addresses, is potentially the largest use for generations of public assets in the capital to raise funds. It amounts to an immense mortgaging of London’s future, but also, more dangerously, as has been put to us in discussion after discussion with the regional petitioners, it opens up what one has described as a speculators’ bonanza in our capital city. New clause 1 would address that to some extent, as would the other amendments.
The Bill puts at risk the finances of Transport for London, as well as its operations and its supply of transport services to London, including the tubes, the buses and even, I have to say, the Boris bikes. In the event of the catastrophic failure of some of what can only be described as the Mayor of London’s escapades, the burden would fall on London fare payers, London council tax payers, London business rate payers and, eventually, the general taxpayer. That is the risk behind this Bill if it goes through unamended tonight, and this group of new clauses and amendments has been tabled to ensure that we have a proper debate. I hope that the Bill will not go through unamended, but if it does, the new clauses and amendments will at least form the agenda for a dialogue between our communities and their elected representatives and Transport for London.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The Bill as currently drafted will be bad for the fare payer, and for the taxpayer in general, but it is also likely to be bad for those who work for Transport for London and for the communities in which the developments are likely to take place. This extraordinary cocktail of poor ideas is being pushed through, and I am not surprised to hear him say that it is being done in an atmosphere of secrecy.
John McDonnell
I come at this objectively, without any party political motivation. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrow East and the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster will remember when the last Government imposed the public-private partnership on London, the GLA and the then Mayor. At that point, a few of us in this House warned that it would put at risk the future of London Transport if it was forced on it, and it nearly did. This Bill has the same dangerous implications. I remember the debates on the PPP, and I think I was the first Member of Parliament to raise those concerns in the House. I urged new Labour, as it then was, to pull back. The then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, sought to ensure that the PPP would not be imposed. I have tabled new clause 1 to try to ensure that we do not go down the same route.
Members will remember that the scale of the PPP extended to £3 billion. That was the extent of the bail-out as a result of that poor legislation being imposed on the then Mayor of London against his wishes and, I believe, against the wishes of the GLA on a cross-party basis. We subsequently discovered that the cost of the imposition of that £3 billion was £400 million in accountancy and consultancy fees alone. That money was wasted, and it was an absolute scandal. The Bill that we are discussing tonight will have the same implications if we cannot amend it. I do not say this with any arrogance, but those of us who opposed the PPP were proved absolutely right, and I believe that we will be proved right about this Bill if it is allowed to go through unamended.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend does not need to speculate—if I may use that word—about the outcome of this Bill. He has already been proved right by the scheme that is the begetter of the Bill, the Earls Court and West Kensington scheme. It is demonstrably a terrible deal for the taxpayer and the fare payer, yet it is being used as the basis for institutionalising that type of development in legislation.
John McDonnell
I agree. It was with some sadness that I listened to the representations of the opponents of the Bill when they presented their petitions to the Opposed Private Bill Committee and, more importantly, when they held an open meeting in this House to explain the consequences of the scheme for their homes, their businesses and their environment. It was a scandal. The problem is exactly as has been described, which is why new clause 1 is so crucial and why we have tabled amendments to the scheme. As Transport for London said in its letter to the general secretary of the RMT, Mick Cash, if this legislation had been in place this vehicle would have been used for that scheme. This vehicle, under this legislation, would have been more precarious than even the existing arrangements under the Earls Court scheme.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It has not stopped TfL selling a majority interest in the site for a minority stake; and it has not stopped TfL going into a partnership where the fare payer takes all the risks and the developer takes none, and the developer is indeed represented by a £2 company that, for tax-avoidance reasons, is domiciled in Jersey. But at least we know some of the facts of that case. The deal before us is the type that TfL wishes to make the norm, rather than the exception, and wishes to hide from public scrutiny.
John McDonnell
I absolutely concur, and I do not need to labour the point. All I can say to the hon. Member for Harrow East, with whom we have worked over the years on a range of issues in the interests of London, is that if this Bill goes through without my new clause 1 and the subsequent set of amendments, it will make the PPP look like an accounting blip. The Bill is extremely dangerous.
In addition to the financial risks involved in what some have described as a speculator’s charter, we face another potential loss. The mortgaging and development of sites could, in some cases, result in a loss of assets, particularly the land sites essential or invaluable to the future development of the improvement of London’s transport network and services.
George Galloway (Bradford West) (Respect)
I am not a London Member, but I am a London resident and have been for 35 years, and I am listening with mounting horror to the narrative being developed by the hon. Gentleman. I was one of those who opposed the disaster that almost sank—I hope hon. Members forgive the pun—the London underground last time out. What I am asking myself as I listen to him is: where are all the other London Members of Parliament? Why is this Chamber almost deserted, on both sides?
John McDonnell
It is because people have not woken up to the consequences of this Bill yet. Unless someone has gone through the experience that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) has in Earls Court and seen the consequences, people do not fully understand this. The Bill is short—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
The hon. Gentleman says that a number of people have not woken up to the consequences. Would that include the right hon. Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Dame Tessa Jowell) and for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who all aspire to be Mayor of London?
John McDonnell
People cannot help but introduce a bit of knockabout in all of this. I have not intervened in the mayoral election yet; I have not made any comment about any candidate so far—
George Galloway
I have not intervened in the London mayoralty yet either, but I keep reading of the very Members the Minister has just adumbrated. Is it a coincidence that absolutely none of them is here?
John McDonnell
Let me abide by parliamentary convention, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand the point being made, but if someone is to be referred to in the House, it is best to inform them in advance. Let us abide by that convention tonight. I wish to make it very clear that I am not intervening in the mayoral elections, full stop, other than to pass a few comments on issues such as the one before us.
Let me get back to the amendments and the new clause. I want to emphasise not just the financial risk but the potential loss of sites for the use of our future transport system. That is one of the main points made in the RMT’s representation to the Opposed Private Bill Committee.
Mr Slaughter
These are highly technical matters. My hon. Friend has a record of getting his head round such matters, and we have had excellent briefing from the RMT and support from the petitioners in this. I am not surprised that other Members are not on top of the matter. In all fairness to those who could not be present today, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), we should not pick on individual Members. However, I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is holding back on his endorsement of a mayoral candidate—I am sure that all the candidates are waiting for it with bated breath.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. No, I know that the hon. Gentleman has not said anything. Let us take it as read that nobody in this Chamber will declare in which election camp they are. Can we now move on, as the hon. Gentleman is struggling to do, to the main point of his proposed new clause 1?
John McDonnell
I am very, very grateful for that protection, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Let me make my final general point about this group of amendments, because the next group contains some technical details in which we will need to involve ourselves. Decisions made by Transport for London may, if this Bill is enacted, result in sites being lost to private developers that could, at a later stage, be judged essential for future transport improvements. That is the view expressed to me by people working on the front line at London transport—I am talking about RMT and other union representatives. The cost of retrieving those sites, even through compulsory purchase powers and arrangements, would then fall on the fare payers, the council tax payers, London businesses and, eventually, the general taxpayers. If this Bill goes through unamended, it will not just create enormous financial risk but put at risk the long-term development of our transport infrastructure and reduce the flexibility of Transport for London to improve services in the long term.
Let me turn now to the detail of the individual clauses. I wish to indicate now that, at some stage, I would like to press new clause 1 to a vote. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North is concerned about a whole batch of amendments, and I believe that the House should also take a view on amendment 29.
In the context of the potential enormity of the scale of charging on TfL subsidiary assets—that is, the mortgaging of these assets—and the extent of the partnerships, limited or otherwise, it is important that Transport for London and, indeed, the Mayor are absolutely open about their intentions to enter into ventures for the development of these assets. That was clearly put to us time and again by the petitioners and others.
New clause 1 contains a come-clean list and tries to ensure that people are fully informed of the Mayor’s intentions. It requires Transport for London to publish a list of non-operational assets that it holds—I will come back to the definition of non-operational because it is a slippery one that could be used in many forms in the future if we do not tie it down very tightly—or that are in the hands of a subsidiary, which it regards as eligible for development, and to band them by value.
Mr Slaughter
I think that some Members will be surprised that such a list has not already been published. This is a public authority. I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend has often had occasion to wonder who owns particular pieces of land. That may be for any reason to do with public nuisance, neglect, development or other matters. Should TfL not be publishing a full list of its assets, including operational and non-operational assets, whether or not they are ready for development?
John McDonnell
Somewhere deep in the heart of TfL’s offices, there will be a list. It is not a list that has been published in this form. Individual community groups, passenger groups and trade unions have been pressing for a clear list showing TfL’s intentions for those sites.
Jeremy Corbyn
The question of property ownership, the public listing of it and its future use is central to TfL. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) will probably want to get on to the question of Earls Court during his contribution, so may I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) to consider another example? Archway tower, next to Archway station, was built by London Transport in 1967, and the building was rapidly leased to the Department of Social Security and various other Departments. The building has now been sub-leased several times over, and a long lease has been purchased by a company called Essential Living to convert it into 120 luxury flats. We thus have 120 luxury flats adjoining a tube station with no consideration whatever having been given to the housing needs of people in the area, yet we are apparently powerless to do anything about it.
John McDonnell
I urge Members to obtain a copy of Transport for London’s annual report and statement of accounts, to look at them and some of the documents linked to them and to identify in them a list of TfL’s assets. I have tried it. When some of the assets have been identified, we need to link the individual assets to the Mayor of London’s strategy and plan, going down from the macro policy to the micro level, to find out what will happen to a site in our constituency, but that is impossible. That is why I tabled the new clause. We just need openness and transparency.
George Galloway
Back in 1967—better days in many respects—in the era of Slater Walker and the rest, was not this kind of thing called asset stripping? Is the Bill not just an asset-strippers charter?
John McDonnell
That is a valid point, but I do not want in any way to insinuate anything about the intentions of the Mayor of London, TfL and so on. Our fear is about the unintended consequences. The fear that I and some others expressed on Second Reading concerned the inability in some instances—this might have happened with Earls Court—of Transport for London officers and those directing them to negotiate effectively with people who are ruthless in the development of sites and the maximisation of their profits from those sites. That brings me back to new clause 1.
I want Transport for London to be completely open and transparent and publish a list of the properties and assets it holds and that its subsidiaries hold which it considers eligible for future development, banding them by value so that we can assess the individual values of the properties and the potential borrowing against them. The new clause requires TfL to undertake this exercise every year, because the intentions of TfL and the Mayor will change. It is therefore important that the asset list is updated as well as the list of plans associated with those assets.
Each year, the new clause will insist that Transport for London must inform Londoners of the non-operational assets it holds as well as those that are under consideration for development in which action leading to development is under way or planned in the next 12 months. Part of the problem arising from Earls Court and some of the other discussions is that some people did not even know who owned some of the site and the Mayor and Transport for London were never completely open about their intentions. The new clause will ensure that we know who owns the sites and what sites TfL has, and will also ensure that TfL comes clean about what it intends to do with those sites, whether it be development with a partner, selling the site off or using it to borrow money, as specified under the Bill, to indemnify itself against costs.
Mr Slaughter
The new clause is extremely sensible, for the reasons that have been set out. It may well also assist TfL as I suspect that, despite my hon. Friend’s confidence, TfL probably does not know where some of its assets are. In my experience, it certainly does not know their value, and that is the cause of mistakes in how it disposes of property. Notwithstanding the fact that I have put my name to the new clause, I would quarrel with the reference to commencement within the next 12 months. In some instances—I shall expand on this point if I have the opportunity to do so—development is planned and proposed but for operational or other reasons the plans are made several years ahead.
John McDonnell
Okay, let us have that argument. The reason I specified 12 months is that I think it is a realistic timetable for concretising the plans that TfL and the Mayor have for a site, so that they are more focused on being absolutely clear about what is imminent. I agree that it would be good to have a longer-term plan, but I think that 12 months is more realistic, given that the Mayor has a five-year period in office.
Mr Slaughter
I understand what my hon. Friend says, but the example I was thinking of is Lillie Bridge depot, which is the third element of the Earls Court site. At the moment we are being told that development might happen in five or six years’ time, but I fear that in the interim—it is not only a major employment site for skilled labour, but a manufacturing site and a key site for TfL—it is being run down or that other changes are being made that will make unsuitable development a fait accompli.
John McDonnell
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I am trying to be as realistic as possible about the burdens we place on Transport for London and the Mayor. I say to the hon. Member for Harrow East that it is worth looking at the Lillie Bridge site, and speaking with some of the workers there, to see how it is being degraded over time, which I think is with a view to selling it off and bartering with a developer.
Jeremy Corbyn
I know that I am a signatory to new clause 1, but I must press the point about 12 months, which I think is wholly inadequate. If we look at just one aspect of London Underground, the Victoria line, we see that the number of trains on the line is now double the amount that it was originally planned to take, which means there is great difficulty packing those trains on to the sidings at Northumberland Park, and the same applies to every other line. We need far more than a 12-month look ahead; we need to look ahead 10 or 20 years for the continued growth of transport in London and the need for land and facilities to accommodate it, rather than doing nothing now and spending a lot of money buying them back from the private sector at a later date.
John McDonnell
I understand my hon. Friend’s argument, and I do not want to fall out with him—it is a good job that I did not announce my candidature, because I would have expected him to nominate me—but I am just trying to be as realistic as possible. He makes a valid point: there has to be some display of Transport for London’s medium and longer-term intentions for individual sites.
George Galloway
I, too, am a signatory to the new clause, but I, too, am persuaded by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) in this regard. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is being unusually moderate and reasonable, and he keeps saying that he does not want to insinuate anything about TfL or about the Mayor, so I wonder whether this is indeed a mayoral election speech we are hearing.
John McDonnell
Credibility is sinking in this House. I will not rise to that comment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I hope that the Bill does not go through tonight, so that we can address the amendments we have tabled. That will give us the opportunity to look at the new clause and see—let me put it this way, in order to be helpful—whether we can ensure that information is provided by Transport for London and the Mayor on both a short-term assessment of the use of a planned asset or site and a medium-term option within at least the lifetime of a mayoralty. I think that might be a useful compromise—I do not want to be accused of going soft on these issues. I raise that point with the hon. Member for Harrow East because I think it is important.
The purpose of clauses 4, 5 and 6, we are told by the Bill’s promoters, is to enable the Mayor and Transport for London to enter into deals with private sector partners. These are development companies, and the aim is to develop TfL’s or its subsidiaries’ sites to secure a revenue stream to compensate for the 25% cut in Government grant to Transport for London and eventually for the complete loss of all central Government grant. How do we know that? It was raised on Second Reading and we sought confirmation from the Minister, who said:
“The outcome of the 2013 spending review was a 25% cut in TfL’s operational funding from central Government, and we have been clear that the Government’s aim is to reduce TfL’s operational funding over time to zero.”—[Official Report, 9 September 2014; Vol. 585, c. 853.]
So the purpose behind the Bill is to ensure that TfL raises another income stream to compensate for the Government’s cut in grant.
We need to examine the scale of the grant cut, which will be reflected in the potential scale of the use of the asset base. That is another reason why it is crucial that we get a definition and a list of TfL’s asset base on a value banded basis, as set out in new clause 1. I worry about the scale of income that TfL is looking to deliver from its asset base in proportion to the loss of grant.
Mr Slaughter
I have no objection to TfL developing its non-operational land or retaining a stake in that land and deriving an income from it. What I object to—I think my hon. Friend agrees with me on this point—is the vehicles that TfL is using for doing that, and the underlying secrecy and inconsistency. Having set that out as a policy, in cases where it suits TfL—I am thinking of another site in my constituency, Shepherd’s Bush market—it simply threw up its hands and said, “We’re going to sell the asset anyway.”
John McDonnell
I disagree. I agree about the importance of new clause 1 requiring a list of assets, but I inserted the identification of their value by band because I am worried about the scale of the overall risk if, for example, as in the Bill, all or any of these assets can be used against borrowing—can be charged or mortgaged to secure borrowing. The scale of that risk is enormous. If we look at the scale of the loss of grant, which is the funding gap that Transport for London and the Mayor are trying to deal with, that will give us an idea of the scale of the use of TfL’s assets for borrowing purposes and development deal purposes, and the risk that Londoners could then face. It is enormous.
I have looked at Transport for London’s annual report and accounts. They are not easy reading. For 2013 the total amount of grant aid from central Government, excluding Crossrail, for general and capital grants was £3.2 billion. On page 140 of the annual report and accounts for 2013-14, table 9 shows the entitlement of grant income which identifies the non-ring-fenced grant from the Department for Transport to Transport for London, which is £632.8 million. Non-ring-fenced grant to fund capital from the Department for Transport is £1,578.4 million. So when the Minister talks about reducing the Department for Transport grant to Transport for London to zero, the magnitude of the sum that the Mayor and Transport for London want to raise from these deals with private developers or to borrow against these assets becomes clear. It is staggering. It is enormous—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into a debate that is the subject of the second set of amendments, which is borrowing. I understand that the two arguments are linked, but I caution the hon. Gentleman that he more he does that, the more it reflects on the second group.
John McDonnell
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because Transport for London is using sites to enter into a relationship with developers from which it can get an income stream, and linking that to a mortgage to cover borrowing as well, the two activities are integrally linked. I understand what Madam Deputy Speaker is saying and I will try to separate my remarks about them, but that is difficult because the same clauses cover both.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. I simply caution him that although one debate reflects on another, that may lead to repetition, which we want to avoid later in the evening, so please stay focused on the first group of amendments.
John McDonnell
Thank you for that advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will abide by it, of course.
George Galloway
I do not want to go off the rails that Madam Deputy Speaker has just set, but this “Mind the gap” that the hon. Gentleman is crying goes to the heart of the matter. Is not new clause 1 the place to deal with this? The Bill is driven by the gap that the Government and the Department for Transport have indicated to this Mayor of London—any Mayor of London—and the Mayor and TfL are being driven to asset-strip public assets. Left-wing thinking has moved on. Even the hon. Gentleman’s left-wing thinking has moved on. In principle we are not against public bodies earning money from non-performing assets that they hold, but we are not prepared to do so in secrecy and using dodgy vehicles in the Channel islands or parts even more exotic than that.
John McDonnell
Let me focus on the issue that Madam Deputy Speaker raised. TfL is trying to bridge a gap as a result of loss of Government grant. We will come on to the borrowing issues on the second group of amendments. One of the methods, as in Earls Court, is to enter into deals with private developers to secure some form of revenue income from the asset that is then developed.
I understand all that. I was chair of finance on the Greater London council. At 29 I was responsible for a £3 billion budget. What we did was exactly that. We had a capital fund that was agreed on a cross-party basis, secured against the assets of London overall. That is not a risk. We had the assets, we could go to the City and borrow from the City. We would put it into a pool. I think the system was established by a Conservative administration and inherited by a Labour one. We had cross-party agreement that that was the way in which we would go forward. It was not on the basis of mortgaging the individual assets and going into a link-up with a private developer, and it was certainly not about the development of sites to give revenue income in that way.
The point of new clause 1 is that I do not object in principle to going into some forms of partnership for the development of a site that will secure a valid revenue income. The issue is exactly as the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) said—it must be open, transparent and agreed with the local community, London boroughs and all the other stakeholders: the passenger representatives, the trade unions on behalf of their members, and so on. It has to be a way of going forward together and that is not happening. That is why new clause 1 is so relevant.
Jeremy Corbyn
Is my friend aware that up till the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, any sale of land by a public body had to be offered to another public body first and had to fit into the local district plan? It was the abolition of that which set us into this dangerous area where freehold land is often sold on and it is therefore impossible to develop, for example, railway infrastructure.
John McDonnell
I recall that that legislation operated almost on the basis of giving first refusal to another public body—often another local authority. Then, if the land was genuinely surplus to requirements, it would be offered for sale, or, in some instances, there were joint initiatives. I remember the GLC working with the London boroughs on that basis.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the issue that his new clause seeks to address, which is that, frightened by the idea that it will lose substantial amounts of grant, TfL is rushing into deals to try to maximise its income. At the Earls Court exhibition centre site, all that will be built is luxury housing, with no affordable housing. At the Shepherd’s Bush market site, the market will be lost and luxury flats will be built. The one redeeming factor—that TfL might raise some money—is mitigated by the fact that it is entering into terrible deals. It ruins the communities where it develops and does not benefit the fare payer in the way that it intends.
John McDonnell
I agree.
The purpose of the new clause is to provide a list of assets and the intentions, or ambitions, that the Mayor has for the development of those assets to secure additional income. Another reason for the requirement to publish such a prospective asset development list is to ensure that these potential development sites are known to all interested parties. It has emerged in the discussions so far—Earls Court is the best example, but there may be others—that unless there is an open and transparent process and lists of available assets are produced, the information becomes almost private and there is an arrangement with an individual developer rather than a proper open, competitive process whereby others can make proposals for the site. In addition, unless there is clarity about the sites that TfL has and its intentions for them, local authorities, for example, are prevented from coming forward with their views about how they could work together with TfL on using the sites for the better development of the whole community as well as transport.
Mr Slaughter
That is exactly so. I wonder whether, in drafting new clause 1, my hon. Friend intended—I think he has now explained that he did—to address these other evils: first, with all the sites we have mentioned, a deal is made with a single developer, without advertisement or competition, so we have no idea whether the market has been tested; and secondly, the developer then enters into a deal, usually a master-plan agreement, that then dictates to the local planning authorities how the land should be developed. That is exactly the wrong way in which local development plans should work.
John McDonnell
That sort of process is a scandal, to be frank. We would not tolerate it in other public bodies, and I do not understand why we are allowing it to happen with TfL.
The whole purpose of having the lists proposed in new clause 1 is to make sure that the information is genuinely public. At the moment, even some of the people living on these sites are unaware of TfL’s ambitions. They were certainly not consulted about, or, at some stages, even aware of, the Earls Court development. I want to ensure that those who live on or have businesses on the sites or near them and the London boroughs and the communities in which they are located are fully aware of, fully conversant with, and fully informed about TfL’s asset base and its intentions for the assets within their area. If an asset is listed by TfL publishing information in this way, those stakeholders, including TfL’s employees and subsidiaries, will have at least an early warning of the development prospects of the site or asset in question.
This is one of the critical issues raised at the Opposed Bill Committee hearing on Tuesday 13 January 2015. I refer in particular to the evidence provided by Greater London Assembly member, Mr Murad Qureshi, on the basis of whose statements I tried to draft the new clause. Paragraph 115 of his evidence contains a startling example of the lack of information being provided by TfL. He said that his concerns about the whole Bill, particularly clause 5, relate to TfL’s transparency as a public body. Further on in his evidence, it emerged that the GLA had had to go through a freedom of information process to obtain information about TfL’s land holdings. It cannot be right that a public, democratically elected body has had to go through that process. In paragraph 116, he cited the Earls Court development as a perfect example of a TfL asset being developed with a lack of transparency on its decision making. In paragraph 122, he said that, to gain information on TfL’s planned investment programme, the GLA’s budget and performance committee—not individual members but a committee—was forced to make a freedom of information request. In paragraph 241, he sums up the fears that GLA members have about the secrecy and lack of transparency of TfL’s activities. Throughout the evidence session, petitioners gave examples of the difficulties they faced in securing any information about the plans that TfL and the Mayor had for the development and use of TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets. That was raised continually.
The new clause would ensure that at least one report is published that brings together all the information to which Londoners, London boroughs, the City of London corporation—if we have not abolished it by then—passenger groups and TfL’s own employees can refer when they want to know what assets TfL and its subsidiaries hold, but more importantly, what plans TfL and its subsidiaries, and therefore the Mayor, have for the development or use of these assets. This is a simple exercise in openness and transparency, and I cannot see why anyone, least of all TfL and its subsidiaries and the Mayor, would object to it.
Mr Slaughter
I think that people would be shocked to find that the GLA has had to use quasi-legal processes to obtain information from TfL. There is nothing new about TfL being a secretive body. I remember dealing with it 30 years ago over the appalling development of Hammersmith centre. I hoped that the GLA and the Mayor would provide some democratic accountability in that regard, but my hon. Friend’s example shows that that is clearly not happening. It is therefore all the more necessary that we put into statute the responsibility that TfL should have.
John McDonnell
As I said, this is a simple exercise; it is not difficult to do. In fact, most local authorities regularly undertake an asset base review that is published, and will often be translated into a link with their planning policies as well, so that people can know about these sites.
The new clause was drafted in the context of the deep suspicion that has arisen about the Mayor’s and TfL’s intentions with regard to linking up with private developers on grandiose development schemes that could curtail or impede the use of TfL’s land holdings and other assets for the long-term improvements of London’s transport network. Londoners, especially London’s elected representatives on the GLA and the London boroughs, have expressed their concerns about whether the rush to use TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets to bridge the current projected funding gap is overriding sound investment and operational judgments—indeed, at times, common sense—in relation to the use of those assets.
On Second Reading, hon. Members on both sides of the House expressed concern about TfL’s capacity to negotiate these schemes. At the evidence session on 13 January, people questioned whether TfL and its subsidiaries and the Mayor have the expertise to exercise sound judgments in the necessary negotiations with developers and development partners to determine what use an asset will be put to. They queried what ratio of benefit will be allocated to TfL and its subsidiaries, as against the benefit derived by the private sector partner, and what value for money TfL, and therefore London council tax payers and fare payers, will achieve in these deals.
Mr Slaughter
My hon. Friend is making a very good point, which was also raised on Second Reading by myself, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and others. We keep coming back to the Earls Court site, but it is a £12 billion development—the largest in London—and TfL jobs, affordable homes and one of London’s premier exhibition centres are being lost to provide, in effect, safe-deposit flats that probably no one will live in. TfL’s judgment has to be seriously brought into question even before we turn to the finances.
John McDonnell
New clause 1 will inform all stakeholders and interested parties that an asset held by TfL is being considered for use in a development deal and that action is under way or being planned over the next 12 months to use it in some way. That information will trigger the interest of stakeholders and enable them to gear up for discussions and consultations with TfL about the development and use of that asset. If the new clause is agreed to, no more would we see communities and local authorities shocked and surprised to find, late in the day and contrary to their wishes, that a site in their area has been included in a development deal with a private development company.
The proposal for the publication of a list of TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets and a statement of TfL’s intentions for them also goes to the heart of the concern of many hon. Members and others in relation to clauses 4 and 5. They are anxious about the Mayor’s ambition to use the vast range and magnitude of TfL’s and its subsidiaries’ assets to secure borrowing, which we will come to in the second group of amendments. There is concern that TfL’s standing could be put in serious jeopardy.
This is simply about ensuring that people are properly informed about the intentions, so that they can calculate the risk involved. The proposed report would be an invaluable tool in enabling all stakeholders to hold TfL and the Mayor to account if they launch a new venture as part of large-scale property development deals. Hon. Members should not underestimate TfL’s massive asset base—it has 3,000 properties across London—and in particular the assets located in central London. Those historic inherited sites are located in the most lucrative parts of the city, which private developers have an interest in developing. In fact, it is widely known in property circles that property developers from across the world are desperate to engage in dialogue with TfL on the prospect of gaining access to those sites and, to be frank, of running rings around TfL and the Mayor and walking away with massive profits.
There is a risk in so many TfL sites and assets coming into the market as part of such development deals. A report requiring TfL to identify the value of the assets, in bands, and its plans for the asset sites over the next 12 months would at least result in a proper assessment taking place. The report would shed critical light on both the quantum and the timing of the potential risk to TfL, Londoners, passengers, employees and council tax payers. That is why new clause 1 is so fundamental to the Bill.
Jeremy Corbyn
The parallel with the requirements on Network Rail to consider the effect of disposed-of land assets on future rail usage is interesting. Despite its being a private company—albeit Government-owned—Network Rail protects future rail usage and rail lines, even to the extent of protecting land on disused lines. Such a requirement does not appear to fall on TfL with regard to its own use of development sites in future. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?
John McDonnell
We will come on to that issue later, and I am sure my hon. Friend will take it up when he speaks to his own amendments.
Without the publication of information about the ownership of sites and the intentions for them, there is real uncertainty about the Mayor’s intentions for specific sites. That is what we are worried about.
In conclusion on new clause 1, this new clause is fundamental to the Bill if Londoners are to be protected against the flights of speculation of TfL under the direction of, and perhaps pressure from, the Mayor, whoever he or she may be, and speculative developers from across the globe, including some—this has been mentioned with regard to the Earls Court site—who are linked to tax-avoiding companies and corporations, including oligarchs with doubtful histories and backgrounds.
Mr Slaughter
On the agreement entered into on the Earls Court exhibition centre, the publication of such a list might reveal that, on Earls Court 1, which is the largest piece of land, the developer held a relatively short lease on the property and the freehold and the reversion remained with TfL. However, TfL has a 37% stake in that joint venture company, which means that it has a minority of votes on the board. Effectively, it has surrendered all decision making on the site to the developer, but, should the developer of this £2 company go bust, the taxpayer would be left with the liability.
John McDonnell
I would hope that a publication in which TfL indicated its plans for specific sites would include information about which companies and corporations it is dealing with as partners. On the Earls Court development, there are real concerns that TfL has got into bed with a company that is based in a tax haven, and I believe that some directors of individual companies have been prosecuted. That allegation has been made before on the Floor of the House and I think it is accurate.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)
Order. Before you make your next intervention, Mr Slaughter, do you think you could make them a bit shorter? They are getting very long. It is obviously short-hand intervention except when it is a Slaughter intervention. Please be brief.
Mr Slaughter
Shorter, not Slaughter—I appreciate that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I simply want to say, for the avoidance of doubt, that it is true that some of the partner organisations involved in the Earls Court development have been convicted of fraud, but not on the TfL-owned land and not including Capco, which is the major developer. It has many faults, but that is not one of them.
John McDonnell
In developments of TfL assets, it is important to have full transparency on the relationship with individual companies. I say that in the light of the report published last week, which stated:
“Hundreds of millions of pounds’ worth of UK properties held in secretive offshore companies have been used to launder the proceeds of international corruption”.
That has been identified by Scotland Yard. The report went on:
“The scale of the problem has been revealed by Transparency International on Wednesday, with the anti-corruption campaign group warning that the UK has become ‘a safe haven for corrupt capital stolen from around the world’.”
It is absolutely critical to ensure openness and transparency on the proposals for individual sites to guard against TfL and others entering into relationships with companies and corporations that we do not consider appropriate.
I now turn to new clause 2, which is another attempt to safeguard the assets with regard to landholdings that may be required for the development of the transport network in London. In its submission to Members of the House, the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers has publicly made a point with which I fully concur. Its briefing quite clearly sets out the anxiety about the loss of potential sites, saying that new clause 2 will therefore ensure that when TfL or any subsidiary seeks to lease or develop such sites, there is full consultation with the local communities likely to be affected, the Greater London Authority, London boroughs, the City of London and relevant trade unions. That consultation has to take place before Transport for London or any subsidiary enters into a contract involving the development of land other than for the provision or maintenance of transport services.
Mr Slaughter
I fully support new clause 2 and, indeed, all the amendments tabled in my hon. Friend’s name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I fear that this is my last intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that you will think it no discourtesy to the House if I say that an unbreakable constituency commitment means that I am unable to participate further in the debate or to join my hon. Friends in the Lobby. Nevertheless, I put on the record my great concerns about the Bill. I hope that it will be fully debated tonight, and that it will not pass in its current form, because that would do a serious injustice not only to my constituents, but to all Londoners.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 29).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now proposed.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will explain to the House what has happened before I take the point of order. The procedural motion that we just agreed to was that the motion be proposed, because the mover was on his feet. That means that the motion on new clause 1 has been proposed and the debate continues. It was not a closure motion, but what is called the Golding closure. The Minister needs to decide whether he would like to speak on new clause 1, because we are now debating new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. Are there any takers?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Okay. This is very unusual, but I call Mr Corbyn on a point of order.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am unclear from the response you are getting from those on the Treasury Bench, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether the Minister intends to speak. Can you make that clear or ensure that it is made clear for the benefit of the House? After all, we are considering the disposal of a vast amount of public assets in this Bill and I would have thought that, at the very least, the Government would have a view on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order for the Chair. I cannot make the Minister speak.
George Galloway
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a zombie Parliament and this is a grand—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Let us not—[Interruption.] Mr Kawczynski, please! Just one moment. Can we deal with this point of order, make sure that every Member knows what they are doing and try to proceed with the business? I would like to hear what Mr Galloway’s point of order is.
George Galloway
This is a grand theft auto Bill concerning billions of pounds of public assets. A closure motion was moved after just over an hour, which the Opposition did not turn up for, except in the case of 14 people, and now the Minister will not even speak on the matter. What kind of Parliament is this? [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Just one moment, Minister. That is not a point of order for me. Let us be clear that we are now debating new clause 1 and the other amendments in the group.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just one moment, Mr McDonnell. Please allow me to make sure that everybody understands; perhaps then there will be fewer points of order. We are on new clause 1 and the other amendments on the selection list. The next speaker is the sponsor of the Bill.
Bob Blackman
I rise to respond to the very long and detailed speech made by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
Bob Blackman
Not yet—I have not even started my speech. I expect to make some progress before taking an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
The Bill started in the other place in November 2010. It has gone through Second Reading in this place and an Opposed Private Bill Committee, where there was the opportunity to make many interventions and many changes. After Second Reading in this place, the proposers approached all those who opposed the Bill, as I suggested they should, to encourage them to develop their concerns so that there was an opportunity to understand those concerns and to amend the legislation, if necessary. The reality is that they have moved substantially and I want to respond on the details.
The coalition Government have moved towards devolved government in London and across the country. Amendments 21 to 29 would take power away from the Mayor of London and require the Secretary of State to intervene. That is a centralising move that the House should reject absolutely, as more power is being devolved to the regions and to London in particular.
Briefly on new clause 1, the disposal of non-operational assets is covered by section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which was introduced by the last Labour Government and has been added to since. The review that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington proposes in the new clause would be extremely expensive. That cost would fall on the taxpayer and the fare payer.
Bob Blackman
I will give way after I make this point. On the visibility of Transport for London’s property portfolio, there is already a searchable website that any hon. Member, member of the public or interested party can search to establish what property holdings Transport for London has right across the capital. I am very surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not taken the opportunity to look at that website and see the opportunities that exist.
John McDonnell
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. On the one hand, he argues that it is too expensive to produce a list under new clause 1, but on the other he says that a list exists. The new clause will ensure that Transport for London publishes a list not only of its assets, but of its plans for those assets. That is the whole issue in this debate—the lack of openness and transparency from Transport for London about the development of its intentions for individual sites, as we have seen with the disastrous consequences for Earls Court, where 700 homes were lost to the local community. Do the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of Transport for London, and the Mayor of London oppose new clause 1 to maintain that level of secrecy in their relationship with private developers?
Bob Blackman
The reality is that the Greater London authority and assembly exist to scrutinise the work of the Mayor and Transport for London. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that they are not doing their job, he should condemn the members of that assembly. We should be placing power in the hands of Transport for London to carry out the functions we want, and to open up capacity for housing that is desperately required by Londoners. We must then ensure that that work is subject to scrutiny by the GLA and assembly members.
John McDonnell
Has the hon. Gentleman read the witness account from the Opposed Private Bill Committee? At that Committee, as I said earlier, a Greater London assembly member reported that the assembly’s own budgetary committee had to use freedom of information requests to gain information from Transport for London about the use of its moneys and assets. The lack of scrutiny is a result of the impediment placed by TfL in the way of Greater London assembly members. Will he read the transcript of evidence to the Opposed Private Bill Committee that was presented to the House?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is a shame that the details he cites were not reflected in the amendments that were finally tabled only a few days ago—if that—so that the sponsors of the Bill and Members that support it could analyse them.
John McDonnell
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said that the amendments were tabled late—I think that is the allegation—and that the sponsors of the Bill could not respond. The amendments were placed before the Clerks in time—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. One second. Do not worry; relax. Let me have a little look at this. I assure the House that the amendments were not tabled late by the hon. Gentleman. There was a mistake in the Table Office, but that has absolutely nothing to do with what is being said. We do not need any more points of order on that as we have clarified the matter well. I am sure, Mr Blackman, that we will proceed in a courteous way.
Bob Blackman
Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker.
On new clause 2, the issue of securing consent for the disposal of land owned by TfL is well established in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. It includes a statutory regime for the disposal of former operational land, including requirements for the Secretary of State’s consent. The sponsors of the Bill therefore consider that further consent would be unnecessary and undesirable.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman mentioned housing in London and the disposal of assets to meet housing needs. Is he aware that under permitted development rights, the conversion of office or industrial property does not require local planning consent so there is no social housing content to it? Does he accept that the Bill would be strengthened no end if there was a requirement that the disposal of property for housing purposes must reflect local housing needs in the area where that property is disposed of?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Let me help with the debate, which we want to get under way. Mr Corbyn, I want you to save your speech for when you seek to catch my eye, rather than use it now on an intervention.
Bob Blackman
I reject the hon. Gentleman’s intervention and the point behind it. On behalf of the—
Bob Blackman
I will not take any more interventions, as we have gone on long enough—[Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. If the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wishes to intervene, quite rightly it is up to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) whether he gives way. He has made it clear that he does not want to give way again.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have no idea. It is not for the Chair to judge, thank goodness, and I do not need a crystal ball to work it out. The good thing is that the hon. Gentleman has at least made it clear that he does not want to take any more interventions and he wants to get his speech under way.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I hope it is a point of order. I know you would not wish to waste the Chair’s time, Mr Corbyn, because I want to call you to speak.
Jeremy Corbyn
I appreciate that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) is the sponsor of the Bill and responsible for conducting it through the House. Is it normal for the sponsor of a Bill to give way so that legitimate questions and concerns can be raised and answered?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thought my judgment was correct: that is not a point of order. You are after a point of clarification, but that is not up to me. It is up to the sponsor of the Bill whether he wishes to give way. He has been courteous and given way a couple of times. Perhaps if he is allowed to speak for a little longer, I can call the Opposition spokesman and then some Back Benchers. I would like to do that and hear what the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) has to say.
Bob Blackman
On behalf of the sponsors of the Bill, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and amendments 21 to 29.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
What an extraordinary spectacle we have seen on the Government Front Benches! As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, a set of proposals are being brought forward on important issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has spoken at length—some might have thought that he spoke at too great a length, but that is not for me to judge.
During all that, however, those on the Government Front Bench have remained mute on an issue of great importance to Londoners and to us all. I want to know why the Government have taken that position. Has the Minister consulted with the great helmsman of infrastructure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will not be happy that the Government are not putting forward a position on the Bill? If he wants to intervene on me, he is welcome to.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene. This is private business. A number of amendments have been tabled that, in my judgment, have very little support, even on the Labour Benches and among London Members whom the Bill affects directly. I will make the Government’s position clear when we reach Third Reading.
Mr Marsden
I am sure the House is extremely grateful that the Minister is not going to take a Trappist vow of silence for the whole debate.
John McDonnell
This is truly shocking. I have never known a situation where those on the Government Benches have not taken a view on a private Bill of this moment. This is the point we were making earlier. We are talking about the use of billions of pounds of public assets. The amendments are trying to ensure accountability of those assets—openness and transparency—yet the Government do not have a view on that. Does my hon. Friend not find that absolutely outrageous?
Mr Marsden
The House will have heard my hon. Friend, as will those outside this House, including millions of Londoners, and they will make their own judgments. You wish me to speak on the specifics of the first group of amendments, Mr Deputy Speaker, which, as others have said, would impose additional duties on TfL when it wished to sell or develop non-operational land. Those on the Opposition Front Bench welcome that change to the Bill, which has already been made in the other place and offers some clarification on the distinction between operational and non-operational land.
I would like to say a few further words on this group. I understand the desire of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington, for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), and of the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway), to submit the Bill to additional scrutiny in the hope of obtaining further concessions from Transport for London. It is for others to judge, but I know that they are disappointed and very surprised that no concessions have come forward.
Jeremy Corbyn
We do not just want concessions; we want sensible planning of the transport needs of London. My hon. Friend will have heard our concerns in the earlier debate on new clause 1. Increasing use of the tube means increased trains, increased sidings and increased maintenance depots. If all the infrastructure facilities are sold off in a fire sale of public assets to bolster the income of Transport for London, Londoners will be short-changed and we will have greater transport chaos, not less.
Mr Marsden
I hear what my hon. Friend says. We want sensible planning and infrastructure to be at the heart of any development, which is why the Opposition have so strongly supported the establishment of an infrastructure commission. It is also why I am so surprised that those on the Government Front Bench do not feel they need to comment on this matter at this stage.
I return to the specifics of new clause 1. It is important that the concerns raised in the House today are addressed, especially in the light of the ongoing controversy over the Earls Court development, which has inevitably sharpened views and concerns about the general direction of travel in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, he is trying to reflect the views raised by people and petitioners. He has also raised the issue of homes and housing. Those, too, are important issues for us to consider on both sides of the House. There are also the issues of transparency and consultation, which, my hon. Friend has made clear, lie behind many of his concerns in new clause 1.
We are not opposed in principle to granting TfL greater powers, but, as always, there must be a balanced approach to any restrictions imposed on the relevant public authority. It is important that powers are not granted to TfL in theory if they then prove to be unworkable in practice. As legislators, we always have to be concerned about the law of unintended consequences and that is why I will now raise some points about this group in particular.
We have not spoken a great deal about new clause 2 so far, but as I understand it, it would debar Transport for London from leasing land that has been in operational use or even been considered for operational use, however briefly. As I understand it, there would be no barrier to TfL selling such land—indeed, it currently has the power to do so. Is there a danger, by forbidding the leasing of land but not the sale, of unintentionally creating an incentive to sell, with some assets lost to the public interest for ever? I feel sure that that is not the wish or the intention of the movers of the new clause.
John McDonnell
Clearly, there could be that interpretation, but a wise Mayor and a wise management of TfL would not jeopardise the future planning of the transport network in that way. The key aspect of new clause 2, which, unfortunately, I was not allowed to speak to, is a full consultation with all stakeholders to enable the complete engagement of all interested parties in the development of these sites.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point at the conclusion of his comments, which goes to the heart of the point he raised earlier on consultation and transparency. Since the Minister has not been prepared to address that here, I sincerely hope he will address it in a subsequent group or on summing up the whole debate.
I well understand the intentions behind the amendments. The Bill has already been improved through parliamentary scrutiny. It is important that draft legislation, whether private or public, is tested even at this late stage in the parliamentary process. I welcome the opportunity the amendments have presented to probe the Minister and the Bill’s sponsor, the hon. Member for Harrow East, and the clarification, even at this late stage, that I hope they will bring to the concerns.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington referred to the difficulties that members of the London assembly have had in getting information on the assets concerned. Let us be in no doubt whatever: it is the responsibility of the Minister and the sponsor to justify the accountability agreements to the House tonight. I am interested to know whether members of the Greater London authority have asked for the powers that would oblige them to be consulted.
The issues that lie behind the first set of amendments go to the heart of transparency and accountability—whether of Governments or public corporations. It is important that they be given every probing and every ventilation in the Chamber tonight.
George Galloway
This has not been our finest hour, as I tried to say in a point of order just 10 minutes or so ago. The hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) drew attention to the dog that did not bark in the form of the Minister, but there have been other dogs that have not barked or even turned up. In a short speech, that is the first point I should like to make.
I am not a London Member, but I am a user of London transport and I have been a resident of London for 35 years. My eye was caught by this item of business because of a strong point of view I have about Earls Court. I expected to come into a packed Chamber. I especially expected to come into a Chamber packed with London Members of Parliament, but they have been very thin on the ground, with the honourable exceptions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) on either side of me, and the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) who unavoidably had to leave. That, however, has been the size of it. That is truly extraordinary given the importance of this measure.
This is, potentially, a grand theft auto Bill. It deals with 3,000 properties. I have no idea of their value because no figure has been published. Taking a rudimentary guess, I think TfL—about which more later—will have £3 billion, £4 billion or £5 billion of potentially disposable public assets, with almost no transparency or accountability, and no discussion or negotiation with other stakeholders.
By anyone’s standards, this is truly a remarkably important measure. It is more important even than I had thought before entering the Chamber. As I listened with horror to the narrative developed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, it took me back—your esteemed father was there, Mr Deputy Speaker, as was Madam Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair a moment ago, as she was in the Treasury at the time—to when the Treasury forced the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, down the road of a private finance initiative that came within an ace of sinking the London underground and costing the taxpayer £3 billion.
John McDonnell
This was the point I raised earlier. The key aspect of the public-private partnership was the inability of the House, London Members and others just to get their hands on the information about the architecture of that PPP before it was imposed. Otherwise, I think it would have been exposed very early on.
George Galloway
It was indeed a PPP, not a PFI—that alphabet soup is frequently jumbled in my mind. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. If we had had proper scrutiny at the time, rather than the dragooning of Labour Members into supporting the Treasury position, it would have been exposed far earlier.
With the new clauses and amendments, and with the arguments made this evening, we have tried to expose folly on a potentially even larger scale. My hon. Friend’s speech was truncated rather ham-fistedly—if the promoter of the Bill will forgive my saying so—such that it did not achieve what the promoter wanted; it just made my hon. Friend, our expert on these matters, sit down, but we are still discussing what he was proposing. And this was after only one hour and 10 minutes. His argument was forensic. As I have often opined in here, Government Members do not like it up them—some of them do, that is true, but the promoter of the Bill did not, and it was because arrow after arrow of logic and forensic examination from my hon. Friend was hitting home that the attempt to close down the debate was mounted.
“Mind the gap” is the rubric to remember. This is all about the gap in funding from central Government to Transport for London and closing that gap through the disposal of public assets. I said earlier in an intervention that on these matters left-wing thinking has moved on—even such left-wing thinking as that personified by my hon. Friend. We are not against making non-performing public assets perform in one way or another, although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North pointed out, we do not want them performing in such a way that they can never again be used to perform the purpose for which they were originally intended, which in this case, of course, is to provide transport for London—the clue being in the name. In other words, we do not want land disposed of in a way that Transport for London can no longer control, so that assets are lost for ever. We are not against making public assets perform, if they are not necessary now—or perhaps even for many years and decades in the future—but we have certain conditions, and one of them has to be transparency.
Jeremy Corbyn
New clause 1 does not actually require anything other than publication of information about non-operational assets that may be considered for any future activity or sale. Does the hon. Gentleman not find it extraordinary that the promoter of the Bill, and apparently the Government en masse, are opposed to the publication—no more, no less—of the information?
George Galloway
I can think of only one reason why they would be so opposed—public outrage would result. I am absolutely sure, in respect of the Earls Court development, to which I am about to turn, that had the public been properly informed about its development, public opposition to what in many respects is an act of vandalism would not have permitted the development—or at least the political cost would have been much higher.
On the subject of transparency, the promoter of the Bill is simply wrong. He said he was against a list because it would be too expensive, but then, in the same breath, he said that there was a list, and he prayed in aid the existence of a Greater London assembly. However, the assembly’s budget committee, no less, told the Committee—the House of Commons—that it had had to go to law, through freedom of information searches, to force Transport for London, which nominally it is supposed to supervise, to give it any information at all. So transparency is definitely not the middle name of Transport for London, and as long as that is the case, a suspicion will linger that grand theft auto is the game.
We have a right to say that if a public authority—in this case, Transport for London—is to get into bed with the private sector, the bed partners should be reputable and transparent and located here in Britain and paying tax in Britain. We know that in the case of Earls Court that is not true. Why do companies locate in the Channel Islands? Because they prefer the climate, or because they prefer the opaque nature of taxation matters there? Surely we all know, given what has happened over the past few years, exactly why these cowboy developers locate themselves as far from public scrutiny, media scrutiny and the rest as they possibly can.
I said that I would turn to Earls Court and I shall, but I notice that the brother of the Mayor has just left the Chamber. I had wanted him to be here when I said this. Forgive me, I have to say it: if public authorities and elected figures are going to play fast and loose, potentially, with large sums of public money, it is crucial that the public have trust in that institution or those public figures, but I do not believe that that trust exits when it comes to Transport for London or the current Mayor. I can speak ill of him now, but perhaps not in the new Parliament, should he be elected—no doubt you would be on your feet, Mr Deputy Speaker, and telling me to sit down. However, I do not believe that the conduct of public affairs by Boris Johnson over the past five years, or four years—of course he is going to continue breaking a promise in both offices—or the conduct of Transport for London—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is straying. I allowed him some leeway in this group of amendments, but it certainly does not cover the election of the Mayor of London, which is something we will pass over when this goes through. We need to stick to the new clauses and amendments.
George Galloway
I stand corrected, Mr Deputy Speaker.
That leads me to my last point. The Earls Court exhibition centre was a particular favourite of mine—I declare that interest: I have skated in it, I have shopped for my ideal home in it, I have listened to Bob Dylan in it several times. It was an act of vandalism to have it closed, but even worse was the loss of hundreds of TfL jobs—skilled jobs, real jobs, jobs that most Members have no idea how to do, jobs where men and women make things and fix things. Those jobs were cleansed out of central London. That was an absolute outrage.
Even worse than that is the fact that hundreds and hundreds of affordable homes were cleansed from Earls Court to be replaced by apartments so lavish and so expensive that even Members of Parliament could not afford to live in them, let alone the local people whose housing stock was devastated at a stroke. That was all done with virtually no public scrutiny or accountability, and certainly no offer was made to other public authorities for the use of this land, as was the case prior to legislation in the 1980s, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said.
It really is an outrage—but it is, we fear, a sign of things to come. If this new clause is not passed and these amendments are not taken on board—no concession has been made from the other side—we fear that a sweetheart relationship between TfL and the Mayor, any Mayor, will exist to the detriment of the railway workers and of the bus workers whom I was proud to represent here in Parliament for many years as an MP sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. Local people, whose homes are razed as a result of these sweetheart deals, will be disadvantaged. What will be prejudiced most of all is the strategic need to keep London moving smoothly, economically and cheaply for the millions who depend on public transport.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I must say that I find the performance of the sponsor of this Bill utterly extraordinary. My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) spoke for an hour or so and took many interventions. He put on the record many serious concerns about the Bill and took interventions quite happily from anyone and everyone. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) then moved a procedural motion to prevent my hon. Friend from continuing his speech. That procedural motion was, unfortunately, carried. The sponsor then spoke for the briefest possible time—about 10 minutes, taking two or three interventions—and said no more. The Minister has absolutely nothing whatever to say, yet there seems to be a determination on the Government side to prevent us from having a proper debate about new clauses 1 and 2 and the other amendments in the group.
I find it utterly extraordinary that the sponsor of a Bill that has huge implications for transport infrastructure developments and the people of London—4 million of whom use London underground at its busiest times every day, with many more using buses, overground interchanges and so forth—has so little to say about the crucial aspects of future planning and the possible disposal of assets. I think it is utterly extraordinary, and I would have thought that Transport for London would have briefed the hon. Member for Harrow East a bit better or got somebody to promote the Bill who was serious about promoting it and showed some proper knowledge and concern about the subject. The hon. Gentleman should be utterly ashamed of himself for his performance today. If he believes in this Bill, he presumably has something to say about it and presumably has some knowledge of its contents. It is not good enough to come here, mutter a few words and say, “I am the sponsor of this Bill.”
I hope this Bill does not pass. I hope we do not achieve the end of this Bill in this Parliament. Sadly, under parliamentary procedures, it can be transferred to the next Parliament. I hope to be here in the next Parliament, and I will continue my defence of access to public transport for the people of London and of their access to the assets that have been built up so carefully and so diligently by public servants of London Underground and later Transport for London. Whoever takes over the promotion of this Bill—the hon. Gentleman might no longer be with us after the next election—will, I hope, be somebody a bit more diligent than him in understanding its contents. I find what we have gone through thus far to be utterly unbelievable.
There is nothing very dramatic in new clause 1 that the Bill’s sponsor—perhaps he did not have a chance to read the new clause—could not have accepted or agreed to. It says simply:
“Within 3 months of…Royal Asset, TfL shall publish a list of non-operational assets, held by itself or a subsidiary”.
What possible problem could there be from that? It goes to say that TfL
“shall publish each year a list of non-operational assets that are under consideration for development where steps towards such development are planned to commence”.
We all have a right to know about publicly owned assets. Any self-respecting organisation should publish those assets. Local authorities have to publish them and do publish them, so what is so different about Transport for London in this respect?
John McDonnell
Let me explain the genesis of the list in new clause 2. It came from the people who made representations to us on this Bill. They simply wanted to be part of the decision-making process in some form. Some might not necessarily want to be participants in deciding, but they do at least want to be consulted—nothing more than that.
Jeremy Corbyn
I have followed from a distance—it is not in my constituency—the goings on in Hammersmith over Earls Court and the development that goes with it. The points raised by the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) are so important in explaining what has happened there. The campaigners wanted to preserve local facilities, jobs and the opportunity for an improved transport system in the future. The very least we can do in considering this Bill is to look seriously at what TfL is trying to do.
We are all well aware of the problems of transport in London and of the need for serious long-term planning. I entered the House in 1983 when the Greater London Authority Bill became an Act, abolishing the Greater London council. There was a huge discussion about the role of Greater London council, formerly the London county council, in public transport matters. At the end of the debate on transport issues at that time, we ended up with the establishment of Transport for London as a co-ordinating body for public transport undertakings in London. Fortunately, the right wing of the Conservative party was defeated on its wish to deregulate the bus service in London.
Even at that time, we were expressing concern about the disposal of assets. There was a degree of thinking among London Underground and others that transport usage in London would continue to decline. It did not. It has not. We now have a very fast-growing public transport network in London. As I said, London underground has a maximum capacity of 4 million passengers a day, which has been achieved twice—once during the Olympics and then more recently. London’s population is going to rise, but car ownership will probably continue to fall in London because of the costs, congestion and so forth, so there is likely to be greater and greater demand for public transport.
My constituency probably has one of the lowest levels of car ownership in London, if not in the country, with less than a third of the population having access to a car. They rely totally on public transport. They are often very happy with the transport they receive. Clearly, however, there are growing demands. Any sensible transport authority would not be planning to dispose of assets; it would be protecting those assets, in order to allow expansion to take place in the future.
Let me give an example. Finsbury Park station, which is in my constituency, is a very busy underground station, a very busy interchange between Network Rail and London underground, and a very busy bus interchange with both those services, as well as serving local people who walk to the station. It takes about 30 million passengers on the underground and 6 or 7 million on the overground every year, and it is dangerously overcrowded. I have raised the issue many times on the Floor of the House. It is to his credit that, in response to a question that I asked following the congestion during the Christmas period, the Secretary of State agreed to visit the station, which he duly did. He met me on the overground platform, and we spent an hour walking around the station and looking at the facilities.
I believe that what is being proposed for Finsbury Park station is inadequate. Lifts are to be built, which is good, and there is to be a new entrance hall, which is also good, but unfortunately the Wells terrace entrance is to be closed, probably for eight months but perhaps for longer. That has to be worked out, and I hope that the closure period will be minimal. I also hope that the land assets surrounding the station will be protected, because I believe that the station as a whole is fundamentally inadequate to meet the needs of the travelling public. At peak times, about 30 Victoria line trains go through it in each direction, as well as a smaller number of Piccadilly line trains, and the platforms are too narrow. Someone, at some point, must grasp the nettle and make the decision to rebuild the station with much more platform capacity. Such rebuilding is not unusual: it has been done at Angel, and at other stations. However, it will not be possible if that option is closed off by sales of assets surrounding the station.
I think that I understand Transport for London’s motives. Because the capital needs of the network are underfunded—that may sound extraordinary to people who come from outside London, but London underground is a very expensive system to operate because it is so deep—and because of the difficulty of raising funds to deal with the problem, TfL has looked for assets to dispose of. That tends to be a short-sighted option, because it prevents later improvements to and development of sites. I hope that TfL understands that when those of us who represent constituencies with a very high usage of public transport—particularly London underground—raise concerns about the Bill, it is not because we want to delay its progress in a curmudgeonly way, but because we want to protect public assets so that we can have a better public transport system in the future.
I hope that the Bill’s sponsor will at least have the good grace to report our concerns to Transport for London, and to suggest that its representatives arrange to meet those of us who have raised those concerns and will continue to do so. We want an efficient public transport system in London, which I think is supposed to be the priority for Transport for London’s board. I am particularly concerned about Finsbury Park station, the relationship with Network Rail, and—in my view—the need for a single management of the whole station. At present, the station is managed by Transport for London and London Underground, and by Network Rail on the overground. I should have thought that making the station safer and more usable was the least that Transport for London could do. Some of us will not run away from this issue, because we are passionate about defending the interests of our constituents and others who use the underground system.
I want to mention two more stations in my area before I deal specifically with my amendments. Archway station is a deep and fairly old station in my constituency, which was once the last station on the Northern line. It was called Highgate then. It was rebuilt in the 1960s, and the plan included the building of a very large office block known as Archway Tower above the station. To call it an unattractive building is to do it credit. It is ugly, to put it mildly. No amount of cladding, Russian vines or anything else would make it an attractive building, although some cladding might improve it.
That building was constructed by London Underground, with public money. A succession of leases have been sold, at greater and greater cost, from developer to developer, and on many occasions the building has had to be leased back to the public sector. This is an object lesson in the mis-operation of public assets vis-à-vis private assets. The public have spent a great deal of money on the building of Archway Tower, on leasing it to developers who have then subleased it, and on its refurbishment for the Department for Social Security and, when it moved, the Office of the Public Guardian and the Lord Chancellor’s Department, as it then was.
The building has now been sold to a group called Essential Living, which is turning it into luxury flats. When I went to see its representatives, they told me that they were developing 120 luxury flats. When I asked them what was the social housing content, they looked at me blankly. When I then asked what contribution they were making to the community, they offered to subsidise an arts festival in the area. I want council housing there, because that would at least alleviate the problems in the area.
That asset was disposed of with no forethought, and there are many other such examples throughout London. I hope that Transport for London will understand that it has a real responsibility in respect of the way in which it uses its assets. We want to know what assets it has, and why it wants to put them on to the market or use them to engage in a joint private development. I am not against development when it is appropriate. My borough—along with, I am sure, that of the hon. Member for Harrow East—has massive housing issues. Indeed, London is full of such issues. I have no problem if TfL uses genuinely surplus land for housing. However, it must be housing that will benefit the ordinary people of London who are living in the desperately overcrowded, poor-quality private rented accommodation about which I know the hon. Gentleman is also concerned. Those people need to live in social units run by the council, or by a housing association, and to pay social rather than market rents.
As a public body, Transport for London has a responsibility in that regard. The aim of the Bill is to make TfL into a market operation that will maximise whatever market interest it has while ignoring its wider social responsibility to deal with housing issues throughout London. I hope that that is fully understood.
The other station that I want to mention is Tufnell Park, whose problems relate to the sale of land and local assets. Tufnell Park station is very busy, although it is fairly small. I have just received a letter from Transport for London telling me that it will close the station for many months while it replaces the lifts. I have written to Transport for London—as have the councillors representing both the Islington wards that are adjacent to it, as well as the council itself—expressing concern about the fact that the station will be inoperative, and the fact that the nearest two stations are a considerable distance away. Why can TfL not replace one lift at a time, so that the station can remain in use? TfL says that this is how it does things, and that it is cheaper this way. Well, it may be cheaper for TfL, but it is not cheaper for all the people who will have a very long walk, and the people who must spend more rather than less time travelling to work.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey the message that sensible planning, rather than the disposal of neighbouring assets which, in the case of other stations, could be used to make local improvements, could alleviate some of the problems.
Of course I recognise that assets have to be improved and the important works that have to be done on all transport networks at various times. The amendments I have tabled—amendments 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29—relate to the schedule at the end of the Bill. It is headed:
“Property which may be charged by a TfL subsidiary without the consent of the Secretary of State.”
That worries me a great deal, because if the property referred to in this schedule can be disposed of by TfL without the consent of the Secretary of State, I ask myself where will there be any public accountability over a decision made by TfL?
Jeremy Corbyn
Of running anything actually, but particularly a railroad, as my friend reminds me.
Something else that
“may be charged by a TfL subsidiary without the consent of the Secretary of State”
is, as sub-paragraph (m) states,
“property related to the use of land for commercial letting”.
That makes me very worried, because if it is a building that has been let our leased out by TfL, possibly at a very high rent, and it decides to sell it off and cash in on it, then the public income and the capital value are lost, and at the end of the lease the capital opportunity of doing something else with that building is also lost.
My local authority, the London borough of Islington, tries not to sell property. It would much rather maximise the income from it, but maintain the capital, so that it is its for the future and for future use. [Interruption.] Does my Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) wish to intervene?
Jeremy Corbyn
No, my hon. Friend is just agitated because he is so appalled at the news he is hearing.
Sub-paragraph (n) refers to
“land which is not operational land”.
Again, that land needs to be kept in the public sector, so that we can then use it for development in the future.
This Bill has a huge effect on a very large number of people. I have just pointed out three stations in my area which need a great deal of attention. Some attention is being given to Finsbury Park and I am grateful for what has been done so far on that, and I am grateful to the Minister for visiting, but consideration must be given to the future needs of the area and future transport developments. I also mentioned Archway and the possibility of a big road improvement scheme which will introduce a piazza for the people of the area, and made points about Tufnell Park station.
Highbury and Islington station has been well developed and, because there was co-operation between public bodies, a post office has been closed and relocated and passed to TfL, so that it could demolish it and create a much larger circulating area for the very large numbers of people who use that station, including on Arsenal match days. That is a good example of public services working together. Had that building been sold years ago, as would be envisaged if it had been a TfL building, that possibility would have gone and the public would have had to buy their own property back at enormous cost. So I ask the Bill’s promoters to think a bit more deeply about their guardianship and stewardship of and responsibility for a massive public asset.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I am listening with interest to my hon. Friend’s brief remarks, and as someone who has been a resident of London for the past 28 years, I am greatly concerned by the serious matters he is raising. Would it not be premature to advance this Bill in any way now, and would it not be a suitable matter to be debated and voted on in the general election as a major issue?
Jeremy Corbyn
I am not quite sure how far it will become a major issue in the general election, but I will certainly do my best to make it a major issue in Islington North, and I will draw the attention of the people of the area to what is going on with this Bill.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point about sequential repair of the lifts at Tufnell Park and the disruption that could be caused. I am more than happy to get in touch with TfL and find out exactly why it is planning to do this work in this way and ask whether it has looked at alternatives.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am grateful to the Minister; that is helpful because there is understandable concern locally about the stations I have mentioned and their safety. If it helps him, I am happy to write an explanatory note about it and send it to him straight away, so that he can understand my concerns and the local concerns, and we can then have a serious meeting and discussion. I thank the Minister very much for that.
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
My hon. Friend says that he does not think this will be a major general election issue, but does he not accept that the selling off of the nation’s assets and this obsession with privatisation and making a quick buck and selling things off cheap should be precisely the sort of issues we debate at the general election?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Time is running out, but we are speaking to specific amendments and I do not want us to get into a general debate about the general election. We will be doing that soon enough—if we have not already been doing it for 12 months.
George Galloway
Just before the hon. Gentleman concludes—and being mindful of your stricture, Mr Deputy Speaker—is not the point that this is a Bill to sell off the family silver, as Harold Macmillan famously put it, and we can only sell off the family silver once?
Jeremy Corbyn
The stewardship of public assets is very important. As someone who believes in public enterprise and public endeavour, I have to concede that the London Passenger Transport Board was established under a Tory Government in 1933. Lord Ashfield was its first chairman and he did a fine job in promoting its development. So even then, in the depths of the recession in the 1930s, there was a consensus that the public ownership of assets mattered, and he stood up against a lot of private interests to achieve that. Let us preserve what we have got, and recognise that the future inevitably is very unpredictable.
I came into parliamentary politics at a time when London’s population was falling and bus and tube use was falling. I remember the then director of London Underground telling me how there were going to be fewer trains and fewer passengers and how LU was thinking about which assets it could get rid of because it did not need them. I cautioned against that, saying that it was a counsel of despair. I said that we needed more people on trains and buses and that fewer people in cars would lead to less congestion. That big public debate happened in London, and we moved into an era not of road building but of rail development and other improvements. London became the first capital city in which public transport usage started to go up; others have now followed.
I ask the Bill’s promoters to think more carefully about what they are doing and to think more carefully about the precious asset that they have and about how they can develop and protect it. I thank the Minister again for his preparedness to engage on the issues that I have raised tonight. I am really grateful to him for that, and I hope that we can make some progress. That is the kind of engagement that we would like to see on the Bill, instead of this peremptory refusal even to discuss the serious concerns that have been raised by a number of Members this evening.
Bob Blackman
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and to hear his explanation of the new clauses and amendments that he has tabled. Amendments 21 to 29 would remove the requirement to consult or get permission from the Secretary of State on certain minor matters. There is a dilemma about whether it should be the Secretary of State who rules on these matters or the Mayor of London, with the assembly scrutinising what the Mayor and Transport for London do. A dilemma arises when we devolve responsibility and power: should we then recentralise it to the Secretary of State? We as London MPs face that challenge daily. The amendments would recentralise power to the Secretary of State.
John McDonnell
Clause 4(6) introduces the need for the Secretary of State’s approval, which we all support—as does the hon. Gentleman, because it is in the Bill. The schedule, however, sets out a long list of functions and assets that virtually undermines that subsection. That is our anxiety about the schedule.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for expressing that anxiety.
Hon. Members have mentioned TfL’s failure to engage with the objectors, but having gone through the Opposed Private Bill Committee and listened to the various proposals, my understanding is that they have been reflected. TfL has sought to meet the objectors and hon. Members to ascertain exactly the details of their objections, and it will have heard what has been said tonight. Clearly, we will not reach agreement on all the amendments, but TfL will no doubt reflect on them.
My concern on reading new clause 1 is that all such properties would have to be banded by value. In my judgment, that would lead to more speculation, rather than less. If TfL is disposing of assets, it should seek to maximise the value that it gets, but banding by value would play into the hands of property speculators. At the moment, the assets are all listed on a searchable website that can be seen by any member of the public, so we know what TfL owns. I therefore reject new clause 1.
New clause 2 would set in train a whole series of consultations and place heavy restrictions on the disposal of land. In my view and in that of the promoters, that would place an unnecessary encumbrance on TfL. There is already a statutory regime, set out in section 163 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. TfL cannot avoid that; nor does it wish to do so.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Gentleman will have heard my earlier comments on the parallels with the protection of rail land for future use. For example, the March to Wisbech line has been preserved even though it has not been used for many years. It is now going to be reopened because someone had the foresight to preserve it. I have the same concerns about TfL assets being put up for disposal. Does he not accept that having the Secretary of State in place to provide a kind of long-stop protection, as we are proposing, would be a good thing?
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the reasoned way in which he has made his points. The reality is, however, that there is already a clear procedure for the disposal of former operational land. There is no need to go into the kind of detail set out in new clause 2. For that reason, I oppose new clauses 1 and 2 and all the other amendments in the group.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.
John McDonnell
I beg to move amendment 1, in page 1, leave out paragraph (2).
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 5, at end insert
“save as provided for in subsection (3).”
Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert
“save as provided for in subsection (3).”
Amendment 6, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3) Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has arranged for, and published the report of, a review of the—
(a) potential risks to the assets of Transport for London arising from the exercise of the relevant powers to be conferred thereby, and
(b) likely effectiveness of measures put in place by Transport for London in mitigation.”
Amendment 7, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, after “TfL”, insert
“following consultation with the Greater London Assembly, and the publication of a report of such, and”.
Amendment 8, page 2, line 19, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 9, page 2, line 25, leave out “two” and insert “three”.
Amendment 15, page 2, leave out clause 4.
Amendment 10, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
“(1A) The consent of the Mayor under subsection (1) may only be granted after the Mayor has consulted, and published a report of such consultation:
(a) the Greater London Assembly
(b) the London boroughs
(c) the City of London
(d) passenger representative bodies, and
(e) relevant trades unions.”
Amendment 11, page 2, line 38, leave out “all or any” and insert “no more than 25%”.
Amendment 12, page 2, line 41, leave out
“including the creation of priority as between changes.”
Amendment 13, page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
Amendment 30, page 3, line 13, leave out
“Except for the property identified in the Schedule to this Act”.
Amendment 14, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
“(6A) TfL shall not charge any property for any of the purposes mentioned in subsection (2) unless—
(a) it has consulted the Greater London Assembly and published the results of that consultation, or
(b) the property falls within a category identified in the Schedule to this Act.”
Amendment 31, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
“(6A) Any consent of the Secretary of State given under subsection (6A) above shall be given in an order made by the Secretary of State.
(6B) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) an order under subsection (6B) above shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(6C) An order under subsection (6A) above shall in each case include—
(a) the land registry title number or numbers of any property or properties to be charged, and
(b) a specification of the proprietor or proprietors of the charge.
(6D) The proprietor or proprietors of the charge under subsection (6D)(b) may not be a joint venture partner of Transport for London or one of its subsidiaries.”
Amendment 33, in clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—
“(5) TfL shall conduct a review, and publish a report, after 12 months of the operation of the s49 Transport for London Act 2008 powers, as amended by this section, of the use and impact of those powers in relation to investment by subsidiaries of TfL in derivatives in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.
(6) Each subsidiary of TfL shall publish a report each year of the use made of the powers under s49 of the Transport for London Act 2008, as amended by this section, in relation to investments made in derivatives, or equivalent instruments, in order to limit exposure to changes in interest rates, exchange rates, commodity prices or other matters specified in s49(3) of the 2008 Act.”
John McDonnell
May I say at this stage that I would like to press amendments 1 and 33 to a Division? Amendment 1 straightforwardly takes out paragraph (2) from the preamble of the Bill. Paragraph (2) refers to the powers set out in clause 4. I will then turn to amendments 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on.
Amendment 1 is consequential to amendment 15. What they do is delete the powers of Transport for London, set out in the Bill, to borrow by giving securities in the way prescribed in clause 4. The amendments strike at one of the main objectives of the Bill. Even if we took out clause 4, and even clause 5, we would still retain clause 7, which I support. Clause 7 concerns the mitigation of risk through hedging powers to be provided to Transport for London.
I want to delete clause 4, to which amendments 1 and 15 relate, because I do not consider that it should be part of a private Bill. The purpose of the clause and the scale of the potential financial responsibility levied on London council tax payers and taxpayers militate against this being a private Bill; it should be a public Bill. Clause 4 should not stand in the Bill.
George Galloway
That is the point that struck me between the eyes. I am talking about having words such as “risk” and “hedging” in a private measure. Surely we have learned enough about the risk at the hands of private individuals and about the grave economic consequences to argue that this matter should be postponed until the next Government, when the state and the civil service can give it proper attention.
John McDonnell
I fully agree, and I shall develop that argument. What my hon. Friend is suggesting in his proposal is that it would be better if this clause were brought forward by the Government rather than in a private Bill. That is because of the scale of the risk involved in the exercise of these powers.
I would welcome it if these powers were brought forward in a public Bill. Why do I believe that? Madam Deputy Speaker, let me take you to pages 929, 930 and 931 of “Erskine May”, with which I am sure you are fully conversant. On those pages, we see identified the subjects that should be considered as unsuitable for private legislation, but which should be dealt with by a public Bill. It says that a private Bill has sometimes been rejected, although properly introduced—as this one has been—because the House has decided, given the merits of the Bill in question, that the subject matter was unsuitable for private legislation.
There are examples in “Erskine May”, on pages 929, 930 and 931, of attempts to use private Bills to raise money for public purposes; it argues that they should fall under a public Bill. I will not go through them at length, but I will draw the House’s attention to the decisions made by previous Speakers. Those decisions have been based on “Erskine May”, which says:
“A bill the sole object of which was the creation of a charge on public funds has not been allowed to proceed as a private bill.”
There has also been the example of previous legislation. The Aberfan Disaster Fund Bill was rejected as a private Bill, but sections of it were brought forward as a public Bill. “Erskine May” says:
“A bill concerning a government guarantee, even though it amended a private Act, has been a public bill.”
That is exactly what the clause does.
I am not saying that the whole Bill is unsuitable for private legislation, but clause 4 certainly is, and it should be deleted. The whole purpose of the clause, as far as I can see, is to allow Transport for London to raise funds by mortgaging assets. However, at the end of the day, the final guarantor of those charges will be the taxpayer, or the Treasury. Therefore, the provision should be brought forward as part of a public Bill rather than a private Bill.
I do not want to go over the arguments that we have already had with regard to the magnitude of the financial risk, the values of the sites involved, the billions of pounds at risk or the long-term consequences for the travelling public if a number of these speculative developments by the Mayor of London or Transport for London go pear-shaped. As far as I see it, that risk is intolerable.
Jeremy Corbyn
On the detail of it, can my hon. Friend think of any other examples where a private Bill has been used as a vehicle for disposing public assets? Normally, private Bills are about a privately owned development such as a dock or a harbour, but this is very different. Existing public assets are being put at risk, or mortgaged, which is hardly in the public interest.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is correct. I am sure he will not be going down the line of considering the constitutional position in very, very great detail, although I am sure that he can make a brief reply to the intervention. But he was doing very well in keeping in order.
John McDonnell
Thank you for the compliment, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is not often that Deputy Speakers say that to me.
Let me respond briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North by referring him to page 930 of “Erskine May”, which cites the assessment of the Speaker in 1895 of the London Valuation and Assessment Bill. The Speaker then ruled that
“since the Bill raised questions of public policy of great importance and affected interests of vast magnitude, it ought to have been introduced as a public bill, and could not proceed as a private bill”.
I do not know what greater magnitude of risk there is to London, London taxpayers, the Greater London assembly and others than the risk that we are contemplating in this Bill. I do not want to go over the facts and figures we set out before, but I must say to the sponsor of the Bill, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), that the Mayor could potentially enter into an enormous escapade if this legislation is passed. For that reason, I do not believe that it warrants support as part of a private Bill.
Let me return to the link between amendment 1 and amendment 15. Amendment 15 simply seeks to delete clause 4, as I believe that it is dangerous. I was trying to get clarification about the objectives of the clause from the statements—
Business without Debate
Business of the House
Car Parking (Private Land)
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
A growing problem has resulted from operators of private car parks deciding that a lucrative income stream is to be had by clobbering motorists who use their car parks but, for whatever reason, overstay the period they paid for. As an MP, I have received several letters from constituents who see the practice as totally unfair and wildly disproportionate to the fee paid for parking.
Just a glance at the fee versus the fine will demonstrate that admirably. In 1817, a Bedfordshire man received the death penalty for stealing a sheep; the sentence was commuted to life transportation. One might think that that was somewhat harsh for the crime that was committed. That disproportionate penalty no longer exists, but if one is looking for a new fine that is as disproportionate to the misdemeanour, if I can call it that, one can see that the car park cowboys fill the role admirably and with a zealotry and passion that would normally make their mothers proud—although not in this case, I imagine.
The car parks are cash magnets for the operators, who milk the motorist and use harassment and threats to extort money. Their intimidating letters are intended to frighten and their message is quite simply “stand and deliver”, the motto of the highway man in a long bygone era. The only thing missing is the pistol, but they use the threat of courts, which could be expensive if people use legal representation, and an ever-escalating tariff of fines that simply bleed the motorist further, and all because they overstayed their welcome by a few minutes after having paid perhaps just a pound—giving the ultimate new definition of “poundstretcher”.
That is tantamount to demanding money with menaces and should now be outlawed. A good case in point is The Whalley Arms car park in my constituency, used by the local community in a village that is strapped for car parking places. Local councillors Terry Hill and Joyce Holgate and I have received numerous letters of complaint from individuals who are incandescent that the operators are allowed such powers.
One constituent, Mr Clive Marsden, was visiting his GP in Whalley. He is a bit slow on his feet as his hip needs replacing. That is being done tomorrow and we all wish him well with his operation and his new hip. He unknowingly typed his registration number wrongly but he still paid his £1 fee. Some of the keyboards are very small and relatively low, and if the sun is shining on them and a person’s eyesight is not 20/20 things might be a bit hit and miss, as they were in this case. He received a fine through the post of £100, to be reduced to £60 if he paid up. He rightly thought that that was unfair as he had paid his pound but unwittingly made a minor mistake. Clearly, he appealed.
Mr Marsden had his son-in-law with him who at the same time parked another car whose registration number was entered correctly. My constituent politely and helpfully suggested that if the company looked at its records, it would see that a fee was paid at a particular time using a registration number very similar to his. The cameras collecting the registration plate numbers would have collected their plate numbers and shown that a fee had been paid for a car that did not enter the car park. Simples, as the advert says. The case could have been closed.
The company ignored Mr Marsden’s suggestion and reiterated the conditions of parking with the stipulation about the correct registration. He appealed to POPLA, the panel that considers such appeals, but it rejected his appeal, stating that his ticket was not displayed correctly as stipulated by the operator. I assume that the P in POPLA stands for pathetic, as the car registrations are collected by the camera, there is no parking attendant, the extortionate fine is issued automatically, and the operator’s notice states that there is no need to display a ticket. I assume that POPLA will read the debate and I want it to tell me which bit of what Clive Marsden was asking the operator to do was unreasonable. Does POPLA think it is right to clobber motorists when there is a system of checking car registrations paid for against those entering the car park when motorists can furnish rough times of entry? Now, Mr Marsden, fresh from his operation, will have to go to court to fight his case. I hope he wins.
There is also the case of a young lady, Niamh McNamara, at the same car park. She failed to pay because the machine was faulty and would not take money, and the other machine had a black bin bag over it. There was no attendant to take the money. She could not pay, so she went to the GP’s surgery and came back, thinking nothing of it. I wonder how many people were nabbed that day. She went home and left for South America on a backpacking holiday. Fortunately, her parents, my constituents, went to Manchester, where she lives, and picked up her mail. There was a demand for £150. Clearly, the time for appeal had elapsed and the charge had gone up to the full fine with an added penalty of £50. Her parents tried to reason with Debt Recovery Plus Ltd, but the company was not interested. After much reasoning, it said that it would reduce the amount to £120. The debt recovery people also threatened the family, saying that their daughter would face court proceedings and that her credit rating would be affected. Under duress, her parents paid up to protect their daughter. The short of it is that she could not pay, and yet was still fined. That is simply not justice.
The RAC published a report last month entitled “Private Parking—Public Concern”. I am sure that the Minister has read it. In it, John de Waal QC argues that these fines are illegal as they have no relationship to the loss incurred by the company. The person pays £1 for parking, overstays 10 minutes and is fined £60 or £100. How can that be fair? The charge at The Whalley Arms car park for 12 hours—there is no charge for night time—is just £5 for the entire day, so how can a fine of £60 or £100 be fair? Mr de Waal also argues that early payment discounts are unfair as they put pressure on the consumer to pay up rather than risk having to pay another £40, or even more if they go to appeal.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I am by the behaviour of ParkingEye at the Roaring Meg retail park in Stevenage? Parking there is free for three hours, but on match days it is free for only one and a half hours. Every week constituents who do not know it is a match day incur large fines. When we take those cases up with ParkingEye, which we do on a weekly basis, it says that it puts out mystical boards demonstrating when it is a match day, but it provides no photographic evidence of the boards and nobody has ever seen one.
Mr Evans
Nothing shocks me about that industry. It sounds to me like a scam, so I am pleased that my hon. Friend has come here this evening to talk about the plight of his constituents. If a car park has a tariff, or if it has no tariff for certain hours, that is what people are accustomed to. He is right to say that many constituents will be uninterested in whether it is a match day, whatever the match happens to be, and so will carry on in their usual fashion. It seems that many of them will thus be clobbered by ParkingEye. That is totally unfair and it should look again at its practices. I trust that the Minister has heard what my hon. Friend has said.
Back to POPLA—or un-POPLA, as I prefer to call it. On the “Frequently asked questions” page of its website, to the question “Will the parking charge increase if I lose my appeal?” amazingly it answers “No”, but follows that with:
“If your appeal is refused then the full parking charge will be due because the time for any early payment discount offered by the operator will have passed.”
In my book that is a £40 increase in what an individual would normally have paid. Only POPLA could make those grasping operators appear angelic by offering a reduction should the individual cough up straight away and fail to appeal.
The message from the operators is this: “If right is on your side as you couldn’t get the coins in or you mis-typed your registration number, just take the hit on the chin; otherwise, you might get another hit on the chin.” If that does not work there is always the threat of a third hit on the chin, as credit ratings could be affected and another financial penalty added to the already extravagantly and insanely high fine.
How big is that insane fining regime? It is a massive extortion racket worth hundreds of millions of pounds. In 2013 the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency was asked for the registration plate numbers of 2.2 million car owners, and it provided them for a fee—a nice little earner for a Government agency.
The RAC instanced its own example of a young mum returning late to her car because one of her young children got upset. She also had a seven-month-old child in tow. She had to attend to her upset child and was late returning to her car, so she was fined. She did not have the resources to raise the £60 to pay the fine in time so ended up paying £100, and all for being a good mother.
Minister, enough is enough. We all know that this wretched rinsing of the public has to end. The disproportionate fines should go, and those operators and the hoodlum side of their operations—the debt collectors who use oppressive means—have to be tamed and reined right back. Strong-arm tactics can be met only with a strong law response.
The Government did well in 2012 to stop the ferociously active, salivating clampers from persecuting drivers with their hated Denver boots, but a new and sinister breed of persecution has taken over. The Government acted once, and it is now time to act again. As one might expect, I have a few suggestions for the Minister. The Government have already made an announcement concerning council-owned car parks giving a 10-minute grace period before fines becomes actionable. I understand that that is now to be extended to privately owned car parks, which is good. That is one suggestion I was going to make that has already been enacted before I even asked for it. I hope that is a good omen for my other suggestions.
The technology is available to allow car registration plates to be monitored on entrance and exit, so why not allow motorists the option of paying via credit card and being charged for exactly what they use? There would be no fines. I understand that that might require a change in legislation. If so, let us do it quickly in the next Parliament. In cases where the motorist does not have a credit card, why not just pay on exit with money, but at the actual rate? Again, there would be no fine. That might not even need a legislative change.
Then there is payment by credit card or by phone. Drivers could be charged when exiting a car park, or they could pay by phone, as happens in London, with car park operators texting them to inform them that they are about to overrun their paid parking, offering them the option to extend. There would be no fine in that either.
When someone mis-types their registration number, the operator should be duty bound to check the information to see whether it was likely that the wrong number was entered. I am sorry if that technically simple operation would spoil the bumper payouts to the car park regimes, but that is tough—natural justice is something I believe in. For small car parks in which it is simply not feasible to introduce that technology, we could have old-fashioned car parking attendants issuing tickets for the non-display of tickets.
If the motorist appeals, there should be no inferred gamble here. The motorist has the option of going to Coral, Ladbrokes, William Hill, Betfred, Paddy Power or a number of other legitimate bookies if they want a flutter—I am currently at 33:1 for my seat at the general election. When a motorist makes an appeal, there should be no element of gamble in it. Let us end the early payment discounts or extend them to cover the full period of the appeal. I have never gambled £40 in my life on any single punt, so why should the hapless and otherwise law-abiding motorist either be lured into a gamble that will cost them more if they lose or just have to cough up and pay the fine? That is no choice at all.
Let us make fines relate to the loss incurred by the operator. If it costs £1 to park for an hour and someone overstays by 10 minutes, some dynamo accelerator should not be allowed to kick in. Fines should be commensurate with the actual loss in relation to the car parking charges. I appreciate that there is an administration cost to be included, but it should also be proportionate, and the authoritarian, threatening, white-knuckle, gut-turning, official-like demands for eye-watering sums of money because someone has the audacity to overstay by a few minutes have to stop. If a car parking machine is not working, for whatever reason, it should be made illegal to fine people. That will stop another little scam whereby some people are simply harassed into forking out a fine despite the fact that they simply cannot pay.
I understand that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is about to be handed authority over private car parks by the Prime Minister. He will have the opportunity to bring some sort of order and common sense to a system that has simply spiralled out of control and is hated by the long-suffering motorist, a system that is geared towards inflicting the greatest financial misery and disproportionate stress for what is, frankly, a minor contravention.
I have spoken to the man who is about to take the reins of that wild animal and told him to be strong—not that he needs my advice, as I believe he knows what needs to be done. I and the public are fed up to the back teeth with charlatans operating under their own distorted and disproportionate penalty regime, unrelenting in the face of genuine mistakes or lapses in order to fill their coffers. It is now time for them to be brought under control and strictly regulated, with no room to siphon off hundreds of millions of pounds with kick-backs to debt recovery agencies and the DVLA. In short, it is time to act. Get to it, Eric.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing the Adjournment debate tonight, and I thank him and my hon. Friend the Minister for being gracious enough to allow me to contribute.
ParkingEye has been mentioned. When I became MP for South Derbyshire in 2010, I did not think that ParkingEye and particularly hospital car parking would become such a big issue, mainly because in the fabulous constituency of South Derbyshire we have free car parking. Our council does not charge for car parking. Every time we have had an extension of a shopping area, new companies coming in and new developments, we as a district council have always negotiated with the owners so that they would also have free car parking.
That turns into a nightmare when firms such as ParkingEye come in and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley so clearly described, people mistype the number plate of their car. That tends to happen when they go over the border into east Staffordshire to Burton. At both of my two local hospitals, Derby to the north and Burton to the south, people have to pay to park, which is unknown to people in South Derbyshire, but as we do not have a hospital, we go north or south. In such circumstances, when people are rushing and are at the end of their tether because, for example, they are going to accident and emergency or their wife is going into labour, the last thing they need to have to cope with is ParkingEye. Exactly as my hon. Friend described, the press-button key pad is very small, and if the sun is shining on it or the person is flustered and makes a mistake, the fines issued by ParkingEye are horrendous.
I am pleased to say that in the 18 cases in which constituents have asked me to intervene on their behalf, the hospital has waived the fee. I have not taken on ParkingEye because, fortunately, the chief executive at Burton hospital, Helen Ashley, has been very gracious, listened to the circumstances and waived the fee. There has been further investment to change the press-button keypads for ParkingEye so that they are much bigger and at eye level, and people no longer have to crawl out of their car window to hit the buttons appropriately. That has helped enormously, but the system is still pernicious and the fines are outrageous.
We would like the Minister’s help on private car parks. With our fantastically expanding shopping areas, to mirror the free parking in the council car parks, the big property developers that own the car parks have put in three free hours, after which a fine is imposed. I have some delightful pensioners who travelled in from one of the villages. They were doing a big shop so they did not come in on the bus. They take their car out about twice a week. The car park was incredibly full. The expansion of the economy of South Derbyshire is so tremendous that they ended up parking on a hatched area in the car park and got a horrendous fine. They are two pensioners on the basic state pension. The fine is incredible. They were visiting our new Aldi in Swadlincote, which is going great guns. The manager of Aldi is on their side. He wants ParkingEye to rescind its fine and we are fighting the case.
I plead with the Minister for a much better code of conduct for the likes of ParkingEye, a much better code of conduct for policing fines on private car parks, and a better ethos on the part of such firms. They are the pirates of the new age and their behaviour is disgraceful. I do not want the good name of South Derbyshire, with our free car parking, taken in vain by those pirates. Anything the Minister can do to help would be greatly appreciated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) on securing this debate. I understand how important this matter is for him and his constituents, and I recognise that the practices of some private parking companies can result in complaints from constituents. I have tried to find a stronger word than “complaints”, but I suspect I would veer into unparliamentary language were I to use the words that sometimes come to mind when I hear about cases where companies have behaved unreasonably.
My hon. Friend has seen the written ministerial statement from the Prime Minister last week explaining that policy responsibility for off-street parking is now under the auspices of the Department for Communities and Local Government. Ministers in both Departments have worked closely together on a wide range of parking reforms, and it is my pleasure this evening to represent my Communities and Local Government chums in this debate.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) for raising the important issue of hospitals, where having a pay-as-you-leave car park that has a system of number plates or tickets that can be used at a barrier on leaving reduces the stress that people feel in not knowing how long their appointment will take or how long they may have to wait. Many people worry that by overstaying, through no fault of their own, they may incur a fine. She also mentioned places where parking is initially free and people then overstay. I have had correspondence from colleagues whose constituents have taken a break at motorway service areas, as they are advised to do, only to overstay the two hours allowed because they have fallen asleep.
The Government have taken decisive action during this Parliament to end clamping so that motorists no longer live in fear of their car being held hostage until they can pay for it to be released. I am sure that colleagues have heard horror stories from their constituents about the practices of clamping companies—practices that we have stopped. No longer are people being marched to cash point machines to secure the release of their vehicle. In my constituency, we had a big issue outside Whitby station. In Whitby, every car park is free after 6 pm apart from the car park outside the station, so it is little wonder that many motorists assumed that it would be free there too. Surprise, surprise—the parking company did not turn up until after 6 o’clock on most days because it was keen to catch as many people as possible. Thankfully, the car park was in the control of Northern Rail. Alongside Whitby Hospitality Association, we ran the company out of town. We then made representations to Northern Rail, which engaged a much more benign parking company that acted more reasonably and, at the same time, controlled parking in the car park, which is important for those who wish to use the railway station or the Co-operative shop nearby. There are plenty of reasonable companies out there, but unfortunately some of the others give them a bad name.
Good parking helps us to be good neighbours, and it is critical for a growing economy. However, as anyone who has driven round and round to find a space in a car park or has been blocked in will tell you, parking is not simple. The management of private parking can understandably be an emotive issue. Receiving a parking charge is never popular, but measures to control parking on private land are necessary to ensure that parking facilities remain accessible and provide value to all who use them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the past few weeks there has been some talk about the fines that are imposed on those who allegedly park where they should not. There seems to be a grey area. Is the Minister able to give some indication of the fees that they charge, because I understand that some people will be able to claim that money back?
Mr Goodwill
I need to be careful because this matter is before the courts. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley talked about somebody in a pay-and-display car park who overstayed their time. It could be argued that the loss to the parking company was the value of the time that had been used, and therefore that these fines amount to many times that loss.
On the other hand, many businesses—my hon. Friend is a shopkeeper himself—rely on their own car parking areas outside their premises for their customers. If all the parking space outside a kitchen showroom, for example, was taken up by people who were not using that shop, the company could lose an order for a whole kitchen, which could represent several hundred pounds. We need to look more carefully at exactly why people may need to keep car parking for their customers. Many companies get frustrated when people park in the parking area that is meant to be for their customers and is integral to their business. If there is no car park outside, a person may drive by and go to a competitor.
Mr Nigel Evans
I understand the Minister’s point. However, The Whalley Arms car park is a relatively large car park for the village that is now used by the entire community, not for any specific shop. All the shops benefit from the fact that the car park is available. It is next door to a GP surgery. The two cases that I mentioned related to people who wanted to use the surgery; one wanted to pay and the other mistyped their registration number. Their loss is the amenity of the car parking space, which costs £1 an hour or £5 for the day—nowhere near £60, £100 or £150.
Mr Goodwill
I absolutely understand that point. The point I was trying to make is that there are situations whereby the survival of a business may be determined by it being able to make sure that its customers can use its limited car parking. However, in the case of a car park that might cost £1 an hour, it would be difficult to argue that the loss to the landowner or the parking company was anything like the magnitude of the loss to another company that would lose custom.
Drivers choose where to park their vehicles, and if they park on private land they do so in line with the terms and conditions that should be clearly displayed on signage at the entrance to the car park and around it. If the terms and conditions include that a motorist must pay and display, and stay no longer than the time they have paid for, those are the conditions that the motorist has deemed to have agreed to when they park their vehicle.
Parking management and control is necessary so that landowners who invite drivers to park on their land can exercise their legal rights and gain the benefit to which they are entitled from the use of their property. Without any form of control, indiscriminate drivers might park where they liked and for as long as they liked, breaching reasonable terms and conditions, and without fear of any recourse arising from their misuse of the land.
We are committed to striking the right balance to protect motorists from unscrupulous practices that some parking management companies may employ—we have heard about them this evening—and to ensure that landowners can control the use of their land and benefit fairly from it.
The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 banned clamping and made a number of other changes to the law related to parking. It banned private sector wheel-clamping and vehicle removal where there is no lawful authority to do so, and, as a balance to that, provided landholders with extra powers to manage parking on their land.
Most private organisations, including private landowners and their agents, are not able to clamp or tow vehicles and have to rely primarily on ticketing to enforce parking conditions on their land. This could be by placing a parking ticket on a vehicle, giving it to the driver or sending a ticket to the vehicle’s registered keeper in the post.
Before the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, a private landholder could only seek liability against a vehicle driver to recover unpaid parking charges and therefore needed to be able to identify who was the driver of the vehicle that incurred the parking charge. There was no requirement, however, for the registered keeper either to say who was driving the vehicle or to accept liability him or herself. This allowed both the vehicle driver and the registered keeper to avoid liability and meant that landholders could find it difficult to manage parking by ticketing alone.
Schedule 4 to the Protection of Freedoms Act came into power at the same time as the parking sector introduced a new, free appeals service for motorists who received a parking charge. This means that motorists can appeal to the parking operator and to an independent adjudicator, and both those appeals are free to the motorist. However, I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point about an early payment discount, and the suggestion to extend the discount during an appeal certainly has some merit.
Despite perceptions to the contrary, I assure my hon. Friend that significant control is already applied to the operation of private car parking companies. The activities and standards of operation in the sector have changed substantially in recent years and parking trade bodies have improved standards further at the heart of their vision.
Where the terms and conditions of parking have been breached, parking management companies can apply for information about the vehicle keeper so that they can enforce appropriately. The Government control the access to those data through the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, and there is a requirement for companies that receive keeper data from the DVLA to be members of an accredited trade association. Incidentally, the fee for access to those data is £2.50. That means that the parking company must abide by the accredited trade association code of practice based on fair treatment of the motorist, which requires its members to operate to high professional standards of conduct while allowing them to take reasonable action to follow up alleged parking contraventions.
We would expect any organisation that wanted to become an accredited trade association to be able to demonstrate that it has a code of practice that ensures that only a fair parking charge is asked for and that prominent signage is present outlining clearly the restrictions on parking and the charges and conditions that apply. There should be no hidden charges or ambiguity for the motorist as to what is and is not permitted on the land.
Stephen McPartland
What does the Minister think about the fact that the terms and conditions can change? I mentioned the ambiguity of three hours of free parking being reduced to an hour and a half on match days, but without match days being specified.
Mr Goodwill
I have not looked at that in any great detail, but from what my hon. Friend says, it seems unreasonable to expect a person to know when it is or is not a match day. It does not seem beyond the bounds of possibility to list days when there will be matches to address that particular situation.
The code helps to ensure that contact with motorists is not threatening, and that parking charge notices are issued promptly so that a driver can recall the circumstances surrounding the event. A reasonable amount of time must be allowed for payment to be made before any additional charges are imposed or the matter is escalated.
Even though strong requirements are in place to regulate the actions of parking companies, the disclosure of data from the DVLA is tightly controlled. Parking management companies are visited to audit their operations, and further in-depth checking of individual cases is undertaken to make sure that requests have been submitted for genuine reasons and with reliable evidence to back them up. Car parking operators pay fees when requesting keeper details. The fee levels are set to recover the cost of processing requests so that those costs are not passed on to the taxpayer. The Government do not gain financially from the provision of such information, contrary to what one may read in some newspapers.
Inevitably, motorists who feel that they have been unfairly treated will complain. The parking operator needs to demonstrate compliance with the code of practice of its accredited trade association to retain its membership. The ATA exists to investigate and ensure that, where appropriate, remedial action is taken. It is for the ATA to decide whether the operator needs to be placed on notice with additional scrutiny, follow-up audits and checks to monitor future actions closely. In more serious cases, a decision may be taken to terminate an operator’s membership of the ATA. A company can still manage parking on private land, but if it is no longer a member of the ATA the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will not provide contact details to enable breaches to be pursued. That has a serious consequence for a company’s survival, and it is an incentive for it to behave responsibly.
The DVLA plays a key role. Where sufficiently serious concerns are raised or ongoing issues are identified, it will consider whether continued access to vehicle keeper data is appropriate. Several parking management companies have had their ability to request vehicle keeper data suspended where shortfalls in the standards expected have been identified. In addition, trading standards departments can prosecute companies if they have breached consumer protection law. In short, if a company is not meeting the standards expected, there are serious consequences.
We recently announced a new package of changes to help tackle over-zealous parking enforcement. The changes are designed to help local shops, and they include the introduction of grace periods. As we have heard, drivers will get a 10-minute grace period where they have legitimately parked on the street or in council-owned car parks. That will prevent penalties for being just a few minutes late back to the vehicle. We have also introduced a new right to enable residents and local businesses to demand that their council reviews parking in their area.
Off-street parking has many synergies with policy about car park charges, land-use planning and high streets, so we have decided to transfer responsibility for all off-street parking to Ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government. That will enable the Government to look more easily at the contribution that public and private off-street parking can make to a place, and how it can support local economic rejuvenation. Communities and Local Government Ministers will now turn their attention to the behaviour of off-street car park operators, and they intend to ensure that unfair and unreasonable behaviour is dealt with in the way that the Government have addressed on-street parking abuses.
I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley to discuss any concerns he has directly with the parking operator, and if he is not satisfied, with the accredited trade association. Providing them with details of any cases in which his constituents have experienced questionable actions or bad behaviour will allow the ATA to investigate and to take the necessary action.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Inclusion of sailing in the Paralympic Games
Persecution of Christians in Pakistan
Westminster Hall
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
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
Veterans’ Pensions
(9 years, 8 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
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the petition relating to veterans’ pensions.
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to have secured this debate on an issue that affects many of my constituents and, indeed, constituents in every part of the UK.
I asked for the debate as a result of a petition that was signed by more than 300,000 people. Organised by the Equality for Veterans Association, the petition recognised the commitment and service given to the UK by our armed forces and said that all those who had served should be recognised by the Government, but it drew attention to those who left the armed forces with less than 22 years’ service before April 1975, who currently receive no pension at all from the military. The petition called on the Government to address that injustice.
Today, I am asking the Government to bring forward proposals to recognise the important contribution made by service personnel in the position that I have described. I have been involved with this issue for a number of years as chair of the all-party group on armed forces veterans’ pensions. The injustice continues to affect hundreds of thousands of former service personnel in this country. Through the equality for veterans campaign, I have met many of those veterans, and they say to me that this is not about money, at this stage in their life, but about recognition of the service that they gave. They are asking for action to put right an injustice that took place many years ago but still has an impact now.
The veterans are disadvantaged by legislative changes brought about by the Social Security Acts of 1973 and 1975. Those Acts of Parliament created preserved pension rights for those who served for less than the full pensionable period of service of 22 years. That allowed people in that position to transfer their years of service into other pension schemes, or rewarded them with pro rata pensions on reaching the age of 60. Those legislative changes came into effect on 5 April 1975. Service personnel who left after that date received the full benefit of the new pension legislation. However, those who left before that date received nothing, unless they had completed the 22 years.
The veterans and I believe, and I think that most politicians accept, that retrospective changes to pension legislation are unlikely at this stage. It is also most unlikely that any retrospective change contemplated would be made in a timely manner, given that most of the veterans affected are now in their 70s or 80s and time is running out for them. As time goes on, the problem goes away, as those affected will no longer be around.
At the moment, however, about 250,000 veterans are affected. Those veterans have a number of grievances concerning the way they were excluded from the benefits of the 1973 and 1975 legislation. Despite campaigns over many years and overwhelming public support, Government have ignored them. Many of the 250,000 veterans who are affected by the legislative change and still receive no pension survive on only their state pension and pension credit if they claim it. Despite a huge amount of warm words and successive Governments and politicians of all political persuasions continuing to praise the commitment of our veterans, including with the introduction of the armed forces covenant, the case of the pre-1975 men and women and the way they have been treated has never been satisfactorily addressed.
The veterans have the following grievances. First, pre-1975 military service personnel were forbidden from enrolling in or contributing in any way to a pension scheme from a conventional pension provider. The Ministry of Defence deemed that service personnel were, by nature of their service, entitled to a military pension only if they completed 22 years of service—that was conditional on rank—and it did not allow individuals to make personal pension arrangements. Obviously, that restriction unfairly impeded those individuals minded to do so from having the opportunity to make personal choices regarding financial provision in later life.
Secondly, the 1973 Act mandated employers, including the Ministry of Defence, to inform employees about forthcoming changes to the legislation that would affect their pension rights, and that took effect on 5 September 1973. However, the questions of how and when the preserved pensions should be introduced for the armed forces remained unsettled until July 1974, when the date of 1 April 1975 was set for their introduction. Despite that, the changes to the armed forces pension scheme 1975 to accommodate preserved pensions were not formally agreed until January 1975. In March 1975, the MOD produced a leaflet that explained the main features of preserved pensions and gave notice that they would apply to those who served on or after 6 April 1975. Therefore, notwithstanding that the MOD had, from September 1973, to begin informing service personnel of the impact of the new legislation, it waited until one month before the implementation date before taking steps to do so. I know from my involvement with the equality for veterans campaign that many of those actively engaged on this issue are people who retired around that time. Perhaps if they had continued in the armed services for only a few more months, they would have received a pension, but because they were unaware of the changes, they did not consider that and they left the service, thereby getting no pension of any sort.
I am told that the leaflet was not widely circulated, nor were personnel properly informed of the changes. That is attested to by hundreds of veterans, many of whom are actively involved in the equality for veterans campaign and who state that they were not informed of the changes. They say that they might well have taken different decisions if they had been aware that there was due to be a change in their pension entitlement, and many who left shortly before the change say that they feel they have been treated very unfairly by the Ministry of Defence, which knew that there were due to be changes. Despite the fact that the goalposts were about to change, the information was not passed on and military personnel were not informed that if they stayed a little longer, they would receive a pension on retirement. I have attended a number of the equality for veterans meetings as chair of the all-party group, and a number of individuals who fall into that bracket have explained their circumstances.
I will, however, use the example of a constituent. He is a very good comrade, a very good friend of mine, an active trade unionist and someone with whom I have been involved in many campaigns. Through chairing the all-party group, I found out that he is affected, as are quite a number of other constituents. Jimmy Miller was called up to the Army in 1958 and signed on as a regular soldier. He spent six years in the Army until 1964. From 1964, he was on reserve for a number of years, but he then re-enlisted and served in the Army again from 1969 to 1974. He served in Cyprus and Aden and did four tours of duty in Northern Ireland. He advises me, as have many others affected by the change, that at no stage was there any discussion with them about pension entitlement, although they were aware that if they served the full 22 years, they would receive a pension. Jimmy Miller purchased his release and came out of the Army in November 1974. He found out in 1975 that if he had stayed longer, he would have been entitled to a pension. He says that had he known that he would have received a pension if he had stayed in longer, he probably would have done so. Indeed, he believes that most people, given the same choice, would also have decided to wait longer to get a pension. His situation is similar to others that veterans have described to me.
I am told that the Ministry of Defence discussed pension changes from 1970 onwards, but armed service personnel from that time say that the MOD withheld from them information about forthcoming pension changes. Meanwhile, not only did thousands leave the armed forces between 1970 and 1975, but they were actively encouraged to do so, because the Government were implementing a policy of radically reducing the number of armed forces personnel. Had service personnel known about the changes, many of them, such as my constituent Jimmy Miller, may have chosen to remain in the services until after April 1975 by retraining to meet skills shortages that were caused by the restructuring. Had they done so, they would have received the benefits of the legislative changes.
At the request of the all-party group, EFVA has canvassed veterans to establish the likely reaction to a one-off, ex gratia payment. There have been a number of discussions in this place about the veterans who are affected, and much of the discussion has been about the cost of providing them with retrospective pensions. However, of the random sample of 100 veterans chosen by EFVA from among its membership, 94 said that they would accept a one-off payment. The average length of service for that group was something in the region of 10.27 years. Successive Governments have argued that to address the injustice would cost a massive amount of money. As time goes on, however, fewer and fewer veterans are affected, and the cost goes down.
Approximately 250,000 veterans remain in that situation, and they say repeatedly that they are concerned not simply about the money, but about ensuring that an injustice is recognised and righted. The time has come for Government to come forward with proposals to address the matter, which is so important to those individuals. Many of those affected will be in receipt of benefits, so any payments would probably not make them better off. Such payments would be taken into account in the benefits system and might result in the loss of some of those benefits, such as pensions credit.
I call on the Minister to look at the matter afresh, and to bring forward proposals in recognition of the important contribution that the veterans affected have made and the genuine feeling of injustice among those who have given valuable service. I ask that she seriously consider recognising the contribution that they have made to this country.
Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), who is a good friend, on introducing this debate on a complex aspect of pensions. She has done a lot of work over several years on behalf of individuals in the armed forces who have been disadvantaged by past errors, some of which she outlined in her speech. At the outset, it is right for us all, across the House, to restate our recognition of the huge debt of gratitude that we owe our servicemen and women, their families and our veterans. They have made, and continue to make, huge sacrifices in defence of our freedom and in the service of the nation.
Those who served before 1975, as we heard from my hon. Friend, spent a great deal of effort in service of the nation, in exactly the same way as did those who have served since. However, the difference in provision made for those two groups is striking. It is right to single out the 250,000 people who made such a commitment to the service of our country but who have not received the same level of provision and support from the state as others. They deserve no less recognition than those who have received benefits since 1975 for making the same commitment.
I am proud of the work done in recent years by Governments of all colours. I am particularly proud of the work done by the Labour party in government and, more recently, in opposition to advance the rights of, and protections for, our armed forces community. Hon. Members across the House are proud of the work that they do in their local communities with veterans’ organisations, which are respected and valued in those communities. Wrexham, which I have the honour of representing, is an Army town that has the great tradition of the Royal Welsh Fusiliers. One of the most satisfying aspects of my job is meeting, through the armed forces and through veterans’ organisations, service personnel from different generations. I thank them for being so generous in sharing their experiences and knowledge with me, and helping me to do my job better.
The development of the veterans’ movement, if I can call it that, over the 14 years in which I have been in Parliament has been one of the most positive aspects of the relationship between communities and the armed forces. The active service of our service personnel in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq has led to strong support for our armed forces and a greater understanding of the commitment that they show. We are considering the question of veterans’ pensions in that context.
The Labour Government before 2010 sought to modernise and develop services for veterans, and successive Labour Ministers with responsibility for veterans worked with the armed services, with veterans’ charities and support groups, and with local communities to offer practical help to veterans and their families. That work led in 2008 to the Command Paper entitled “The Nation’s commitment: cross-government support to our armed forces, their families and veterans”. That was the precursor to the armed forces covenant, for which we campaigned long and hard, and which we welcome. As a result of that covenant, we all recognise that we have a moral obligation to the members of our armed forces, to veterans and to veterans’ families. We recognise that no serving or former member of the forces, or their families, should be disadvantaged as a result of the service that they give our country. I am proud of the Labour party for holding the Government to account, when it comes to enshrining the rights of our armed forces and their families in law. A future Labour Government will build on that work, and I am certain that hon. Members will hold them to account for it.
There are estimated to be 4.5 million veterans in the United Kingdom, and some 250,000 of them are disadvantaged because they left the forces before 1975 and did not have the kind of pension provision that exists today. Several of those veterans, and organisations working on their behalf—such as EFVA, which my hon. Friend mentioned—have spoken out about the pension arrangements for those who served before the establishment of the armed forces pension scheme. As we have heard, those who left before 1975 and who served for fewer than 16 years as an officer, or 22 years for all other ranks, were not entitled to receive a service pension. That gives us some indication of the perception of pensions before 1975, because those figures represent a substantial period of service for which to make no pension provision. When the armed forces pension scheme was introduced in 1975, servicemen and women were required to have completed only two years’ reckonable service to be entitled for most pension options.
Pensions legislation for our armed forces has been updated several times since then. The armed forces pension scheme 2005 provides access to pension benefits for servicemen and women with two years’ service. Next month we will see the introduction of the armed forces pension scheme 2015, which will create one pension scheme for all, including reservists. I very much sympathise with anyone who retired from the armed forces prior to the qualifying period for the armed forces pension scheme of 6 April 1975, because since then, there has been such substantial development of pension provision for individuals within the armed forces.
Some 250,000 veterans have been disadvantaged by leaving the armed forces before 1975. Concerns have been raised not only because serving personnel were not allowed to invest in occupational pensions prior to 1975, but because when legislation was passed in 1973 to pave the way for the armed forces pension scheme 1975, serving personnel were given poor information. My hon. Friend referred to that information, and to the short period allocated for providing information to individuals who were making important decisions about their future and their future provision, and who have been disadvantaged for many years because they were not given sufficient information. I am sure that would not happen nowadays, but it happened then, and there has been a substantial impact over a substantial period.
It has been the policy of successive Governments that changes to public sector pension schemes cannot be made retrospectively. My hon. Friend recognises that it is highly unlikely at this stage, so many years later, that any retrospective change will be made by any Government. It would be difficult to devise a legally sustainable arrangement for retrospective pension entitlements purely for the armed forces. The Equality for Veterans Association has, in light of that argument, been making the case for lump-sum payments for those affected in lieu of retrospective pension payments. My hon. Friend’s request is for the injustice to be recognised, and for steps to be taken to enable those who are suffering hardship to deal with their financial pressures, which have been exacerbated by the poor arrangements that were in place because of the failure to introduce an adequate pension scheme.
In 2012, the Chancellor transferred £35 million from fines levied on the banks to the Ministry of Defence to support the armed forces community. That LIBOR fund is one example of funds from a particular source being used to support charities, good causes and organisations that work to improve life for our armed forces community. If there is injustice and particular need in individual cases, it is right and proper that we, as a community, recognise the spirit of the armed forces covenant by trying to introduce a scheme to support individuals who are under financial pressure, and who are disadvantaged by previous errors, or the failure to give notice of legislation that was being introduced.
I encourage the Minister to consider options for allowing veterans to apply to the LIBOR fund, or for introducing, in some other way, access to funds for individuals who are under financial pressure and who have been affected by the pensions issue. That could provide a suitable means of financial support for veterans who left the armed forces before 1975 and their families.
Our armed forces community have worked tirelessly for decades to keep the nation safe, and to enhance the rights of others across the world. We owe a debt of gratitude to those who served before 1975 and after. Those who served before 1975 and who did not get adequate pension arrangements deserve our respect and support, so I hope that the Government will look at this genuine case, consider it closely and take steps to try to support those individuals by addressing the issue that my hon. Friend has raised today.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. I thank you for the way in which you have chaired this extremely short but nevertheless important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this debate and on raising this important matter. It is only right and fair that I, too, begin by honouring the great debt that we all owe to all those who have served and, indeed, their families.
Through the covenant, the Government have set up a way of recognising the unique service made by all those who served in the past and those who continue to serve. Many of them would have been unable to serve without the support of their families, which we also recognise. In short, all those who serve are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice of laying down their life on behalf of their country. It is right and fair that we have the covenant because it recognises the particular contribution, service and sacrifice made by all those who serve.
It is timely that I remind everyone of what the covenant actually confers in law. The covenant states that there should be “no disadvantage” for anyone who has served or is serving, which extends to their families—their fathers and mothers, their sons and daughters—by virtue of their service. The second part of the covenant states that, in certain circumstances, most notably for those who have been bereaved or who have been particularly seriously injured—there is the caveat that clinical need must always take precedence—the covenant may confer an advantage because of the sacrifice that that individual or his or her family have made and suffered accordingly.
As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) agrees, it is important to recognise the principle of non-retrospection. In short, departing from that principle would break the long-standing and essential principle of public service pensions policy, and it would lead to widespread, long-term and unmanageable consequences for both this Government and future Governments. As he said, retrospection would cause not only legal difficulties but enormous financial difficulties. The principle of non-retrospection means that no retrospective improvement can be made to pension benefits for those who are no longer active members of a pension scheme. That principle has been upheld by successive Governments, and I am confident he is saying that, should there be a Labour Government or a Labour-led Government after 7 May, the principle would remain intact and there would be no retrospection. For this particular group of people who have served, the principle has been repeatedly tested and supported by court decisions at all levels. It is a principle that we must defend, for three good, solid reasons.
First, breaking the principle would open the floodgates for a raft of unaffordable claims from across the public sector. As we know, before the Social Security Act 1973, there was no entitlement to a preserved pension for any public servant; members of the armed forces were treated exactly the same as anyone else in the public sector. If someone had not served the necessary length of time and reached the right age, whatever their job was and whether they were in the armed forces or not, they were not entitled to a pension. Thus, any change for the armed forces would be used as a precedent for other groups to benefit. Despite the great service of all those who have served and despite their willingness to lay down their lives for their country, the cry would go up, “If we do it for them, why not for everybody else?”
An interesting comment was made—I think Members on both sides of this House would agree—that it is astonishing to look back at how workers were treated. My own mother worked as a radiotherapist, although not in the armed forces. She worked in the NHS, and for part of her working life she was paid less than a man doing exactly the same job. At the time, eyebrows were not even raised. Now, of course, we find it astonishing that someone should receive less money for doing the same work, for no other reason than that they are a woman. Likewise, when we look back at the pension policies of the past, we all raise our eyebrows in shock that members of the armed forces had to serve 16 years as an officer or 22 years as a non-commissioned member before they could receive a pension. It was the same in other public sector jobs; people had to work long stretches before they got a penny piece.
Katy Clark
Does the Minister not accept that the position of the armed services is unique, and that their relationship with the state is unique? Does she not therefore think that if an injustice has been recognised, her Government should be doing what they can to recognise the contribution of the armed services in the way that I described when I presented the petition?
Anna Soubry
The difficulty is that although the hon. Lady takes the view that there has been an injustice, I do not think her party takes that view. I think that we all take the view that an unfortunate set of circumstances prevailed right across the public sector. In considering the “no disadvantage” principle in the covenant, we would have to consider whether that particular group of people have suffered a disadvantage by virtue of their service. I am afraid that the answer comes back that they have not suffered any disadvantage by virtue of their service relative to any other members of the public sector, because effectively the same set of rules worked across the sector. Of course, should her own party come into Government, it will not go behind the principle of no retrospection—it has not done so in the past—so it is not proposing anything special in the way of legislation for the armed forces over and above any other part of the public sector. It is important that that point is made clear.
I will come to the money, but although no cost estimate has been made, given the number of former public sector employees who would be affected—if it were done for one group, it would have to be done for all—it would run to tens of billions of pounds. It would cost an astonishing amount of money. Even if an objective argument could be made to limit provision to the armed forces, and I am not convinced that it could be, it would still cost defence several billion pounds, which we know we simply do not have. The second reason why we cannot do it is that breaking the principle would prevent future Governments from making any further meaningful improvements to existing pensions, because the prospect of extending those benefits to former as well as current employees would simply be untenable.
Thirdly and perhaps more prosaically, it is a question of practicality. On top of prohibitively large costs, breaking the principle would entail a raft of potentially insuperable practical, administrative and legal problems. For example, it would require creating precise service and pay records and calculating pension awards for people who served up to 50 years ago, or for their surviving dependants. Furthermore, creating a modernised but retrospective entitlement now would in all likelihood involve revisiting the pensions already awarded to those who met the criteria for getting a pension at the time.
Having spoken of the practical imperatives at play, I now turn to our moral and legal obligations under the covenant—
Katy Clark
The Minister says that she has addressed the practical issues, but she has presented responses to a range of scenarios that I did not put to her. I asked her to come forward with proposals for recognising this group, yet she seems to have failed to do so. Surely that is the practical proposal that she should be making. It is not as though the Government have not been asked previously. They have been asked in writing on many occasions.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I have not finished my speech. I am explaining why. She may take the view that it need not be done retrospectively; she may and does take the view—I think that it is the view of the Opposition—that there should be some special arrangement involving application to the LIBOR fund. I will come to that, but there are others who do not share her view, and who do not take the view that an individual should have to go cap in hand to a Government fund. Some argue that it should be done retrospectively, so it is only right and fair, given the terms of the debate, that I respond to their arguments as well as to the arguments quite properly advanced by the hon. Lady, as I shall do in due course.
I have dealt with the covenant and what it does. The two key principles are no disadvantage and, in some instances, an advantage. This is why I do not believe the covenant applies to that group of our former servicemen and women. Before the Social Security Act 1973, there was no entitlement to a preserved pension for any public servant. Officers in the armed forces who had not served for 16 years from the age of 21, and soldiers who had not served for 22 years from the age of 18, were not entitled to a pension.
As I said, it sounds astonishing, but those were the rules then. They are stringent terms compared with today’s status quo, but although it sounds perverse, they compared favourably with other public sector schemes at that time; they were not that onerous. A civil servant, for instance, had to serve for at least 10 years and be over 50 to be eligible for a pension. Furthermore, members of the armed forces had access to other benefits. Although it did not constitute a pension, officers leaving after nine years and other ranks leaving after 12 years qualified for a gratuity to ease their transition from service to civilian life. Additionally, veterans who suffered illness or injury as a result of their service were entitled to what was called a war pension, although I am not sure that “pension” was ever the right word. It matters not—the point is that they were rightly and properly entitled to a sum of money that they received for life, no matter how long they had served.
One common misunderstanding is that the veterans we are discussing today somehow paid for their pensions but never received them. That is not right. Armed forces pensions are non-contributory. That was true of the armed forces pension scheme 75 and remains so for our new scheme, which will be introduced later this year. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body takes the pension provision into account as one of a range of factors when considering broad pay comparability for the armed forces, but armed forces pay is not abated as a direct consequence.
Taking into account all of the above, I think that it is clear that in terms of preserved pensions, members of the armed forces who left before 1975 were not disadvantaged compared with other groups of the time. So there is no case to answer under the terms of the armed forces covenant.
That said, the hon. Lady can rest assured that where we find clear disadvantage, we act. Of course, a recent high-profile example of that was the issue of pensions for life for surviving spouses and civil partners of personnel—a subject that she, like Members from all parties, has shown considerable interest in and campaigned on for many years. In that case, given the unique nature of service life, the widow or widower would have been prevented from earning an occupational pension of their own, which would have put them at a distinct disadvantage when compared with the rest of society. It has to be said that we are talking primarily about women, especially with regard to that generation. Service life meant that they married not only the man, but whichever part of the armed forces he served in, and often followed them around the world. They went from place to place. It was just often the way that they did not have a job of their own, and therefore were not able to build up their own pension pot or contribute to any pension scheme. We rightly identified that as a clear distinction that put them at a clear disadvantage, compared with others.
Consequently, from 1 April this year, all war pension scheme and AFPS75 widows and widowers will be able to retain their partner’s pension for life, and rightly so. That is one of the great achievements of this Government.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I must declare an interest: I have a preserved pension, having served in the Royal Air Force as an officer.
I commend the Government for the work they have done on war widows’ pensions. However, on veterans’ pensions, the Minister talked about the billions of pounds that a change to the system could cost. Have actual costs been calculated, and are there any firm proposals about giving some kind of due acceptance and acknowledgement of the service that these veterans gave to our nation, at home and abroad, pre-1975?
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that he will forgive me; I had not realised that he had served in the RAF, and under a scheme that means he receives no pension because of the rule that pertained at that time.
My officials will provide me with any details during this debate, but it is my understanding that no costings have been made for the proposed change. However, I said earlier that we believe that it would require an astonishing amount of money; some say that up to billions of pounds would have to be found if we were to set up any new scheme. [Interruption.] I am right that there is no firm figure, but it is thought that it would cost billions of pounds if we were to make good on this—if I can use that expression—in the way that my hon. Friend, and indeed the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, have suggested.
Let us now look at the idea that is being advanced of using LIBOR funding, so that people can apply directly. A lot of money has been recovered by way of LIBOR fines. We have been able to allocate £10 million each year, in perpetuity, to fund military charities and to continue the work to advance the armed forces covenant, but I stress that it is only £10 million each year, which, frankly, would be a drop in the ocean compared with the sums we have talked about today. I am also slightly confused as to whether or not the idea is that individuals would be able to apply to some fund that would be funded from the LIBOR funds, on an individual basis. I would be grateful for any assistance on that.
Katy Clark
I did not advance that argument; my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who is our Front-Bench spokesperson, did. What I asked the Minister to do is come forward with proposals for how she would provide some kind of recognition of this group. I am still waiting to hear any proposals from her. All she says is that there is no serious work being done, and that there are no serious costings; nevertheless, she says it would cost a huge amount of money, and she advances the case that there would be all sorts of repercussions for other groups. I ask her to focus on the group that I have talked about, which is a unique group.
Anna Soubry
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It always helps when one has some advance notice of exactly what will be put forward; that would have been helpful. I am more than happy to write to her if somebody can come up with suggestions, but I have to say that she is really whistling in the wind on this one. That is because any group of people who have served and who then find themselves in dire straits are always a concern to any Minister in the Ministry of Defence. However, the idea that we can suddenly rustle up some scheme that would enable people to apply on some ad hoc basis, and can find some magic pot of money, is very difficult. No doubt that is why her party, in its 13 years in power, did not do something similar to what she is proposing, because the argument was just as strong then; it is difficult to see how such a scheme could exist.
We have outstanding military charities that are always there to help and support those in particular need. There is the work of the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, and a whole raft of military charities, especially as that work relates to those who served some time ago, to help them as they move into the autumn and winter of their life, if I can put it that way. We should not underestimate the work those charities do, much of which is long-standing.
Also, we should not underestimate the resources that we have made available through LIBOR funding to help a number of those charities, including the Royal Hospital Chelsea. That is an outstanding example of the assistance and support provided to those who have served, often many years ago, and who are coming towards the end of their life. Such charities do great work and I am very proud of the fact that we have managed to make so much funding available. By way of example, veterans’ accommodation received somewhere in the region of £40 million last year. There were a series of projects to improve such accommodation. In some instances, there was brand new accommodation; in other instances, charities—such as the one just outside Brighton for servicemen and women who have lost their sight or had it damaged—were helped to improve the accommodation that they provide.
Again, a large amount of money has been provided, but it delivered huge benefit for all those who have served in the past, from the older veterans right through to those who have served in more recent times. I would say—with some passion, if I may—that this coalition Government should be extremely proud; I say that as I see that the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) has appeared in Westminster Hall. This coalition Government have really made a significant improvement to the welfare of all those who have served, and their families, because of the way that the Chancellor has taken the LIBOR funding and put it to great use.
Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)
I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene on her. I should explain that I have been on a Statutory Instrument Committee, and then I had to discuss road safety in the main Chamber. Even I cannot be in three places at the same time. Nevertheless, I certainly support the thrust of this debate, and I recognise what the Minister has said about this Government; they have contributed significantly, not least in taking forward the armed forces covenant. However, I hope that the Minister will agree that some of the pieces still need to be put into the jigsaw of military life for those who have served.
Anna Soubry
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we are far from being in a perfect world, and there is a great deal more that can be done.
Let us turn our attention to mental health. We know that the rates of incidence of poor mental health among veterans are no greater than for the rest of society. Equally, however, we know that for each individual who has served, suffering in any way from mental health issues is an absolute tragedy, for them and their families. Too many slip through the net.
Katy Clark
On a point of order, Mr Davies. This debate is on veterans’ pensions, but the Minister does not seem willing to address the issues that have been put forward. Could you make a ruling?
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
As far as I am concerned, the Minister is within the scope of the debate. I confess that I have given her a bit of latitude to talk about accommodation and things like that, but given that we have had plenty of time on our hands I did not think that was too much. As far as I am concerned, the Minister’s comments have addressed the subject of the debate. Whether they have been to the taste of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is a different issue altogether. If the Minister goes out of order, the hon. Lady can be assured that I will bring her back to order.
Anna Soubry
I must say, Mr Davies, whether or not I was out of order, I thought that identifying certain matters might assist colleagues. In fact, I was saying that there is always more to be done. If I am not allowed to talk about mental health in relation to all those who have served, then so be it.
I conclude by saying that the Government take this matter seriously. Military charities do an outstanding job and we have made funds available. I am not convinced that a separate scheme should be set up. I think it would be fraught with complexities. Goodness knows on what basis people could make their applications. The bureaucracy that would be needed and that would be involved would be extensive. It would cost an enormous amount of money and, at the end of the day, the money has to come from somewhere. Although we have been successful in ensuring that the LIBOR funding is going where it should go, not even that funding would be able to satisfy a fund that is thought at the moment to be somewhere in the region of billions of pounds.
Katy Clark
This has been an important debate for those affected. A quarter of a million people are still affected in that category. Many of them will be disappointed with the lack of response from the Government today, despite the fact that the issue has been taken up by politicians of all political parties over many years. Correspondence with the Department has been wide-ranging; parliamentary questions have been tabled; there have been meetings with Ministers; and there have been previous debates on the matter. The Government still seem not to have done any detailed work or made any proposals about veterans who are affected having some kind of recognition. That is unfortunate, but I am grateful that we have had the opportunity at least to get an update from the Government on their thinking.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Private Rented Sector
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)
My, noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local-Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) made the following written ministerial statement on 13 March 2015.
I would like to update the House on the actions that the coalition Government have put in place to support a healthy and prosperous private rented sector. The private rented sector is an important part of the housing market providing flexibility and allowing people to move quickly, helping those who do not want to own a house or who are currently saving to buy in the future.
There are now 4.4 million households who rent in England. Rents in the private rented sector have risen less than inflation during this Parliament. Surveys suggest that 84% of private renters are satisfied with their accommodation, and the average tenancy length is 3.5 years.
This Government have actively encouraged more institutional investment into the provision of new build rented homes, avoided excessive regulation and taken action to tackle the small minority of bad landlords.
Increasing housing investment
Supporting house building is part of this Government’s long-term economic plan. The Build to Rent Fund provides development finance to support the creation of a purpose-built private rented sector, backed by institutional investment. We have already announced 14 contracts worth £230 million, delivering over 3,000 homes for private rent. Over this year as the contracts are finalised, the Fund will deliver £1 billion of investment, meeting our 10,000 homes target.
The Private Rented Sector Housing Guarantee Scheme will facilitate investment of up to £3.5 billion in new private rented sector homes across the UK. PRS Operations Ltd (a subsidiary of Venn Partners LLP) was appointed to operate the scheme in December 2014 and has already started engaging with potential borrowers.
The Affordable Housing Guarantee Scheme utilises the Government’s hard won fiscal credibility to deliver more affordable housing by making debt cheaper for affordable housing providers. It aims to deliver up to 30,000 homes through guaranteeing up to £3.5 billion of debt. To date, 35 registered providers have been approved under the scheme. Combined they will borrow over £1.25 billion of guaranteed debt, supporting the delivery of over 11,000 additional affordable homes across the United Kingdom. In March 2015, a £194 million bond issuance achieved an all-in price of 2.92% and brought the total value of bond issuances to £600 million since launching in May. This is the cheapest ever housing association bond, and the cheapest debt of any kind for 27 years. It is also the first bond in the sector to break the 3% barrier.
Through the rent to buy programme, the Government are providing £400 million of low-cost loans to housing associations to build new homes between 2015 and 2018. This programme will act as a springboard to home ownership for aspirational working households on lower incomes. The rent to buy programme will enable us to deliver thousands of new, high quality homes to help those who need them at a far lower cost to the taxpayer. This fund will deliver 8,000 to 10,000 new homes, helping households to move from renting to owning, while giving very good value to taxpayers.
In addition to direct funding, the Government’s private rented sector taskforce is continuing to accelerate the development of the private rented sector as an investment market and has helped to generate aspirations to invest over £10 billion of domestic and foreign investment in this tenure. The taskforce is holding a conference to launch their build to rent guide for local authorities later this month.
Ensuring a professional industry
The coalition Government have not jeopardised investment in the sector by increasing red tape and unnecessary regulation. Instead we want to drive up standards in the sector and improve the level of professionalism among landlords. We have:
Published “How to Rent”, an accessible guide with clear advice for tenants on their rights and responsibilities with advice on what to do if something goes wrong;
Issued a model tenancy agreement which sets out a fair balance between the rights and responsibilities of the tenant and landlord and which can be used for longer tenancy arrangements, helping to reduce voids and letting agency fees;
Rejected calls for statist rent controls, which would destroy investment in new and existing rented properties, reduce supply and ultimately force up rents;
Introduced a new code of practice in September 2014 to improve the sector’s professionalism, so all landlords and agents understand what they should deliver;
Required all letting agents and property managers to belong to one of the three Government—approved redress scheme. This will offer a clear and simple route for landlords and tenants to pursue complaints about their agent and where complaints are upheld they could receive compensation;
Ensured full transparency on letting agents’ fees shortly all letting agents will have to publicise, prominently in their offices and on their websites a full tariff of their fees, whether or not they are a member of a client money protection scheme and which redress scheme they have joined. Transparency will encourage competition on fee levels and enable choice on service provided not just cost. We have considered but ruled out a ban on fees, as this will simply increase rents for tenants.
We are today publishing a short guide “Renting a Safe Home” which will help tenants recognise potentially harmful hazards in the home, such as damp, mould and excess cold and what to do about them. This will help tenants avoid properties with potential health hazards.
Supporting leasehold properties
There is an estimated 4.1 million leasehold dwellings in England, 1.6 million of which are in the private rented sector. My Department announced in August a number of areas that we are looking to address. A package of works is therefore being taken forward, which includes making it easier for tenants associations to be recognised and improving theEnsuring high standards for Park Homes
We are committed to ensuring that the rights of park home residents are respected and the sites they live on are healthy and safe. Many have suffered over the years from unscrupulous site operators. We have already introduced important new measures under the Mobile Homes Act 2013 which have given residents important new rights to improve their lives and protect them from rogue site owners.
We have given local authorities powers for the first time, to issue compliance notices requiring a site owner to carry out any necessary work to the site to comply with their licence obligations. In an emergency, a local authority may also enter a site and do the works if it considers there is an imminent risk to the health and safety of residents. The local authority will in any of these cases be able to recover all its enforcement costs directly from the site owner.
To ensure the costs of carrying out their licensing functions did not fall unfairly on council taxpayers we gave local authorities powers to charge site owners an annual fee for administering and monitoring existing licences.
Each local authority must publish its policy on how it will set the fees, showing clearly this is reasonable and will do no more than recover the council’s costs. To ensure the system for charging fees was fully transparent, we published a guide for local authorities on setting site licensing fees, which provides options for setting fees and devising their fees policy. We also published a guide for site owners on the new enforcement regime introduced by the 2013 Act.
The new park homes site licensing regime gives local authorities more effective control of conditions on mobile home sites. In appropriate cases, it provides local authorities with the tools required to take enforcement action including the power to serve compliance notices in relation to breaches of site licence conditions, emergency action powers, and the ability to carry out works in default and recover expenses. We have today issued enforcement guidance to local authorities on how to use their new powers to best effect.
We have given local authorities powers to refuse to grant a new application or transfer of a site licence. We have today issued guidance which sets out the matters an authority can take into account when considering an application including the funding and management arrangements in place for managing the site and complying with the licence.
Getting the right balance on regulation
We made a commitment to take forward a review of property conditions in the private rented sector. A discussion paper, “Review of Property Conditions in the Private Rented Sector”, was subsequently published last year seeking views on what more can be done to improve property conditions in the private rented sector, and how best to tackle bad landlords without negatively impacting on the good ones. The Government’s response has been published today.
We are issuing updated guidance to local authority officers to help them identify and successfully prosecute rogue landlords and letting agents. We made available £6.7 million to a number of local authorities to help tackle the acute and complex problems they face in tackling rogue landlords in their area, which includes action on “Beds in Sheds”. So far nearly 40,000 properties have been inspected and over 3,000 landlords are now facing further action or prosecution for breaking the law;
We have laid secondary legislation to reform selective licencing schemes, giving councils more discretion to target action against by rogue landlords. At the same time, the new measures put tighter checks and balances on the introduction of blanket licensing, which increases costs on responsible landlords and drives up tenants’ rents;
We are protecting tenants against retaliatory eviction where they have a legitimate complaint and made the eviction process more straightforward in appropriate circumstances. Subject to the Deregulation Bill receiving Royal Assent, these provisions will come into effect in October 2015;
We are clarifying tenant deposit protection legislation in response to recent court cases. As a result where landlords took a deposit prior to the introduction of the tenancy deposit protection legislation on 6 April 2007 in respect of a tenancy which (a) rolled over into a statutory periodic tenancy on or after that date and (b) is still in existence when the Deregulation Bill shortly receives Royal Assent will have a period of 90 days from the date of Royal Assent to protect their tenant’s deposit or potentially face a fine.
We are laying legislation requiring landlords to install smoke alarms on every floor of their property, and test them at the start of every tenancy. Landlords would also need to install carbon monoxide alarms in high-risk rooms—such as those where a solid fuel heating system is installed; affirmative resolution secondary legislation is being laid and subject to Parliamentary approval, the provisions will come into effect in October 2015; we have worded the secondary legislation to allow for rollover to the next Parliament if necessary;
We believe this is the right balance to ensure high standards, while avoid excessive red tape which would reduce supply and force up rents. By working constructively with landlords and the property sector and supporting free enterprise, tenants will benefit from a better range of quality rented accommodation and competitive rents.
Copies of the documents associated with these announcements have been placed in the Library of the House.
[HCWS413]
Asbestos Management in Schools
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)
On Thursday 12 March I published the Department for Education’s review of asbestos management in schools. The review was initiated following a statement by the Department of Health’s Committee on Carcinogenicity on the vulnerability of children to asbestos compared with adults in 2013.
It is important for the safety and health of all staff and children in schools that asbestos is managed properly. The Department for Education has a role to support schools, and those legally responsible for managing school buildings such as local authorities and academy trusts, in ensuring that they are fully aware of their responsibilities and are executing them effectively.
This review sets out the steps we will take to enhance our role in supporting the management of asbestos in schools. First, we are publishing refreshed, more user-friendly, guidance and ensuring it is widely disseminated, so that all of those with a responsibility for keeping their schools safe know and understand how to manage asbestos.
Second, we want to improve accountability in the system, and are proposing to gather data to ensure those responsible for asbestos management are fulfilling their duties. The Department will consult with stakeholders to ensure we do this in the most effective and efficient way possible.
We will continue to invest in the school estate in a way that ensures asbestos can be dealt with adequately and that, over time and where appropriate, we see a reduction in the number of schools buildings with asbestos-containing materials. And we will continue to seek to improve the evidence base on asbestos levels and asbestos management in schools, so that we can ensure our policies fully respond to any barriers to the effective management of asbestos in schools.
This publication builds upon the extensive investment made by this Government in improving the condition of our schools, including most recently last month’s announcements of a further £6 billion of investment. Copies of the review have been placed in the House Library.
[HCWS141]
EU Foreign Ministers Meeting (Gymnich)
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Philip Hammond) attended the informal Foreign Ministers meeting on 6 and 7 March in Riga, Latvia.
The informal format of the Gymnich allows EU Foreign Ministers to engage in a free-ranging discussion on a number of issues. In contrast to the formal Foreign Affairs Council (FAC), Ministers do not agree written conclusions. The next FAC is due to be held on 16 March. The Gymnich was chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Federica Mogherini. Discussion centred on Libya, Ukraine/Russia, Eastern Partnership and European Neighbourhood Policy Review.
Elmar Brok MEP, Chairman of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and the OSCE Secretary General, Lamberto Zannier attended the discussion on Ukraine/Russia. Johannes Hahn, Commissioner for European Neighbourhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations also attended. Foreign Ministers from EU candidate countries joined EU Ministers for a session on the European Neighbourhood.
Gymnich discussion
Libya
UN special envoy to Libya, Bernardino Leon joined the discussion by telephone and gave a broadly positive outline of the talks in Rabat. Ms Mogherini stressed the EU’s support for the talks and highlighted the need for the March FAC to prepare for the discussion on Libya at the March European Council. The EU was looking at all options for Libya, including possible missions and operations.
Ukraine/Russia
OSCE Secretary General Zannier briefed Ministers on progress in the OSCE’s tasking in support of the implementation of the Minsk agreements, and provided his assessment of the situation on the ground. Mr Zannier welcomed the EU’s readiness to increase availability of personnel, resources and technical support to strengthen the effectiveness and the mandate of the OSCE monitoring mission. Ministers expressed support for the role of the OSCE.
EU Ministers highlighted the importance of fully implementing the Minsk agreements and noted the fragility of the situation. The Foreign Secretary argued that economic sanctions should remain in place until the Minsk agreements had been fully implemented to strengthen the likelihood of full compliance. The Foreign Secretary also noted the anniversary of Crimea’s illegal annexation, highlighting the human rights violations, especially towards the minority Tatar population.
Ms Mogherini emphasised that the EU should be ready to increase economic pressure on Russia if there was further escalation, but the question of sanctions should be left to the March European Council. Meanwhile the special monitoring mission should get all necessary support. Ms Mogherini emphasised need for EU unity in handling Russia.
Eastern Partnership (EaP): Riga Summit (21-22 May)
Ms Mogherini set out her view that the Riga EaP summit’s political messages should be: commitment to the Eastern Partnership; a differentiated approach; the importance of implementing reforms; and a co-operative, not divisive approach. The challenges would include managing expectations on European perspectives, and ensuring coherent political messages. The summit would also be discussed at the March FAC and at a joint EaP ministerial in the margins of the April FAC in Luxembourg.
European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) Review
Ms Mogherini drew attention to the launch of the review process through the EEAS and Commission Joint Communication published on 4 March. There would be an ENP discussion at the April FAC. Consultations on the review will run until June, with final proposals emerging in the autumn.
Assessment of the impact of changes in the global environment
Ms Mogherini updated Ministers on the ongoing analysis of changes in the global environment as tasked by the December 2013 European Council. Initial findings will be presented to Ministers for discussion at the May FAC, which will inform a paper for discussion at the June European Council.
[HCWS415]
VE Day (70th Anniversary)
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr William Hague)
I would like to inform the House of plans to commemorate the 70th anniversary of VE Day. On VE Day in 1945 millions of people across the UK and abroad, shared a sense of relief and euphoria that the war in Europe was over. The 70th anniversary is an opportunity to remember the sacrifice and sheer determination of the people who saw us through this dark period, give thanks to all those who so bravely played their part and celebrate peace and reconciliation. The three days of events will commence on Friday 8 May at 1500, the moment Sir Winston Churchill made his famous speech declaring that the war in Europe was over. There will be a national two minute silence followed by a Service of Remembrance at the Cenotaph, with wreaths laid in tribute, including by representatives of veteran organisations. Schools will be taking part in a range of activities. In the evening, a chain of beacons will be lit across the UK to mark the transition from remembrance to celebration. On Saturday 9 May, cathedrals, churches and others will ring bells, ships will sound their horns and in the evening there will be a live commemorative concert broadcast from Horse Guards Parade. Central London will reflect the spirit of VE Day with flags flying and illumination of landmarks; from Trafalgar Square, along the Mall, Whitehall and in Parliament Square. On Sunday 10 May, there will be a Service of Thanksgiving in Westminster Abbey and later, military and civilian veterans and their representatives will parade through Whitehall. In the afternoon there will be a reception for the veterans and a flypast by aircraft, including the Spitfire and the Lancaster. Throughout the weekend communities and families will bring the commemorations to life in the way which is most meaningful for them, whether this is a picnic in the park, a street party, exhibitions or formal receptions. The programme of events will be staged in partnership with a large number of organisations, including the Royal British Legion, and I thank them in advance for their passion and commitment to making VE Day 70 a success. I hope as many people as possible of all ages and from all walks of life will take the opportunity to reflect on, and mark, this important anniversary in our history and give thanks to those that contributed so much.
[HCWS416]
The Muslim Brotherwood Review
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
I would like to update the House that a report into the main findings of the Muslim Brotherhood review will be published alongside the Government’s new counter-extremism strategy.
As we consider broader policy questions emerging from the review and the wider strategy, it is clear that further, more comprehensive measures will be required in the next Parliament to tackle the threat from extremism in the UK, and to support communities to challenge those who oppose British values.
[HCWS417]
House of Lords
Income Tax: Top Rate
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether income tax revenue received from top rate taxpayers has increased or decreased since the rate was cut from 50 per cent to 45 per cent; and by how much.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, in my noble friend Lord Forsyth’s absence, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, the latest projections show that income tax receipts from additional rate taxpayers in 2013-14 were £45.9 billion, compared with £38 billion in 2012-13, which was the last year when the additional rate was 50%.
Lord Borwick
My Lords, there was therefore an £8 billion increase in revenue as a result of lowering tax by 5%. Would my noble friend agree that Labour’s policy of putting the tax rate back up would not increase revenue, but rather discourage entrepreneurs, who are so responsible for increasing employment?
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise, along with most analysts, that the figures that he has just given have probably been distorted by the practice of forestalling? Does he realise that such practice by some top rate taxpayers meant that they delayed their returns from 2012 to 2013 to take advantage of the 5% top rate tax cut in the following year, after it was announced in the 2012 Budget? Instead of drawing glib conclusions from the figures that he has given, would he and Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs not realise that each 1% increase on the top rate of income tax can generate an extra £1.1 billion? Therefore, a cut can lose £5 billion in any year following the first year after the tax cut. When we have—
Lord Kinnock
When we have a deficit of £90 billion, can the country really afford that when we are supposed to be all in it together?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord’s figures are just completely wrong. The figures produced by HMRC, which I am sure he has read, showed that its central estimate of the effect of reducing the top rate from 50p to 45p was a cost of £100 million, against which should be set—among other changes that this Government have made that exclusively hit the very affluent—the changes in disguised remuneration, which brought in £3.5 billion this Parliament, and the reduction in pensions tax relief, which will bring in £5 billion a year.
Lord Razzall (LD)
My Lords, following up on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, does the Minister accept that a by-product of the much welcomed coalition pressure on banks and other organisations in the City to reduce bonuses, which I assume is welcomed by the Labour Party, has been a reduction in tax revenues?
Lord Newby
My Lords, there has been a reduction in the amount paid in bonuses in the City. This will undoubtedly have meant a fall in the amount of tax on those bonuses, but I am sure that the whole House will welcome that development and hope that it will lead to something of a change in bank culture.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the Minister to a recent ONS study which looked at the combination of direct and indirect taxation and found that the group paying most—paying more than the really well-off—was in the bottom quartile. Is not the big social injustice in the tax system in this country that the poorest are indeed paying the most? That is not helped by the Chancellor, George Osborne, and his cohorts rubbishing social security and welfare payments. Does the Minister not agree that that only compounds and exacerbates the problem that we have in our iniquitous tax system?
Lord Newby
But, my Lords, the top 1% of income tax payers is now paying between 27% and 28% of all income tax, which is a higher proportion than at any point during the last Labour Government. The two changes that I have mentioned, which bring in more than £6 billion extra a year, apply only to the highest earners.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, despite the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, is it not true that lowering tax rates increases revenue, and does that not make it rather surprising that the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to lower the top rate to 40%?
Lord Newby
No, my Lords, it does not. HRMC estimates that if you reduce the top tax rate from 45% to 40%, the likely cost to the Exchequer will be about £1 billion.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not acknowledge that in fact the very wealthy have various stratagems for reducing the impact of taxation? That is why, whatever the Government do, it does not produce the resources that the nation needs. Why does the Conservative Party not drop the idea that supporting the wealthy will somehow lead to a trickle-down advantage for the rest of the community, when the disparity between the wealthy and the poorest in our society is growing wider, and why do they not address themselves to the real issue, which is that the vast majority of people in this country are poorer under this coalition?
Lord Newby
My Lords, I do not know which bits of that question to deal with first. However, given the time, I just point out to the noble Lord that the group of the population whose income, by percentage and absolute amount, has suffered most and which has lost the most is the top 20%. They have seen a 3% cut in their income, which is a greater cut than has been experienced by any other tranche. The noble Lord does not like it because it is an inconvenient truth, but it does not stop it being a truth.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that during the life of this Government corporation tax has fallen from 28% to 21% but corporate taxation revenues from companies has increased from £35.8 billion to £39.3 billion? That underlines the point made by my noble friend Lord Borwick that a decrease in rates of tax helps to increase revenue, reducing the biggest problem that we face at the moment—the deficit.
Lord Newby
My Lords, it is important to have competitive corporate tax rates, which is why we have reduced them, although it is obviously the case that you reach the point as you are reducing taxes when you lose revenue. The trick is to get the balance right, which is what we have done by reducing corporation tax, for example, and by putting capital gains tax up very significantly from the level it was under the Labour Government.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Could the Minister explain how it is that some wealthy people—leaders of our big companies—manage to get themselves domiciled abroad, in places such as Hong Kong, as the senior management of HSBC has done? Surely, that is the real tax dodge.
Lord Newby
My Lords, we have taken a number of measures to make sure that non-doms pay more per annum and have introduced a new charge on non-doms of £90,000 a year for those who are in the UK for a long time.
NHS: Health and Social Care Act 2012
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wills
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the Health and Social Care Act 2012 on innovation by National Health Service clinicians.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the Act created the architecture within which NHS England’s innovation, health and wealth strategy is being implemented. As part of this, the innovation scorecard shows a real improvement in the uptake of certain NICE-approved innovations. The NICE implementation collaborative has also resulted in increased national spend on key technologies. The department and NHS England have commissioned an independent evaluation of innovation, health and wealth, which is expected to be completed by winter 2017.
Lord Wills (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer, but does he recognise that there is a significant gap between those fine words and what is actually happening on the ground? To take the case of giant cell arteritis, for example, 2,000 to 3,000 people go blind needlessly as a result of it. I hope the House will indulge me for a few seconds if I set out this important example. The condition is easily treatable. Professor Dasgupta, in Southend, has pioneered a fast-track pathway for diagnosis and treatment which has reduced the numbers of people going blind by two-thirds. Rolled out nationally, that would save thousands of people every year from going blind. It would save them and their families needless misery and suffering and would save the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds every year.
In January, Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of NHS England, wrote to me and said that this “represents a new way of doing things which is better and costs no more. We must learn from such innovative examples”. Is the Minister aware of what has happened since he wrote to me? Thousands of people have gone blind—
Lord Wills
Noble Lords opposite ought to listen to this; the people who suffer most from this are elderly and it is very much in their own interests to listen. Nothing has been done to roll out this innovative pathway. Can the Minister not accept that having a few guidelines is simply not good enough? Can he not accept that since the Health and Social Care Act came in, there has been no good example of good practice in this area?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I recognise the noble Lord’s close interest in this important topic. We recognise that early diagnosis and treatment of giant cell arteritis is extremely important to preventing sight loss. I am aware of the interest in the Southend GCA pathway developed by Professor Dasgupta. I recently raised the issue of the pathway with NHS England and understand Sir Bruce Keogh will be writing to the noble Lord very shortly about this. As he may be aware, the Royal College of Physicians has produced a best practice guideline on the diagnosis and management of GCA, which Professor Dasgupta has helped to develop. That is good progress and provides a very good framework for disease assessment, immediate treatment and urgent referral.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Earl has been answering health Questions for nearly five years now with courtesy and skill. How does he feel, as possibly the sole apologist, other than Mr Andrew Lansley, for the Health and Social Care Act 2012? What is his response to the independent King’s Fund, which described the Act, which the noble Earl piloted through this House with great skill, as having an impact that was both “damaging and distracting”? Is that not the real answer to my noble friend? The reason he has identified a problem and a shambolic decision by NHS England is that we have a shambolic organisation, which this Government are responsible for.
Earl Howe
If I had to single out two or three things from that Act which have been of enormous and incomparable benefit, one would be the enhancement and promotion of clinical leadership within the system, which has happened as a result of the creation of clinical commissioning groups. The second is the creation of Public Health England and the transformation of public health delivery in this country. The third is the separation of elected politicians from the running of the health service, which has enabled the NHS to free itself up to look at innovation in a more creative way
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that if specialist secondary clinicians worked a more significant part of their time in primary settings in the community, this would be a welcome innovation across the country?
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, it would be churlish not to accept the noble Earl’s remarks that there have been some changes which have been beneficial. But does he not agree that the public at large recognise that overall there have been many downsides? Many of those downsides have been hidden and continue to be hidden by politicians, who refuse to release the risk register that was drawn up prior to that Act going through.
Earl Howe
My Lords, we are back to that one. As the noble Lord knows, the strategic risk register for the department is something that we are entitled to keep confidential, as all Governments have done. The Cabinet took the decision that the transition risk register should remain confidential because of the principle of the need to preserve private space for civil servants when advising Ministers.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, some months ago I led a debate on the lack of clinical governance between health and social care. I was promised a meeting with the noble Earl by the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. One of the big problems is the fact that there is no governance framework between health and social care, and as a result a lot of people are falling into a black hole. Can the noble Earl say when that meeting will take place?
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that one of the—I hope unintended—consequences of the Health and Social Care Act has been the disastrous effect on the recruitment of GPs, the number of people going into the GP profession and the number of people leaving the profession or who have said that they will be retiring early? It was described to me recently as an impending car crash.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I think we all recognise that general practice is under unprecedented pressure but I would not attribute that to the 2012 Act; I would attribute it to the unprecedented rise in demand from patients. The NHS across the piece is busier than ever before and naturally that has an effect on morale. We are, however, taking steps to promote recruitment into general practice and to reduce the day-to-day burdens that are imposed on general practitioners.
Population: International Migration
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Green of Deddington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the impact of international migration on the population of the United Kingdom, taking into account the children of immigrants already in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Office for National Statistics publishes results from the Annual Population Survey. In the year ending December 2013, an estimated 7.8 million people were born outside the UK, while 4.9 million were non-UK citizens. For the calendar year of 2013, births in the UK to non-UK born mothers accounted for 25% of all live births. That is why we need to reduce immigration.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the chairman of Migration Watch. I thank the Minister for his reply. This is my first intervention on this subject in your Lordships’ House. Does the Minister agree with me that a sensible level of immigration is a natural and valuable part of an open society and economy? Indeed, there are a number of Members of this House whose very presence attests to that. Is the Minister aware that of the increase in the UK population over the past 10 years, at least two-thirds was due to immigration, and that if you include the natural increase in the number of migrants who are already here, that percentage becomes 80%? Will he therefore instruct his officials to clarify the position so that the public finally and fully understand the impact of immigration on our society? Lastly, is he aware that if net migration is allowed to continue at present levels, in the next 10 years we will have to build the equivalent of the city of Birmingham every two years, with the schools, hospitals, et cetera, that will be necessary?
Lord Bates
First, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that he has done through Migration Watch, which is, I think, widely regarded as a balanced think tank that makes a positive contribution to the debate on immigration in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Green, referred to a figure of two-thirds and suggested that that could rise to 80%. The figure that we have to hand on this is 53%. However, we are absolutely at one on needing a firm but fair immigration policy to protect the public services of this country and provide opportunities for those who want to come here to work.
Lord Soley (Lab)
My Lords, the Question is about the children of immigrants. Go outside into the Royal Gallery and you will see a picture of a black man on the ship with Nelson. There were 188 sailors of African origin in the Royal Navy at Trafalgar. I know two or three Indian citizens in the Ealing area who have the Victoria Cross. I wonder what we are saying about their children. It seems to me that their children have made an immensely valuable contribution to the United Kingdom; we ought to be proud of that and say so.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is absolutely right. In fact, I see no difference whatever between his assertion and the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Green, has raised. The best service that we can show to those who come to this country is to make our public services and healthcare available to them and make sure that those who have come here legally and are making a contribution are not disadvantaged by those who have come here illegally and are taking from the state.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, is it not the case that Her Majesty’s Government, political leaders and civic leaders need to make a case for the positive impact that immigration has had on this country? Of all doctors in the NHS, 26% were foreign-born and 85,000 nurses were born abroad. The care system would collapse without immigrant labour. Does the Minister think that the constant negative narrative of immigration, without the positive, is detrimental to British society—a society that has always been one of tolerance which values and upholds democracy in building better institutions? Do the Government not really need to take the lead on this?
Lord Bates
That is true, but that sensible and rational view was drowned out when the lid was taken off immigration and the controls taken away so that under the previous Government we had net migration of 2.5 million. That fed into a change in the narrative away from the fact that most people who come to this country make an absolutely outstanding contribution to it and we are blessed to have them.
Baroness Afshar (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, if we did not have immigrants or the children of immigrants, we would not have buildings, schools, a vibrant food industry or vibrant markets? They contribute and their contribution creates a multiplier effect, which means that they create money that goes around. They should not be underestimated.
Lord Bates
I certainly assure the noble Baroness that that contribution is not underestimated and that it is not going to stop. We want people who want to come here to study, to work, to invest and to visit. We want all those people to come. What we are doing is drawing a line to say that we must get much tougher with those who want to come here and abuse our openness.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches.
Lord Tomlinson
My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House how the Prime Minister got immigration figures so stunningly wrong when looking at this country’s need for overseas students? He promised us that immigration would be controlled at tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. His words in emphasising that were, “No ifs, no buts”. If he can get those figures so stunningly wrong, why should we believe any of the statistics that are coming from the Government on immigration?
Lord Bates
It could well be that when the Prime Minister made those remarks the country was in the depths of despair in 2010. Since then, we have had a jobs miracle. We are creating more jobs than the rest of Europe put together. As a result of that, not surprisingly, the place where people want to come to find work is the only place where the jobs are being created. That is in the UK.
Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, would my noble friend accept that the real problem is not immigration but integration?
Lord Bates
That is a more philosophical point—and a good one. It is one reason why we need to work on those other programmes of integration through the education system and through ensuring that people have a sense of what British values are and feel part of this country.
NHS: Cancer Drugs Fund
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the public are not allowed to appeal against a decision to remove certain drugs from the Cancer Drugs Fund list of approved drugs.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, NHS England’s appeal process for the national cancer drugs fund list centres on whether due process is followed with regard to decisions to add or remove drugs from that list. NHS England considers that third parties not involved in the application process, including patients, would not be in a position to make a judgment about whether due process had been followed.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, the cancer drugs fund was set up as a way of getting round NICE’s refusal to approve the use of a number of drugs by NHS patients. Would the noble Earl concede that NHS England has, essentially, set up a new rationing tool to exclude patients from drugs which had originally been agreed through the cancer drugs fund? Last Thursday, NHS England listed 19 drugs no longer available. Although the noble Earl said that the process is around the procedure used, does he not agree that in the end this impacts directly on patients who can no longer get those 19 drugs? Why should not patients be involved in an appeal process? How does the mantra “No decision about me without me”, which the Government have set for the NHS, fit the lack of patient involvement in these decisions?
Earl Howe
The noble Lord is right that NHS England has just gone through a reprioritisation process. There are three important things to observe in that process. NHS England has assured the department that no patient whose treatment is currently being funded through the fund will have funding withdrawn, as long as it is clinically appropriate that they continue to receive that treatment. In addition, no drug will be removed from the fund where it is the only therapy for that condition. Clinicians will still be able to apply for individual patients to receive a drug not on the national list on an exceptional basis. We have seen through experience that many of those applications succeed.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
Would the Minister accept that NICE is faced with an extremely difficult problem in continually having to consider the efficacy and affordability of new cancer drugs as they emerge in a National Health Service under financial constraint? Would he also accept that another major problem is emerging in relation to the orphan and ultra-orphan drugs now coming on stream for the treatment of rare diseases, which are equally deserving in many respects? How does he feel that the next Government—however they are constituted—will be able to consider this increasingly serious problem?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord is right that there is a particular issue around the appraisal of new cancer drugs. That is why NHS England, the Department of Health, cancer charities, NICE and the Ethical Medicines Industry Group, as well as the ABPI, are working together currently as part of a new working party tasked with finding the best way to get new cancer drugs appraised and commissioned for patients. A number of proposals have been looked at to reach an integrated process between NHS England and NICE which results in clear and final decisions on baseline commissioning of chemotherapy drugs.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, given the good news that the Minister just gave us about the working group looking at the future of some of these complex drugs, and the whole policy about “No decision about me without me”, would it not be sensible to have patients’ advocates, such as Prostate Cancer UK, able both to present and to appeal the case for a drug? It seems bizarre that this is the one area where there is no input of anybody other than the committee making the decision.
Earl Howe
I differ slightly from my noble friend on this point. I think that the key determinant for the reprioritisation process has to be clinical input, and that is indeed what happened. It is necessary to have as objective a process as possible when looking at how to reprioritise a cash-limited fund of this kind.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, if I could come back to the noble Earl, the NICE processes make sure that patients are involved in every stage of the process. I do not understand why there is a difference between the NICE process, which is incredibly thorough and well regarded internationally, and this hurried rationing tool used by NHS England, which is more about its own budgetary problems than an effective solution to these issues.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I do not agree about the hurried rationing tool, as the noble Lord puts it. The tool used by NHS England is one that has been tried and tested, and accepted and shared with the pharmaceutical industry. The point here, as I said in my original reply, is that there is due process here. NHS England believes that any patient group or third party not involved intimately with that due process would not be in a position to make a judgment about whether the process had been followed correctly.
Business of the House
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 17 March to allow the Corporation Tax (Northern Ireland) Bill and the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill to be taken through all their remaining stages that day.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, this Motion is illustrative of the kind of flexibility and co-operation without which this House could not operate. However, it might sometimes be appropriate to remember that such flexibility and co-operation should work in both directions.
Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft orders and regulations laid before the House on 29 January and 2 February be approved.
Relevant documents: 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March.
Local Audit and Accountability Act 2014 (Special Trustees) Amendment Regulations 2015
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Broadcasting Act 1996 (Renewal of Local Radio Multiplex Licences) Regulations 2015
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5 February be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 March.
Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007 (Disclosure of Revenue Information) Regulations 2015
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5 February be approved.
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 11 March.
Deregulation Bill
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 38 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A and 38B in lieu.
“(14) Any regulations which are made under subsection (1) shall not take effect before 1 April 2017.”
“(3) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which the review is completed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report setting out the Secretary of State’s response to the review which must include—
(a) a statement as to whether the Secretary of State proposes to exercise the power to make regulations under section 60(1)(a) or (b), and (b) if the Secretary of State proposes to do so, an outline of the steps that the Secretary of State proposes to take in consequence and when those steps will be taken.”
“(10A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made so as to come into force before 1 April 2017.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, the Government are very clear that the review of the TV licence enforcement regime is a high priority. The overriding aim is to ensure that the system is appropriate, proportionate and fair, and that it represents the best value. This independent review, led by David Perry QC, will identify whether the current enforcement regime is appropriate and proportionate, and will ensure that there is a strong, evidence-based case for any potential changes to the TV licence enforcement regime. Due to the importance of this issue, the decision was taken to commence this review in advance of Royal Assent, while retaining a clause that commits the Government to carry out the review to ensure that this important piece of work is completed in a timely manner. The findings of the review, which will be complete by the end of June 2015, will be laid in both Houses of Parliament and presented to the BBC Trust.
The proposed amendments made in the other place in lieu of Lords Amendment 38 place additional reporting commitments on the Government, but still require that any changes to the licensing regime may not come into force before 1 April 2017. The amendments require the Government of the day to consider the report promptly and properly, setting out their response and the next steps to be taken within three months of the report’s completion. The Secretary of State must report to the House, setting out whether the Government propose to exercise the power to change the sanctions that apply to the failure to have a TV licence, and, if so, detailing the next steps to be taken and to what timetable.
As I have said, the proposed amendments also require that any regulations may not be made so as to come into force before 1 April 2017. We have always maintained that the report’s findings, and potential next steps, should be considered in the context of charter review, and this remains the case. The BBC’s current charter expires on 31 December 2016. The Government will not begin charter review until after the general election, and there is no set process for how the review should be conducted, or when. It will be for the Government of the day to take forward any further actions as they see fit.
We must not pre-empt the recommendations Mr Perry will make, particularly as the public consultation element of this work is currently ongoing. However, it remains the case that any next steps will need to be considered within the scope and timing of the charter review, and it will be for the next Government to ensure that the right enforcement regime for licence fee payers, the courts and indeed the BBC itself is in place. Our amendments ensure that the Government of the day will be committed to consider whatever recommendations David Perry QC wishes to make and to set out their intentions. Any changes that may be introduced must follow a clear timetable to be set out in the Government’s Statement, leading up to when the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power commences in April 2017. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, following the successful vote in your Lordships’ House a week or two ago, we are very pleased to see that the Government have accepted our important amendment to the Bill by including it in their own Motion A. What we now have before us is a cast-iron guarantee that any proposed changes to the licence fee enforcement regime will not take place until at least 1 April 2017 when the current licence fee settlement expires.
In particular, I would like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Clement-Jones, and Lord Grade, for their invaluable support in this matter in signing the original amendment. This cross-party support demonstrated the broad strength of feeling on this whole issue. Any changes imposed before April 2017 would without doubt have had an impact on the BBC’s revenue. The consequences for the BBC’s funding need to be fully considered. Funding, along with everything else to do with the BBC, must be looked at in the context of the upcoming charter review and licence fee settlement.
We recognise that the David Perry QC review into licence fee enforcement is currently taking place, and I understand that the BBC is engaging with the review. Our amendment, now included in the Government’s Motion, does not affect the review’s recommendations or seek to change the outcome, but focuses on the timing of any implementation and ensures that the recommendation can lead into wider discussions that will affect all licence fee payers.
Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)
My Lords, first, I draw attention to my interests in this matter as a former chairman of the BBC Board of Governors, the chairman of Pinewood Studios, an occasional—far too occasional—supplier of services to the BBC, and any other interests in the register.
It has been a very good experience putting this matter to rights, and I offer my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. She and I have not always seen eye to eye on broadcasting matters over many years, but I am delighted to support the remarks she made earlier. I thank the Minister for reaching such a happy resolution on this matter, which means that when the starting gun goes on the charter review debate at the BBC after the election, we can start with a blank sheet of paper and no subsidiary issues that might get in the way. My thanks go to my noble friend and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for running with this matter. I have been very happy to support her, I continue to support her and I am very happy to support the government Motion.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, although the Minister tried to argue that all sides of the House were in agreement in support for the BBC, I am bound to say that the Government’s position on this issue, repeated at earlier stages of the debate in your Lordships’ House, was precisely the opposite. Had the Government prevailed, that would have had a very destabilising effect on the BBC. The Minister may speak now with the passion of the converted, but we heard him in Committee, we heard him again at Third Reading, and we will remember.
Over time, we have in this country established appropriate procedures for exercising effective but arm’s-length oversight of the BBC involving periodic reviews of the charter and licence and the regular fixing of budgets. The lesson to learn from this episode is that it would be very unwise for any political party to play around with the BBC mid-licence period for short-term political advantage.
We support the independent review being undertaken by David Perry QC. We do not know what the review will recommend on this important but rather narrow question of decriminalising penalties for not paying fines imposed by the courts. But we think it is right to wait for the outcome of the review before any decisions are taken for the simple reason that this would ensure that there will be no significant effect on BBC funding—up or down—before the end of the BBC’s current licence fee settlement, which is due to expire at the end of March 2017.
When the 2010 licence fee settlement was announced, the then Secretary of State said that it would provide,
“a full financial settlement to the end of the year 2016/17, with no new financial requirements or fresh obligations of any kind being placed on the BBC and/or licence fee revenues in this period”.
I am delighted that the Government are now prepared to honour that commitment and we support the amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and indeed a number of other noble Lords who I have engaged with on this issue. We have, both in the Chamber and outside, had some very useful and constructive discussions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her generous remarks welcoming the Government’s amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said that he would remember. I know that if I look back I shall remember this Bill for a number of issues. We have had a fascinating journey, as it were, but on this particular issue we have provided the reassurance of timings. When we had the discussion I said that we were not very far away and I did not think that we were because by the time all the work was going to be done, we would be very close to 1 April. But we have reached that degree of certainty, which I know noble Lords were keen to achieve.
I am particularly pleased that the BBC is engaging in the review. That is what I would have expected from one of our great institutions. From all I hear, Mr Perry is dealing with this matter with the rigour that one would expect of a QC of his experience. That is also extremely important.
I am pleased that this has produced an opportunity for the alliance between my noble friend Lord Grade and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to break out in such good measure. But we are now in a position where we are able to consider decriminalisation with the sort of evidence that we needed. There has been a lot of feeling about this, but the review will mean that a thorough piece of work has been undertaken and with these government amendments we will be in a position for the next Government to come to a view and bring this matter forward in a proper fashion. We will have considered the matter properly.
This has been an important feature of your Lordships’ House. It may have been inconvenient to me at the Dispatch Box to lose by three votes, but we have probably found ourselves in a position where there is clarity for the BBC and certainty, which is very important. This has been a valuable exercise.
Motion agreed.
Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 27.
“(1) The Service Complaints Ombudsman may, on an application to the Ombudsman by a person within subsection (1A), investigate—
(a) a service complaint, where the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaint has been finally determined;
(b) an allegation of maladministration in connection with the handling of a service complaint (including an allegation of undue delay), where the Ombudsman is satisfied that the complaint has been finally determined;
(c) an allegation of undue delay in the handling of a service complaint which has not been finally determined;
(d) an allegation of undue delay in the handling of a relevant service matter.”
“(1A) The following persons are within this subsection—
(a) in a case relating to a service complaint, the complainant;
(b) in a case relating to a matter in respect of which a service complaint has not been made, the person who raised the matter,
and, in relation to a case mentioned in paragraph (b), references in the remainder of this Part to the complainant and to a service complaint are to be read respectively as references to the person and the matter mentioned in that paragraph.”
“( ) For the purposes of subsection (1)(d)—
(a) “relevant service matter” means a matter of a kind about which a service complaint—
(i) may be made, whether or not at the time of the application to the Ombudsman such a complaint has been made, or
(ii) could have been made (but for provision made by virtue of section 340B(2)(c));
(b) the reference to the handling of a matter is to its handling before the making of a service complaint (if any) about the matter.”
“( ) must specify the kind (or kinds) of investigation which the complainant wishes the Ombudsman to carry out (an investigation under a particular paragraph of subsection (1) being a “kind” of investigation for this purpose),”
“( ) For the purposes of this section, a service complaint has been finally determined where—
(a) ”
“( ) The purpose of an investigation is—
(a) in the case of an investigation under subsection (1)(a), to decide whether the complaint is well-founded and, if so, to consider what redress (if any) would be appropriate;
(b) in the case of an investigation under subsection (1)(b), (c) or (d), to decide—
(i) whether the allegation is well-founded, and
(ii) if so, whether the maladministration or undue delay to which the allegation relates has or could have resulted in injustice being sustained by the complainant.”
“(4A) The power to carry out an investigation under subsection (1)(a) or (b) includes power to investigate any maladministration in the handling of the service complaint where it becomes apparent to the Ombudsman during the course of an investigation that any such maladministration may have occurred.”
“(b) whether to investigate a service complaint, or an allegation, as a whole or only in particular respects.”
(b) any recommendations referred to in subsection (2A).”
“(2A) Those recommendations are—
(a) on an investigation under section 340H(1)(a) where the Ombudsman finds that the service complaint to which the investigation relates is well-founded, the Ombudsman’s recommendations (if any) on what redress would be appropriate;
(b) on an investigation under section 340H(1)(b), (c) or (d) where the Ombudsman finds that the allegation to which the investigation relates is well-founded, the Ombudsman’s recommendations (if any) as a result of that finding;
(c) where, by virtue of section 340H(4A), the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the handling of a service complaint, the Ombudsman’s recommendations (if any) as a result of that finding.”
“Transitional provision
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of sections 1 to 3and the Schedule.
(2) The power under subsection (1) includes power—
(a) to modify the operation of the old complaints provisions in relation to pre-commencement complaints;
(b) to apply any of the new complaints provisions (with or without modifications) in relation to pre-commencement complaints.
(3) Regulations under this section—
(a) may make different provision for different purposes;
(b) may make provision generally or in relation to cases of a description specified in the regulations.
(4) Regulations under this section are to be made by statutory instrument; and an instrument containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) In this section—
“the new complaints provisions” means—
(a) the provisions of, or made under, Part 14A of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and
(b) section 365B of that Act;
“the old complaints provisions” means—
(a) sections 334 to 339 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 and provision made under any of those sections, and
(b) section 366 of that Act;
“pre-commencement complaint” means a complaint under section 334 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 that is made before the coming into force of section 2(2) of this Act.”
“Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 (c. 32 (N.I.))
A1 The Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970 is amended as follows.
A2 (1) Section 6A (service pay and conditions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5), for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) the complaint has not been withdrawn.”
(3) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) Where the service complaint is dealt with by a person or panel appointed by the Defence Council by virtue of section 340C(1)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, it is to be treated for the purposes of subsection (5)(b) as withdrawn if—
(a) the period allowed in accordance with service complaints regulations for bringing an appeal against the person’s or panel’s decision expires, and
(b) either—
(i) the claimant does not apply to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for a review by virtue of section 340D(6) of that Act (review of decision that appeal brought out of time cannot proceed), or
(ii) the claimant does apply for such a review and the Ombudsman decides that an appeal against the person’s or panel’s decision cannot be proceeded with.”
(4) For subsection (6) substitute—
“(6A) Subsection (5) does not prevent the claimant from presenting a complaint to an industrial tribunal concerning a claim in respect of the contravention of a term of service relating to membership of, or rights under—
(a) an occupational pension scheme made under section 3 of the Naval and Marine Pay and Pensions Act 1865,
(b) the Army Pensions Warrant 1977, or
(c) an occupational pension scheme made under section 2 of the Air Force (Constitution) Act 1917.
(6B) In subsection (6A), “occupational pension scheme” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.”
(5) For subsection (7) substitute—
“(7) The presentation of a complaint to an industrial tribunal in reliance on subsection (5) does not affect the continuation of the procedures set out in service complaints regulations.”
(6) Omit subsection (11).
(7) In subsection (12)—
(a) in the definition of “service complaint”, for “section 334”substitute “section 340A”,
(b) after that definition, insert—
““service complaints regulations” means regulations made under section 340B(1) of that Act.”, and
(c) omit the definition “the service complaint procedures”.
A3 In section 6AB (“arrears date” in proceedings under section 6A(9)), in subsection (5), for “in accordance with regulations made under section 6A(6)” substitute “by virtue of section 6A(6A)”.”
“Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I. 15))
“1A The Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 is amended as follows.
1B In Article 80 (orders and regulations), in paragraph (1), omit “(except Article 82(9C))”.
1C (1) Article 82 (application to Crown etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (9B), for sub-paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) the complaint has not been withdrawn.”
(3) After paragraph (9B) insert—
“(9BA) Where the service complaint is dealt with by a person or panel appointed by the Defence Council by virtue of section 340C(1)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, it is to be treated for the purposes of paragraph (9B)(b) as withdrawn if—
(a) the period allowed in accordance with service complaints regulations for bringing an appeal against the person’s or panel’s decision expires, and
(b) either—
(i) the complainant does not apply to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for a review by virtue of section 340D(6) of that Act (review of decision that appeal brought out of time cannot proceed), or
(ii) the complainant does apply for such a review and the Ombudsman decides that an appeal against the person’s or panel’s decision cannot be proceeded with.”
(4) Omit paragraph (9C).
(5) For paragraph (9D) substitute—
“(9D) The presentation of a complaint to an industrial tribunal in reliance on paragraph (9B) does not affect the continuation of the procedures set out in service complaints regulations.”
(6) Omit paragraph (9E).
(7) In paragraph (10)—
(a) in the definition of “service complaint”, for “section 334” substitute “section 340A”,
(b) after that definition, insert—
““service complaints regulations” means regulations made under section 340B(1) of that Act;”, and
(c) omit the definition “the service complaint procedures”.
Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/869 (N.I. 6))
1D (1) Article 71 of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (application to Crown etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph (8), for sub-paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) the complaint has not been withdrawn.”
(3) After paragraph (8) insert—
“(8A) Where the service complaint is dealt with by a person or panel appointed by the Defence Council by virtue of section 340C(1)(a) of the Armed Forces Act 2006, it is to be treated for the purposes of paragraph (8)(b) as withdrawn if—
(a) the period allowed in accordance with service complaints regulations for bringing an appeal against the person’s or panel’s decision expires, and
(b) either—
(i) the complainant does not apply to the Service Complaints Ombudsman for a review by virtue of section 340D(6) of that Act (review of decision that appeal brought out of time cannot proceed), or
(ii) the complainant does apply for such a review and the Ombudsman decides that an appeal against the person’s or panel’s decision cannot be proceeded with.”
(4) Omit paragraph (9).
(5) For paragraph (10) substitute—
“(10) The presentation of a complaint to an industrial tribunal in reliance on paragraph (8) does not affect the continuation of the procedures set out in service complaints regulations.”
(6) Omit paragraph (11).
(7) In paragraph (12)—
(a) in the definition of “service complaint”, for “section 334” substitute “section 340A”,
(b) after that definition, insert—
““service complaints regulations” means regulations made under section 340B(1) of that Act;”, and
(c) omit the definition “the service complaint procedures”.”
“Consequential revocations
10 The following instruments are revoked—
the Race Relations (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1998 (S.R. (N.I.) 1998/104);
the Equal Pay (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1998 (S.R. (N.I.) 1998/105);
the Sex Discrimination (Complaints to Industrial Tribunals) (Armed Forces) Regulations 1998 (S.R. (N.I.) 1998/106).”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, two separate groups of amendments were made to the Bill in the other place. Commons Amendments 1 to 20 reflect changes to the Bill that were made following the Commons Committee stage. They extend the role of the proposed Service Complaints Ombudsman in a number of important ways and are the most significant of the amendments in this group. Commons Amendments 21 to 27 make some changes to equalities legislation in Northern Ireland that are needed as a consequence of the Bill and make minor changes to the transitional provisions. I therefore intend to speak mainly about Amendments 1 to 20, although I will cover the other amendments at the end.
In Commons Committee on 10 February, it was agreed that the role of the proposed ombudsman should be extended in three ways: first, that the ombudsman should be allowed to look at the substance, or merits, of an individual complaint, not just whether it had been handled correctly by the services; secondly, to require the ombudsman to look for any maladministration that may have occurred in individual cases, not just the specific maladministration alleged by the complainant; and, finally, the Bill was changed in relation to when the ombudsman can look at allegations of undue delay.
The changes that were made to the Bill in Commons Committee were recommended by the House of Commons Defence Committee in its report on the Bill which was published on 23 October last year—that is, after the Bill had left this House. It was clear when the Bill was debated in the Commons that the changes recommended by the Select Committee had cross-party support. The Government therefore accepted in principle the changes to the Bill that were made in Commons Committee and tabled a number of government amendments at Commons Report to make sure that the changes to the ombudsman’s role were clear and worked from a legal and drafting point of view. The government amendments also filled an important gap in the ombudsman’s powers to make recommendations in individual cases that had been left by the original amendments. The government amendments were agreed at Commons Report and are therefore the ones we are looking at today.
Although the amendments extend the scope of the ombudsman’s role, they follow the framework which the Bill originally set out. It is important to emphasise a point that has sometimes been lost in our debates—the ombudsman will normally become involved in individual complaints only once the consideration of it by the services has finished. That is an important point. The ombudsman is the backstop, the place of last resort on individual complaints that have been through the internal system. If complaints are successfully dealt with by the services, there will be no need for the complainant to go to the ombudsman.
It is important to make that point because of the third aspect of change agreed in the other place. This allowed the ombudsman to investigate allegations of undue delay in three different respects: as part of a maladministration investigation; where delay is alleged in relation to a complaint that is being considered by the services; and, finally, where there is an allegation of undue delay before a complaint has even been made.
It is in everyone’s interests that we have a complaints process where roles and powers are clear so that there is no confusion. It is also important that the wishes of the individual remain at the heart of the process, given that this is an individual grievance procedure, and equally that the rights of anyone alleged to have committed a wrong against another person are also protected. It remains the case that the services will, in every case, still be left to decide how to respond to any findings and recommendations made by the ombudsman, even in relation to the extended scope that the ombudsman will now have.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has confirmed that the amendments do not substantially affect the primacy of the chain of command because the Service Complaints Ombudsman can investigate the substance of a complaint only after the chain of command has done so, or where the chain of command decides not to investigate and the complainant still wishes to pursue the matter. He has made it clear that a well run organisation should have nothing to fear from the system that would be put in place if these amendments are made.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 1 makes a very significant change to this Bill. In essence, it provides for a complainant who at the end of the full military process of investigation and hearing is dissatisfied with the judgment that has been reached to apply to the ombudsman for, essentially, a totally new hearing, not a review of whether the complaint was handled properly and appropriately, and not of whether the judgment reached was reasonable within the range of reasonable decisions that could have been reached, but an entirely new judgment on the merits of the case.
It is, of course, perfectly possible for two or more people to reach, in varying degrees, different views on the merits of a case on the same set of facts as presented. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is a dissenting judgment in the Supreme Court. This Bill, as amended, is now essentially saying that the judgment and view of the ombudsman is of more value and is more reliable than those of anyone in the military chain of command or of the Defence Council. Noble Lords will be able to judge for themselves whether they think that is a sensible thing to do. All I will say is that having been in the position of having to review many such hearings and judgments at Air Force Board level, I certainly, to some extent or other, found in favour of the complainant on quite a number of occasions. I could not give your Lordships an exact percentage at this remove, but my sense is that it was quite a significant percentage. The sense that someone in the chain of command is automatically going to be prejudiced and unable to give the complainant a fair hearing is entirely unfounded.
Nevertheless, this Bill provides for a process that is not simply judicial review but is essentially a rehearing on the facts. Given the number of complaints that go through in any given year, and that one of the defects that this Bill was intended to address was the delay in the hearing of such complaints because of their volume, it seems inevitable that the number of complaints on merit that are to be made in future to the ombudsman following the service process will be fairly large. This means that the ombudsman will not in every instance be able to hear that case personally. Some of her deputies, some of the people in her new office, will have to do that on her behalf. Although she will, of course, be called upon to sign off the outcome in every case, it will be people from the ombudsman’s office rather than the ombudsman herself who will hear some of these retrials, if I can put it that way. Therefore, it seems to me that if we are to agree to such an amendment, the very least we must insist on is that within the regulations that will give effect to this Bill in due course, the qualifications and training that will be necessary for anybody from the ombudsman’s office to sit in judgment on such de novo hearings are set out in no uncertain terms. The Minister alluded to this in his speech, and I welcome his words, but when he sums up I ask him to reassure your Lordships that he will come back to us with a form of words which, at the very least, will satisfy us that this unfortunate amendment will do as little harm as possible.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, first, I take the opportunity to thank the Minister, my noble friend Lady Jolly and other noble Lords for their input into this Bill. I think it is very important. I take issue with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, because, when my colleagues in the other place asked me if I had any problems during earlier stages of the passage of this Bill in this House, with the Bill having started in your Lordships’ House before moving to the other place, I said that one thing that I spoke about, on which they spoke in the other place, was that the ombudsman would be able to look only at the process rather than the detail. I believed at that time, during the earlier stages of the Bill in this House, that the ombudsman should, in certain circumstances, have the ability to do so—but, as my noble friend said, this is after it has been through all the chains of command, and it is not meant to usurp any of those points.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak with some diffidence, it being nearly 60 years since I completed my own national service—and I now speak as a superannuated judge. But this new power in the first amendment strikes me as a very remarkable and extreme power. It confers on the complainant an unlimited appeal right and on the ombudsman an unlimited power to hear an open appeal on the substance and merits of the complaint on a de novo basis. By definition, by this stage, the aggrieved complainant will have failed to establish and failed to persuade the various levels in the chain of command of the merits of his complaint on a number of occasions.
This new provision is strikingly different from the well known formula that appears in the TPIM Act 2011, which I take as an illustration, where review and appeal rights are thus constrained:
“the court must apply the principles applicable on an application for judicial review”.
I repeat: here there is an unlimited appeal. When promoting the Bill at Third Reading last October, the Government originally objected to any such provision on the basis that it undermined the military chain of command. It is true, as the Minister said today, that at the end of the process the ombudsman’s findings—and, if they are favourable to the complainant, recommended redress—go to the Defence Council. Frankly, the Defence Council will effectively be obliged to give effect to them, unless it chooses, as would be its right, to judicially review the ombudsman’s conclusions. If the Defence Council does not do that and does not give effect to them, it is highly likely that the complainant will judicially review the Defence Council.
For my part, I can do no more at this stage than offer such support as I can to the urging on the Government from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, to make sure that those who will exercise this radical new power in the ombudsman and entertain a service complaint not against the background of their own service experience, and despite its failure before the various levels of the military, will at the very least be trained so that they fully understand the exigencies of service life.
Lord Dannatt (CB)
My Lords, I support the observations made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. It is somewhat disappointing that there is this residual difficulty in the main thrust of the Bill, which one very much supports—it is perhaps a regret that we have to have an ombudsman at all, but that is where we are.
I simply make two points. The first is in support of what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said: if this goes through, those who take part in this process must be properly trained so that they understand the circumstances and context in which the cases come. Secondly, I simply observe that the cause of a large number of the cases in the pipeline is excessive delay, often occasioned by complaints not being investigated at a low enough level in the chain of command process. In reading noble Lords’ comments in this short debate, I hope that every effort will continue to be made to streamline the process such that complaints can be dealt with speedily at a low level, so that we do not get the backlog of the size that we currently have. This will lead to much greater efficiency in the system, which will bring satisfaction and resolution through speedy agreement.
Baroness Manzoor (LD)
I congratulate my noble friend on the amendments that have been proposed. As a former Legal Services Ombudsman in England and Wales, I think it is right that one looks at the substance and merits of the complaint. Without that, you deal only with issues of delay. To take the point that the noble Lord made, any decent, transparent, effective and efficient ombudsman can take into consideration different complaints and the time that they will take. If you allow a draft report to the defence side or to the service side, will the complainant also get the option to comment on the draft report? After all, the role of an ombudsman is to be independent, transparent and fair in every way.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I speak as chairman of the Association of Military Court Advocates—I declare an interest; I am not expressing the view of that association.
I very much welcome the extension of the role of the ombudsman to considering the merits of a particular issue. I approach it from the point of view of the complainant and the complainant’s family, and the importance of the confidence of the public in the system of justice in the Armed Forces. From the point of view of recruitment and retention of service personnel, it is very necessary that those who undertake the burdens of service life should feel that they have a fair and just system of complaint. As I expressed when the Bill went through this House, the weakness of simply looking at process was that a decision on process would not be satisfactory to the complainant and their family. They would want an ombudsman to act like an ombudsman and to look at the merits of a particular case. I am grateful that the Government have moved in that direction.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, following the Government’s defeats on this Bill in the other place, their initial reaction was to consider how best to reverse them when the Commons amendments were considered in your Lordships’ House. I shared that reaction. Not to reverse the defeats would be a further withdrawal from the position adopted by the Government and reaffirmed in correspondence that I had with the Minister of State, Anna Soubry, following the Bill’s consideration in this House. She wrote to me:
“The bill as it currently stands”—
that was before the defeats in the Commons—
“gets the balance right between having a strong and independent Ombudsman and preserving the PRIMACY of the chain of command. It is that balance that I wish to maintain”.
We now have this run of government amendments reflecting their new position. No doubt this change of heart within government has been brought about in part by the imminence of Dissolution, in part by the weakness of their position in this House on this matter, and in part by the acceptance by the Chiefs of Staff, albeit on the basis of shotgun pressure upon them, that the Bill as amended is the least bad of the possibilities likely to be available. However, is not that latter acceptance itself due in part to the character of Nicola Williams, the nominee for the new post of ombudsman, and the position that she has adopted of recognising the ethos and value of the chain of command? Whether she accepts, as Anna Soubry stated, the primacy of preserving the chain of command remains to be judged.
However, in due time, will her replacement be as savvy? We are legislating about principles, not personalities. I am also concerned to learn that the ombudsman’s office may be 20-plus strong, not all of them lawyers, as will be the ombudsman, and so probably less qualified to undertake systemic examinations of complaints handlings, let alone of actual complaint topics.
Moreover, there seems to be no presumption of improvement in the working of the chain of command over time in dealing with complaints—in fact, the opposite. The default presumption is that complaints will continue to be subject to systemic and irreversible maladministration, as bad as or even worse than it is today. Once again, it is the unspoken but damaging inference that civil authority does not believe that the military chain of command is ever really competent or trustworthy, or is ever really worthy of being upheld or supported. Such an attitude would concern me very greatly.
The Human Rights Act 1998 flew in the face of and upturned long-standing Armed Forces legislation. It removed the majority of the Armed Forces’ legal processes from the chain of command and was damaging to the sense of trust. For example, the convening and review of courts martial are no longer exercised by the chain of command.
The Human Rights Act and other, more recent, statutes affecting the position of the chain of command have served to chip away at and undermine the essential and irreplaceable value of trust and support up and down the chain of command. Although each individual change may seem not to be too damaging or serious, it is the cumulative impact of a number of statutes on the values of the chain of command that worries me and that must be considered. Such values are vital to the use of armed forces in peace or war and to success in operations.
Will the Minister give an undertaking that, as and when there are significant improvements in dealing with complaints by the chain of command, the size and scope of the ombudsman’s team will be reviewed? Otherwise, and given those improvements, there will surely be a temptation to avoid idle hands and deploy the efforts of the 20-plus in systemic work which might, on balance, prove to be inimical to and derogatory of the standing and desired primacy of the chain of command. I look to the Minister for that assurance.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his typically calm and measured explanation of the amendments made to the Bill in the other place, which we support and which I understood—I hope not wrongly—had the support of senior serving military personnel. The amendments were among those called for by the Common Defence Select Committee in its report published last year, and were opposed by the Government in Committee in the Commons in the same way that proposed changes to the Bill, some along similar lines, were rejected by the Government during debates in this House.
The Government were clearly unhappy about their defeat in the Commons when one part of the coalition broke ranks and voted with the Opposition. Fortunately, good sense prevailed and the Government themselves put forward amendments on Report in the Commons to make sure that the changes adopted in Committee worked correctly from a drafting point of view.
The changes made in Committee extended the role of the ombudsman in three ways. The first, as the Minister said, was that the ombudsman should be allowed to look at the substance or merits of an individual complaint and not just at whether there had been maladministration in the way the complaint had been handled by the services. The second was that the ombudsman should not just look at any maladministration alleged by the complainant but should be able to consider any other maladministration that comes to light. The third change agreed at Commons Committee stage allows the ombudsman to investigate allegations of undue delay in the laid-down circumstances to which the Minister referred in his introductory comments.
Clearly, one effect of the Commons amendments is to increase, potentially, the workload of the ombudsman. The Minister in the Commons said that the effect of the amendments carried in Committee, against the Government’s wishes, would be to extend the role and remit of the ombudsman. In opposing in Committee the extension of the power of the ombudsman to look at any maladministration that came to light—not just maladministration alleged by a complainant—the Minister in the Commons said that it was undesirable and might add considerably to the time it took each case to be concluded.
Now that the Government have accepted the outcome of the votes in the Commons Committee, could the Minister say, in the light of the comments from his ministerial colleague in the Commons to which I have just referred, what further additional resources will be provided to the ombudsman in the light of the extension of the role and remit of the position? How much additional money will be provided over and above that originally required before the role and remit was extended by the Commons amendments, and how many additional staff do the Government now consider the ombudsman will require when the position of ombudsman finally comes into being? One would assume that, without additional resources, there would be a danger that effective delivery of the extended remit provided for by the Commons amendments we are now considering would be put in jeopardy.
I will raise a few specific points about some of the Commons amendments. Commons Amendments 1 and 2 refer to “a person”, “the complainant” and “the person who raised the matter”—that is, always in the singular. Does that mean that the ombudsman cannot consider a complaint about the same matter made by, say, half a dozen people? In that situation, will the ombudsman have to treat them as six individual separate complaints even though they relate to the same issue?
Commons Amendment 21 refers to the transitional provisions,
“in connection with the coming into force of sections 1 to 3 and the Schedule”,
and gives the Secretary of State powers,
“to modify the operation of the old complaints provisions in relation to pre-commencement complaints”,
and,
“to apply any of the new complaints provisions … in relation to pre-commencement complaints”.
Can the Minister say a little bit more about what the Government envisage in respect of the transition provisions? The noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, also referred to this issue. Will an individual who has a complaint being considered by the Service Complaints Commissioner at the time that the new position of Service Complaints Ombudsman, with the enhanced remit, comes into being, be able, if they so wish, to have that complaint considered under the enhanced remit of looking at the complaint itself rather than just the issue of maladministration under which it would currently be considered? If not, will the individual be able to submit the complaint again to the ombudsman asking for the substance of the complaint to be considered?
The Minister referred to what the ombudsman could and could not investigate. Commons Amendment 1 states:
“The Service Complaints Ombudsman may … investigate … a service complaint”,
among other issues. Who defines how much information, what kind of information, what kind of inquiries and how extensive those inquiries need to be in order to “investigate” a service complaint in order to determine findings and make recommendations to the Defence Council? Is that a decision for the ombudsman alone? Is it for the ombudsman alone to decide whether, in order for it to be undertaken properly, the investigation needs also to investigate factors and events surrounding and prior to the issue giving rise to the complaint? Is it for the ombudsman alone to decide how wide-ranging or narrow the recommendations to the Defence Council should be? When is it expected that the new position of Service Complaints Ombudsman and the associated new system of enhanced remit will come into effect? In addition, why are the Commons amendments relating to Northern Ireland, to which the Minister referred, being brought forward at this late stage in the passage of the Bill?
We fully support the Bill and we welcome the Commons amendments. We believe that the new arrangements will lead to a better, more widely accepted and more effective means of addressing situations that inevitably will occasionally arise, where things have gone wrong or have been felt by Armed Forces personnel to have gone wrong, and have not been resolved to the satisfaction of those concerned. We wish the new Service Complaints Commissioner well in her current role and we also wish her well when the commissioner becomes an ombudsman, with an enhanced remit and enhanced powers. We also hope that the concerns that have been expressed this afternoon will, as we believe, prove unfounded.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I thank noble and noble and gallant Lords for their general support for these amendments. I will do my best to answer their questions.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, pointed out, quite rightly, that there would be a larger number of complaints. Obviously, people in the ombudsman’s office will have to take on a lot of that workload so it is really important that the staff she takes on have the right skills and qualifications for the job and are properly trained. We are well aware of that. This is something that we must work through carefully with the Service Complaints Commissioner as part of the ongoing work to prepare for the implementation of the new system.
I can say to the noble and gallant Lord and other noble Lords who are interested in this issue that my noble friend Lady Jolly and I met Nicola Williams last week and we were very impressed by her. I have arranged for her to meet any interested Peers at 11.30 am on Wednesday 25 March in Room 10A. My office will write to all those noble Lords who we think might be interested. However, I can tell noble and noble and gallant Lords that she is well aware that those people working in her office must be properly selected and must have the adequate training. We discussed that at great length with her. She has considerable experience as an ombudsman and I am sure that she will carry on the good work of the previous commissioner, Dr Susan Atkins. She agrees that it is important that she and those working in her office have a thorough understanding of how the services operate. She assured me that she will be making frequent visits to all three services and will encourage those who work in her office to do the same thing so that they understand the ethos of the services. She understood that that was a really important point. I can give the noble and gallant Lord the assurance that we will come back to the House before the regulations are considered.
I thank my noble friend Lord Palmer for his support. He asked how many cases are in the pipeline: I understand that it is about 1,000. My noble friend asked what would stop a complainant making a slightly different complaint. Recent complaints on the same matter will, as now, not be permitted.
In a speech that I very much look forward to reading in Hansard, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, was concerned that this would undermine the chain of command. We have been clear from the start that the authority of the chain of command should not be compromised by the creation of an ombudsman. Maintaining the integrity of the chain of command is essential for our ability to deploy battle-winning forces. We have achieved the right balance with these reforms and the Chief of the Defence Staff has confirmed that the amendments made in the Commons do not substantially affect the primacy of the chain of command because the Service Complaints Ombudsman can investigate only the substance of a complaint after the chain of command has done so or where the chain of command decides not to investigate and the complainant still wishes to pursue the matter. The noble and learned Lord also mentioned the selection and training of those working in the ombudsman’s office. This is an issue that we take very seriously.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for his support and my noble friend Lady Manzoor, who I understand was Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales and therefore knows a lot about this issue. I also thank my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, asked whether we will review the size of the team if the services get their act together. We will obviously keep the numbers under review and we hope that, if things go well, the number of people working in the office will be reduced. The number must be proportionate, but it is important to point out that the ombudsman’s office can investigate only matters arising from this legislation; they cannot go off and consider other things.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for the Opposition’s support for the Bill. The noble Lord asked me several questions. He pointed out that the commissioner’s role will be expanded and asked what additional resources the office would get. We envisage the extra cost to be around £500,000 and anticipate that her staff numbers will rise from nine up to 20.
Lord Rosser
Perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify the response that he gave to me on additional finances and staffing. Is the additional £500,000 as a result of the extension of the remit that is covered in Commons amendments, or was it the amount that was going to be needed anyway in additional money to cover the changes in the Bill as it was originally worded? Was the increase in staffing from nine to 20 also to cover the changes in the Bill as it was originally worded? Surely if the remit has now been extended in the way that it has under the Commons amendment, does that not require additional resources and additional staffing? I was not entirely clear from the answer that the Minister gave to me whether that was what the £500,000 and the increase in staff from nine to 20 covered.
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I stand to be corrected, but I think that the extra cost of £500,000 would have arisen anyway and we would have needed to increase the number of staff from nine to 20 anyway under the original Bill.
Lord Rosser
Does that mean that, if that was what was deemed necessary under the original Bill, no further money is coming forward to take account of the enhanced remit—and it is an enhanced remit—under the Commons amendment and there is no provision for any additional staff?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I need to check on this, but the message that I received was that everything would come out of the £500,000 and that the staffing level would be adequate for the additional responsibilities.
Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products Regulations 2015
(9 years, 8 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, these regulations propose to introduce standardised packaging for tobacco products, which I believe to be an important public health measure. I pay tribute to all the noble Lords who campaigned for the introduction of these regulations—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and my noble friends Lady Tyler and Lord McColl, who all pressed for it during the passage of the Children and Families Bill in 2014.
Tobacco use remains one of our most significant public health challenges. Smoking places an enormous strain on the NHS, and is a significant driver of health inequalities. More people die from lung cancer in the UK than any other form of cancer and almost nine in 10 of all lung cancers are caused by smoking. For this reason, the Government have prioritised action to reduce smoking rates, which is why we published the tobacco control plan for England in early 2011.
We have looked carefully at the evidence and it shows that introducing standardised packaging is highly likely to bring important public health benefits, primarily by reducing the appeal and attractiveness of tobacco packs, especially to children and young people, and improving the salience of health warnings on packets. Packaging and branding are promotional tools used to attract consumers. Since the ban on advertising tobacco products in the UK, packaging has become a key avenue for the promotion of tobacco, and it is notable that one tobacco company referred to tobacco packaging as its “mobile billboard”. Opponents of standardised packaging claim that there is no evidence that it will bring about a reduction in smoking prevalence or the resulting health benefits. In fact, Sir Cyril Chantler, who reviewed the evidence, concludes that,
“it points in a single direction”,
and that there is no,
“convincing evidence pointing the other way”.
Let me first outline what the regulations propose, before discussing the wider issues. The Children and Families Act 2014 gives the Secretary of State powers to regulate the retail packaging of tobacco products. In November 2013, Health Ministers commissioned Sir Cyril Chantler, the eminent paediatrician and medical researcher, to undertake an independent review into whether standardised packaging would be likely to have an effect on public health, in particular in relation to children. Sir Cyril’s thorough and well considered report, published in April 2014, concluded that standardised packaging would be highly likely to have a positive impact on public health.
On the publication of the review, my honourable friend Jane Ellison, Public Health Minister, announced that the Government were minded to proceed with standardised packaging, subject to a final consultation. There has been extensive engagement and consultation with the public and stakeholders on this proposal, including two public consultations—one in 2012 and a further consultation in 2014. The Department of Health has carefully considered all responses to both these public consultations and the wider points that they raise.
These regulations propose to standardise the retail packaging of all cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. Cigars and pipe tobacco are not currently covered by the regulations. The regulations specify mandatory colours for those parts of the packaging that are not taken up by health warnings or duty marks. The outside of packs will have to be a uniform dull brown and the insides plain white. The brand name of the product may appear but must be in grey with a fixed size and typeface. This means, in effect, that no branding will be allowed except for the brand name. The regulations also specify that individual cigarettes must be plain white with a cork effect or white tip, but will allow the brand name to be printed in small text. An illustration of what a standardised cigarette packet could look like has been published, which noble Lords may wish to see.
The draft regulations will also implement certain packaging-related requirements from the European tobacco products directive that was agreed last year, such as the shape, material and minimum content of packs. The remainder of the tobacco products directive will then be implemented through separate regulations, which the Department of Health will be consulting on shortly. Standardised packaging would be a UK-wide measure. Public health is a devolved matter but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have provided the necessary consent for the regulations to extend to their Administrations.
Looking wider than the UK, there is international momentum towards introducing standardised packaging. Although the only country to have implemented standardised packaging is Australia, many other countries are taking positive steps towards legislating, including Ireland, France, Norway, New Zealand and Turkey. The Australian Government were clear when introducing the measure that they expected the benefits of standardised packaging to be “generational” and come in the longer term. The Cancer Council Victoria has recently reviewed the available Australian evidence and data so far, and concluded:
“Prevalence of smoking in Australia fell dramatically between 2010 and 2013”,
and that,
“plain packaging is likely to continue to contribute along with Australia’s other tobacco control policies to further reducing the prevalence of smoking in Australia”.
There have been some suggestions that standardised packaging may lead to growth in the illicit tobacco market. I want to reassure noble Lords that this issue has been considered carefully across government. HMRC leads on reducing the size of the illicit tobacco market and has undertaken a detailed assessment of the potential impact of standardised packaging on the illicit trade of tobacco, which was published and put into the Library in February. The HMRC report concluded:
“We have seen no evidence to suggest the introduction of standardised packaging will have a significant impact on the overall size of the illicit market”.
Some also have concerns that this will be the start of a slippery slope towards standardised packaging for other products, such as unhealthy foods or alcohol. I want to be absolutely clear that the Government have no intention to extend standardised packaging to any product other than tobacco. Tobacco has been treated uniquely in regulatory terms before, as it is a uniquely harmful consumer good. All smoking is addictive and harmful to health, and half of all regular smokers are eventually killed by smoking-related illness. This is not true for other consumer products.
I understand that some noble Lords will, rightly, have concerns with regard to the potential legal implications of introducing standardised packaging. Let me be clear that thorough consideration has been given to such concerns. We know that the tobacco industry is likely to challenge this measure should the regulations be made, as it has with other tobacco control legislation. Threats of legal action have already been made by tobacco companies. However, we believe that these regulations are a proportionate and justified response to a major public health challenge, and will be defensible in the courts. We cannot let the vested interests of the tobacco industry control the public health agenda, and we will defend public health legislation from legal action.
Smoking remains a critical public health concern. Smoking is an addiction, largely taken up in childhood and adolescence. The choice to smoke is not like other choices and is often not made as an adult decision. Research included in the Chantler review shows that around 600 children between the ages of 11 and 15 start smoking every day in the UK. It is crucial that we do all we can to reduce that number. We also need to do all that we can to assist those already addicted to quit; and I believe that standardised packaging will contribute to doing so. The introduction of standardised packaging is likely to deliver important public health benefits and, as part of a comprehensive tobacco control strategy, will bring us a step closer to a smoke-free generation. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby
As an amendment to the above motion, to leave out from “that” to the end and insert “this House declines to approve the draft Order laid before the House on 23 February as it does not reflect the impact evidence from the Australian introduction of standardised packaging; makes no allowance for the continuance of the security system “Codentify” currently in operation with HM Revenue and Customs to differentiate between legal and illegal packs; and because the anticipated start date in 2016 does not give sufficient time for the supply chain and retailers to make adjustments, in contrast to the three-year period allowed for the display ban.”
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, the House knows that I have no interests to declare in relation to the tobacco world. I do not smoke, I never have smoked and I do not own any tobacco shares. What I do declare is that for 30 years of my life, before coming to your Lordships’ House or the other place, I worked in marketing, sales, market research and consumer attitude research. I bring those skills to my analysis of the latest evidence before us on standardised packaging.
I also bring the latest evidence that we have on the incidence of smoking today, which was published only a few days ago. I applaud as much as anybody else, and as the House will applaud, the fact that the percentage of adults who smoke in this country has come down to 18.7%. That is the smallest percentage in any developed country. The important point, according to research by a company called Simply E Liquid, is that the key determinants are the new anti-smoking laws, particularly the ban in pubs and restaurants, and the popularity of vaping.
It is against that background that we have to assess whether it is necessary to go as far as my noble friend on the Front Bench in relation to standardised packaging. He is right to say that Sir Cyril Chantler is an eminent paediatrician. He is someone I have known for a great many years; I studied at the same college as him. However, I have to say that eminent paediatrician he may be, but eminent marketer or market research man he is not. That is a key point in relation to the evidence from Australia.
I want to look at four aspects that affect standardised packaging: Australia, HMRC, Codentify, which my noble friend did not mention, and the impact on the packaging industry, which, again, my noble friend did not say a word about. Let us turn first to Australia, which is one of the key dimensions. As my noble friend rightly says, it is the only country to have introduced standardised packaging. It was claimed that the rate of new smoking would decline. In fact, today it is at a seven-year high in Australia. That is evidence from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. It was claimed in evidence from the Australian National Accounts that standardised packaging has not accelerated the decrease in tobacco use. It has not accelerated the pre-existing downward trend of smoking rates; that comes from the work of Kaul and Wolf. Health warnings have not become more effective following the implementation of standardised packaging. That comes from the Department of Health and Aged Care in Australia. According to recent work by KPMG, since the introduction of standardised packaging, illegal tobacco consumption in Australia has now grown to its highest level in seven years. By mid-2014, illicit tobacco consumption stood at an unprecedented 14.7% of the market as a whole, some 25% higher than it was in 2012. Those are the facts against which we have to make a decision, which the country will have to accept or not. But those facts were not exactly what my noble friend on the Front Bench talked about. Most of them were not referred to but they are vital in analysing whether standardised packaging works.
I now turn to HMRC. My noble friend put great emphasis on its work but the survey or evidence he cited was from prior to HMRC’s publication on tax gap figures in 2014. So there is further evidence now that my noble friend has, for one reason or another, chosen not to put before the House this evening. The illicit trade in tobacco products costs this country £2.1 billion. It is my view that that money would be better spent on the health service. If we look at some of the components of that, HMRC has now stated that standardised packaging will provide a suitable environment in which the illicit market in white cigarettes will continue to grow. It argues that it is possible that the introduction of standardised packaging will lead to increased attempts to infiltrate counterfeit products into the lower end of the retail supply chain. Finally, HMRC has accepted that plain packaging could increase the likelihood of small local retailers getting into trouble and being prosecuted.
I turn briefly to the Codentify system, something that noble Lords could be forgiven for not knowing much about and which was not even mentioned by the Minister. The draft regulations before us do not provide for the inclusion of Codentify markings on tobacco packs. One must ask: why are they not included? Codentify is a product security and authentication tool that provides a unique, secure identifier for each individual packet of cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. It allows manufacturers and, in some ways more importantly, Customs officials to authenticate products and trace the origins of packs all the way from the start of the manufacturing process right through to when they are sold. It plays a vital role in the fight against the illegal tobacco trade because it allows law enforcement officers to check. Without Codentify, it will be impossible for manufacturers to use that existing security and authentication technology between May 2016, when, I understand, the new system is to come in, and May 2019. Why May 2019? Because that is when the second tobacco product directive will be introduced and there will be a new tracking mechanism.
It is all very well for the Minister for Public Health in another place to state that this is being looked at. It is not good enough for your Lordships just to look at things when they are so vital. My noble friend talks about public health. There is nothing worse for public health than having illicit counterfeit cigarettes floating around the market. I hope that when he comes to reply, he will address that issue. Without a means of tracking, I do not see how we will be able to restrict illicit goods entering the market.
The third issue is packaging. As one who has worked in it for many years, I can say that the print industry is very complex; it is not simple. The Minister in another place stated:
“The print industry has known for some time that standardised packaging has been under discussion—the issue has not been recently sprung on it, so it has had a chance to consider how to respond”.
The Honourable Member for Bradford South, Mr Gerry Sutcliffe, disputed the Minister’s claim. He is a former print worker. He told the committee that such a claim misunderstood the nature of the packaging business:
“It takes time in the printing industry, which is very competitive, to offer alternative proposals, even if those are for standardised packaging. It will take at least 18 months to two years for the designs to be made and the buyers and marketers to go out to try to change people’s opinions”.—[Official Report, Commons, Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee, 9/3/15; col. 24.]
He said that in Bradford alone there are 400 jobs in the packaging industry that may be put at risk and that, with other tobacco control measures that have been introduced, such as a display ban, three years were allowed to make adjustments, which is a reasonable length of time. In this case, it is only 18 months. Why has the time been reduced? It is far too short a timescale. The Consumer Packaging Manufacturers Alliance, which represents a number of packaging companies in the tobacco supply chain, has called for a delay in implementation of the plain packaging regulations if they go through. That will give people time to adjust and understand what the changes are. A great many people do not really understand how complicated and unique the packaging for cigarette products is. It involves gravure printing, rotary embossing and hot-foil stamping. Many other markets do not use those elements and certainly do not involve the huge volume involved.
I appeal to your Lordships to think very hard about the necessity to go as far as is suggested in the Government’s Motion. The introduction of plain packaging for tobacco products will not produce, in my judgment, the results claimed. I base that on the evidence from Australia, which has been authenticated by various government bodies there. I have given the quotations and where they come from.
Frankly, plain packs are little more than a smuggler’s charter. They offer criminals a wonderful template that will allow them to copy tobacco packaging easily and thereby infiltrate the supply chain more effectively. The extraordinary exclusion of the Codentify system from standardised packs will further drive the illicit trade and illegitimate supply and will make it far harder to detect and seize. Without a reasonable revision for adjustment for the packaging companies, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of jobs will be put at risk. Is this really part of the enterprise economy or is it just another example of the UK wishing to be a world leader?
The Motion before us is not needed. The evidence is not there and, on top of that, although my noble friend says that it will never affect another industry, I frankly do not believe him. This will adversely affect trademarks and intellectual property rights and it will affect many other industries as we move forward. It is not a sound Motion and it should be rejected. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, I am pleased to welcome unreservedly the regulations moved by the Minister and to congratulate him not only on the way he introduced the debate but on the part that he played in persuading his ministerial colleagues that the introduction of standard packaging for tobacco products will make a significant contribution towards public health. I thank him for the kind words that he spoke about me and the other four members of the group, from all sides of the House, who saw the opportunity to add amendments to the Children and Families Bill to introduce a range of tobacco control measures.
The Minister has described in great detail the steps that the Government have taken since the amendments were added to that Bill. The most important of those was the study by Sir Cyril Chantler, who concluded that standardised packaging,
“is very likely to lead to a modest but important reduction over time on the uptake and prevalence of smoking and thus have a positive impact on public health”.
All the objective evidence—I stress the word “objective” for reasons I will explain in a moment—supports the case for standardised packs. It would, in the words of the Canadian Cancer Society:
“(1) eliminate promotional aspects of packaging; (2) curb deceptive messages conveyed through packaging; (3) enhance the effectiveness of health warnings; (4) reduce tobacco use”.
It is precisely because the adoption of these measures will work that the tobacco industry has been spending such enormous sums of money in its efforts to defeat them. The tactics it has followed are consistent with everything it has done to oppose tobacco control measures since the 1950s. First, it attempted to discredit the results of Sir Richard Doll’s research that proved the link between lung cancer and smoking. Then for years the industry denied the addictive properties of nicotine. It lobbied extensively and expensively against every piece of legislation aimed at reducing smoking prevalence, from curbing sponsorship and advertising, protecting people from the effects of second-hand smoke, limiting displays of tobacco in retail outlets, and now these regulations on standard packaging.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister and the Department of Health on producing a high-quality and thorough set of regulations after a thorough consultation exercise. I join the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, in adding my congratulations to the department for receiving the Luther Terry Award for Exemplary Leadership by a Government Ministry. It is measures such as these that make Britain a world leader in public health.
In our debates on this subject, I have spoken extensively about the need for these regulations and the evidence that they would make a real difference. The bare facts are these: only one in 10 smokers in the UK started after the age of 19, and two in five started before 16. We have already heard from the Minister the figures on how many people die each year from smoking-related diseases, and the number of children between the ages of 11 and 15 who take up the habit and risk their health by spending hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds a year on a toxic product.
The unconscious trigger of attractive packaging is an extremely successful marketing tool that encourages children and young people to glamorise and take up smoking. Bright colours, sleek designs and slim cigarettes—to name but a few—all make people falsely believe that such cigarettes are less harmful. I remember as an impressionable teenager the impact that some of those cigarette pack designs had on me. It made a big difference and I indeed wanted to start smoking, and did so; and I think I was influenced by some of that marketing material.
I should like briefly to turn to some of the objections that have already been advanced by opponents of these regulations in this debate. First, the tobacco industry has claimed that standardised packaging would increase the volume of illicit tobacco on the market. This is flatly contradicted by a recent HMRC assessment and an independent review by Sir Cyril Chantler, both of which indicated that there is no evidence for such a claim. Indeed, there is no evidence that standardised packs would be easier to counterfeit. Standardised packs are not “plain packaging”—that is a misnomer. They would carry the same security systems as current packs. There is no evidence that that there has been an increase in the illicit tobacco trade in Australia since the implementation of the policy. The total weight of illicit tobacco detected by Australian customs has remained roughly static since 2007-08. Indeed, a recent study shows that there was no change in the availability of illicit tobacco in Australian shops since the introduction of standardised packaging. At any rate, it seems logical that the way in which to reduce illicit trade is through more effective regulations, which these regulations clearly are.
Secondly, the tobacco industry has claimed that standardised packaging would damage small businesses because it would make it more time-consuming for shop assistants to retrieve packs, and that this delay would make tobacco less profitable for small businesses as opposed to large supermarkets. Tobacco companies based these predictions on interviews with just a handful of retailers. In contrast, peer-reviewed studies of small shops in Australia before and after the standardised-packaging policy demonstrate that there was no significant increase in serving time.
It is true that standardised packaging is likely to result in reduced tobacco sales. In fact, it is the very purpose of these measures; it is the Government’s hope and certainly mine. Every pound that consumers no longer spend on tobacco they will surely spend on other goods and it is very likely that small businesses will pick up some of this trade. After all, shops, including small shops, have adjusted to the continuous decline in the prevalence of smoking from half of the population in 1960 to roughly one-fifth now and there is no reason to suppose they will not be able to adapt further. On this point, can the Minister confirm that in the interests of reducing costs to retailers the measures will be implemented at the same time as the packaging and labelling measures in the EU tobacco products directive in May 2016? Can he also confirm that retailers will be given a full year after the implementation date to sell through existing stores of non-standardised packs? It comparison, retailers in Australia were given just eight weeks to do that.
The tobacco industry has made what I think is a very convoluted argument that standardised packaging will lower prices and thus increase tobacco consumption. In the process of conducting his review last year, Sir Cyril Chantler was told by tobacco companies that sales had increased slightly, despite the fact that the industry had told its investors the opposite. Analysis by the independent market research company Euromonitor concurred that there had been a decline in sales in Australia between 2012 and 2013.
As we have already heard, it seems to be contested—although frankly I do not know why—what the impact in Australia has been since the introduction of standardised packaging. I have looked very carefully at what the helpful leaflet Standardised Packaging for Tobacco Products, produced by very reputable organisations such as the British Heart Foundation, King’s College London, the University of Waterloo, Cancer Council Victoria and the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies, has said about the impact so far. It shows that there is a reduction in young people taking up smoking and an increase in the proportion of existing smokers who are trying to quit. Indeed, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey in Australia showed that the proportion of 18 to 24 year-olds who had never smoked increased from 72% in 2010 to 77% in 2013.
A 2014 study from Australia that reported in the British Medical Journal shows that the prevalence of smoking among adults fell by 15% in the second half of 2013 alone. Finally, following evidence that smokers find cigarettes in standardised packs less appealing—which of course is the very purpose of it—there is new evidence that calls to Quitline, a free smoking cessation service, have increased by 78% since the introduction of standardised packaging.
It is a credit to the very thorough and painstaking way that this measure has been developed by the Government that these are the best criticisms opponents can level. Above all, it is time to listen to the 72% of Britons and the majority of all political parties and support standardised packaging.
Viscount Falkland (CB)
My Lords, I am a non-smoker but having been in your Lordships’ House for some years one thing that concerns me about this measure is the unintended consequences. One is always worried in this House about them and so we should be. It seems very odd that so few people have expressed the view that tobacco is a legal product. How can you interfere with the marketing and the sales of a legal product? I think the product is undesirable and the arguments of the scientific community about its danger to health are indisputable. However, we have to think rather carefully about what may follow. If you get away with this without too much protest there are all kinds of bien pensants and vigorous politically correct people who will seek to do various things. For example, it could happen quite easily that in some local authority someone of limited life experience might suggest that, with obesity and the compulsion that people have to eat too much, it might be a good idea to prevent restaurants allowing people to eat on the pavement under an awning because that attracts people to sample the restaurant’s delicious wares. Noble Lords may think that this is a trivial, Clarksonesque point, but it bears thinking about.
I am grateful for the efforts that have been made to curb the ill effects of smoking. I am a frequent cinema goer—I have been a film buff since I was a boy. I do not think I would be talking to noble Lords today if they had not banned smoking in cinemas. I may have a husky voice, but I would probably be dead by now, I should think. These are things that have to be considered.
In the speeches so far, there has been scant respect for one thing that is very important to this country, and I hope it will be borne out in the speeches during the election campaign. This is a trading country, and trading countries require freedom in order to encourage the production of goods, to sell them and to market them correctly. If you do not like smoking, then ban it, for heaven’s sake. Do not try to pretend that this is going to deal with it—it is not going to deal with it. We have already seen the unintended consequences on the streets. In some of our best streets in the West End of London you see cigarette ends everywhere because people are smoking at lunchtime in doorways, smoking in the open air and smoking in groups; they are also smoking in their homes because it is unsatisfactory outside so that the smoke filters through badly constructed walls.
There are all kinds of aspects of this whole problem which have not been properly addressed, and I do not think that packaging is the answer. Should the noble Lord who introduced this amendment guide us towards the Lobbies, I shall follow him.
Lord Warner (Lab)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I want to congratulate the Minister and the last speaker has provoked me to take us back to the time when I, as a Minister, was taking through this House the legislation banning smoking in public places and in the workplace. Some of the arguments which we heard from the last speaker and from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, took me back to those times, the good old days when Parliament was challenged because it had the temerity to introduce legislation in this area to protect people’s health and, in particular, to try to protect children’s health. We heard the same old rubbish, if I may put it that way, on second-hand smoke, which was later proved scientifically to be as dangerous as direct experience of smoke. We can sit through these debates hour after hour, but the science does not change. The science is the same as it always was. It just gets better for those who want to control the consumption of tobacco. The Government are to be congratulated on taking this legislation forward, and I hope the House will support it overwhelmingly.
Before I sit down, I shall ask the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, whether he enjoyed the Eagles concert last July which he experienced as a guest of JTI Gallaher.
Lord Naseby
Yes. I declared the interest and went to one concert. I do not imagine the noble Lord has ever been to anything, anywhere, paid for by anybody else. I just hope he has always declared it.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I was not planning to speak today, but I have to rise to respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland. If we were to have a logical system in this country for dealing with drugs, tobacco would indeed be illegal. We have lots of drugs that are illegal in this country that are infinitely safer than tobacco, and we all know that, if we were starting today, tobacco would be unlawful. So I simply do not accept the point that, simply because tobacco is lawful, we should allow the market to let rip—very far from it. We know that it is very difficult to make a product such as tobacco unlawful at this stage, but we need to do everything possible to protect the public from the most dangerous drug available in this country today.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as on the register of interests. It is a new interest—I recently joined the Lords and Commons Cigar Club, because I was concerned with how the Government have caved in to some of the fanatics in the anti-smoking brigade. They are fanatics, because they seem to hate e-cigarettes, which are good things for smokers to change to, just as much as they hate tobacco cigarettes. There is a powerful case against smoking—we all agree with that—but I would be more interested in their arguments on plain packaging if they would admit that e-cigarettes were actually a good thing for people to change to.
I deeply regret having to oppose my noble friend the Minister. In my 33 years in Parliament, he is the most knowledgeable Minister for Health that we have had in either House. In addition, he is invariably courteous and the most caring and decent man I have ever met. Therefore, I am sorry that, on this occasion, I think that he is wrong.
One knows that a government department or any organisation is scraping the bottom of the barrel to find arguments when we have 21 regulations over 23 pages, and a memorandum trying to justify them running to 103 pages and 388 paragraphs, most of which have nothing to do with plain packaging but make very powerful arguments against smoking in general. The department has scraped together every possible and bogus argument that it can to support the case. Many of the arguments that I have read in the impact assessment seem to be different from the contents of my noble friend’s speech. Paragraph 230 says that local authorities in 2007 spent £342 million on dealing with cigarette litter alone. What an extraordinary figure. That is absurd nonsense—but it adds to it by saying that plain packaging will lead to further savings on litter collection but that the department cannot quantify them. Dead right it cannot quantify them, because I think that they are quite spurious. This reminds me of the Home Office claim during the draft communications data Bill that it would bring about savings of £6 billion per annum, when that £6 billion was based on terrorist attacks which it considered would no longer take place if the Bill was passed.
All the evidence suggests that standardised packaging will lead to a big increase in the illicit market. That is the view also of Commander Roy Ramm, a former Metropolitan Police commander, who gave evidence to the Lords Select Committee. If even I as an amateur, on my £99 Canon printer, can now easily manufacture a matt standard cigarette packet—and, yes, I can do Helvetica and Pantone grey 42 at 8 point, as per the regulations—what will the big criminal gangs in Romania and Bulgaria do? At least they will increase the market for offset litho printing machines. The impact assessment makes tortuous assumptions to get out of admitting that it has not got a clue on the increase in illicit cigarettes that we will inevitably see. Paragraph 192 says:
“We conclude that there is a sizeable likelihood that there will be no discernible increase in the illicit market. However, we also conclude there is a chance that there will be an increase in the illicit market”.
I invite noble Lords to look at paragraph 192—that is exactly what it says. What a way to make policy. We do not know if it will be good or bad, but we will carry on regardless.
Then there is the Australian experience, which has been cited already, and which the Government call in aid even though it has been running for only 18 months.
Paragraph 93 of the impact assessment says:
“At this time it is difficult to conclude what the impact of standardised packaging on Australian smoking prevalence has been, due to confounding issues of a general decreasing trend and changes to tobacco prices”.
So, although we do not know whether it is working in Australia, we will carry on with our policy regardless. That is not a way to make policy. Australia is conducting a post-implementation review, but we are not even waiting to find the Australian Government’s conclusions.
All the evidence suggests that price is the big determining factor in people giving up smoking. With an increase in the illicit market and the fact that counterfeiters will be able to sell cigarettes more cheaply in the pubs, clubs and other outlets that they use, we are likely to see an increase in consumption of even more dangerous tobacco as criminal gangs are able to sell it more easily—they will use even cheaper, nastier tobacco. Nor will we be able to police it properly: the whole Codentify system is in jeopardy and will not be able to easily identify illegal and dodgy cigarettes. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, that the system may not be perfect but it is better than nothing, which is the Government’s policy if they go ahead with plain packaging. The idea that a person in a pub will check the barcode before he buys a £5 packet of cigarettes, rather than go to a proper newsagents and get a £7.50 one, is just nonsensical.
I conclude that this is unfortunately a knee-jerk SI. We should wait until we get proper results and measured evidence from Australia. That is the only sensible way to make policy on this important issue.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland (CB)
My Lords, I had not intended to speak this afternoon, although I want to congratulate the noble Earl. I was with him on the beginning of this journey. I think that he has taken this through with due care and diligence. At the beginning, some of us feared that he would not be on the side of the anti-smoking brigade, but he has taken some of these measures very carefully into legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was speaking, I realised that I was a fanatic—so as a fanatic, I will make just three points.
First, with the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, I introduced the first Bill that tested the arguments in this House, the London Bill, when the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, introduced the Liverpool Bill. At the time we were told very firmly by the smoking lobby that cancer was not caused by smoking, that we would actually take money out of the health service because of taxes and that we would lose money rather than gain it if smoking decreased. We received quite a lot of serious and personal accusations about false information. I began that journey there and was the person who brought forward the order to stop smoking in the Peers’ Guest Room. I think that many people have been grateful for that for a long time.
The second reason that I wanted to speak as a fanatic is that I think that there have been some spurious arguments this afternoon. I spent 10 years in the Food Standards Agency working with the food industry, which has had to change its packaging more than any other industry. If the smoking industry is not flexible enough to do as well as the food industry in organising itself to do something else when it loses this packaging, it does not deserve to be in business. Business has to be innovative.
The third reason I am a fanatic is that I have a niece who I brought up as a daughter. She has two children. The youngest has a heart complaint, which is very serious if she gets into any situation where there is smoke. I say that as a personal comment, but noble Lords will know how strongly and passionately I feel about the protection of our children. It seems extraordinary: if packaging with coloured outsides and attractive labels is not attractive to children and selling the product, why is the industry so keen to save it? That is the sheer, simple logic. If any noble Lords are wavering, perhaps they should wonder why so much money is being spent by the industry to protect packaging if it has no impact; it wants to protect it because it does.
So in some ways I suppose that I am proud of being a fanatic. I hope that your Lordships will be with the Minister and oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, as I do.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough
My Lords, I, too, was not planning to speak, but I am most grateful to the Minister for bringing this measure before us. I will make a very simple point. Packaging is designed to make the contents of the package attractive. This is about changing culture and changing the way that people think about tobacco and smoking. We all know the health arguments—they are indisputable and very clear. However, many young people, in particular, are still led astray and into dangerous behaviour—into self-harming of a very subtle but difficult sort.
It is our duty and responsibility in this place to care for what we in the church call the “common good”—to care for the well-being of society and, not least, of young people. It is very clear that making something look attractive will make it more appealing. Making it look, through its packaging, less attractive makes it less appealing. It is the simplest of all arguments. If people are allowed to dress up poison to look good, some people will take that poison. I ask noble Lords to please support this measure and oppose the amendment for the good of our young people and our society.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for putting before us these proposals to try to protect public health. I declare an interest—not that I am part of any cigar club, not that I have shares in any tobacco company and not that I have been wined and dined by a tobacco company. In the last few years, I have seen both my parents die through being long-term smokers, and I have seen the effect that that has had on families. Towards the end of my parents’ lives, when we were talking about their addiction to smoking, they explained that they were attracted to smoking when they were young. Once smokers are addicted, it is very hard indeed to get off the drug.
I want to follow the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate by spending a few minutes talking about why I think tobacco companies spend billions of pounds on marketing and packaging. It has become the fifth “P” in the marketing mix. For these companies, it is no longer just about price, promotion, product and placement; now, the package is the most important part in targeting young people. Research by RW Pollay shows that only 10% of people per annum change cigarette or tobacco brands.
On the history of packaging, the law suits, emails, memoranda and notes passed between Philip Morris and its marketing agency make it very clear that the company carries out research through focus groups on the colour, shape and design of its packaging, particularly for young people. Why does it do that? It does so because, if it can attract young people between the ages of 16 and 20—these are not my words but those of the tobacco industry—there is a high probability that the young people will not only start smoking but stay with the brand. That is what packaging is about: it is about addicting the young and keeping them with the brand; it is not about moving market share between brands.
Maybe my language is a bit harsh, but the packaging of cigarettes is about the marketing of death. Out of every two long-term smokers, one will die of smoking-related illness. I do not make that comment for effect or for headlines—the statistics show it to be the case. The evidence from Wakefield and Morley, who carried out research in Australia in the early 2000s, long before standardised packaging came in there, made it very clear that companies do a couple of things to try to ensure that people take up their brands. Companies can no longer advertise on TV, can no longer sponsor sport et cetera and can no longer have big billboards, so they look at the shape of their packaging. They experiment with colour—the lighter the colour, the more it is perceived that that brand is somehow safer, of milder tar. They use colour and shape for young people. They talk about the masculinity of colour and of shape. They go for women and say that certain colours and shapes can actually attract women.
Let us be very clear what this is about. This is not about waiting for evidence from Australia: there has been evidence since the 1950s, when Philip Morris used to spend $150,000—equivalent to $1 million today—on the shape and colour of its packaging to get people to take its product at a young age and to addict them for as long as possible. That is why I welcome what the Government and the Minister are doing.
We have been on a journey to try to deal with the harm. In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the reason that, as a former leader of Sheffield City Council, I would not have accepted this kind of approach for restaurants and licensing is because with this product, which is addictive, there is also a harm principle—harm not just to the individual concerned but to others in families and to others around people who smoke. The role of government is to balance that harm principle. I would never do that for people making a choice over a restaurant, but there is a difference with cigarettes and tobacco.
I conclude by saying that I sat with both my parents as they died. I have seen others who tried to get off this addictive drug, and have seen and read about the tactics of the tobacco industry. I understand that the small thing called a packet is now so powerful in getting people on to this drug that it is important that, as a Government and as legislators of this country, we do all we can to prevent those young children from starting on that journey of the marketing of death. It is for that reason that this is not just a sensible step but an essential one to save lives. We need to make sure that people do not use marketing to addict people to something that is both dangerous and effectively means that one out of every two smokers will die in the long run.
Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)
As a small boy in a mining village in County Durham, where my father was a schoolteacher, I was introduced to Woodbines at the age of 11 and started to smoke intermittently but frequently. When I went to medical school, I am horrified to tell your Lordships that we were advised by our teachers to smoke in the dissecting room to remove the smell of the carcasses which we were dissecting. The professor of physiology said that he could not live without smoking and that we were therefore fully entitled to smoke all the way through his lectures. Practically every medical student in those days did.
After graduation, when I eventually became second in command of a hospital ship sailing through the Mediterranean to Palestine and various other places, I could buy a 50-can of Senior Service cigarettes for one shilling and eight pence and that can would last me two days—25 a day I was smoking. None of us at that time knew the dangers of smoking. When I came back out of the Army and started to work in a hospital in Newcastle and then in the National Health Service, slowly but surely the work of Richard Doll and his colleagues on the desperate effects of smoking began to emerge. Eventually, thank goodness, I had the strength to give up smoking—with difficulty—in my late 30s. It was a struggle but I made that sensible decision and thank goodness I did; otherwise, I probably would not be here now.
Smoking tobacco is one of the most appalling health hazards of the age—there is no question at all about that. Not only does it cause cancer of the lung and of other organs such as the bowel and bladder, it has a very powerful effect on the cardiovascular system in causing coronary artery disease and stroke; it also has a desperate effect on the respiratory system in causing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. It has a devastating effect on all kinds of illness. For that reason, I have been delighted to participate in debates in your Lordships’ House over the years leading to bans on advertising and on smoking in public places— bans that have all been introduced by Parliament in good sense. Any effort of any kind that can prevent young people taking up this appalling habit is well worth while.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that my friend Sir Cyril Chantler is not a master of the kind of market research that he talked about but he is an expert in epidemiology and in statistics, and his research clearly demonstrated that standardised packaging is,
“likely to lead to a modest but important reduction over time on the uptake and prevalence of smoking”.
Any measure that has that effect and prevents young people taking up smoking is well worth while, and for that reason I regard standardised packaging as another essential regulatory measure in addition to the ones that have been passed by your Lordships’ House and by Parliament in general in having the effect of preventing youngsters from taking up this appalling habit.
I therefore strongly support the regulations, I strongly support the excellent introduction by the noble Earl, and I am afraid that I regard this Amendment as having another devastating effect, which is without question not necessarily sponsored but supported by the tobacco industry, which has done so much to delay the development of these important public health measures, which have made such a great contribution to public health.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I declare an interest as a member of the Lords and Commons Cigar and Pipe Smokers’ Club—and proud of it. Also like my noble friend Lord Blencathra, I commend and congratulate my noble friend the Minister, who could not be a nicer man, on leading the debates on this subject and indeed on tobacco-related products in general so courteously over many years.
However, I am glad to support my noble friend Lord Naseby. I may be the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has experience of plain packaging in this country; I am trying to see whether anybody is going to disagree with me. That was when I first joined the Navy as a national serviceman aged just 18, when I was offered what were called “Blue Liners”. They came in totally plain packets and all there was on the cigarette was a minute blue line running along it—no name of the manufacturer, nothing of the sort. It certainly did not deter me from taking up smoking, nor did it deter any of my colleagues. I just do not believe that plain packaging will deter the young—who ought to be deterred; I could not agree more—from taking up smoking.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, I want to provide a few anecdotal points in this debate today. I was prompted by the remarks made previously about criminals engaging in illicit cigarettes. Eight or nine years ago, I went on a parliamentary visit to China and saw for myself the number of sophisticated cigarette factories that the Chinese were closing down every week. In China, 25 to 30 factories were closed every week. But in the UK, the total number of Customs representatives that we had patrolling China was exactly one, and that person was based in Hong Kong. I say that if the Government want to crack down on this illegal trading, which is supposed to be producing about one in three illicit cigarettes in London, they have to tackle it very robustly at HMRC level. That is the lesson that we have to learn from this.
I was a smoker when I was young. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, made the point that plain packaging on cigarettes did not have any effect on him. It did not have an effect on him because—I say this with due respect—that was a number of decades ago. At that time, there was a culture of smoking. All of us smoked at the time; I smoked when I was in school. In fact, we smoked Woodbines. If anyone has seen the Woodbine packaging they will know that it was not very attractive, so the more sophisticated ones went on to Benson & Hedges or Marlborough. We had a particularly nasty teacher in the school, who was a smoker. He could detect the schoolboys who were smoking. He smelled our hands, called us smoky beasts, took our five Woodbines or whatever off us, and gave us a belt at the same time—not very fair. But lots of us were engaging in smoking, because that was a good thing to do.
I was brought up very short when my late father had to enter hospital with vascular problems. I visited the Western Infirmary in Glasgow—this was about 50 years ago—and to this day, I remember the name of the consultant and I remember the brutal message that he gave me. The consultant’s name was Mr Gray—Mr Reid, sorry. Mr Reid—I wrote it down, but that is what happens when you get into the House of Lords—said to me, “Your father is suffering from severe vascular problems and he will most likely have to have his legs amputated”. Indeed, he had both his legs amputated. Mr Reid asked me whether I was a smoker, to which I said yes. He said, “Listen, my boy, you look round every bed in my ward and you will see no one other than smokers, so the lesson I have for you and your friends is that the sooner you stop smoking the better”. That stayed with me. I did stop smoking and it was the best thing that I did in my life.
I commend the noble Earl for the work that he has done and say to him that this legislation has come not a day too soon.
Baroness Tonge (Ind LD)
My Lords, I cannot resist putting in my oar at this stage, very briefly. I have been associated with the anti-smoking campaign for many years, in the Commons and in the Lords. I gave up smoking in 1974, I think—the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will correct me—when the report was published on the links between smoking and lung cancer. I had taken up smoking as a teenager—I say this to support all those people who say that packaging is important in attracting young people to start to smoke—and was taught to smoke by my brothers and their friends in somebody’s back garden because they did not want a sister who choked and did not know how to do it. I do not think that we used the word “cool” in those days, but they wanted me to be cool and be able to smoke. It must have been a very rich friend of my brother, because the cigarettes that he produced to teach me were those wonderful multicoloured ones with gold tips—I think that they were called cocktail cigarettes; I shall not mention the brand. I had never seen anything quite so attractive in my life and, for a while, I was seriously hooked on them until I found out how much they cost. I then investigated something called Black Russian, which were even smarter, if that was possible. I as a teenager then knew perfectly well that it was not just the packaging but the appearance of the cigarettes that was attractive. They were very smart to be able to handle because they were different colours—some noble Lords are smiling; they obviously remember them.
What is important about this measure is that it tackles the appearance of cigarettes, which should be uniform. I wholeheartedly support it. I am glad that I gave up smoking all those years ago. I hope that the majority in this House will support the regulations.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I do not smoke. I am married to a smoker and I do not like her smoking, but that is not the point. The point about legislation is its effectiveness. What worries me about gesture legislation is that it comes about because something ought to be done about something.
As far as I know, with the current packaging situation, we have about 19% of the country smoking. Without any advertising, packaging or public involvement, we have about 21% of the country using illicit drugs. It does not seem therefore that packaging is necessarily the determining effect. If anything, the more you drive smoking underground, the more attractive it seems to become. We should be slightly careful how we tackle it. Perhaps it should be looked at as part of the overall issue of how we deal with the problem of addiction and drugs instead of trying to target a little bit of advertising, with lots of people having preconceived ideas. I am not a qualified advertising man, but I think that the purpose of packaging is to try to make somebody switch from one brand to another. I do not think that it is what makes people smoke, but I could be wrong. The statistics suggest that we should not drive it underground.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to trump the ace of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, when she said that she gave up smoking in 1974 but, in 1950, at the end of my first year at university, I became very ill. I spent 12 weeks in hospital with a chest complaint—the doctors thought that it was tuberculosis, but mercifully it was not. At the end of it, the surgeon came to me—he was the professor of thoracic surgery at Newcastle, George Mason; the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will remember him. He said to me, “I think you’re going to be all right but, tell me, do you smoke?”. I said yes. He said, “Well, you shouldn’t”. I said, “Oh, come on. My father’s been talking to you”. He said, “No, I haven’t talked to your father, but one of our students in the University at Newcastle”—it was Dr Strang, who again I think the noble Lord will recall—“has just written a thesis where he has claimed to find a connection between smoking and lung cancer. I’ve scanned it and I haven’t properly been through it, but I found it very compelling. You’ve done the first year of a science degree. You will understand not all of it but most of it, and I’ll give it to you”. The following day there arrived on my bed in the hospital the thesis by this young student. I read it and I was so horrified that I have never smoked a cigarette from that day to this—I was smoking about 25 a day at that time. Ever since then, I have taken a great interest in the connection between smoking and lung cancer. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said about the horrors of tobacco, which I thoroughly support. All the time since, I have listened to the arguments one way or another, as we have listened to the arguments here today.
I come back to what the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, said earlier about the publicity of the tobacco industry. I remember so well through the 1960s and 1970s, when I was in the other place, what I can only call the wicked advertisements, publicity and PR of the tobacco industry. I think the connection between smoking and lung cancer became clear in the 1950s, yet in the 1960s and 1970s the tobacco industry still tried to pretend that there was no danger whatever. That really was wicked.
I have not, I confess, examined the arguments about packaging this time but I listened to the arguments tonight. Bearing in mind the negative start I made—I admit it—when looking at the publicity of the tobacco industry, it seems that this is an experiment well worth trying. For that reason, I most strongly support the Government’s line tonight.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon (Ind Lab)
I have been very patient. Let me first declare my interest: I am a member of the Lords and Commons Cigar Club. Although I am a non-smoker, they tolerate me. I suppose I am an associate member rather than a full one.
The more I have listened to this debate—and I have listened to the whole of it—the more I feel that it should have been about a Bill to abolish tobacco. It has not really been about packaging but about the evils of tobacco and the tobacco companies. The attack on the tobacco companies by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, was one of the best I have ever heard him make. No doubt they will take note of what he said. However, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was right. If we believe that tobacco is so dangerous—the noble Lord, Lord Walton, had no doubts about how dangerous it is—we should bring forward a Bill to ban tobacco as a dangerous drug. So long as that is not done, all this talk about tobacco is sheer hypocrisy. The Government are hypocritical about it because they do not want to lose the money that it gives to the Exchequer. They are trying to get rid of tobacco smoking but they will not come out and say so in the open. They will do it by stealth. This order is one of stealth.
I have been in this House since 1983 and in that time have spent some 25 years talking about tobacco and restrictions on it. Indeed, I remember that during the last Government I sat in a committee on the same side as the Minister, who then opposed the—what was it called?—ban on tobacco display. We were on the same side at that particular time, as he will recall. That went through but, of course, it has not yet been fully implemented. It does not come fully into law until April. Before we have the display ban, we now have the plain packaging ban. It would be useful if we could implement previous legislation before we start bringing forward more legislation. Does the House not think that that is sensible? The Government obviously do not think that it is.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I sense that the House is ready to come to a view on this very interesting matter, and I am looking forward to the response of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I should start by declaring my interest as president of the Royal Society for Public Health.
Not surprisingly, noble Lords will know that I support the regulations, for which the Labour Party campaigned vigorously. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is right that they come on the back of a successful amendment in your Lordships’ House to ban smoking in cars when children are present. Like the noble Earl, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for their outstanding work on this issue in your Lordships’ House.
I have some questions to put to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in relation to the effectiveness of the measure, following the debate. That is the fair test that we need when reaching a decision. First, can the noble Earl confirm that opinion polls have shown very strong support among the public for this policy? Does he agree with me that, if we look back at the measure we passed in relation to smoking in cars with children present, again the public showed enormous support for the action that was being taken? It is not as if we have an authoritarian measure, imposing a sort of public-health view on the public; what we have here is a sensible measure that the great majority of people in this country support.
I turn now to the evidence. I listened with care to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. Does the noble Earl stand by the evidence contained in the impact assessment published with the Explanatory Memorandum? Is it his view that, far from what the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, said, the evidence is clear about the Australian experience so far? Industry leaders have talked about market decline in Australia. On a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I refer to Sir Cyril Chantler. He may not be a marketing expert, but, goodness me, he is a man of enormous reputation in his ability to sift evidence, so can the noble Earl confirm that Sir Cyril Chantler took a highly dispassionate view on this issue? He made himself available to people on all issues. It is not an emotional report; it is a dispassionate, weighing up of the evidence.
On the issue of illicit trade, can the noble Earl confirm that the HMRC concluded that standardised packaging is not likely to have a significant effect on that? In answer to the point raised about the paragraph in the assessment, is his reading of it that, on balance, it is “very unlikely” to have an impact on illicit trade? The words, “very unlikely” mean that obviously there is a small percentage chance that it might not. That is my reading of that paragraph. Will he confirm that I am right about that?
As for the view of the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, that because it is legal we should therefore not place any controls around it, I fail to understand the argument. Driving is legal, but we do not recoil from setting speed limits. There is general support for seat belts. Is that not the same issue? It is a legal activity, but we are right to place constraints on it to safeguard people from its worst effects.
On whether the packaging industry will be hit by the change to plain packaging, can the Minister confirm that cigarette packaging accounts for less than 5% of all packaging cartons manufactured in the UK—and, of course, packs will still be required in future? Perhaps he can then address points made about questions asked in the other place that were not answered. There is a question about the process and timetable to be followed once the regulations, if accepted by your Lordships’ House, are put in place.
The question of enforcement was raised today. I understand that several local authorities have advocated the need to ensure that trading standards officers are equipped and trained to implement the measure. That is clearly important, and perhaps the Minister can say something about the programme by which the Government intend to help local authorities once the regulations come into law.
My view is that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his speech today, in the regulations, in the Explanatory Memorandum and in the impact assessment has made a very powerful case for why the regulations should be passed. I sincerely hope that the House will listen to that and pass the regulations.
Earl Howe
My Lords, this has been a very powerfully argued debate. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have welcomed the regulations for the many supportive points that they have made. I also thank my noble friend Lord Naseby for setting out his objections and concerns with his customary clarity and courtesy. Several noble Lords have already done part of my job for me in responding to my noble friend’s critique, but I believe it to be incumbent on me to address directly all the matters that he raised, as well as the questions posed by other speakers.
I turn to the issue of the illicit trade and the evidence from Australia. Contrary to what the tobacco industry would have people believe, the evidence from Australia does not show an increase in the illicit market in that country following the introduction of plain packaging. There have been a number of criticisms of the tobacco-funded reports on that issue. It is therefore useful to consider the data provided from official Australian government sources. Official data from Australia on the use of illicit tobacco show a drop in those aged 14 years and over currently smoking illicit tobacco following the introduction of plain packaging. From 6% using illicit tobacco in 2007, the figure dropped to 5% in 2010 and then to under 4% in 2013—after plain packaging had been introduced.
A study published in BMJ Open analysed data from smokers before, during and one year after the introduction of plain packaging in Australia. The proportion of smokers reporting current use of illicit tobacco did not change significantly after plain packaging was introduced. I assure the House that the Government have looked very carefully at the potential impact on the illicit market. Tackling tobacco smuggling is a government priority. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord McFall, in particular, that, due to the fantastic work of HMRC and others, there has been a long-term decline in the tax gap for tobacco products over the past decade. The potential impact of standardised packaging on the illicit trade was considered extensively by HMRC, Sir Cyril Chantler, the Select Committee’s inquiry on smuggling, the Trading Standards Institute and RUSI. They all concluded that standardised packaging will not have a significant impact on the illicit market. HMRC has undertaken a detailed assessment of the potential impact of standardised packaging on the illicit market, which is the most comprehensive and reliable information available. Its assessment is that:
“We have seen no evidence to suggest the introduction of standardised packaging will have a significant impact on the overall size of the illicit market or prompt a step-change in the activity of organised crime groups.”
The Trading Standards Institute, which has extensive experience of tackling illicit tobacco at retail level, said in its consultation response that it,
“is aware that the tobacco industry regularly argues against standardised packaging for the reason that it will inevitably lead to an increase in the illicit tobacco trade. The Institute does not regard this as a valid argument”.
My noble friend referred to the system known as Codentify. That system is a voluntary security feature developed and controlled by the tobacco industry. We know that HMRC is starting to make use of the system to assist in identifying illicit tobacco. We are working across government to ensure that anti-counterfeit systems that are useful to HMRC and other enforcement agencies now and in the future can continue to feature on standardised packs. That will require such anti-counterfeit systems to be put on to a statutory footing.
My noble friend suggested that the prevalence of smoking had increased in Australia and that standardised packaging had not helped. Australian government figures show that smoking prevalence is in fact at an all-time low since the implementation of standardised packaging, with a 15% drop between 2010 and 2013. This change is likely to be attributable to the cumulative effects of a range of policies, including standardised packaging.
My noble friend also referred to the study by Kaul and Wolf apparently showing that smoking had increased among teenagers. The Kaul and Wolf report was funded and its release was closely directed by Philip Morris International, part of the tobacco industry. It was based on a specific survey of population smoking that is not intended to provide reliable estimates of smoking among teenagers, and the sample size was very small. It also compared figures immediately before and after implementation, and the effects of standardised packaging are more likely to be gradual. It is not a reliable study, we suggest, from which to draw any conclusions.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra urged the Government to wait for more evidence from Australia. He may like to know that studies in Australia have found that smokers buying standardised packets reported being more likely to prioritise quitting than smokers using fully branded packs. Calls to quit lines have increased. Smoking has decreased in outdoor cafes and fewer packs are being displayed on tables.
What has happened to tobacco sales in Australia? There have been suggestions that sales have gone up. Sales of tobacco can be measured in many different ways—sales by manufacturers to wholesalers, wholesalers to retailers or by retailers to consumers. Different pictures of sales emerge depending on the source of the data and the timeframe. In fact, official government data from Australia suggest that a continuing decline in per capita consumption of tobacco products has taken place. Commonwealth Treasury figures show that excise and customs clearances of tobacco declined by 3.4% in 2012-13, and that is generally regarded as the most reliable indicator of population sales.
I turn now to the print industry and my noble friend’s complaint that more time should be given to the print industry to enable a proper lead-in period. Standardised packaging is not a policy that has been sprung on the print industry. It has been under discussion since 2008 and two public consultations have been held on the subject, as I mentioned earlier. The regulations would come into force in May 2016, which provides the print industry with a lead time of over a year. I confirm to my noble friend Lady Tyler that the regulations will be implemented at the same time as the European directive is transposed in May 2016, so the industry does not have to undergo two changes to its manufacturing process.
The previous changes to tobacco packaging, such as the requirement for picture warnings in 2008, showed that a 12-month period in which to sell through old stock is appropriate and that stock sells through more quickly than one year. In answer to my noble friends Lord Naseby and Lord Blencathra, it is not true to say that standardised packaging will make it easier to copy packs and therefore make things easier for counterfeiters. Standardised packaging would remain complex to counterfeit. The packs will continue to feature large and complicated to reproduce picture health warnings and will retain all the security features currently on packs, including covert anti-counterfeit marks. The European Union directive includes provisions on the printing of labels. As I said, we have given very careful and measured consideration to that. We believe that the synchronised introduction of the provisions in the directive with the coming into force of these regulations is a sensible course.
Mention was made of intellectual property issues. As I said earlier, we have given very careful and measured consideration to all legal aspects of the policy, and this includes intellectual property aspects. These regulations regulate the use of tobacco branding, which includes trade marks. I emphasise that we regard tobacco as a unique consumer product in this context because it is a uniquely harmful consumer product. For the record, we do not consider that these regulations breach intellectual property laws or our international obligations in relation to trade marks.
I listened with care to my noble friend Lord Geddes, who argued from experience of his National Service that plain packs would not deter smoking. He referred to “Blue Liner” cigarettes, which I was interested to hear about. However, there are several key differences with regard to our proposals. First, the regulations we are considering mandate health warnings, which did not appear on “Blue Liner” cigarettes. Secondly, there is the colour of the packaging. Our regulations take into consideration the extensive market research the Australian Government undertook to determine the most effective designs for standardised packaging. Of the eight different colours tested during the research, dark brown packaging was the least appealing and thought to contain cigarettes most harmful to health. After carefully considering the research, our regulations adopt the same dull brown colour as the packs required in Australia.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, referred to the possibility of unintended consequences. We believe very firmly that the benefits of these regulations far outweigh any of the unintended consequences that might come from introducing standardised packaging. In some cases, we are not convinced that certain predicted unintended consequences are anything more than scare stories. The department has run two consultations on standardised packaging, which contributed to our understanding of all the relevant factors in making our decision.
My noble friend Lord Blencathra queried the Explanatory Memorandum. I think he might have been referring to the impact assessment, which was rated green by the Regulatory Policy Committee, meaning that it is fit for purpose.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about public support for standardised packaging. Multiple surveys have shown that the public support it. A YouGov poll in spring last year, with a representative sample of 10,000 people, found that 64% of adults in England supported standardised packaging while 11% opposed it. Even among smokers, more people were in support of or neutral towards standardised packaging than opposed it. After the implementation of standardised packs in Australia, support for the policy increased from 28% to 49% among smokers. Survey data from Australia show that more smokers approve of the policy than oppose it.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made a point that I have heard him make powerfully before—that alcohol is, in fact, the most addictive and harmful drug, not tobacco. I just say to him, as mentioned in my speech, that all smoking is addictive and harmful to health, and half of regular smokers are eventually killed by smoking-related illness. That is simply not true of other consumer products such as alcohol. Tobacco is being treated uniquely in regulatory terms because it is a uniquely harmful consumer good. All smoking is addictive and harmful to health. Therefore, to be absolutely clear, we see the introduction of standardised packaging as a unique approach to tackling smoking and its appalling effect on public health. It fits within a comprehensive tobacco control policy.
We are proud that smoking rates are the lowest ever recorded in this country, and my noble friend Lord Naseby was right to point that out. However, we cannot rest on our laurels. In other parts of the world we have seen that if Governments take their foot off the pedal with tobacco control, smoking rates can go up. For the good of public health, we want to continue our policy action to see smoking rates continue to fall, which is why I once again commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, I should like, first, to thank my noble friend on the Front Bench for addressing the four points that I raised and were vital to be addressed. I shall comment on only two short matters because I sense that the House wants to move on.
My first comment is on youth smoking, which a number of Members raised. One may dispute this or not, but the facts are that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has stated that youth smoking rates have not declined as a result of standard packaging; in fact, they are at a seven-year high. Secondly, there is the matter of illicit tobacco consumption, which is the issue that worries me most. One has only to go round a building site in the United Kingdom today. I recently did so and checked a bit. Illicit tobacco is being offered on many building sites in this country; it is costing the Revenue and genuine companies a great deal. Not only that, when we look at Australia specifically, which we have done this evening, we see that by mid-2014 in that country illicit tobacco consumption stood at an unprecedented 14.7% of the market—25% higher than it had been in 2012. Whatever anyone says, as far as the industry is concerned—after all, it knows exactly how many cigarettes are produced and sold—that is a crucial area, and a crucial area of public health. Unless someone does something about that, we may well find increasing numbers of counterfeit cigarettes imported into this country. That will have an effect on public health because they kill even quicker than the genuine ones do.
I am grateful to all those who have taken part. I particularly thank my noble friends who have supported me this evening. Some home truths have been spelt out by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and a number of other colleagues who have supported me. The key issue, however, is a little wider than the tobacco industry, because what this Motion does, if it goes through—I imagine that it may well do so—is totally to undermine intellectual property rights, which are the very foundation of our modern capitalism. Intellectual property rights are fundamental to every business and defend a company from rogue competition—wherever it may come from—and, in my view, from totally misguided Governments on occasion.
I have to decide whether to divide the House. I take note of the fact that in another place nearly 25% of that Chamber voted against the Motion. I sense this evening that about 25% are against this Motion and I thank that 25% for the support they have given me. Nevertheless, it does not seem to me to be terribly productive for us all to march through the Lobbies and for me to get only 25% of the vote, or thereabouts, so with the leave of the House I will withdraw my amendment.
City of Birmingham (Scheme of Elections) Order 2015
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House takes note of the City of Birmingham (Scheme of Elections) Order 2015. (SI 2015/43)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very glad to debate the City of Birmingham (Scheme of Elections) Order 2015 and glad to see that we have such a full House still for this important debate.
This order imposes on our second city a new scheme of elections that commence in 2017. It also changes Birmingham’s current practice of retirement by thirds and moves to all-out elections. Noble Lords need to be aware that last week the Government laid a new order that actually amends the order we are debating this evening by changing the date of the first all-out elections from 2017 to 2018. That order has not been through the scrutiny committee and other scrutiny processes and, no doubt, there will be a report to your Lordships’ House, I believe after the next meeting of the scrutiny committee next Tuesday.
I want to raise some issues about the change to all-out elections but I want to set out the context. I have lived in Birmingham for nearly 40 years. It is a wonderful city—very vibrant and friendly—but it faces a number of real challenges at the moment. Its economy has underperformed compared with London, Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield over many years now. Parts of Birmingham are among the most deprived in the country. In fact, we have more poor children in Birmingham than in any other part of the country and many of our adults are locked in a spiral where they have low skills and cannot take advantage of some of the new jobs that are being created in the city.
Birmingham has a great history, great strengths and potentially a great future but a lot of that depends on the city council and the quality of leadership it provides. At the moment, it is fair to say that it is being held back by a number of very significant problems. Its children’s services have been rated inadequate or worse for a number of years now. The Trojan horse incident raised a lot of serious issues about the education service in general and about the city council’s engagement and understanding of its local communities. Its financial position, following the equal pay debacle, can be described at best only as horrendous.
The city council is subject to a number of interventions. My noble friend Lord Warner is a commissioner appointed by the Secretary of State for Education looking particularly into children’s services. Sir Mike Tomlinson has been appointed in the wake of the Trojan horse issue and Sir Bob Kerslake, the former Permanent Secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, has undertaken an independent review of the governance and organisational capabilities of the city council. That is what I want to focus on. Let me say at once that I believe Sir Bob has undertaken an enormous task. I am very grateful to him for it. His report is well written and many of its conclusions are absolutely right. However, there are some issues I want to raise, particularly in relation to this order.
Where I think Sir Bob is absolutely right is that he says, essentially, that for Birmingham to achieve its full potential and deal with some of the problems I have mentioned, the city council has to rethink its role and the way it does its business. In a telling phrase in the report Sir Bob says it has to end the,
“not invented here, silo-based and council knows best culture”.
Leadership of the council has changed hands between the three political parties over the past few years. I was a member of the city council a long time ago, but I recognise that criticism. Of all the changes Birmingham needs to make, that is probably the one that I would focus on.
Sir Bob goes on to talk about the governance of the city council. In particular, he says that the council needs to clarify roles, responsibilities, behaviours and ways of working expected in relation to the leader, the cabinet, councillors, chief executive and officers. I agree with that too. I agree that the city council should draw up a robust plan on managing the financial challenges it faces. I certainly agree that it needs to establish a new model of devolution and partnership with key stakeholders. As a former chairman of an NHS foundation trust in Birmingham, I am struck by the inability of the city council to forge strong relationships with other key players in the sector. That is an issue that goes across leadership between two different administrations. I certainly support the recommendation that there should be a combined authority—what I would call greater Birmingham—covering Birmingham, Dudley, Sandwell, Walsall, Wolverhampton and Solihull, rather in the way that Manchester has been developed, in order to deal with some of those cross-local authority strategic issues.
I want to have a debate, because it is important that this is debated, on the proposal about the scheme of elections and the move to all-out elections. Sir Bob says:
“Birmingham City Council is an outlier on the size of the council and the size of its wards. It has 15 of the 20 wards with the largest population in the country”.
Because Birmingham is forecast to have a big growth in population over the coming years, those wards are likely to become even bigger. There are already 120 councillors but, speaking as a councillor in a three-member ward representing 22,000 electors, it is a very tough challenge for 120 councillors to represent effectively a population of 1 million. We are going up to 1,150,000, yet Sir Bob’s proposals are to reduce the number of councillors. For ward councillors, that is going to be a major challenge.
Sir Bob also says that we should move away from the traditional, current election by thirds to all-out elections. If you read the report, he clearly favours reducing the number of councillors and moving to single-member wards, rather than multimember wards, at the same time. I know opinions differ about the merits, or not, of all-out elections and elections by thirds. Essentially, it depends upon what you are used to. I spent time as a councillor in Oxford and I have lived in Leeds and Birmingham, so for me the natural order of things is election by thirds. Equally, I am sure that the Minister thinks all-out elections are the right thing to do because that is what he has experienced. It is a 50:50 argument. I know Sir Albert Bore, the leader of Birmingham City Council, favours the move to all-out elections because he thinks they will provide greater certainty of political control over a four-year period, allow confident medium-term financial and strategic planning for that four-year period and that the majority group will have a clear mandate for the whole of the period. Well, that is fair enough—I am not going to argue about that. I like the old tradition of election by thirds; it makes sure that the electorate have an opportunity to have a say on an annual basis. None the less, I very much accept what Albert has said. However, I worry about reducing the number of councillors. Even more worrying, for me, is the fact that the city council will be subjected to a boundary review. The chairman of the Local Government Boundary Commission has already been in the city and has issued a challenge to local councillors to say that, if they do not like the reduction in numbers, they must put up a convincing case against it.
The problem that I have is that, in the original Kerslake report, he identifies that this great city of Birmingham is facing mega-challenges in its leadership and partnership approach as well as in how it operates, the services it provides and the skills of its people. Yet we know that the moment the commission starts to do its work, in a situation in which it is proposed to reduce the number of councillors, the focus of most councillors’ attention will not be on these core issues of leading Birmingham out of the very difficult situation that it is in. It will be about responding to the boundary commission review and worrying about the new wards, and selection will then take place. Councillors’ focus will be on those really rather secondary issues rather than on the core issue of tackling the problems that Sir Bob addresses.
The reason I am raising the issue tonight is to ask the Minister to give this some consideration. After all, another order is coming down the line. The last thing that we need in Birmingham is the distraction of a wholesale boundary review, which will get rid of three-member wards—so it will be a mega-change. We need to focus on improving the services in the city of Birmingham. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I support the order. I was born and raised in Birmingham, and my first and last jobs in manufacturing were in the city. I am old enough and my memory is still good enough to say that I can still recall my mother’s Birmingham co-op number. I served in the Commons as the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr, where I went to school and had my paper round, for 27 years. Although I no longer pay council tax in the city, I have just arrived at your Lordships' House from chairing the Neighbourhood Partnership Board at Castle Vale in the city. So I am now an outsider, but I have insider roots, insight and, indeed, support. However, my memory is also good enough to remember how the city was considered by others as a leader over five decades, over a variety of issues—an exemplar.
At the time when the noble Lord, Lord Nash, made the Statement in this House last year on 22 July, I did not get the confirmation—it was buried in the paragraphs—that the Kerslake review would not have any no-go areas. As such, in July, I put in my long-held views to Sir Bob about the governance of the city being split into separate boroughs. I copied my views to the city leadership at the same time—I have always been quite open on this point, which I raised in the 1980s and the 1990s. The city is too big. London does not suffer for being split into 32 boroughs, and Birmingham would not suffer for being split into two, three or four boroughs.
Sir Bob, who is soon to join your Lordships' House, has explained to me why his team went for what is in the order, and I accept that. I am not going to go over that tonight; it is not the time. His review makes it crystal clear that, if the city council fails to improve, questions of size will continue to be asked. Improvement is urgently required. As my noble friend just said, there are currently two government-imposed commissioners working in the city due to it failing—I do not like saying that, but that is the reality—in education and in children’s social services. The city has massive potential to return to being an exemplar for strong, good local government, as it was in the past and I want it to do so.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for the measured way in which he introduced his take-note Motion. I recognise his knowledge of and attachment to the City of Birmingham. I also thank my noble friend Lord Rooker for his contribution.
We on the Front Bench support the order as it stands. My noble friend Lord Rooker raised some fascinating issues—the same ones that Kerslake raised—about how Birmingham City Council used to be a leader and has lost its way. My noble friend Lord Hunt recognised that as well. The issue of the city being too big was touched on in the report but the conclusion was not to change those matters, certainly for the time being. My noble friends had a different emphasis, as I shall put it, on whether an election by thirds or an all-in, all-out election is the most appropriate. I am bound to say that we on Luton Council changed to an all-in, all-out system in 1976. We supported it then and have supported it since, even though, politically, we have always caught the bad years and ended up in opposition. Thankfully, that has changed, but it is a consequence: you cannot have all the benefits of it.
As for wards which have a different number of members, again in Luton we have two-member wards and three-member wards. Frankly, it works perfectly well and I do not know what the problem is with having that system. My noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord Hunt focused on this issue of the blurring of roles between councillors and officers, which we accept is a significant issue. I suspect it may have got worse for those councils that have an executive-type arrangement, which I think lends itself more naturally to that blurring. It is important to guard against that.
The instrument before us today moves away from councillor elections for Birmingham City Council being in thirds to all-out elections every four years. This was to commence in 2017 but, as my noble friend Lord Hunt pointed out, it has been put back one year. I join with my noble friend in seeking a proper explanation of that change. There is speculation that it was a recognition of the complexity associated with the reorganisation of the council and that longer would need to be provided for the Boundary Commission changes to be put in place. Perhaps the Minister can use this opportunity to clarify matters.
The proposed change came about of course as a consequence of the Kerslake review, which we have heard about. Sir Bob Kerslake was asked last year to lead a review of the governance and organisational capabilities of the city council. The review was conducted on the principles of an LGA peer challenge model and looked at five factors critical to council performance and improvement. These were: effective political and managerial leadership working in partnership; an understanding of the local context and a shared long-term vision for the future, with a clear set of priorities; effective governance and decision-making arrangements that respond to challenges and manage change, transformation and disinvestment; organisational capacity and resources focused in the right areas in order to deliver the agreed priorities, including a workforce that understands the priorities and supports their delivery; and a financial plan in place to ensure long-term viability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling the Motion. It is important that, in the—albeit brief—debate that we have just had, your Lordships’ House reviewed and discussed the important issue of the Kerslake report. I join other noble Lords in recognising the sterling work done by Sir Bob Kerslake in the review of Birmingham, and look forward to welcoming him to your Lordships’ House. He and his team have clearly shown that Birmingham—both the city and the council—are some way from fulfilling their full potential, and indeed their past potential, which noble Lords talked about. The challenges they face are deep-rooted and there are serious problems that they need to face up to, such as an underperforming economy, poor local services in certain respects and no credible plans to address the council’s very significant budget difficulties. That England’s second city faces such challenges is something that should concern us all. I am therefore extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I was seeking to meet him in advance of this debate and perhaps speak to him on Sunday. However, being a father of three and it being Mothering Sunday, I was under strict orders not to look at the phone in the key hours of the day. I apologise that we were unable to talk earlier.
I recognise and share many of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has expressed. Indeed, I found myself in total agreement with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. In particular, I listened with great attention to his description of the Labour Party conference. Not having attended one myself, I bow to his view of how the plenary, and indeed the fringe, sessions proceed. Nevertheless, I thank all noble Lords, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and Her Majesty’s Opposition, for their support for this order. It is important that we come together in ensuring that the great city of Birmingham realises its full potential.
We believe that the change to the election cycle in the city of Birmingham is critical to securing the fundamental reforms that the city needs. The current pattern of elections by thirds has not helped Birmingham’s ability to take strategic decisions. There is, as we all recognise, an inability to focus on the longer-term problems that are holding the council back, including transforming services. When we are children, we are often told not to do things by halves—or by thirds, in this case—so perhaps a move to whole-council elections will give the council the impetus that it needs. It will give a four-year stable mandate and facilitate the strategic decision-making that we all desire. It will enable the council more effectively to take those longer-term decisions and forge a strategic and long-term vision for the future and the city as a whole.
The approach of moving councils where reform is imperative to holding whole-council elections is not unprecedented. The previous Labour Government did this in the case of Stoke-on-Trent and we have done this for Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, where the first full-council elections will take place in May this year. More generally, the Government are on public record as recognising the benefits of whole-council elections every four years. In our White Paper response to my noble friend Lord Heseltine’s report on promoting economic growth, No Stone Unturned: In Pursuit of Growth, we said that,
“the Government welcomes the adoption anywhere of four-yearly whole council elections”,
while recognising that this was generally a matter for local choice.
The noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Hunt, raised the issue of the order being made so quickly. I recognise that, following the publication of Sir Bob’s report, matters have moved swiftly and continue to do so. I take this opportunity to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for not alerting him earlier to the further order, which we laid on Friday, which will shift the date for the first whole-council elections from May 2017, as recommended by Sir Bob Kerslake, to May 2018. I shall explain both why we are moving so quickly and why we have changed the start date.
First, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, recognises, the situation in Birmingham is serious. Indeed, all noble Lords who took part in the debate made that point. Fundamental reform is essential and needs to be driven forward as quickly as possible. We quickly established the Birmingham independent improvement panel, led by Sir John Crabtree, a highly respected figure in the city whose lifelong commitment to the well-being of Birmingham is known to all. The panel’s role is to provide challenge and advice to the council as it follows its improvement journey in response to the Kerslake report. The council quickly set to work to draw up an action plan to implement the Kerslake recommendations made to it and is now seeking to finalise this, working closely with the improvement panel.
Along with recommending a change to whole-council elections, the Kerslake report recommended that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England undertake an electoral review. The aim of this review, when linked with a move to whole-council elections, is to move the council away from having three-member wards and to enable there to be a smaller council. Such a council, with many single-member wards, will be better able both to represent local people and more effectively to take the tough decisions needed to address the challenges that Birmingham faces. The boundary commission has already started its work. Before it can get to grips with its review, it needs certainty about the pattern of elections that the council will hold, hence the urgent need for any order changing the pattern of elections to be made as soon as practicable.
That is what we did. We made the order on 21 January; we laid it before Parliament on the 22 January; and it came into force on 16 February. It implemented fully the Kerslake recommendations, including the start date recommended by the report. We knew that this report had been prepared following many meetings with residents, business leaders, community and faith leaders, the voluntary and community sector, local politicians, council officers, front-line staff, and representatives of other public services. The review heard the views of more than 350 people and received 80 submissions of written evidence.
However, with the order having been made, some suggested that 2018 would be a better year in which to hold the first whole-council elections. This is because Birmingham, like the other West Midlands authorities, would then continue to have no local elections in 2017, 2021 and so on. It would also avoid councillors being elected for just a one-year term, which would be the case for those elected in 2016 if the first whole-council elections were in May 2017. Our sole aim is to do what is best for Birmingham. We have been persuaded that a 2018 start date is on balance better than the 2017 start date, even though it means that a renewed council with a clear four-year mandate will not be in place until one year later.
I assure noble Lords that I fully take on board the points that have been made during this debate. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, talked about the importance of training for officers and councillors. That is a very important point to reflect on, because, too often, people put themselves forward for office without perhaps fully understanding the nature of their role and its importance in decision-making.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, drew an important distinction between the roles of elected members and officers. Training and the renewal of such training are important not just in Birmingham but around the country.
I am confident that these orders provide a firm foundation for the many changes that are needed in Birmingham—challenges that I know the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, knows only too well. There is an overwhelming consensus that the council cannot carry on any longer as it is. The issues are deeply rooted and will not change overnight, but a start needs to be made now. This order is part of the start and I commend it to the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lord McKenzie. I will not speak for any length of time; I want to make four brief points.
First, I endorse what my noble friend Lord Rooker said. Going back to Victorian days and over many decades, Birmingham led the way as a strong exponent of what local government could be. The sanitation improvements, the housing improvements and the Chamberlain improvements showed what a vigorous, confident city could do to improve the lot of its citizens, and it is clear that that is what we want to get back to.
Secondly, my noble friend is also right that, at some point, we have to face up to the “greater Birmingham” issue. The relationship between Birmingham and the other boroughs in the West Midlands is not what it should be. We cannot take advantage of what we see as a great pendulum swing back to local government and autonomy unless that relationship is sorted out. I agree with my noble friend on his point about Birmingham and the boroughs. In the end, that will be resolved only if Birmingham gives confidence to the other boroughs that a partnership can truly be created.
Thirdly, the roles between councillors and officers are crucial. All I will say is that I hope that the panel that has now been established to help and challenge the city council will focus on governance, relationships and culture. That seems to be where a huge amount of work needs to be done.
Finally, I listened with care to the Minister’s argument and, of course, I support the order. However, I worry that for three years the council will be inwardly focused on boundary commission reviews, new wards, selection and then election. I hope that the noble Lord’s department, in its relationship with the city council and the panel, will do everything it can to ensure that the eyes of the leadership and all those involved with the city council are focused as much as possible on the job in hand: improving service to the people of Birmingham rather than, as I fear, worrying about the boundary review. I was not encouraged by the intervention of the chairman of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England over the past few days. It seemed that he tried to embark on a sort of city-wide debate in terms of boundaries and wards. That is the last thing we need to worry about at the moment. The job in hand is improving Birmingham’s services. Having said that, I beg to move my Motion.
Health: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards
(9 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what impact the Supreme Court’s March 2014 judgment on Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards has had on healthcare.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the House for allowing this debate to occur at the end of the day today. It relates to the so-called Cheshire West judgment of 19 March 2014 and its impact on healthcare. The background to that judgment was most eloquently laid out by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in the debate on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 that we had last week on 10 March.
In the judgment itself, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, said:
“This case is about the criteria for judging whether the living arrangements made for a mentally incapacitated person amount to a deprivation of liberty. If they do, then the deprivation has to be authorised”.
I will cover briefly why it was felt necessary to clarify the issue. There appear to have been relatively few authorisations under the deprivation of liberty safeguards: in 2009-10 there were 7,157 and in 2012-13 there were 11,887. The noble and learned Baroness went on to say that,
“it would not be at all surprising if those arranging for the care of people with severe learning disabilities were reluctant to see those arrangements, made in what they think are the best interests of the people concerned, as also depriving them of their liberty”.
In response to the question of whether the deprivation of liberty is the same for all people, the noble and learned Baroness also said that,
“the whole point about human rights is their universal character”.
Indeed, the state of liberty—as defined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore, as,
“the state or condition of being free from external constraint”—
should therefore apply to everyone, irrespective of their disability of any sort. The Supreme Court laid down an acid test of circumstances that are likely to amount to a deprivation of liberty: namely, that the person is under continuous supervision and control, is not free to leave and lacks capacity to consent to these arrangements.
The important conclusions from this judgment are, first, that living arrangements amounting to a deprivation of liberty for a non-disabled person are a deprivation of liberty for a disabled person. In other words, there is parity. Secondly, if a person in a supported living arrangement in the community, care home or hospital setting is under continuous supervision and control, and is not free to leave, their liberty is deprived no matter the reason for the confinement. Thirdly, the person’s compliance or lack of objection is immaterial. Fourthly, periodic checks need to be in place to ensure that any legal justification for such confinement remains in place.
The judgment is clearly written, but it has had wide impact, which is what I want to address. The cost to councils arising from the changes as outlined in the judgment is estimated to have increased by more than £98 million—from the £35.2 million available in 2014-15. That is the estimate from the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. There were 13,000 DoLS applications in 2013-14. Following the judgment, there have already been 86,500. Given this pressure, I ask the Minister: are the decisions made by assessors being scrutinised to ensure that hasty decisions are not made in the context of what is effectively a massive increase in demand?
There has been a reduction in the forms relating to DoLS, which have gone from 42 pages down to 13, and a streamlined process for applications was introduced by the Court of Protection to help cope with the increased demand. However, have families and advocates been asked for their views on the forms and how they are working for individuals?
As a result of the judgment, there has been a significant increase in the circumstances in which deprivation can be seen to take place, such as in hospice care, intensive care units and ambulance transfers, to give just some examples. In many circumstances, there is confusion for healthcare professionals about what amounts to a deprivation of liberty. It appears to be leading to a defensive and bureaucratic mindset, with a risk of stigmatising the care and those being cared for. As a recent paper on ethics and law pointed out:
“The acid test framed by the Supreme Court was not decided in the intensive care setting. However, the concept of a deprivation of liberty is not context-specific, so is capable in principle of applying in this setting. Due to their circumstances, most patients in intensive care units would seemingly fit the ‘acid test’ criteria, and it could therefore be construed that we are depriving them of their liberty. This is supported by a recent case (published 28 August 2014), in which a judge applied the Cheshire West acid test to a maternity unit in a general hospital”.
Can the Minister help to define the scope of the implications of the Cheshire West judgment and say whether it is seen to be appropriate to interpret the implications so widely?
There has been little guidance for families and healthcare staff about how to respond to the judgment. Perhaps I may quote from the experience of a hospice consultant, who has asked to remain nameless but said that:
“The organisation that manages the hospice has become very legalistic and is suggesting that we need to complete a DOLS application for all patients who become unconscious at the end of life—arguing that they have lost capacity and therefore are subject to a DOLS. This causes distress to families and delays the issue of death certificates as the death has to be referred to the Coroner and they hold a ‘desk inquest’ and issue the certificate, but maybe after 2-3 days delay”.
Other hospices have also expressed rising concerns, saying that they have felt impelled to apply for DoLS assessments for all dying people.
A very helpful and detailed letter, of 14 January this year, written to the DoLS leads in local authorities and the NHS by Niall Fry, the MCA DoLS policy lead at the Department of Health, addresses the situation of hospice patients. The letter said that,
“if a person receiving palliative care has the capacity to consent to the arrangements for their care and does consent, then there is no deprivation of liberty. Furthermore, if the person has capacity to consent to the arrangements for their care at the time of their admission or at a time before losing capacity, and does consent, the Department considers this consent to cover the period until death and that hence there is no deprivation of liberty”.
The letter also outlines that “continuous control and supervision” needs to be differentiated from a normal care situation, when you would of course expect there to be close monitoring of a patient and indeed, possibly close supervision, particularly of a very vulnerable person on a ventilator, for example.
The guidance letter is not clear on whether the consent referred to must be in writing, the level of particularity required, nor the extent to which advance statements of wishes, lasting power of attorney or advance refusals of treatment may be sufficient to indicate consent, particularly in relation to their timeliness. The guidance is from the Department of Health but, unlike the Supreme Court judgment, it does not, of course, have legal force, which results in further difficulties and confusion.
A practical issue is the inconsistent interpretation of what may constitute a deprivation of liberty, leading to variations in practice, confusion for hospices and other providers, and distress for patients, families and carers. Hospice stays are on average 13 days across England. As a process of applying for a standard authorisation often takes much longer than the average stay, this means that patients are often discharged or have died mid-process. This can distract staff away from care. The DoLS application may not be completed before the patient dies, and the process causes potential trauma for the family. It does not appear to increase care quality.
Hospices can use urgent authorisations at the time of applying normally, but an urgent authorisation lasts for a maximum of seven days. If that is granted but expires, there is a gap until a formal application is processed. Given our inability to predict life expectancy accurately, even at such a short time, the urgent authorisation frequently expires. As an application for DoLS is setting specific, for a patient transferred to a hospice in-patient unit with a DoLS authorisation in another setting, such as a hospital, the process has to start again. Although it should be started prior to transfer, this can now result in delayed transfers.
What is the position of a patient who requires a home-care package and whose discharge for that home-care support is delayed because the care package cannot be put in place? Are these delayed discharges depriving patients of their liberty if they want to go home and have any impairment of capacity and are not taking their own discharge? It seems that the Law Commission review is urgent. Given that the earliest that draft legislation can be laid is summer 2017, I ask the Minister: is there a need for a test case to appeal to the Supreme Court against the West Cheshire judgment and its implications for hospices and other healthcare settings? If so, who should do this and how would it be funded? On what basis would a test case be brought?
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is customary on these occasions to congratulate the first speaker on having obtained the debate to which we are privileged to listen. However, I think that it might also be right on this occasion to commiserate with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, partly because of the small number of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak but also because, in a way, much of the force of what was to be discussed was taken away by the debate to which she referred, which took place on 10 March, last week. There were 10 speeches on that occasion, including a speech by the noble Baroness herself, a speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and a speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who I am glad to see in her place. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, indicated to me earlier that he thought he would be unable to be present this evening, although I see that he is in his place just now, for a while at least.
As the debate today is directed to the decision of the Supreme Court in the Cheshire West case, I felt that I should step into the breach and put down my name, but I emphasise that I have no expertise in mental health law, nor do I have any knowledge of the operation in practice of applications for authorisation under Section 16 of the 2005 Act or the deprivation of liberty procedures under Schedule 1A for those detained in hospitals and care homes. Given those shortcomings, I felt it might be helpful if I said a few things about the judgment itself, about the test which it lays down and, as far as I can, on what is to be done about the case, although I am not sure that I can answer all the questions in the noble Baroness’s exam paper which she set before us a few moments ago.
The judgment itself is very interesting from the juridical point of view because it is one of those rare examples of the court going further than the Strasbourg court has done. There is a great deal of debate about the relationship between the United Kingdom courts and the Strasbourg court, and most of those debates concentrate on the other side of the coin, which is giving effect to or following Strasbourg, when people say that we should be more robust and not do so. This is a quite different thing. This is stretching the application of the convention rights beyond what Strasbourg has thought it right to do and has yet had to consider by cases that have come before it. There are some who point out that that gives enormous power to the judges to, in effect, create law. This is perhaps an example of that. I am not criticising the court for doing that, but it is an interesting example of a rather unusual situation.
It was a majority decision of four to three—a borderline decision, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, but a decision it was. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord that it is not for us to say how we would have resolved it. We take the decision as it stands. It is worth recording that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, who wrote the leading judgment for the majority, was without doubt the best qualified of all judges to express an opinion on the subject. She has made a study of mental health law over many years and is the author of a leading textbook on the subject. She is also pre-eminent among our judges in her understanding of human rights law. The issue could not have been in better hands so far as the law was concerned.
It is a feature of that case, however—it happens from time to time when one looks at decisions taken by judges—that they were not concerned with the practical implications of their judgment. They may give guidance, but it is not their responsibility to see how that would be done, what it would cost or what has to be done to give effect to it. In a sense, that is their luxury. Their task is to say what the law is. The matter is then passed to the Executive—the Government—to find the money and give effect to what the law requires. That is where we are now.
There are questions, of course, as to what the law as laid down in the judgment requires. The essential point, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, is that the situations do not enable one to distinguish between people of sound mind and those of unsound mind. Human rights are the same for everyone. The word “everyone” appears repeatedly throughout the European convention. There is a difference between a mere restriction and a deprivation of liberty. It is a question of fact and degree. Of course it depends on the situation of the person concerned. The situation where a person is detained on the authority of the state in a hospital or a care home really does not give rise to any problem, because it is obvious that that is a deprivation of liberty. In that case, the DoL procedures must be applied.
The difficult cases are those with which the judgment was especially concerned: people of unsound mind in benign situations with foster parents in a home setting, on the one hand, so that they can lead as normal lives as possible, or with live-in carers, on the other, for the same reason. Addressing that issue, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, said that the concept of physical liberty is the same for them as for anyone else, regardless of their mental or physical disability. The right at issue is a right not to be deprived of that physical liberty—whether that person is free or not free to come and go as he or she pleases. Where a person is by reason of an action taken by the state—I emphasise that we are talking about state interventions, not interventions by parents exercising their ordinary parental responsibilities—the question is whether that situation is one where they can properly be said to be deprived of their liberty. That is so however benign the environment they are in and irrespective of whether they actually want to break loose and leave the situation on their own initiative. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, put it in paragraph 56,
“it is the constraints that matter”.
However, the question is still left in the air as to how far this judgment goes. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, addressed that issue in his speech last Tuesday. He said:
“It can fairly be said that the facts of those three cases represent about the furthermost examples of what the English courts …would conclude involves a deprivation of liberty”.—[Official Report, 10/3/15; col. 632.]
When one considers the nature of the places where those concerned were living, the noble and learned Lord must be right about that. Indeed, he also said that the borderline between restriction and deprivation of liberty is quite a narrow one. Those cases lay at the extreme limits.
The facts will vary from case to case, and one has to face the situation that the facts of those two cases must not be taken as definitive. Indeed, when the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, was writing about this she said that we should err on the side of caution in dealing with the situation of people of extreme vulnerability. It is quite striking that she rejected an invitation to lay down an acid test for the deprivation of liberty. What she did instead was to set out certain things that are not relevant. For example, the person’s lack of objection is not relevant. The normality of the situation in which they are placed is not relevant. The reason or purpose behind a particular placement is not relevant. But what we do not find in the judgment is an answer to the kind of questions that, understandably, the noble Baroness is raising as to where exactly the line should be drawn.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, did venture on this point, too, but I am not sure that I agree entirely with what he said. He made a distinction between long-term placements of unsound mind and situations in which people are placed that are the result of a terminal or emergency situation. I can agree with him about terminal situations and emergency situations, because the timeframe is necessarily short, but I am a little uneasy about the phrase “long-term placements”, which was a point addressed by the noble Baroness. One could have situations that are meant to be temporary but involve the deprivation of liberty. They may be quite short term—a matter of two or three weeks or a month or so. In those cases, it looks as though, if there is a deprivation of liberty, the procedures must be applied. That illustrates the problem pointed to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, about trying to draw any kind of precise line to be able to say when a situation is caught and when it is not. Each case must be taken on its own facts.
The question then is what needs to be done. I recognise that there are limits to what the Minister can say in the dying days of this Parliament. He cannot commit very many people to what can be done in the next two or three weeks. But one or two points may be made and he may be in a position to say something about them. The first is in relation to the Government’s reaction to the Select Committee report, which was mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. The paragraphs that are relevant in that response are paragraphs 7.26, 7.27 and 7.31. I will not read them out because they are available to everyone. But the Government get full marks for accepting that there is a pressing area that needs attention in the matter of community care arrangements of the kind involved in the case of Cheshire West. There is a pressing need here and a new legal framework needs to be designed in order to deal with that problem.
The difficulty I have is that the solution that has been adopted is to ask the Law Commission to undertake a review. It is recognised in paragraph 7.27 that this work will not complete for a few years. That seems to come close to kicking the matter into the long grass. I quite see that one wants some kind of informed approach to this issue but to look at dealing with it in terms of years rather than doing so in the relatively short term seems to be rather unfortunate. Surely something could be done more immediately. The point is raised in a paper on the impact of the judgment circulated by the Local Government Association, which draws attention to the increasing burden on councils which are already concerned about the affordability of the Care Act and calls on the Government to commit fully to funding all the burdens that rest upon them. The association also calls for a change in the law for people lacking capacity who need supervision and need to be in supported living environments. It wants action to be taken in the short term in various respects to enable the matter to be addressed.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, made the same point at the end of his speech last week and I endorse exactly what he said. Can the Minister explain a little more whether any thought is being given to addressing these problems as a matter of urgency rather than waiting for a matter of years for the Law Commission to report and no doubt further years after that for further legislation to be introduced?
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and declare my interest as the chair of Hospice UK.
In view of the limited time available to me, I shall bite my tongue hard and resist the temptation to comment on what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to as the juridical aspect of the problem that faces us and concentrate on what I think will be of most help to my noble friend the Minister when he considers the need for urgent action to deal with the issues to which the decision of the Supreme Court, and the legislation which lay behind it, have given rise. I entirely agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said in that regard. Therefore, I shall concentrate on specific examples of difficulties which hospices have faced.
The first concerns a hospice that instigated an urgent deprivation of liberty application and applied for a standard authorisation. The urgent deprivation of liberty was put in place for seven days. On the sixth day, the social services DoLS team had made no contact, so the hospice contacted it for advice on how to proceed as the urgent deprivation was due to expire the next day. The team asked the hospice to implement an extension to the urgent deprivation for a further seven days, as they had a backlog of referrals and no best interest assessors available, which the hospice did. Six days later, still nobody had been to assess the patient, so the hospice contacted the DoLS team again and asked what it should do. The team confirmed they had a backlog of applications and would not be able to assess the patient prior to the urgent deprivation of liberty expiring, and explained that there was nothing else the hospice could do as it had done all that it was legally required to do. The hospice raised its concerns that this meant that it would be depriving a patient of their liberty without the appropriate authorisation and confirmed that it would be contacting the Care Quality Commission. The DoLS team agreed that the situation was not acceptable, but confirmed that there was still nothing it could do.
I give another example from another hospice which had a patient transferred from its local hospital who had metastatic cancer and had suffered a stroke. He was not responding or understanding when he was admitted, but did not appear to be in the last days of life. An urgent application and standard application for DoLS were made. An assessor came to see him from the local authority who seemed at a complete loss as to why she was there and what she was supposed to do. The patient died three days later.
A hospice has provided a series of examples of the kind of situations with which it is confronted. The first example is:
“An actively dying hospice in-patient placed on a Palliative Care Plan, who has lost capacity/consciousness, and is receiving sedative medication to manage symptoms of their terminal phase”.
The second example is:
“The delirious hospice in-patient who is receiving medication or support to manage this state”.
The third is:
“The wandering cognitively impaired patient at risk of falls (in an in-patient or day care setting) who has a nurse call system that activates when the patient starts wandering in order to alert nursing staff to return the patient to their area of care”.
These are all very specific examples of the problems that hospices now face on a daily basis as a result of the situation that has arisen.
Reference was made in an earlier debate in your Lordships’ House today to the unintended consequences of legislation. I submit that it is impossible to come across a better or, indeed, worse example of the unintended consequences of legislation than the situation in which we find ourselves. I suspect that it can ultimately be resolved only by fresh legislation; but at least, when one contemplates the prospects for such legislation, it ought to be free of party political difference, so there ought to be not a great deal of difficulty in building a consensus. I am not sure that it is necessary—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, suggested that it is not necessary—to await the Law Commission’s recommendations. Perhaps it can be asked to expedite its work, but the problem is urgent and I urge the Minister to take urgent action to resolve it.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I should like to reflect on how we have reached this point by looking briefly at two cases. First is the 1997 Bournewood case, which is why we have the deprivation of liberty safeguards in the first place.
Henry—we do not know his real name—is a man with severe autism and learning disability. He cannot communicate verbally but can make his needs known to those who know him. As with most people with autism, structure, routine and predictability are very important to him. However, on the day in question, he did not have his usual driver for his day centre visit. The driver went a different route, picked up different people, and Henry became increasingly upset. By the time he reached the day centre, he was frustrated and angry, was harming himself and hitting out at other people. The day centre staff therefore rang for specialist advice and were advised to admit him to hospital immediately, where he was detained for his own safety. When his foster parents visited him, he became upset and wanted to go home with them. However, this increased his harmful behaviour and the doctor asked them not to visit any more, saying that it was in his best interests not to see them. They started a legal campaign and, after five months, Henry went home. They then took the case to court, arguing that he had been illegally detained. Eventually, after seven years and hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Henry had been illegally deprived of his liberty, in contravention of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights—and so the Mental Capacity Act and DoLS were born.
Currently, if a person without capacity does not meet the criteria to be admitted to hospital under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, an application for a DoLS authorisation may be made. In fact, Henry’s psychiatrist said that she could have detained him under the Mental Health Act and, paradoxically, he would not therefore have been eligible for DoLS.
Let us compare Henry’s story to the case of Stephen Neary. He, too, has autism and a learning disability, although he is able to communicate verbally. He lived at home with his father and had constant adult supervision. However, his father became unwell and exhausted and, in 2009, agreed to Stephen being admitted temporarily for respite. When he went to fetch his son he was prevented from doing so. The professionals argued that they had concerns about Stephen’s weight and behaviour, and he was detained under DoLS. For a year Mr Neary fought a legal battle to get his son home. Neither he nor his son were eligible for legal aid but fortunately Mr Neary was able to do this. There was no automatic tribunal, no means of legal challenge other than through the High Court and ultimately damages were paid because it was found that the council had not acted lawfully in depriving Stephen Neary of his liberty.
The post-legislative scrutiny committee of which I was a member found the Mental Capacity Act unfit for purpose with respect to DoLS. The code of practice has not been updated since it was first published and does not take into account significant changes resulting from case law, including the Supreme Court’s March 2014 judgment. Since the Cheshire West case many more people are being referred and the system is completely clogged up. In one authority 2,000 cases are awaiting standard authorisations—a year on from the judgment and no safeguards in place. The legal framework is complex, expensive and confusing for clinicians, who may fear that they are not up to date with the latest case law. The BMA told the Select Committee that its concern with the DoLS is its complexity and bureaucracy.
Does the Minister agree that simplifying and streamlining the safeguarding arrangements are a matter of urgency? They must, however, be considered alongside the service redesign taking place in the care of people with learning disability and challenging behaviour. The Government are trying to increase the speed of discharges but because of inadequate community support these delayed authorisations are quite literally causing paralysis in the system. I agree with the suggestion from my noble friend Lady Finlay that perhaps further case law is needed to clarify the situation.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, on securing this short debate and on her excellent speech on the issues of deprivation of liberty safeguards and healthcare, particularly in respect of hospices and homecare support. I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Howard, on their very wise and detailed contributions, particularly around hospice care. This debate effectively complements the debate last week on the excellent Select Committee report on the Mental Capacity Act 2005, when the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly stated that the laudable principles of the Act have clearly not been realised as was hoped.
The House of Lords Select Committee made nine recommendations that related to deprivation of liberty and the Government responded to them in June 2014. I will return to one or two of them shortly but I want to concentrate in the limited time available on some of the consequences of the Supreme Court judgment. In March 2014 the UK Supreme Court handed down two judgments, which are commonly known as the Cheshire West judgment. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has eloquently explained, these judgments outlined the test that must be used in the determination of whether arrangements made for the care and treatment of an individual lacking capacity to consent amount to a deprivation of liberty. As the British Medical Association commented, in its judgment the court said that:
“The benign purposes of care arrangements are not relevant to the question of whether a person was deprived of liberty … What would be a deprivation of liberty for a non-disabled person is also a deprivation for a disabled person … The key feature is whether the person concerned is under continuous supervision and is not free to leave … The person’s compliance or lack of objection, the purpose of the placement or its relative normality are immaterial”.
As a consequence of this judgment there has been a significant increase in the number of DoLS applications received by local councils, as we have already heard. Government figures show that there were 13,000 DoLS applications in 2013-14. Following the judgment, there have been 86,500 applications so far this year, according to the Association of Directors of Social Services. The number of applications has increased every quarter. Further, as ADASS has stated, as well as significant cost implications, this places great strain on the ability of staff and local councils to meet their statutory duties. Most importantly, it makes it harder to meet the needs and protect the best interests of the most vulnerable people in society in a timely way.
I shall illustrate this further. In my council, Manchester City Council, there has been a fivefold increase in DoLS applications since the Cheshire West judgment. In 2013-14, there were 236 applications; this year to date, there have been 1,147 applications. There is also a backlog of 200 cases which the council is working through, having recruited additional assessment capacity. The cost of a straightforward application is £900 in court costs, and court costs will be significantly higher for disputed applications. Therefore, Manchester is experiencing significant cost pressures in court fees and assessment costs to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people and their families. ADASS has suggested that each case needs 10 hours of assessment time. Manchester agrees with that. For Manchester, it equates to 10 full-time equivalent practitioners to deal with the additional assessment requirements following the Supreme Court judgment. To aggregate this, and against a backdrop of considerable strain on resources in adult social care, it is estimated that the cost to councils is in the region of £98 million over and above the current funding for DoLS activity in 2014-15. Furthermore, the BMA has stated that the authorisation for DoLS is cumbersome, bureaucratic and time-consuming and, crucially, will inevitably divert resources from front-line care.
As a consequence, the Local Government Association and ADASS are calling on the Government to fully fund the cost of the changes to DoLS and to ensure that the healthcare of vulnerable people is not affected. I spoke at a Mencap conference in Cardiff today on learning disabilities and access to justice. It expressed concern that the costs imposed by DoLS might deflect from the direct care of people with such disabilities. Will the Minister explain the Government’s position on the funding arrangements?
I return to the Select Committee report and the Government’s response. The House of Lords Select Committee rightly asserted:
“Better understanding of the purpose behind the safeguards is urgently required”.
Part of the Government’s response was to request the health and social care sector to establish a multiagency task force to determine the impact of the Supreme Court judgment on local authorities and to identify potential solutions, such as pooled training and sharing good practice. This is clearly welcome but, as ADASS pointed out, even with extensive sector-led activity, local authorities cannot hope fully to mitigate the impact of the judgment without additional resources. Further, as we have heard, the BMA is calling for an urgent review of DoLS with a view to simplifying and streamlining the system. I would welcome the Minister’s response to that call.
Another key point is that considerable uncertainty remains in a wide range of circumstances about whether care or treatment will amount to a DoLS. This uncertainty could lead to confusion for health professionals and a defensive and bureaucratic mindset, as the BMA pointed out. This is partly through the failure to deliver effective training in this area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, pointed out in last week’s debate, and can lead to staff being understandably risk-averse in the assessment process.
Investment in training in all aspects of mental health and learning disability legislation and services is essential, particularly in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and the related DoLS. Many organisations support that view, including Mencap, which clearly recognises the specific training needs of staff working with people with learning disabilities. My views on the crucial importance of training, for what they are worth, have been shaped by my involvement in the national rollout of liaison and diversion services for people with mental health and learning disabilities who come into contact with the criminal justice system. Those multiagency programmes rely on training not only within individual organisations but, more importantly, across organisations to ensure that there is a common understanding of the needs of the individual, breaking down organisational and cultural barriers.
While it is welcome that the Government have recognised some of the issues that have been identified as a result of the Cheshire West judgment, faster action and more resources need to be considered properly to respond to the Select Committee’s nine recommendations on goals and to ensure that the health and social care needs of some of the most vulnerable people are properly met. I hope that the Government therefore respond in a more speedy and timely manner on those issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for raising this important issue for debate and for her authoritative speech, alongside those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. I also very much appreciated the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne.
Since the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Cheshire West on 19 March 2014, social care and NHS providers have been working hard to understand the implications for their service users and to plan a response that prioritises the well-being of all the individuals for whom they care. I pay tribute to their efforts and the efforts of the local authority teams responsible for assessing and authorising any deprivation of liberty.
The phrase “deprivation of liberty” arouses a lot of emotion, some of it unhelpful. It can feel intimidating, perhaps even stigmatising. The phrase derives from the European Convention on Human Rights, which stipulates that, when an individual is subject to a deprivation of liberty, they must be provided with legal safeguards and a legal route of appeal. In England, for those who lack capacity in hospitals and care homes, this is provided by the system known as the deprivation of liberty safeguards, or DoLS. Despite the negative connotations of the phrase, a deprivation of liberty can be entirely appropriate, if it is in the best interests of the individual concerned and an appropriate and proportionate approach to providing necessary care and treatment. An example would be a dementia sufferer who requires 24-hour care and who would be prevented from leaving a care home because he does not know where he is going, does not know how to safely cross a busy road and who has a history of endangering himself when he does leave. This could be an entirely appropriate deprivation of liberty.
The noble Baroness referred to the Supreme Court judgment, as did noble Lords. The judgment clarified the test for a deprivation of liberty. There are three parts: first, that the individual lacks capacity to consent to the arrangements for their care; secondly, that they are under continuous control and supervision; and, thirdly, that they are not free to leave. Many have welcomed the Supreme Court judgment for emphasising the universal nature of human rights. As for the scope of the judgment, about which the noble Baroness asked me, I hope that she will excuse me for not attempting to interpret case law here and now. However, she may be interested to know that, by the end of this month, the Law Society, commissioned by the department, will publish extensive guidance on the matter.
How we regard those who lack capacity is a cultural challenge. A Select Committee of this House recognised that the health and care system, and society at large, have a way to go to implement the Mental Capacity Act, of which DoLS are part. It noted the tendency of the health system to act in a paternalistic fashion—that of “doctor knows best”. Of course, all health and care professionals want what is best for the service user, but this does not mean that health and care settings can be exempted from the legal safeguards that all of us are entitled to and which ensure that our human rights are protected.
Let us be clear on another point as well: DoLS do not cause a deprivation of liberty. The deprivation of liberty results from the nature of the care and treatment package. As I indicated, the restrictions on freedom of movement and choice that constitute a “deprivation of liberty” may be entirely justifiable and necessary. DoLS exist to ensure that this is the case—in other words, to assess the individual’s situation and ensure that the deprivation of liberty really is necessary—and, if not, to instigate the steps to ensure the person is provided with more freedom. Therefore, DoLS, despite the sometimes negative attention, are positive things that promote the equal human rights of the individual.
The key question, then, is this: are the current deprivation of liberty safeguards the best they can be? Do they allow the individual’s human rights to be protected, but, at the same time, can they be implemented at a population level so that all individuals have their rights protected? As has been mentioned, following the Supreme Court judgment there has been a great surge in DoLS applications: 90,000 in the nine months following the judgment. This represents a tenfold increase. Many local authorities are struggling to process these; there is a significant backlog of applications. It seems clear to the Government that the current DoLS system was designed when deprivation of liberty was seen to be a fairly rare occurrence. The law—perhaps even society—has now moved on.
The Government believe that the DoLS system may not be the best way to provide safeguards at a population level. That is why we have secured the services of the Law Commission to fundamentally review the legislation and propose a new system that covers care homes, hospitals and community settings. This summer, the Law Commission will produce a detailed public consultation paper on future options.
Meanwhile, the Government have been taking steps to assist providers. We have instigated more frequent data collection to monitor better the impact of the Supreme Court judgment. We have issued guidance notes to reassure and to inform. We have significantly cut the number of standard forms associated with making a DoLS application from 32 to 13. We have commissioned extensive guidance as to what now constitutes a deprivation of liberty, which will be published within the next two weeks.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, referred at some length to the backlog of applications. We are aware of this. ADASS has produced some helpful guidance that assists local authorities to prioritise the applications for those most at risk. The reduction in the number of forms will also reduce the administrative burden, allowing applications to be processed more quickly. However, the backlog is concerning as it indicates that some people may not be benefiting from the safeguards. We are working more closely with local government and are closely monitoring the situation.
There is a positive element here: because of a clarification by the Supreme Court, tens of thousands of vulnerable individuals are having their care scrutinised. There is work to be done in responding to the judgment, but as I have said, we will work closely with local authorities to get the safeguards provided to as many as possible. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that the Department of Health has provided local authorities with £35 million in 2014-15 for their MCA/DoLS responsibilities.
The Government, together with the Care Quality Commission and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, have stressed over the last year the importance of a proportionate response to the Supreme Court judgment that puts the individual’s best interests first. DoLS will become a paperwork exercise only if it is applied as a blanket measure—for example, assessing all individuals in a ward together and not considering each patient’s individual circumstances. If providers can demonstrate that they have an understanding of the Supreme Court judgment, that they have policies and procedures in place to ensure that restrictive care practices are minimised, and that they are doing their very best to make DoLS applications where appropriate, then we do not expect that they will be unfairly penalised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asks whether decisions are properly scrutinised and whether advocates or relatives are asked to feed in to those decisions. Government officials are in regular contact with those working on the front line. So far, it seems that assessors are keeping to the ethos of the Mental Capacity Act—namely, they are not treating this simply as paperwork. The DoLS forms were subject to consultation with a range of practitioners. We are still taking on board comments on the forms and we welcome suggestions for improvement.
The noble Baroness, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, referred to the difficulty posed by delayed discharges. The Government have recently done a lot of work to speed up appropriate discharges from hospital settings. It is hard to be conclusive about the impact of DoLS here, but it is reasonable to assert that in some cases a DoLS application could help discharges, identifying, as it may, a least restrictive option outside of hospital.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, asked about consent—whether it had to be in writing and the timeliness of the consent. It is important that any wishes that the person made known when they had capacity are considered when decisions are made at a later date when they may lack capacity. This would apply, however those wishes were expressed. However, having something in writing means that the wishes are clear and not second or third hand, and therefore that form of consent may hold more weight. In terms of timeliness, any medical professional should always give consideration to whether a statement of wishes or an advance decision reflects the person’s current wishes or feelings. As these may have changed over time and/or in the light of a change of circumstances, it is important that family members and carers are consulted on the current validity of such decisions.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, referred to long-term placements as compared to restrictions imposed on a temporary basis. It is an important principle that any deprivation of liberty authorisation must be for the shortest time needed to achieve the desired outcome. Currently, we have essentially a one-size-fits-all model for DoLS. However, the Law Commission will be considering whether a more flexible model might be better.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lord Howard questioned whether there might be changes to the law that we could make more quickly to help alleviate the pressure on the system pending the Law Commission report. I know that some partners have called for rapid legal changes. One example is increasing the time for which hospitals can authorise a deprivation of liberty—that is, instead of the current seven days, perhaps 14 or 21 days. Another suggestion that I have heard is to change the requirement for local authorities to process applications within 21 days by extending that period. Although I sympathise with local authorities and hospitals because of the pressures they are under, the counterargument that I know many others make is that, with something as important as fundamental human rights, government should not weaken the safeguards. My own belief is that the changes proposed should be considered in the round with the wider changes that the Law Commission is currently considering so that we do not inadvertently cause negative or unhelpful side-effects.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, questioned whether there should be a test case—and, if so, who should do it and where the funding should come from. In terms of a test case to take to the Supreme Court, the Government are not yet minded to force this issue. The majority of partners that officials have spoken to support the Cheshire West judgment. We understand that the implications are many and that they vary by settings. As such, the Government have provided, where possible, guidance on specific settings, such as those that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to relating to hospices. That guidance has, I think, been very well received.
I understand the noble Baroness’s concern about the implications of the judgment for different settings, particularly those where the fewest number of DoLS applications have traditionally come from. She has, as we all acknowledge, considerable expertise in this area and I would be grateful and pleased to facilitate a meeting with the officials leading this work if she would find that useful—and, indeed, with the Law Commission team looking at future legislation. It is vital to have the support of medical professionals for any future system to replace the current DoLS system.
I have not addressed all the points made by noble Lords this evening. If I am able to add to the comments that I have made, I would be happy to do so in writing. Suffice it to say, for now, that the Supreme Court judgment has challenged us to think about how we regard the most vulnerable members of society. The ultimate test is for those of us fortunate to have full capacity to put ourselves in the place of those who do not. If we were prevented from leaving a hospital ward—if we could exercise no choice over our day-to-day activities, over whom we met and when we met them—I wonder how we would feel. I suspect that we would expect at the very least to have a legal route of redress. Those who lack capacity deserve and are entitled to exactly the same. The challenge now is to deliver these rights in a busy and pressurised health and care system upon which demand continues to rise.