House of Commons
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr David Lidington)
Before I answer the hon. Lady’s question, Mr Speaker, I hope that you will allow me briefly to thank and pay tribute to my predecessors in these roles, in particular my right hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Damian Green) and for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin). They have done great service for their constituents, this House and their country during their time in office and I want to put my thanks to them on the record. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for the work that they did in the Cabinet Office before moving on to other responsibilities.
The Electoral Commission’s report shows that, overall, the 2017 general election was successfully delivered by a committed community of electoral administrators. We work with the commission, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives and the Association of Electoral Administrators to ensure that returning officers are effectively supported to run polls.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Minister for that response and welcome him to his new role. As well as the snap general election last year, my local authority of Rochdale Borough Council presided over the Greater Manchester Combined Authority mayoral elections, for which it received no central funding, which is surprising considering that one of the Mayor’s functions is to replace the police and crime commissioner’s role, which did receive central funding. What action will the Government take to help local authorities such as mine to deliver well-run elections for these new roles?
Mr Lidington
The responsibility of the Cabinet Office lies in reimbursing local authority returning officers for the costs incurred in the administration of national elections. The responsibility lies with local authorities for the costs arising out of local elections. Local authority resources will be more than £200 billion over the current spending review period, including real-terms increases for both 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
May I be the first Member also from the 1992 intake to offer my right hon. Friend congratulations on his latest appointment? Is he aware of the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of the United States, which has said that the boundary changes in North Carolina are unconstitutional and gerrymandering? Will he join me in praising the work of the boundary commissions—despite their appalling recommendations for Lichfield—for at least being transparent, quasi-judicial and non-partisan?
Mr Lidington
It has always been an accepted strength of our constitutional arrangements that we have a parliamentary boundary commission for each part of the United Kingdom that is wholly independent of party politics and party influence. I hope, therefore, that all parties in this House will rally behind the recommendations of the parliamentary boundary commissions.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
On behalf of Opposition Front Benchers, I welcome the Minister to his new role.
The chair of the Electoral Commission has warned that our electoral system is facing a “perfect storm” due to funding pressures, and 43% of local authority election teams have experienced real-terms cuts since 2010. Will the Minister outline why the Government’s democratic engagement plan fails to address these concerns, and will he ensure that a full and comprehensive review of the delivery and funding of electoral services is implemented as a matter of urgency?
Mr Lidington
I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming me to my new responsibilities. I repeat to her what I said in my initial response: the Electoral Commission concluded that, although there were problems in a number of specified constituencies, overall the 2017 general election was successfully delivered. The Government are committed to strengthening our electoral processes. As part of that, we are planning to run pilot schemes in a number of local authorities later this year to test requirements for voters to present ID before voting. We will look seriously at recommendations to us from the Electoral Commission on these matters.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
Every application to the electoral register is now subject to identity verification checks, making our system more secure than before. In late December, the Government laid draft legislation aimed at further improving the registration process, including addressing recommendations from the Pickles review of electoral fraud.
Andrew Bridgen
Last month, a 21-year-old man was convicted of voting twice—first by post, and then by varying his name and voting in person. He then bragged about it on Twitter. I understand that more than 1,000 similar complaints are being dealt with by the Electoral Commission, mostly relating to students. What steps are the Government taking to deal with this distortion of our democracy?
Chloe Smith
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns and am glad that he has brought those examples to light. I understand that, following the examination of these reports—or perhaps of reports other than those to which he refers—the Electoral Commission has stated that there is
“a lack of evidence of widespread abuse.”
None the less, we will continue to work with the police and the Electoral Commission to reduce the risk of double voting.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. Does she agree that the electoral process, particularly in Northern Ireland, was severely corrupted some eight months ago by thousands upon thousands of proxy vote applications? The previous Member for Foyle, Mr Mark Durkan, lost his seat as a result of thousands of proxy vote applications that were approved without any electoral or photographic identification.
Chloe Smith
I struggled to hear the hon. Gentleman owing to some noises off. As he knows, and as he knows I know, the electoral system in Northern Ireland is devolved. I am sure that my new ministerial colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office will be taking his concerns very seriously and working with the devolved Administration, where appropriate, to look into them.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Front Benchers to their new responsibilities. I am delighted to see the strong team in the Cabinet Office.
Is the Minister giving any consideration to restricting registration for national elections to one address, which may help with the problem of double voting raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)?
Chloe Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for her views. I refer to the breadth of the Pickles review of electoral fraud, which gave us the basis for a number of reforms of our electoral system, all designed to reduce fraud and improve security. In that context, I will look carefully at all its recommendations. As you will know, Mr Speaker, the Government have already accepted and will be moving forward with a number of them. I would be delighted to discuss any issue further with my right hon. Friend.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
One of the ways in which the Government could look to give more security to the electoral register is by moving to automatic registration when national insurance numbers are given out. Will the Minister comment on the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), which would resolve any issues with individual registrations?
Chloe Smith
I am very well aware of the arguments, although I confess that at this point, 24 hours into my role, I have not yet had a chance to study that particular private Member’s Bill. I shall be happy to do that and take up the conversation from that point.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
May I, too, welcome the Minister to her post? She is the fourth I have had the privilege of facing in the past two years.
The biggest threat to the integrity of the electoral registration process is the fact that millions of our citizens are not on the electoral register. All the Minister’s predecessors promised that they would bring forward proposals to address this problem. We were told that there would be a plan at Easter last year, then in the summer, then in December, but still nothing. When will she bring forward proposals to make sure that we can increase the number of people on the register?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Gentleman will know that in fact we have near-record levels of participation in our democracy. Voter turnout has risen. The completeness and accuracy of the electoral register have improved. There have been 30 million new registrations to vote since the introduction of IER—individual electoral registration—in 2014. Seventy-five per cent. of those used the “Register to vote” website, which I am sure he will agree is an important reform. The electoral register for the 2017 general election reached a record level of over 46 million electors. I do not agree with his assessment.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, and hon. Members for that very warm welcome.
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, and this Government are committed to supporting them in securing Government contracts. To that end, we have already streamlined our procurement processes to assist small businesses. Our small business panel is working to improve accessibility of Government contracts, and we continue to focus on breaking down the barriers that might deter SMEs.
Nigel Mills
I thank the Minister for that answer and welcome him to his position. He will know that many small businesses are put off trying to get contracts by the amount of information they need to supply and the bureaucracy they have to go through. What more can the Government do to reduce that bureaucracy and amount of information?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. It really is vital that small businesses can access Government contracts as simply as possible, so to achieve this we have already taken action to ensure that bidding processes are simplified across the public sector, with complex pre-qualification questionnaires abolished for low-value contracts. We will continue to look at ways to reduce burdens for business, particularly small businesses.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Given what the Minister has said, what information does he have that there has actually been an increase in the number of small and medium-sized businesses accessing Government contracts?
Oliver Dowden
I would point to three pieces of information: direct spend with SMEs is up 80% since the Conservatives came to power in the coalition in 2010; more small businesses than ever are bidding for Government business; and the Government now spend about £5.6 billion directly with SMEs.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
As a fellow Hertfordshire MP, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved new role? Does he agree that it may be possible for prime contractors with Government contracts to do more to bring in small and medium-sized businesses, particularly in specialist areas, where Hertfordshire is of course so strong?
Oliver Dowden
I thank my right hon. and learned Hertfordshire Friend for his welcome. He raises an important point. There are two aspects of this: there is the direct spend—as I have said, it is about £5.6 billion—but we also need to ensure that we get spend into contracts lower down, with people who have Government contracts then spending with small businesses, which is something we are committed to doing as a Government.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Too often, rather than outsourcing to SMEs, very large companies are employed. In this respect, despite being under investigation by the Financial Conduct Authority and reportedly having debts of £1.5 billion, the massive outsourcing company Carillion remains a major supplier in terms of Government procurement. If it were to collapse, it would risk massive damage to a range of public services. Do the Government have a contingency plan for such an eventuality, and what is the likely cost to the taxpayer?
Oliver Dowden
As the hon. Gentleman would expect, we of course make contingency plans for all eventualities. If I could briefly update the House, Carillion, as Members will know, is a major supplier to the Government, with a number of long-term contracts. We are committed to maintaining a healthy supplier market and working closely with our key suppliers. I can tell the House that Carillion’s operational performance has continued to be positive. For example, it advanced its work on Crossrail over the Christmas period.
Jon Trickett
The truth is that the Minister has failed to answer the central question. The Government have been outsourcing public services to large outsourcing companies on an industrial scale. When these massive outsourcing companies fail, as too often they do, does the Minister really think it is fair that the costs stay with the taxpayer, while the profits are creamed off by the shareholders?
Oliver Dowden
I do not think there is anything wrong with profit. Profit is a reward for investment made by businesses. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer, he would not have had to read a pre-scripted question. I gently suggest to him that this is something the Government take very seriously. We, for the first time, as a Government—this had not been done for 13 years previously—started measuring the number of small and medium-sized enterprises that have Government contracts. We set a target of 25% in the last Parliament, and we have delivered on that, so I think that is a record of success for this Government.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
The first duty of the Government is of course to safeguard the nation, and we take the security and integrity of our democratic processes very seriously. Although we have not seen evidence of successful foreign interference, we are not complacent, and we will continue to do what is necessary to protect ourselves.
Jeff Smith
In order to protect ourselves, the chair of the Electoral Commission has said that we need new rules for online political advertising to combat external influence, particularly via Facebook and Twitter. When will the Government bring forward the legislation we need?
Chloe Smith
One of the very first things for me to do in my new role is to meet the Electoral Commission, and I look forward to discussing that with it.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I welcome the new Minister. Does she agree that one of the ways of reducing foreign influence in our democratic processes would be for Members of this House not to go on Russia Today and Sputnik, and indeed be paid money for doing so?
Chloe Smith
Hearing from the right hon. Gentleman reminds me of the heady days during the coalition Government when we served in and around the Cabinet Office together. His question reminds us that there are hon. Members who seem to feel the need to do as he says. I think it would be more helpful if we recalled the words of the Prime Minister in her Mansion House speech, which were that we should be well aware of what Russia seeks to do and should seek to protect to the UK from it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
The Government are considering the responses to our call for evidence on the accessibility of the voter registration system. We have recently released the Government’s plan for democratic engagement, which includes strategies for disabled electors. The Government have also implemented the findings of an accessibility review of the website “Register to vote”.
Jim Shannon
For those who are disabled physically and visually who want to carry out a normal role in voting like the rest of us, will the Minister confirm that those who have disabilities and are in wheelchairs can gain access to polling stations and that ballot papers in Braille are available for those who are visually disabled?
Chloe Smith
Notwithstanding the caveat that in Northern Ireland the system is devolved and in some ways different from that in Great Britain, we certainly should not regard people with disabilities as in some way restricted in using the voting system in one way or another. Polling stations are equipped with, for example, tactile voting devices. More broadly, there are arguments around whether Braille brings some opportunity to identify a voter, but I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s question and would look forward to any further conversation he would like to have.
Damien Moore
I welcome my hon. Friend to her new role. In my constituency of Southport, three excellent schools specialise in teaching children with autism as well as behavioural and learning disabilities. Does she agree that encouraging children with those conditions to learn about our political structure will make them more likely to engage with the electoral systems as adults?
Chloe Smith
I agree with my hon. Friend and I am glad he has raised those points. My predecessor in this role, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), did excellent work in the Every Voice Matters project where he focused on this as a matter of social justice. Of course, the citizen—any citizen—should be at the heart of voting and able cast their vote as a matter of public service.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Oliver Dowden)
In November 2017, we published the 2015-16 figures for central Government Departments. The Government are fully committed to supporting our small businesses, which are the engine room of our economy, so we are continuing to take action to meet our target of a third of procurement being with small businesses by 2022.
Mr Speaker
It is good to see the Minister looking in a state of high excitement, as well he might.
Bill Esterson
Those 2015-16 figures show procurement to small and medium-sized enterprises to be falling, from 27% to 24%. The majority goes through indirect procurement, so is not the truth that wholesale changes are needed in a Government procurement system that just delivers crumbs from the table of large contractors to SMEs?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the fact that this is a challenging target, but, as I said previously, we set a challenging target in 2010 and we met it by the end of the Parliament. I am confident that we will meet our target again. In particular, we will be taking further measures in relation to SMEs. We will use transparency to encourage large businesses to employ more SMEs and make prompt payment part of the selection process for larger suppliers, which is the point that he raised. I can tell the House that we will be bringing forward proposals on that very shortly.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr David Lidington)
The Cabinet Office is responsible for co-ordinating action to increase socioeconomic diversity in the civil service. We are delivering on all recommendations made by the Bridge Group in its 2016 report.
Jo Platt
The recent Social Mobility Commission report found that the worst-performing areas on social mobility are no longer inner-city areas but remote, rural and coastal areas and former industrial areas. What steps will the Government take to redress the funding imbalance that the north faces and to tackle social mobility issues in post-industrial towns such as Leigh?
Mr Lidington
The Social Mobility Commission report identified action on education, housing and employment as the key steps needing to be taken, and those are the exactly the things to which the Prime Minister and the Government are giving priority. For example, we have 1.9 million more children in good or outstanding schools than we did in 2010.
Mr Speaker
I am absolutely delighted to see that the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (David Evennett) has been promoted from the Whips Office and can now speak.
David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that social mobility is essential to maximise the potential of individuals and our country, and that while the Government have achieved a great deal so far, there is still more to be done?
Mr Lidington
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. The Government look forward to delivering in full on the social mobility action plan for education that my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) announced just before Christmas.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr David Lidington)
Cabinet Office Ministers and officials meet regularly with colleagues across the Government to discuss the cyber-security of public and private sector organisations. We are investing £1.9 billion in that work, as detailed in our national cyber-security strategy.
Fiona Bruce
What resources are available for organisations to better protect themselves against cyber-attacks?
Mr Lidington
The National Cyber Security Centre gives direct help and advice to public sector organisations and also offers private sector organisations advice, guidance and help in responding to attacks. I encourage all to use its services. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber, with very loud and persistent private conversations going on. Let us have a bit of order at Topical Questions.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr David Lidington)
I intend to continue the work of the Cabinet Office to deliver its purpose: to maintain the integrity of the Union of the United Kingdom, to co-ordinate the security of the realm, to sustain a flourishing democracy, to ensure the delivery of the finest public services, and to help to implement the Government’s policies and the Prime Minister’s priorities.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The Government have withheld a dozen documents relating to the Government’s European policy in the early 1990s. What are they trying to hide? What embarrassment is the Tory party trying to cover up? Will the Minister release those documents?
Mr Lidington
I am happy to look at the particular case, if the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me, but I can assure him that documents are not withheld lightly. Sometimes individuals are named, or documents contain information that is still diplomatically sensitive. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let us have a bit of order for a Dorset knight: Sir Robert Syms.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
Mr Lidington
It is true that the Prime Minister has asked me to continue with my predecessor’s responsibilities of overall supervision of intergovernmental relations within the United Kingdom. I spoke yesterday evening to the Deputy First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister of Wales and assured them that I hope to visit both Scotland and Wales in the near future. I hope also to visit Northern Ireland.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Mr Lidington
One of the challenges facing electoral staff this year was an unprecedented number of people taking advantage of the opportunity to register online, and administrators had to sort out duplicate registrations. We are looking at the lessons to be learned from that, but we should not fail to acknowledge the fact that online registration has made it easier for people to register and has been a great boon to many of our citizens.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend, with his expert knowledge of Africa, makes an important point. The national security adviser based in the Cabinet Office is responsible for roughly £3.2 billion of cross-departmental overseas development aid spending. I look forward to discussing with him how that money can best be spent and will certainly take account of my hon. Friend’s views.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Mr Lidington
Despite the success of online registration, we accept that there is more to do. It is important that we encourage all our citizens to take advantage of their democratic right to cast a vote, both locally and nationally.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
A number of my constituents have suffered terribly as a result of the contaminated blood scandal. Will my right hon. Friend please update the House on the progress towards the appointment of a chair and the timescales for the inquiry?
Mr Lidington
The contaminated blood scandal was an appalling tragedy from which individuals and their families are still suffering. I regard this as a very high priority for me. We have asked the Lord Chief Justice to nominate a judge to chair the inquiry, and I hope to announce the name of that judge soon.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Mr Lidington
We are implementing in full the recommendations in the report to which I alluded earlier and are encouraging all Departments to step up their work in making sure they recruit people and seek to recruit people from groups in society that have been harder to reach than others in the past. It is important that that work continues. The Prime Minister’s commitment to the racial disparity audit, which in 13 years of Labour Government we never saw from the party opposite, is an indication of the Government’s seriousness of purpose on this point.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that personal assurances were given to me and colleagues that the Government would bring forward amendments to clause 11 of the repeal Bill, but they have failed to do so. Will he assure me that the Government remain committed to working with the devolved Administrations to find a form of words that will be agreed and will allow a legislative consent motion to be passed?
Mr Lidington
I can certainly give my hon. Friend that commitment. When I spoke to the Deputy First Minister of Scotland last night, I said that we were disappointed that we had not been able to reach agreement with the devolved Administrations on an acceptable form of words for such an amendment but that I was committed to intensifying our discussions with the devolved Administrations to seek to reach an agreed form of words in time for proceedings in the House of Lords.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a lot of noise in the Chamber. The question is about knife crime. This is a matter of the utmost gravity. Please, it is the last question—let us hear it and the answer.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
On new year’s eve, another four young people lost their lives to knife crime in London. We have failed to tackle this epidemic because we have failed to recognise that the solutions span health, education, poverty and aspiration. What can the Minister do in his role to get Departments working together to find a long-term solution?
Mr Lidington
On behalf of myself and, I am sure, the whole House, may I send our unreserved sympathy and condolences to the families of those four young people, who must be going through hell at this time? The hon. Lady will be aware that the Government’s stance on knife crime is tougher than ever—we have increased the punishments for repeat offenders and banned cautions for the most serious offences—and the latest figures show that more people are being sent to prison for knife crime than in the past. I accept that this has to be cross-departmental work. It has to involve local government and the Mayor of London in a big way. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is very committed to seeing further action taken to drive down the rates of these appalling crimes. I promise the hon. Lady that I will give what support I can from the Cabinet Office to the Home Secretary’s work.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I hope that it is not too late to wish all Members and staff in the House a very happy new year.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mike Amesbury
I, too, wish members of staff a happy new year.
At least 1.4 million households across the UK have been victims of unfair practices in the leasehold market, including my constituent Emily Martin. In advance of any intended legislation, what commitment will the Prime Minister make to ensure that Emily and thousands of people tied into this PPI-like scandal are compensated by developers now?
The Prime Minister
We are concerned when we hear of unfair practices taking place. I am sure that the Housing Minister will be happy to hear of this particular case as an example. We are looking to see what action the Government can take to ensure that people are secure in their homes and are not subject to practices that they should not be subject to.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend talks about passionate embraces; I do not think that he has ever had the kiss that he once asked for. He is absolutely right: we are determined to deliver a Britain that is fit for the future. That means that we need to get Brexit right and do a lot more. He references house building; yes, we are committed to building the homes that this country needs. That is why we have made £15 billion of new financial support available over the next five years, and why we scrapped stamp duty for 80% of first-time buyers. We are also improving school standards—there are 1.9 million more children in good or outstanding schools today—and we are protecting our natural environment. We are building a Britain that can look to the future with optimism and hope.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, may I wish you, all the House and all our staff a very happy new year? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Everybody is agreed? Yes? Thank you. I know it seems a long time ago, but just before Christmas, I asked the Prime Minister about the 12,000 people left waiting more than half an hour in the back of ambulances at A&E departments. She told the House that the NHS was better prepared for winter “than ever before.” What words of comfort does she have for the 17,000 patients who waited in the back of ambulances in the last week of December? Is it that nothing is perfect, by any chance?
The Prime Minister
I fully accept that the NHS is under pressure over winter. It is regularly under pressure at winter time. I have been very clear: I apologised to those people who have had their operations delayed and to those people who have had their admission to hospital delayed, but it is indeed the case that the NHS was better prepared this winter than ever before. [Interruption.] Yes. It might be helpful if I let the House know some of the things that were done to ensure that preparedness. More people than ever before are having flu vaccines, and 2,700 more acute beds have been made available since November. For the first time ever, urgent GP appointments have been available across the Christmas period across this country, and more doctors are specialising in treating the elderly in accident and emergency.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the last exchange we had in this House. In our last exchange, he said mental health budgets have been cut; that is not right. Simon Stevens from the national health service has made it clear that mental health spending has gone up both in real terms and as a proportion of the overall spending. So will the right hon. Gentleman now apologise for what he previously said?
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister knows full well that child and adolescent mental health services budgets have been raided and many people who need help are not getting that help. We saw on “ITV News” the other night that nurses are spending their entire shift treating people in car parks because of backed-up ambulances. We know the Prime Minister recognises there is a crisis in our NHS because she wanted to sack the Health Secretary last week but was too weak to do it, and if the NHS is so well resourced and so well prepared, why was the decision taken last week to cancel the operations of 55,000 patients during the month of January?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Members on the Labour Front Bench say “Apologise”; if they had listened to the answer I gave to their right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, they would have heard me make it clear that I have already apologised to those whose operations have been delayed, and we will make sure they are reinstated as soon as possible. We are putting record funding into the NHS and record funding into mental health, but the right hon. Gentleman keeps on about the preparations for the NHS and I was very pleased last week to be able to go and say in person a thank you to staff at Frimley health trust from both Frimley Park and Wexham Park hospitals for the work they have been doing to deliver for patients across this period of particular pressure across the winter. Our NHS staff—not just doctors and nurses, but support staff such as radiographers, administrative staff, porters: everybody working in our national health service—do a fantastic job day in and day out, and they particularly do that when we have these winter pressures. In terms of being prepared, this is what NHS Providers said only last week:
“Preparations for winter in the NHS have been more extensive and meticulous than ever before.”
Jeremy Corbyn
We all thank all NHS staff for what they do, but the reality is that the 55,000 cancelled operations mean that those 55,000 people join the 4 million already waiting for operations within the NHS.
Perhaps the Prime Minister could listen to the experience of Vicki. Her 82-year-old mother spent 13 hours on a trolley in a corridor, on top of the three hours between her first calling 999 and arriving at hospital. Vicki says:
“A volunteer first responder from Warwickshire heart service whose day job is in the Army kept mum safe until paramedics arrived.”
Her mother had suffered a heart attack just a week before. This is not an isolated case. Does the Prime Minister really believe the NHS is better prepared than ever for the crisis it is now going through?
The Prime Minister
Nobody wants to hear of people having to experience what Vicki and her mother experienced. Of course we need to ensure that we learn from these incidents, and that is exactly what we do in the national health service. I am very happy to ensure that that particular case is looked at, if the right hon. Gentleman would like to provide me with the details. But week in and week out in the run-up to Christmas, and now today, he has been giving the impression of a national health service that is failing everybody who uses it. The reality in our NHS is that we are seeing 2.9 million more people going to accident and emergency, and over 2 million more operations taking place each year. Our national health service is something that we should be proud of. It is a first-class national health service that has been identified as the No. 1 health system in the world. That means that it is a better health system than those of Australia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Sweden, France, Germany and the United States of America.
Jeremy Corbyn
We on this side of the House are all very proud of the principle of the national health service—healthcare as a human right—but the reality is that, in the past year, 565,000 people have spent time on trolleys when they should have been being treated. The number of elderly people being rushed into A&E from care homes has risen by 62% since the Tories took power, and Care Quality Commission figures suggest that nearly a quarter of care homes need improvement. This is not only robbing older people of their dignity, but putting pressure on A&Es and ambulance services. So why, instead of dealing with the social care crisis, has the Prime Minister rewarded the Health Secretary with a promotion and a new job title?
The Prime Minister
There are many voices across the House, including from the right hon. Gentleman’s party, who have been encouraging me to ensure that we have better integration between health and social care. I am pleased that we have recognised this by making the Department of Health now the Department of Health and Social Care. That has been recognised by Age UK, which has said that this is a
“welcome and long overdue recognition of the interdependence of health and social care”.
I saw for myself last week at Frimley Park the good work that is being done by some hospitals up and down the country, working with GPs, care homes and the voluntary sector, to ensure that elderly people can stay at home safely and do not need to go into hospital, with all the consequences of them coming into hospital beds. That is the way forward, and we want to ensure that we see the integration of health and social care at grassroots level. From the way in which the right hon. Gentleman talks, you would think that the Labour party had all the solutions for the national health service—[Interruption.]
The Prime Minister
If the Labour party has all the answers, why is funding being cut and why are targets not being met in Wales, where Labour is responsible?
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister leads a Government who are responsible for the funding of national Governments, such as the one in Wales, and she knows full well what has been cut from Wales. She is also directly responsible for the NHS in England, and giving the Health Secretary a new job title will not hide the fact that £6 billion has been cut from social care under the Tories. Part of the problem with our NHS is that its funds are increasingly being siphoned off into private companies, including in the Health Secretary’s area of Surrey—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Shelbrooke, calm yourself, man! You are supposed to be auditioning to become an elder statesman, but on present evidence, there will be many more auditions to come. Calm yourself; it will be good for your health.
Jeremy Corbyn
Even more money is being siphoned out of our NHS budgets into private health companies. In the Health Secretary’s area of Surrey, a clinical commissioning group was even forced to pay money to Virgin Care because that company did not win a contract. Will the Prime Minister assure patients that, in 2018, less NHS money intended for patient care will be feathering the nests of shareholders in private health companies?
The Prime Minister
First, this Government have given more money to the Welsh Government. It is a decision of Labour in Wales to deprioritise funding for the national health service in Wales. On the issue of the private sector and its role in the health service, under which Government was it that private access and the use of the private sector in the health service increased? [Interruption.] No, it wasn’t.
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), that he, too, is supposed to be auditioning for something. He is normally a very amiable fellow, but he is gesticulating in a very eccentric fashion. He must calm himself. It is not necessary and not good for his image.
The Prime Minister
First of all, we have put more money into Wales, but the Labour Government in Wales have decided to deprioritise funding for the national health service. Secondly, the increase that was seen in private sector companies working in the health service did not happen under a Conservative Government; that was under a Labour Government of whom the Leader of the Opposition was a member.
Jeremy Corbyn
My hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary is auditioning to be Health Secretary, and he shows real passion for our NHS.
Under this Government, Virgin Care got £200 million-worth of contracts in the past year alone—50% up on the year before. The Prime Minister needs to understand that it is her policies that are pushing our NHS into crisis. Tax cuts for the super-rich and big business are paid for—[Interruption.] Yes, Mr Speaker, they are paid for by longer waiting lists, ambulance delays, staff shortages and cuts to social care. Creeping privatisation is dragging our NHS down. During the Health Secretary’s occupation of the Prime Minister’s office to keep his job, he said that he would not abandon the ship. Is that not an admission that, under his captaincy, the ship is indeed sinking?
The Prime Minister
This Government are putting more money into the national health service. We see more doctors and nurses in our NHS, more operations taking place in our NHS, and more people being treated in accident and emergency in our NHS, but we can only do that if we have a strong economy. What would we see from the Labour party? We have turned the economy around from the recession that the Labour party left us with. What do we know about the Labour party’s economic policies? Well, we were told all about them in a description from the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), who I see is not in her place on the Front Bench today—
The Prime Minister
I do apologise. I did not realise that the shadow Education Secretary was undergoing medical treatment, so I apologise unreservedly for that comment. However, I have to say that she described the economic policies of the Labour party in unparliamentary terms, which included the word “bust”, saying that the Labour party’s economic policy was “high-risk”. That means high risk for taxpayers, high risk for jobs and high risk for our NHS. That is a risk that we will never let Labour take.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently invite the hon. Gentleman to be sensitive to time. We want not a long spiel, but a short question with a question mark at the end of it.
David Morris
Jackie Daniel has received a damehood for turning around the Morecambe Bay trust along with the staff, which is very positive. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister look forward to working with Jackie Daniel’s successor to carry on turning the trust around, and will she wish Jackie well?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of staff at the Morecambe Bay trust. I particularly wish Dame Jackie well, and I recognise and pay tribute to her work in turning that trust around. This is just another example of the huge gratitude we owe to our NHS staff, who work so tirelessly on our behalf.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, I wish you, all staff and all Members a guid new year.
The Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is quite simply
“not fit for purpose and must be changed.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2017; Vol. 632, c. 731.]
Those are not my words; they are the words of the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton). Does the Prime Minister agree with her colleague that we must amend clause 11, which is nothing more than a power grab from Scotland?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that we have said we will look to improve clause 11. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made it very clear when he was answering questions earlier that we continue to look to amend clause 11. However, as I discussed with the First Minister before Christmas, we are looking to work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we put the right frameworks in place so that, when we come to bring forward any amendment, it is done in the best possible way in the interests of all concerned. I thought that had been accepted by the Scottish National party, but we will be looking to bring forward amendments in the Lords.
Ian Blackford
That is simply not good enough. The Secretary of State for Scotland promised a “powers bonanza” for Scotland and that, crucially, amendments would be tabled ahead of next week’s debate. Yesterday it was revealed that no amendments will be tabled. The Tories always promise Scotland everything and deliver nothing. The Prime Minister has one last chance. Will she assure the House that amendments will be tabled ahead of next week, as promised?
The Prime Minister
The SNP says it wants to work with us on the future frameworks; we are doing exactly that. It says it wants clause 11 amended; we are doing exactly that. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is intensifying his discussions with the Scottish Government and, indeed, with the Executive in Wales as part of that. We will be bringing forward amendments. The right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) says this is a Government who never deliver for Scotland. An extra £2 billion as a result of the Budget—that is delivering for Scotland.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to give that commitment to my hon. Friend. This is another example of how this is a Government who are delivering for Scotland. I know the importance of the Stirling and Clackmannanshire deal, which will be transformative. He has championed this cause since he was elected, and he is doing a great job for his constituents. We are all working to get an agreement as soon as possible.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are putting extra money into the national health service. We are not cutting funding for the national health service. CCGs will be taking individual decisions about how they apportion their funding, but to stand up here and suggest that we are cutting funding for the national health service is plain wrong.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I am happy to say to my hon. Friend that of course we recognise the concern she has raised; this is a similar issue to the one raised by the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury). I understand that it is Telford’s 50th anniversary, so I congratulate it on that. We are committed to legislating in relation to the unfair practice my hon. Friend has identified, because it is only fair that freeholders should have the same rights as leaseholders to challenge the reasonableness of the service charges they are being submitted to.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), whom I have known for a long time, that when he comes to reflect on his conduct, he will know that he can do better than that.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I say to the hon. Gentleman that anybody who saw the success we had in negotiating phase 1 of Brexit, and getting that sufficient progress, will say that this Government know what they are doing, and that they are getting on with the job and doing well.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on becoming a Dame in the recent new year’s honours—it is very, very well deserved. I assure her that we are committed to maintaining the strongest protections for AONBs and other designated landscapes. As regards the Chilterns AONB, I have to say to her that I enjoy walking in the Chilterns. I recognise the value of that particular environment, and we are committed to protecting AONBs.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are putting record sums into our schools. More than that, we are ensuring that we are seeing increasing standards in our schools. That is why today there are 1.9 million more children in good or outstanding schools than there were in 2010, and I hope the hon. Lady would welcome that.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about that, and he is a great champion for the needs of the south-west. We do want to increase prosperity and productivity in the south-west—and indeed right across the country—and we are taking some particular steps. Across the country we are committing significant sums in relation to infrastructure investment and the road investment strategy. We are committed to creating an expressway to the south-west, which will be part of an important development. We are investing more than £400 million into the rail network in the area. I am pleased to say that more than 600,000 homes and businesses in the south-west now have access to superfast broadband as a result of our superfast broadband programme. There is more we can do for the south-west, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend in doing that.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
That trust has made it clear that there are absolutely no plans to delay the start of chemotherapy treatment, or to reduce the number of cycles of treatment given to cancer patients. Simon Stevens has said that over the past three years the NHS has had the highest cancer survival rates ever. The latest survival figures show that over 7,000 more people are estimated to be surviving cancer after successful NHS treatment, compared with three years prior. There are 3,200 more diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers than in May 2010. We will continue to look at this issue and we are continuing to put in the funding that is enabling us to improve treatment for cancer patients.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that we need to continue to look at the national health service and ensure that we continue to improve its performance in a variety of areas. The independent Commonwealth Fund has been clear that the national health service is the best healthcare system in the world, and that it is better than systems such as those in Germany, France and the other countries I listed earlier, but of course we need to look at what more we can do. That is why we are putting more funding into and looking at the better integration of health and social care on the ground. It is about making sure that we are making a change and doing that integration now, because that is when it is going to make a difference to people.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I have many fond memories of the time I spent in the north-east when I was a candidate up there. We do need to ensure that we have a good private rented sector in this country, but the one set of policies that would damage the private rented sector are the policies put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I was delighted last week to hear the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirm the Government’s commitment to supporting farmers after we leave the European Union. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the unique needs of Scottish farmers and, indeed, crofters will be taken into account in the design of any new system?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that as we leave the European Union, we will of course be able to put in place our own policy of support for farmers. We want that policy to recognise the particular needs of farmers in all parts of the United Kingdom, and that will of course include the particular needs of farmers in Scotland.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about ensuring, as we want to, that these assessments are being conducted as well as they can be, and that people are getting the awards that they should be getting and that they are entitled to. Since we introduced the personal independence payment, we have carried out around 2.9 million assessments, 8% of which have been appealed, but only 4% of those decisions are changed following an appeal. In the majority of cases, that is because new evidence is presented at the appeal, which was not presented when the original case was put forward. The Department for Work and Pensions continues to look at ensuring that, when these assessments are made, they are done properly and that people get the right results.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
My constituent, Justin Bartholomew, was just 25 when he committed suicide late last year. His family is convinced that his intake of high-energy drinks—more than 15 cans a day—increased his anxiety and contributed to his death. Given the increased safety concern around the high-energy drink market and the actions of people such as Jamie Oliver and Waitrose, will the Prime Minister consider introducing a national ban on the sale of these energy drinks for the under-16s?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has raised a tragic case, and I know that the thoughts and the sympathies of the whole House will be with the family and friends of Justin Bartholomew. We have introduced the soft drinks industry levy. We recognise that there are issues around drinks that are high in sugar and we know that energy drinks high in sugar can be damaging to children’s health. We are supporting schools and parents to make healthier choices and to be able to identify those through clearer labelling and campaigns. Of course this is an issue that the Department of Health and Social Care will continue to look at, and it will continue to look at the scientific evidence in relation to these drinks.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady raises what is obviously a distressing case; I recognise that. Arrangements are in place that ensure, as I understand it, that an individual does not have to pass on their bank details directly. The fact that her constituent has been asked to do so is something that should be looked into. I am sure that if she passes those details to the appropriate Department, it will look into the matter.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
Does the Prime Minister welcome the findings of the Social Research survey that the majority of Scots believe that the rules on trade and immigration should be the same in Scotland as in the rest of the UK? It looks like they agree that we are better together.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. People across the UK want to see controlled immigration—that is people in Scotland as well as people in the rest of the United Kingdom. As we leave the European Union, we will be able to introduce our own immigration rules and to control that immigration to Britain from Europe. The only point of differentiation is that, of course, we do have a Scotland-only shortage occupation list to recognise the particular labour market needs in Scotland. For the most part, that actually matches the UK-wide shortage occupation list, which shows that this is an issue for the whole of the UK, and that we need the same policy approach.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
In a March 2005 interview, the Prime Minister said:
“Not getting things done; and seeing people’s lives hurt by government bureaucracy”
makes her depressed. In the light of that comment, can the Prime Minister tell me whether she considers it reasonable and acceptable for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to withhold the licence of my constituent, Mr Coleman, for more than 18 months despite evidence showing that he was fit and able to drive, as she has not responded to my letter of 5 December?
The Prime Minister
I will ensure that the hon. Lady receives a response to her letter. She has raised a particular case in this House. I will need to look at the details of that case and I will respond to her letter.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Last week, Cleveland Potash announced 230 job losses at Boulby mine in my constituency, which is devastating for Loftus and the wider east Cleveland community, where the mine is by far and away the largest employer. Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) and I all agree that it would be incredibly helpful if some of the funds remaining from the 2015 SSI rescue package could be repurposed to support people leaving Boulby. Will the Prime Minister agree to look into that with the Business Secretary, and will she make a commitment that Government agencies will do everything they can to support people affected by this dreadful news?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to raise this case. It is obviously a worrying time for the workers who are affected by the announcement by Cleveland Potash. We will help people to find other work, and support those affected through the rapid response service of the Department for Work and Pensions. We will co-ordinate with the Tees Valley combined authority to ensure that we work together to make the best possible support available and ensure that it is aligned. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will look at the situation and the specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Ava has been a foster-carer for years. When her privately rented home failed the inspection for an electrical certificate, which she needed to continue fostering, her landlord evicted her because he did not want to do the repairs. Now Ava and the kids are living in temporary council accommodation in a converted warehouse in the middle of a working industrial estate in Mitcham. The council that placed her there is going to withdraw her right to foster because her accommodation is not good enough. Can the Prime Minister tell Ava, kids in care who need foster-carers and the overworked British taxpayer how that makes sense?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady has set it out, that does not appear to make sense: as a result of what has happened, we will lose someone who has been a foster-carer. I would like to pay tribute to the work that her constituent has done in foster-caring. We owe a tremendous debt of gratitude to those who care for people as foster-parents. As the hon. Lady has raised this in the House, I am sure that the local council will want to look at it again.
Several hon. Members rose—
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. While most of us were celebrating on new year’s eve, the crews of the Poole-based tug, Kingston, and the Swanage and Weymouth lifeboats were battling mountainous seas and 70 mph winds off the coast of Dorset to prevent a cargo ship from being blown on to the rocks. Thanks to the skill of the tug’s crew the tow was fixed and a disaster prevented. Will my right hon. Friend join me in praising the professionalism, courage and determination of all those involved, not least the volunteers of the RNLI?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to do that, and to praise all those involved in averting a disaster—both the tug crew and the RNLI. Indeed, I would like to go further. RNLI volunteers do a fantastic job around our coastline day in, day out, and we owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
Points of Order
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. It would not be a full day without a point of order from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. May I congratulate you once again on your pronunciation of “Na h-Eileanan an Iar”, which was absolutely perfect?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Both the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister talked about “the NHS” today, seemingly unaware that in fact there are four NHS services in the UK. I seek your guidance on what can be done to insist on knowledge and accuracy from the most senior parliamentarians in the Chamber, or is the Chamber indeed just the English Parliament?
Mr Speaker
If I did not know the hon. Gentleman as well as I do, I would think that he was being mischievous, but I cannot imagine that he would behave in that way. However, I am on the one hand flattered by his exhortation, and on the other hand at least a tad intimidated, for the idea that the Chair can be expected to insist upon knowledge and accuracy on the part of any Member or among any group of Members is an unrealistic ambition on the part of the hon. Gentleman. That is not a matter for the Chair. Members take responsibility for their statements in this House, but in so far as the hon. Gentleman was seeking to draw attention to what he regards as the singularity of the Scottish health service, I think he has accomplished his objective.
Mr Speaker
Or even the plurality of services, as he witters from a sedentary position. I think he has accomplished his objective.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on how best I can raise the urgent issue of cancer treatment in Oxford with the Minister responsible. Seriously and terminally ill patients at the Churchill Hospital now face delays and cuts to rounds of chemotherapy due to a chronic shortage of specialist staff. The next Health questions are not until 6 February and the people of Oxfordshire need answers now. After all, cancer does not wait.
Mr Speaker
I will make a number of observations to the hon. Lady. First, the matter was at least raised at Prime Minister’s questions today with considerable force and alacrity, albeit not by the hon. Lady on this occasion. Secondly, I know that she will not take offence when I say this, but I was looking meaningfully at her and was very keen to call her to ask a question of the Prime Minister—admittedly not of the cancer services Minister, but of the Prime Minister—and the hon. Lady, in an uncharacteristic display of reticence, did not respond to my exhortations. She did not seem to wish to rise to her feet at that time. Thirdly, notwithstanding that Health questions are a considerable distance away, business questions are tomorrow, and if she wishes to leap from her seat with alacrity to put a question on this matter to the Leader of the House, she can. Finally, if she applies for an Adjournment debate, she might be successful.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope you might be able to advise me on how I can ascertain Government policy and action on an urgent matter that affects my constituency in Norwich. As you will know, hundreds of jobs could be lost with the closure of the Colman’s mustard factory and the Britvic factory in my constituency. I have repeatedly asked the Business Secretary to come to Norwich to meet the highly productive workers there and see the highly profitable factories. So far, he has not got back to me. Although I understand that he is still in his place at the Department, there are several new junior Ministers whose positions and responsibilities we do not know. May I ask for your guidance on how we might get clarification on that point and answers from the responsible Ministers very urgently, given the hundreds of my constituents who face losing their jobs?
Mr Speaker
I can and will respond to the hon. Gentleman. I preface my response by thanking him for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his point of order. I say with great seriousness that I appreciate the importance of this matter to him and his constituents. I have two points to make. First, on the specific question that he raised—which member of the new ministerial team has responsibility for the matter—it is customary for the Government to publish from time to time a list of ministerial responsibilities. It would certainly be helpful to Members on both sides of the House if the division of ministerial responsibilities within Departments could be publicly clarified as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the hon. Gentleman has put his concern on the record and I am sure that it will have been noted on the Treasury Bench.
Secondly, on the back of my experience as a Member before I became Speaker, my advice to him about seeking a visit is: persist, man, persist. Make what I would call a polite nuisance of yourself. Keep going, keep asking, keep requesting, keep putting the matter in the minds of Ministers. On the whole, I tended to find when I was a Back Bencher that by making a nuisance of myself in that way, more often than not, I got at least a significant share of what I was seeking for my constituents.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This point of order is pursuant to the one I raised last night, on which you made good, clear suggestions. I now understand that the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has issued a statement, but not an official statement. Given the words that were spoken on 6 December, have you heard from the Secretary of State whether he intends to come to the House to rectify the record?
Mr Speaker
The short answer is that I have received no indication of any intention on the part of a Minister to make an oral statement on this matter. However, I think that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office referred to the matter during his Question Time session, so I think there is an indication to the hon. Gentleman of how the Government intend to proceed on the matter. It may not satisfy him, but it is what we have got at present.
Moreover, it will not be beyond the wit and sagacity of the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues who are similarly exercised about the matter to highlight their concerns during the Report stage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I look forward with bated breath, eager anticipation and beads of sweat upon my brow to hearing him express his concern, for the simple reason that I intend to chair the bulk of those sessions on 16 and 17 January. Much excitement awaits me.
Siobhain McDonagh
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In answer to my question on behalf of my homeless constituent, Ava, who is also a foster-carer, the Prime Minister appeared to suggest that there was some doubt that she would be deregistered as a foster-carer because of her poor homeless accommodation. I confirm that she has been deregistered for that reason. How will I put that on the record?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has achieved her objective. It will appear in the Official Report and if she wishes to send a personalised and signed copy of said Official Report to the Prime Minister, it is open to her to do so.
Planning (Agent of Change)
Wednesday 10th January 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Planning (Agent of Change) Bill 2017-19 View all Planning (Agent of Change) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require specified planning controls in relation to developments likely to be affected by existing noise sources; and for connected purposes.
This Bill is designed to protect existing music venues from closure or crippling cost arising from the development of new residential properties in their vicinity, especially over questions of noise.
Why is that a problem? The Music Venue Trust and UK Music have been campaigning on the matter for some time and estimate that more than a third of music venues have closed over the past decade. Many Members of Parliament have examples of much-loved venues in their area that have been closed or are under threat. That is why there has been such widespread cross-party support for this Bill, as shown by the number of Members who have already pledged their support and the turnout at this morning’s photocall. This important issue was also raised on 3 November in an Adjournment debate by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn). There has also been welcome support from some of the music greats. Sir Paul McCartney said today:
“Without the grassroots clubs, pubs and music venues my career could have been very different. If we don’t support music at this level, then the future of music in general is in danger.”
I accept that there is a variety of reasons for the decline in venues, but many relate to changes in the neighbourhood, increasingly when redundant commercial or industrial premises are converted to residential, or are knocked down and rebuilt, or as empty sites are developed. Of course, much of that is very welcome. It is part of the regeneration of our inner cities, restoring their historic vibrancy and creating much-needed homes. However, it can sometimes lead to the loss of what makes parts of those areas attractive in the first place, especially to younger residents. Incidentally, that applies not just to music venues but to the wider fabric of inner-city life, and there are important questions as to how we preserve the vibrancy and diversity of city life more generally across our main conurbations.
My short Bill is a modest and focused measure that would adopt the principle of agent of change into planning law. That basically means that when buildings are converted to residential use or a new development is put up, the onus is on the developer—not the venue—to ensure that the new dwellings are protected from factors, particularly noise, that could be held to affect their general amenity and enjoyment.
Moves are already being made around the country to address these concerns. Many grassroots campaigns are being mounted to save local venues. For example, among my Bill’s sponsors are my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), who have been campaigning with the Music Venue Trust in support of The Fleece in Bristol—a city, incidentally, that I am informed has more office-to-residential conversions than anywhere outside London.
Two other sponsors, my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), have been supporting the “Save Womanby Street” campaign, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) and for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty). That has led directly to the Welsh Labour Government’s welcome adoption of the agent of change principle across Wales. Another sponsor, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton), is concerned to protect the rapidly growing Cheese and Grain—a much valued venue in Frome—which shows that this is not just about the inner cities. The Mayor of London, with “London’s Grassroots Music Venues: Rescue Plan”, has that he will be introducing an agent of change rule into the next London plan. As I mentioned, the Welsh Government have announced a similar move, and this is also already under consideration by the Scottish Parliament and Government.
My Bill will provide the legislative reinforcement for that. It aims to give much greater clarity and greater power for local councils and planning inspectors to incorporate the principle into planning decisions. Why do it? Why was I so receptive to this idea, and why is there such strong public support? Because it matters. Of course it matters to those who enjoy the entertainment and for whom it opens new horizons. Obviously, it also matters for the staff and owners of the venues. But it matters a lot more than that—and not just for the nearby late-night kebab shops.
For a start, there is the impact on musicians, which is why the Bill is being supported by the Musicians’ Union. Less venues means less work and less opportunity to develop talent—or even for musicians to find out that they are not going to make it in the industry. It also means less opportunity to move up from amateur to part-time to full-time professional, and to national or even international stardom. I was talking today to Billy Bragg, who mentioned that he tried three times to move from having an ordinary job and working part-time to being a full-time musician. It was the existence of the clubs, pubs and venues that enabled him finally to make it on to the national stage.
We are in danger of taking away the ladder that has served both individual musicians and the music industry so well for so long. And what an industry—not only are domestic sales rising again, but we are second only to the United States in international reach and sales. It is a huge boost to Britain’s standing around the world and our soft power—not to mention millions in overseas sales last year—let alone being a significant part of our tourism offer. But there is a real concern that the industry is now depending on a great past, with a lot of grey hair around. Now, I declare an interest, as I am in favour of good representation of grey hair, but I also support refreshing the pipeline with new talent. That is no comment on yesterday’s Government reshuffle. There is a danger of mining, rather than farming, our musical heritage. Losing music venues also narrows a route of opportunity for working-class youngsters, many from our deprived inner cities and left-behind industrial towns.
As a west midlands MP, I am of course proud to represent part of the area that gave birth to heavy metal, and I am particularly focused on the cities and conurbations. However, I also recognise how damaging the loss of venues can be to the life and attraction of smaller towns, and to retaining youngsters and slowing the drift to the cities. All those factors are important, but there is another factor that makes this provision imperative, and it is why the matter requires urgent action either from Parliament or the Government—given the wide level of cross-party support from ex-Ministers, as well as members of the MP4 band, I hope that the Government will adopt this measure and help to push it through. That factor is Brexit.
As Brexit is happening and we face an uncertain future, it is vital that Britain is made more efficient and effective across the board and that we maximise every possible advantage that Britain has. One of these is clearly our cultural and entertainment offer, not only in London but in our other great centres around the country, many of which, including Birmingham and Manchester, are attracting increasing foreign investment and work—although, of course, Birmingham is the best venue for Channel 4.
Companies clearly locate initially for a range of hard-headed, financial, economic and communication reasons, but quality of life is also significant. It is partly about personal safety, environmental quality and a pleasant streetscape, but it is also about the answer to the basic question, “Would I want to live there?” That is a question not only for companies, but for the staff they are seeking to attract, especially the highly mobile, technically skilled and talented international and multinational workforce, not least in our huge creative sector. The cultural and living environment is important to them. That means art galleries, theatres, concert halls, opera, ballet, football clubs, rugby clubs and other sporting environments, but it also means music venues and the street scene. It poses a question to those companies that are being enticed to move abroad after Brexit: “Would you and your family—especially your children and, equally importantly, your employees—prefer to live in London, Birmingham or Manchester, or in Frankfurt?”
I hope that this measure will provide some small but useful assistance and relief to a valued industry. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That John Spellar, Kevin Brennan, Sir Greg Knight, Pete Wishart, Jo Stevens, Mr Edward Vaizey, Kerry McCarthy, David Warburton, Conor McGinn, Mr Nigel Evans and Thangam Debbonaire present the Bill.
John Spellar accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 January, and to be printed (Bill 149).
Opposition Day
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS Winter Crisis
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House expresses concern at the effect on patient care of the closure of 14,000 hospital beds since 2010; records its alarm at there being vacancies for 100,000 posts across the NHS; regrets the decision of the Government to reduce social care funding since 2010; notes that hospital trusts have been compelled by NHS England to delay elective operations because of the Government’s failure to allocate adequate resources to the NHS; condemns the privatisation of community health services; and calls on the Government to increase cash limits for the current year to enable hospitals to resume a full service to the public, including rescheduling elective operations, and to report to the House by Oral Statement and written report before 1 February 2018 on what steps it is taking to comply with this resolution.
I begin by paying tribute to the extraordinary efforts of our NHS and social care staff for all their work this Christmas and new year, and this winter. They continue to do all of us in this House proud.
It is almost a year since the House debated the national health service in the first Opposition day debate following the Christmas and new year break. A year ago, we debated winter pressures with a backdrop that was characterised by the Red Cross as a “humanitarian crisis”. Here we are again, a year later, debating a winter crisis worse than last year’s. This winter crisis was described by Taj Hassan, president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, as “even worse” than last year’s. He also said:
“In some cases, I’ve heard of 50 patients in an emergency department waiting for a bed. We have to try to manage them…as best we can, in cold, draughty corridors, while dealing with new emergency patients.”
His words are backed up by the realities on the ground, revealed in the weekly reports of what is happening. Since the start of this winter, more than 75,000 patients waited for over 30 minutes in the back of an ambulance. Almost 17,000 patients waited for over 60 minutes. This is despite the NHS Improvement directive last year that emergency departments should accept handover of patients within 15 minutes of an ambulance arriving.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend recognise the pressure across the system? At Arrowe Park on the Wirral, staff made 48 extra beds available for the winter crisis and over Christmas, and in the event they had to make 40 more extra beds available by cancelling all elective surgery. Does he believe that this is the way to plan for the winter, and does he believe that the Department of Health made robust and appropriate plans?
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend speaks eloquently about the pressures on her local hospital. She will also be aware of how foolhardy it would have been to close the Eastham walk-in centre on the Wirral, as was proposed because there were not enough staff at Arrowe Park Hospital. Fortunately, because of her campaigns and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), the Eastham walk-in centre has been saved. That is because of Labour MPs working in their constituencies.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in my constituency, one of the largest trusts in the country, has recently been taken into financial special measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that the failure of King’s is a canary in a coalmine for the NHS, and must be a wake-up call for the Government on the level of resource that our outstanding NHS staff need so that they can deliver for patients? Will he join me in calling on the Health Secretary to ensure that King’s emerges from financial special measures with the additional funding it needs to deliver safe, effective, world-leading care for patients?
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. She has been a passionate defender of King’s, speaking out in this House on numerous occasions. Before Christmas, we saw the resignation of Lord Kerslake as the chair of King’s, when he spoke out about the real pressures facing our NHS, which were dismissed at the Dispatch Box by the then Minister when we had a debate in this House.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it was under a Labour Government that a walk-in centre in Broxtowe closed? However, I do not seek to blame that Labour Government, because it was a local decision made by local practitioners. Would he not at least accept, in a spirit of trying to build some sort of sensible debate about our NHS instead of always weaponising it, that this Government have put in an extra £437 million specifically for the winter period? Would he not at least give the Government credit for that planning, which we have never seen before?
Jonathan Ashworth
The right hon. Lady is a former Health Minister, so she will know that in her local hospital trust 771 patients have waited longer than four hours on trolleys, unable to get a bed. She talks about the winter money. We were calling for winter emergency money back at the general election, and we repeated those calls in September. That money did not come through until the November Budget, and hospital trusts were not told their allocations until a few days before Christmas. That is no way to prepare for the winter. I suspect that when she was a Health Minister, she would have been saying that to the officials in her Department.
Anna Soubry
The point is that for the first time a Government have done everything they possibly could—[Hon. Members: “No.”] They have, because no Government can predict what the weather may be like, or the uptake of flu vaccinations. It is wrong to suggest that this is the fault of the Government in England when there has a problem across the whole United Kingdom, including in Scotland and Labour-run Wales.
Jonathan Ashworth
The right hon. Lady will know that we have had eight years of sustained underfunding of our national health service because of decisions by this Government, of which she was a member until very recently.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer to the comments made to the Health Committee by Jim Mackey, the head of NHS Improvement back at the start of October, three months ago:
“It is true that we are running tighter than any of us would really want to and we have not had the impact from the social care investment this year that we had hoped for; so, it will be difficult—it will be very tight—over winter.”
This Government knew what was coming, yet they have let the whole country down.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend, who is an excellent member of the Health Committee, speaks with great eloquence, pointing out the hubristic response of Tory Members in saying that this was not predictable or preventable. This winter crisis was entirely predictable and entirely preventable.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Two hundred and thirty-three patients were left in ambulances for more than 30 minutes outside King’s Mill Hospital in the week of 25 to 31 December. That is more than 40% of those arriving by ambulance in that week. Does my hon. Friend agree that those patients and their families deserve an apology and a promise that that will never happen again?
Jonathan Ashworth
Absolutely. I have absolute praise for the staff at King’s Mill—it is where my first daughter was born, in fact. The way in which patients have had to wait for ambulances outside King’s Mill is entirely unacceptable, and this Government need to do something about it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jonathan Ashworth
Let me make a little progress, if I may. I will try to take as many interventions as possible, but this is only a half-day debate and I know that many people want to speak.
We have heard the stories of ambulances backed up outside hospitals. Ambulances have been diverted from gridlocked A&E departments 150 times. Our hospitals are overcrowded and our bed occupancy levels are running at unsafe levels. In the run-up to Christmas eve, over one third of England’s children’s care units were 100% full, with not a single spare bed. We have had reports of whole children’s wards being used for adults. In fact, we do not know the full scale of the crisis because this year NHS England is not reporting which hospital trusts have issued the OPEL—operational pressures escalation levels—alerts revealing hospital pressures. I hope that, given the Secretary of State’s keenness on a duty of candour, he will explain why the OPEL data is not being collected and published nationally for England, as it has been in recent years.
But of course behind every single one of these statistics is a real human story. We have heard stories of elderly, fragile patients treated in the backs of ambulances in the freezing January weather, or elderly patients, sometimes confused, languishing on trolleys in corridors, such as the 80-year-old epileptic man with severe dementia who was stuck on a trolley for 36 hours waiting to be treated at the Royal Stoke. His daughter, Jackie Weaver, said:
“it was absolutely horrendous. You couldn’t get past for all the trolleys”.
Ruth Smeeth
We had 67 people sitting on trolleys. We ran out of corridor space. Two hundred people medically fit for discharge had nowhere to go. The pressure on my constituents and those of my hon. Friends in north Staffordshire was appalling, but so was the pressure on the staff who had to cope with looking after those patients. My constituents deserve better and the staff deserve better. We need money for social care—and we needed it last year.
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend makes a moving contribution to the debate. Those people in Stoke whose relatives have been waiting so long on corridors will see the Prime Minister saying, “Nothing is perfect,” but the truth is that we do not want perfection—we just want a bit of dignity and humanity in our health service.
Jonathan Ashworth
I give way to my hon. Friend, who has been working in her constituency over Christmas.
Ms Lee
This time last week, I went out with an East Midlands Ambulance Service crew for a shift, and they told me that over the Christmas period they were waiting two hours and more outside A&E at Lincoln Hospital. They also said that they were not even just sitting in the ambulance—one of them, a paramedic, was going inside and cannulating patients, working in resuscitation, and clerking patients. Will my hon. Friend comment on that and on what we will do about it in government?
Jonathan Ashworth
My hon. Friend makes a powerful, and indeed raw, contribution to our proceedings, because she was working over the Christmas holiday on the frontline in Lincoln. I pay tribute to her and all her colleagues there. I hope that the Secretary of State reflects on her contribution and responds to it in his remarks.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The stories are indeed heartbreaking, and no one wants that for their constituents or their relatives. Will the shadow Secretary of State therefore recognise and welcome the investment that the Government have made in units for elderly and frail people? As I have seen in my hospital, the Alex, that investment has made a massive difference. It is too early to tell whether that will solve all the problems, and we of course want to do more, but it is making a real difference on the ground, as is the additional Government funding of nearly £4 million, which was put in place in time. The hospital has been in special measures, but its leadership is turning it around. Does he welcome such real examples of good practice that are helping our constituents?
Jonathan Ashworth
I do welcome examples of good practice, but I share the hon. Lady’s frustration, which she has put up on her website, about the money taking so long to reach the frontline:
“while the money has been approved, the current frustration is the time it is taking for the Trust to gain access to the money.”
I agree with her: this money should have been announced sooner for our national health service.
Jonathan Ashworth
If I may, I will make a little progress. I have been generous, but I will try to take as many other interventions as possible.
We have heard about Stoke, but what about the story of 87-year-old Yvonne Beer, who suffers from dementia? She was at Worcestershire Royal when, forced to wait 10 hours in hospital to see a doctor, she had to be tied into a wheelchair with a scarf after her bed was taken away. We learn that Southmead Hospital in Bristol has had a capacity of 104%. Yesterday, a leaked memo revealed:
“Acute Medical Unit physicians have been on their knees with workload pressure”,
and that the
“biggest risk remains patients in corridors in the Emergency Department with no allocated doctor, no allocated bed and no treatment—some of these are very sick indeed”.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
In my local hospital in Barnsley, general and acute bed occupancy reached 100% on 31 December, despite the incredible effort of the staff. Does my hon. Friend agree that safety targets are simply not being met, and that that is not good enough?
Jonathan Ashworth
Absolutely. Bed occupancy rates at such a level are unsafe. I know the Secretary of State is committed to patient safety—he has made it one of his signature issues—yet he is presiding over a health service in which bed occupancy in acute hospitals is routinely well over 85%.
We have heard about the pressures in South Yorkshire, but what about the pressures in West Yorkshire? Of the hospital ward in Pinderfields where people were left lying on the floor, a witness said:
“The man who was lying on the floor at the bottom of my husband’s bed was being sick. He was asking for a trolley to lie on but there wasn’t one to give him.”
Of course, their plight was dismissed in the House on Monday by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who told us there were enough chairs to sit on.
Jonathan Ashworth
I will give way to the local MP, and I will then try to make some progress.
Paula Sherriff
I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in thanking the staff for their gargantuan efforts this winter and over the festive period. Just this week, I spoke to a nurse at the very same hospital, who advised me that staff had had to clear out the cleaning cupboard to put in a bed for a patient to receive an infusion. Does he share my horror at that? What on earth is our NHS coming to under this Government?
Jonathan Ashworth
Beds in broom cupboards—the Tory NHS: isn’t it a disgrace?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Dunne
In relation to the incident at Pinderfields Hospital, it is completely unacceptable that people should be lying in corridors, but the hospital informed me before I made the statement on Monday that the patients who were photographed had been asked whether they wanted to sit down on a seat and had decided not to do so.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking the opportunity to clarify the situation for the House. Perhaps he should have done so on Monday. I do not know, but he may well still have been in place as a Health Minister if he had said that on Monday.
There have been huge pressures on the North East Ambulance Service, because of which it has been asking some patients, where appropriate, if they have alternative transport options, such as a family member. The East of England Ambulance Service has said that some patients were being sent taxis to get them to hospital, with paramedics stuck in ambulances queuing at hospitals for more than 500 hours in the past four days. Of course, clinicians have spoken out. Richard Fawcett of the University Hospitals of North Midlands warned that his hospital had
“run out of corridor space”.
He also felt compelled to apologise for, in his words, the “third world conditions”.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jonathan Ashworth
Let me make a little progress, if I may, because I have been generous in giving way.
What is the response of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State? A perfunctory apology, and the unprecedented blanket cancellation of elective operations.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the East of England Ambulance Service. He will be aware of the case of the elderly lady who lost her life while waiting four hours for an ambulance to arrive. That is often a result of having ambulances stacked up outside hospital, as he has described. Does he agree that it is now time to end these intolerable incidents—such failures of care are apparently widespread across the country—and to have a mature national conversation about how to increase the funding for our NHS and our care system to ensure that people get care when they need it?
Jonathan Ashworth
I agree entirely. I am entirely happy to have a conversation about how to increase funding in the national health service, but I have huge scepticism about whether this Government—having overseen eight years of desperately tight funding allocations for the NHS, with cuts to community health services—are prepared to engage constructively in such a conversation.
On the specific case that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), whom I cannot see in his place—I apologise if he is in the Chamber and I have not spotted him—has called for an inquiry. He has actually warned that if that incident was a result of underfunding, we need to put more funding into ambulance services, and I share his concerns.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jonathan Ashworth
If I may make a little progress, because I have been generous, I will then try to take more interventions. I am conscious, however, that this is only a half-day debate.
The consequences of this crisis are not only for those in urgent need, but for everyone using the NHS. Let us be clear that this panic cancelling of elective operations means that patients will suffer. Not only will patients suffer longer waits for operations while in pain and distress, but they will wait for appointments with the uncertainty of not knowing what is wrong with them, and the knock-on effects on NHS services and the wider society are huge. Already, patients are facing a waiting times crisis with 4 million on the waiting list.
Jonathan Ashworth
Let me make a bit of progress.
A lost month will mean that thousands of patients across the country are stuck with their lives on hold. To call this “routine care” misses the fact that these are big issues for the individual patients affected. The young man awaiting heart valve surgery, who will have arranged time off work and for his family to be around to care for him, now has to cancel it all and does not know when his operation will happen. He also runs the risk of a deterioration in his heart function, which could lead to further hospitalisation in an emergency, adding to the pressures on our emergency services.
Jonathan Ashworth
I give way to the hon. Lady, who has been very persistent.
Vicky Ford
Will the hon. Gentleman at least recognise that the NHS is doing more operations than ever before? In my area of Mid Essex, an incredible 72,000 operations were carried out last year, which is over 9,000 more than back in 2010. Will he join me in thanking the incredible NHS staff for the many better outcomes they are delivering?
Jonathan Ashworth
Yes, I will. I of course thank the NHS staff. Of course, if the hon. Lady wanted to thank the NHS staff, she could have supported us when we brought in motions to give them a fair pay rise, but I do not think she did so.
Jonathan Ashworth
I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I know always wants to contribute to such debates, but then I will make some progress.
Dr Murrison
The hon. Gentleman is extremely generous, and I always follow his remarks with a great deal of interest. Any cancellation is appallingly bad, but does he understand that the worst possible cancellation is one on the day of surgery, which is clinically unacceptable? Will he give the system credit for at least trying to introduce some sort of planning this year, for the first time that I can remember since 1984?
Jonathan Ashworth
The hon. Gentleman will know that the system is in such a state because of years of sustained underfunding. His answer would be a cross-party commission, a sort of royal commission, and I have huge respect for his contributions to these debates, but let us be clear that for eight years the NHS has not been getting the level of funding it should be getting in historical terms.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. Down in Sussex, patient transport was privatised and given to a company called Coperforma. Seven months after the contract was awarded, the company was stripped of it for its appalling practices and for completely underperforming in every way, shape and form. It now transpires that Coperforma has been given more money for seven months than it would have received if it had performed properly for a full year. Is that not indicative of the way in which the NHS is being run?
Mr Speaker
Order. May I appeal for brief interventions? I would just point out to the House that no fewer than 38 Back Benchers wish to speak, and even if the debate is allowed to run on beyond 4 o’clock, which is in the hands of the usual channels, probably half of them will not be able to do so. I say now that they will just have to sit, wait and hope—I am not publishing a list; we do not do so—but long interventions do not help.
Jonathan Ashworth
I will take that as my second telling off from you today, Mr Speaker. Given your guidance, I will try not to take any more interventions, but on the particular point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), the privatisation of patient transport services to Coperforma in his area of Sussex was an absolute disaster for patients and for the ambulance drivers, who I met—they went for eight weeks, as I recall, without pay. He has been campaigning on the issue, as has the GMB trade union, which I congratulate on the campaign it has run. We now learn that, having ended the contract, money is still going to that firm, which is an absolute scandal. I hope there can be a full inquiry into what has gone on, and I praise my hon. Friend for leading the campaign.
I have talked about the real impact of cancelled operations—for example, on someone waiting for a hip replacement who is forced to stay at home, unable to walk properly, and who, due to the pain, will no doubt at some point need to see a GP again in an emergency, which again adds to the pressures on the service. Perhaps someone in need of a cataract operation has had that operation cancelled and is now at risk of falls because they cannot see. Such a person could well end up in A&E, again needing a hospital bed. These are real people who rely on the NHS and whom the Government are letting down. The domino effect of not providing proper, timely care increases the crisis and pressures on the wider NHS.
Jonathan Ashworth
I did say that I would try to make progress. It is clear that a lot of Members want to speak, so I will continue if I may. I have been generous in giving way.
Now we are beginning to hear that it is not just routine non-urgent operations being cancelled. Today, The Times reports of a hospital in Oxford considering delaying the start for chemotherapy due to staff shortages and lack of capacity—a four-week delay on all new patients needing chemotherapy—and there are proposals for those on the first cycle to have full chemo, but then discriminate against those on cycles 2, 3 and 4—second, third and fourth-line chemo—giving those patients a reduced number of cycles, which is a two-tier chemotherapy system.
Jonathan Ashworth
Let me make some progress.
In The Guardian today, we read the story of Carly O’Neill, who went into hospital for her cancer operation and who was waiting in her gown with wristbands on in the hospital, only to be told her operation would have to be cancelled because there was no bed available.
Jonathan Ashworth
Let me finish the point.
How about my constituent Mr Geoff Brooker, who was diagnosed with cancer of the bladder? He has had his planned operation cancelled twice this winter. When Mr Brooker was asked about the Secretary of State’s apology, he said:
“He may have apologised for postponements but it was as if he was apologising for the cancellation of a jumble sale.”
My constituent went on to say that Ministers were “uncaring” and he blamed “poor planning”. He added:
“If operations like mine are postponed then it’s likely it will cause deaths. The decision could even be the death of me”.
There we have it: cancer patients having operations cancelled and trusts looking at delaying chemotherapy, yet these Ministers sit there with their NHS badges on their lapels. They should be ashamed of what is happening in the NHS today.
Jonathan Ashworth
I will give way for the last time and then I will make progress.
Victoria Prentis
Goodness knows the hon. Gentleman knows I am no apologist for Oxford University Hospitals Trust, but it is important that we do not make a crisis where there is not one. I have been assured by the University Hospitals Trust today that the leaked memo does not represent the current reality. I, like him, have concerns about recruitment, and I, like him, am worried about the future of recruitment in the NHS, but it is really important that we do not worry current cancer patients who will continue to receive their treatment.
Jonathan Ashworth
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. The memo was emailed to oncology department staff in the last few days. If the trust is now backing down on that, all of us across the House will welcome it, but the point still stands: the trust was looking at delaying chemotherapy by four weeks and it referred to a lack of staff and capacity. As we know, this trust has cut many, many beds in recent years, including cancer beds and renal beds, and we know that it is under huge pressures.
Jonathan Ashworth
I will make some progress.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) rightly said that we do not want to make this more of a crisis, but the Secretary of State knows that cancelling elective operations as an impact on hospital finances. It means a loss of revenue for trusts that are already struggling to meet their deficit targets. Rather than allowing waiting times—
Jonathan Ashworth
I am not going to take any more interventions, I am afraid.
Rather than allowing waiting times to escalate further, why will the Secretary of State not commit today to giving hospitals emergency funds, so those cancelled operations can be rescheduled as soon as is reasonably possible and hospitals do not lose revenue and get further into problems with their deficits?
The Secretary of State knows that cancelling electives impacts on training of the next generation of surgeons and junior doctors, who are warning that they could lose out on as much as a sixth of their six-month training because the operations are not there for them to do. Will he tell us, if these cancelled electives continue, what is his plan to ensure that our junior doctors and surgeons can catch up on the training they need? Our patients deserve the best-trained surgeons and junior doctors in the world. Cancelling those electives impacts on their training. Will he tell us his plan for dealing with that?
We all agree that every penny counts in rising to the challenge of the winter crisis caused by Downing Street. I know the Secretary of State will tell us that we have had the—
Jonathan Ashworth
I said that I would not take any more interventions.
The Secretary of State will tell us about the winter funding, but we also know that the winter funding came far too late. NHS Providers has warned that it came far too late in December, and I am sure that many hospital trusts will be telling him privately in his morning phone calls that it came too late. Hospital trusts have to turn to expensive private staffing agencies to get through this winter due to the Government’s failure to invest in an adequate workforce to enable the NHS to deliver the care the nation needs. In many places, NHS trusts are effectively held to ransom by staffing agencies.
Last month, NHS Improvement refused a freedom of information request to publish how much these private agencies are costing individual trusts. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is unacceptable and that we should know how much extra money set aside for winter is going to private agencies? Will he undertake to produce a league table naming and shaming every single agency and stating how much they have been getting from each and every trust, so that we can have clarity on this matter?
The Secretary of State will no doubt tell us that the problems we are experiencing have arisen because we have an ageing society. Of course, we see pressures on the service because of the demographics not just in winter, but all year round. Patients with less acuity, often with sometimes three or four comorbidities—in particular, those being treated at this time of year—put huge pressure on the service throughout the year.
However, these demographic changes in society did not just drop out of the blue sky in the last few weeks. We have known about these trends for years and years, which makes it even more criminal that the Government have presided over eight years of underfunding in the NHS—£6 billion of cuts to social care—and have acquiesced in a reduction of 14,000 beds. We will probably see more bed reductions if we pursue the sustainability and transformation plans across the country. We have seen delayed transfers of care increase by 50% these last years.
On social care, the Secretary of State may have those words in his title now, but he has no plan to deal with the severe £6 billion cut we have had to social care in recent years.
Jonathan Ashworth
I am not giving way because we are pressed for time.
The fact that makes this winter crisis even more serious than anything that has gone before is not just the cuts to social care and to the community care sector, nor is it the underfunding of the NHS; it is that the crisis takes place against the backdrop of some of the most serious and far-reaching neglect of health perpetrated on the people of this country for more than century.
Sir Michael Marmot, a recognised authority on public health, has warned that this country has, since 2010, stalled in the task of improving the life expectancy of our population and that differences in life expectancy between the poorest areas in the country and the better- off have widened in recent years. This is what happens with austerity and cuts. This is what happens when the Government fail to invest in housing and the insulation of our housing stock. This is what happens when the Government allow fuel poverty to increase and oversee falling real incomes, benefit cuts for the poorest and rising child poverty. The shocking consequence is that the number of hospital beds in England taken up by patients being treated for malnutrition has doubled since 2010. Is not that a shame? Is not that a disgrace?
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is right about one thing, which is demographic change. That and an ageing population are directly behind some of the malnutrition figures, and he must not misuse those. Is it not the case that, as the Royal College of Nursing told the Health Committee just two or three years ago, the failure to plan for a rising and ageing population is a feature not of the past five years, but of the past 10 to 15 years? He should not pretend that the problem has appeared overnight.
Jonathan Ashworth
When we had a Labour Government, we trebled in cash terms the investment going into the NHS. When we had a Labour Government, we had trolley waits, but under this Government we have had 560,000 people waiting on trollies and 2.5 million people waiting more than four hours in A&E. That is the difference between a Labour Government planning for the health needs of this country and a Tory Government cutting for the health needs of this country.
This is not just a winter crisis; it is a year-round funding crisis, a year-round staffing crisis, a year-round social care crisis and a year-round health inequality crisis, manufactured in Downing Street by this Government. We have had eight years of underfunding and cuts; 14,000 beds have been lost; the number of district nurses has been cut by 3,500; the number of mental health nurses has been cut; child and adolescent mental health services budgets have been raided; the number of GPs has fallen; we are 40,000 nurses short; community and mental health services have been privatised; and social care has been savaged and staff demoralised.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
In my borough of Lewisham, CAMHS are facing a budget cut of up to £200,000, leaving many children without the treatment and services they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have failed to provide mental health services to some of the most vulnerable in society, particularly at this difficult time?
Jonathan Ashworth
Half this country’s clinical commissioning groups are raiding children’s mental health services because the money is not in the wider NHS. Yet this Secretary of State remains in place, even though the truth is that doctors and nurses have lost confidence in him, patients have lost confidence in him, and it seems the Prime Minister has lost confidence him. He fights for his own job, but he will not fight for the NHS. Our patients are crying out for change, but they will look at the Health Secretary, still in post today, and see that, to coin a phrase, “Nothing has changed. Nothing has changed.” I commend our motion to the House.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
I, too, start by offering, on behalf of the whole House, a massive “thank you” to all staff across the health and care system who went beyond the call of duty and gave up their Christmas and new year to keep patients safe. Their dedication makes the NHS the best healthcare system in the world. They visibly demonstrated their values, constantly putting the needs of patients before their own.
Attempts to politicise pressures on the NHS are a serious mistake. The last time the NHS had a difficult flu winter was 2009—the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) might know that, because he was working in Downing Street at the time. In 2009, the shadow Health Secretary was Andrew Lansley. He refused to attack the Government, because it was an operational issue—in fact, the then Health Secretary, Andy Burnham, thanked him for his “measured tone”, which meant that
“together we can give a reassuring message to the public”.—[Official Report, 12 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 1056.]
Sadly, I cannot say that to the shadow Health Secretary today.
The hon. Gentleman, who has used some extraordinary language today, says that the NHS is on its knees. Let us look at the facts: since 2010, we have 14,000 more doctors, 12,000 more nurses on our wards and 5,000 more operations every single day; and in A&Es, which he talked about a lot, 1,800 more people are seen and treated within four hours every single day.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
In the spirit of sounding conciliatory, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Royal Bolton Hospital made provision for the Christmas period, but despite that it has had to cancel all routine operations, as well as elective operations in trauma and orthopaedics, until 1 February. What financial assistance will he give my local hospital, so that it does not suffer as a result?
Mr Hunt
We did provide an extra £1.4 million to the hon. Lady’s local hospital before Christmas, to help it to deal with the immediate pressures, but let me deal with this issue of cancelled elective care operations. I agree with the shadow Health Secretary that it is a big deal for patients who are told that their planned procedure is to be postponed. No one minimises the distress that that causes, but last year and in previous winters operations were cancelled at the last moment, which is much more distressing and challenging for hospitals to plan around. The decision was taken this year to take a much more planned approach. We hope that, overall, fewer operations will be cancelled at the last moment, but we need to do this in a planned way.
Rebecca Pow
I cannot help but intervene, because last year someone very close to me—a member of my family—was one of those people who was about to go into the operating theatre when the procedure was cancelled. I came to my right hon. Friend about the case. I can tell the House that that was not a good experience, so it is a much better approach to plan ahead and give people notice. Yes, emergencies will happen, but planning ahead makes for a better system. I think the Government have made a good move.
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope she will not mind my saying that her case involved cancer, and one of the things that the planned approach allows us to do is make sure that we do not have to cancel cancer operations, which are the most important, at the last moment. That is essentially what we are trying to do: protect everyone who is in a life-critical situation.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I have to intervene. I had treatment and an operation for cancer. If my operation had been cancelled, I would have been able to come to this House and ask the Secretary of State personally to intervene, but I am speaking today on behalf of Carly O’Neill, who went to the press to talk about her cancer operation. What explanation does the Health Secretary have to give Carly O’Neill and other cancer patients for their operations being cancelled?
Mr Hunt
I say, very directly, that the instructions from NHS England could not have been clearer that cancer operations should not be cancelled, because they are deemed to be urgent. From the perspective of the Government and NHS senior leadership, such cancellations are not acceptable. If the hon. Lady knows of individual cases, she should raise them with me and we will look into the matter. It is precisely because we want to preserve capacity for people who need it the most that we have taken these difficult decisions.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Secretary of State complains about politicisation of the NHS, but 90 colleagues from all parts of the House, including many Conservatives, are offering a different approach—a cross-party mature conversation to find a solution. Lord Saatchi, Baroness Cavendish and Nick Timothy are now arguing for the same thing. Will he now embrace that approach—a civilised approach to come up with a consensus for this country on how we secure our health and care system?
Mr Hunt
I have said publicly that, as we come to the end of the five year forward view, we need to seek a consensus on the next stage for the NHS. We will need significantly more funding in the years ahead, and we need to build a national consensus on how to find that funding. My own view is that we should try to do that for a 10-year period, not a five-year period. I am open to all discussions with colleagues about the best ways to do that, but, as we heard earlier from the shadow Health Secretary, the Labour party is not interested in being part of those discussions, which illustrates how difficult it is to reach consensus.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Hunt
I will make some progress before giving way again.
Let us look closely at what the hon. Member for Leicester South has said. He used a lot of hyperbole today. He says the Government are sleepwalking into winter. This, of course, has been directly contradicted by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, the medical director of NHS England, who has said:
“I think it’s the one”—
winter—
“that we’re best prepared for…This year we started preparing”
a year earlier. He continued:
“We have…a good plan.”
Chris Hopson of NHS Providers, who regularly criticises the Government when he disagrees with us, has said:
“This time preparations have never been more thorough.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Hunt
I will make some progress and then give way further.
Let us look at those preparations. We have put £1 billion into the social care system. The biggest lesson from last year was that pressure in the social care system was making it difficult for hospitals to discharge. What has been the result of that investment? Combined with the extra £337 million in the Budget, it has freed up 1,100 hospital beds by reducing the number of delayed transfers of care. In total, 2,700 additional acute beds have been commissioned since November. The shadow Health Secretary told The Independent:
“It is completely unacceptable that the 85% bed occupancy target…has been missed”.
What was bed occupancy on Christmas eve? It was 84.2%, so this had a real impact.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Hunt
I have said I will give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress, too.
Secondly, because many patients can be better seen by GPs, last year’s spring Budget allocated £100 million of capital to help hospitals to set up GP streaming services. In the year the shadow Secretary of State says the Government were sleepwalking, the number of type 1 trusts with GP streaming tripled to 91% of all such trusts across the country. At the same time, we made it massively easier for people to access GPs and nurses over the Christmas period. For the first time, people could get urgent GP appointments at their own surgery, or one nearby, from 8 to 8, seven days a week, except on Christmas day. The number of 111 calls dealt with by a clinician increased to nearly 40%—nearly double the figure in the year before. That, too, has massively reduced pressure on A&Es.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I draw to the Secretary of State’s attention the fact that we continue to have no Northern Ireland Executive and therefore no local Health Minister, meaning that there is a specific problem in Northern Ireland. The NHS staff there are absolutely superb, but they have also been under enormous pressure in recent weeks, as have the ambulance crews. It is terribly demoralising and wearisome for them. The Government must take some responsibility, given the continued absence of a Northern Ireland Executive. What recent discussions—and with whom—has the Secretary of State had in Northern Ireland about dealing with the crisis in the NHS and among ambulance crews in Northern Ireland?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady will understand that because I am the Health Secretary for England, I have not been having an enormous number of discussions about the terribly challenging political situation in Northern Ireland, but I agree that it is incredibly unhelpful for the NHS in Northern Ireland if there is not an Executive. The former Northern Ireland Secretary—I know that the whole House wishes him well with his medical challenges—was very engaged in trying to address that issue, and I know that the new Northern Ireland Secretary will make it her top priority, too, precisely because it matters so much for public services.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State does not want to get drawn into Northern Ireland—I understand that—yet the Prime Minister seems willing at every opportunity to attempt to smear the Welsh NHS. Can we have some facts before us? Spending per head on the NHS and social care in Wales is 8% higher than in England, and it went up 4.5% last year. We are dealing with winter pressures and we are putting funding up, yet the Prime Minister seems to suggest otherwise.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
May I bring the Secretary of State back to the benefit of having GP-led services in hospitals to take the pressure off A&Es? I commend Solihull Hospital for doing just that and reducing appreciably the number of examples of winter pressures being raised with us? Could that be replicated across the NHS?
Mr Hunt
This is what is so disappointing about some of the shrill tones we have heard this week in the media and today in the House. Reforms across the NHS are making a real difference. I totally commend what is happening at Solihull. The key to solving the long-term pressures on our emergency departments is to be better at treating people in the community. The growth in emergency admissions in the vanguard areas of the NHS is about half the national average. This is the five year forward view that we are rolling out across the country. We need to celebrate the successes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Hunt
I want to make some progress before I give way again.
A very important point that we have not talked about much in this debate, although it is extremely relevant to people on the NHS frontline, is flu. This year, we have had a much bigger spike in the number of flu cases than at any time since the winter of 2009, but we also have in this country the most comprehensive flu vaccination programme in Europe. This year, for the first time, it was made available to those who are eight years and under and to care home staff. As a result, a million more people have been vaccinated for flu this year than in the year before. Uptake among NHS staff is at 59.3%, which is its highest ever level.
I say that because while the shadow Secretary of State tries to make the case that no preparations were made, the reality is that the NHS could not have been working harder to prepare for this winter. The result of those preparations is that A&E performance, having declined for six years in a row, last year stabilised for the first time, according to the latest verified data. In the week after Christmas, compared with the year before, we had fewer A&E diverts and more calls to NHS 111. Many Members have talked about trolley waits. It is totally unacceptable for people to be left on a trolley for a long time, but November’s figures, which are the latest verified figures, showed that the number of trolley waits had fallen by three quarters compared with the previous November, so a huge amount has been happening.
Paula Sherriff
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that patients being treated in cleaning cupboards and six patients in four-bed bays without lockers, curtains or call bells are signs of good preparation for the winter crisis?
Mr Hunt
That is completely unacceptable, but it is disappointing that the hon. Lady stands up and runs down the NHS when her own trust, which received £3.4 million before Christmas to help with winter, has managed to improve its performance: last November’s figure was 91.8% compared with 77.7% a year earlier. That is a huge achievement for Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust. Why will she not praise what is happening, rather than running the NHS down?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I support the leadership that the Secretary of State has offered during this winter crisis and the tone he has adopted in this debate. As a result, there is not the kind of crisis we have had in past years. Now that he has widened responsibilities for social care, will he help West Berkshire and Wokingham, which have had problems with past formulas and do not have enough money to take pressure off the hospital in the way he would like?
Mr Hunt
I will certainly revisit the issues in my right hon. Friend’s local authorities because I have looked at them before and know that there are particular pressures there. He alights on something else that the Opposition have not wanted to talk about, but which is very significant: the Prime Minister’s commitment to the integration of health and social care, which eluded the previous Labour Government over 13 years, despite their talking about it a lot. We are starting to see that happen in this country. Monday’s decision means that policy leadership will come back to the Department of Health, which will help us to make even faster progress.
Vicky Ford
I would like to take the Secretary of State back to his point about caring for people before they get to hospital and, in particular, issues to do with GPs. My local area has had difficulties recruiting GPs. It is vital that there is investment in increasing medical training for new doctors, so I plead with him to consider seriously the bid from Anglia Ruskin University to become the first medical school in Essex, where there is currently no pathway for our talented young people to train as doctors within the county.
Mr Hunt
I note my hon. Friend’s persuasive plea for her local university, Anglia Ruskin, but this is not a decision that I will be taking, because my own local university is also keen to offer more medical places. However, she is absolutely right to say that training the next generation of doctors and nurses is the long-term solution to these pressures.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Hunt
I will make progress and then take a final set of interventions.
The heart of the shadow Health Secretary’s case is that winter pressures are caused by political decisions, not operational issues. Let us put aside the difficult winters that Labour had in 1999, 2008 and 2009, but if he is to drag politics into this, he cannot first say that this is the fault of politicians in England and then totally gloss over the responsibility of politicians in Wales, which the Royal College of Emergency Medicine says is “a battlefield” where
“patient safety is being compromised daily”
and the situation
“is unsafe, undignified and distressing for patients and their family members.”
I simply ask the shadow Health Secretary this: if it is the Government’s fault that one in nine A&E patients waits too long here in England, whose fault is it that one in six does in Wales? Whose fault is it that people in Wales are nine times more likely to wait too long for test results?
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. On the Welsh NHS, he is absolutely right. Mr Speaker, I ask for your indulgence while I quote an A&E nurse in Wales, speaking last week: “On every shift, both corridors are full of patients on trolleys. We are housing ambulance crews for longer than ever, due to beds not being available in the hospital. Patients are being nursed in inappropriate areas due to no space. I have seen nurses in tears. I myself have been in tears. This is the first time that I have ever been demoralised and embarrassed to say that I am an A&E nurse in Wales.” That is in Wales, under Welsh Labour. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is pure hypocrisy coming from Labour Members, who should take notice of the mistakes being made in Wales?
Mr Hunt
I totally agree. This is the central flaw in the Labour party’s case. We know that winter is the most difficult time, but Labour says that there is political responsibility in one part of the UK while saying absolutely nothing about Wales. I notice that the shadow Health Secretary is looking down at his notes as we talk about Wales, but the reality is that that completely blows apart his case. According to the British Medical Association, there is one area in Wales where not a single doctor was available overnight, and the performance of one A&E has fallen to 40%, which is unheard of in England—or, indeed, Scotland.
However, there is a political decision, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned, that has a big impact on NHS winter performance: the number of doctors we train. Not once in my time as Health Secretary have I heard Labour call for an increase in training places. [Interruption.] No, I have not. The simple truth is that there is no point throwing money at a problem if there are not doctors and nurses available to spend the money on. While I have been Health Secretary, we have had 40,000 more doctors, nurses and other clinicians working in the NHS, but we need more. That is why, under this Prime Minister, we have announced the biggest increase in training places for doctors and nurses in the history of the NHS.
Several hon. Members rose—
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on facing down the Prime Minister on Monday, when what emerged was one man, two jobs, no governor. He must accept that the £6 billion in cuts to social care since 2010 has had a major impact, particularly on winter crises. Does he regret the Government’s decision to take that money out of social care?
Mr Hunt
In 2010, we faced the worst financial crisis since the second world war. The hon. Gentleman will know which Government were in charge when that happened. People were talking about a run on the pound—I notice that the Labour party continues to talk about that—and the crisis had to be addressed. We, like other countries, had to make significant reductions in public funding, but when we got the economy back on its feet and started creating jobs—1,000 jobs a day since 2010—the first place into which we put extra money was the NHS and the social care system. There is £600 million more in the social care system than there was two years ago.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Percy
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He knows of my interest in ambulance services. I was on duty for Yorkshire Ambulance Service as a responder this Christmas and new year, and will be again tomorrow night. When he talks about workforce planning, he rightly talks a lot about doctors and nurses. Will he say something about how our incredibly well-trained paramedics can be used better to relieve pressure in A&E and reduce delays there?
Mr Hunt
I thank my hon. Friend for his work as a first responder; that is a fantastic example in his community. We have 1,700 more paramedics than we did seven years ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right because the role of paramedics has changed dramatically over recent years. It used to be about scooping people up and taking them to hospitals; now, we are treating many more people on the spot. Paramedics have an extraordinarily important role, but it has changed. There is a changed emphasis, as in other parts of the NHS—a move towards doing as much as we can to treat people safely outside hospitals and to keep them at home, because we know that is the safest way.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Health Secretary for giving way. The simple fact is that if we want more care in the community, the Government have to stop slashing social care budgets. If we want to stop people appearing at hospital with preventable conditions, we need to stop cutting public health funding. The Government do not have an economic record to be proud of, but even looking at the public spending that is being made, we see that the Government are penny wise and pound foolish.
Mr Hunt
I am sorry, but 3 million additional jobs have been created, so we do have a strong economic record, and that is why we have increased funding for social care recently. We have increased NHS funding significantly. As for slashing funding, the hon. Gentleman’s local trust received £9.7 million before Christmas.
Mr Dunne
Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the issue of beds? As a result of the measures that he has taken in recent weeks, Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust in my area managed to release an extra 120 beds to help it to cope with the significant winter pressures that it faced. Does he agree that community hospitals such as my area’s Bridgnorth Community Hospital and Ludlow Community Hospital, which have community beds, have a role to play in releasing pressure on acute hospitals from patients who no longer need acute care?
Mr Hunt
I agree. I want to take this chance to thank my hon. Friend for being an absolutely superb Minister of State at the Department of Health. The fact that the NHS is better prepared this year than it has been for very many years is partly because of his efforts, and I commend him for his fantastic contribution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the calibre of local trust leadership can play a huge role? In Gloucestershire, new trust leadership has tackled serious internal financial failings head-on. As a result, A&E times have been slashed and turned around, which meant that A&E waiting targets were met in December. Does he agree that that shows what can be done with the right leadership?
Mr Hunt
It absolutely does, and no one campaigns more vigorously for his local trust than my hon. Friend. Just before Christmas, I visited his trust’s Gloucester site and met the management and staff. The situation there is extraordinarily impressive and a great inspiration to many parts of the NHS.
I finish on the issue of funding. The shadow Health Secretary has been using very strong language, but he has conveniently overlooked the fact that in the past four years, real-terms funding for the NHS has increased by £9.3 billion, which is £5.5 billion more than his party promised in 2015.
Mr Hunt
I will conclude, because a lot of hon. Members want to speak.
The shadow Health Secretary is right that there are real pressures, so what are the facts? We spend 9.9% of our GDP on health, which is 1% above the EU average, and about the same as the EU15—the western European countries—but we want to spend more, so in England, from 2011, funding went up by 15.6%. In Wales, Labour chose to increase funding by only 8%. This motion is about money. When it comes to NHS funding, Labour gives the speeches, but Conservatives give the cash.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Like others across the House, I thank all staff in all four UK systems, who, as the Secretary of State has said, have gone above and beyond the call of duty to focus on their patients, and I do not think any debate we have in here is intended to upset or insult any of them.
Before the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) perhaps leaves the Chamber, I want to thank him for his service as a Minister of State for Health, whom I often met across the Chamber, but I also want to correct a comment he made in answer to my question on Monday. He claimed that the number of patients waiting longer than 12 hours in A&E in England was half the level of that in Scotland.
Naturally, I would have expected the Minister to know all the stats and what they mean: in England data are only published for the percentage of patients who meet, or do not meet, the four-hour target. There is no publication of data on eight hours or 12 hours. The clock restarts for patients who require admissions, and that is defined as from the decision to admit until they get a bed and is known as trolley waits. So 48,000 patients waited over four hours on a trolley after their four-hour wait in A&E to get a bed, and the 109 he was referring to had waited over 12 hours on a trolley for a bed after the four or five hours they had waited in A&E. Therefore, it was utterly incorrect to compare that with the Scottish data, where we have a single clock from when the patient starts right through until they get to where they need to go. I simply want to clarify that while the hon. Gentleman is in the Chamber.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
I know that comparing England and Scotland is one of the pastimes that Scottish National party Members like to engage in—it is a fascination for them—but the reality is that in my constituency of Stirling, served by the excellent NHS Forth Valley in Larbert, only 57% of patients were seen within four hours in the last week of last year because we have a flu epidemic in Scotland, as they do in England, and that should be acknowledged.
Dr Whitford
If the hon. Gentleman gives me a little longer, he will find that I intend to talk about the flu epidemic, but before he gets too celebratory he might want to wait until tomorrow when we will have comparable data, because while in Scotland the data are published every week, in England they are published only every month. I am glad, however, that we no longer wait six weeks after the end of a month, which is 10 weeks after the start of it, but get it a fortnight later. So that will be available tomorrow, and then he can compare hospital trusts in England with hospitals in Scotland to his heart’s content. I would have thought that, as someone who celebrates the United Kingdom, he might want to praise the fact that Scotland has led the entire UK since March 2015 on emergency admissions and A&E.
Having corrected that, all of us recognise that this is a particularly tough winter because there has been an outbreak of flu on top of a bad freeze. I point out to those who think the worst is past that the flu season lasts until March and at the moment this is an outbreak, not an epidemic, but it comes on top of underlying pressures, and across the four nations this has involved staff having to go above and beyond the call of duty.
Whether it was how Public Health England said it or how the media reacted to it, this business of stating in public that the flu vaccination does not work is unfortunate and irresponsible. The flu vaccination recipe is planned by the World Health Organisation at the beginning of each year. It will already be working on next year’s flu. It does not have a crystal ball and people who have what we in the medical profession call a retrospectoscope should recognise that that tool was not available at the time when the decisions were made. Producing vaccine is a biological process that takes months, so the decision is made in March for the northern hemisphere, and all the companies produce to that recipe. Headlines in Scotland implying that the Scottish Government popped down to Boots and took the wrong vaccine off the shelf are therefore facile, and that also encourages people not to bother.
We already have falling vaccination rates in childhood vaccination and in flu. We should be pointing out that multiple flu viruses are circulating. While all the talk in the media is of Australian flu, in Scotland that is about a quarter of the strains that are circulating.
One of the issues with flu is that it happens in cold weather, and in Scotland we get the coldest weather in the United Kingdom, so we have double the rate of flu that there is down here in England. We also had a worse freeze, and are continuing to have a worse freeze. So when the data come out tomorrow, I think we will see that Scotland will still lead the UK. We will not be performing to the level we want. We have not met the 95% target for emergency departments since August, but England has not met them since 2015 and, sadly, Wales has not met them since 2008. So this is a challenge across the board, but Scotland has been more resilient. I call on all MPs to encourage staff and other people to get a flu vaccination, because this will continue until March and it is still absolutely worth doing.
The Secretary of State often talks as if the problems in A&E are due to people who should not be there. If we talk to anyone who works in A&E, they will say that, by and large, that is not the case. With people getting fractured ankles and fractured wrists on the ice, A&Es will have been very busy with having people carted in and X-rayed, and what we call in Scotland getting a stookie put on before they go home. That is all going to take time, but anyone who works in A&E would say that the key issue is frail, sick people, often with multiple conditions, and whether they fractured their hip falling on the ice or have a respiratory problem secondary to flu, they need a bed and the issue in England is that there are not enough beds.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
I work in A&E and spent some shifts in recess working in A&E—on new year’s eve and just a few days ago, on Sunday. I agree that many of the people attending A&E, particularly at St George’s where I work, are there because they are frail, but they are also there because this Government have ensured they cannot get an appointment with their GP, our social care is in crisis and we do not have mental health budgets.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.
Obviously, the shape of medicine has changed. More is delivered in primary care—as a surgeon, I well know that more surgeries are delivered in a day—but if we are doing a straightforward operation on an older patient, they will still always require longer rehabilitation; they are more likely to stay overnight or several days, and if they have fractured their hip, they will require full rehabilitation before they go home. The problem is that the number of beds in England has been halved since 1987—under successive Governments—and the NHS stats released for the end of the second quarter of 2017-18 show that almost 1,000 beds have been lost even since the winter of last year, when the situation was described as a humanitarian crisis. That was a mild winter that did not have a flu outbreak on top.
England has only 2.4 beds per 1,000 population, whereas the EU15 that the Secretary of State refers to has 3.7, and we in Scotland have more than four. If we are running constantly with bed occupancy rates of over 85% or 90%, that is where the issue lies.
Paula Sherriff
The hon. Lady refers to the decreasing number of available beds; does she agree that we have a bottleneck now in many hospitals due to the lack of social care? In one day over the festive period in my area, just over half of ambulance transfers were completed within the required period. The Secretary of State likes to quote statistics at me, but I would like to give him that one to think about.
Dr Whitford
There will obviously be lots of bandying around of figures, and talking about the four-hour target and the achievements and the numbers, and, as I have said, it serves as a thermometer to look at the entire system from the patient turning up at A&E to their going home. That is what this is a measure of, and it is there to flag up concern. While we will be getting that data, we do not need it; we have already seen ambulances 12-deep, and have already heard that 75,000 patients are stuck in ambulances for between half an hour and an hour, and 17,000 stuck for more than an hour. As was mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is no longer in his place, this means that those ambulances are not available to respond to other 999 calls, which endangers patients.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I think the hon. Lady for giving way, and I apologise if she was still answering the point made by the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff). I accept her point that many of those who are in A&E need to be in A&E, but the reality is that admissions to A&E have gone up 20% over the past 10 years to 6 million per year. Does she agree that more interventions could be made by GPs to prevent some of those admissions from being made and to allow people to be looked after in their own homes?
Dr Whitford
I am not 100% sure whether the hon. Gentleman meant attendances at A&E or admissions, which is what he said—
Dr Whitford
Attendances at A&E tend to be higher in the summer, when kids are on bikes and trampolines, and up trees. It is admissions that are higher in winter, when A&E is dominated by people who are sick. Of course we want primary care and the 111 system to work, so that people do not use A&E as a first port of call, but the problem comes when that all gets too complicated and patients cannot work out where they should go. That is when they go to A&E. It is important to make it really clear where they should go to address which problems.
Having seen the crisis last year, when there was no flu, snow or ice to blame, I believe that there are underlying structural problems. The target was met comfortably until 2013, when the Health and Social Care Act 2012 changes kicked in and NHS England started to become fragmented and to be based on competition instead of co-operation. I would welcome the establishment of a cross-party group here to work on this, so that we did not always have to have these debates, but it would have to look at the structure and unpick what has been done to NHS England in the past four and a half years. Carrying on breaking it apart will not provide a solution.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government’s plans to establish accountable care organisations, which will exacerbate the fragmentation in the NHS, through secondary legislation are completely wrong and will make the NHS crisis even worse?
Dr Whitford
I completely agree that establishing accountable care organisations only through secondary legislation is utterly wrong. We have had multiple debates about STPs, and I have said that going back to place-based planning is the right way to integrate and develop a local service, but there should not be a private company at the top making the decisions. There needs to be a publicly accountable body. There is going to be yet another big reorganisation in NHS England, and the proposed structure needs to be debated in this place, not behind closed doors. Yes, money is tight, with the NHS seeing rises of just over 1% a year in the past seven years compared with almost 4% in the past, but it is estimated that between £5 billion and £10 billion is being wasted in the healthcare market itself, through bidding, tendering and profits, and now through this habit of companies suing if they do not win a contract.
It is crucial to move back to developing services for a community. It is also crucial that health and social care should be integrated, and I welcome the combination of both titles in the Secretary of State’s role, if that means that we are going to work towards meaningful integration, but it must be done in a structured, responsible and legalistic way.
Chris Elmore
The Government spend an awful lot of time attacking the Welsh NHS. In terms of the Secretary of State’s new cordial attitude in not attacking any NHS services, will the hon. Lady join me in condemning former Prime Minister David Cameron’s comment that Offa’s Dyke was the line between life and death, depending on which country one lived in? Wales has an integrated health and social care service, which is also integrated with local government, with a £60 million fund having been established over the past five years. She referred to the cross-party working that could happen, particularly if the Government were willing to engage properly in these services rather than attacking the Scottish and Welsh Governments on NHS care. Does she agree that we could use such working to learn good practice?
Dr Whitford
The four health services are very different. In essence, we have four laboratories. NHS England is by far the largest, but they all face different as well as similar challenges. I am sure that if there were more discussion of how things have been done, there could be more lesson-learning in different directions.
In 2010, we were promised that there would be no more reorganisation. The same promise was made in 2015, but NHS England is now facing another reorganisation, in the STP system and in accountable care. It is crucial that the focus should be not on bottom-line, budget-centred care but on patient-centred care. It is wrong that any such changes should be introduced through secondary legislation. They must be introduced in this place—either through debate, in Committee, through convention or in a royal commission—to enable us to come up with a structure that will function. Since 2013, the deficits have gone up, the waiting time failures have gone up and the stress on staff has gone up, making it even harder to keep hold of people. Let us put the patient in the middle, but let us also support the staff who look after the patient.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution. I must advise the House that, on account of the large number of Members interested in contributing to the debate, there will be a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches with immediate effect.
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
It is good to be back after using the NHS’s maternity services.
I am proud of our NHS, and I am tired of Opposition Members talking it down. Our healthcare system is one of the best in the world, and while there is more to do, we should continue to improve our NHS with excitement for the opportunities ahead. We need to be honest about our current situation. We have an ageing and expanding population, and other strong-performing healthcare systems around the globe are facing the same pressures as we are. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on Taiwan, I was fortunate to see at first hand the excellent healthcare provision over there, yet Taiwan’s own Ministers shared with the delegation the fact that they are facing the same pressures as we are.
It is a wonderful thing that we are living longer. It is a credit to advances in medicine and evidence of the effectiveness of this Government’s care policies and the strong performance of our NHS. This Government began preparations for winter pressures earlier than ever before. They drew up plans to free up 2,000 to 3,000 beds, extended the flu vaccine programme and provided help to GPs to extend working hours. In my own area, the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust and the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust each received an extra £3.4 million for their winter preparations. As the director of acute care at NHS England has stated, the NHS is better prepared for winter than ever before. Furthermore, from 2015, the Government continued to increase investment in the NHS, from £101 billion in 2015 to £120 billion by 2020. It is simply false for the Opposition to claim that the health budget has been cut since 2010.
But this is not always about how money is invested; it is also about how it is used. During my university studies, in a dissertation focusing on economic and healthcare policy, I looked at investment per capita compared with healthcare outcome. There is a lot of waste in the NHS, but the Government’s strong record on tackling it has put us in a better position than ever before to tackle winter pressures. Cutting the use of expensive agency staff, the positive impact of NHS self-driven improvements and the consolidation of services are only some of the examples of areas in which excellent progress has been made in order to deliver better value for money for the taxpayer, to deliver results in the light of our ageing and expanding population, and to prepare us better for winter.
Having sat on the Health Committee, I am fully aware that there is still more to do, but I am strongly encouraged by the Government’s actions and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his additional responsibilities. Integrating health and social care makes sense, and it will only serve to better prepare the NHS for winter. I wish him much success with the important task ahead. I know that this is an area he is passionate about. GP working days and a seven-day NHS are only some of the areas in which work has begun, and this will ensure that the winter preparations get better and better. I join my right hon. Friend in urging those on the Opposition Benches to look at their own record in Labour-run Wales.
During the winter months of last year, I myself required the care and help of the NHS on a number of occasions. During my pregnancy I developed a temporary heart condition, and I have to say that the care was absolutely excellent. The Government’s investment in mental health provision for people having babies is also excellent. The NHS also saved my husband’s life when he had stage 4 cancer. I commend the Government for their work, and I wish my right hon. Friend every success in his new role.
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I want to talk about the situation at my local hospital, the Royal Stoke University Hospital. Winter crises there are hardly new, but they have escalated year on year, and our hospital features luridly in the national press each winter. It is often the most affected, and it is no coincidence that its funding deficit is England’s worst. This winter, however, is the first time that Royal Stoke consultants have taken to social media to apologise for 36-hour A&E waits, for corridors yet again jammed with the frail elderly on trolleys, and for what they now describe as third-world conditions.
The background is that of all the areas subject to the so-called sustainability and transformation plans, Staffordshire is the worst performing in the country. Before the 2015 general election, we exposed locally a funding deficit, prior to the STP, that would have reached £250 million a year by 2020. Since then, the issues have been exactly the same, but the figure for health and social care has now more than doubled. The Royal Stoke now accounts for over £100 million of it, having taken over the crisis-ridden Stafford Hospital, for which extra Government funding has now ended. The response so far has not been to invest in change, but to launch a scorched-earth policy. Community Hospitals have been closed, rehabilitation wards shut, drug and alcohol services axed, and lip service paid to the prioritising of mental health. The effect is most acutely felt at A&E and in admissions to Royal Stoke University Hospital, which is already brimming to capacity and struggling to discharge hundreds of patients because social services are also in crisis.
On 23 November, I attended a clinical commissioning group “Designing Your Future Local Health Services” consultation at Bradwell Hospital in Newcastle-under-Lyme. It is a hospital close to my heart. At the turn of the millennium, before I became an MP, I chaired our local “NHS Care for All” campaign, which saved Bradwell Hospital as a facility precisely to take pressure off the Royal Stoke. My father passed away there in 1997 and my mother, a former nurse, passed away there after a catastrophic stroke three years ago.
At the end of March last year, our local CCGs closed Bradwell Hospital, with Longton and Cheadle community hospitals have gone beforehand, and wards at Leek Moorlands Hospital have closed since then. I was not the only person at the November meeting to label the consultation a sham. I also said that I wished the meeting could have happened at the end of February this year instead, after the winter crisis, the flu and the norovirus had bitten, as they are doing now. The CCGs had tried to pull the plug on Bradwell in the autumn of 2016, but they had to keep it open for another six months to cope with last year’s winter crisis. As late as November, they were saying they had no plans to reopen the hospital, but there was an inevitable volte-face in December.
Lurching from crisis to crisis is no way to run and plan a health system, and it is not only MPs, campaigners, patients and their families who are saying that. Last year, working with local councillors, including Charlotte Atkins at Staffordshire County Council and the indefatigable Joan Bell at Stoke-on-Trent City Council, the reformed local “NHS Care for All” campaign, which is chaired by the energetic Councillor Allison Gardner from Newcastle-under-Lyme, succeeded in getting our hospital closures referred to the Secretary of State. The advice of his independent reconfiguration panel was published just before Christmas, and it was damning of the CCGs. The verdict was delivered to him on 18 October—well before the winter crisis—and we would have thought that he would have reacted, but just one week later the chief executive of two of our local CCGs was appointed to run all six Staffordshire CCGs. That is a reward for failure in our area. Things have to change. The Royal Stoke University Hospital has to be given more investment, because more cuts will simply mean that next winter’s crisis will be even worse.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Unfortunately, I had to rush a family member to hospital last Saturday afternoon at a time when my local GP surgery is no longer open, but that gave me a chance to see at first hand how the winter pressures are being dealt with, and I have some good news to share with the House.
Our local GPs came together this year and agreed to run an urgent care centre at the hospital with a doctor on duty 24/7. On arrival, we saw a notice in reception stating that the average waiting time was three and a half hours, so I settled down to see how it was all going to work. The absolute key to the smooth running of this healthcare frontline was triage. Calmly and efficiently, a doctor and nurse quickly assessed who needed to be seen by whom and where. People could either just turn up or they could ring 111. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) is right that things need to be that simple or people will just go to A&E. Sensibly, children and frail elderly patients were seen the quickest, so we were in and out of the hospital in an hour and a half, and we were even directed by the thoughtful GP to a pharmacy that was still open late at night. So I want to place on the record my thanks to the staff at Solihull Hospital and to our CGG, led by Dr Anand Chitnis, for their foresight in conceiving how to provide better emergency cover, and I commend the model to the House.
Today’s motion states that the Government have failed
“to allocate adequate resources to the NHS”.
However, investment in the NHS will increase from £101 billion in 2015 to £120 billion in 2020, which is £2 billion more than the NHS asked for in its own plan for the future. The question of how much money is needed is just as important as how it is spent. It is right to remember that we are not the only country with an ageing society that is facing such challenges. Not only do we spend more than the EU average, but new research shows that we spend more on healthcare than the average for OECD countries.
For all my 20 years as MP, Labour has claimed at every election that the Conservatives will privatise the NHS, but we have not. It is dishonest and misleads the public, worrying them unduly, and distorts the view of young people who do not yet have years of experience of Conservatives consistently putting more money into healthcare. I am therefore glad that the Prime Minister has given the Secretary of State the additional responsibility of social care, because every grown-up politician knows that we cannot sort out the problems of the NHS without also working out how to get people out of hospital in a timely fashion and into proper support in the community. Our attempts to tackle that funding issue were discredited at the general election when our policy was characterised as a dementia tax, which shows that no party will crack the problem on its own without cross-party determination. I therefore challenge the Labour party to give up the vote-harvesting approach to the NHS and to support a royal commission on health and social care for the sake of everyone who needs it.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Time is short and many hon. Members want to speak in this important debate, so I will get straight to my points. There is no doubt that the recent winter crisis is the result of the Government’s chronic underfunding of our health service. I know it, Opposition Members know it and, most importantly, the public know it. Even the Government know that the crisis is down to the underfunding that has happened while they have been in power, so why are they doing nothing serious about it? The answer is similar to what they are doing with local government funding: they are doing nothing because they just want to push their ideological agenda of privatisation.
The Government know that hospitals must still provide services, and hospitals are forced to put many contracts out to tender under the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The Government know that, willing or not, hospitals will eventually have to turn to private companies that can provide services to the NHS at cut-rate prices. One example of that back-door privatisation is currently happening at hospitals serving my constituents. Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has been forced by Government-imposed budget restraints into planning to set up a private company to provide services that are vital to the people of Bradford, and that private company will actively seek to make a profit. Just let that sink in for a moment—hospitals are setting up private companies with the intention of making a profit for the hospital. That is how bad it has become, with hospitals needing to supplement their funding through whatever means possible. It is a slippery slope from here towards ever increasing privatisation and private company involvement in the NHS. Hospital trusts are services, but this Government are turning them into businesses.
Privatisation will not save the NHS from the ruin that the Government have eagerly forced upon it. The only way that private companies will be able to offer cut-rate prices is by cutting the employment rights of staff and cutting corners. That will not prevent another winter crisis; it will only encourage one, with private companies putting the safety of health services at risk. I am very concerned that the private company being established in Bradford will put safety at risk by lowering the rigorous hygiene standards, by cutting cleaners and slashing cleaners’ hours. Healthcare services should be provided by the best operator, which in almost all cases is the NHS itself, not the lowest bidder.
The Government need to recognise that the public will not thank them for privatising the NHS, because that will not solve the crisis in our NHS—only proper funding at the level the NHS says it needs will do that. We have to ask whether the Government want to be thanked by the public and their plans for the NHS are in the best interests of the public, or whether they want to be thanked by big business and their plans are in the best interest of big business. This crisis makes it clear to me which one it is.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain).
It is depressing to hear the Opposition laying into the NHS, which is an extraordinary group of real people working day in, day out to look after all our constituents when their health needs to be supported and mended. I commend all the staff across Northumberland’s healthcare family who have worked so hard not only over the past few weeks but 365 days a year to look after all of my constituents.
Much can be achieved through good planning to pre-empt the winter health crisis, as it is known, and the increased impacts that winter brings. I have an unfair advantage in Northumberland because Northumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust has been led and built into what it is now under the great auspices of Jim Mackey, whom we lent to NHS Improvement for a couple of years to try to share such skills across the whole NHS. It is lovely for us to have him back, so I thank Ministers for sending him back up to Northumberland.
As a result of 15 years of intelligent planning by senior leadership, we have had no blanket cancellations in Northumberland, and we have an unchanged schedule except only for specific cases. No clinically time-sensitive operations will be cancelled, and most operations are carrying on as normal. In November, the trust decided to transfer one surgical ward to general medicine to ensure greater capacity—thinking ahead to the regular changes that winter weather tends to bring.
We have almost no delayed transfer of care in Northumberland, thanks to the sophisticated planning set in motion by Jim Mackey and his team some years ago, working directly with Northumberland County Council so that our social care and our healthcare work hand in glove. It works, and we are doing it in Northumberland. I urge every MP to encourage their councils to build that relationship, because it genuinely works. I also continue to encourage the Government to make sure our accountable care organisation is one of the first to be signed and sealed so that our holistic healthcare family works for patients.
Flu hit the north-east first, but we are functioning and coping well. Our statistics are good, with bed occupancy at 91%, and yesterday we met our A&E waiting time targets in 95% of cases. Our nursing vacancies are at a historic low of only 1%, again thanks to planning and a positive recruitment campaign in specific staff group areas where we knew there would be shortages. As a result, our nursing agency usage in Northumberland is very low.
Nothing is ever perfect, so I continue to raise the thorny local issue of community hospitals, where our bed provision is currently lower than it should be. Increased provision would help to relieve pressures caused by delayed transfers of care by ensuring that there is support for those who have a level of vulnerability and who cannot, or should not, go home straight from the acute hospital environment. In a rural patch, community nurses cannot practically provide such support in the way that it could be provided in an urban environment. Community nurses just cannot get to as many places in a day when they have to travel miles and miles between patients. The community hospital framework must be part of the new bigger social care model.
I thank both the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary for fighting to bring healthcare and social care together in one place, because that will start to do what we already see in Northumberland. I would like every MP to be able to tell the same positive story in the months and years ahead.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Here we are again discussing the latest winter crisis in our NHS. I stood here last year and spoke of the horror stories I had heard from my constituents and ex-colleagues of hospital staff working their fingers to the bone and doing the jobs of two, three or even four people, often without food, breaks or even time to go to the toilet. Yet, 12 months on, here we are again with many of the same challenges and none of the fixes promised by this Government.
I join my parliamentary colleagues in expressing a huge thank you to each and every one of our hard-working NHS staff—doctors, nurses, receptionists, cleaners, porters, radiographers and everyone else. I often speak of our public sector heroes, and today is no different. Thank you from the bottom of my heart.
I express a special thank you to the paramedics who rushed my father, my dear dad, into hospital on 28 December. My gratitude is infinite.
Last year, the Government said the winter pressure was due to more patients being seen by the NHS. That figure is rising year on year, so why have the Government not put sufficient resources in place to deal with it? The Health Secretary previously said there are far more doctors and nurses in our NHS than there were seven years ago. In my area, the Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust currently has 230 nursing vacancies, compared with 110 last year, with nursing numbers across the trust down over the same period from 1,752 to 1,607. That picture is somewhat different from the one painted by the Secretary of State, who has used figures that the Library says should be “used with caution” as suggesting
“Changes in the number of staff can sometimes reflect organisational changes and changes in the structure of services, rather than genuine changes in staffing levels.”
Indeed, staffing levels are so low at Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust that the Care Quality Commission has deemed it to be a risk to patient safety.
My colleagues and I were heavily criticised during last year’s debate for asking the Government to spend more money, and once again we hear the same criticism this year. Will they tell us what the solution actually is? We need more nurses, and obviously there are training implications, but more money is needed to pay for them, and it is the same with doctors. There needs to be less bed-blocking, and more money is needed in social care. It is only right that serious questions are asked in this House when the Budget gives more money to pay for Brexit than to pay for our NHS.
The sad reality is that NHS deficits are rising astronomically across the country, with multimillion-pound shortfalls being recorded and balancing the books becoming impossible for most trusts. The £350 million made available in the Budget is no more than a drop in the ocean, and it has been proved over and again over the past few weeks that the money does not even scratch the surface.
And what of the cost of cancelled operations, both to trusts and especially to patients? People are being left in tremendous pain and at significant risk as a result of cancellations. I know of one man who is waiting for an operation to close his skull following life-saving brain surgery earlier this year. The surgery itself is not classed as urgent, but until it is completed, he is at increased risk of death should he bang his head accidentally. As a result, he rarely leaves the house and has to wear a helmet at all times. Another person who contacted me is waiting for a new knee. He is in excruciating pain and is unable to move around unaided. He has been on sick leave for three months and is suffering severe financial hardship as a result of loss of earnings.
As well as the accounts of cancelled operations, in recent days I have heard stories from local hospitals of six patients being squeezed into four-bed bays with no curtains and no dignity, no lockers and no bells. Patients are being given hand bells or are told to ask the patient next to them to ring the bell should there be an emergency. Patients are being placed in store cupboards, as we heard earlier. It has now become almost the norm at this time of year—
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Like many Members, I wish to start by paying tribute to our primary care staff—the GPs, practice nurses, receptionists, community staff and district nurses; all those working in acute trusts in my local hospitals; mental health staff; social care workers; ambulance staff; and of course the volunteers, to whom we owe so much. They are a team, and any part of the NHS is weaker if one part is weaker, which is why I hugely welcome the change in the Secretary of State’s title, whereby we now have Department of Health and Social Care. That is a long overdue move, but we should all welcome it.
At my local Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, the increase in activity in recent years has been phenomenal: 83,000 more people were seen in under four hours in A&E in 2016-17 than in 2009-10; and 17,000 more operations and 46,000 more diagnostic tests were carried out in 2016-17 than in 2009-10. I pay tribute to the enormous amount of work. There are 166 more hospital doctors and 224 more nurses there now than in 2010. All that is welcome, as was the £1.116 million of extra winter pressure money put in.
I have spoken to the director of operations at the hospital this morning, and she told me that it was the busiest new year we have seen in a long time and that this situation had started two days before new year and gone on until this weekend. She said things have returned to a more normal basis now and, although there are a number of contingency beds open there, things are nothing like they were over the new year period. I pay tribute to the extraordinary way in which they coped with very difficult circumstances.
I received a letter on Monday from the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust, which said that on an average day it receives 3,000 calls but that on new year’s day, it received 4,800 calls. I defy any ambulance trust in the country to be able to cope with that significantly increased number of calls adequately. Indeed, I understand that on the days before and after the number of calls was also topping 4,000 a day. Our constituents want us to tell it as it is, and I received an email from a practice manager in one of my local surgeries saying that on 4 January there was a six-hour wait for a blue light ambulance. Just as the Prime Minister apologised, I would absolutely want to say, as a Member of Parliament, that I am not satisfied with that situation and we have to try to do better, notwithstanding the heroic efforts made.
We have committed to train 25% more doctors and 25% more nurses, and I hugely welcome the new nursing associates and nursing apprentices. What are we going to do, however, to put the NHS on more of an even keel? Let me briefly suggest six areas where we can make progress: first, it is unacceptable that nearly 10% of NHS England’s budget goes on type 2 diabetes; progress on tackling obesity is vital; more progress on the Getting It Right First Time scheme, which is saving billions for the NHS, will help; I make a further plea to the Treasury to make sure that we stop GPs leaving—those on the old pension scheme are disfavoured by the tax treatment; and we have to drive through the sustainability and transformation partnerships to really integrate health and social care.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have worked in the NHS since 1996, as a doctor, in hospitals, as a GP and as a commissioner of services, and I must say that it feels as though we are going back to the ’90s at the moment, with long waiting times. Even before this unprecedented decision to suspend operations for a month, we were already breaching 18-week targets in many trusts. From a patient point of view, it feels as though the standards are deteriorating, particularly in my constituency, with the difficulty people face in accessing an ambulance when they need it.
I wish to share two insights into the problem and two potential solutions. My first insight is that, no matter what Ministers say, some of this is about the money. We have seen an anaemic level of growth in NHS funding in the past eight years. As we have heard from others in this debate, we have also seen cuts to social care funding and to public health budgets. We have also had a long-standing underinvestment in prevention, general practice and out-of-hospital care, although I appreciate that that is being reversed now. The money that came in the Budget was too little, too late. It is hard for commissioners and providers to spend that money when they get it at the last minute, because they have to get people to come in to do the work to spend that money. Had the money come earlier, we would have been able to put in place much better contingencies.
As well as this situation being about money, it is also about having the wrong strategy. There has been planning for reactive services, but at the same time we have been cutting prevention. We have been doing planning for healthcare services, but not enough planning for social care services. We have also been planning by giving this emergency injection of cash to acute hospital services, but while we have been cutting, prioritising and fragmenting community services. We have seen 5,000 fewer community nurses and a 45% reduction in the number of district nurses since 2010.
What do I suggest should happen now? We need to change the strategy. We cannot just respond by providing more and more acute hospital beds. We need to focus on prevention; on having good-quality community services, community nursing, social care; on having better palliative care, because most people want to be able to die in their own home, not in hospital; and on having more emphasis on screening. We also need to focus on poverty reduction and tackling deprivation, as people living in poverty are much less likely to access prevention and much more likely to be acutely admitted to hospital. I include in that people with mental health problems—the most vulnerable people.
Integration is the right direction of travel, but we have to change some things about how it is being achieved, the first of which is the name. Calling these organisations “accountable care organisations” lends people to think that this is an idea captured from the United States. We might call them “public health boards”—something that puts the needs of populations at the centre of healthcare and of healthcare planning. We need to make sure that the leadership teams of these organisations are focused on out-of-hospital care and not on just providing more and more acute hospital services.
There is also a fundamental contradiction to address, because we still have section 75 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which mandates competition, yet we are trying to get organisations to collaborate.
So it does not have to be like this—it is not inevitable. Huge praise must go to the staff, and I myself have done shifts over the short recess. With the right type of investment, the right preventive strategy and proper collaboration, uninhibited by competition, we can do better.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), who qualified in 1996. I have about 10 years on him, and since 1984 I cannot recall a winter when there was not talk of pressure. We have to understand that this is not a new phenomenon. I particularly recall the bad winter of 2009, and the very positive way in which the then Opposition approached it and helped the then Government, in the interests of not politicising and not weaponising this issue. It is pity we have not seen the same thing repeated.
We need to give due credit to managers in the NHS. They come in for a lot of flak all the time, but we have seen a managed process this year and it has taken a great deal of input to make sure we do the best we can to disadvantage patients the least; I pay tribute to that much-maligned group. The only way in which I can see we can make this better is by running a lower bed occupancy rate, which is okay, but has opportunity costs attendant upon it. The reality of doing such a thing, which would avoid the sort of cancellations we have seen this winter, as in any winter, is severe, and I do not think many right hon. or hon. Members would wish to see those things.
That brings me on to the Commonwealth Fund, which was rightly cited by the Prime Minister earlier in response to my question in Prime Minister’s questions. She was right to say that on access, equity, the care process and administrative efficiency—four of the five points the Commonwealth Fund looks at—the NHS does very well. The problem is with the last one, which is clinical outcomes, where we run 10th out of 11, with the 11th being the United States of America, which nobody here wishes to emulate. We do not do well on clinical outcomes—we do not do well on cancer, on stroke or on heart attack—and we need to do something about it. It is no good citing OECD averages. We need to be comparing ourselves with Denmark, Germany, France and the Netherlands, not with the basket of countries included in the OECD.
Where does all that lead us? It leads us to a debate about resources. Having talked about management, which is vital, we need to address long-term resources. I entirely support those who wish planning to be done on a 10-year rather than five-year basis. That is vital, and we must also ensure that we have the necessary funding for the improvements we need to achieve to get outcomes up to the level enjoyed by our peer-group nations in western Europe, not the basket of nations with which we are often erroneously compared. How do we do that? We have to take the public with us and work across party boundaries. None of the decisions that will ultimately be made about the future of our national health service in this, its 70th anniversary year, are necessarily going to be easy. It is important that we at least try to get some level of cross-party consensus. We can do that by establishing a body that is above politics. The route to which I am drawn is the establishment of a royal commission, with all its problems.
The Merrison commission was the last big royal commission that considered matters to do with the health service. It came in for a lot of criticism, but most of its recommendations, made 40 years ago, were ultimately rolled out into Government policy. With the right terms of reference, such a body would be effective. That seems to me to be the right and proper way to deal with the future, particularly the sustainable funding future of our most treasured of national institutions. I very much hope that my Front-Bench colleagues will listen to those of us from all parties—particularly the recommendation from the Centre for Policy Studies this week—who think we should set up a royal commission in this 70th anniversary year to consider the future of our national health service.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).
As a nurse who has worked in the NHS for more than 40 years, I know too well the effects of the winter crisis. Yes, winter is the time when the NHS faces pressures, but the Government have claimed that they were better prepared for this winter crisis, with their national medical director explaining that they had been preparing since last winter. How can that be true when the Government announced that they would postpone non-urgent operations? Not only does that put patients’ physical and mental health at risk, but it creates a backlog of operations, which NHS staff will still have to catch up on.
Unison spoke out about the handling of the NHS only in February last year. It also highlighted the Government’s promise in their manifesto to properly fund the NHS. In their 2017 manifesto, the Government pledged to give the NHS the resources it needs. In the autumn, they also pledged that the NHS would receive an additional £377 million to ease winter pressures, but they failed to disclose the fact that although they are providing funding, they are undercutting that by asking the NHS to make savings in some areas.
Where has the funding the Government provided to ease winter pressures gone? The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust provides services to the hospitals in Wolverhampton that care for patients in my constituency. Hospital staff have been working under increasing pressure, because for more than half the days between 20 November and 31 December last year, bed occupancy in the Wolverhampton trust was above 90%. Over the same period, one in six ambulance handovers were delayed for more than 30 minutes. This would not be happening if, as the Government claim, the NHS was well prepared.
There has been widespread outrage over this winter crisis, but NHS staff have been highlighting the pressures on the NHS throughout the year, and for many years. We have campaigned, met the Minister, written articles and held protests about the Government’s treatment of the NHS and the underfunding over the past seven years. When will the Government face the fact that the funding they have provided is simply not enough?
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I do not want to go through the increase in the number of operations carried out by the NHS, or to describe the enormous pressure of the numbers of people being seen by the NHS—plenty of other Members have already done that. I wish to concentrate on delayed discharges of care, which are an important factor not only when it comes to increasing the throughput of people in the health system, but in ensuring that people do not go into hospital in the first place.
In Oxfordshire, we have addressed delayed discharges of care in two ways, as part of our future planning for the NHS. First, with respect to the hospital in the town of Henley, I have been among those who have been active in trying to achieve the right balance with social care by ensuring that there are no beds in the hospital. There are beds in the neighbouring care home for those people who urgently need to stay, but all the emphasis is on ambulatory care—the treatment of patients in their own home—on which I have worked closely with the Royal College of Physicians. More and more patients now understand that they can get the right sort of treatment in their own homes and do not have to spend time in hospital. The approach has been taken on the best of medical advice and I am grateful to the doctors who have supported it. I invite Ministers to come to see for themselves how the hospital works.
Secondly, we do cross-party work in the county involving all MPs who represent Oxfordshire. I chair the group that has a relationship with the clinical commissioning group, not so much to hold it to account, but to ensure that it is focused on the things on which it says it will focus. One of the CCG’s great achievements is its focus on delayed discharges of care. I shall cite a couple of the figures so that Members will understand the CCG’s enormous achievement over the past year in planning for the better treatment of delayed discharges of care. At the end of December, the number of Oxfordshire patients whose discharge of care was delayed was 96, whereas the number in May had been 181. That is a magnificent achievement, as the number of delayed discharges of care has been almost halved. When Ministers hear about that half, they should understand that it is not a half increase but a half decrease in the number of people whose discharge of care was delayed. That improvement has been achieved by making sure that the right resources are in place for those patients who need them to return home. It has not happened because people are going home without the support that they need.
Finally, on the story in The Times this morning about Churchill Hospital, I have with me a letter from the hospital saying it has not implemented any changes to cancer treatment whatsoever. I am happy to provide a copy of that letter to the Library so that Members can read it.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow that thorough speech by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell).
On Monday, I asked the then Minister of State, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), what the Government were doing about the crisis in the ambulance service. He responded by saying that a new ambulance response programme has been introduced to try to deal with category 1 calls more rapidly. The reality is that two months after so-called improvements were put in place in the north-east, an elderly constituency of mine who collapsed in his own home on new year’s day had to wait 14 hours for an ambulance.
Last week, in the intensive care unit at the University Hospital of North Tees in Stockton, two people died from influenza on the same day. One of them was a constituent of mine. On new year’s eve, I attended the urgent care centre at the University Hospital of Hartlepool and then the ambulatory care unit at Stockton with my son. The car parks were crammed full, the sick were presenting themselves thick and fast, and the ambulances were once again backed up. When will the Government admit that this is not just a winter crisis, but a crisis in our NHS full stop—a crisis of their own making?
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
I am really pleased to be able to contribute to the debate. Although the Opposition have, as expected, used this occasion yet again to weaponise our NHS, I want to take this opportunity to praise it and all those who work in it, particularly in my constituency, where the staff at Southport Hospital are professional, dedicated and hard working.
There will always be times when our NHS comes under great pressures, and winter is one of them. That was why, in 2017, the Government and the NHS began preparing for the winter earlier than ever before. Last autumn, the Secretary of State visited my local hospital. He had a meeting with me and the interim chief executive in which we talked through the plans that had been put in place for the coming winter, as well as paying tribute to excellent staff who had worked so hard and continue to do so. Those preparations involved working with a range of partner organisations, including the local clinical commissioning group, the local authority and the emergency services, which provided better joined-up thinking and better care for patients.
Although the deferment of elective operations is never ideal, fewer were deferred this winter than in previous years, which should surely be welcomed. I am certain that the situation will further improve over the coming years. It is important to remember that we have a record of continuous investment in the NHS, even though we have been faced with extraordinarily difficult economic circumstances. The Department of Health’s budget has been protected since 2010 and continues to rise. We can spend more on the NHS only when we have a strong economy, which is something that we clearly would not have under Labour. The numbers speak for themselves: our investment in the NHS will rise from £101 billion in 2015 to £120 billion by 2020. Research from the Nuffield Trust shows that the UK spends well above the EU average.
I must welcome the Government’s multimillion-pound investment in Southport District Hospital over this winter. I was delighted when Southport and Ormskirk Hospital NHS Trust was granted an additional £1.326 million in funding to help to cope with winter pressures. Southport Hospital and the wider health system has prepared earlier and more extensively than ever before for winter this year, with a focus on securing the right numbers of doctors and nurses and increasing bed availability, as well as making sure that there is strong social and community care support available to help to discharge patients from hospital quickly.
The extra funding was announced as part of a £337 million immediate funding boost for NHS hospitals this winter in the recent Budget, which is in addition to the extra £2.8 billion of investment over the next two years. This was, of course, welcome news for Southport patients and residents. We all want to know that the NHS is there for us and our families whenever we need it. I am pleased that the Government have given the NHS extra support at this critical time of year, when cold weather and flu can increase pressures on hard-working hospital staff.
One of my constituents recently contacted me to tell me about the excellent treatment that his elderly mother had received at Southport Hospital over the Christmas period, after she suffered a serious health scare. His mother and his family were unanimous in their praise for the paramedics who brought her to hospital, the nurses who treated her with unparalleled kindness, and the doctors who sought to get her back to full health as soon as they possibly could. His mother said of her treatment that
“we couldn’t have asked for more.”
It is my absolute pleasure to put on record their sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, whose brief now includes social care. I am sure that he will make a success of that job as he has done in health.
It is ultimately thanks to our strong economy that we can make this extra investment in the NHS. Polls show that the NHS is the institution that makes us most proud—
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I am afraid that too much of what we have heard from Ministers and some Government Members has tried to pass off the pressures that we are seeing in the NHS as just what happens every year. I have worked with the NHS for around 20 years, and let me tell Members that those pressures are not what we see every year. Cancelling operations for a whole month is extremely serious. In one week alone, 300 operations were cancelled in Leicester, including for patients such as 80-year-old Kenneth Roberts, who was due to have his hip operation tomorrow. He is in so much pain that he is on liquid morphine and has to use crutches or a wheelchair to get about, and his wife, Jenny, is physically and mentally exhausted, too.
One of the real problems is the absence of any acknowledgement from Ministers of the huge knock-on effect that rescheduling a whole month’s operations will have. It will simply mean that existing patients who are already on the waiting list will have to wait even longer, too, and it will be very, very difficult to bring that list back down. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) said, a number of Labour Members have a terrible sense of déjà vu. We remember the 1990s, with ambulances queuing up outside A&E and millions of patients left languishing on waiting lists. I also remember the predictable cries from some right-wing commentators that the NHS’s time was up and that it could no longer survive as a service free at the point of use. I am afraid that we will see that coming back again all too soon.
The truth is that we are not dealing with the long-term underlying demands on health and care services—our ageing population, and more people living with one, two or more chronic conditions who desperately need more preventive services in the community—and huge technical advances. Yes, the Government talk about that, but they do not understand the scale of the challenges or the response that is required. The truth is that, since 2010, the NHS has had an average annual real-terms increase of 1%. That figure compares with 3.5% historically and 5.5% under the previous Labour Government. On top of that, we have had huge cuts to social care, and the dreadful, wasteful, pointless Lansley reorganisation, which has given reform a bad name. Unless the Government change course, we will see increased rationing as patients are waiting in the NHS, leaving thousands in pain and distress, and increased rationing as a result of eligibility criteria in social care, leaving millions of older and disabled people without any support at all. That is not what the people of this country want.
The Government need to put in place a bold 10-year strategy of investment and reform for both the NHS and social care. They should drop the idea of a separate social care Green Paper—we cannot look at the two separately—and they should heed calls from 90 Back Benchers for a cross-party convention. I am worried about the idea of a royal commission, as that would take too long. We know the options for investment and reform, so we need to get on with the job. I suggest a shorter process of six to eight months to try to get cross-party agreement, particularly on funding for social care, because any party that comes up with a substantial proposal risks being obliterated by its opponents, and we need a proposal for funding that will last whichever Government are in power. In the 70th anniversary of the NHS, I urge the Government to act.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I regret that Opposition Members have continued to politicise this issue. I speak as someone who has worked in the health service for more than 20 years. I worked in A&E under the previous Labour Government and coped with the winter pressures—when there were ambulances queuing round the block, when major incidents were declared because we could not take in any more patients, and when patients were cared for in corridors, including cupboards, and left lying on floors on makeshift mattresses. To continue to blame one Government or the other does nothing for patients or staff. If we continue down that route, we will be here not just next year or the year after, but in five, 10 or 15 years’ time.
This is not just about throwing money at the problem. We have heard today that Wales gets 8% more funding per person than the rest of the UK, yet it is also facing pressures this winter. Hospitals there are also cancelling operations and appointments, so this is clearly about not just funding, but what is done with the money.
I pay tribute to my local health service. In a debate at this time last year, I asked why the two trusts in my constituency were not coping when a neighbouring trust in Worthing was able to cope with virtually all its patients. A year later, after the imposition of special measures, after the CQC put in extra resources, and after a new management team were put in place, I am proud that both my local hospitals have coped with not just a 6% increase during non-winter periods, but an 11% increase in the number of patients not just visiting A&E but being admitted to A&E. They have not had to cancel hospital appointments, they have not had patients waiting in corridors and they have not had ambulances queueing round the block.
That tells me that this is not just about how much money people put into the service; it is about what they do with that money. Let us look briefly at what my local trust has done to stop the crisis which seems to have happened in other parts of the country. NHS staff, including doctors, nurses, porters and ambulance staff, have worked tirelessly throughout, and I pay tribute to them. It is also about the management, and the new management teams in Eastbourne and Brighton have done tremendously well to turn those services around.
It is also about better planning. My local community health trust has seen a 38% reduction in delayed discharges, so going into the winter period, it had an occupancy rate of about 84% in acute hospitals. That was achieved by working together with community services. A major Government or departmental reorganisation is not needed; change can be achieved by working locally, which is what the trust is doing.
This is also about working with social services on social care. Opening up 40 community beds in Newhaven has taken a huge amount of pressure off local hospitals, and both my trusts say that the emergency money provided this winter—nearly £2 million to each hospital trust—has enabled them to keep those beds open. It has enabled patients to be admitted to the acute centre for treatment, and then moved to the community hospital and be discharged safely and securely.
We need to look at capacity. If there is going to be an 11% increase year on year in the number of patients coming through the door, the solution is not just providing more money; it is about looking at the service and how it is delivered. My local trusts have done it, and there is no reason why that cannot happen in the rest of the country. Once again, I pay huge tribute to Brighton and Eastbourne Hospitals.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
The crisis in the national health service this winter is real, and patients and NHS staff are feeling its effects. Thousands of operations have been cancelled, and ambulance crews and patients are waiting in A&E. On one day at Arrowe Park Hospital in my constituency, 26 ambulances, with patients and paramedics, were forced to wait more than an hour just to hand over patients. For 21 days in the period between 20 November and 31 December, we had a bed occupancy rate of over 99%, which is not safe or acceptable. Nineteen per cent. of ambulances that arrived had their handover delayed for over 30 minutes in that period, and 8% were delayed for more than an hour. We have heard of the terrible ordeals suffered throughout the country by patients and NHS staff stretched to the limit. Cancer operations have been cancelled and less serious elective surgery has been postponed until the end of January.
It is estimated that 55,000 operations will be delayed, but there is another crisis in the NHS this winter that deserves parliamentary attention: the Government’s plan to make regulatory changes to facilitate the introduction of accountable care organisations. The Government have failed to provide any time for parliamentary scrutiny of that plan on the Floor of the House. Accountable care organisations and accountable care systems are ideas that have been imported from America. In the US, Government and private insurers award large contracts to commercial bodies to run and provide services. We all know the horror stories of how expensive healthcare is in the US and how people with complex conditions find it difficult to obtain insurance. We hear stories of people with cancer who are forced to sell their home to pay for care. Those horror stories are real, so we all have a responsibility to guard against any introduction of private health insurance models in the UK, which is why we must scrutinise ACOs.
ACOs bring together health and social care so that there is a single finite budget to provide for a specific population. Once that budget has been spent, there is no extra money. ACOs are being developed for delivery in 44 STP areas rather than the country as a whole. It follows that if there is an increase in demand for healthcare in one of those areas—because of an epidemic or a serious accident, for example—the money that is taken out for that squeezes the rest of the system for health and social care.
A great strength of the NHS is that it provides a large risk pool for everyone in England so that they can be supported. Why would a Government who are committed to a national health service choose to replace a large risk pool with 44 little risk pools? It does not make any sense. At the heart of the issue is the serious fact that ACOs are non-NHS entities, so we need clarity from the Secretary of State. We need him to answer serious questions on the Floor of the House. Will ACOs be private companies? It seems logical that they might be, given that the idea has come from America and the Secretary of State considers that the American healthcare company, Kaiser Permanente, provides one of the best examples of practice in integrated care.
If ACOs are allowed to operate, they will be given multi-billion-pound health and social care budgets for 10 years or more. They will blur the boundaries between health and social care, and there is real concern that there will be an increase in the types of things for which people will be asked to pay. An ACO, once established, would have control of a huge budget for an area’s entire health and social care needs, so it would have a huge amount of power to determine what it does and, crucially, what it does not commission.
I have received a lot of correspondence from constituents who are very concerned that the introduction of ACOs is yet another major step towards the wholesale privatisation of the national health service. They have expressed real concern that ACOs could be a means to introduce private health insurance models area by area. That could not be done on a national basis because it would be politically unacceptable. Let us have no more talk about taking the politics out of the NHS. The NHS is a political entity. People need to take responsibility for their decisions around the Health and Social Care Act 2012.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
May I begin by disagreeing profoundly with the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood)? As a health professional and as a doctor who has worked in the health service for 15 to 20 years, spending more than two hours listening to Opposition Members putting negative after negative on the NHS has been profoundly taxing, and it has been hard for me to remain in my seat.
I worked in the NHS in A&E in the Christmas and new year period. Yes, I saw people waiting much longer than we would like. I also saw a seriously injured child who came in and received the very best treatment. People and equipment were available, and all the necessary hospital staff were available for his treatment. At times there were a dozen people around his bed, and I am pleased that we could give him the treatment that he needed to survive. We need to get away from always picking out the negative points. We must remember that more people are being treated and survive, and that they are real, genuine people who go on to live long, healthy lives and are really pleased with the NHS treatment that they receive from people such as me and the millions of NHS staff working over Christmas and on new year’s day.
We have heard a lot of negatives from the Opposition, but we should look at what we can do to improve. I did not hear anything from the shadow Secretary of State about what he was going to do to make things better if he was in charge.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I will not take much time, but I have some suggestions. It is the over-75s who are mainly going to A&E. They are more unwell than they used to be. Why do we not get volunteers with medical experience to phone up people on every GP list and make sure that the over-75s are okay? They could urge them to turn up at the GP as soon as they become unwell, and not to wait until they reach a state in which they need intravenous drugs and have to go to A&E.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but I fear that she is mistaken because the people most likely to attend A&E are the under-19s. The over-65s represent about 20% of attendances at A&E but, following their attendance, the vast majority require admission to hospital, so they are in a slightly different category.
Those who are awaiting admission after they have been seen are the group who are waiting on the trolleys in A&E. People are waiting for those patients to be moved on to the wards so that the ambulances can be freed up and those patients treated. I have a solution to suggest, about which I met the Secretary of State earlier this week following my work in A&E over the winter period, when I observed ambulance crew waiting next to trolleys with their patients. They could not leave until they had properly handed over their patients.
It is really important that patients’ care is handed over properly, but equally we need those ambulances back out on the streets to collect the patients who are waiting at home. We could do much better if we cohorted the patients. For example, if three ambulances came in with six ambulance crew members on board, one ambulance crew could look after the patients while the other two went back out to see more patients. It is not all about money; some of it is about the inventive use of staff to create safe and efficient protocols.
I want finally to talk about the postponement of operations, which is very upsetting when someone has waited a long time for an operation and psyched themselves up for the pain and distress they know they will experience, and they may be nervous and fearful.
We have several choices. We could run hospitals at a very low capacity all summer—which is hugely expensive—so that there is a lot of free capacity ready for the winter; we could say that we will not do as much elective work over the winter, but then we might cancel operations that do not need to be cancelled—we may be giving more notice, but patients might have been able to have their operation; or we tell people that we will plan their operation but there is a possibility that if the winter is acutely busy, it will need to be postponed. None of those choices is ideal; all have pros and cons. We need an adult, cross-party discussion about the best way; otherwise, whichever option is chosen by the Government of whichever party is in power, the other side will criticise.
As many hon. Members on both sides of the House have suggested, we need to take the politics out of the health service, recognise that the vast majority of patients receive excellent care from the health service, which is doing more than ever, and consider together how we improve the areas that need improvement.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
It is interesting to follow the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). I have to say respectfully that I wholeheartedly disagree with her. She speaks of some kind of NHS utopia, but that is not the reality that I have seen on our A&E frontline. I am an A&E specialist and I have worked in our NHS for the past 12 years.
When we look around an A&E department, everything is on display in high definition: people’s pain, fears, courage and hopes; the unfailing dedication, expertise and strength of the staff who work there; and yes, the state of the NHS, which is in turmoil. It is in crisis, which is turning into disaster. From hospitals across the country, we have heard that the problem is not a surface or temporary issue.
The symptoms of the NHS crisis are all connected and multiply into new problems. That is not seen in statistics alone, but it is seen in A&E departments, which are completely overcrowded. People feel forced to come to A&E who should not be there: people who could not get a GP appointment or who had to wait too long for a hip replacement and are now in severe pain. Taken together with the emergency cases—from heart attacks and strokes to road traffic accidents—it is simply too much for the resources that we have.
The reality is stark. Cubicles are full because there is no space to move patients on to wards. The wards are full because our social care system is woefully inadequate and broken. When all beds are full, we see ambulances queuing up outside hospitals. They are full of patients who cannot get hospital care. What do we say to a mother or a father who is in an ambulance with their child, scared and anxious, and has to wait outside the hospital for another hour?
Doctors are too stretched to do the job we are trained to do. We are the recipients of first-class education and training in the UK and we cannot deliver the very thing that we know to be right: to treat the cause, not just the symptoms. There is little time for prevention.
On new year’s eve, when I worked in A&E, we had a teenage girl who fainted. We treated her and spent time talking to her, but we pride ourselves on being able to find root causes: is there an underlying eating disorder or is she being bullied at home or at school? To have those conversations, we need to build trust, which takes time. If we do not do that, the patient is more likely to return, sometimes in pain because their operation has been cancelled. A teenager who faints at school might need to be part of child and adolescent mental health services. That all places a burden on our already stretched NHS. It will not change until this Government decide to live up to their most sacred duty: the protection of the health and security of us all. The NHS is underfunded and overwhelmed.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that desperate patients should never have to resort to smuggling out secretly filmed footage of trolley-lined corridors with people sitting on the floors, such as the footage I have received from my constituents visiting and working at William Harvey Hospital in Ashford?
Dr Allin-Khan
I agree that it is deplorable that patients should feel that they have to do that. The historic underfunding of the NHS is not an economic necessity; it is a political choice made by this Government, which is why they will not change their direction to protect us.
So, what must we do? We must change the Government. Until we do, the NHS will continue to crumble around its heroic staff, who will carry on giving their all; I am honoured to stand alongside them. We see their work not in the headlines, but in the most harrowing, important and joyful moments of people’s lives. As NHS practitioners, we cannot always change the outcome; but with time and resources, we can change the journey. It is time that we saw a change in our A&Es, our hospitals and our Department of Health.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan). For what it is worth, I thank her, my hon. Friends the Members for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) and for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and other medical colleagues who have spent time working in our service over this period, looking after constituents. Their public service is second to none. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) for the work that he has done within the Department, and I welcome the new team. I also echo many colleagues from around the Chamber—across parties and from all geographies of the country—in thanking NHS staff, ambulance drivers, paramedics and those who work in our county social services, all of whom are trying to play a part.
I am going to be distracted slightly, because I am going to take strong issue with the peroration of the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), who said with full Momentum fury, “The NHS is a political entity.” I say to the hon. Lady, with the greatest of respect, that it is not. The national health service is a publicly funded service, free at the point of use, which is populated and staffed by publicly motivated and qualified public service medics and others, who look after our constituents and their health needs. They are not politicised; they are motivated by care. [Interruption.] Rather than chuntering from a sedentary position, I urge the hon. Lady to sit and reflect on her words, because her comment was one of the most dispiriting remarks that I have heard during my time in this House. While she is reflecting on her comments, she might also wish to reflect on the fact that, whenever the Treasury writes another cheque for the national health service—I am sure that practitioners will appreciate this—it always has to take into account the £2 billion a year private finance initiative albatross bequeathed by the Labour party.
I want to draw the attention of the House, as I did during the statement on Monday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, to the importance of bedded community hospitals. Dorset CCG, under the leadership of Tim Goodson, has listened to our community campaign and has saved the beds in Westminster Memorial Hospital in Shaftesbury. In my judgment, the provision of those beds is absolutely pivotal in providing the link between the acute sector and people making their journey to recovery and then being on their way home. The collaborative work between the NHS and Dorset County Council—where there are social care officers with computers that are interlinked with and embedded within Westminster Memorial Hospital, working out the discharge care programmes—is pivotal. I appreciate that what we are doing in Dorset is not unique, but I also appreciate that it is not replicated everywhere; it does merit attention.
We should be focusing on far better advertisements for the use of our pharmacies, and we should ensure that community pharmacies are a much more collegiate network of service provision, taking pressure off GPs and A&E departments. I urge the Minister to ensure that CCGs are better encouraged to make sure that their boards include a representative from the pharmacy community. This siloed approach does not help the provision of care for our constituents.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) because I, too, want to touch on transitional healthcare.
Before I do so, I want to acknowledge the incredible, amazing, professional care that is provided across our healthcare service. We all agree that the love and care that is there is incredible. However, there are clear challenges, and we note those too. We have heard so much about them in the evidence provided today. This is not just about the long hours and the complex challenges that are placed at the door of health professionals. It is about the stress of not having the additional conversation that you need to have, the stress of not being able to treat somebody as a whole person but only being able to focus on the acute situation before you, and the stress of trying to keep somebody alive as their respiratory condition is deteriorating but you cannot get the doctor down because you know they are caring for someone in an even more acute situation. I know; I have been there. I have worked in acute medicine for 20 years, and I know very well what has happened over those 20 years. I agree with hon. Friends who hark back to the 1990s, when, as today, our NHS was in a terrible state. It did improve when Labour put the investment into the NHS, and we cannot deny that finance is at the heart of what is happening.
Bed occupancy is an issue for my local trust, which has faced a real crisis in acute care over this winter. I commend it for all it has tried to do to avert the situation, but we have had multiple days of 100% capacity in our acute medical facilities. The council has closed care homes. The trust has closed a transitional care unit. We have an empty hospital adjacent to our acute hospital, sitting on land that NHS Property Services is going to flog off as opposed to seeing how it can invest in better care for the people of my community. We need to really invest in the facilities that we need for the future, particularly around transitional care. We should have a complete review of what is needed with regard to the NHS estate.
The influenza outbreak this winter has had a more serious impact in York than across the rest of Yorkshire and has been one of the worst in the country. That has had a real impact on staff as well as the acuity and volume of patients coming through the door. On top of that, we have had norovirus and DNV—diarrhoea and vomiting. This is all putting challenges into the system.
We absolutely must have a coherent public health strategy as we move forward. We know that there is social inequality in who gets access to inoculations. We also need to make sure that we lay out a proper strategy. That is not happening. The fact that public health is separated off from acute health is a barrier. We need to draw them together to make sure that we have a proper public health workforce in the community.
I want to touch on funding. Our trust is in the capped expenditure process. I am still waiting for a meeting with the Minister to discuss the impact of that. The trust does not have the flexibility and the resources that it needs, and that is having a serious impact on the health crisis we are seeing in York. We need to move the situation forward to make sure that we have the resources where we need them.
At the moment, the NHS is really sick. When patients are sick, they need solutions. I trust that we will start hearing solutions from the Government.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I entirely agree with her about being very careful before the NHS sells off property or land for non-health uses. There is a reason why our health facilities are in the places they are, and they could be better used for things like intermediate care.
I had the honour of visiting County Hospital in Stafford on Christmas day, and I saw the wonderful care being provided there. County Hospital is of course the Stafford hospital, which went through the Francis inquiries and the trust’s special administration. I just want to pay tribute to the staff there, who have done an amazing job in bringing the hospital up to the standard it is now at. We want more services put back into that great place, but it is an example of what can happen when people get behind change, and when the patient and safety are put at the heart of care.
I also visited Royal Stoke on new year’s day. The hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) and for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) have already mentioned the huge pressures that the hospital has been under during the past few weeks, and I would not deny that. I saw for myself the trolleys in the corridor and the real pressure under which the staff were working, but I have to say that the care I saw there was exemplary in those conditions. As the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme mentioned, some serious issues have to be tackled, not least the fact that Stoke, and to some extent Staffordshire, are systemically underfunded, as we can see from the figures. I will write to the Secretary of State about that in due course.
I want to bring some figures to the House’s attention. They are not the most recent figures, but they are from an international health organisation—I think it was the World Health Organisation—three or four years ago, when it asked patients in a number of developed countries whether they could get proper access to good healthcare. The UK performed best: only 4% said that they could not get good access to reasonable healthcare. In Germany, the figure for those who said they could not do so was 15%, and in France it was 18%. When we consider the challenges we face and the needs for the future—I absolutely agree with much of what has been said in this debate—we must not forget how our national health service performs and how it is an egalitarian service, providing access to people of all backgrounds across all our communities.
I fully agree with what has been said by Members on both sides of the House—by the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) and by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)—about the fact that we need a 10-year cross-party approach and that we need it urgently and quickly. The Green Paper on social care is a start, but the approach must be more extensive. I urge the Secretary of State and his new team, as well as the Minister on the Front Bench today—the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine)—who has done a great job over the past few months, to consider widening the Green Paper to cover health and social care, especially now that the Department is an integrated one. “Social Care” should not just be stuck on the end of its name.
Finally, I pay great tribute to all those who continue to work day in, day out to provide some of the best healthcare in the world. It can be better, and we must make sure that it is.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
It seems like only yesterday that I was working in the NHS, leading a group of GP commissioners preparing for the Health and Social Care Act 2012 and, every year, preparing for winter. Such was my experience of preparing for that Act that it led to my giving up my day job and deciding to become an elected politician and to enter this House. My colleagues at the time said to me, “Try to bring some sense to the debate going on, which is often so ill informed.” Today, we have heard some very well informed contributions, and I hope to offer some prospect of moving forward.
I want to talk about the 2012 Act. Its purpose was to modernise and avoid a future crisis, as well as to put clinicians at the centre of commissioning, free up providers to innovate, empower patients and give a new focus to public health, and it has categorically failed on all counts. Does the Act matter to patients? All reorganisations take people’s eye off the ball, but this one has been in an altogether different league. Long-standing problems have persisted and necessary changes have been put on hold as managers try to put back the infrastructure that was so wantonly destroyed by the Act.
In my constituency, South Bristol Community Hospital, a long-awaited community hospital, serves an area of very high health need. It is intended to support those with chronic illness in the community and to work with GPs, as well as to provide an urgent care centre and access to therapies. Much has been achieved by those on the frontline in the hospital, but it falls between five NHS bodies.
This week, a constituent highlighted a problem after she was told that her appointment had been cancelled because the person it was with was no longer in post. She persevered with the booking, but it was not possible to tell her whether another appointment would be forthcoming. I have taken the matter up on her behalf, but I have to write to three different people to try to find an answer. Colleagues know that that is the situation across the piece.
No one body is assessing health needs, talking to the local population and ensuring that services meet those needs and are reversing health inequalities, so how do we move forward? My strong view is that we should not be talking about the superstructures or the money, although the money is important. We are at a critical point. We have had centralised planning and control. It did not work, ultimately, and the era of the market and competition is also not working. We need now to put accountability at the very heart of the system.
Accountability can be a key driver of change and improvement, and it is vital in a functioning democracy. All the bodies involved spend taxpayers’ money, but no one understands who is responsible and who is accountable for how they spend that money. That includes us in the House; we are also mystified.
Local MPs are expected by their constituents to stand up for local services, ensuring that there are enough resources, and to be able to make a difference when things go wrong, but we have no role locally in how the mandate is delivered or in the alignment of the voted national budget with local delivery. Critically, neither do local people. They do not understand how their national taxes relate to the local service.
We are pivotal in helping with that understanding. Local managers should be supported in sharing the great work that they do, but they also need to share the realities of cost and quality with MPs and local people so that we are all well informed. However, that will happen only if national leaders are supported when they fulfil their duty of candour and speak out about the reality of choices, which national leaders have done.
It is no secret that the money the NHS is allocated is insufficient to do all that is promised in the NHS constitution, to the quality that we expect. It is also well evidenced that we have the most effective and efficient service in the world, with productivity outstripping other sectors of our economy. So on behalf of our constituents, we should be putting the public centre stage, considering how to actively improve the NHS and understanding what the money can deliver. We have to give patients and the public genuine influence over decisions affecting the care that they, their families and their communities receive, and the responsibility that goes with that influence.
Being able to follow the money is a key part of accountability. We should all be part of that to help to inform the next stage in the development of the NHS.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
There is no doubt that the NHS is under unique pressures, with demand going up every year, especially in a county such as Somerset, where we have an increasing ageing population. Somerset is a great place, but many people retire there, which increases the problem.
First and foremost, I want to thank all those working in the NHS in Taunton Deane. The extra £435 million invested in the NHS to deal with winter pressures is to be welcomed, as is the new forward planning. While it is not desirable to have an operation cancelled, the more notice one can have of that, the better. I referred to that earlier; I have personal, family experience of it. Without a doubt, having notice definitely helps.
I shall focus on A&E in particular. The A&E department at Musgrove Park Hospital in Taunton, which is Somerset’s main hospital, has seen 68,000 people through its doors in the last year, which is a huge increase, but there are nine consultants working there and there is 24-hour senior cover. I contacted the chief executive just this week for an update on how the hospital is doing. He reports that it has been extremely busy and that there has been record demand. That has had an impact on waiting time, but the staff in that department and in hospital more widely, as well as the wider community, have been fantastic in their response, often going above and beyond.
There has been much talk today about adequate funding for our health services. While that is important, it is also important to get the right management structures in place. In that respect, I want to highlight and praise Dr Cliff Mann, a senior consultant at Musgrove Park Hospital in the emergency department. He has just been awarded an OBE for his services to emergency medicine. During his time as president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, Dr Mann lobbied the Government to get changes in staffing and worked hard around education in A&E. He devised a special A&E hub, which is an excellent model. It is working really well at Musgrove and ought to be rolled out further. It brings together in the emergency departments primary care; 24/7 support for mental health issues; a seven-day, 12 hours a day community pharmacy, and a seven-day, 14 hours a day in-house frailty team. I believe that model is working.
To touch on equipment at Musgrove Park Hospital, it is still dealing with a pre-1948 intensive care unit and theatres. There have been redevelopment plans since the 1980s, and we are still waiting. In the autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced a welcome £3.6 billion investment in capital projects of that sort, and I make no bones about fully supporting the campaign to get new theatres at Musgrove. I know many people who would benefit—indeed, members of my own family have recently been treated at the hospital. There is a top-class team working there, producing excellent results, but those staff deserve new and better facilities. I believe Musgrove Park is the only hospital in the south-west without updated theatres, so I ask Ministers to support it.
I applaud the linking of social care with health. That is essential. Somerset County Council faces a very difficult situation in social care, so any help will be welcome. If the council got into the next pilot of retained business rates, that would help its funding and finances, and therefore its efforts on social care.
I applaud the Government for their action this winter. Things are much better. There is always more to do, but this Government are right behind the best health service in the world.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to the incredible staff working in our NHS. Keeping the nation fit and healthy is a noble calling. They make the NHS what it is—a national treasure—and they ought to be proud. Many participants in today’s debate know someone who might not be with us today, or whose quality of life would be significantly worse, had it not been for the NHS.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Elle Morris, an 11-year-old cystic fibrosis sufferer and friend in my constituency, who sadly lost her fight last week. Elle’s family have expressed their thanks to the NHS workers who looked after Elle with such love and care right until the end, and supported her parents, Becky and Ian, and her sister Cara. Elle was a pioneer of raising awareness of cystic fibrosis and opt-out organ donation, and I speak on behalf of Crewe and Nantwich in saying how much she will be missed and how proud of her we all are. Breathe easy, Elle.
Everyone has quoted the facts and figures relating to the debate, and I will not repeat them. We all treasure the NHS, and it needs to be funded. My constituents do not want the Prime Minister to apologise for the NHS crisis. They want the Government to act and to resolve the crisis. By rewarding the Health Secretary, the Prime Minister will have sent a clear message about her vision of the NHS. Conservative Members have an opportunity to prove that theory wrong by supporting the motion, which calls on the Government to increase cash limits for the current year, allowing hospitals to resume a full service to the public. Actions speak louder than words, and today we will discover whether the Prime Minister’s apology was sincere.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) in this important debate on the NHS and the challenges that, unfortunately, it tends to face in winter. We should bear in mind that, for decades, winter has given the NHS challenges to meet, and as a result, clinicians have been asked not to take time off in January. Last Friday, I spent time with a GP practice, where staff confirmed that the flu epidemic is one of the worst they have seen for many years.
From the perspective of patients, it is wrong that those who have waited months for surgery—perhaps routine, but for a condition that has an impact on their lifestyle—have been told that it has been cancelled. We need to change, but I believe we need to change the entire structure. It is all very well and good for the Opposition to write cheques that they know would bounce. What we have to do is reform the NHS within the resources available. We also have to consider the impact of the ageing population and the challenge—which we embrace, of course—of looking after them. In the last decade, 17% of this country’s population was over 65; in the present decade, the proportion rises to 20%; and in the next decade, it will be 30%. That might be why the number of hospital admissions has risen by 40% over the past 10 years. I am delighted therefore that the Department of Health is now responsible for social care, and particularly reform to it; that is long overdue. We need a cross-party approach. I am aware that every governing party tends to say that, but I would ask Opposition Members to please rally round. There are some great ideas that we can all get around.
I want to focus on the pressures facing GP surgeries and the pressures that puts on our hospitals. Too many patients are going to A&E because their GP surgery is not there for them. I spent some time with a GP who had just returned from visiting a patient he had made comfortable at home. He pointed me to another area my hospital trust covers where that patient would have been put into hospital for some weeks, which would not have been good for the patient or all those other patients waiting for their care. We have seen huge demand from the elderly. I am still greatly concerned that the social care system is set up on a local authority basis. Many local authorities to which people retire do not have the same business rates as other areas—they have a lot of elderly folk but not the business to fund them—and certainly not as much council tax. In looking at reforms, I would like the Government to consider putting social care on the same footing as the central NHS.
Huw Merriman
I will not, I am afraid, because of time. I am sorry.
I would like to see more powers given to CCGs, or perhaps a tier above, to enable them to intervene where GP surgeries are not functioning as they should be. At the moment, there is no sharing of data, so CCGs cannot see where surgeries might be about to fall over. We expect CCGs to intervene and take over when things go wrong, but that is often too late, so I would like to know if more taskforces could be put in place. It is clear that the GP model that we have continued with since 1947 is not the GP model that younger GPs want to buy into: they do not necessarily want to buy into the practice model, are concerned about litigation and do not necessarily want to stay in the same place for all those years. We need great reform, therefore, and I add my support to the voices on both sides of the House saying that perhaps a royal commission is the way to take this forward.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I will concentrate on my main point in the 90 seconds being given to me.
NHS staff have said that this winter crisis was predictable and preventable. Bedford Hospital NHS Trust was one of the 24 trusts that issued a warning saying they were at full capacity. Patients, including many elderly and frail people, are routinely stuck in the back of ambulances in logjams waiting to get into A&E. The NHS is coping with an increase in demand, while being severely underfunded. We have also learned that Bedford walk-in medical centre in Putnoe is now under threat. Some 40% of our walk-in centres nationwide have closed under the Tories since 2010. Commissioners take decisions in response to budgetary constraints and cut services that are on the face of it costly to provide, but the human costs of such cuts are catastrophic, especially in places such as Bedford, whose hospital is already struggling to cope.
I finish by thanking all the staff who worked hard over Christmas and gave their time, when they could have spent it enjoying time with their families.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
We have heard some excellent contributions today. The depth of the crisis is reflected by the fact that no fewer than 38 Members put in to speak, and although we only managed to hear from just over 20 Back-Bench Members, they were from all four corners of England. Owing to the time constraints, I cannot refer to them all, so I will just pick out a few, particularly from those still working in the NHS, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), who said it felt like we were going back to the 1990s and that it did not have to be like that—this decline is not inevitable. I totally agree with him on that.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Eleanor Smith), who brought her 40 years of service in the NHS to the fore and made the valid point that cancelling operations now creates a backlog, which will cause problems later on. We know that many trusts are already failing to meet their 18-week target.
Perhaps the most compelling contribution was from my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan), who worked in A&E over Christmas. She was absolutely right to say that many people attend A&E because they are not getting the treatment that they need from elsewhere in the system, due to a squeeze on funding. She also made the valid point that many people are not being discharged as quickly as we would like because of massive cuts to social care over the years. Her contribution was excellent, and she made the point that these conditions have arisen not by accident, but because a political choice has been made.
After two years in which the A&E target has been missed altogether, we now know that waiting times shot up in recent weeks. Some hospitals cannot see even half their patients within four hours at A&E. The Secretary of State knows a little about waiting: there was a gap of an hour and 42 minutes between his entering No. 10 on Monday and confirmation that he was continuing in his job. Perhaps he was left waiting in a corridor. I hope that he was at least offered a chair. He would have to double that time, and double it again, to begin to appreciate how long some patients are having to wait, often in great discomfort and pain.
Following the reshuffle on Monday, the Health and Social Care Secretary has had a rebrand, but if it took him over five years to work out that his actions might have some bearing on social care, how much longer will it be before he learns that the message that he hears about underfunding in the NHS is so consistent because it is true? How long before he realises that, on his watch, standards have deteriorated by almost every measure? How long before he realises that the decisions that his Government have taken have led to the litany of woe that we have heard today?
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has seen that an emergency consultant at Charing Cross Hospital has said that staff were practicing “battlefield medicine” there. By that, he meant that when a blue-light ambulance arrived, staff had to decide whether to take someone out of the resuscitation room to put the arrival in, or to leave the arrival in the corridor until a bed space was free. That same hospital faces losing all its emergency beds and its blue-light A&E. Does he agree that we have to rethink further reductions in beds and A&E capacity, given the crisis that we are in?
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. He is absolutely right. Those working on the frontline have made many statements about just how acute the problem is. Bed numbers have dropped rapidly in recent years. The worry is that under STPs, even more beds may be lost.
The Health Secretary today denied there is a crisis, but he admitted it on Twitter, where he asked of Tony Blair,
“does he not remember his own regular NHS winter crises?”
If the House wants to make a comparison with Tony Blair, I will help it: in the last winter under Tony Blair, between October and December 2006, one in 50 patients spent longer than four hours in A&E. In November, under this Health Secretary, one in 10 did.
Of course, behind every single figure is a vulnerable patient who is being let down—a patient like 87-year-old Esme Thomas, who, according to the BBC, waited 22 hours to be admitted to a ward at Weston General Hospital, or the patients at Pinderfields Hospital in Wakefield, who, as we have heard, were photographed lying on the floor, some still attached to drips. If the best that we—one of the wealthiest nations in the world—can offer people who are ill is an uncomfortable metal chair, something has gone badly wrong. What do the Government say to the nurse who told “ITV News” that there had been times when she had spent whole days treating patients in the hospital car park? Those stories should shame the Government into action.
Of course, it is not just those attending hospital who are suffering; so are those who are not able to go to hospital at all: 55,000 operations have been cancelled this month. When asked about this, the Prime Minister said that it was all “part of the plan.” If it was all part of the plan, why were the operations arranged in the first place? This is not a plan; it is a shambles.
The human cost of this crisis is devastating. Even before the worst of the winter had reached us, a one-year-old baby with a hole in her heart had her life-saving operation cancelled five times. Her parents were told that their daughter could go into cardiac arrest during the operation, so I cannot begin to imagine the anguish that they must have gone through in preparing themselves for the operation five times. Or what about the 12-year-old autistic girl from my constituency whose operation to remove her tonsils has been postponed? She has had at least eight bouts of infection in the past year, and because of her autism, the delay to her operation has caused her anxiety. It was a huge deal to build her up for the operation after her pre-operative assessment, particularly given the prospect of spending a night in hospital, but after the cancellation, she is anxious that when she gets her new operation date, that will be cancelled as well. If leaving these children anxious and in pain was part of the plan, it is a plan this Government should be ashamed of.
Across a whole range of indicators the NHS has experienced its worst performance since records began, and that was before we headed into this winter. Let us be clear: I do not for a second hold the people who work on the frontline responsible for this. Indeed, it is only through their dedication that the health service keeps going, despite the best efforts of this Government to destroy staff morale—whether an entire generation of junior doctors alienated, the next generation of nurses deterred from entering the profession by tuition fees, or the thousands of staff up and down the country who are frankly fed up of rota gaps, pay restraints and meaningless platitudes from this Government.
Only this afternoon we hear that the Care Quality Commission is postponing routine inspections, presumably because it knows a winter crisis is on. This is an unprecedented step that sends a huge signal to the Government that this is not just normal winter pressures.
Let us hear from some of those staff working on the frontline. A&E doctor Adrian Harrop said the claims that the NHS had never been better prepared were “misleading, disingenuous nonsense”. He also said:
“The system I’ve been working in in recent days and weeks seems under-resourced, underfunded and understaffed.”
Tracy Bullock, chief executive of Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, said:
“I’m 34 years in and I’ve never seen anything like this.”
These are honest, hard-working professionals—the lifeblood of the NHS—and Conservative Members know full well we could have repeated dozens of similar comments from NHS staff, because at the bottom of all this is the unescapable, indisputable fact that under this Government the NHS is in the middle of the longest and deepest financial squeeze in its entire history, and it is a squeeze that, as we have heard today, is having devastating consequences.
We warned time and again that, unless early and substantial action was taken, we faced another severe winter crisis, and that is exactly where we are today. We have had an apology but no action from the Government. Patients deserve to know when this crisis will be solved and when their cancelled operations are going to take place, and this country deserves a Government fit to run the NHS. I commend this motion to the House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
Happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We have had a good debate this afternoon with some well-informed—as the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) put it—contributions from both sides.
The NHS is a service that we are all immensely proud of; we can agree on that. Even during the challenging winter period it continues to deliver overwhelmingly safe and effective care to thousands of our constituents, and we should never lose sight of that. We have heard examples of that today, including from my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who spoke with her usual calm about the triage model she saw working well in her area when she had to go to hospital over the holiday period. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) was among many Members who visited the NHS over the recess period and he spoke, as well he might, and as well as he usually does, about the safe care he saw being delivered.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and before him the Prime Minister, said earlier, we have done more preparation for winter this year than ever before, planning earlier to make sure the NHS is better prepared. More than that, we have put in the money, in the form of an additional £337 million for winter pressures and an additional £1 billion for the social care system this year. As the Public Health Minister, I am proud of our flu vaccination programme, already the most comprehensive in Europe, which has been extended even further. This was planning ahead.
We have also allocated £100 million of capital funding to help hospitals set up GP streaming systems at their A&Es, reaching 91% coverage by the end of November. This, too, was planning ahead; they did not just appear overnight. And for the first time ever, people were able to access GPs nationally for urgent appointments from 8 am to 8 pm seven days a week over the holiday period.
Of course, there were additional pressures this year: very cold spells in December, a sharp uptick in flu and respiratory conditions, and higher hospitalisations from confirmed cases of flu than in the peak of winter last year.
Paul Farrelly
There are also questions about NHS leadership. As the Minister is aware, Staffordshire is under great pressure. The Secretary of State received reports about the closure, with lack of consultation, of community hospitals in our area on 18 October, which slated two local CCGs. Yet a week later the NHS appointed the chief operating officer of those two CCGs to oversee four more in Staffordshire. Will the Minister ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to explain that decision?
Steve Brine
The sustainability and transformation partnerships have been established across England—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have engaged with the one in his area—and they take local decisions about how services are organised in local areas. I implore him to engage with his STP; indeed, I know that he is already doing so. If he wishes to talk to me about this, he can of course do so.
Let me respond to some more of our contributors. The hon. Member for Bristol South always speaks sensibly. She spoke about the public representation and involvement in STPs. I agree that we could do more in that area, and as the Minister responsible for STPs, I want to see that we do so. Her point was well made. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) spoke about her constituent, Elle, who lost her battle with cystic fibrosis. She speaks up for her constituents well, and very emotionally, and if she continues to do that, she will do extremely well in this House.
The hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) is a new Member, and I already have a lot of respect for him. In his typically sensible contribution, he made some sensible suggestions for improvement in the NHS. He went on to talk about how we could do better on prevention, and he was absolutely spot on. We all agree that prevention is part of our one NHS. He said that this was not all about money, and I agree. Money is a key part of this, however, and that is why we spend 9.9% of our GDP on healthcare, which is above the EU average.
The hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) said that this is not what happens every year, but the NHS is under great pressure at this time every year. A headline from The Guardian newspaper on 27 October 2001 stated “NHS faces another winter of crisis”. The NHS is often under pressure at this time of year, and the important thing is how we prepare for that. As I have said, we are better prepared than ever. It is a shame that the hon. Lady is not listening to my response. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Minister, but I do not understand why there is so much noise on the Opposition Benches. I would not be surprised if Members were heckling the Minister, but they are simply making a noise, so the Minister cannot be heard. He is answering the questions that he has been asked this afternoon, and those who asked the questions ought to want to hear the answers.
Steve Brine
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Members appear to be heckling themselves.
The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said that the NHS was a political organisation. I totally disagree. The NHS is an organisation run by hard-working people who are public servants. They go to work every day to do a job for our constituents, and the NHS is not a political organisation. The Labour party is a political organisation, and it is politicising the NHS—
Steve Brine
I will not give way; the hon. Lady has had her say.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) spoke about leadership, and he was absolutely right. He knows the Luton and Dunstable University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, which has been ably led by Dame Pauline Philip. She has achieved 98.6% of patients meeting the four-hour target. That is the kind of leadership that can be achieved, which is why Dame Pauline was brought in to NHS England to help with our national response to winter pressures.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) said that this was all about outcomes and that, on cancer, we do not do well. We have had the best cancer outcomes ever in our country, but I agree that our ambition for the long term needs to be even better and that we need to aim higher. His point on a royal commission is noted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) spoke about the out-of-hospital care work that Henley’s hospital is doing. I thank him very much for his invitation. My ministerial colleagues also heard what he had to say, and it was good to hear about the cross-party working that is going on in Oxfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore), a new Member of the House, talked about joined-up care and continuous improvement. He reminded us that without a strong economy there is no strong NHS. This is not the Government’s money; it is the public’s money. We need to spend it well, and I think we are doing so.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) spoke about community pharmacies, a subject close to my heart. They play a key part, and better integration of them within the NHS is part of the prevention and primary care agenda. I completely agree with the points that he made. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) spoke about the A&E hub at Musgrove Park Hospital. That sounds very interesting indeed, and the new Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay), was also interested to hear what she had to say. We would like to come and see it, and we will take her up on her invitation.
Finally, I welcome back my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Andrea Jenkyns) and congratulate her on the birth of Clifford. She spoke very well, as always, about the integration of health and social care, saying that it can only make sense and will only serve to make the preparations for next winter better.
I hope to end this debate on a note on which both sides of the House can agree. We are all truly thankful for the extraordinary dedication of NHS staff in caring for their patients—our constituents—during this extremely challenging time. As ever, they are doing a brilliant job.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House expresses concern at the effect on patient care of the closure of 14,000 hospital beds since 2010; records its alarm at there being vacancies for 100,000 posts across the NHS; regrets the decision of the Government to reduce social care funding since 2010; notes that hospital trusts have been compelled by NHS England to delay elective operations because of the Government’s failure to allocate adequate to the NHS; condemns the privatisation of community health services; and calls on the Government to increase cash limits for the current year to enable hospitals to resume a full service to the public, including rescheduling elective operations, and to report to the House by Oral Statement and written report before 1 February 2018 on what steps it is taking to comply with this resolution.
Jonathan Ashworth
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the effect of the Government refusing to defend their position in the Lobby this afternoon is that the motion that stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been endorsed by the whole House and that we should therefore expect the Secretary of State to come to the House before the end of the month to make an oral statement to explain to our constituents when their cancelled operations will be rescheduled?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
What I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman is that the House has just voted to carry the motion that was before us. The motion therefore stands. As to what the Secretary of State will say or do over the next few weeks, I am sure that he will be back at the Dispatch Box in the near future as he is a most assiduous attender of this Chamber, but we all appreciate that he has other work to do, and we look forward to seeing him doing that.
Rail Franchising
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that rail franchising is failing to provide adequate services for passengers or value for money for taxpayers; notes that regulated rail fares have risen by 32 per cent since 2010 while planned investment has been cancelled; opposes the recent bail-out of Virgin Rail Group East Coast; and calls on the Government to run passengers’ services under public sector operation.
I welcome the hon. Members for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and for Wealden (Ms Ghani) to their new ministerial positions and wish them success in their new posts. I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) for his 18 years of continuous Front-Bench service. He was a pleasure to work with, and I would like to think that we can continue the sort of relationship that we had in non-contentious areas, where the result was improved legislation. I also congratulate the Secretary of State for Transport on his superb stewardship of the Conservative party. There has never been a finer record: no elections lost; no major scandals; and membership maintained at around 70,000—not bad for 27 seconds’ work.
I am delighted that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber to provide answers to a number of questions that I and other Members have for him. Unfortunately, no Minister was available on 2 January to explain the highest fare increases in five years, so I hope that he will provide us with some clarity today. Sadly, the entire rail debate is characterised by a lack of candour and transparency from both the Government and some quarters of the rail industry.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that my constituents who use Northern saw fare increases of nearly 5%—the biggest in the country—and that we are still having to use Pacer trains? They are virtually as old as me: 42 years old.
Andy McDonald
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It just adds insult to injury when such hikes in rail fares go alongside appalling services.
It is time that Secretary of State woke up from his state of denial. It is time for him to come clean and admit that he has made mistakes. No one is perfect, but he should acknowledge his failures, and take responsibility for the decisions he has made, the policies he has pursued and their consequences. I urge him to be entirely unambiguous with the House today. The Government’s defence of their rail franchising system is totally indefensible, and this is not the first time that the Government have been in the Chamber this week to defend the indefensible.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
In south Wales, First Great Western reduced and cancelled services over Christmas and new year—there was chaos—yet it has been handed a franchise extension. Is it not time we had performance-related franchises and performance-related franchise extensions, rather than franchises being extended automatically no matter what the service?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will return to those themes.
The Government are unable to accept that the franchise model, which is demonstrably failing, is a betrayal of the public who plough billions of pounds of taxes into the railway. It is a betrayal of the passengers who face eye-watering fare rises year after year. It is a betrayal of the hundreds of thousands of dedicated and passionate people who have worked in the rail industry for decades.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kindness to me just before Christmas. Will he confirm whether fare rises have been faster under this Government or the last Labour Government?
Andy McDonald
Labour’s position is that if we were in power, we would not raise fares by the retail prices index or by RPI plus 1. We would save each member of the travelling public £500 during this Parliament.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andy McDonald
I will make a little progress, but I will take interventions later.
In 2016, the Department for Transport set out that its aims and objectives for rail franchising were
“to encourage a flourishing, competitive passenger rail market which secures high-performing, value for money services for passengers and taxpayers whilst driving cost effectiveness.”
The Department has clearly failed to meet those objectives. The latest collapse of the east coast franchise, which was announced in November, makes a mockery of the Department’s 2016 aims. Virgin-Stagecoach did not deliver and defaulted on their contract, and the Secretary of State has given them a gift.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Given that this is the third occasion in just over a decade that a private contractor has announced that it wishes to hand back the keys to the east coast franchise, was it not a fundamental mistake for the Government not to allow East Coast, which successfully ran the franchise for more than five and a half years and paid back £1 billion to the Treasury, to continue its good work? Instead, the Government ideologically said that anyone could bid to run the franchise except the state-owned company that had run it so successfully.
Andy McDonald
My right hon. Friend makes a perfect point. I have no doubt that that will be a consistent theme throughout this debate.
The Government should have followed Labour’s example. When the operator defaulted in 2009, Labour took the contract back into the public sector. If a company defaults, it does not deserve a contract. Taking a contract back into the public sector would mean that there is no reward for failure, and other companies in the industry would not expect the same treatment. In the light of what happened with the east coast franchise, what plans does the Secretary of State have to renegotiate the TransPennine Express, Northern and Greater Anglia franchises?
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Is not the biggest danger of the Secretary of State’s decision that other franchisees might come looking for a handout?
Andy McDonald
Indeed. That point is entirely consistent with the issues I am putting before the House.
Labour would not have let Virgin-Stagecoach off the hook on the east coast franchise. To return to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) said, did the Secretary of State consider taking the east coast franchise into the public sector following the default—yes or no? Does the Secretary of State not worry that, because he refuses to use a public sector operator even as a last resort, struggling train companies now know he has no option but to bail them out in the event of a failure?
Such failures are not confined to the east coast franchise. Today’s National Audit Office report highlights a litany of errors in the Government’s planning and management of the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise. Those blunders have caused misery to millions of people, and it is the Government’s disastrous handling of the franchise that led to industrial action on the line.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend accept that this morning’s report was scathing about the dreadful performance of Northern rail? My constituents are not as dependent as I am on the east coast franchise to get up and down the country, but the local franchises are how ordinary people get to work.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I will not respond in detail until I make my speech, but it is important to put on record that this morning’s report had nothing to do with the Northern rail franchise. I hope the hon. Gentleman will confirm that to the House.
Andy McDonald
I will do that very thing. I will confirm that the damning report was about Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern, not Northern, and showed that that franchise has been appallingly managed.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Rail companies could do more to make passengers’ lives easier. Many local stations, such as Langley Mill in my constituency, do not have a ticket machine, so people cannot collect pre-paid tickets. Should it not be a condition of any franchise that passengers travelling from such stations can use email proof, instead of their facing this “computer says no” attitude that we get from so many rail companies?
Andy McDonald
We do have to think about much more flexibility across our railway, as well as greater accessibility for people from not only every walk of life, but all different localities, as some facilities are not as they should be.
Some industry commentators have said that the Secretary of State accepted rail franchise bids that were excessive and unrealistic. Can he confirm that winning bids are accepted in the expectation that they will be paid in full? Does he anticipate that the premium payments on the South Western Railway, Greater Anglia, Northern and TransPennine Express franchises will be made in full? Several other franchises look vulnerable in the light of the east coast decision. Passenger growth is slowing across the railway amid weaker consumer confidence, rising fares and changing work patterns. Rail passenger usage has fallen for consecutive reporting periods, and that has included a stark decline in season ticket purchases, which are the core business of rail companies. The fact that passengers are being priced off the railway is threatening the sustainability of the network as a whole.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Since Southern rail fares went up in the new year, three quarters of rush-hour services between Balham and Victoria have not arrived on time. If the delays we have seen so far are replicated throughout the year, Balham commuters will waste a total of 30 hours stuck on delayed trains. Southern rail is not fit for purpose. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for action?
Andy McDonald
I could not agree more. It is fascinating that we still await the revelation of appendix 9 of the Chris Gibb report, which detailed the future of that franchise. We have not seen it. That report was commissioned by Southern, which set the terms and conditions. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is muttering from a sedentary position, but that is the reality. Southern set out what that report should be about and it has not published the very kernel of that report, which was on the future of that service.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the case he is making. He mentions the cost of season tickets. My constituents are also served by appalling services from Northern. It is hardly worth their investing in a season ticket, given that trains are often either cancelled or so crowded that they cannot get on to them. Does he agree?
Andy McDonald
I do agree. The great concern about all that is that it is not achieving the modal shift we all want. It brings people to the point where they say, “The railway is not for me. I may as well get back in my car.” That is the opposite of what we should be doing.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Does he agree that, given the widespread evidence of the lamentable failure of some of the rail companies—consumer dissatisfaction, price rises and so on—there is a strong case for developing models of ownership that involve the users of the railways, those who work on the railways and investors in the railways? Such a form of co-operative and mutual ownership may well operate effectively and efficiently, with enormous public support.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is important that the voices of passengers and those who work in the railway industry are heard, because they are the people who not only use the service but are committed to making it work.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
My constituents in Brighton will certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman 100% when he criticises Govia Thameslink Railway/Southern; it is adding insult to injury to put prices up when the services that people in Brighton are getting are so awful. On the issue of cost, rail fares have gone up by 23% over the past 20 years and the cost of driving has gone down by 16%. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that privatisation is absolutely failing passengers, and that instead of lining shareholders’ pockets we should be investing in our railways?
Andy McDonald
I could not agree more. In fact, we have seen prices rise by 32% since 2010, which underlines the hon. Lady’s point.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman and I have enjoyed cordial exchanges on many issues, but I suspect this will not be one of them. The point has been made about rail fare increases under privatisation. I did a little research into fare increases under nationalised British Rail over the same length of time for which the private companies have operated. In 15 of 22 years there were above-inflation increases, and over that period rail fares were 60% higher after inflation was taken into account. Why would nationalisation automatically lead to lower fares?
Andy McDonald
I like to think that the hon. Gentleman and I can disagree with one another without being disagreeable. He has a good memory and is going back rather a long way. The Conservative party has been in power since 2010—eight years—and we are concerned today with the record of the current Government. We are not going back through all our yesterdays.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is two years younger than I am, so he will well remember the state in which the railways used to be. Does he not agree that we have seen a terrific improvement in the quality of the trains, the service and the attitude of the staff? An excellent service has been developing; would he agree that that is because of privatisation? Would he further agree that investment in our railways is at a record high?
Andy McDonald
I regret that many passengers’ experiences do not match the right hon. Lady’s experience. The evidence is that people are dissatisfied with the services they receive throughout the country. I respectfully suggest to her that going back over things in the way she is doing is not helpful. Had British Rail received public investment at the rate at which the Treasury has poured investment into the private operators, we would have had a gold-standard railway in this country.
Andy McDonald
I really want to make progress because a lot of people want to speak.
All the factors I have described undermine the growth forecasts that are so central to the Government’s model and the undeliverable bid assumptions of operators. FirstGroup won the TPE—TransPennine Express—franchise in December 2015 based on revenues increasing by 12% a year. In one of his first acts in office, the Secretary of State awarded the Greater Anglia franchise to the Dutch state-owned rail company Abellio in August 2016. The deal commits the company to paying the Government £3.7 billion to run the line for nine years. That is more than the east coast franchise. Reports suggest that Abellio’s bid was £600 million more than the next bidder. Like the TPE and east coast bids, Abellio’s bid was based on double-digit annual revenue growth. The company’s boss described the £3.7 billion price tag as “scary”. Does the Secretary of State guarantee that the Treasury will receive the full premium payment of £3.7 billion from Abellio Greater Anglia by 2025—yes or no?
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. Is not one of the problems that these companies make such commitments and then set about destaffing and deskilling our railways to make more profit, so that they can pay back the Government?
Andy McDonald
The whole issue of overbidding and making promises that cannot be kept is a consistent characteristic of the modern rail environment.
If the Government’s rail franchising system cannot deliver competition and payments to the Treasury, what is the point of it? The Secretary of State will no doubt be able to give a clear and straightforward answer to that.
Andy McDonald
As I allow an intervention for the last time, perhaps the former Secretary of State can give us some indication of the point of a franchising system that does not deliver the promised premiums.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, during the course of his speech, how franchising changed between 1997 and 2010, when it was defended continually by the previous Labour Government as the best way to see extra investment in the railways? While he is telling us that, will he also confirm that there are actually more people employed on the east coast main line than there were under the previous people operating that line? Will he welcome the fact that the Pacer trains, which were referred to earlier, will actually go as a result of the new Northern franchise, that the Secretary of State has brought in?
Andy McDonald
Let me take the last point first. The European Union dictates that persons with restricted mobility are not served by the Pacers. The time of the Pacers has been up for a long time, and I am glad to see the back of them. I am glad that plenty of people work on the railways, and delighted that the previous Labour Government went about making the railways safe, given the disaster that was Railtrack, which delivered us Potters Bar, Hatfield and Paddington. That was the legacy that the previous Labour Government inherited, and we turned our railways into the safest in Europe, so I am very proud of what we did.
Direct awards and franchise extensions in the rail industry have been overlooked in many of the rail debates. These are contracts that the Government cannot or will not refranchise, and which they are ideologically opposed to running in the public sector. The train companies name their price to the Government for running these hand-to-mouth contracts, which simply keep the trains running in the short term and provide no long-term benefits or investment.
The west coast route has operated on a series of direct awards since 2012, with reports of another extension beyond 2019. Another key inter-city franchise, Great Western, has been operating under a direct award since 2013, when the Government cancelled the franchise competition. Scandalously, Great Western may run as a direct award for 10 years until 2023. The Government cannot refranchise the rail operation because their management of Network Rail has been so poor and the Great Western electrification programme has been such a shambles.
I predict that there will be more direct awards and contract extensions to rail franchises announced by the Government. The east midlands franchise is already on an extension to 2019 and will probably get another one. I also predict that the Secretary of State will need to give Virgin and Stagecoach a direct award on the east coast because he will not be able to deliver on his east coast partnership by 2020. It is simply inconceivable that he will be able to establish a framework, gain regulatory support, put the idea out to tender, receive and evaluate bids, and award the contract within the timeframe he has set out. A direct award to VirginStagecoach on the east coast will allow the companies to continue to profit from the line while they invest even less.
Once again, the Secretary of State needs to be entirely candid with this House: does he, or does he not, anticipate giving Virgin-Stagecoach a direct award to run rail operations on the east coast while he sets out his east coast partnership? Can he confirm whether that will take place? If he does, can he tell the House how much less the value of premium payments to the Treasury would be under this arrangement than under the original franchise?
What is the Secretary of State’s solution to his failing franchising model, as competition dwindles and premiums to the Exchequer reduce? It is quite simple: more taxpayer and fare-payer support for train operating companies. The next franchises to come up are Southeastern and west coast. Under his new revenue support arrangements, taxpayers will top up revenues if growth targets are not met. What is the point of franchising if the operators do not take any risk? In return, the Government will want close financial monitoring of the operators. Do we really want civil servants in Marsham Street poring over train company balance sheets? Is there not enough DFT interference in the railway already?
Rail privatisation’s vested interests have spent more than 20 years trying to get franchising to work. Despite the Government changing and tweaking the system for them time after time, all they have done in return is to reveal ever more and new sorts of failure, while the public continue to suffer substandard services and ever-higher fares. Enough is enough. We need to change the system entirely.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
May I begin with the one thing on which we agree this afternoon? I thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for his generous comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who has been a great servant of my Department and other Departments for a very long period. He has been on the Front Bench for 19 years, in government and in opposition. That is an epic career, and we all very much appreciate the work that he has done, particularly on legislation and on building bilateral discussions and so on, so I pay tribute to him for all that he did. I am grateful for the warm words from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.
Apart from that, we have just heard about 25 minutes of complete nonsense from the Opposition. I suspect that you would say it would be unparliamentary of me to call them hypocritical, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not do so, but I have no doubt that others in the know will be astonished by the gall with which they simply forget their actions in government; with which they pretend that their ideas will not cost a penny—I keep hearing that, but it is absolutely untrue—and with which they make inaccurate claims based on a lack of facts about subjects they appear not to understand.
Let me set out why the Opposition’s ideas do not stack up and why their positions do not add up.
Chris Grayling
I will make some progress and then take interventions.
I shall also set out why the Opposition’s policies make no sense for the travelling public and why their pronouncements on the east coast main line are wrong. I shall also explain why it is this Government who have set about the task of modernising and upgrading our railways—the biggest programme of investment since the steam age—after 13 years of a Labour Government who quite simply failed to deliver the infrastructure improvements that this country needed. It has taken Conservatives to begin to change that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling
I will make some progress and then take a few interventions.
I do not like to see train fares rise. I particularly did not like, as a rail user of some 35 years, to see fares rise by nearly 20% in real terms during Labour’s years in office. I did not like, in those years, to see fares rise in cash terms by an average of 67%, so I am relieved that we have been able to limit the increase in train fares to just 2% in real terms since 2010, even while we invest billions in upgrading the network. That increase is still more than I would wish, but it is much, much less than the increases under Labour and much less—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough was simply unwilling to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) correctly asked. Under Labour, fares rose much faster than they have under this Government.
That does not make it any easier for those who faced increases last week. I had hoped to be able to bring down the rate of increase from the higher retail prices index rate to the lower consumer prices index this year. That remains my goal, but there is a problem. The industry is locked into RPI and has been for years. The biggest barriers to change are the unions whose members’ pay amounts to almost a third of the costs of the industry. Currently their pay rises in line with or above RPI inflation every single year.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
In a recent report, the head of the National Audit Office said:
“Some of the problems could have been avoided if the DfT had taken more care to consider the passengers in designing the rail franchise.”
Secretary of State, may I ask whether you recognise that statement, and do you apologise to the passengers?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman is not asking the Secretary of State—he is asking the Chair.
Stephen Lloyd
Through the Chair, I would like to ask whether the Secretary of State recognises that severe criticism from the head of the NAO. Will he apologise on behalf of his Department to my constituents—rail passengers from Eastbourne—and passengers across the south-east?
Chris Grayling
I make no apologies for the huge investment programme in the Thameslink network, the massive expansion of London Bridge station, which has just been completed, and the introduction of brand-new 12-coach trains across the network. What I do apologise for is that we were not able to avoid the extraordinarily ill-judged actions of the trade unions, which caused massive trouble for passengers. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough talked about the Gibb report. Chris Gibb had a simple conclusion, which was that although there were problems on the network—that is why we are spending £300 million on improving it—by far the biggest disruptive factor was the trade unions.
Of course, we want rail staff to be paid fairly, but trade union leaders such as Mick Cash drive up ticket prices for hard-working people. The same unions that want CPI increases on fares want RPI—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough should listen. The RMT guidance to their negotiators is that
“any attempt by an employer to link a pay award to CPI…must be refused.”
Mick Cash wants bigger rises for his members and lower rises for passengers. Where is the money coming from? It does not add up. Labour’s policies do not add up, and the unions’ policies do not add up.
Of course, you will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, who pays the Labour party’s bills. Even the shadow Secretary of State has received financial contributions from the RMT. The Opposition are in the pockets of the trade unions, and that is simply not acceptable.
Andy McDonald
I know it has taken 100 years for the Conservative party to realise it, but we are the Labour and trade union movement. The Secretary of State needs to understand that. It is the cleanest money in politics—I would rather take from trade unions than from hedge fund managers and private health companies, as some who populate the Conservative Benches do.
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman is bankrolled by the people who are inappropriately disrupting parts of the network and are politically driven. They disrupt the lives of passengers for political purposes. The Labour party should disown the unions and their current action. The hon. Gentleman’s conduct on this is not acceptable,
Huw Merriman
On my daily commute, as I walked through London Bridge station—as I know my right hon. Friend does—where there have been a lot of difficulties for me and my constituents, I noted that it is now an absolute temple to travel. We should talk positively about our rail system and not just knock it.
Andy McDonald
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you heard what I did, but I think that I have been accused of unacceptable behaviour. I really think that needs to be clarified. I have tried to conduct myself with all civility and propriety, and what the Secretary of State said is regrettable. I seek your guidance on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
The Secretary of State did use a phrase that included the words “not acceptable”. He might wish to repeat what he wanted to say in slightly different words, because the shadow Secretary of State has a point about the precise use of words in the Chamber.
Chris Grayling
Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it is unacceptable to defend inappropriate strike action around the country by people who should not disrupt the lives of passengers. I wait with interest to hear any Labour Member say that the strikes are wrong. Sadly, I have not heard that for 18 months. I am waiting patiently. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough says from a sedentary position that it is about safety, even though the safety regulatory authorities say that it is not. That is the shame of it.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
Why has the RMT been able to negotiate successfully in Scotland and in Wales the question of driver-only trains, which is concerning for the public, when we cannot get that here in England? Is it something to do with the Secretary of State?
Chris Grayling
Driver-only trains have been operating in this country for 30 years. The ASLEF union recently reached a perfectly sensible agreement with GTR about the development of new train technologies. Yet today the RMT is striking on South Western Railway, even though that company has said that it does not plan to take the second person off the train. That is an absurd position. Of course, the hon. Lady will remember the comments of the president of the RMT at the TUC conference, where he said that the real aim is to create a national rail strike and bring down the Government. That is my concern. It is about not passengers but political motivation, and that is not acceptable.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I sat here and watched the Secretary of State chuckle and smile as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) made his contribution. My constituents have been suffering from the most dreadful services from Southern and Thameslink, and that is no laughing matter.
The Secretary of State refers to industrial action. The NAO report is clear that his Department did not check whether GTR had enough drivers and did not have a proper understanding of the condition of the network when it was setting the requirements of the franchise. The report is absolutely clear that the “cumulative effects” of the decisions made by his Department
“have negatively impacted on passengers.”
The Secretary of State can talk about industrial action all he wants, but when is he going to accept responsibility and, as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) just demanded, apologise to our constituents for the dreadful misery they have been suffering?
Chris Grayling
I have been Secretary of State for 18 months. Let us be clear what I have done. There are a number of problems on the network—I have never made any attempts to hide that. The infrastructure is not good enough, which is why we have launched an immediate £300 million programme to upgrade some of the areas of the network that are failing too often and why we have changed ways of working. I asked Chris Gibb to go in and bring together the operation of the track and the train on a daily basis in order to improve things. London Bridge has been opened, and we are now able to run longer trains for passengers. Those are brand-new trains going through the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Chris Gibb, who everybody has rightly said is a well regarded, independent figure, said that above all, the unacceptable disruption to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents was caused by the trade unions. The Labour party and the unions demanded the publication of Chris Gibb’s report. It was published, and that is what it said. They may not like it, but that is what it said.
Mr Sheerman
This could turn into a really good debate on the future of the rail industry, but I suggest that the Secretary of State is making it a bit too partisan. Could we not return to what everyone across the House knows to be the serious problem—the quality of management and the broken franchising system? Will he get on to that?
Chris Grayling
The biggest problem is that we have not had enough new trains or enough investment. That is why it is right and proper that this Government are spending more than any since the steam age on improving the infrastructure, and why new trains are being introduced right across the country. There are new trains on the Great Western routes, on the east coast main line and in the north. Every single train in the north of England is being replaced or refurbished as new in a transition programme of a type that has not been seen for decades and decades. That is what the railway really needs.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
And, indeed, there are new trains on South Western Railway. The problem is that the new trains are designed to have the doors opened by the driver. South Western Railway has guaranteed to schedule two members of staff—continuing to have a guard—on every train, so it now comes down to the ridiculous argument of which of them opens the doors. I remember when we used to be allowed to open the doors ourselves.
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; it is a completely pointless strike. This is what frustrates me. I normally have a good relationship with the shadow Secretary of State, but it frustrates me that he will not stand up and say to the unions, “Why will you not stop this action?” We have been very clear that on South Western Railway, the second member of staff is staying on the train. On Southern, there are more members of staff working on trains today than there were before the industrial dispute started, so why on earth is the dispute carrying on? It is wrong. Why cannot everyone one in this House say, “Just get back to work”?
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling
I will take two more interventions, and then I will make some progress.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
The Secretary of State may not actually be able to answer my question at the moment, but the Minister may be able to later. Could he give us an indication as to how much investment there will be in new infrastructure and new railway carriages between 2010 and 2020? How does it compare with the kind of investment that took place between 1997 and 2010?
Chris Grayling
I cannot give the exact numbers, but we are investing tens of billions of pounds in the railways over the period that my right hon. Friend mentioned. Crucially, the private sector that the Labour party seems to dislike so much is investing billions of pounds in those new trains. The new trains that are arriving in all parts of the network right now are being funded not by the Government, but by the private sector.
This is the key flaw in Labour’s arguments. Actually, if we get rid of the private sector in the rail network, there will not be any new trains, because this is about billions of pounds that is coming from elsewhere. That money comes otherwise from the Treasury—it has to compete with money for schools and hospitals. Through the public-private organisations that work side by side in our railways, we are delivering a huge infrastructure investment programme and, at the same time, a transformation of our rolling stock. That is what is necessary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Chris Grayling
I will take one more intervention and then make some progress.
Grahame Morris
It is an interesting concept that the travelling public have got a good deal that is paid for by the private train operating companies. I just checked what it would cost me if I left the House of Commons and went to Durham now. It would cost me £153 standard class—or £236 first class, but of course we are not allowed to do that. A similar journey at the same time of day from Frankfurt to Munich in Germany would cost £39 and tuppence. How is it that our travelling public are getting a good deal from this fragmented privatised system?
Chris Grayling
In this country, under Governments of both persuasions, we have taken decisions about the right balance between the cost of the railways being borne by those who use the railways and those who do not. Yes, the hon. Gentleman may be quoting walk -up fares, but he can go and buy an advance ticket for the east coast route at a fraction of the cost that he described.
Chris Grayling
I am going to make some progress now, I am afraid, because the shadow Secretary of State asked a variety of questions about the east coast main line and I want to respond.
The reality is that sometimes the private companies get it wrong. The situation on the east coast franchise is a clear example. Virgin and Stagecoach overbid, and they are paying, and will pay, the price. I repeat—they will pay the price.
I have listened with interest to some of the ill-informed comments about the situation on the east coast line in the past few weeks. I have heard some absurd claims from people who do not understand what they are talking about. So let me explain to the House what the position is. I am not agreeing to early termination of a contract in 2020; no one has asked me to. This railway is paying a huge premium to the taxpayer and continues to do so, but the issue is that this franchise is not delivering the profits the operator expected and is at risk of not making it as far as 2020.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Chris Grayling
No—forgive me, but I am going to explain this in detail.
Passenger numbers are rising on this railway; customer satisfaction is up; and the line is generating a healthy and growing operating surplus that is providing a much greater return to the taxpayer than when it was in the public sector. It is also worth saying that it is running more services and employing more staff. The money that the franchise pays to the Government is today 20% higher than it was under public ownership. But Virgin and Stagecoach got their numbers wrong. They have been losing money steadily, and have now lost the best part of £200 million in the past three years. Despite that, I am holding them to their full financial obligations, taking every last penny of the £165 million guarantee that we insisted on when they took on the franchise.
Chris Grayling
I am going to finish this point, and then I will take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, if that is okay.
That is a huge sum of money for a British business with a market capitalisation of under £1 billion pounds. It is also one of the biggest bonds of its kind ever provided in the rail industry. But despite Labour’s claims, this is not a bail-out. There is no viable legal mechanism through which I can extract any more money from the company. My Department is preparing contingency plans as we do not believe that the franchise will be financially viable through to 2020. I clearly have a duty to do that for passengers. When we reach a conclusion that works, I will come back to this House and make a statement. However, I do plan to go ahead with the east coast partnership, as I indicated in my statement a month ago. People in this country do not understand the separation of track and train, and as part of our reforms we are bringing the two together, as Sir Roy McNulty recommended in his report. I now give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Secretary of State. Can he make this clear? He is talking about the parent company guarantee, which will be paid. What about the premium payments from 2020 to 2023, which amount to £2 billion? Is the company going to pay those premiums, or not?
Chris Grayling
As I have just said, we are currently not convinced that the franchise will make it as far as 2020, so we will put in place alternative arrangements. The hon. Gentleman was clearly not listening to what I was saying. However, this railway will continue to deliver a substantial operating surplus—a premium to the taxpayer—whatever the situation. Whatever happens, this railway will continue to deliver large sums of money to the taxpayer.
Graham Stringer
If I heard the Secretary of State correctly, he was confirming the article in The Sunday Times saying that the full contract, as it was let, was not legally enforceable. If that is the case, will he confirm it, and will he explain to the House why he agreed a contract that was not legally enforceable? If it is not true, why will he not demand the full £2 billion?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman has not understood the finances of the rail industry. The money that the taxpayer receives from the operating profit—the taxpayer receives the lion’s share—will continue to flow into the public coffers whatever happens. The contract that was let between Virgin-Stagecoach and the Government will be fully enforced—I repeat, it will be fully enforced—and I make the absolute commitment to the House that that will happen.
I will now make further progress. We have heard this afternoon, more explicitly than we have previously heard it, that the Opposition’s policy is to return to the days of British Rail. There is somehow the idea that this will bring nirvana, but it actually only takes a moment’s thought to realise how flawed their thinking is, assuming they have done any the first place.
Our network suffers from three main problems. First, the infrastructure, which is already run in the public sector—Labour Members forget that—is often old and unreliable. About two thirds of the problems on our rail network result from issues with the publicly run infrastructure. This is not about who runs it and who owns it, but about investment in the infrastructure. That is why I am pleased to have just announced a further £20 billion renewal programme for infrastructure—concentrating on replacing older points, signals and the rest, and upgrading systems—so that we have a more reliable railway. That is the first problem, and the first solution.
The second issue is that the system is heavily congested. It would not matter who was running the railway, because routes into places such as London Waterloo or Manchester Piccadilly would still be full. What those stations and routes need is longer trains, and that is why the private sector, supported by the Government, is now investing in longer trains all around the country—in Manchester, all around London, in the west country and in the west midlands. That is the next priority. Probably the biggest renewal of rolling stock in modern times is taking place at the moment, and it is certainly by far the biggest in Europe. That is what is necessary. Someone on an eight-coach train that is full in the morning needs a 10-coach train, and that is what we are delivering. It is also why we are expanding capacity routes such as Thameslink, which will make a huge difference through central London, and why we have opened the Ordsall Chord in Manchester, which will provide linkage across the city and create extra capacity on trans-Pennine routes.
Thirdly, the system is organisationally too fragmented—too many people debating with each other, rather than solving problems for passengers—which is why our strategy is to bring back together the day-to-day operation of the track and the trains. Those are the three challenges facing the network today, and they are why passengers are often frustrated. We are working to address those problems with solutions and investment. That is the right strategy for the rail network, and shifting around the organisation, renationalisation and the rest of it will not solve those problems. Let us concentrate on the things that will make the difference for passengers, not on moving the deckchairs, as Labour Members seem to want to do.
Jonathan Edwards
Will the Secretary of State update the House on his discussions with the Welsh Government about devolving responsibility for the franchise in Wales? We are halfway through the bidding process, which the Welsh Government are conducting, yet powers over the franchise remain in Westminster, despite the British Government’s promises to hand them over.
Chris Grayling
That is simply untrue. The re-letting of the Wales and the borders franchise is being handled entirely by the Welsh Government. The interesting question is whether they are actually going to be able to deliver on their promises to electrify the Cardiff valley lines, the infrastructure of which I have given them as well. They have been given the opportunity to create an integrated metro railway for Cardiff, and I will be interested to see whether they can deliver what they have promised. They have control over the Wales and the borders franchise. The only power I have retained is to make sure that we look after the interests of people on the English side of the border. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is just not right.
Geraint Davies
Has the Secretary of State seen, as he has mentioned this area, the proposals made by Professor Mark Barry for an electrified Swansea metro, which, through straightening the line, would reduce by half the time it takes to travel from Cardiff to Swansea? Implementing those proposals would provide the electrification David Cameron promised, an integrated Swansea metro and a shorter journey time.
Chris Grayling
I have not seen those proposals, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that I think it more likely than not that we will see on the Welsh valley lines and the Cardiff metro lines the same approach that I have taken in south Wales—using hybrid technology rather than electrification. That is what I think will be done.
Chris Grayling
From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman talks about dirty diesel. What we are now seeing is the arrival of new technologies that will transform the way our railways work. We will soon see hydrogen trains. The new generation of trains—hybrid trains—is much cleaner than its predecessors. New technology is giving us extra versatility.
Many Members want to speak, so I shall conclude. Today, I am afraid that we have heard from Labour Members a position based on sand. They want lower fare rises, but will not tell us how those will be paid for because their numbers do not add up. The irony is that in London, where Labour is in power, the fares are going up by more than fares in the rest of the country. By contrast, we are addressing the real problems on the rail network. We are providing the investment that the railways need.
Somebody mentioned disruptions over Christmas. Yes, I know passengers had a disrupted time. The reason for that is that we are spending billions of pounds across the country. At some point, the work has to be done. Those people who walk into London Bridge station in the mornings, as well as those people up in the north-west where improvements are happening and people elsewhere across the country, will now see new facilities—broader facilities, expanded facilities—that will make a real difference to passengers.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State is quite right that technology and investment will make a huge difference. Will he confirm that modern digital signalling will allow the railway to run many more trains an hour safely on the same piece of track, which could be the cheapest and best way to deal with the bottlenecks?
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are already seeing that Thameslink is going to use digital signalling in a way that has never happened before in this country. We will use digital signalling in the improvements on the trans-Pennine route and elsewhere. This Government are investing in the railway. This party believes in the railways. It understands the need to expand capacity on the railways.
We have not done enough for much too long. In the years since privatisation, passenger numbers have grown and grown after the years of decline in the days of British Rail. So the pressures have increased, as have the challenge and the need to invest. That is why we are spending billions of pounds on the infrastructure, building stations such as London Bridge, building routes such as Crossrail and replacing every single train in the north of England. It is why we are acting in a way that, during 13 years in power, the Labour party never did.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the Scottish National party spokesman, I should say that it will be obvious that a great many Members wish to speak and that we have limited time. It should be noted that a great many Members intervened on the two Front-Bench speakers. The Members concerned were generous with their time, but hon. Members, who may all now sit down, must take responsibility for the time that their interventions take up, which is noted by the Chair. Therefore, we will have an initial time limit of four minutes per speaker, but I do not anticipate everyone who has indicated to me that they wish to speak having an opportunity to do so because there simply is not enough time.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
A belated happy new year to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also welcome the new Ministers to the Front Bench and pay tribute to the work done by the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes). He certainly knew how to conduct himself at the Dispatch Box, and perhaps the Secretary of State should be thinking about how he conducts himself. He said that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) spoke for 25 minutes just talking rubbish, but he then spent 18 minutes just union bashing before getting on to any substantive point.
Let me be probably the first in the Chamber today to congratulate Virgin on its recent decision to stop selling the Daily Mail on the west coast route. I am sure that many Members will agree when I say that I hope other outlets follow suit. That is probably the last compliment I will pay Virgin, but I want to commend the hard work of its staff. I encounter them fairly regularly on the west coast route and I can certainly testify to their professionalism and hard work.
The motion covers rail franchising in general and the bail-out of Virgin East Coast in particular. It is fair to say that there are opposite views across the Chamber on the merits of privatisation and franchising—we have already seen that in this debate—but one thing I am really confident about is that the Transport Secretary wrongly connects cause and effect when it comes to the privatisation of the railway. It can be argued, and has been, that British Rail was struggling, with poor rolling stock that was outdated, but that is only half the picture. Any under-investment in British Rail and rolling stock was due to Government constraints. Passenger numbers were affected by the recession, in terms of both affordability and commuters having jobs to travel to. Spending power for investment was further hampered by the safety-critical upgrades required following the 1988 Clapham rail crash, and upgrades needed to service the Channel tunnel links—yet another example of investment in the south-east of England to the detriment of the rest of the United Kingdom.
The response of John Major’s Government to the problems in British Rail was to privatise and sell it off, but they did that at such a pace that there was no co-ordinated or strategic approach. History shows that that rushed privatisation gave us Railtrack, which eventually went bust and was replaced by Network Rail. If ever there was a demonstration that infrastructure is best owned and managed by the public sector, to avoid profit being put before safety, that is the prime example. I do not pretend that Network Rail is operating as efficiently as possible, but it certainly does not put profit before safety.
The franchise approach to privatisation gave us a model in which the countries of Great Britain were the only ones to have completely divested themselves of any public stake in passenger rail operations. Given the problems since then, that appears to be another clear example of the UK leading the world, but leading it down completely the wrong path. What rail privatisation gave us was a complex model—stuck doggedly to by the Tories and the Blair and Brown Governments—of charging, interactions, private companies requiring large profits, and ticketing arrangements, and a way for companies and the network owner to play a game of blaming each other for problems.
The problems are aptly summed up in the report on the southern rail franchise just published by the National Audit Office, the main conclusion of which is that it cannot be demonstrated that the franchise has delivered value for money. The operator blames Network Rail and the unions. The Government blame the unions, as we heard again today from the Secretary of State, but completely ignore the part they played. The bottom line is that 60% of cancellations were due to Govia Thameslink and 40% due to Network Rail. It was the UK Government who set up the model that was supposed to align with the complex infrastructure upgrades; it was the UK Government who took the revenue risks, which means that strikes cost the taxpayer money; and it was the UK Government who awarded the franchise based on even further roll-out of driver-only operation; so the initial unwillingness on the part of the UK Government and Transport Secretaries to get involved is shameful.
The NAO also makes it quite clear that the Department for Transport had a large responsibility, especially in relation to access to the network and timetabling pressures. I am concerned that the DFT’s lack of understanding of pressures arising from upgrades and timetabling will have an impact on the west coast franchise and HS2 awards. Is that the reason why the invitation to tender for the west coast franchise, which was due in November 2017, still has not been issued and we do not know when it will happen?
Other franchise issues include the failed award of the west coast franchise in 2012. I am sure that, had Virgin Trains won that franchise in 2012, it would happily have taken it rather than threaten court action. As we have already heard, the case led to direct awards. According to a Library briefing, 12 of 16 franchises have now been subject to direct award. Further failures by the Department for Transport give us the worst of both worlds—there is no competition, and short-term awards provide no incentive for long-term investment, yet the companies are still guaranteed a profit. That is a poor set-up.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
According to the House of Commons Library briefing, the direct award for the west coast franchise mentions a commitment to work to remodel Carstairs junction, which is seen as significant bottleneck in the network. Anyone who has travelled on the line knows that time spent at Carstairs is often time that could be shaved off a journey, therefore making rail more attractive. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should increase investment to remove bottlenecks such as Carstairs junction?
Alan Brown
I agree with my hon. Friend. Carstairs junction could be a major blockage for HS2, as well as the other operation, so I hope that the Minister was listening to her intervention and will explain why, if the remodelling was a part of the direct award, it has not happened yet.
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman decries the lack of competition from direct awards, so have he and his party considered the report of 18 months ago from the Competition and Markets Authority calling for more on-track competition within franchises as an alternative to the increasing allocation of monopolies through franchising?
Alan Brown
I am not against competition per se. There is certainly lots of information about models that are deemed to work better than others. One aspect of competition is that the public sector should be allowed to make its own bids for operating franchises. A bit of competition might help to drive innovation, but in no way should the public sector be barred from the process.
We then have the Virgin Trains East Coast shambles on the east coast line. The Transport Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box again to say that there was no bail- out. When he responded to me during proceedings on the statement, he claimed that the parent company guarantees would protect the taxpayer, but we now have confirmation that franchise fees were backloaded, meaning that Virgin was able to walk away without paying the £2 billion premium track fees it was supposed to pay. That was confirmed at the Dispatch Box. He said, “It’s okay, we’re going to get the £165 million parent company guarantee,” but that is considerably less than the £2 billion premium fees the taxpayer would otherwise have received, so the argument is nonsense. To say that the franchise might have failed is no excuse. It is testament, again, to the failed model currently being operated by this UK Government. The very fact that Stagecoach’s shares went up after we heard news of the new model proposed by the Transport Secretary tells us who is walking away with the best deal from the new arrangements.
The east coast main line gives us proof that public ownership can work. When the previous franchise failed, it was successfully run as a public operation that paid over £1 billion in track rental fees to the taxpayer and returned a nominal profit of £42 million from the overall operation. The large private companies would not suffer a £42 million profit, because they would think it too little, but it would be welcome for the public sector and could drive further investment. Another failing of the franchise model is that it only allows big companies to operate, and they chase massive profits, at the behest of their shareholders.
The public-private alliance model proposed by the Transport Secretary might in theory be an improvement but, again, it is bonkers not to revert to the working model under the public franchise. The new model will still contain risk in terms of multi-layer operations and interactions, and even the timetabling to get it in place, as was outlined by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
One of these new models is the Oxford to Cambridge line, in respect of which the Transport Secretary has said he is happy to devolve power to a private company. Does my hon. Friend therefore find it strange that the right hon. Gentleman would not be willing to devolve an operation such as Network Rail to Scotland, where we could make a real difference for the travelling public?
Alan Brown
I agree with my hon. Friend and I was going to come to that point later. I cannot understand the UK Government’s intransigence over devolving Network Rail, which it is anticipated would save the taxpayer £30 million and increase accountability to the Scottish Government.
I have touched on some of the causes of the demise of British Rail. Since privatisation, passenger numbers and investment have increased, but again we need to go back to cause and effect, because that was not a direct consequence of privatisation. It has been possible to lever in private investment, but that is recouped through passenger fares and public subsidy—that is the bottom line. When the Government allowed private investment to come in, they decided to be a bit bolder in specifying increased services, new rolling stock and other improvements for the franchises. However, that same ambition could be replicated either under nationalisation or by allowing public sector investment, rather than everything being levered in through private investment. Following privatisation, there was also an upturn in the economy, so a range of factors actually contributed to better passenger experience and increased numbers. The Transport Secretary really needs to move away from his “private equals good; public equals bad and inefficient” mentality, but I fear that today there are no signs of that changing.
In its 1997 manifesto, Labour reneged on its commitment to renationalising the rail system, but it at least commissioned the McNulty review in 2009 to identify better value for money in the railway franchise system. Incredibly, the Tory Government sat on that report for six years before coming up with modest proposals to vertically align the infrastructure and passenger operations in an alliance model.
Alliances can be made to work, or at least to work better than they do under the current franchise system. The ScotRail-Abellio alliance is the only franchise that stipulates that all staff must be paid the real living wage. It also guarantees trade union representation at every franchise board meeting, no compulsory redundancies and 100 new apprentices. Rather than making staff’s terms and conditions a mechanism for greater profit, the Scottish Government have incorporated protecting them into the contract. On passenger experience, there will be new rolling stock, 23% more carriages, a new approach to cycling interaction, and a drive to expand tourism. Those aims, ambitions and protections contrast directly with the attitude of the Secretary of State and the Tory’s southern rail franchise.
That is not to say that there were not teething problems with the new Abellio alliance, but it is now the best performing large franchise in the UK. Even so, the Scottish Government are putting in place measures to allow a public sector procurement bid to be submitted either at the end of the franchise or at the mid-point, where there is a possible break. The success of CalMac ferries in competing in the private sector shows how this can be achieved.
As we heard in the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), if responsibility for Network Rail was devolved to Scotland, with the body under the control of the Scottish Government, the operation of rail services in Scotland would be much more efficient, and there would be much more accountability. That would give us a better way to move forward.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
On the devolution of Network Rail, does the hon. Gentleman accept that power over devolved franchises has already been devolved? Enhanced capability was devolved in May 2016 whereby public sector bids could be brought forward for ScotRail. That was known well in advance of the current tender. Is it not the case that ScotRail could have been in public hands today if the Scottish Government had delayed that tender?
Alan Brown
A small history lesson: it was the UK Labour Government who refused to hand these powers over to Scotland. They had the chance to do so in 2000 and 2005. Since the Scottish National party Government came to power in 2007, they have written to three Transport Secretaries to ask for the powers to be devolved to Scotland, and three times that has been refused. The shortlist for the ScotRail-Abellio tender process was drawn up in November 2013, so the initial invitation to tender came way before that. The contract was awarded in October 2014—a year and a half before the new powers came into play. It is absolutely ridiculous to say that the Scottish Government could have sat on their hands and waited for future powers that might not have come. They did come, the Scottish Government will use them in the future, and they are preparing that public sector bid, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention.
Alison Thewliss
Does my hon. Friend agree that the experience from our casework is that Network Rail is not an accountable body at all? When we try to raise constituency cases, or make complaints about works on the line or things that it wants to do, it is very difficult to get any answers from it, because it just does not want to consult. It just wants to do things and pays lip service to community engagement.
Alan Brown
It is certainly a big problem. Network Rail is too big. The fact that it is effectively accountable to two Governments, but ultimately to the UK Government, causes further problems.
The Labour party is calling for full-scale renationalisation. I am certainly not against that—there is clear merit to keeping all moneys within the public purse—but I have concerns about the model proposed in its manifesto, in that the result might be something that is too large to be fully accountable, which touches on my hon. Friend’s intervention. Labour’s proposed model shows that it believes that the railway can be nationalised within the EU single market, given the EU firewall proposed between rail access and the network/operations side of the business, so the argument that we cannot be in the single market and have national railways clearly falls, as the Labour party itself recognises. We do know that nationalisation works, given how many state-owned railway companies current operate in the UK, and of course they are doing so under EU rules. The Tory anti-nationalisation attitude is therefore clearly utter nonsense.
The Library briefing on rail structures suggests there is no agreed best model operating in the world, but it does give some excellent examples of variations in models. What is clear is that public sector involvement or state-owned franchise companies can work. The UK has a franchise model that has not worked effectively, and a change of thinking is undoubtedly required.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. There is now a limit of four minutes on Back-Bench speeches.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
We have rightly heard from the Secretary of State that there is record investment in the railways and a record number of passengers, yet Opposition Members are here to criticise the running of the railways. I am sure we will hear many tales of woe from Opposition Back Benchers, but the reality is very different. There are problems, and we have heard from my right hon. Friend about the Virgin Trains East Coast situation, which is not desirable, but of course, to some extent Virgin predicated its income projections on improvements to be made by Network Rail, and of course Network Rail, being a nationalised organisation, usually delivers late and over budget. The Secretary of State was somewhat critical of Virgin, and it clearly should have taken note of the fact that Network Rail failed to deliver on the promises made on the west coast route some years ago, so there is some legitimate blame on both sides.
Regrettably, I am old enough to remember the days of British Rail, a failed nationalised monolith and a watchword for failure. Until 1992 there were direct train services to my constituency, but British Rail cut them, and the new Minister, whom I welcome to his place, will be hearing a lot from me about the need for through services to Grimsby and Cleethorpes.
The Government support the rail network to an enormous extent. Many of the figures cited in an article in the 13 October edition of Rail magazine were repeated in The Times last week, including that £925 million was invested by the private sector in the rail network in 2016-17. The shadow Secretary of State failed to identify how any Labour proposal would bring forth that money. The reality is that cuts are made under all Governments and usually the first thing that goes is capital infrastructure expenditure. There is no way that a renationalised network under a Labour Government would be able to raise the approaching £1 billion that the private sector is currently investing.
Grahame Morris
What does the hon. Gentleman think the state-owned German rail company that owns a substantial chunk of our franchises does with the profit it makes here in our privatised system? It invests that profit in its own system, through subsidised fares there. That seems ludicrous to me and most of the travelling public.
Martin Vickers
Perhaps they are a little more free-market and capitalist-minded over in Germany.
At present, competition is for the franchise; what we want is more competition in the running of services, and one way we can achieve that is through open access operators. Hull Trains and Grand Central both run on the east coast main line and provide services to areas that in the main do not get a service from the main franchise holder. Indeed, I understand that Grand Central will shortly put forward a proposal for direct trains from King’s Cross through to Scunthorpe, Grimsby and Cleethorpes. I hope that the Minister will be supportive of that, because it would be a great boost to the local economy.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
My hon. Friend has mentioned open access, and I agree with the points he is making. Does he agree that open access tends to produce a higher satisfaction rate among passengers and rail users?
Martin Vickers
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hull Trains and Grand Central both get very high satisfaction ratings.
The House should take note of last year’s Transport Committee report on rail franchising. It states:
“Open access has been a success, albeit on a limited scale to date. The balance of evidence points to potential benefits in open access having an expanded role on long distance routes.”
It goes on to state:
“Reforms are needed if open access is to be expanded on the network. We recommend that the Department and the ORR work together, as they develop the financial framework for the railways over Control Period 6”.
I hope that the new Minister will make it one of his priorities to look more closely into introducing open access operations on to the railway, in order to provide genuine competition and to improve services, particularly on those routes that are struggling at the moment.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Martin Vickers
I will not take any more interventions; it would be unfair to others.
Reference has been made to fare increases. It is a fair point that there has to be a balance involving what the taxpayer is prepared to put into the network. I gather that the net contribution from the taxpayer for the last financial year was £4.2 billion. That is not an insignificant amount. While mentioning fares, may I be critical of the rail operators? Tickets are often not checked, and barriers at stations often do not operate. That is something that urgently needs to be looked at.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
No other nation in the world runs its railways like the UK has done since the flawed and ideological fragmentation and privatisation carried out by the Major Government in the mid-1990s, and there is a reason for that: it just does not work very well. In particular, it has not worked on the east coast main line. Since rail privatisation, of the three private operators of that franchise, one has gone bust, one has defaulted on the contract and one has been allowed to avoid payments of hundreds of millions of pounds—possibly up to £2 billion—that it undertook to pay to the taxpayer.
This latest and grossest private franchising failure is a capitulation by the Transport Secretary to Virgin Trains’ demand to be let off the consequences of its overbidding to get the contract. The Transport Secretary has done this in an effort to prevent the embarrassing spectacle of another very public failure in the private operation of InterCity East Coast. This follows his predecessor’s ideologically motivated decision to strip Directly Operated Railways of the operation of the east coast main line mere weeks ahead of the 2015 general election. In doing this, the Transport Secretary has simply given in to the self-interested and costly demands of the train operating company.
The only east coast operator that has not gone bust, defaulted or received a bail-out from the taxpayer was East Coast Main Line, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Directly Operated Railways—itself a company wholly owned by the Government—which was established by Lord Adonis when he was Transport Secretary in 2009. In other words, it was a publicly owned company. It took over when National Express defaulted, and it ran the line very successfully. Its record is clear and stands in stark contrast to what has happened before and since. It made all its required service payments, returning more than £1 billion to the Treasury. It invested all its profits straight back into services, paying out zero dividends to greedy private owners—because it did not have any—and it achieved some of the best results on the east coast of any operator since records began.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
On my hon. Friend’s point about the east coast main line, because of the ideological decision by the Government, profits of £1 billion going back to the Treasury have been forgone. At the same time, we are allowing a private franchise not to pay £2.1 billion to retain its franchise. Does she agree that it is economic madness to retain that service in the private sector?
Maria Eagle
My hon. Friend is correct. Money is clearly no object in trying to avoid the embarrassment of yet another failure of the franchise in the hands of a private operator. Why did the coalition Government decide to re-privatise the operation? The date is a clue, as it happened just weeks ahead of the 2015 general election. The decision was cynical, ideologically motivated and costly to the public purse.
Our policy at that time was clear. We wanted to keep East Coast in public hands to act as a public sector comparator to the private franchises. We wanted to keep the operational expertise in Directly Operated Railways to enable us gradually to take the operation of the railways back into public ownership as franchises ended without having to pay enormous amounts to buy out contracts. Just changing the order of franchise competitions to enable that re-privatisation cost the public purse hundreds of millions of pounds. Indeed, the consequences of that lamentable decision are being seen today in the ongoing chaos and waste of money that the franchising system is inflicting on our railways—now spectacularly reinforced by the Transport Secretary’s capitulation to the financial interests of the private train operating companies on the east coast main line.
The Transport Secretary is effectively institutionalising massive taxpayer bail-outs, which he has renamed “partnerships”, and I predict that this will not be the last such bail-out. He is effectively institutionalising giving in to the tendency that the private companies have shown over the years of gaming the franchising system to keep taxpayer subsidies while avoiding making the payments that they are contracted to make. Virgin-Stagecoach is not the first train operating company to do that and it will not be the last. The system delivers lucrative near-monopoly rail contracts on the basis of post-dated payment promises by private companies that can simply be abandoned when they become due, with no penalty attached for behaving badly.
The Government are now institutionalising the reality that the private companies take the profits but the taxpayer provides almost all the investment in trains, track and infrastructure and covers any losses. That is the very definition of a licence to print money. Private train bosses are simply laughing all the way to the bank, and this Secretary of State, for ideological reasons, is allowing them to do so. We cannot go on like this. It is time that this costly and failing system was ended. It has not worked, and it will not work in the future. We need to ensure that we do things better.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) despite my not agreeing with what she had to say. The cost of an annual ticket from Colchester to London is now £5,104 and I am in no doubt that that is a huge amount of money for my constituents. However, despite what is claimed by the Opposition, including the hon. Lady, the fares are not lining the pockets of rail companies. For every £1 spent on fares, 97p goes on the running and improvement of our railways. However, when our constituents pay such amounts to travel to work they need to see value for money.
To be fair, passengers on Abellio, which runs the service to Colchester, will see real benefits from the new franchise. Over 1,000 brand-new carriages are coming into service from next year, at a cost of over £1 billion—I assume that that is another £1 billion that Labour would borrow. There will be free wi-fi for all passengers at stations and on trains. Season ticket holders and those who buy their tickets in advance will benefit from automatic Delay Repay. All those things will make a massive difference, and I have only one ask for the Department. The new 15-minute threshold for Delay Repay was announced after Abellio was awarded the franchise, so as things stand it is likely that it will not be introduced until a new franchise is awarded in 2025. My constituents, Abellio and I would like to see that implemented earlier, so I ask the Department and the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), whom I welcome to his place, to see whether they can make it happen as soon as possible.
However, I will not stand here and pretend that the current franchising system is perfect. We still have issues with competition and with the number of companies coming forward.
Huw Merriman
On competition, my hon. Friend may remember a Transport Committee report in which we found that the same big companies were bidding and that there was not enough competition.
Will Quince
I have served on the Transport Committee with my hon. Friend for two years. He is right that, in the invitation to tender for our most recent franchise on the Great Eastern main line, the three companies that put in a bid were Abellio, the existing franchise holder; National Express, which had had the franchise taken away when it was given to Abellio; and FirstGroup, which had had the franchise taken away when it was given to National Express. He is right that we need to encourage more bids.
Large franchises mean that multimillion-pound bonds are put up by companies that are looking to run the services, and there is a lot of risk even for large companies. We should consider creating smaller franchises that carry less risk, thereby attracting more interest and more bids, delivering more competition and, ultimately, better value for taxpayers’ money.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Would allowing councils, local authorities and other public bodies to bid for franchises not be a good way of ensuring more competition, and competition that people can control?
Will Quince
The honest answer is most likely not, but I agree that we need more competition. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) that we need more open access.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fine point. I welcome more competition, and I would welcome the involvement of groups from the charitable and non-profit sectors. The idea that the public sector should underwrite risk with taxpayers’ money is what we are moving away from.
Will Quince
I am sorry, but time is limited and I have taken enough interventions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle is right that we need to consider more open access in which two or more companies operate on the same franchise, where the line can support it. I appreciate that many lines cannot support such open access, and the Great Eastern main line is a prime example of where it would be very difficult. Where we do have open access, operators tend to have higher satisfaction ratings, which proves that competition can offer benefits for passengers.
Ticketing is another thing that could be improved. I would like season tickets to take inspiration from the fare capping on the London underground. Buying an annual ticket, as opposed to a monthly ticket, offers a substantial discount. If a person’s employer does not offer a season ticket loan, it can be difficult for them to afford a one-off payment of often thousands of pounds—in the case of Colchester to London, about £5,000. Passengers should not pay less just because they can afford such a large amount in one go, so I urge the Government to look into capping season ticket travel on new franchises so that passengers will never pay more than the cost of an annual ticket in a single year. That would instantly save commuters hundreds of pounds, and it would be made easier by the implementation of smart ticketing, which we are seeing rolled out across franchises.
Our rail network has undergone an extraordinary transformation since privatisation. Passenger journeys, down a third between 1960 and 1995, have doubled. We have one of the safest railway networks in Europe. The focus must now be on doubling down on competition and value for money as part of the franchising process, and not on taking away all competition and returning to the days of British Rail. I encourage the Government to set a 40-year vision to transform our railway, rather than listening to the Opposition’s plans for returning our railway to the state last seen 40 years ago.
Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)
It has been quite a week for the Transport Secretary, but even by his standards this debate might qualify as a low point. My constituents listening to this debate will be absolutely astonished to hear the rosy picture he painted. For most of my constituents in Wigan it is not so much a daily commute as a daily struggle to get on trains that are older than I am and that are often late, overcrowded, dirty and cold, for which they are rewarded by seeing their fares go up every year.
The human cost is enormous. I am contacted every week by constituents who are tired, stressed, anxious about money or seriously considering giving up their job because they do not know how many more bedtimes, bath times or story times with their kids they can miss. We are failing in one of the basic functions of the state, which is to provide a decent public transport service. There is a much wider cost in towns like mine.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
We have head from Ministers that higher fares will fund improved services. I come from Manchester, the city that had the first railway station, yet we find that the stations and railways in my constituency are in desperate need of investment. Levenshulme station is one of those. It has been hit by consistent flooding over the holidays, and lights in the station did not work for days, posing a real danger to passenger safety. In the 21st century, the station still does not have disability access. Ultimately, the passengers, who are paying higher fares—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I have tried to let the hon. Gentleman make his point, but he has now made a longer speech in that intervention than most people who are sitting here will get to make in the next half an hour, because we are going to have very tight time limits. Many Members have made very long interventions, which means some others will not get to speak at all. If hon. Members want to be fair, they know how to do so.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is right, because in a town like mine, which is typical of many around the country, people commute into nearby cities for work—Manchester is my nearby city, so I am familiar with it. Two thirds of my constituents commute out of the borough for work every day. For our town, the economic interest is enormous, because when they return to Wigan they spend in our local shops and businesses, sustaining our high streets and our local pubs. He will know as well as I do that towns across this country are ageing. The Centre for Towns research we launched last year showed that towns lost 25 million people under the age of 25 over the past 30 years, so public transport is the artery that keeps the heart beating in towns like mine. It has always been thus—towns such as Manchester and Birmingham grew and thrived because of the development of the railways, which enabled them to trade with one another. So how is it that 200 years later a report from the Institute for Public Policy Research finds that it takes longer to get from Liverpool to Hull than it does to get from London to Paris?
I will give the Minister one example of why these decisions, which are being made hundreds of miles away from the people who are affected, are broken. In 2015, the Department for Transport awarded the northern rail franchise to Arriva and, as part of that deal, which we were told would give us a better service, the decision was taken to axe the direct service from Southport through Wigan and into Manchester Piccadilly. Two thirds of people who commute from Wigan to Manchester commute to the south side of the city, but they were breezily told by their Government that instead they could commute into the north side of the city and arrive at work mid-morning. If they had been consulted at all, they would have told the Secretary of State why that was a problem. It has taken five MPs from three political parties two years of hard work to try to persuade the Government to sort this out, and we still have not managed to resolve it. No wonder four and a half times more people commute by train in London as a proportion of the population than in my region of the north-west. Decisions are made hundreds of miles away from the people who are affected, with no understanding and no thought given to the reality of their daily lives. I say to the Minister, who is not paying attention at the moment, that he will soon have to pay attention because the level of anger that this is creating across the country is immense.
The data analyst Tom Forth pointed out recently that for a scheme to be funded in Leeds, it needs to provide twice the return on investment of a scheme in London. How can that be sustainable? I just say this to the Minister: if we had been given the power to make these decisions for ourselves, we would have made very different decisions in recent years. We would have prioritised local services and connecting up our great regional cities before we started investing in High Speed 2. We would never have got into a situation where we were faced with losing the guard on the train. I will tell him what that will do: it will make our railways no-go areas for many people, including women late at night, people with disabilities and older people, who make up the bulk of my constituents.
We would talk far more about buses. In my constituency, it is now often cheaper for a family to get a taxi than a bus—how is that sustainable? The Secretary of State was very fond a few years ago of the phrase “take back control”. If he means anything at all by his word, he will give us back control, because we could hardly do worse than this Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Following on from what I said a few moments ago, I now have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy).
This morning, on my daily commute to this place—I am one of the few people who are fortunate enough to be able to commute here from East Sussex—I walked through London Bridge station, which has caused me and many of my constituents enormous difficulties because it has been rebuilt and its tracks reconstructed. It now looks absolutely fantastic and is a shining example of the £40 billion investment that the Government have put into the railways and the difference that that has made.
I wish to talk up our railways and their success. Let us remember that since 1997, under the current Administration and the previous Labour Administration, the number of passengers on our railways has doubled. The rail system now largely pays for itself; it does not need the £2 billion a year taxpayer subsidy that British Rail took to not run things properly. When we compare our rail system to those in Europe, we see that we have the second safest railway after Ireland; that we have the second best-performing railway in terms of passenger feedback, second only to Finland; that we use our rail system over 60% more than the European average; and that we have put more investment into our railways than any other EU country. We should talk up the rail system’s success, because not only is there all that, but it employs 250,000 people, releases about £11 billion of costs that would otherwise go on congestion charging, reduces carbon dioxide emissions by 8.4 million tonnes, and adds £10 billion to our gross value added. So we should all talk about the success of our rail story.
Of course, though, there are challenges. We have certainly seen challenges with the Southern network. We have really suffered with strikes and a poorly performing operator, and that has been laid bare today. Nevertheless, we should not forget that the unionisation of the rail network has caused enormous problems. It should be well remembered that the same train drivers who have now pledged to drive the trains that they said were not safe have taken a 28.5% pay rise. That is a much greater pay rise than the passengers who are paying for their rail tickets each year got. All Members need to recognise that costs such as that result in our passengers paying more and more.
Let us give something back to the passengers. At the moment, Network Rail has to compensate rail operators for any delays it causes. Only a third of the passengers who experience those same delays claim their compensation, so train operators are keeping the money. I want the train operators to be required to bank that money.
Will Quince
Is my hon. Friend making the point that I suspect he is going to make about automatic Delay Repay being included in future franchise agreements?
Huw Merriman
I am indeed; I thank my hon. Friend for helping me to finish my sentence. The rail operators should be required to bank that money and put it in a pot so that it can be spent only on new technology for trains. That technology would mean that everybody would be required to tap in and out of their train journey, and if by the time they got to their destination they were more than 15 or 30 minutes late, they could have the compensation credited to their bank account when they tapped out. In this day and age, there is no need for passengers to go through the timely, costly and bureaucratic exercise of claiming, which is why they currently do not claim. I have introduced a private Member’s Bill, which I hope will be given its Second Reading at the end of March, and I would like the Minister to get behind it. I believe that the technology does exist and that, with more will, the train operators could put it in place. That would give more back to the passenger.
It is all well and good to talk about the public good, and I recognise a lot of Network Rail’s good work, but it has also been responsible for a large proportion of the delays for which the train operators have taken the flack. It is time to do more than just stick with what we have; we should make all the track the responsibility of the train operators. We should also question whether some stations should be transferred out of Network Rail’s control.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
In the short time I have, I wish first to pay tribute to all the staff who work on this country’s railways. They do an excellent job of getting our trains moving under difficult circumstances. I also pay tribute to the work of the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who over the past few weeks has been standing up and making the case for the British public, who deserve a better service than they have been getting. I agree with one thing the Secretary of State said—I, too, pay tribute to the former Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who has now left the Department. He understood the value of trade unions. He was one of the few Conservative Ministers who would regularly meet the unions, because he understood that by working together, management and workforce, we can provide a better service.
I want to make two points. The first is that, since the botched privatisation of the 1990s—it was a privatisation too far—we have lost the important transport integration that we once had in this country. I was born and raised, and still live, in the port and railway town of Holyhead. The ferries used to be full of people coming across to our country and going to continental Europe. They would get a train, bus or another means of transport. That has now been broken by the franchise agreement. Each mode of transport now operates in a silo, and we need to get that integration back.
I believe in the private sector, the public sector and, indeed, the not-for-profit sector having a stake in British industry and in our British transport system. I wish to make the case to the Minister, whom I welcome to his place, for the not-for-profit sector. In Wales, our water is run by the not-for-profit sector, which meets all the criteria of the European Union and provides an excellent service. It invests its profits back into the company, and customers get a better service from it than they do from many of the private, ideologically run ones in England. There is therefore a model that works, and it is the not-for-profit one. The sector values its customers and its workforce, it makes money and it reinvests its profits.
During the passage of the Wales Act 2017, which was before Parliament in 2016, I and other Members asked for the Railways Act 1993 to be changed so that Wales could have a not-for-profit company for its franchise. That would have worked, but the Government resisted it. I say to the Minister that at this late hour, he should look again at the 1993 Act and allow Wales to run its affairs in a way that is good for customers, good for its communities and good for growth across the country. If the Government are serious about spreading wealth, they need to improve their rail systems and fix the broken franchise system.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called in this debate. We have talked about express trains, and I will now have to do quite an express speech.
Over the past couple of hours, I have been interested to hear the arguments being made. I must say that I do not agree that the answer to this clarion call to fix our transport network is to bring back British Rail. It is easy to look back at the past through rose-tinted spectacles. It is like those who say that they love the idea of steam trains running up and down the main lines. Yes, it is beautiful to see the Torbay Express go through, but as a practical modern transport system we have clearly moved on.
As has been touched on, the one thing that some people miss, if they think the public sector is the instant solution, is that Network Rail is in the public sector. Having sat on the Public Accounts Committee at a time when the handling of the Great Western modernisation programme was under scrutiny, I can safely say that that was nothing near a success—in fact, it was almost a textbook example of how not to manage a project. What people are interested in is the services that they get. Personally, as an MP, my priority is: what do my customers get; what do my residents get; and what services are there? It is not necessarily whether the system is publicly or privately run.
Looking at the future franchises, I am conscious that a consultation is under way about whether the Great Western franchise should be split—I can see the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) in his place—and whether our section should split away from the section that serves south Wales. When that was first proposed, I made the point that actually, the current franchise is similar to the old Great Western Railway company area—with some exceptions on the edges. Perhaps that raises some questions about franchises. Yes, it is good to have smaller franchises, as that makes services more local, but by the same token there also has to be a sustainable franchise to maintain the services of a large railway and the main rolling stock.
More locally, there are some key projects that I hope any franchise will look at taking forward. It has to start with £600,000 to fund the study of the main line through Devon. Those who know the network will know that there is only one railway line west of Exeter St Davids, which makes it particularly vulnerable at Dawlish, so we need to consider a long-term solution. Not only major schemes but schemes to improve the line and to cut journey times would be of benefit both to my constituents and to those further west. Any franchise could also look at cross-country lines, but it must be clear that it must maintain some of the direct routes from key areas for the Bay, such as from Manchester and the southern midlands directly into Paignton and Torquay. I was pleased that some of the changes were blocked by a previous rail Minister, and I hope that that will continue to be the case.
For me, the debate must ultimately be about the outcome for passengers. It is great to sit here and talk about whether the rail service should be public or private, but, actually, ownership is not the key; it is what it delivers that makes the difference to people living in our constituencies.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
It is blindingly obvious to many of our constituents that the current model of rail franchising and profiteering from our railways is broken, inefficient, fragmented and unjustifiably expensive. Our private railways are subsidised by more than £5 billion of public money every year—and that is before the bail-out of Stagecoach-Virgin East Coast and the missing £2 billion. It is no wonder it is being called the great train robbery.
British passengers pay the highest fares in Europe to travel on sometimes packed services while rail companies are laughing all the way to the bank. Since 2010, fares have risen three times faster than wages, and the 3.6% increase last week was the steepest hike in five years. Conservative Ministers said that higher fares would fund improved services, yet long-promised investment, including rail electrification, has been scrapped.
I want to focus on the current dispute at Merseyrail, where 207 guards may be scrapped. I have had an Adjournment debate on this topic, and I will not repeat all the answers I was given in the short time available today. Against the backdrop of police cuts and rising crime, the role of the guard in Merseyside is more important than ever. The Merseyside travelling public have supported the retention of guards throughout the dispute, amidst grave concerns about passenger safety. Is it fair that Merseyside passengers should pay fares that Merseyrail’s owner, Abellio, uses to pay for Dutch public railways, but do not enjoy the same safety standards as passengers on Dutch railways?
The franchising system fails to allow for good industrial relations. Train operating companies have little interest beyond the term of their franchise agreements, effectively buying a licence to print money. Changes to staffing are strategic decisions that should be considered many years in advance with the agreement of staff and their trade unions, but that is never the case. The antagonistic strategy adopted by the Government has had an adverse impact on passengers. It is high time that we had a Labour Government willing to bring our railways back into democratic public ownership. The Merseyrail dispute is not going to disappear. Reluctantly or not, the Government and regional and local politicians will have to engage further if we are to get our railways moving again in 2018. I say to Merseyrail’s owners, Abellio and Serco, that they should not do deals on Merseyside that they think they can hide in their corporate offices.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I have only three minutes, so I will go as quickly as possible.
I am a new Member in the House, and regrettably I come to these debates and I hear the same stale and artificial arguments by Opposition Members. That has happened again today: we immediately reach a position where private is bad and public is good. That argument is totally stale and artificial, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) has just demonstrated for the past three minutes or so.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that the discussion had become entirely partisan very early on. I think that the partisanship of the discussion was demonstrated when the motion was tabled, critiquing franchising in both concept and totality. That is the ultimate problem, because the Labour party seeks to take some examples, which I acknowledge and accept are not good, from around the country, and extrapolate from them to say that there is a systemic problem forever with rail, which means that it needs to be changed.
The evidence from the system is that more people are travelling than ever before. We have 60 years of post-war history on the rail network. For 40 of those years the network was in public ownership and for 20 it was in private sector ownership. Much of those 40 years was uneconomic—the railways lost an incredible amount of money and the number of passengers who travelled on them reduced by a third.
Lee Rowley
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
In the past 20 years, 13 of which Opposition Members stood up to defend and were under a Labour Government, there has been an increase in the number of passengers using the railway, more trains than ever and greater customer satisfaction about many parts of the line.
I want to make two points in the time I have left. Given that today is an Opposition day, I looked at an Opposition day debate in 1994, in which the former right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, who was shadow Secretary of State for Transport, spoke. He said that privatisation would not get the necessary investment, secure the safety of the railway network or upgrade the lines. In the past 20 years, that has been shown to be wrong.
The franchise that serves my constituency, East Midlands Trains, is an example of one that works well. It is not perfect by any means, but in the past few years, it has worked well. Transport Focus says that it is performing well, especially on punctuality and reliability. In surveys, customer satisfaction is nearly 90%.
Tom Tugendhat
Does my hon. Friend recognise that the highly subsidised European models get much lower satisfaction rates? All they do is transfer the burden from the passenger to the entire taxpayer population. What we have in the United Kingdom is not perfect—no system is—but at least the people who use the service pay for it.
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Time after time, I sit in the Chamber and listen to Opposition Members who really do not understand economics and where the money comes from, and do not get how we can pay for the railways and all the sweeties and goodies that they seek to give out.
If we consider the Midland Mainline franchise in 1996, a couple of years after franchising occurred, there were 14 trains a day between London and Sheffield and the average journey time was two hours and 26 minutes, with the fastest journeys taking two hours and 10 minutes. We now have more than double the number of trains on the midland main line between London and Sheffield and the average time is quicker than the fastest time was 20 years ago.
I do not want to claim that everything is perfect. Many things could be better about the midland main line and East Midlands Trains, but what I have heard today from the Opposition is, as the Secretary of State said, complete nonsense. We should recognise that much progress has been made in the past 20 years. There is much to do, but I will not sit here and listen to the sort of nonsense that has been expressed.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), I want to concentrate on my constituents’ concerns about their daily struggle to get to work, which is so unlike the rosy picture that the Secretary of State painted. They just want reliable services and affordable fares, which is not happening under the Government’s failed transport policy.
Key rail routes run through my constituency. Many people commute to Cardiff or Bristol and beyond. There has been remarkable passenger growth at stations such as Severn Tunnel Junction, where usage has risen by 297% in the last 20 years. Transport links to Bristol, one of the fastest growing economies outside London, are crucial for access to employment. The Government acknowledged that in the industrial strategy, which talked about better links between Wales and England.
However, the services to Bristol and beyond have for some years been plagued by reliability problems and chronic overcrowding. Commuters are completely frustrated. The Severn Tunnel Action Group, a fantastic local rail group, along with Magor Action Group on Rail, forensically survey commuters. They showed that, on half the commuting days at the end of last year, there was standing room only for those getting on at Severn Tunnel Junction, and on many days, only three carriages were available, not five. They also catalogued the delays and cancellations. Commuters, whose fares have gone up by 33% since 2010, feed back the daily occurrences of overcrowding: people being left on the platform, people fainting on the train and people being asked to stand in the toilets so that more people can get on.
At the same time, the Government announced last year that they would extend the Great Western franchise to March 2020 and maybe longer. Yes, we are getting electrification, but what was in the announcement that gave anyone faith that things would get better? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) said, Great Western got the extension without any conditions. The Government are rewarding the company without any notion of things getting better for my constituents. Where the Government have had an opportunity to help, they have not.
There is currently a process for the Wales and borders franchise, which is devolved. But the Government said to the Welsh Government in the agency document last year that
“for the purposes of this franchise competition, no cross-border paths to Bristol may be proposed.”
This is a missed opportunity, when the Welsh Government are planning bold infrastructure projects such as the South Wales metro, which will improve connectivity. The UK Government’s approach could not be in starker contrast to the Welsh Labour Government’s.
A constituent who complained about services to Bristol was told recently by Great Western, “That’s just how it is nowadays.” No, it should not be. The privatised rail system is not delivering, services are getting worse and fares are going up. We need the Government and rail companies to address these problems now and to take rail back into public ownership when the rail franchises expire.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Bearing in mind the strictures of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), I will try not to be too stale in my three minutes.
We have heard a lot about the implications of the potential loss of £2 billion in premium payments following the premature ending of the east coast franchise. We have not yet heard what will happen to the promises made by Mr Branson and Mr Souter for improvements in the later years of those franchises. Are we still going to see—from Bradford, Middlesbrough and Lincoln—the two-hourly trains that were promised under those franchises? Are we going to see the direct train from Sunderland and the continuing increase in the number of trains from London King’s Cross?
There is now uncertainty over not just this franchise, but the trans-Pennine franchise in the north of England. There is lots of speculation that the operator will try to renegotiate because it promised £300 million to the Government for a service that was previously subsidised. Is it going to continue to do that? Following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), I think that the idea of a public sector comparator is, quite frankly, common sense. Why cannot there be a public sector comparator? I think that there was a golden age—under a Conservative Government, mostly—between 2009 and 2015 on the east coast, when the dominant provider was a public service provider.
In reaction to some comments from the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), I do believe in open access at the margin. Open access only provides about 1% of services. I do not see why that could not continue under a system where the major franchises were in the public sector. No dominant provider—in the public or private sector—is likely to look at the needs of small towns such as Selby, which is served by Hull Trains, Eaglescliffe and Hartlepool. Morpeth is soon to be served by an open access operator. I hope that we would not neglect that under a Labour Government.
Northern Rail is owned by the German state, and I call on the Government to start talks. We can get a solution to the strikes that are affecting my constituents for three days this week. There is a simple solution in Scotland: the driver opens the door, and the guard closes the door and maintains safety. A solution can be reached, and the Government have a responsibility to try to reach it.
My final point is that we are still reasonably close to the Christmas season, which has just passed. I urge Ministers next year to fulfil the promises they made while in opposition on Boxing day trains. Fifty-eight hours is too long to close down the network. In opposition, the Conservatives said that they would do something. Trans-Pennine has made proposals that it will run trains to Manchester airport on Boxing day 2018; Northern Rail would provide 60 services. Ministers need to act.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I would like to engage the House on the question whether franchising works. My local radio station, BBC Radio Cambridgeshire, will next week be celebrating 25 years since this country started on the journey from British Rail to anything but British rail. I remember it rather well because I went to a Railtrack meeting at the time and asked what I thought was a naive question: “Who is going to sort out the problems of who is responsible when things go wrong?” We might think now that people would have thought about that point then, but it is still being argued about 25 years on.
When I talk to people in the industry, they tell me about the small army of people who spend their time not helping passengers or improving the railways, but arguing over who is responsible for paying when things go wrong. Of course, there are so many opportunities to game the system. There are so many ways in which operators can make their trains just not quite late enough to incur any penalties.
I made a bit of a social gaffe at a dinner recently. I was sitting next to someone from a train operating company and asked the rather unfortunate question. “What exactly is the point in train operating companies?” I wondered, like most people would, “You don’t own any trains; you don’t own any tracks, so what do you do?” They said, “Ah—we sell tickets and we innovate.” That explained it—“Kind of like ticket touts, then?” I suspect I am not going to be invited back for a follow-up. That is the problem with many of these people. It is a very complicated system.
My hon. Friends have already raised some of the issues on two of the routes that serve my city of Cambridge. I am grateful for the piece in The Sunday Times that was mentioned, where we learned a bit more about the East Anglia franchise—its £3.7 billion price tag. The managing director was right to describe it as “scary”. That was negotiated in and around the time of the referendum in 2016, and, amazingly, renegotiated very hurriedly in the days afterwards—completely out of public sight, as usual, and all shrouded in commercial confidentiality. Within six months, the company had sold a 40% stake of itself to a Japanese company. Does any of this matter? I think it does. These are our public services being bought and sold, speculated on and turned into financial instruments, when what we actually need is an environmentally sustainable, cost-effective, reliable, sensible transport system that people in my constituency can afford.
With regard to the other route, I am afraid that a National Audit Office report revealed, as has been eloquently explained by some of my hon. Friends, the appalling levels of service that constituents of mine are suffering. Many of them are paying almost £5,000 a year for a season ticket—a huge amount for the many young people in my constituency to have to bear.
In conclusion, I say to the train operating companies: take a look at the station clock. Tick TOC, your time is up—just like mine.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The subject of this Opposition day debate clearly highlights how this Government are not running the nation’s vital transport infrastructure in the interests of the many. We have heard how the franchise model is failing the east coast mainline. The taxpayer bail-out of the franchise by the Government is yet more evidence that our railways would be better off under public ownership. Let us not forget that the east coast main line franchise returned over £1 billion to the Treasury and was the best-performing operator on the network when it was in public hands. It seems that this Government are happy to reward failing companies for mismanaging our railways.
This is not the only way that this Government are failing to deliver on transport policy, as the north of England has had a raw deal from central Government with regard to transport spending. Planned central Government spending per head of population on transport infrastructure for the next four years is £726 for Yorkshire and the Humber, versus £1,083 for London and the south-east. Meanwhile, money is frittered away on filling the pockets of private companies—money that would be better spent modernising the ageing infrastructure that is holding back places like my home city of Bradford. What is more, my constituents also have the pain of the 3.4% increase in fares this year, with average fares rising more than three times faster than wages—a slap in the face, and in the pocket, on top of years of insult from unfair underinvestment.
These figures are not acceptable, and have far-reaching consequences for the economy of the north of England and for the prosperity of my constituents. It is Whitehall’s failure to recognise that point that so enrages me. The north gets trees planted along the M62 while London gets Crossrail—hardly fair. An independent study of the north’s untapped potential set out how new investment, including High Speed 3, could unlock up to £97 billion and create 850,000 new jobs by 2050, with a stop in Bradford bringing in an annual boost of £53 million to the local economy and at least £1.3 billion for the whole region. The party of government made a manifesto promise about electrification of the trans-Pennine rail route ahead of the 2015 general election, but we are still waiting.
A radical rethink is needed from this Government to end the failed franchise model, to bring our railways back into public ownership and to invest properly in transport in the north of England. We in Bradford will not be fooled, satisfied or fobbed off with crumbs from the table.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
In his speech, the Secretary of State said: “Let us concentrate on the things that will make the difference for passengers”. Today’s National Audit Office report says, among many other damning things, that
“it is not clear whether the Department considered the…effects of its approach on passenger services.”
There have been warm words, but no action.
The National Audit Office report is damning. It reveals that the Thameslink Southern and Great Northern franchise has failed to deliver value for money. Over the past three years, Croydon commuters have suffered the worst service performance on the national rail network. There have been more than double the number of delays and cancellations than the national average, and the service has the lowest satisfaction rate for any rail operator, yet fares have risen twice as fast as salaries.
In the time available, I want to point out two particular scandals to which my constituents have been subjected by the Department for Transport and Govia Thameslink Railway. The first is the design of the franchise and the vicious circle of low investment and declining performance that it threatens. Govia Thameslink’s management contract hands a guaranteed £1 billion per year to the operator, while the taxpayer shoulders the risk of ticket sale revenues. We were promised a £3.5 billion profit from this huge franchise, but instead the loss to the public purse was over £90 million last year. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley)—he insulted us all, and then left—claimed that we do not understand economics, but there is no economic sense in that model.
The abysmal performance suffered by commuters in Croydon and the inflation-busting rises meant that passenger numbers dropped last year for the first time since the franchise was created. Passengers now pick up 70% of the rail network’s costs, meaning that if passengers continue to turn away from these shoddy, overpriced services, less money will be available to invest in desperately needed upgrades. That will lead to the cycle of lower investment and higher prices that we are already seeing.
Network Rail needs £1 billion to make Govia’s network fit for purpose. We must alter the track and sort out the Windmill Bridge junction in Croydon to stop the service from collapsing in the future. The Government claim—the Secretary of State pointed to this—that the £300 million put in place last year will go towards improving the network, but will the Minister confirm how much of that taxpayers’ money will actually go back to the coffers of Govia Thameslink in the form of fines for infrastructure failures?
My second point—I will make it briefly—is that while the Government have been shown what works, they refuse to act. The TfL-controlled London Overground has been turned from one of the country’s worst rail services into one of its best. What is more, the independent Gibb report, commissioned by the Secretary of State himself, recommended that Southern services, including some from Croydon, should be transferred to TfL as soon as possible. We need action, not just warm words.
Ms Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Travelling by rail has always been something I enjoyed. My dad was a railwayman, and when I was nine, my family travelled to Italy by train, which was pretty exotic in the 1960s. Since being elected as the MP for Lincoln, I have had to use trains twice weekly, and it is often not a positive experience. I have to change trains at Newark North Gate, and I sometimes walk right across Newark to Newark Castle station, which can take up to half an hour.
Our rail network is currently unreliable. The trains are sometimes old and dirty, and the staff, who work hard, are demoralised. There is often a single coach from Newark to Lincoln, and it is usually absolutely packed, with no space for pushchairs, wheelchairs or cycles. It is an expensive way of travelling, and it does not persuade people who have a choice to do so to abandon their car, thereby making an environmentally sustainable travelling policy even harder to achieve.
As a result of the recent fiasco with the east coast main line, I, as an MP, as well as local businesses and Visit Lincoln, are worried that the six extra direct services we have been promised by Virgin Trains in 2019 may not happen in the end. Lincoln needs those services. My constituents need reliable, affordable trains, businesses need to attract customers and our tourist offer needs to keep on attracting visitors.
Lincoln has just got a brand new transport hub, of which we are very proud. It is my hope that Lincoln and the rest of this country will very soon get a Labour Government who will bring our railways back into public ownership so that we have the rail system we need and the kind of Government that this country deserves.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
In the time available, I will confine my remarks to two key points. First, I ask the Minister not to split the Great Western franchise, but instead to focus his time and energy on investing in our train line. George Osborne, the former Chancellor, suggested a Devon and Cornwall franchise. That might have won headlines, but it won few supporters in the far south-west. Splitting Devon and Cornwall off from the Great Western franchise would condemn rail users in the far south-west to a second-class service. Labour and Conservative Members rightly oppose that appalling idea, but it seems that no lessons have been learned in the DFT. Instead of focusing on speed, resilience and affordability for the far south-west, we now have to defend yet another attempt to split our franchise. Splitting the west country services from those that go to Wales would reduce income for the south-west train line, risk investment and fragment our railways even further. I say to the Minister, who will shortly receive and consider responses from the consultation, “Please do not do this.”
I welcome the Minister to his post, however, because I know that in the coming months he and I will speak an awful lot about trains, especially those around Dawlish. The priority for the Great Western franchise is investment, upgrades, resilience and faster journeys, not more fragmentation. The superb Peninsula Rail Task Force report—I encourage him to take it to bed to read if he has not yet done so—recommends investment in tracks, signalling, trains and timetabling from Penzance through Plymouth to Paddington. The full upgrade programme would cost £9 billion. Labour and the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), have committed £2.5 billion from our infrastructure fund to upgrade the track, yet Ministers have not made any such investment or matched our pledge. It seems to voters in the far south-west that only Labour will invest in a long-term strategy for our railways.
I also recommend that the Minister reads the “Speed to the West” report, which follows the PRTF family of reports. It recommends cutting journey times between the far south-west and London from 3 hours 30 minutes from Plymouth to 2 hours 15 minutes. The first intervention on that, which would cost £600,000 and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was, sadly, not funded by the Government before the deadline ran out at Christmas.
There is a last chance for the Minister to say that his Department will fund that £600,000. London receives billions of pounds for rail upgrades, but the far south-west was asking for just £600,000 and was ignored. Will he look at that again?
While there is cross-party support for rail investment in the far south-west, there is a sense in the west country that we are ignored by Ministers and this Government. The new trains that First has ordered for our route will come online this year. I welcome that investment, but I would be grateful if the Minister, in his new role, gave us the news that we want and the funding that we need for the train line in the far south-west.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
In my constituency of Blaydon, as elsewhere in the north-east, the future of our railways is of great interest. We have our own experience in our region, with the example of a directly operated railway on the east coast main line. That service was taken under public control following the failure of two contracts in 2009. My constituents and others, including hon. Members in the Chamber, were out there campaigning to retain the east coast main line in public ownership. Not only have the trains provided a good service, but the company has returned £1 billion of premiums to the public purse. That is why it was, and still is, galling for so many people in the north-east that the franchise was re-privatised in 2015 on the basis that that represented “best value” for rail users and taxpayers.
No wonder so many of my constituents expressed disbelief at the Secretary of State again looking to tear up the contract and at the current franchisees—Stagecoach and Virgin, which are known to be struggling to make their anticipated profit—being allowed to walk away from their commitment to make payments worth more than £2 billion under the current contract. It is therefore hardly surprising that folk in the north-east are enthusiastic about Labour’s commitment to take back rail franchises as they expire. Rail franchising has proved ineffective and costly, encouraging bidders to submit over-optimistic and unrealistic bids. It is about time we looked at bringing rail back into public ownership so that we get the best possible value and the best possible service for passengers from their rail services.
I want to refer to the National Audit Office report that was published this morning and the Secretary of State’s response to it—blaming the trade unions. The Government set the contract terms and specifications for franchises. The Government say, “You don’t need a second guard on trains.” They bear responsibility for the problems in the rail industry and the industrial disputes that we face.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
In my region, Abellio is running some trains with guards and some without. It is using its plans to introduce new trains in East Anglia as an excuse for threatening to remove guards’ ability to supervise the closing of the doors. I have a great fear that my constituents’ travel needs will be sacrificed on the altar of the rail operator’s intransigence. Abellio is quite capable of running brand new, safe and viable trains with guards who fully supervise the train, including by closing the doors. It can do that in Scotland and do it in the Netherlands.
The Conservatives say that our train operators are better than they would be if they were state owned, but many of our train operators are state owned—just not by this state. Dutch democratic decision takers believe that passengers in their country deserve rail services that involve guards ensuring the safe closure of doors, but here in England, Abellio is awarded a franchise that is based on the removal of that safety measure, and once the franchise is awarded, the Government claim that any disruption caused by industrial action is nothing to do with them. The franchising system reduces every decision to what the train operator can afford to do within the franchise it has agreed. I want a railway based on the best interests of passengers and of our country.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I have had to take the Beeching axe to my speech, but I will make a couple of points in the few minutes available to me.
I wanted to take up some of the points made by previous speakers, including the Secretary of State, with which I completely disagreed and which, frankly, were fake news. If we look at the evidence and compare train fares in the United Kingdom and European countries—their state operators own many of our franchises—the difference is stark. I do not accept that this is about particular fares in peak periods.
It is worth looking at the German-owned operators. Deutsche Bahn owns Northern Rail, which is the principal operator in my region. Some 42% of Deutsche Bahn’s revenue is made outside Germany, much of it here in the UK, but 93% of its investment is in the German railway, so the company is creating profits here to improve services back in Germany.
It is clear that regulated rail fares have risen by an average of 32% since 2010, which is three times faster than the average median wage has grown. The Secretary of State said that fares increased more rapidly, or to higher levels, under the previous Labour Government, but we have to factor in average wages. The Conservative policy of raising regulated fares by the retail prices index ensures above-inflation fare increases every year. Compare that with Labour’s stance as set out in the motion, which I support. We would peg fare rises to the consumer prices index, which would save the average season ticket holder £500 over the course of a year. That would affect everyone’s constituents. Indeed, the annual cost of a season ticket for one of the Prime Minister’s constituents travelling between Maidenhead and Paddington has risen by £732 since 2010.
Passengers on our railways pay some of the highest fares in Europe for increasingly unreliable and crowded services, and that has been my experience. Passengers, our economy and our environment need affordable fares and reliable services, which I do not think the Tories’ policy is capable of delivering. Labour would take back our railways into public ownership as franchises expire and use the savings to cap fares, and we would upgrade and extend the rail network.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The debate has demonstrated that privatisation has led to a disastrous combination of service failure, disinvestment and profiteering from public subsidy. A particular absurdity of the Railways Act 1993 was that it banned any British public sector bids for franchises, but permitted overseas state-owned railway firms to bid. Hong Kong’s state railways will run Crossrail, the French state has stakes in the London Midland, Southeastern and Thameslink franchises, and Dutch state railways run the Greater Anglia and Scotrail franchises, having been awarded the latter contract, worth £6 billion, by the Scottish Government in October 2014. That came about after rail franchising powers were devolved to the Scottish Government in 2005. Labour, ASLEF, the Transport Salaried Staffs Association and the RMT trade unions appealed to the Scottish Government in October 2014 to delay the award of the new Scotrail franchise until the power to create a public sector bid was enabled by the passing of the Scotland Act 2016, which came into force in May that year and had been known about at the time of the franchise award. This practical measure to accelerate the return of a publicly owned and operated railway in Scotland was disregarded by the SNP, and as a result we are stuck with a railway in Scotland that will be owned by the Dutch state for another decade.
In the year since Abellio was awarded the franchise, fares have risen by over 12%, yet wages have increased by only 1.8%. Performance targets have been missed, many routes have been overcrowded, stops have been skipped—that has left passengers stranded—and customer satisfaction has not improved. All the while, Abellio sends its profits back to be invested in the Dutch railway network.
My constituency was once the centre of the British locomotive manufacturing industry. As a result of privatisation, British Rail’s world-class engineering and manufacturing divisions were sold off to foreign companies. They have subsequently been run down to the point where much of the UK’s rolling stock is imported from Europe or Japan, with virtually nothing exported from the UK. Other nations view their railways as a core part of their industrial and advanced manufacturing strategies. Restoring the public ownership of rail franchises would be an excellent first step towards a renaissance in the wider railway industry in Britain, the nation that gave railways to the world. I will be supporting the motion tonight.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Just before the summer recess, the Government announced they were abandoning plans for the electrification of the midland main line. A consultation on the new east midlands rail franchise announcement followed—a process that was rushed, chaotic and, as has recently come to light, a sham. Throughout the time when my constituents were feeding into the consultation process in good faith, much bigger plans were being put together behind the scenes, without consultation or even a whisper in Whitehall, under which Bedford train users will lose their peak-time east midlands service in May.
The announcement has hit my constituents hard. Many fear they will lose their jobs or have to give up work because the changes to the timetable will mean they cannot balance, or rearrange their lives around, their family commitments. Rail users nationwide have been betrayed by this Government, but Bedford commuters are taking a bigger hit than most. Bedford passengers are being forced into trains run by Govia Thameslink, which we learned today is the worst train operating company in the country. It is clear from the NAO report that the Government awarded the franchise to Govia in the full knowledge that disruption would be very likely. Bedford passengers have felt that disruption.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the franchising process. I expect the Transport Secretary to recommend to East Midlands Trains and Thameslink that Bedford rail users are entitled to reduced fares for their reduced services. Bedford is a growing commuter town, and the use of services is increasing year on year. It markets itself as an affordable place to live with a 36-minute commute to the capital. Over the last five years, the use of Bedford station has risen by 20%. The Government should be improving and increasing services, not reducing them, and I hope that the Transport Secretary will now commit to doing so and ensure that the new franchise includes a solution for peak-time trains to be reintroduced in Bedford.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
Rail fares in this country are five times those in Europe as a proportion of wages. No wonder UK commuters are fed up with rising prices and worse services, and 76% of people now support renationalisation of the railways. The Government are in a minority position, running a railway for a few by the few. In my constituency, prices for off-peak fares have risen by 43% since Northern Rail took over the franchise just 18 months ago, hitting commuters, students and people who simply need to get to work.
When I asked Northern Rail why it had seen the need to raise prices by so much, it simply said, “Because we can.” This franchising model is a licence to print money and rip off commuters. My constituents tell me that they do not even want a seat on a train; all they want is to be able to stand up and not get pressure bruises, have their feet stood on or have to stand crammed with three other people in a stinking toilet space. Those are the sorts of journeys that constituents are suffering for an hour or more—we have the longest journey times in Europe—to get to work. The Minister might think it is funny, but will he ride a commuter train from my constituency to experience the service that my constituents face? I ask him to address that, because the Government do not seem to understand the needs of commuters—ordinary working people who need a decent train service at a time when our roads are congested and overcrowded.
There is no investment where it is needed. We get no answer from the Department for Transport on the Hope Valley capacity scheme, relating to journeys between Manchester and Sheffield—the most crowded and needed services. That small increased capacity scheme has sat there for 18 months. That is the record of this Government. They are failing commuters and the British people.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Fares, franchises and failure, all entwined: that is how my hon. Friends have summarised the issues that dominate passengers’ experience of the railways today. My hon. Friends the Members for Lincoln (Ms Lee), for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for High Peak (Ruth George) and for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) really brought to the fore the impact that this is having.
The rail sector is full of fantastic people, but it is distracted from its core function of providing passengers with affordable access to a fully integrated system—train and track, wheel and steel—that works across the entire network and enables seamless intermodal travel. While the Secretary of State is firmly at the faultline, defending a broken system that he has made far more centralist in its control than even Labour’s national rail service will be, it is passengers who have to straddle the cracks, continually having to pay, and pay again, for the basic purpose of going to work or having a day out with the family, and as we have heard, they pay for poor performance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) set out.
It is not just Labour Members who are increasingly highlighting the failure of the Government; the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) also spoke of problems with franchising. “Putting passengers at the heart of the rail service” should be the Government’s mantra, but sadly it is not. Research by Transport Focus, the official voice of the travelling public, found in the largest survey of its kind that failure on ticketing is the No. 1 issue for passengers. The issue is not only the 32% rise in fares since 2010—three times the rise in wages, as my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) said—the 3.4% increase on last year’s ticket prices and the 3.6% increase for season ticket holders; everyone believes that they are being diddled out of a fair price—and they are right. There is different pricing depending on which operator runs the service, what time a person logs on to book their ticket, and when and at what time of day their journey is.
When this is coupled with extortionate ticket price increases, passengers ask where their hard-earned cash is going—and it is a good question. Let me tell them: £725 million went straight into the pockets of shareholders. While Thomas might be under the Fat Controller’s orders, today passengers are most certainly under those of the fat cats. It is a great train robbery. Then there is the financial haemorrhage from multiple tiers of private subcontractors across the network, each taking their cut, and the exorbitant cost of leasing trains and the huge profits harvested there. Fragmentation brings additional costs, too. But this scandal pales into insignificance when passengers consider that when Richard Branson’s Virgin Group gets into a bit of a pickle, it goes cap in hand to the Secretary of State, and makes demands of him. Just look at how quickly the Secretary of State buckled on this—a point made eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), joined by my hon. Friends the Members for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Keighley (John Grogan), for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), and for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney).
The Department for Transport, under the Secretary of State’s orders, set up a franchise on the east coast that would involve Network Rail in delivering infrastructure upgrades, but due to the Government’s failed control period 5 process and the scaling down of the infrastructure upgrades, Network Rail was unable to deliver. The Government did not even speak to Network Rail about this when touting for an operator who would rip the service out of public hands—which, by the way, put £1 billion into the Treasury, to be reinvested in public transport. No, they just blindly put out a contract that was undeliverable, and the Government need to understand that it is their responsibility; they let the franchise. VTEC said it could not reap the gains it was hoping to under the infrastructure improvements, and guess what it did? It went to the Government to put the pressure on and now has been let off £2 billion, and the Secretary of State will not come to the Dispatch Box to deny this fact. It is a complete and utter shambles, as are so many other services; we have heard today from my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) about the impact these services are having on their communities.
So not only are the passengers paying for this now, but they are also having to prop up dodgy deals. And they are dodgy deals: we just need to look at the way these train operators are working their way through the system to get as much money as possible not just out of ticketing, but also by threatening to sue the Government and seeking compensation payments. It is a complete scandal.
The problems are clear: a failed, fragmented franchise system; private profits over passenger interest, with a resultant decline in patronage, as we are now seeing; and a Secretary of State who refuses to put the passengers’ interests at the heart of the railway. That is why Labour will introduce a new public railway owned by the public and working for the public. This is not about going back, as we will not revisit the models of railways past, but take us forward—and not just take our rail services forward, but our economy too.
Drawing on global best practice, Labour’s rail system will really be for the many and not the few—fares overhauled; smart ticketing; new lines opening; more capacity; more seats; more trains; embracing high-tech and digital rail; making space for freight and smart logistics; clean and green with electrification, not a return to dirty diesel; planning for the long term; and no more on-off, start-stop funding. The whole railway system will be working as one, with passengers and businesses knowing the deal and being at the heart of the deal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) has called for for Wales—and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East has said he does not want to see the fragmentation reintroduced now by the Scottish Government.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) and for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) said, we must make our railways safe, and we will make them safe and accessible by ending the scrapping of the guards—a resolve the trade unions are calling for today—so that disabled people can have their dignity restored in using rail, while women can feel safe on trains both day and night. This is the rail service that the British people are demanding, and it will take a Labour Government to deliver it.
Before I sit down, may I welcome the new Transport Minister to his place, and hope that he does not take to defending the indefensible in his new role, as he sought to in his previous role earlier this week? We have a transport crisis and we need this Government to do something about it or, better still, make way for a Government who will.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
We have had a full and excellent debate on the important subject of rail franchising, and I thank the Members on both sides of the House who welcomed me to my new position. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), who acquitted himself exceptionally well in this role over a considerable period of time.
A lot has been said in today’s cordial debate—it has certainly been a more pleasant debate for me to sit through than the urgent question on Monday—and I will endeavour to respond to as many of the points raised as possible, but let me start by recapping some of what has been achieved, initially by looking at privatisation in the round. The statistics are compelling: last year we published our rail spending commitments for 2019 to 2024, and we will be investing £48 billion in our railways, as well as investment from private sources.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) asked for specific comparisons between investment from 1997 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2020. As we have repeatedly made clear, this Government are making the largest investment in our railways since the Victorian era, with £48 billion over the five years from 2019. Let me give the House an example of what that means in practice. We will have ordered 7,122 vehicles for the rolling stock fleet, compared with 5,720 in the period from 1997 to 2010. That should give Members a feel for the tangible and practical impact that the increased investment will have. It will mean improvements in punctuality and reliability for passengers, as well as supporting thousands of jobs in the supply chain and activity in the wider economy.
The privatisation of our railways has succeeded. Passenger journeys have more than doubled since 1995, and we have a claim to being the most improved railway in Europe, and the safest major railway, too. And all this is happening in what is not only one of the oldest railway networks in the world but one of the most intensively used. In fact, more people are travelling on our railways today than in any year since the 1920s, and on a smaller network. It is thanks to this success that we are investing £38 billion in Crossrail and HS2 in the period up to 2019, and £48 billion in the years to come.
Maria Eagle
The Minister has just said that the privatisation of our railways has succeeded. Will he tell us whether the Government will vote against the motion this evening?
Joseph Johnson
Privatisation is succeeding, and we can see that in the increased numbers of passengers using the network. The motion speaks for itself, and hon. Members are welcome to—
Neil O’Brien
I welcome the new Minister to his place, and I hope that he will be as successful in this job as he was in his last one—[Interruption.] He was very successful. As he is listing investments, I hope that he will not forget the £1 billion investment that we are making in the midland main line.
Joseph Johnson
I certainly do welcome that investment in the midland main line. That is one of the many investments that we are making across the country, and it is part of the £38 billion that we are spending in the control period to 2019. As I said, a further £48 billion is yet to come. This will mean new stations and rejuvenated older ones.
Before Christmas, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out a new approach to delivering rail services. It does not require the colossal reorganisations of the kind that nationalisation would entail. It will deliver the best of both worlds, keeping the benefits of privatisation while maintaining vital infrastructure in public hands and preparing our railway to meet the challenges of the future. Earlier in the debate, the Secretary of State addressed the recent accusations regarding the east coast franchise. It is wrong to describe this as a bail-out. When Virgin Trains East Coast was awarded the contract, it committed £165 million to support the business if it failed to perform as expected. As my right hon. Friend said, we will hold the company to that commitment in full. It has met all its commitments to the taxpayer so far and it is continuing to do so. Make no mistake: we will hold all guarantors, including Stagecoach, to those financial commitments.
We have been making significant progress with industry on the Secretary of State’s vision for the east coast partnership from 2020, and on plans to meet that commitment. We stand by that commitment in full. I was asked about a direct award to Virgin-Stagecoach, and I refer the House to the answer that the Secretary of State gave earlier. My Department is preparing contingency plans, as we do not believe that the Virgin Trains east coast franchise will be financially viable through to 2020. We intend to return to the House in due course, once those plans are in place.
Many hon. Members raised the issue of fares. These are at the heart of the massive investment that is going into the railways, and it is of course right that that investment should be derived not just from taxpayers’ money. Passengers benefit from the improvements that our investment programme is delivering, and it is right that they make a contribution towards it. On average, 97p in every pound that passengers pay—
Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that rail franchising is failing to provide adequate services for passengers or value for money for taxpayers; notes that regulated rail fares have risen by 32 per cent since 2010 while planned investment has been cancelled; opposes the recent bail-out of Virgin Rail Group East Coast; and calls on the Government to run passengers’ services under public sector operation.
Andy McDonald
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The motion has been passed unanimously by the House, demonstrating that the rail franchising system has failed and that the railways should be run by the public sector. When can we expect a statement from the Secretary of State to outline his plans for implementing the will of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the House has agreed to the motion. The Leader of the House has said that, following such occasions, the relevant Secretary of State will return to the House over the next few weeks to indicate what action the Government propose to take as a result of the motion being passed.
Primary School Academisation: Cambridge
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing the House the opportunity to consider the important issue of the academisation of primary schools in Cambridge. I will talk primarily about the necessity of both transparency and accountability in academy trusts and about the academisation process itself. The debate is timely, because just a few hours ago there was a meeting at St Philip’s C of E Aided Primary School in Romsey in my constituency to determine the school’s future after many months of uncertainty. It was local parents raising with me that process and the issues around it that caused me to take a particularly close interest in the case. The more I have seen of it and the more people I have spoken to, the more concerned I have become—hence the request for today’s debate.
I start by thanking those who brought the issue to my attention, who include not only local parents but the many people involved in local schools and the local educational system who have spoken to me over the past few weeks to explain the consequences of the process for the education system in my city and the surrounding area. I particularly thank Rachel Evans of the National Education Union, who has worked hard and carefully with parents and staff to try to achieve the best outcome for the school and the wider community.
Right at the outset, I want to say that I make no criticism of those involved locally, because I believe that they have all been doing their very best for the school, but it is the process they have been put through that causes me concern, and it should also trouble the Minister. Whatever one’s view of academies in general—I will come on to that—there must be something wrong with a process whereby parents, staff and the local community feel that they are just being informed about significant changes to a key local institution, but not involved in any meaningful way. They feel that it is being done to them, not with them. Schools are not businesses and are not privately owned—not yet, anyway. Schools are a key part of the fabric of our local communities, and we all know that they do better when they are a part of their community, with close parental involvement.
Although I am not an educationalist or an expert in this area, I was, like so many of us in Parliament, a school governor for many years. I was the chair of governors for a voluntary aided junior school in a rural market town for almost 10 years. I have known St Philip’s for a number of years, and it is a not a school that I would have had serious concerns about. It did experience a serious dip in results a couple of years ago and also had a problem when there was too long a delay in replacing an outgoing headteacher. That should interest the Minister, because he may want to reflect on why it takes so long to recruit good headteachers, particularly in high-cost areas such as Cambridgeshire—it is no easy task. But, as has been demonstrated by the swift recovery in results, the school clearly has a bright future, and I emphasise that point. I commend the many positive comments that parents made in their considered responses to the recent consultation, in which a strong view emerged that the school has improved dramatically. That leads to a frequently asked question: if the school is so improved, why the need for further change that might, in itself, be destabilising?
I do not criticise the interim executive board, which has been following its understanding of the procedure, but what a flawed procedure it is. Parents were informed by letter of a consultation in which the outcome was assumed to be academisation, and there was no sense of any alternatives being on offer. When parents rightly asked what say they had in any of this, the response was pretty much, “Yes, you can express an opinion, but this is what is going to happen.”
Originally, only organisations in favour of academisation were invited to make presentations at today’s special meeting. Parents rightly protested, and I protested, and I am pleased to say that the IEB did invite people with differing views, including local councillors and a representative from my office. I do not know the outcome of the meeting, and I suspect parents do not know yet, either, but such protests should not have been needed for other views to be put. It still is not really clear what other options are being considered.
The apparently preferred option from the outset was joining the local diocesan multi-academy trust—the Diocese of Ely multi-academy trust, or DEMAT—but there is a question as to whether that is really the best way forward for a city school. Should the school be swallowed up by a sprawling organisation that covers a huge geographical area—I choose my words carefully, and I am sure the Minister understands what I am saying—and whose effectiveness by no means convinces everyone in the local area?
Also, what about the concerns of many in the school, which has a very diverse catchment, that a move to a diocesan trust poses real dilemmas? This is a voluntary aided not a voluntary controlled school, and parents are right to raise the distinction. It is notable that some who clearly express their Christian faith raise that very point. What consideration has been given to other, more local options—or, of course, the option, which the vast majority appear to want, that the school should be as it was before the dip, and is now, by staying with the local authority? To most people, the process did not seem to offer any of those choices, only a one-way path to academisation within one multi-academy trust.
What would the Minister say to a parent who says, as parents have said to me, “I don’t want my child taught by unqualified teachers”? That is one of the freedoms available to academies. How does that parent get a say and, more importantly, how do they influence the decision? What if we discover every parent in the school shares that view? How would they get the decision changed? The answer is not obvious. Maybe the Minister can enlighten us.
The St Philip’s saga illustrates a wider problem with academies and multi-academy trusts. They take public money but are not democratically accountable to their communities. We all know that local authorities are also too often flawed, but they are by definition accountable—people can vote them out and get rid of councillors. Academies in multi-academy trusts do not have to have local representation on their boards, either of parent governors, local councillors or staff representatives. Indeed, I am told by one so-called emerging local multi-academy trust that, when it sought to include local authority representation on its board, it was told by the Department for Education that it could not. Will the Minister confirm whether that is the case and, if it is, why locally elected representatives are so excluded? The processes followed by these trusts are far from transparent, which inevitably leaves communities anxious.
Some multi-academy trusts in my area—in fact most of them—have boards full of impressive management and business figures, and my area is fortunate to have such people available, but the boards are singularly lacking in people on the frontline: parents, teachers and school meal supervisors. They are the people who actually know what is going on.
I mischievously suggest that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes a look at some of these boards. He might observe that the “blob” is more resilient than he thought. For a truly depressing session, I can heartily recommend that he browses the array of websites promoting MATs in any area, but for today’s purposes I shall limit myself to discussing Cambridge. As he looks, he will come across an array of mission statements and management gobbledegook, much beloved of corporate consultancies and full of joyless jargon, such as “pursuit of excellence”, “uniting with a common purpose” and “an outstanding education for all children is at the heart of our vision”. I know they have to do it, as that is the nature of the system—I even have sympathy with the poor people having to sit down to draft this drivel—but it is nonsense and we all know it. It may give us a chuckle when we are watching “W1A”, but this is the real world and it is not honest.
Honesty in times of really tight budgets, not Silicon Valley-esque, vomit-inducing fluff, would say something like, “Trying to make ends meet and retain teachers for more than 18 months in a high-cost area through being part of an inspiring community that works together.” Some people, of course, are trying to do just that, but we have to read between the lines of the waffle to even discern a hint of it. Nowhere on those glossy, newly branded websites do we find what we might want to know: how many unqualified teachers are being employed? What changes have been made to the terms and conditions of those employed? What changes have been made as the school moves away from the national curriculum? Surely that is what should be up there in lights—the truth.
There is a further problem that the Cambridge experience has highlighted. The complex structures of MATs and academies make local accountability through the local media extremely difficult. They are of course overseen by the regional schools commissioners, another extraordinarily opaque structure, largely invisible to parents and the wider world; they have a slightly curious role, given that this Government abolished regions. Never mind; regional schools commissioners exist, but they are technically civil servants and so do not talk to the media. Schools going through this process are also reluctant to speak to the media, so it is not much of a surprise that few people in the local community have any idea what is going on. That might suit the Government’s purposes, but it is a rotten way to run public services in a democracy and it will come unstuck. It also raises the question: what are the Government so afraid the public might find out?
In passing—this is rather topical—let me say that Cambridge people are suddenly waking up to the fact that, through these subterranean and opaque processes, Cambridge is to be the beneficiary of a new free school promoted by none other than Mr Toby Young. I think I can say with some confidence, given what the whole world now knows about him, that Cambridge will want none of that. Perhaps the Minister can also give us some guidance on how that can be stopped.
Why does all this matter? Because the system spends and allocates public money to educate children. Why should parents and communities not be able to simply and quickly ask questions and get answers? MATs are bound to release reports periodically, but they do not give the information that parents and local community members would like to see. As I have suggested, academies work to different rules from local authority-supported schools, so can we at least work out how this is going? I ask the Minister: how many unqualified teachers are there in each MAT in my constituency? How have terms and conditions changed, and what impact has that had on pupils’ education? I hope he will be able to answer, but if he cannot, why not, and who can? And why are parents and communities being kept in the dark?
Beyond those practical questions, there is the wider question of what schools are actually for. Of course, they are primarily there to educate children and to help them to fulfil their potential and flourish, equipping them with skills and knowledge for their lives. However, schools are more than that; they are also community hubs that bring people together, allowing neighbouring families to have conversations and facilitating community events, and they are spaces that people can access in times of need. We have seen recently the excellent work that schools have done in communities that have been stricken by the consequences of austerity and the underfunding of councils. A recent press article highlighted the support that a school in Southwark gave to local refugees, far beyond the call of duty.
So we need to stop seeing schools in a vacuum of exam obsession, blinkered by assessment and rote, and see them as environments for growth and local development. Proper local representation on academy boards would help to provide the longer-term vision needed for seeing through the development of a school beyond a single cohort, giving communities the means to hold schools accountable to the people they serve.
Furthermore, within the fragmented, opaque system I have described, there are costs as well. The emergence of multi-academy trusts has, of course, led to competition between trusts, which want to gather more schools into their organisations. Instead of organisations working collaboratively for the public good, we have trusts eyeing each other up, eager to pick up schools that may have had a blip—and it is even better if they have some financial reserves. Perhaps it should be like in football, with a transfer window so that schools can have some periods of the year when they do not have to fight off predators.
In my constituency, there are around eight different multi-academy trusts, all vying for increased growth. Each of those trusts will, to varying extents, have people working on marketing, management structures, brand development and logos, and they will be paying audit fees. As always, it is public money that is being spent. All this has resulted in a fragmented system of overlapping, opaque organisations that use the public purse in ways that no one understands locally.
It is all rather reminiscent of what happened to the national health service under the previous Conservative Government. I remember Frank Dobson having to come in and clear up the mess, and famously saying to competing NHS trusts that first and foremost they were all part of the NHS and that providing public healthcare needed to come first. Academy trusts need to be redirected to the purpose of education and the public good, not self-promotion.
As I have said, local education authorities were by no means perfect everywhere. Conservative-run Cambridgeshire certainly had and has its faults, but the professional support offered to schools was an important resource and should continue to be. I do not want to see a situation in which, by a process of attrition, it is no longer viable for such services to be available to schools.
I wish to draw my remarks to a close by looking forward. Fortunately, I think it is possible to adapt existing structures and improve local accountability and representation. By bringing a few of the trusts together, rebranding them as the education service and adding the voices of councillors, parent governors and trade union representatives, we could greatly improve the accountability of these organisations to the communities that fund them and that they should serve. In turn, we would increase transparency, which would rebuild public trust and embed our schools in their communities, instead of imposing new rules without consultation.
I must say that some of us saw all this coming, which is why in last year’s general election there was a different vision on offer—one that was much closer to the points I have just outlined. The Labour manifesto promised:
“We will…oppose any attempt to force schools to become academies.”
It also promised:
“Labour will ensure that all schools are democratically accountable, including appropriate controls to see that they serve the public interest and their local communities.”
In my view, those who work in our schools, send their children to them and support schools in their local areas are best placed to give insight into the ways that they should be run—a point that has been made frequently by the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner). I can say with confidence that that view is shared by many of the people I spoke to in Cambridge in preparing for this debate.
I hope that the Minister will give some assurances to parents and staff at St Philip’s, and those at other schools in and around Cambridge who are likely to find themselves embroiled in similar discussions in coming months. There is a new Secretary of State for Education, so there is an opportunity for a new start and for working with communities, rather than against them.
Sadly, this has been a debate about structures, when in so many ways it would be much better if were talking about standards and what is needed to support, encourage and inspire teachers, who we know are the real key to higher standards. We should also be talking about how to pay those teachers sufficiently so that they can live in high-cost areas such as Cambridge, and so that they stay, rather than go, as happens all too often. I hope they will hear that the Minister has listened, and that the message from the Government will be, “We will work with you and help you to improve.” I hope the message is not that the only way is academisation by one route or another, because that is what it has felt like in Cambridge and, I fear, in many other places as well.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate, which is timely as it allows me to outline why academies are an important element in the Government’s success and drive in raising standards in our schools. Today, there are 1.9 million more pupils in schools graded by Ofsted as good and outstanding than there were in 2010. Standards are rising in our secondary schools and in our primary schools. Teachers have more autonomy now to run their schools, and 154,000 more six-year-olds are reading more effectively as a consequence of not only the hard work of teachers but the reforms implemented by this Government. There are more young people taking double or triple science today: 91% are entered for those GCSEs today compared with 63% in 2010.
We are a Government determined to raise academic standards right across the system in our schools. The reason why we are having this debate today and why the hon. Gentleman is raising these issues stems from the fact that Cambridgeshire County Council was concerned about standards at St Philip’s Primary School, which is why it issued a warning notice to the school. It is from that that we have the establishment of the interim executive board, which is now consulting parents about converting the school into an academy to be run by a multi-academy trust. There have been many hundreds of responses to the consultation process and it has extended the time for the process, so it does want to work with the local community and with parents. It wants to hear parental views. The overriding objective of the regional schools commissioner, this Government and Cambridgeshire County Council is to see standards improve in all our schools right across the country.
Since 2010, the number of schools benefiting from academy freedoms in this country has grown from 200, when the previous Labour Government left office, to more than 7,000. The system that academisation brings started under the previous Labour Government, and we have built on that process to give professionals the autonomy to run their schools free from political interference and to raise standards. We have now reached the point where 7,000 schools have that professional autonomy and that academy status.
More than a third of state-funded schools are now part of an academy trust. The multi-academy trust model is a powerful vehicle for improving school standards and raising academic standards by sharing, for example, financial back-office skills, facilities and teaching resources and partnering the best of our state-funded schools with schools that are struggling. Two thirds of our academies are converter academies. These are good schools that made the decision to become an academy, and many of them have established multi-academy trusts, helping other schools to improve. A further 2,000 schools have become academies with the support of a sponsor to help them to raise the quality of education that they are providing.
Since 2014, the number of MATs has doubled. As of 1 January this year, 79% of all academies are in a multi-academy trust, with 62% of those academies in a MAT of five or more schools. Academies have been raising academic standards. More than 450,000 pupils now study in good or outstanding sponsored academies which were previously typically underperforming schools. Pupils in secondary converter academies are making more progress between the ages of 11 and 16 than pupils in other types of schools, and 90% of converter academies are rated as good or outstanding. For sponsored academies, since 2010, 65% of schools that were previously inadequate under local authority control are now rated good or outstanding since becoming a sponsored academy, where an inspection has taken place.
A good example of what academy sponsorship is able to achieve is the Harris Academy Battersea, which is the highest performing sponsored academy in England. In 2017, it registered a progress 8 score of 1.49, placing it within the top 1 % of all schools. The National Foundation for Educational Research reported that sponsored academies are significantly more likely to be rated as outstanding compared with similar local authority maintained schools. The professional autonomy of academy status leads to a more dynamic and responsive education system, giving head teachers the opportunity to make decisions based on the interests of their pupils and on local need, and it allows high-performing schools to spread that excellence across to other schools. The Government are determined to raised academic studies by encouraging evidence-based teaching, building on a knowledge-rich curriculum and by providing teachers and school leaders with the autonomy to drive school improvement.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful to the Minister for taking an intervention. He will know that there are other views about the success of these processes. I shall put to him again the essential point in my speech. If a school has recovered, its results are good and it is doing well, and if there is clearly strong support for it, as in this case, why would we want to destabilise it when there is strong support in the local community for it to stay as it is?
Nick Gibb
As I have said, in 2016, Cambridgeshire County Council issued the school with a warning notice. To ensure sustainability of standards the interim executive board was established. The board is consulting on the next steps, and it has made the decision that it is best for the school to become an academy under the diocese. It is consulting on that decision, and it is taking parents’ views into account. It had a meeting today, as the hon. Gentleman said, and it will continue to go through the process.
Overall in Cambridgeshire, 97% of secondary schools are academies or free schools, and we expect that to be 100% shortly. One third of primary schools are currently academies or free schools, and that number is expected to rise in the coming year, with 17 schools currently moving to academy status. In the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, there are six secondary schools. Five of them are academies, and the remaining school intends to become an academy this term. There are 23 primary schools and a maintained special school. Just two of the primary schools are academies or free schools, and four primary schools are currently going through the process of joining a multi-academy trust, which is significantly lower than elsewhere in Cambridgeshire.
In September 2014, 82% of primary schools in Cambridge were rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. In November last year, that rose to 91%, which is above the national average. Four of the five secondary academies have positive progress 8 scores, including Chesterton Community College, part of Cambridgeshire Educational Trust, which is in the top 1% of schools nationally and was recently graded by Ofsted as outstanding. Cambridgeshire Educational Trust is a great example of the development of the school-led system in which teaching approaches have raised academic results. It has successfully transferred that outstanding practice to a long-standing underperforming secondary school in Norfolk, and it has received approval to establish two new free schools in 2017, including a post-16 mathematics school in Cambridge, working in partnership with the university.
Daniel Zeichner
I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way again. I deliberately tried not to single out organisations apart from the one that stimulated this debate. However, on the back of that eulogy, may I remind the Minister that he has not taken the opportunity to answer any of the questions that I posed? How many unqualified teachers have been employed? What changes to terms and conditions have been made in the multi-academy trusts to which he referred? It is hard to know how to find out.
Nick Gibb
The Diocese of Ely multi-academy trust does not use unqualified teachers in its schools. Nationally, about 95% of teachers are qualified. Many teachers who do not have qualified teacher status generally have a skill, knowledge or experience to bring to the school, which is why schools employ them.
Where standards do not meet expectations, the regional schools commissioner and the local authority work together to target underperformance. Action has been taken to ensure sustainable school improvement, including requiring poorly performing schools to join multi-academy trusts. For example, North Cambridge Academy, formerly Manor Community College, has been transformed by Cambridge Meridian Academies Trust. It began as a school in special measures, but is now graded as good, with pupils’ progress in the top 30% nationally.
I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has been involved with the St Philip’s Church of England Aided Primary School in Cambridge. As I said, the local authority established an interim executive board at the request of the former governing body, which felt unable to address the performance concerns at the school. Part of the interim executive board’s role has been to consider the school’s long-term future. Its decision on the future of the school is being discussed at the meeting today, which will include full consideration of academy status following a consultation exercise with parents and the community. The regional schools commissioner, Sue Baldwin, met the hon. Gentleman in October to discuss the future of the school. There is a strong relationship between Cambridgeshire County Council and the regional schools commissioner team, and they meet on a regular basis.
Standards in our primary and secondary schools are rising. The Government’s education reforms have meant that 1.9 million more children attend good or outstanding schools compared with 2010. The academisation programme that the hon. Gentleman discussed has been key to raising those academic standards.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Maritime Enforcement Powers: Code of Practice) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Maritime Enforcement Powers: Code of Practice) Regulations 2017.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, for what I think is the first time. The regulations were laid before the House on 16 November 2017. I hope they will be approved, but, for the benefit of the hon. Members for Scunthorpe and for Wolverhampton South West, I will proceed to make an argument.
The Policing and Crime Act 2017 provides police officers and other law enforcement with certain powers in the maritime environment so that they can prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute criminal offences that take place on vessels where the courts in England and Wales have jurisdiction. The provisions close a gap in enforcement powers, ensuring that law enforcement officers are capable of functioning effectively to tackle crime on sea, as on land.
Section 30 of the Police Act 1996 places a geographical restriction on the exercise of police powers, limiting them to England and Wales and the adjacent waters—the territorial waters that extend to 12 nautical miles. The maritime provisions, once commenced, will give the police and other law enforcement at sea similar powers to those available to enforcement officers in relation to drug trafficking and modern slavery. The difference is that the powers cover all offences under the law of England and Wales. In summary, those are the power to stop, board, divert and detain a vessel; the power to search a vessel and obtain information; and the power to arrest and seize any relevant evidence.
The Policing and Crime Act enables law enforcement officers to use those powers in relation to certain ships in international and foreign waters and in the territorial waters of England, Wales and Scotland. Principally, the vessels will be UK flagged, but law enforcement will also be able to act on non-flagged vessels and foreign ships, in certain circumstances, in international waters as well as territorial waters.
The powers are important because crimes such as rape, murder, firearms offences and grievous bodily harm can take place on UK-registered ships beyond the territorial waters limit, just as they can within those waters or on UK soil. There are also other crimes specific to the maritime context, such as illegal fishing, unsafe vessels, piracy and marine theft, which the police must be able to tackle just as effectively as when crime is committed on land.
Before the new powers are brought into force, a code of practice, issued under section 94 of the Policing and Crime Act, will need to be put in place for English and Welsh law enforcement officers to follow when arresting a person under section 90 of the Act. The code must set out certain rights and entitlements of persons arrested under section 90, and in particular the information to be made available to them on arrest. The Government have prepared the code of practice, which was placed before the House on 16 November 2017, together with these regulations. The regulations are necessary to ensure that the code of practice will be in force at the same time that the maritime powers in the Act are commenced.
The code provides guidance on the information that should be given to a suspect at the time of their arrest. It makes clear that suspects should be provided with a summary of their rights, and warned if it may take more than 24 hours to bring them to a police station. The code will ensure that law enforcement officers provide suspects with information, and that includes ensuring that those detained understand what is being said to them. Officers will also be obliged to make arrangements to safeguard the health and welfare of arrested persons. To ensure that the code will be practical and effective, the Government have consulted the law enforcement agencies that will use it, representatives of the legal profession, devolved Administrations, other external organisations and interested Government Departments.
Police Scotland is currently drafting equivalent but non-statutory guidance concerning the exercise of its maritime enforcement powers, and we are working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that the guidance is appropriately aligned. The Northern Ireland provisions will also be covered by non-statutory guidance. The Northern Ireland maritime provisions will be commenced separately from those of England, Wales and Scotland at a date determined by the Northern Ireland Executive.
The maritime powers in the Policing and Crime Act are essential if we are to ensure that our police and other law enforcement are equipped to be effective at tackling criminality, to enforce the law and to protect the public. However, it is vital that when these powers are used, they are used properly, particularly when a person’s liberty is restricted, as under the power of arrest. That is why the code of practice and the regulations are so important. I commend them to the Committee.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I thank the Minister for describing extensively the reasons why it is so necessary to bring in a change to legislation at this point. It is right and proper that this extension of powers is put in place. I am pleased to hear that the code of practice has been brought together and is in place, but I would be grateful for a little more information about how it was drawn up and what processes were involved in engaging others to ensure that it is fully fit for purpose. I welcome the description the Minister gave of the way in which the devolved authorities will roll out similar measures in their jurisdictions. Generally, Her Majesty’s Opposition welcome the legislation.
Mr Hurd
I thank the hon. Gentleman, speaking for the Opposition, for his constructive approach to regulations that are clearly necessary. As I said in my remarks, the code was laid before the House in November and was the subject of extensive consultation. I am sure he has read that consultation and will have seen that it contains nothing unexpected in terms of what we expect law enforcement officers to do at such moments. Given the importance of these maritime powers to make the UK increasingly hostile to criminality and to fill a clear gap in provision, I hope the Committee will approve them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Sub-national Transport Body (Transport for the North) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Sub-national Transport Body (Transport for the North) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 16 November 2017, establish Transport for the North as the first sub-national transport body. This debate is the culmination of the parliamentary phase of the draft regulations, but it will not surprise Members to know that a lot of hard work has brought us to this point, and I start by paying tribute to the civic, business and political leaders across the north who have come together in the past few years to create Transport for the North.
TfN provides the north with a huge opportunity to combine the individual strengths of its constituent areas and to work with the Government to plan transport more effectively across the region. The draft regulations, together with the creation of metro Mayors, give the north greater autonomy and control over transport, and a powerful voice to articulate the case for new transport projects. If approved, they will provide TfN, acting as a single voice for the north, with statutory status. That status is a crucial symbol of the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the economy, because it will give TfN a clear leading role in planning and developing a programme for the north and enable it to ensure that transport interventions in the north not only improve journeys but are targeted at unlocking growth across the region.
I am keenly aware that Members across the House and in the other place share our aim to transform northern growth and to rebalance the country’s economy. The Government have been very clear that we wish to see and to support better transport connections across the whole of the north, particularly east to west. To address that, we are already spending record amounts on transformational projects such as High Speed 2 and the great north rail project, and on new trains and extra services through improved franchises. We are also spending billions of pounds extra on roads to make journeys faster and more reliable.
The northern powerhouse rail programme aims significantly to improve connections between major cities across the north of England. TfN is considering a range of options, and we are due to receive a business case from it later this year. TfN is also taking forward important work to develop smart ticketing in the north and a cross-northern strategic transport plan. Those programmes will help to realise the vast potential of a region with more than 15 million people, 1 million businesses, exports worth upwards of £50 billion, thriving regenerated cities and world renowned universities.
We all agree that greater investment in the north is vital, but there is also a need for a long-term strategy to drive investment decisions—a strategy developed by the north, for the north. Developing such a strategy will be a core function of this new sub-national transport body and will mean that the Secretary of State formally considers the north’s strategy when taking national decisions. That unprecedented role in national transport planning is designed to ensure that links between transport and economic development are maximised.
The draft regulations also give TfN powers to work with local authorities to deliver and fund transport projects, including road schemes and smart ticketing in the north, and to be consulted on rail franchises. The role set out for TfN in the draft regulations will enable it to plan, recruit, enter into contracts and spend effectively the £260 million it has so far been allocated to take forward its work. As required under the legislation, TfN has provided the Secretary of State with a formal proposal and draft regulations, which have been approved by no fewer than 56 separate local authorities. In administrative terms, that is a Herculean effort.
The role set out for TfN in the draft regulations strikes a careful balance between what is right for the north and what is right for the country. The Government and our agencies are already working closely with TfN on national infrastructure decisions. As a formal partner with statutory status, TfN’s role will be strengthened, paving the way for even better co-operation in the future. Most fundamentally of all, speaking with a strong unified voice will be pivotal in bringing our cities closer together and creating a modern, reliable and improved transport system in the north. The benefit of the transport regulations is clear, in allowing us to work towards that goal, and I ask the Committee to give them its support.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ryan. I represent a constituency within the proposed jurisdiction of the newly-established Transport for the North, and I declare an interest, in that I want to ensure that we get the establishment of Transport for the North absolutely right.
We have seen the power of real devolution and the impact that it has on economic regeneration and opportunity, and how, when transport and the economy are combined into spatial planning, we can build a country fit for the future. Over the past 18 months we have seen that power in London in particular, with Transport for London’s ability to drive economic opportunities for the city and what it has done through its transport plan to connect communities, address social mobility, attract inward investment and kick-start a house building strategy. By determining that public transport must be prioritised alongside cycling and walking, TfL has been able not only to map its mobility objectives, but to relate business, housing, environmental and health priorities to them, for full connectivity from a fully integrated transport system, and a fully integrated overarching strategy for Greater London. Similar benefits have been brought about through Transport Scotland and Transport for Wales.
With that approach have come resources—although they are being withdrawn without the necessary transitional funds—and powers to make decisions and bring about change. However, as we head north we see a different concept proposed in the regulations. Labour’s ambition for devolution and, in particular, devolution for the transport system as set out in part 5A of Labour’s Local Transport Act 2008, which makes the regulations permissible, reaches well beyond the scope of what is set out in the regulations before the Committee.
As I have already set out, Transport for London, utilising all its powers, is able to realise the ambition of its community and deliver a transport system for the future. Northern communities already get a 10th of the spending that goes to London, and the new regulations restrain opportunity for the new sub-national transport body. In a variety of announcements, the Secretary of State first scrapped the promised investment, but proposed that he would deliver devolved powers that would allow the north to address its own transport needs. However, the statutory instrument delivers neither resource nor the powers that he promised just months ago.
I want to begin by talking about the schedule and the governance arrangements. Labour will be supportive of the proposals set out for the co-ordination and governance of Transport for the North. We believe that to have equal voices representing the breadth of communities in the north is right, and the ability to determine on simple majorities, population size or track coverage proportions to the weight of votes is right, when it comes to certain matters such as franchises.
It is essential, for any strategic body to function, to ensure that partners can engage; robust scrutiny is also vital, to ensure that the challenges are put within the system, and that the strategic body keeps being held to account over its determinations.
That brings me to the area of contention, namely regulation 5. I ask the Minister whether it is lack of ambition or lack of trust that has determined the regulation’s limitations with regard to the powers to prepare, advise and make proposals. Is the Minister really serious in introducing regulations for a new strategic transport authority that has the right to put its hand up and say, “Please”? It is staggering, when we all know why rail is failing so badly at the moment, with the fragmentation conspiracy held at the heart of Government, that the regulations provide zero power to drive a different approach or culture into our rail system.
Let me take each point in turn. Regulation 5(a) specifies the power to prepare a transport strategy. Should it not at least specify the power to prepare and set the priorities? We need legislation to enable TfN to deliver an integrated transport strategy linked to an economic plan and a spatial plan. We hear about the northern powerhouse, but we just get the right to prepare a strategy and pass it on to the Secretary of State, who then has the powers to do whatever he so chooses with it. Labour would bolster that power, to bring real power to the north.
It gets worse. Regulation 5(b) sets out the power to “provide advice”—just provide advice—to the Secretary of State about the exercise of transport functions in relation to the area, whether they are exercisable by the Secretary of State or others. I know the Secretary of State would seriously benefit from the provision of advice from a strategic transport body, but honestly, this is completely substandard and does not need legislating for. Anyone can provide advice. There is no credence given to the depth of the advice or how it will be received, and there is nothing in the regulations to say whether any of it will have any effect and see the light of day. In other words, the Secretary of State gets someone to do his homework for him and then decides what he wants to do with it. He may rub it out if he so chooses; he is given no obligations on how to respond to that advice.
Labour wants Transport for the North to have the powers to implement the strategy; to co-produce, at the very least, the plan to implement the strategy; to determine the priorities for the area covered; and to be able to make decisions on the strategy. Of course, Labour’s move to a publicly owned railway system will reflect the strength of devolution right through its structures and will ensure, through Transport for the North, that local authorities will help to determine their destiny, while also ensuring national co-ordination to bring economic opportunity to all corners of the nation, with a transport system that delivers the right solutions to the country.
The continued economic inequality and failure will not abate if all the decision making is still taking place at the Department for Transport and by the Secretary of State. He must let go of his powers and start trusting those who are experts in the north and know what is needed for local growth. We must break the Secretary of State’s Stalinist grip on the railway, where every decision must go across his desk. That is exactly why we need Transport for the North and why we need a Labour Government.
Let me give the example of TransPennine Express. The leaders of all the authorities within the Transport for the North footprint have been absolutely clear that that major artery needs to be electrified and to provide the high-speed, high-capacity service necessary for economic opportunity. It must be Transport for the North’s role to determine what is needed. Clearly, the Secretary of State has got it wrong in downgrading that scheme, switching the power off in the north. Everyone in the north knows that and has been incredibly vocal about it; however this remote Government do not understand its importance.
Transport for the North must be able to set the strategy and priorities and then implement them. These regulations fall completely short of that. I urge the Government to redraft the whole of regulation 5, but I have not finished yet. Regulation 5(c) provides for a co-ordinating role between the authorities to improve effectiveness and efficiency. Should those powers not also extend to an arbitrating role? Co-ordination is good if everyone agrees, but when they do not we need to ensure that the broader interests are determined, and therefore the powers of Transport for the North should be extended to achieve that.
Then we get to regulation 5(d), under which if Transport for the North believes that effectiveness and efficiency can be improved, it has the power to make proposals. Once again, there is nothing that must be acted upon. These are not powers. We need to ensure that proposals are turned into determinations that can be delivered. Then we have regulation 5(e), where proposals can be made to the Secretary of State about the role and function of Transport for the North. Once again, we can ask, beg and plead, but there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to be cognisant of such proposals. The whole of regulation 5 is poor—really poor—and I call on the Minister to amend it. Subsections (2) to (6) of section 102H of part 5A of the 2008 Act enable the Secretary of State to go further, and I urge the Minister to take that on board.
I have a few further points to make about the remainder of the regulations. It is unclear how the instituting of advanced and smart ticketing will be specifically resourced in the longer term, after the £150 million allocated for now has been spent, or how it is proposed that that will be interrelated across the rest of the transport network outside the jurisdiction of Transport for the North. We urgently need smart ticketing that is intermodal and dovetails into the national ticketing scheme. Will the Minister give a clear response to that?
Let me briefly move on to highways. I note that, again, the Secretary of State will sign off on initiatives on trunk roads and the acquisition of land, its use and its environmental impact. Surely, these matters should be devolved to Transport for the North, under the direction of the Secretary of State. It speaks of a lack of an existing national strategy for the highways, and a lack of faith in a northern body such as Transport for the North having the ability to make these determinations. Labour believes that it should.
Regulation 11 sets out the relationship between TfN and local authorities on highways matters. May I point out to the Minister that, although it mentions footpaths and trunk roads, it is silent on bridleways and cycle paths? Is there intent behind that omission, and if so, why? Labour believes that far more investment is needed in walking and cycling to tackle poor air quality and congestion and to improve health.
Finally, funding is key to growth and economic and social success, yet the regulations are virtually silent on the matter, save for saying that contributions will come from the local authorities in a proportionate way, and for the initial resourcing. Section 102L of part 5A of the 2008 Act makes provision for grants to be allocated. Why has that not been included in the regulations? Will the Minister share more details? Labour’s intent with the 2008 Act was to ensure that real power was devolved to strategic regions, and it is deeply disappointing that the Government have not shared our ambition. We wholeheartedly support the setting up of Transport for the North, and I speak for the vast majority of local authorities in the north in saying that we are deeply disappointed with the regulations and that we want the Government to redraft regulation 5. Transport for the North should have the powers to set and implement a strategy that it owns, and the Secretary of State should be bound not only to fully consider it but to support it, unless he can provide strong evidence of why it should be refocused. As things stand, the power in these regulations sits in the wrong place.
In order to make progress in the setting up of Transport for the North, Labour will not block these regulations today. However, we seek a guarantee from the Government that they will go back and extend powers to Transport for the North, to enable it to be a truly strategic body across the whole transport system, delivering for all communities in the north.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson for her comments. Let me address the several points she raised.
First, the regulations have been drafted with the support, and in some cases at the formal request, of Transport for the North and the constituent authorities themselves. The Government are acting not in a vacuum but very closely in consultation with the constituent authorities and Transport for the North’s own management and executive team. Therefore, I do not think it is correct to say that those things are in some sense not supported locally; on the contrary, the reason the Labour party supports them and the reason they command support across the north is that everyone recognises that this body is a very important step for this important subject, in a central area of our future economic development.
Secondly, it is very bold to talk about devolution in a grand way. The Labour party ought to be careful to think about what that actually implies. We have national networks in road, rail and other areas mentioned by the hon. Member for York Central, and devolution can upset national flows and the coherence of a national strategy. It is important for Government to recognise and respect that. I have no doubt that any Government in this position would be concerned about the national aspect of such important networks.
Thirdly, these powers are absolutely not unambitious, as the hon. Lady suggested. I remind the Committee that this is the first sub-national transport body, and important powers are being allocated to Transport for the North. The power to produce the statutory transport strategy is important, and the fact that it is statutory gives it an authority and status that commands respect. This entity now has the capacity to fund organisations that can deliver transport projects—smart ticketing, for example—and the Government are working with and giving the power for TfN to work with local authorities to fund, promote and deliver schemes, and to be consulted on schemes, which is important. Those are important powers, and an important devolution of autonomy and control to the region, and rightly so.
As I have said, 56 authorities were consulted and the idea that they form an entirely coherent group that is able to speak with one voice is fanciful. It is important for TfN to bring together all those concerns and mould them into a strategy, and in due course we will see the results of its work on that. The idea that there is somehow a single voice, and therefore a comparison with Transport for London, is far-fetched. We are in the early stages of setting up a new institution, and anyone who wishes to ask whether that institution speaks with one voice, and whether more powers should be devolved to it, should ask from which local transport or other authority those powers will be removed. Is the hon. Lady genuinely suggesting that Transport for Greater Manchester should have some of its powers removed to go to Transport for the North, because that is the implication of creating a body of the kind she described? This is far from unambitious—these are ambitious and far-reaching proposals on which this Government, and future Governments, could build if they are successful.
This Government are the first to have introduced a national walking and cycling strategy. They inherited a situation in which walking and cycling were being funded at the rate of £2 a head per year, and that is now £6 a head per year. That is not enough, but it is a significant improvement.
I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive points, and we will obviously attend to them. We see the establishment of Transport for the North as a significant step for the north and the country as a whole. It will work with the region’s transport authorities and elected Mayors to build a long-term vision for transport across the north of England. As the voice of the north in that area, Transport for the North will have unprecedented influence over Government funding and decision making. The Government have demonstrated that by setting up this institution and backing the election of metro Mayors, we are giving the north greater autonomy and control, and a powerful voice to articulate the case for new transport projects.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for his response, but I wish to come back on a number of issues. First, let me be clear that Labour fully supports the setting up of this sub-national transport body, Transport for the North. We want it to be successful, but we do not underestimate the real challenges faced by the new strategic body, and we therefore want to ensure that it has the powers and authority to deliver what it needs to deliver on behalf of local authorities and strategic bodies across the north. That is why we have made a close determination about what those powers should be, in dialogue with authorities across the north, as well as Transport for the North.
I challenged the assumptions made by the Minister because there are successful bodies, whether in Wales, Scotland or London, that have greater control over their transport determinations, and we must question why a similar determination cannot be made by a body in the north. Transport for the North should clearly have greater powers to determine the destiny of the economy and communities of the north, and that is why we urge the Minister to go further in future.
I challenge the Minister’s claim that TfN has those wider powers, because there is still a massive dependency on the Secretary of State making determinations. We are not talking about taking any powers away from local authorities, because we believe in devolved decision making. However, the regulations are too dependent on the Secretary of State making the determinations and the sign-off.
Although we recognise the importance of a strategic national plan for our transport system, it is important that those powers are devolved down into a sub-national transport body. The Secretary of State should produce evidence of why that should not happen and why it is he should affirm such decisions. I question the Minister’s claim that our proposal would not function, given what is happening in other areas.
The Minister also raised the issue of not all the strategic bodies speaking with one voice. That is exactly why we recognise the role of collaboration, but we also argue that, where a dispute occurs between authorities, they should be able to access arbitration. Of course, there will be different interests and approaches. Those are determined by the difference and variety of communities across the north. We believe that the strategic body for transport in the north should have greater powers at that level.
Finally, on walking and cycling, the latter is funded at the rate of £6 per head, but we want the figure to be increased to £10 per head. We want to be ambitious and to change the approach. I specifically asked the Minister why cycle paths and bridleways were omitted from the regulations, while footpaths, roads and highways were included. Is that an omission by default or was there intent behind it?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I have a few points to make in response. There are two kinds of devolution: the first relates to whether more powers should be devolved from the Secretary of State, and the second to the relationship between Transport for the North and its constituent authorities. I will take those two in turn.
The hon. Lady’s appeal with regard to Transport for London relates to the second issue. If Transport for the North is to function in due course in any way analogous to Transport for London, that will require local and transport authorities to give up powers to TfN. She has to answer whether she—and those authorities—are comfortable to give up those powers, because that is what is implied by her comparison to Transport for London. I do not think that those authorities would be comfortable with that; there is no evidence for that. They have vigorously asserted the powers that they have received under the metro Mayors, and rightly so, and in many cases they are doing exciting and interesting things with those powers.
That is one aspect of devolution. As to the other aspect, which is whether the Secretary of State should devolve more powers, the hon. Lady said I did not offer an argument, but in fact the opposite is true: I offered two arguments. First, this is a new entity. It is the first sub-national transport body. Let us see whether this entity, with all the embedded conflicts and properly articulated differences of priorities, can pool that into a concrete set of proposals and work effectively with this and future Governments to prove its worth. When it has done that, the case for further devolution of powers will become clear. The regulations already provide substantial devolution.
Secondly, one must be very careful to ensure that devolved powers do not conflict with national networks. We do not want to do that. In this country we have always run the strategic roads network as a strategic network. Increasingly, with the development of the new major roads network, we are running a network on a national routes basis, and it is important to respect that.
The hon. Lady’s final question concerned cycle paths and footpaths, but they are a matter for local authorities. They do not need to be mentioned in the regulations and can perfectly properly be managed, as matters presently stand, by local authorities. That is the principle adopted by the regulations.
Rachael Maskell
Clearly, the Minister and I, and our parties, have a completely different view of devolution. We very much see it as taking power from the centre down into the regions. Evolution is how I would describe the taking away of power from local authorities—we certainly do not support that.
I have a couple of final questions. On a point of clarity, the Minister indicated towards the end of his response that there would be further devolution of powers. Does he intend Transport for the North to have greater powers in future? Is this a staging process to achieve that, in line with other transport authorities, which are clearly on a different statutory setting? It would be interesting to hear his response, given the weakness of the powers in the regulations.
Secondly, I need to correct the Minister: cycle paths and bridleways are not mentioned in the regulations but footpaths are. I asked why there is that disparity. The Minister now says that footpaths and cycle paths are for local authorities, so why are footpaths in the regulations? I need clarity on that point because it is now more opaque than when we started.
Jesse Norman
On cycle ways and footpaths, I will write to the hon. Lady with details of the history of that, which should settle the matter. On future powers, the Government have made no judgment. The thrust of my argument is that, once Transport for the North is a fully functioning, successful body and able to discharge the functions it has presently been given, it will then be open for it to make the case to this or future Governments for the devolution of further powers. That would be a perfectly proper exercise of its voice, which has been given statutory authority by the regulations. The Government have made no decision on that but have not ruled it out.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Sub-national Transport Body (Transport for the North) Regulations 2017.
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Colombia) Order 2017
Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Lesotho) Order 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Colombia) Order 2017.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Lesotho) Order 2017.
Mel Stride
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey.
The draft orders will give effect to two new double taxation agreements: one with Colombia and one with Lesotho. Double taxation agreements remove barriers to international trade and investment and provide a clear and fair framework for taxing businesses that trade across borders. By doing so, they benefit both business and the economies of the countries that sign up to them.
The double taxation agreement with Colombia is an important new agreement for the United Kingdom. It is our first ever double taxation agreement with Colombia, a country with which we have close and strengthening ties. It should also set a helpful precedent for future negotiations with other countries across Latin America.
The agreement represents a good deal for UK businesses and individuals with interests in Colombia. We have secured important reductions in, and exemptions from, taxes on dividends and interests, most notably a complete exemption from Colombian tax on dividends and interest paid to UK pension funds and interest on certain loans made by UK banks. The agreement also contains the most up-to-date provisions to guard against treaty abuse, based on international best practice, the latest OECD exchange of information article, and a provision for mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts. These features strengthen both countries’ defences against tax avoidance and evasion.
The agreement with Lesotho improves on our existing double taxation agreement. It updates the exchange of information article to the latest OECD standard and includes, for the first time, a provision for mutual assistance in the collection of tax debts and mandatory binding arbitration processes and procedures for resolving tax disputes. These features will help both countries to combat tax avoidance and evasion, as well as providing greater certainty for business.
The agreement also includes a marked improvement on the taxation of services. A provision in a previous agreement allowed Lesotho to tax the gross value of services provided by UK residents without their setting foot in Lesotho. Under the new agreement, Lesotho will tax only services that are actually provided in Lesotho by someone who is present for more than 183 days within a 12-month period, and only the net profit will be taxed. This is much more in line with established international principles. Because such taxes act as a barrier to investment, the lower rates of withholding tax for dividends and royalties in the new agreement are also very welcome. They will benefit the economies of both countries.
In summary, these are agreements that the UK, Colombia and Lesotho can be happy with. They will provide a stable framework in which trade and investment between the United Kingdom and Colombia and Lesotho can continue to flourish. I commend the draft orders to the Committee.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
This is the third Delegated Legislation Committee that I have attended since I was elected in June, so I am conscious that sittings of such Committees tend not to go on for too long. I certainly do not plan to detain the Committee for long, but I want to address the transparency of double taxation treaties. I thank ActionAid for providing me with a briefing on the matter, following on from its good work and good relationship with my friend Roger Mullin, the former Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. His private Member’s Bill of 2016, the Double Taxation Treaties (Developing Countries) Bill, was not successful at the time, but I am certainly keen to pick up the mantle.
I have a number of questions for the Minister; I appreciate that he might not be able to answer them all now, but I would be grateful if he followed up in writing, or perhaps in a meeting. First, why did the UK Government decide to open negotiations for new tax treaties with Lesotho and Columbia? Crucially, who was consulted in those negotiations? What were the views of businesses, civil society, non-governmental or other organisations and the Department for International Development? Finally, before orders relating to tax treaties come before Delegated Legislation Committees, are the Government willing to publish the specific objectives that they seek to achieve in those treaties? Certainly, that would allow us, as Members of Parliament, properly to scrutinise the objectives set by the Government and whether the tax treaty presented to the Committee successfully meets those objectives. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer all those questions at the moment, so I would be grateful if he committed to meet me and ActionAid to pursue those points further.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I am conscious that it is not common for Members to queue up to take part in Delegated Legislation Committees. I am genuinely pleased to be able to make a contribution to the Committee, because I believe that the significance of the UK’s network of bilateral tax treaties is far greater than the level of transparency and scrutiny afforded to it under the system of negotiation, renegotiation and ratification.
There are two major issues surrounding bilateral tax treaties. First, there is the question of tax treaties that enable companies to route money through tax havens such as Crown dependencies. That can come at a particularly high cost to the revenue raising capacity of Governments in poorer countries. Only a few years ago, ActionAid revealed how Deloitte was advising prospective clients in western and Chinese companies with an interest in Africa on how they could route their investment through Mauritius, a known tax haven. Perhaps not surprisingly, Mauritius has tax treaties with both the UK and Lesotho, so it is possible—if not highly likely—that UK companies investing in Lesotho are avoiding tax through such a route.
Secondly, many of these treaties are restrictive and cost lower-income countries billions of pounds each year that could be used to improve public services and alleviate poverty. For the purpose of the Committee, I want to concentrate on the treaty with Lesotho, one of the world’s poorest countries. It is regularly argued that such treaties boost economic development, but the World Bank has argued that there is very little conclusive evidence that tax treaties between OECD countries and low-income countries actually do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) writes in her excellent book “Called to Account”, that Angel Gurría, the secretary-general of the OECD, said in 2008:
“Developing countries are estimated to lose to tax havens almost three times what they get from developed countries in aid.”
He also said:
“poor countries could eliminate hunger in just one decade with less than a third of the money they lose to tax avoidance by big corporations”.
In 2014, the International Monetary Fund reported:
“the use of tax treaty networks to reduce…payments…is a major issue for many developing countries, which would be well-advised to sign treaties only with considerable caution.”
Britain has a large network of bilateral tax treaties both with low-income countries and tax havens. Analysis by Martin Hearson, a leading authority on the subject, found that the UK has the joint highest number of highly restrictive treaties with lower-income Asian and sub-Saharan African countries across the world. Ironically, we send a substantial amount of aid to those countries. Last year, DFID was responsible for delivering nearly £6 million of British taxpayers’ money in aid to Lesotho, yet we are signing a treaty that will actually deprive that country of corporation tax to which it is entitled.
I said that I was grateful for the opportunity to contribute, because this is one of the few opportunities for any kind of parliamentary scrutiny of a treaty of this nature—a treaty that the Government have already concluded. I am aware that there is a power for referring such treaties to the Floor of the House, but I understand that that has not been done since 1984. For most of us, this Committee is what passes for scrutiny. There is scant information on the reasons for this treaty in the explanatory notes or in the presentation we have just heard from the Minister. The Government do not publish their reasons for negotiating or renegotiating treaties. We do not appear to have any analysis of the expected impact of the treaty on investment or tax revenue. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us.
The House of Commons Library conducted a comparative analysis of the approaches of a number of countries to such treaties. Many countries establish specialist committees to scrutinise them. In other countries, treaties are scrutinised by both Houses or Assemblies. Here, it is done by a Delegated Legislation Committee. In Canada, parliamentarians have a formal opportunity to review such treaties before they become binding. In Australia, there is a national interest analysis and formal hearings to approve treaties. In the United States, the Department of the Treasury produces a technical explanation of the agreement. We should compare that with the information before us today as we consider these treaties.
Is the Minister willing to consider that the Government should at least publish the specific objectives they are seeking to achieve before future tax treaties come before a Delegated Legislation Committee? Will he tell us the rationale for opening negotiations on these treaties? Is it not the case that if the Lesotho treaty did not exist, Lesotho would be free to charge the diamond companies and others a 25% withholding tax, rather than one of 5%? Why are the rates of the withholding tax in this treaty so low? It seems like Robin Hood in reverse.
Will the Minister say something about the binding arbitration clause in the treaty? I recall that kind of thing being a source of some concern to people in this country during the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations. Am I right in thinking that this is the first UK tax treaty with a low or middle-income country to include a binding arbitration clause? What safeguards exist to ensure that large corporations do not use it to threaten Lesotho so that it does not try to challenge blatant tax avoidance? Have any British companies made representations to the Government for a binding arbitration clause to be included in the treaty?
Why is it so difficult to obtain information about the likely effect of the treaty? The EU produced detailed sustainability impact assessments that analyse the potential economic, social, human rights and environmental impacts of all trade deals. Why can a similar framework not be adopted for treaties such as these? As well as the treaties before us today, two more will be considered next week. I understand that there are treaties pending for Malawi, Nepal, Trinidad and Tobago and Uzbekistan. Will the Minister confirm whether all the existing tax treaties with EU countries will have to be renegotiated as part of the Brexit process? Surely we need a much better parliamentary process that involves full and proper scrutiny and provides evidence that such treaties are fair and in keeping with the values and traditions of our country.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East shares my view about the inadequacy of the process and that she might consider testing the will of the Committee on the Lesotho treaty so that, at the very least, we can make our concerns crystal clear.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure, Mr Bailey, to serve with you in the Chair. It is also a pleasure to sit across from the Minister for the third time this week, with more to come tomorrow during the consideration of the Finance Bill.
I do not want to repeat much of what has already been said, but I share the concerns that have been articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and the hon. Member for Glasgow East. We need to be clear, particularly when we talk about the treaty with Lesotho, that there is an extreme power imbalance between the UK and that country.
Many of us have heard of Lesotho because it is the only country—at least, the only one that I know of—whose people seek not to have some form of self-determination. Indeed, many people in Lesotho want it to join with South Africa, because of the enormous pressures on its public services and the small amount of finance that it has to deal with its terrible AIDS epidemic; I am sure that colleagues know that around a quarter of people in Lesotho of working age are infected with HIV/AIDS. Life expectancy in Lesotho is just 54, which means there are more pressures on public services and public service financing in Lesotho than in many other countries.
In that regard, it is important that we take our responsibilities as parliamentarians very seriously when we scrutinise such deals. In particular, it is important that we assure ourselves that this treaty is in line with the policy coherence for development principles, which state that in every area we must ensure we do not legislate in such a way as to deviate from our international development commitments.
That is significant for the UK, because we are Lesotho’s largest single source of foreign direct investment. The total amount of FDI in Lesotho is $51 million and the British contribution is $17 million. That might seem like small beer to some of us, given the kinds of figures that we normally look at in British Budgets; for example, it is about a sixth of the cost of the building of the new hospital in Northumbria. However, the UK FDI is more than half of the total Lesotho Government spending commitment for 2018. So, what we, as parliamentarians, do in relation to the tax that our citizens and our companies make it possible to collect in Lesotho is enormously important for that country’s economy.
There are a number of questions that we really need answers to, and I am not willing to wait for those answers. We need them now, and if we do not receive them, I do not think that we can accept the treaty. First, have the Government assured themselves, or otherwise, that this treaty coheres with our development policies? In particular, are we enabling lower-income countries to become more self-sustaining?
I understand that in 2016, when Jane Ellison was an MP and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, she reiterated the Government’s commitment to align our tax treaties with our wider developmental policies. May we please hear today which assessments of this treaty the Government have undertaken to consider its potential impact on governmental revenues, particularly those allocated to poverty alleviation, as well as those allocated to HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis reduction programmes? Also, have the Government already published, or will they publish, an analysis of the projected impact of the new treaty on investment levels and tax revenues in the UK and Lesotho?
May I ask what contact the Treasury and the negotiators of this treaty have had with DFID about the relationship between the measures we are considering today and any programmes in Lesotho that DFID might previously have conducted, might be conducting or might conduct in the future? It would also be interesting to hear about any discussions the Treasury has had with DFID generally about our international development policies and how they cohere with this treaty, rather than just about specific projects that might be happening in Lesotho or that might happen there in the future.
We also need to know the extent to which the treaty coheres with the principles set out in the Addis Ababa accord. Most of us would want to promote that accord very much, and particularly this principle:
“Domestic resource mobilisation and effective use is the crux of our common pursuit of sustainable development and achieving the SDGs”—
that is, the sustainable development goals. Also, will we agree to co-operate with others to combat tax evasion as well as tax avoidance? That is the first set of questions that we need answers to.
I come to the second set of questions. Like other colleagues, I regret the fact that parliamentarians have only been able to see the final version of this treaty. There is only a one-page explanation at the back of it, and there is no commentary on why particular approaches have been adopted rather than others. I hope that we will receive a commitment to a more open process for future double taxation agreements. In fact, we have the chance to begin that process next week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak has just mentioned.
Thirdly—this is where we need some specific answers—I hope the Minister will explain why certain decisions in this tax treaty were taken. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak mentioned the eye-watering reductions in the withholding tax for Lesotho, compared with what will apply to citizens and companies for other countries. There is a reduction of 80% for dividends, 60% for interest payments and 70% for royalties. Last night, I was looking at the rates in the previous treaty from 1997—I know how to live. I am particularly interested in finding out why the withholding tax on dividends has been pushed down from 10% in 1997 to 5%, and why there is a new lower rate for the beneficial owner of a company that directly holds at least 10% of the capital of the company that pays the dividends. Why is that new requirement in the treaty, given that it was not in the 1997 one? Why is the withholding tax on royalties down from 10% in the previous treaty to 7.5% in this one? The Minister said that these measures are in place to benefit the economies of the UK and Lesotho, but how will those changes do that?
Finally, as my hon. Friend mentioned, it would be helpful to know why the British Government decided to promote mandatory binding arbitration in this agreement through the mechanism of specialist—and, by the way, secret—international courts. That is a new measure in this treaty. It was not in the 1997 version, and, as was mentioned, it appears to be a new measure generally in our double taxation treaties for low-income countries. I am keen to learn whether the UK Government considered the potential barriers that would prevent a low-income country such as Lesotho from representing itself properly in such a court. Will the UK Government provide any help to Lesotho in that regard? I was pleased to hear from the Minister that there will be other forms of help—potentially with tax collection—but will there be help with the specialist court?
Was it the UK that requested the inclusion of mandatory arbitration, or was it Lesotho? We need an answer to that question, which the hon. Member for Glasgow East asked. What has the UK’s experience been so far with mandatory binding arbitration, and did that affect the UK’s decision to put the model in the treaty or to acquiesce to it, if the impetus came from the Lesotho side? Will the Minister indicate whether Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has any findings on the developmental impact of that form of mandatory binding arbitration? Were such findings taken into account when the decision to promote mandatory binding arbitration in this treaty was made?
I realise that that is a large set of questions, but this is a significant treaty for a country that has experienced enormous challenges in recent years. As parliamentarians, we are all committed to international development, particularly for the poorest countries. Especially given Lesotho’s public service challenges—a quarter of its population suffer from AIDS and HIV—we need to ensure our tax treaties are in line with our international commitments.
Mel Stride
May I, at the outset, make one thing extremely clear to the Committee? The Government are entirely committed to supporting lesser developed countries. We are one of the few countries in the EU and among the advanced industrialised countries that meets the 0.7% aid requirement. The hon. Member for Oxford East will know that the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, which is going through Parliament, will ensure that we take into UK law the unilateral preferences that pertain under the European acquis to ensure we provide zero-duty arrangements on a selfless, unilateral basis with a number of countries that need our support. It is important to understand where we are coming from in our overall negotiations and in the arrangements we enter into with the countries that are the subject of this debate.
I will go through some, at least, of the most prominent questions that were asked. There was a rather eye-watering number of them, delivered at rattle-gun speed, and some were quite technical. Although I enjoy the mental gymnastics of these debates—I always enjoy debating with the hon. Lady—I hope she bears with me as I do my best to pick them up. I was barely thinking about some of them when I had two or three more thrust in my direction. I will do my best to cover as much as I can.
The hon. Member for Glasgow East asked who opened the discussions between ourselves and Colombia. It was us, because Colombia is a significant Latin American economy. It is currently going through its accession process with the OECD, and it is expanding its network of double taxation agreements, including with our competitors—other nations around the world. We have always had close and friendly ties with that country, so we approached it. It was willing, and we have now concluded an agreement.
Like the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak and for Oxford East, the hon. Member for Glasgow East raised the important issue of transparency in the negotiation process. Tax treaties are international agreements that are given effect through law. They are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate. Only when both sides are satisfied with the content of a new treaty will it be signed and published. Parliament will then scrutinise the agreement. If Parliament is not satisfied, the treaty will not enter into force. Where these treaties come about, we are in a position to scrutinise them, as we clearly have in some detail in this Committee. Such treaties have generally enjoyed cross-party support to date. It is recognised that they generally have a positive role in creating and enhancing cross-border trade, investment and employment.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak raised an example of the potential use of this arrangement or treaty in the context of tax avoidance. He mentioned Mauritius specifically. Mauritius has now become a signatory to the OECD base erosion and profit shifting project. It is therefore bound by the rules and regulations in that regard. If we look at offshore so-called tax havens—I think that was the expression he used—they are most typically brought into play where double taxation arrangements are not necessarily in place and there is a fear that double taxation may occur. In that sense, so-called tax havens or overseas tax trusts are being used to create a neutral tax space. The overarching point is that the proliferation of double taxation agreements is to be welcomed in that context.
The hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak and for Oxford East raised the important issue of whether we were in some way exploiting Lesotho as a consequence of the agreement. The hon. Lady went into some detail on her bedtime reading. She went back to the 1997 treaty to look at the various rates of withholding tax and so on. The point I would make is that it is not possible for us to impose a treaty on another country, even if we wanted to. It is for the other country to decide when it is ready to enter into negotiations and to weigh up the trade-off between retaining all its taxing rights and possibly limiting those rights to attract foreign investment.
To answer a question that the hon. Member for Glasgow East posed about Colombia, it was Lesotho that approached us to seek a further double taxation arrangement. There were certainly elements within that negotiation where it sought to achieve certain outcomes to which we acquiesced.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak also raised the issue of how the tax treaty will support Lesotho’s development. UK tax treaties are negotiated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, reporting to Treasury Ministers. DFID is fully supportive of HMRC’s approach. It works with the Treasury on various aspects at various times in these various arrangements. DFID supports the tax authorities in developing countries to increase their capacity to raise revenues, and it works with the Treasury to develop the Government’s tax and development policy. The Government have also set up a specialist tax capacity building unit in HMRC that deploys HMRC staff in support of DFID country offices to provide technical expertise. The point is that, even outside the context of the treaties, the Treasury and HMRC are there alongside DFID in ensuring that we provide support to those countries and recognise the importance that they rightly place on the sustainability and durability of their tax base.
Other Governments have approached the negotiation of treaty arrangements and the process by which they go through Parliament in exactly the same way as we are looking at this today. It is certainly the case that treaties of this nature under the last Labour Government —in the dim and distant past—went through a similar process to that which we are following today.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak raised the important issue of binding arbitration and asked whether it is typical of these kinds of arrangements. In some cases it is; in some cases it has not been. That is because of historical changes that have occurred in this area. The new model agreed under the auspices of the OECD will now make it more normal. The decision taken by Lesotho and ourselves was that it would be appropriate to operate the model set out by the OECD for binding arbitration.
A question was raised about the renegotiation of our existing trade treaties with other nations—those treaties being between the European Union and other countries. It is my understanding that we will not need to do that in the case of those particular treaties.
The hon. Member for Oxford East asked for reports on the effects on the investment and the tax take and so on. Those are immensely complicated questions to answer; it is very complicated to try to assess and determine exactly what the impacts of a double taxation agreement with another country—an agreement with two countries interacting, with all the various externalities that impinge on those circumstances—will be. It is, of course, the British Government’s responsibility to continue to closely monitor those impacts as far as we can. All legal measures, treaties and agreements with other countries are always constantly under review, as the hon. Lady would expect.
Steve McCabe
I want to clarify one point on binding arbitration. As I understand it, consultations take place between the Government and various stakeholders and interested parties in preparation for the treaty. I am curious to know whether any British companies made representations that they wanted the binding arbitration clause included. If so, would the Minister tell us who they are?
Mel Stride
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, that is a highly specific question, which I cannot be expected to be in a position to answer at present. I am certainly happy to get back to him. Typically with treaties of this nature, a number of discussions are held with stakeholders, the overseas Governments concerned and so on. That is one reason why such arrangements take a considerable time to come to a conclusion.
The agreement with Colombia—our first with that country—brings a significant improvement to our coverage of the region and will improve the trading conditions for businesses in both countries and aid the fight against tax avoidance and evasion. We have brought forward a mutually beneficial treaty in the case of Lesotho.
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the Minister for his efforts to respond to the questions raised. I have some brief points to make on a number of the matters he referred to.
The Minister referred to the UK’s commitment to promote development in lower income countries. One of our main concerns about the Lesotho treaty is that it might not be coherent with the general direction of our aid efforts. I would be interested to know whether DFID was asked to comment specifically on this treaty. It would be helpful to know that.
Secondly, to be absolutely clear, I do not think that any Member has argued against the principle of having double taxation treaties in the first place. Rather, the comment is on the specific issues raised by treaties such as this one. For Opposition Members, the particular issue is the reduction in withholding tax rates and the introduction of mandatory binding arbitration, rather than the principle of having a treaty in the first place.
Thirdly, on the issue of negotiations, aspects of the treaty are surely a step forward. I do not believe the Minister mentioned permanent establishments, but the new rules on those seem to be fairer. A rather peculiar reference in the previous treaty to the tax treatment of loans through the UK Export Credits Guarantee Department is gone. I can understand that Lesotho might have wanted to get rid of strange elements from before, but I am interested to know what its comment was on the changes to withholding rates in particular, because those would seem to pose quite a large risk to its revenue.
On the negotiation, let us be completely frank: we are talking about a country of 2 million people, where the average person is 33 times poorer than a Briton. Are we honestly saying that we can have an equal negotiation? Pointing that out does no disservice whatever to the Lesotho Government—quite the opposite, because it means that we as parliamentarians have a much greater responsibility to scrutinise such agreements more fully. We need that.
On binding arbitration, yes, there is the OECD model, which is being promoted, but there is also the UN model. It would be interesting to know whether that came up in the negotiations at any stage, because most people view it as more favourable to developing nations than the OECD approach.
Finally, on the issue of information and impact assessments, I note that a tax information and impact note is provided for other tax requirements. Surely many tax issues within Britain are incredibly complicated—the Minister has ably discussed such matters in proceedings on the Finance Bill—so I do not see a huge difference there, in particular when UK investment in Lesotho seems to be concentrated in some quite large firms, especially, I understand, two very large mining concerns: Letšeng Diamonds, which is partly owned by the Lesotho state but mostly by a UK-based company, and Firestone Diamonds. We are not talking about a terribly complicated taxation arrangement, so surely it should be possible to have the information we require.
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his responses and clarifications.
Mel Stride
I will endeavour to do my best to answer the additional questions posed by the hon. Lady, some of which were very specific ones about what may or may not have happened during the negotiations. Unfortunately, I was not there. If I had been there and knew the answers, I would share them with her. However, I can perhaps be a little more helpful on some of the other questions.
The hon. Lady asked whether DFID was aware of the discussions. Naturally, it would have been. I say that based on the fact that it has been very publicly out there that the negotiations have been taking place for some considerable time. DFID has not, to my knowledge, specifically requested meetings or interactions at an official level with the Treasury, but had such an interaction been requested I have no hesitation in reassuring her that we would of course have facilitated it promptly and effectively.
On binding arbitration, the situation is as I outlined earlier. It is now based on the OECD model. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak asked earlier whether, during the process of consultation around the treaty negotiations, any company had requested that that form of arbitration be brought in. The answer to that is no. To the best of my and my officials’ knowledge, no business came forward and specifically requested that. Of course, it was then entered into jointly as a consequence of the agreement between the two Governments.
The hon. Member for Oxford East asked about tax information and impact notes. That is a fair point, but TIINs typically relate to where taxes, charges and duties are being imposed, and to the effect they have on individuals, companies, families and others. In this case, we are looking at reliefs in the context of a double taxation treaty.
I totally echo the hon. Lady’s powerful comments about the relative wealth of those who have the very good fortune to live in our country, for all its imperfections, compared with those who are less fortunate elsewhere. The Government are very aware of that. I will not re-rehearse the comments I made earlier about our commitment to international development and HMRC’s involvement over and above treaties in trying to alleviate such situations as much as we can. The hon. Lady made a powerful point, which I will certainly take away with me. I commend the orders to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Colombia) Order 2017.
DRAFT DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF AND INTERNATIONAL TAX ENFORCEMENT (LESOTHO) ORDER 2017
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Committee has considered the draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Lesotho) Order 2017.—(Mel Stride.)
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mental Health in Prisons
(6 years, 11 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
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered mental health in prisons.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this intolerable crisis. Suicide and self-harm in prison have reached record highs. In 2016, 119 prison suicides were recorded—the highest number since records began—and there were 41,103 incidents of self-harm in the year to June 2017. Again, that is the highest figure on record. With staff numbers dropping off and some parts of the prison estate unfit for human habitation, it is clear that the Government need to take decisive action to fulfil their statutory duty of care. Some prisoners may have had a mental health problem on entering the criminal justice system, but most prisoners’ mental health deteriorates in prison, because of the conditions imposed on them.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Before getting into the detail of what happens in prison, my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that many people have mental health problems before entering prison. Does she agree that when the police identify at interview, as they are required to do, that someone is under the care of mental health services, they should be required then to make contact with that individual’s mental health practitioner to get full information on their suitability for custody?
Ms Rimmer
I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. What she describes is one major component that is missing and would help to resolve the situation. People are locked up in a small cell for the vast majority of the day, subject to a poor diet and living in inhuman and dirty conditions. Those who were previously healthy often develop depression, anxiety and violent tendencies because they are in effect caged, with little food and no stimulation.
Since March 2017, Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, formerly NOMS—the National Offender Management Service—has been responsible for the management and operation of prisons in England and Wales and for ensuring that the prison environment is safe and decent. The Ministry of Justice is now responsible for prison policy and commissioning of services in prisons. NHS England is responsible for healthcare in prisons, in terms of both physical and mental health. In 2016-17, NHS England spent an estimated £400 million providing healthcare in adult prisons in England. It is estimated that £150 million of that was spent on mental health and substance misuse services, although the exact figure is unknown. All those bodies have a fundamental duty of care, yet as the Public Accounts Committee damningly concluded, they do not even know where they are starting from, how well they are doing or whether their current plans will be enough to succeed in caring for prisoners with mental health needs.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend accept that another problem is that those bodies do not know where people are going post-prison? I have in my constituency the excellent and nationally reputed Nelson Trust; it has a women’s centre in Gloucester. Its big bone of contention is that it gets very little access to the women before release. With all the mental health problems, drug abuse and victim support issues, it needs access in prison before release. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is crucial?
Ms Rimmer
I absolutely agree and will come to that point later in relation to communication.
The Government’s efforts to improve the mental health of people in prison have been poorly co-ordinated. Information is not shared across the organisations involved and not even between community and prison GPs. For example, NOMS advised NHS England to commission mental health services for a male prison at HMP Downview and then decided to open it as a female prison. Six months later, healthcare was still catching up with those changes. What a shocking failure of government! Clearly, quality systems of working and communication are urgently required between prison management, HMPPS, policy makers and commissioners at the Ministry of Justice and the commissioned contractors for health services and NHS England.
It is clear that not enough has been done to prevent increases in deaths in custody. That was the subject of last year’s Joint Committee on Human Rights interim report entitled “Mental Health and Deaths in Prison”. The report homed in on why progress has not been made on preventing deaths in prison, despite the numerous insightful and comprehensive analyses produced on the issue following the Woolf report in 1991. Those include reports by Lord Harris of Haringey, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office, the Howard League and the Select Committee on Justice. Those are just some of them. I hope the Minister would agree that there is no lack of knowledge of or information on the problem, as it has been well reported.
While the Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry was in progress in March 2017, the Government introduced the Prisons and Courts Bill. Following its Second Reading, the Joint Committee wrote to the Government, proposing key amendments, but unfortunately the Dissolution of Parliament got in the way. The Committee instead published an interim report in May 2017. In November, the Chair of the Joint Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), wrote to the Secretary of State for Justice, expressing her disappointment at the non-inclusion in the Queen’s Speech of the prisons Bill promised before the general election and noting that he had said he would take some administrative steps. The Chair stated in her letter to the Government that the Committee’s findings showed that concrete legislation was needed, and outlined clear steps forward, to ensure that prisoners’ humanity is protected and their welfare safeguarded. The Joint Committee’s proposals included a statutory minimum ratio of prison officers to prisoners, a prescribed legal maximum amount of time for prisoners to be kept in a cell and the provision of a key worker for each mentally ill prisoner.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
The hon. Lady has a long-standing and serious interest in these issues. Does she agree that one thing that would help in this area would be training prisoners in work in which they could get jobs on release, to fill shortages out in the community, and that that is part of giving people hope and a purpose, which can help to improve mental health?
Ms Rimmer
I absolutely agree. Undoubtedly, having work would keep people safer outside. It would give them a purpose and be a way of keeping them sane outside, so that they did not go through the revolving door back to prison.
The Chair of the Joint Committee requested, in her letter of 30 November 2017, a response to both the interim report and the letter by 8 January. That has not happened. The Government are refusing to act and therefore showing contempt for the lives of their detained citizens. The Justice Committee’s report of May 2016 stated that the Government had been reluctant to acknowledge the serious nature of the operational and safety challenges facing prisons and the role of their own policy decisions in creating them. Little appears to have changed.
We know that just 10% of the prison population in England are in treatment for mental illness, but recent inspections show that 37% report having emotional wellbeing and mental health problems.
Kate Green
Those figures are shocking. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that it is even more distressing that 70% of women in custody have mental health problems.
Ms Rimmer
I absolutely do. The institute of psychiatry, psychology and neuroscience at King’s College London estimates that more than half of prisoners may have common mental disorders, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and anxiety, and believes that 15% of prisoners have more specialist needs. Those are significant figures, but guesstimates are not good enough. The most commonly used estimate, which is that 90% of prisoners have mental health issues, dates from 1998— 20 years ago. The Government have no idea of the scale of the problem. The Ministry of Justice must address that to plan services and meet needs.
The National Audit Office has recently stated:
“Government does not collect enough, or good enough, data about mental health in prisons, which makes it hard to plan services and monitor outcomes.”
It particularly criticised NHS England for the data collected, which
“do not measure outcomes for prisoners, continuity of care or service quality.”
How damning! This failure to monitor poor mental health levels and the mental health services provided in prison simply would not happen in the outside world. It is costing our citizens their wellbeing and sometimes their lives. Let us remember, it is also costing the taxpayer.
The lack of knowledge about prisoners’ mental health exists at all stages of the cycle: on entry to prison, a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green); during their stay in prison; and after they leave. This means that future prison needs, present prison needs and community needs, and consequently budget requirements, cannot possibly be accurately planned for. For instance, what consideration was given, and finance afforded, to the detained historical sexual abusers? These are elderly people with age-related health needs, such as heart conditions, dementia, diabetes and cancer. The money came from the prison health budget and the issue occurred at the same time as spice arrived. Consequently, there was less money for mental health drug treatment at the most crucial time.
NHS England does not even know what it spends on mental health in prisons. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us—although I know he is a new Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
No, I am not. I am the last man standing.
Ms Rimmer
I apologise.
The Government’s own prisons and probation information states:
“Prisoners get the same healthcare and treatment as anyone outside of prison.”
That is demonstrably not the case in our prisons at present. In reality it is clear that our prisoners are struggling with ever-increasing levels of poor mental health and are actively let down by the system. It is impossible to reach any conclusion other than that the Government’s failure to act adequately is exacerbating what is approaching a mental health emergency in our prisons.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights inquiry last year noted that the body of research in the last three decades has overwhelmingly found that the common feature of deaths in custody is a prisoner’s mental health. Figures published by the Ministry of Justice in November of last year confirm that it will have received a “real-terms cumulative decrease”—in other words, a savage cut—of 40% in funding. That is £3.7 billion in a decade by the end of 2019-20. Who is suffering most as budgets are cut to the bare bones? It is prison staff on the ground, working in unsafe conditions and at increased risk of attack; the prisoners in their care; and society as a whole. The cuts have led to dangerous situations in our prisons and have cost lives.
The Howard League report of 2016, “Preventing prison suicide,” damningly concluded that
“Staff shortages have increased the risk of suicide”
in our prisons. There was a cut of almost 7,000 frontline officers—austerity measures. Was there a risk assessment prior to the prison officer reduction of 7,000? I very much doubt it. I would like to see it, if there was one.
I welcome the Government’s pledge to recruit an additional 2,500 staff by the end of 2018. Unfortunately, only half of these have been recruited so far. I believe this promise will not be sufficient to tackle the issue at hand—the facts speak for themselves. There is a serious retention problem: loss of prison staff is outstripping recruitment at a quarter of prisons, often the most dangerous ones. It has been found that prisoners now miss an average of 15% of medical appointments, due to a lack of staff to escort them. The sheer lack of prison staff at present means that prisoners’ physical activity is greatly restricted as their safety outside cells cannot be guaranteed. Some 31% of prisoners at local prisons report spending at least 22 hours a day cooped up in their cells as a result of inadequate staffing and this surely must affect their mental health.
The Howard League reported last year that two children and young people a week call its advice line stating that they have problems accessing prison healthcare. I am advised of two shocking cases. One example was a child who was kept in isolation at a children’s prison for months awaiting transfer, despite prolific self-harm. He was kept in a bare cell with a transparent door for observation. He was judged by a psychiatrist as not medically fit to be segregated, but was kept in almost total isolation for several months before finally being transferred to hospital. Another child, a 15-year-old with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, was not consistently given his medication. He was isolated and self-harming, even attempting suicide. It was only after the Howard League raised concerns on multiple occasions about his self-harm and severe needs that his pills were consistently given to him, and it was only when he made a suicide attempt that any action was taken to move him to a more suitable placement. I consider that an inhuman and barbaric way to treat two of our children. Suffer not little children: surely the fifth richest country in the developed world could and must care for such children better and work to rehabilitate them.
Prison psychiatrists overwhelmingly feel that service cuts have adversely affected their ability to provide care for prisoners, which is particularly concerning when there are such inadequacies in transferring acutely unwell prisoners out of these establishments. There are cases where the contractors employed by NHS England failed to carry out the services they were obliged to. In two cases, their costs were not recouped—how damning. These are people denied their care, and public funds gifted. The Government target of 14 days for eligible prisoners to be admitted to a secure hospital from prison was met only 34% of the time in 2016-17, 7% waited for more than 140 days, and one person waited for more than a year in misery. This is cruelty.
The staff are inadequately trained and only 40% receive refresher training. The importance of the screening process has not been sufficiently emphasised to staff. Staff do not always enter data on the “risk of suicide” and “risk of self-harm” of prisoners in their records of these screenings. How can needs be spotted if they are not identified and recorded? As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston mentioned earlier, this should take place at the police station. Even when the details are recorded, there simply are not enough prison officers to monitor this adequately.
Evidence received by the Public Accounts Committee bears testimony to the fact that the increase in suicide and self-harm in our prisons is in part due to the use of drugs. I acknowledge the work of Her Majesty’s Prisons and Probation Service—the number of drug seizures has increased rapidly with nearly 3,500 services in our prisons in 2016, following the legislation making spice illegal, and a new test has been introduced to detect psychoactive drugs with trained dogs to sniff out these substances.
The prison estate itself is also in a deplorable condition. Over a quarter of it was built before 1900 and the majority was not built with healthcare in mind. We have all seen the case of HMP Liverpool in recent weeks. Some of the estate there was in such bad condition—dirty, rat-infested and hazardous—that it could not be cleaned at all. The state of that prison was described as one of squalor, in 21st-century Britain. It is not right that we house prisoners in such horrendous conditions. Surely the mental health of anyone living in such unsanitary circumstances would suffer.
With the Government’s brutal cuts showing no sign of slowing down, and the need for staff still outstripping supply in many places, what will this mean for prisoners with mental ill health in the future? I fear there will be no substantial improvement for prisoners facing this plight any time soon. It is in everyone’s interest to improve this situation, not least because effectively treating prisoners with poor mental health is essential to reducing reoffending and ensuring that those who live with mental health problems can do so more cohesively in our society and communities.
We have a fine example of where decency works, and works well: HMP Askham Grange operates on this principle. It refers to prisoners as residents, and has built an atmosphere of respectful relationships. Its reoffending rate is 6%, while latest Ministry of Justice figures show a national average of a 29.6% reoffending rate within a year. There are six prisons with executive governors. Is there any improvement in mental health outcomes in these prisons? But a bigger question remains: should people with mental health conditions be in our prisons at all? Is it as simple as a psychiatrist making a judgment that someone is, as it is sometimes said, “bad, not mad,” and should therefore be incarcerated?
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is it not also true that prisons have sometimes become dumping grounds for NHS failure, that sometimes in the NHS it is cheaper to let the person go to prison than to take responsibility for their treatment and that that is part of the problem we face?
Ms Rimmer
Sadly, I accept my hon. Friend’s point.
It is clear that when people who are already prisoners are acutely mentally unwell, they are being kept in situations that are doubtless of further detriment to them and brutalise them. Evidence obtained by the Joint Committee on Human Rights made clear that acutely mentally unwell people are too often
“inappropriately being sent to prison as a ‘place of safety’”,
and stated that there is an
“urgent need to resource and make better use of community alternatives to prison for offenders with mental health conditions, particularly those who are currently given short sentences”.
I hope that the Minister heeds the points I have made and I am sure that hon. Members will add to them, as the interventions have done. I ask him to commit to looking into the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Public Accounts Committee. We are at a crisis point in our prisoners’ mental health, and Government should not neglect their duty of care for those who are incarcerated in our prisons.
I welcome the steps taken by the Government to address the issue of spice in prisons, but that is just one component of the mental health emergency and does not tackle the root problems. The Ministry of Justice needs to review policy and commissioning, HMPPS to review the management and operation and NHS England to review the whole system of collating data on health, including mental health needs, and the provision of support. These citizens are owed parity of esteem, quality healthcare and the opportunity for the greatest possible mental health wellbeing both in and out of prison. I call on the Minister to address this as a matter of urgency. The Government have a legal obligation, a moral responsibility and a financial duty to treat these mentally ill people with respect, dignity and humanity.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
This is such a crucial issue that it has been of great interest to the Select Committee on Justice throughout our sittings. I remember well that when the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) was a member of that Committee, she and I attended a number of prisons and examined this issue together while looking around them.
There is a high likelihood that prisoners will have some form of mental illness. The 1998 study to which the hon. Lady referred, which showed that 90% of prisoners had some sort of mental health issue, had so many people in it because alcohol misuse and drugs misuse were included within that definition, and that is quite broad.
I want to mention the drugs scene in prisons. We have to accept that two groups of people suffer from drug problems in prison: those who had drug problems before they went into prison, which should have been picked up in the assessment process—I will say something about that in a minute—and those who are switched on to drugs while in prison. The hon. Lady and I both know that a lot of effort is being put in to try to prevent the smuggling of drugs into prisons, particularly as people use more and more sophisticated means, such as drones, to do so. We have to stop these things coming into prisons.
The point made about the need for information sharing and about the assessment process when prisoners arrive is absolutely crucial. From the experience that the hon. Lady and I have had looking around prisons, it is absolutely the case that the assessment process is de minimis: it does not go into the depth that one would expect. That is partly for the historical reason that mental health has been a second service, and I hope that it is now changing.
Kate Green
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman about that initial assessment. Does he agree that it is important that, when someone is already under the care of mental health services in the community, evidence is gathered from their own practitioner, and that it is not enough just to gather the evidence, but that conclusions need to be drawn and appropriate routes taken and that may mean not remanding or incarcerating someone as a result of a conviction?
John Howell
I agree with the hon. Lady. This problem goes back to the whole way in which the justice system is set up in anticipating the mental health issues suffered by many of the people who are brought before the courts. If a problem can be identified there, a better treatment can perhaps be undertaken to solve it. A greater emphasis needs to be put on the assessment process, which needs to include a very good assessment of patients’ mental health conditions.
There are two aspects that I want to mention in connection with that. One is the power that we are giving prison governors. I am all in favour of giving prison governors back powers over their own prisons, but as a component of that we have to ensure that prison governors and their staff are fully aware of the mental health issues that they will face. From my visits to the prison in my constituency, I would not want to put a huge amount of greater stress on the prison governor, who is doing a very good job in difficult circumstances, but I would like to ensure a minimum level of mental health awareness at that level so that it can be taken into account. After all, as we are trying to put mental health care workers, or somebody with responsibility for mental health, into schools, it seems only appropriate that we should do the same in our prison estate, where larger numbers of people suffer from those issues.
My second point is the importance of purposeful imprisonment. It is absolutely crucial that we do not allow prisoners to stay in their cells for up to 22 hours a day. We need to find things for them to do. I will mention an example, because I think it predates the time when the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston was a member of the Select Committee. We went on a trip to Denmark, where we visited a prison. There is nothing unusual in that, but there was a great deal of unusualness in the way in which the prisoners were allowed to operate. Instead of the “Porridge”-style large prison benches for food, the prisoners were allowed to cook their own food. There was an issue over knives, which had to be chained to the wall, and things like that, but the prisoners could earn their own money, buy food from the shops and cook their own food.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I cannot resist asking a question now, although I will be talking about this in my speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that gardening projects—for example, prisoners growing their produce at the prison and then cooking it—can also be highly beneficial?
John Howell
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important to recognise the extent of purposeful intent in the prison system; if gardening can fulfil that purpose, it is a very good one. I would like to see more done on prisoners’ ability to cook for themselves. I asked this of a former Lord Chancellor, who assured me that it was being developed within the prison system, so I hope that it is.
That is all I want to add to the debate. It is important and the issues that the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston raised are very germane to the topic.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth.
I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for calling this important debate, and I concur with what the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) just said about purposeful imprisonment. Before I begin, I must declare my interest as a co-chair of the justice unions and family courts parliamentary group, and I apologise that I have an unavoidable commitment that means I will have to leave before the close of the debate.
A civilised society with a functioning criminal justice system cannot tolerate the present level of self-harm and suicide among inmates. That, and the doubling of the prison population over the past 30 years, is symptomatic: the prison regime of England and Wales is fundamentally unfit for purpose. There is no doubt that our penal system needs reform. The outdated principles of reprimand and revenge must now be tempered by the 21st-century ethics of rehabilitation and repair. I will focus on that second principle of repair in terms of mental health, and I will also touch on the importance of Welsh- language provision in that process of repair.
The prison environment provides an opportunity to control most aspects of inmates’ day-to-day lives. The state should grasp the chance to reduce long-term social costs and improve public safety by addressing such issues as skills deficits and physical and mental health, yet we see unprecedented levels of self-harm and suicide in prisons. It recently emerged that in the past four years four inmates took their own lives within a week of arriving at HMP Swansea.
Extreme overcrowding, harsh budget cuts and severe staff shortages mean that it is increasingly common for inmates to be locked in their cells for up to 23 hours a day. I have seen the cells myself at HMP Liverpool. They were described by the chief inspector of prisons as “squalid, dirty and disgraceful”, with water running down the walls, broken Victorian windows and electricity wires pulled out. I understand that they were pulled out so that people could then use them for attempts at suicide. We can all agree that subjecting anyone, regardless of their offence, to inhumane conditions clearly obstructs any attempt at rehabilitation and can only exacerbate the mental health problems from which so many prisoners suffer.
The Public and Commercial Services Union has considerable experience in this area, representing 2,500 staff working in the HM Prison and Probation Service. In its alternative vision for prisons, it calls for them to be
“a place of genuine reform where people are treated in a way as to generate mutual respect and genuine rehabilitation”.
The PCS, with its substantial expertise, proposes a number of important recommendations; most notably, it suggests that the Prison Service’s policy statement should be revised so that its main aim is that
“rehabilitation and the avoidance of recidivism is the focus of…the prison service”.
To improve the system, the Government must first recognise that they cannot do this alone. They must engage with those who work tirelessly in the sector, and seriously consider their recommendations for improvements. I approached the previous Minister about this matter and I ask the Minister present in the Chamber whether he will agree to meet the PCS and representatives of the justice unions parliamentary group to discuss that new initiative. I am sure we agree that there is real value in working together.
In addition to providing adequate mental healthcare, it is important to create environments in which inmates feel comfortable in which to facilitate repair. One important example is the provision of services in Welsh for Welsh speakers. The Welsh Language Commissioner found the provision of Welsh language services in prisons to be “very, very patchy”. I am aware of that problem from HMP Berwyn, which is the nearest prison to my constituency. When it was set up, we were promised that there would be specific Welsh-language services, but it is very difficult to get information about exactly what those services are. I have constituents who are first- language Welsh speakers who are still being sent to prisons in England when there is space in HMP Berwyn. I ask for that to be addressed as soon as possible. The Welsh Language Commissioner also describes efforts to meet Welsh-language demands as “not very effective” and “not consistent”. I remind the Minister that the Welsh Language Act 1993 is applicable to offender management.
Kate Green
I am interested in what the hon. Lady is saying about Welsh-language provision in prisons for Welsh speakers. Does she agree that there is a need for British Sign Language provision for deaf prisoners who are BSL users?
Liz Saville Roberts
I do. It is evident to me that means of communication and respect are fundamental to how we address mental health and issues of self-esteem. All methods of communication that are more effective for prisoners should be addressed.
I hope the Minister agrees that denying an offender language rights only heightens feelings of isolation and segregation. I ask him to commit to ensuring that Welsh-language provision is strengthened in the prison sector across England and Wales.
Many other Members wish to speak in this important debate, so I will conclude. To truly make prisons a place of rehabilitation and repair, the Minister faces a challenge. I beg of him to approach this challenge innovatively and in the spirit of co-operation. The reality is that by failing to act on the horrifying number of cases of self-harm and suicide in prisons, we are to all effects and purposes condoning haphazard and extrajudicial capital punishment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. We have approximately 25 minutes before I call the Front Benchers and four people wish to speak. If people exercise restraint in their use of time, we should get everybody in.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I pay credit to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate. If we can make progress, it will make such a difference to people’s lives.
I make no apology for devoting my short speech to the benefits of the environment and gardening in the justice system and how that can have a positive effect on people’s mental health. We know that imprisoning somebody does not in itself reduce reoffending rates. To do that we must try, where possible, to give prisoners skills to increase their employability chances once they leave and help them to reintegrate in the community. Environmental and gardening schemes can help to do that and to improve mental health outcomes at the same time.
As I have said in a previous debate, many prisons feel very industrialised. They are covered with tarmac and concrete and have little green space. Evidence shows that when people are not in contact with green space and nature, there is a negative impact on their mental health. I recently contributed to an article in Gardeners’ World magazine—lots of people were surprised that I could get an article into that magazine as a Conservative MP. In that article, I mentioned the benefits of gardening schemes in prisons. It seemed to strike a chord and I got some responses, one of which was an interesting email from Paul Evans, the DART—drugs and alcohol recovery team—strategy manager at HMP Rye Hill.
Paul explained that a gardening scheme had been developed at Rye Hill through a partnership between Garden Organic and the Natural Beekeeping Trust. It is funded by the NHS via the local authority. He was keen to stress that he has seen extremely positive outcomes in his experience of using gardening as a therapeutic intervention. He explained that within a few weeks of working on the garden project, men who had been in the depths of despair, using illegal substances and confining themselves to their cells—we have heard about that from other hon. Members—with no motivation to seek employment were the first to line up at their wing gate in the morning. They were happy to attend and get outside to work.
Gardening caused a positive change in behaviour. The most common feedback that Paul hears from individuals is: “I slept the whole night through last night, and that is the first time I have done that in years”.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
One of my first visits as a new MP was to HMP Shotts. Like HMP Rye Hill, it has a garden centre that the prisoners thoroughly enjoyed. It also has woodwork and other activities. The biggest problem was that there were no staff available for supervision, so the time for those activities, which would go a long way to help their mental health, was very limited.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) mentioned the PCS. Let us listen to the staff, who are there full time. I am interested to hear more about the PCS report, and for there to be a lot more official staff.
Rebecca Pow
When I was a news reporter, I went to HMP Leyhill, near Bristol, which had a fantastic gardening project that gave much benefit to the prisoners. They used to do a Royal Horticultural Society garden at Chelsea flower show for which they regularly won gold medals. It is about funding. The project I have mentioned is a well-funded combination of partnerships. We should learn from that.
Coventry University’s independent evaluation of the project showed that the garden often acted as a safe haven for many offenders with mental health issues, helping to relieve symptoms of depression and self-harm, and suicidal thoughts. Even more interestingly, it discovered that the long-term effects often go beyond that. The project has a long-term impact: one prisoner said in a diary entry that it saved his life, having offered him a sense of normality. Gardening projects are quite simple—this is not complicated stuff.
I will give one other example. HMP and YOI Parc, a category B men’s prison and young offenders institution in Bridgend, south Wales, has an extensive garden in which up to 15 prisoners work at a time. It recently won the Windlesham trophy for the best-kept prison garden, judged by the Royal Horticultural Society. I do not know whether you receive the RHS magazine The Garden, Mr Howarth, but it is a really good read. The November issue quotes Parc’s director, Janet Wallsgrove:
“The role of any prison is to keep secure individuals who have been given a custodial sentence, yet also to provide opportunity to bring about change. The importance of the environment within prisons is greatly underestimated—prison gardens reduce violence, improve mental health and teach horticultural skills.”
The article further notes:
“The gardens enable prisoners to work towards NVQ horticultural qualifications, giving the option of a career in horticulture on their release.”
I have met many members of the horticultural industry, and there is a need for skilled workers and employees in the sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) said, we need to find gainful employment and skills for prisoners. This is another opportunity that could be built on.
I recently met the head of sustainability at the Royal College of Psychiatrists. He stressed the mental health benefits of contact with nature and gardening. I hope to work with him on increasing the opportunities for that, which can make such a difference. In my constituency, Taunton Deane, remand clients often go and work outdoors in the grounds of an equestrian centre. Those I have spoken to have said how beneficial it has been. There are also wildlife trust mental health projects—a lot more that can be done in this area.
We know that there is a lot to tackle if we are to deal with sustainability in prisons. Gardening is not a panacea, but it can definitely help. After a debate on prisons, to which many hon. Members present contributed, I received a letter from a prisoner at Littlehey Prison in Cambridge asking for my help to set up a conservation and wildlife unit in the prison. He was inspired by listening to the speeches in the debate and asked me to give him some advice, which I will absolutely endeavour to do. He has been tasked with setting up the unit, which he believes could have a particular benefit for OAP prisoners, of whom there is a rising number in our prisons. Anything I can do to help, I will. I know gardening is only a small area, but I think it should be part of the model for tackling mental health issues in our prisons.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this important debate. A lot has been said about the prevalence of mental health issues within our prisons, which is even higher among women than among men. Shockingly, we imprison a large number of people essentially because of their mental ill health—people whose offending is linked in some way to mental ill health or distress. It seems to me an enormous failure of public policy over many years, for which no single Government are responsible, that so many people with significant mental ill health, learning disabilities or autism end up in our prisons inappropriately. I want to address what we should be doing instead.
First, we incarcerate far too many people in our country. We put far more people in prison than most other civilised European countries. Compare this country with Finland or Germany: Finland incarcerates people at about half the rate we do, but no one suggests that it is an uncivilised country in which lawlessness prevails. It manages its issues in a different way from us—I would suggest a much more civilised way.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman mentions incarceration rate. I visited Pentonville jail at the weekend, where the cells are 13 feet by 7 feet. Victorians were not known for their generosity, but their cells were built for one prisoner each. Cells of exactly the same size now regularly hold two or four prisoners.
Norman Lamb
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point. The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston mentioned that prisoners are often put in cells for 22 hours a day. Just imagine what that does to their mental distress, particularly if they are sharing a cell. It is intolerable and uncivilised.
Some good things have happened. The liaison and diversion service that is being rolled out nationally, which began under the coalition Government and was based on Lord Bradley’s recommendations, is a very good thing. The idea is that, as soon as someone with mental ill health appears in the criminal justice system, either in court or in a police station, they can be identified and referred for diagnosis and treatment. The problem is that if we do not have sufficient mental health services to deal with those referrals, we will not achieve nearly as much as we could with a properly functioning mental health system.
Mental health treatment requirements can be used as an alternative to prison. Addressing the underlying cause of offending behaviour seems to me so much more sensible, yet the Royal College of Psychiatrists notes a 48% reduction over the past 10 years in the use of such mental health treatment requirements—only 1.2% of offenders with mental health issues receive them. Much more use could be made of that option. I met the Minister a few months ago to discuss it in relation to the west midlands, where I chaired a commission on mental health. A couple of local magistrates courts are seeking to make much greater use of mental health treatment requirements—a really interesting initiative that is worth watching.
Our commission also focused on what happens when people leave prison. Too often, there is no link between the support or lack of it that people receive in prison, and what happens when they leave. They are abandoned in the community, often at enormous risk to themselves and sometimes to others. Professor Richard Byng leads the Engager project to enhance the through-the-gate approach and ensure that it is informed by mental health, so that people who work in the through-the-gate system and help the transition from prison back into the community are supported in their mental health needs and linked up to the services they need.
I will end by mentioning a case that is enormously shocking and that I do not think has yet been properly addressed. In March 2013, Phillip Simelane brutally murdered a young girl on a bus in Birmingham. He had not long been released from prison. He was known to have psychosis and a long history of serious mental health problems. His mother, a nurse, had been trying for years to get the authorities to engage with her and provide proper support for her son. She was massively let down by the system, as were Phillip Simelane and the victim who lost her life. Four years on, an independent review considered the lessons to be learned from the case. Its findings, and particularly the comments of its chair Kiran Bhogal, are really shocking:
“it is disheartening and worrying that our review, as with many reviews and investigations before ours, has found that many of the underlying challenges and problems remain despite the commendable effort made by all organisations involved to change practice and procedure…The fact that there remains a risk that these vulnerable prisoners continue to be released from prison without adequate support and supervision leaving them and the general public at risk is of extreme concern.”
I raised this issue in Prime Minister’s questions last year and I raise it again now with the Minister. I would very much like the Minister to meet me and key people from the west midlands to discuss it, because it is vital that we learn lessons to stop similar tragedies from happening in future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind them that there are two other people left to speak, and 10 minutes left for them all to speak in, before the Front Benchers. It would be good if the remaining speakers could share that time.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Howarth. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to take part in this excellent debate, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer).
We know what the problem is—people are coming into prison with mental health problems or, because of the circumstances they encounter in prison, they develop mental health problems, but we are still not being honest in how we tackle those problems. We put society at risk, including the prison officers within the prison system who have to deal with those people. They are behaving in an aggressive, difficult or dysfunctional way not because they are difficult individuals, but because their mental health problems are driving them to express their frustration, anger and psychosis in ways that are difficult to manage. Those same individuals then return to society posing a greater risk than they did when they entered prison. We know the problem—we have known it for a long time and yet we are still not dealing with it.
Recent Ministry of Justice statistics on self-harm among prisoners showed a record high of 41,103 incidents in the 12 months leading up to June 2017, which was a 12% increase on the previous year. This year, self-harm incidents have risen by 10,850, which is up a further 10%. We know that self-harm, which is often a manifestation of fear and frustration, is a major problem. It is also often a precursor to suicide.
We know what the problems are and we know who the experts are in this field. Professor Keith Hawton, the director of the Centre for Suicide Research at Oxford, has done a lot of work in this field. He has shown that both males and females often enter prison with psychiatric disorders, sometimes with multiple disorders, especially depression, anxiety, personality disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder. We know the problems but are not looking at the answers.
May I again draw the Minister’s attention to the excellent work being carried out at Parc Prison under the directorship of Janet Wallsgrove and by Corin Morgan-Armstrong in the Parc Supporting Families scheme? The scheme works very closely with prisoners to maintain their family links, which is such an important thing to do. It also deals with dysfunctionality within the family and relationships with children, so that we do not have the multigenerational problems of people carrying on almost as if there is a family history of prison.
We all know that there is a problem for people in accessing mental health support in prison, and accessing it when they leave. A young girl in my constituency has been in prison almost 30 times and she is not yet 30 years old. Her problems are mental health problems, but each time she has accessed mental health services, the people involved have given up and thought, “Let the prison establishment deal with her problems”. That is an absolutely criminal indictment of the support we give to vulnerable young people.
I will conclude, Mr Howarth, because I am very aware of the time constraints, by commending the work of the Samaritans and its listening scheme, which is such an important source of support for prisoners, allowing them to talk to someone in total confidentiality and to express their frustrations and distress, knowing that someone is listening. It is an important point of access for the person who is suffering from a mental health problem, but learning to listen is also an important skill for the prisoners who take part in the scheme.
We know we have a problem and we know how to deal with it. I appreciate that there are problems in wider society, such that we do not have enough people with the skills to deal with mental health issues, but if we do not tackle this problem in our prison system, it will get worse.
Finally, it is important to train prison officers, to have the right numbers of prison officers who have the right skills, and to recognise that prison officers are no longer just the containers of prisoners. Instead, they are part of the therapeutic environment that prisons must become if we are to tackle these problems.
Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Howarth, for calling me to speak in this very important debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on her succinct but very informative speech.
I also congratulate the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee)—on surviving the reshuffle. He is the sole survivor. However, the reshuffle raises a very important issue. For me, the situation is unacceptable. This is the second time in living memory that the Ministry of Justice has been cleaned out in a reshuffle. It is unacceptable that we have had six Justice Secretaries in seven years. Only one of them has lasted for even two years. That has led to inconsistent policy and inconsistent reform, and a lot of things have been kicked into the long grass.
While all that has gone on and while the Government have reshuffled the Ministry of Justice, a National Audit Office report to the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member, said that £400 million was spent on healthcare in prisons in England in 2016-17, treating 7,917 mental health patients. However, the inspector of prisons found that 31,328 prisoners, who make up 37% of the prison population, reported having mental health or wellbeing issues. Incidents of self-harm and suicides increased—there were 120 suicides in prisons in 2016, the highest number on record.
Prisons and the probation service estimate that 70% of the prisoners who ended their own life between 2012 and 2014 had mental health needs. Identification of those who need mental health services is not consistent. It is all very well our standing here and saying, “Well, they’re in prison. They’re locked away.” For those of us who have stood in our constituencies and somehow had to find some sort of comfort for grieving families who have been victims of those with mental health problems, that is simply not good enough.
I will cite an example from my own constituency. In November 2014, Matthew Williams went out one night and met Cerys Yemm. They went back together to the Sirhowy Arms hotel in Argoed, where he violently killed her. The Argoed hotel murder case was launched by the Ministry of Justice and found a series of failures. In 2004, Mr Williams had been diagnosed with schizophrenia after spending five weeks in a mental health in-patient unit. However, Mr Williams had been a highly frequent user of drugs since adolescence. Schizophrenia should not be diagnosed during states of drug intoxication or withdrawal. Drug-induced psychotic episodes have very similar symptoms to schizophrenia. After Mr Williams left the in-patient unit, his diagnosis was never re-evaluated.
The Argoed homicide report found that, during his diagnosis, Mr Williams was experiencing a drug-induced psychotic episode, and that there was insufficient evidence to support a true diagnosis of schizophrenia. Mr Williams was on and off medication throughout his life, and not enough support was given to him when he was leaving prison. In fact, he had 26 convictions for 78 offences.
It could be argued that the key affliction affecting Mr Williams was drug addiction. He had been using drugs on the night that Cerys was murdered. Those people who had been in contact with him described him as being
“low in mood and pessimistic, but not psychotic”.
The report’s authors believe that his drug use on the night of the murder could have triggered a psychotic episode. Drug addiction was overlooked in favour of a schizophrenia diagnosis—the substance abuse was never truly addressed.
There were inconsistent mental health records: there was a schizophrenia diagnosis, an unofficial undiagnosis and an unofficial personality disorder diagnosis. Medication was prescribed and then unprescribed. Most damningly, Mr Williams was released from prison without medication and continued with consistent drug use in the two weeks after his release. The lack of consistency in the mental health diagnoses, both inside prison and outside, led to a terrible, terrible incident, the effects of which are still being felt in Argoed and the local community at the moment.
Even though Mr Williams was ultimately responsible for murdering Cerys in a terrible way—I pay tribute to the quiet dignity of Cerys’s family—the escalation of mental health issues such as drug addiction could have been prevented throughout the different diagnoses and follow-up. Consistent care and consistent support could have been provided to Mr Williams, but both in prison and outside he received neither.
We need more structured interventions for people with mental health issues, including personality disorders and substance misuse. There also needs to be better sharing of healthcare information prior to someone’s discharge from prison, between community mental health teams and mental health in-reach teams. That would provide consistency and would be a protective measure against possible relapse in any mental health condition. There should also be follow-up appointments with individuals. The PAC reported on these issues and we call on the Government to act on that report now.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Howarth. I pay tribute to and congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this timely and necessary debate. I commend the effort she has put into such an important debate.
I declare an interest, having worked in a forensic community mental health team for many years prior to entering Parliament, and also at the local state hospital in Carstairs in Scotland. The debate has been excellent and has raised many of the issues that I hoped to cover. I will speak shortly about the issues that have not been raised. I commend everyone who has spoken. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who sits on the Justice Committee, spoke with great expertise and has undertaken extremely valuable work in this area. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), who has left her seat—I hope I pronounced her constituency correctly—spoke about the importance of learning in prison and language and culture. Learning and having access to education is extremely important in reducing recidivism, in giving people purpose and improving mental health.
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) is an absolute advocate for Taunton Deane and now also for gardening projects. The importance of recreation in prisons cannot be underestimated. It gives people a holistic approach to their mental health, which is so important alongside other activities such as health and exercise and the other types of industry that we have heard about from the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney). That is so important because we must see the prisoner as an individual and build upon their skills and resilience.
I thank the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who has absolute expertise in this area. He spoke eloquently about the importance of diversion services and alternatives to prison. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) made an extremely valuable point regarding supporting and maintaining family lives. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) spoke about failures between liaison links among community services and how picking up mental health problems at an early stage in those who present the greatest risk can prevent crime, which is a valuable and important point. We must learn lessons from the past.
Suicide and self-harm are obviously significant issues in prison because prisoners are adjusting to a situation that they may never have been placed in before. There is a potential feeling of loss of hope. There is also a culture in prison that people have to acclimatise to, which can be extremely difficult. Also, there are significant issues of bullying in prisons that should be addressed. Will the Minister think about how we can address those issues going forward? All of those issues make it difficult for people going into prison. Aside from people who develop mental health problems when they are incarcerated, there are also people who have had mental health issues prior to going into prison.
On pre-morbid conditions, it is crucial that assessment is done at the earliest possible stage, because someone who is already unwell may require transfer to a secure hospital. It might not be appropriate for them to be in a prison. If assessment can be done earlier in the criminal justice system there might be diversion services that would be more appropriate, depending on the offence.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
With the average cost of a new prisoner being £119,000 a year and the ongoing cost in excess of £40,000 a year, does the hon. Lady agree that it is exceptionally important to invest in mental health provision before people end up in prison? Making sure we assess the numbers who are in prison and having accurate records means we are able to do that beforehand.
Dr Cameron
That is a well-made point. Prevention and looking at early diversion and picking up mental health issues where they are the significant issue at play in someone’s offending is crucial. Assessment is more difficult for prison staff and mental health staff in a short-stay prison. I hope the Minister will look at that. There is a high volume of prisoners in short-stay prisons. They come and go in a very short time and it is difficult to get all of the services properly in place, so that will need resourcing. It would help to address those issues.
Co-morbidity has been raised, which is extremely important. We have already heard that many people develop drug problems in prison. That is in fact true and much more must be done to prevent drugs coming into prison, but we also need substance misuse programmes in prison and we need to be mindful of liaison with drug and alcohol services on release, because one of the greatest risks of overdose is when someone has come off drugs in prison and then starts again as soon as they leave. So that is another area of vulnerability.
We must look at particularly vulnerable offenders and services for women and young offenders. We also need an increased awareness of autism in prison. There is a high risk of suicide within that community, particularly if they are incarcerated.
In my experience, far too many of our veterans go into prison. We are failing them, frankly. They have experienced conflict and high levels of trauma, so we really need services and programmes that support them when they come back from active duty. We must prevent them from feeling they are no longer able to cope and committing offences.
Will the Minister also address the availability of programmes in prison for mental health coping skills, cognitive behaviour therapy and managing mental illness programmes? What progress has there been on that? Staff in secure hospitals who work with evidence-based programmes already have substantial experience and their expertise could be utilised in training.
In conclusion, I want to ask about co-ordination of response. In working in this area, I find that access to psychiatry is likely to be access to a liaison psychiatrist who comes in and out of the prison and does not know the prisoners very well. To what extent can we address having full-time psychiatric staff in prisons who are able to assess people repeatedly, know their case history and can prevent people relapsing or pick up issues extremely early?
I want to reiterate the importance of family connections and ensure we build a system whereby we rehabilitate as well as punish people, because that is crucial to protection of the public and to reducing recidivism. Building family connections and giving people hope, aspirations, skills and education, and seeing them holistically as an individual will go some way towards helping their mental health. It is crucial that mental health services are available in prison and as a follow-up.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for securing this important debate on behalf of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). I thank hon. Members from all parties for their informative and well-thought-out contributions.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston articulated the real crisis of mental health in our prisons. Other hon. Members also made some very important points about assessment and recording issues, information-sharing issues, pressures on prison officers, isolation and overcrowding issues, and individual tragic cases that perhaps could have been prevented had the system worked better. Government Members also spoke about some of the much-needed recreational activities that are very important to wellbeing, including cooking and gardening, although they will agree with me that some of the underlying and more pressing issues have to be addressed before we move on to those areas.
Dr Drew
One of the most stressful and important issues regarding mental health is women who give birth in prison or have young children. I found, to my shock, that Eastwood Park prison, which has a mother and baby unit, was shut for over a year because of an argument about a flood and who was going to pay for the damage. That meant that all women in the whole of the south west and south Wales had nowhere to go to in the vicinity. That is not acceptable, is it?
Imran Hussain
That is a shocking account. Again, that highlights some of the underlying issues in our prison services that could perhaps be dealt with a lot better.
Hon. Members will forgive me if I am unable to cover all the contributions that have been made today, but I know that the Minister, to be fair to him, does listen and will respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) rightly pointed out that the Minister is the last man standing, and perhaps the oldest hand now in the Ministry of Justice. I am sure that he will use his skills to persuade the new Secretary of State that we do have a crisis in our prison service, but I will leave that to him.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I will be quick. Liverpool prison is perhaps in some of the most dire straits of all prisons in this country, as has been mentioned by my colleagues. The Secretary of State for Justice said on 18 December that an action plan would be forthcoming in January. Can I plead with the Minister that that is not forgotten in the midst of the reshuffle, and ask him perhaps to write to me or let me know in today’s debate when that action plan will be forthcoming?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Obviously, it is an issue that is very close to him, as it relates to his constituency, but it is also of concern to us all, and I hope that the Minister will listen and respond.
As recognition of mental illness in society increases, with a greater understanding of just how damaging it can be, so it does in prison. However, prisoners have a much greater likelihood of suffering from mental illness than the general populace, with one in three prisoners estimated to be suffering from mental illness.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I will also be very brief. One of the causes of concern is the impact on black and Muslim prisoners. Reports from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and from Dame Anne Owers say that negative outcomes, stereotyping and discriminatory treatment are consistently experienced by Muslim and black prisoners. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister could take a number of steps to help address that? First, religion and ethnicity should be recorded on all clinical records. Secondly, the uptake and outcomes of mental health services in prison should be examined by religion and ethnicity. Thirdly, mental health literacy and religious literacy training should be provided to all prison officers.
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is right to point out some of the particular issues regarding black, minority ethnic and Muslim prisoners. I will come on to the broader recording issues, but he makes some very important and sensible suggestions.
Unfortunately, most evidence suggests that the estimate that one in three prisoners suffers from mental illness is wildly conservative, demonstrating that it is a real problem, which manifests itself in the self-harm that has risen dramatically in recent years. Many of those self-harming and taking their own life are suffering from a mental illness, representing yet another crisis in our prison system that is spiralling out of control. The Government cannot get to grips with the crisis and are not doing enough to address it. I mentioned one of the reasons for that earlier, when I stated that the number of prisoners suffering from mental illness is just an estimate. There is no accurate record, clear marker, or identifiable way to determine who is suffering from a mental illness in prison; there is just an estimation of the scale of the problem—close to sheer guesswork on the part of the MOJ.
Even when prisoners are screened for mental illness, it is done poorly. Rather than a thorough assessment from a qualified mental health professional, most prisoners are briefly assessed, and given 120 questions to complete in often as little as 10 to 20 minutes. When thrown in with the increasingly toxic nature of prisons, the answers that come back are less than truthful. When the MOJ does not even centrally collect the basic number of prisoners in the prison estate who are suffering from mental illness, and when prisoners are not properly assessed, prisons simply do not know who is vulnerable and who is not, so how can they possibly be expected to provide care for them? The MOJ is failing at the first hurdle—being able to treat mental illness—even before we get on to the treatment itself. That is simply not good enough.
Unfortunately, the conditions after a prisoner has entered are little better, which means that even if they are identified as having a mental illness, they are not always properly treated. The commissioning of healthcare means that mental health provision is disjointed and varied across prison estates, with HM Inspectorate of Prisons finding gaps in primary care, professional counselling and therapies across estates, as well as failings in access to services, gaps in those services, and a failure to follow up on mental health concerns. That is bad, and is certainly not improved by the fact that the partnership agreement between the Prison Service and NHS England, setting out the objectives in providing healthcare to prisoners actually expired in April. There has been a transfer of responsibilities from the National Offender Management Service to the new Prison Service during that time, but I do not buy that as an excuse.
Prisoners with serious mental illnesses are treated even worse as they face extended waits for transfer to secure hospitals. NHS England set a target of 14 days from identification to transfer, but the reality is that prisoners awaiting transfer were reviewed in October 2016, with findings showing that prisoners waited an average of 47 days for their first assessment, a further 36 days for their second assessment, and a further 13 days for the Secretary of State to sign a warrant. That is clearly unacceptable.
All of that demonstrates that the Government are just not getting to grips with the crisis and are not moving to address it. To add to that, Government policy is making it worse. Substantial budget cuts to the Ministry of Justice have been passed on to the Prison Service, with the funding that NOMS received significantly falling. That translates to a reduction of around 30% in operational staff, meaning fewer staff on the wings and on the balconies, and crucially fewer staff who are able to understand individual prisoners and recognise when they are vulnerable. Furthermore, staff shortages and safety concerns have resulted in prisoners being forced to spend longer periods of time locked up in cells. Isolation and confinement are bad enough for those without mental health issues, but they can be devastating for those with mental health issues.
Fewer staff also leads to a rise in the number of drugs getting into prisons, as fewer prison officers results in fewer searches and reduced intelligence gathering and awareness. Drugs, both those of which we have an understanding, such as cannabis and cocaine, and those classed as new psychoactive substances, such as spice, are having a major impact on our prison estates and on the mental health of prisoners. Although the Government are introducing powers to stop the use of mobile phones and are training more dogs to combat smuggling, that is simply not enough without more prison officers.
I will conclude there, as I know the Minister has a number of points to come back on. In summing up, I would say that we have seen mental health care in prisons degrade on the Government’s watch. They must prove that they are serious about addressing it, because right now we see no such evidence. They need to record just how big a problem mental health in prisons is, screen prisoners properly and conduct an immediate review, for without that knowledge, they cannot begin to get to grips with the issue. They need to properly invest in getting prison officers back on the wings and the balconies—but not at the expense of support staff.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. Although I am the most experienced Justice Minister standing, it is going to be a bit of a challenge for me to answer all the questions in nine minutes, but I will do my very best.
I congratulate the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on securing this debate on such an important issue. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members for their passionate and knowledgeable contributions to the debate. As well as the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). I recognise the value of gardening —in all the prison visits I have made, the pride taken in the prison gardens and the therapeutic benefits garnered as a result are striking.
I will of course meet the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) to discuss the distressing case he mentioned. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) mentioned Parc. I recently visited the young offenders institution at Parc and was impressed with the environment for young people. The hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) was very generous in his comments, as ever. I thank him. Yes, I am the continuity man—I am on my third Secretary of State. I also thank the shadow Front-Bench spokespeople for their contributions—the hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and for Bradford East (Imran Hussain).
The Government committed to reforming our prisons and prison culture in the “Prison Safety and Reform” White Paper of November 2016. Since then, we have delivered changes that will help prisoners to receive the mental health support they need to engage positively with society, but I am clear that more can be done to improve access to services and support for prisoners, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
First, I am clear that appropriate interventions and treatments at the right time and in the right place are vital to improving outcomes for those with mental health issues and other vulnerabilities. We are working across Government to help people access the services they need from their first contact with the criminal justice system. In England, liaison and diversion services have been rolled out in police stations and courts, covering more than 70% of the country. Those services, commissioned by NHS England, will be rolled out to cover 90% of England by the end of April 2019 and will be nationwide by April 2021. In Wales, where health is devolved, there is a separate but similar criminal justice liaison service.
We are building on services that divert those with mental health problems away from custody by increasing access to treatment for offenders in the community. Courts are already able to include mental health and substance misuse treatment as part of a community sentence, but often do not do so because of the barriers that offenders can face in getting the help that they need.
In 2016, only 669 mental health treatment requirements were given, which is approximately 0.5% of all community sentences. To tackle that, along with the Department of Health and Social Care, NHS England and Public Health England, we have been working to develop a protocol for community sentence treatment requirements. It will set out what action is required by health and justice staff to ensure that pathways into timely and appropriate treatment are in place, and that greater use is made of mental health and substance misuse treatment requirements as part of community sentences. The protocol, which includes a new maximum waiting time from date of sentence, will provide quicker access to mental health treatment, giving offenders the right support to keep them out of prison where appropriate, and breaking the cycle of reoffending.
In Wales, a project team is working on mental health treatment requirements, and the goal to improve MHTR is captured in the Welsh Government’s “Together for Mental Health” delivery plan. A similar protocol is being considered to cover devolved health services in Wales.
We have made good progress in diverting those with mental health needs away from prison, but many offenders with poor mental health are still being placed in a custodial setting, which brings me to my second point: we need to do more to make sure that these men and women receive the help they need. We know that we need the right staffing levels to provide a safe and secure regime that engages with prisoners with poor mental health in a supportive and rehabilitative way. That is why we committed to an increase of 2,500 prison officers by the end of 2018. Since we published the White Paper, we have recruited a net extra 1,255 prison officers over the last year, which puts us on track to meet the target, and means that officer numbers are now at their highest since August 2013.
We also know that the relationship between staff and prisoners is fundamental in supporting their wellbeing and reducing their risk of self-harm. Our offender management in custody model will see every person in closed conditions being assigned a key worker to motivate support and signpost them to the most appropriate services to help them to reform. Prisoners will be supported to attend scheduled health and mental health appointments. Their dedicated officer will be in a better position to respond to changes in their behaviour or mental wellbeing. The offender management in custody model has been rolled out in eight pathfinder prisons, and our aim is to introduce it into all other establishments by March 2019.
Last but not least, we need to ensure that our staff have the right skills to identify prisoners’ needs and risks, and provide them with the appropriate support. All staff in prisons, whether they are prison officers or staff in any other organisation working in a prison, receive mental health awareness training as part of the introduction to suicide and self-harm prevention course. It is also included in entry-level training for our new prison officers. Since April, 11,000 members of staff have started that training. The mental health awareness module informs staff of the most prevalent mental health issues in prison, including how poor mental health might affect behaviour and how officers can interact positively with prisoners presenting with mental health needs.
I acknowledge the concerns raised about how the age and condition of some parts of the estate might impact on the mental health and wellbeing of prisoners. I assure hon. Members that the Government are committed to transforming the prison estate in England and Wales and will be investing in the estate to deliver up to 10,000 new places. That includes pushing ahead with plans to close older prisons and open new accommodation during this Parliament.
I am aware of concerns about the amount of time that prisoners spend in cell rather than in activities that would support their mental health and reduce reoffending. We are committed to providing a supportive and rehabilitative regime with which prisoners can engage positively. In 2016-17, offenders completed 16 million hours of work and there were on average 11,200 offenders working in prison workshops.
For those prisoners who are seriously ill and require transfer to secure hospital to meet their care needs, we are considering ways in which we can best support them while they are awaiting transfer—we are working closely with NHS colleagues on how we can improve the transfer process. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service has issued a learning bulletin aimed at senior management and staff that provides guidance on the transfer process, managing risk and supporting individuals prior to and following transfer.
To support those in crisis we have worked with the Samaritans to produce a new digital suicide prevention learning tool, which is designed to give staff more confidence to engage with prisoners who may be at risk of suicide. We continue to support the Samaritans’ Listener scheme and are funding a new initiative designed to build emotional resilience in prisoners in their early days in custody.
We are exploring with probation colleagues how to ensure better continuity of the work being done to improve mental health in prisons through to the community to provide ongoing support and help reduce reoffending on release. Since 1 July 2017, prisoners can now register with a GP prior to their release. That will facilitate a quicker transfer of patient and treatment information from prison to GP, supporting prisoners to access community healthcare services on release.
Hon. Members raised a number of questions, including on the level of self-inflicted deaths. I am responsible for women’s prisons. When I took over in July 2016, I inherited a situation in which there was a suicide every month on the women’s estate. We have had only one suicide since January 2017. Every self-inflicted death is a tragedy and I want to be cautious in publicising those figures, but I am hoping that there is a trend in place and we are improving the situation in the women’s estate. There has also been a similar decline in the number of self-inflicted deaths in male prisons, although there were still 77 up to September 2017, which is obviously too many.
Spice is a particular problem, and increasingly so in broader society. We have introduced dogs to detect spice coming into prisons. I am under no illusions about how difficult this is, nor about the challenges of spice and the impact it might have on people’s psychiatric health. This is a work in progress and it will remain challenging, but we are determined to do better.
We recognise the value of employment on release. I recall going to HMP Drake Hall, where I met a young lady who was working for Halfords and was already placed into the job on release. I want to see more of that.
Transfer times for secure hospital placement is a particular concern to me. I get regular updates and have done ever since I started in the post. We have made some progress but we need to make more.
The report for the Joint Committee is currently with the new Secretary of State. Once he has read it, signed off and gone through the process, it will be published as promised.
I apologise for not being able to answer all the other questions. Finally, I thank all colleagues. This is an important issue and we need to continue to work hard to make things better for prisoners.
Ms Rimmer
I thank all Members from right across the House and all parties, and the Minister for his obvious commitment and desire to do things. We wish him well and look forward to the vast improvements in our prisons and in safeguarding for our prisoners, and to the fruitful lives they live in society when they leave prison healthy.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered mental health in prisons.
Warwick District Council: New Offices
(6 years, 11 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
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered new offices for Warwick District Council.
Thank you, Mr Howarth, for giving me the opportunity to debate this issue, which is of immediate concern to residents in Warwick district, which includes my constituency of Warwick and Leamington, part of the neighbouring constituency of Kenilworth and Southam and part of the Stratford constituency.
At first glance, this debate will seem parochial, but it has much wider implications for local authorities across the country. It is fundamentally about the use of public money, and how local authorities use planning legislation for their own ends—using public money to build, in this example, a new council office, at a time of austerity. There are huge pressures on local authorities to restructure, to consider merging and to close certain services. We have seen our children’s centres and women’s refuges close. My question therefore is: are these the right priorities?
The issue at hand is the proposal for Warwick District Council to relocate from its current site near the centre of Leamington town centre to another site it owns in the town centre. It is a joint planning application that includes the development of a site for housing, which will contain 214 new homes in total, and of offices at the Covent Garden site, which will incorporate a new multi-storey car park, replacing the existing car park that occupies that site.
At last night’s planning meeting, both applications were approved. I do not agree with those approvals, and nor do the public. Why is the council building a new office in the first place? That has to be the first question.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Perhaps the council is seeking to move to offices that are smaller, cheaper and more efficient, which will enable it to provide the public services that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine want.
Matt Western
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. At a time when local authorities are restructuring under the pressure of budgetary restraint, that could be an option, but there are other options, such as moving into vacant buildings that the authority owns. He is right to highlight that point, and I will come on to develop it.
How can a council that is likely to impose a 3% council tax increase in April, alongside other council tax increases that will mean a total rise of perhaps 7% to 8% for council tax payers, justify using scarce resources to build itself a shiny new office? Its sister county council has the necessary vacant space and is closing much-valued children’s centres, claiming that that is not what councils should be doing and that they should simply contract out delivery services. The council’s justifications include the fact that the offices are just 500 metres closer to the town centre and that they might be more economical to run. It claims that the move will be cost-neutral and could save £300,000 a year, but given my recent experience of its projects, including leisure centres, that will be wide of the mark.
There are three main issues: the development lacks provision for affordable housing, which is so desperately needed in the area; it is the wrong priority at a time of austerity; and it will disrupt car parking in Leamington town centre, and ultimately the viability of town centre businesses. In essence, it is the wrong development at the wrong time in the wrong place.
I want to touch on the issue of affordable homes. Some people may believe that the new office is critical at a time of economic austerity, and that the arguments of better heating and efficiency justify the £10 million spent, but then we discover that the council office project is being funded by the disposal of its current site for the exclusive development of private housing. In fact, the planning applications for the Riverside House and Covent Garden sites total more than 200 dwellings, but none of them will be council, social or affordable—zero council, zero social and zero affordable housing.
Remember that the two applications were made by the council for the council. What about the council’s own policy—the policy it wrote itself and specified in its own local plan—that 40% of properties on large new housing developments should be affordable housing? To be clear, large is anything greater than 10, so given that there will be 170 and 44 on the two sites, they comfortably qualify. It is clear that with these applications —approval has been outlined—the council is failing to meet its own standards for affordable housing, which it seeks to place on other developers. What sort of precedent is that setting?
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. The offices are a local issue, but the use of land for housing is a national issue—the use of land at premium prices that prevents the development of affordable housing has to be a national issue. Will the Minister have a serious look at that to see whether the local plan, which requires 40% affordable homes, can be enforced by central Government? We need to think of that as national public policy.
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend, who makes the point so well, as ever. Currently, in Warwick district—I am sure there are other examples around the country—only 27% of housing plans that have been approved are for affordable housing. The council itself is approving 0% affordable housing, so there is a much wider implication for the principle and for necessary housing, as he said.
If the council applied its own policy to those developments, Leamington would gain 86 affordable homes, which would make a huge difference to families in dire need of homes below market prices. Those who heard my maiden speech will be aware that there are about 2,400 people on the housing waiting list in Warwick district, that there are 700 statutory homeless people, and that there has been a 50% increase in rough sleeping in recent years. For young people, the situation is particularly dire. In 2015, Shelter found that 31% of working young adults in the area live with their parents, compared with a 25% average in England.
Some might simply excuse the council for ignoring social and affordable housing and accept the argument that it is not viable to include them, but that is missing the point. The new office development is not necessary, and it is only that that is disguising the council’s claim about why it is not building the much-needed affordable housing on the two sites. In its outline planning application, the council managed to wriggle out of the 40% requirement for affordable housing by securing viability—that great “v” word—appraisals that say that the developments would not be viable if they provided any affordable housing. Furthermore, the council is refusing to release the details of those viability assessments on the grounds that they contain commercially sensitive information, partly because the developments are a joint venture with a private company, which ignores the public interest in the investment in new buildings.
The council claims in the viability assessments that the capital receipts gained from the housing developments are required to fund the building of the new offices, but if it did not have the capacity to provide any affordable housing, it should never have proposed its new office plan in the first place. There is also the broader issue that the viability assessments allow developers to avoid requirements for affordable housing across the board. That policy was introduced in 2012 as part of the national planning policy framework, which has been disastrous for the supply of affordable housing, contributing to the housing crisis, and which should be dropped. When housebuilders such as Persimmon claim that developments are not viable, but the chief executive is pocketing a £130 million bonus, something is not right.
There is clearly a fundamental issue with a local authority being both applicant and jury. The planning committee is supposed to be quasi-judicial, but it is evident, as in this case, that planning officers lean on it to ensure that an application gets passed. How can the planning department “recommend approval” to its own committee on its own project? Let us be honest: that is not quasi-judicial.
The third report of the Nolan Committee on Standards in Public Life—the committee advises the Prime Minister on the standards to be expected of those in public office—stated:
“We have particular concerns about…local authorities granting themselves planning permission…and we believe that there should be greater openness in the planning process.”
Warwick District Council has done exactly what the Nolan committee advised that local authorities should not do. In a case of commercial confidentiality, the failure to deliver affordable housing should preclude such exemption from public scrutiny. The council’s proposals, which fail residents in the area who are in desperate need of more affordable housing, should be dropped.
The people of Warwick district, in common with all communities, have been battered by a programme of Government austerity these past seven years, and local services are being cut. Communities are losing children’s centres, social care is at a crisis point and all services are suffering from the cuts. It is no wonder that, in such a challenging environment, many people tell me how surprised they are that the district council is proposing to build a new office.
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman spoke about a challenging fiscal environment. The proposal, to which he has referred to fairly, is intended to save £300,000 per year, but surely that is precisely why it should be pursued—it will enable more money to be spent on the services that people want.
Matt Western
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point but his conclusion is wrong. There is a huge opportunity for all local authorities. His Government previously proposed One Public Estate, which was a genuine and sincere ambition to get authorities around the table to review all public assets and decide how they can best be used for the future delivery of services. The Warwick proposal is an example of where that has not happened. I proposed a “one Warwickshire estate” a couple of years ago. Had it happened, the district council could have been using its existing assets or those of its sister councils such as the county council.
The council should be using any capital budgets to build much-needed council housing to address the 2,400-long housing waiting list. Moving the council headquarters is not a priority for the people in my constituency or in Kenilworth, and it should not be a priority for the council at this time.
The effect of the development on the Covent Garden car park will also have an impact on our community. It will lead to the closure of a much-needed car park, one of the four main ones in our town centre. The closure for redevelopment will result in a lack of car parking space in our town centre and therefore a huge amount of pressure on the economic viability of the town centre and the businesses therein. In any event, while building a car park, there should be some sort of workable displacement plan for parking during the construction period, but none has been put forward.
Indeed, no other options have been put forward to the public, but they should be explored. The council should consider the use of existing space in the public asset register that I mentioned a moment ago, such as empty and underutilised office space owned by the county council, or even Leamington town hall, which is owned by Warwick District Council. That would reduce the cost and allow for the development of affordable housing on the Riverside House site, as well as avoiding the demolition of one of our main car parks in Leamington. If the council must push ahead with the plans, it should at least find some way of meeting its own affordable housing policy for both developments and on those two sites.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
From what my hon. Friend is saying, it springs to my mind that the council knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Councils are not meeting the affordable housing tariffs they set for themselves. In my constituency, for the past two years Peterborough City Council has approved proposals that have not met its 30% social and affordable housing tariff. His council has not met its 40% target, but is still ploughing ahead with proposals to build and develop, showing it knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Does he agree?
Matt Western
I thank my hon. Friend for a valuable intervention. She is so right. The precedent is dangerous not only for Warwick district but across the country. It could almost become case law, in that people will cite examples from elsewhere and use them for their own ends. That is one of the fundamental flaws in the existing policy. Furthermore, there are question marks over the transparency of the planning process as it stands, and my example demonstrates clearly how the viability assessment can be withheld on grounds of commercial sensitivity, despite the clear and obvious public interest involved.
This is the wrong development at the wrong time in the wrong place, as I have said. The lack of provision for affordable housing shows appalling double standards. The council is pushing ahead with a development that is not necessary at a time of austerity, and that is an insult to our residents. The demolition of the Covent Garden car park will bring chaos and uncertainty to our town centre, and lead to closures of retailers and businesses there during the two to three-year development phase. I therefore urge Warwick District Council to rethink, and I urge the Minister to ask it to do the same. I also ask the Minister to consider the broader issues raised by this case, which have significance throughout the country and will be replicated elsewhere. I am grateful for having the time to speak today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Howarth. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing an important debate not just for his constituents but for various areas of the country—Members from across the House have made contributions, so he is obviously raising issues from their constituencies that they want to discuss.
To focus on Warwick initially, Mr Howarth, you, like me, are a proud northerner. I am also Minister for the northern powerhouse and it is appropriate for me to respond to this debate given that Warwick Castle was founded in 1068 by William the Conqueror, who was dealing with a rebellious set of northerners. I think we are both rebellious northerners and so it is appropriate for us to discuss Warwick under your chairmanship.
We heard an intervention by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) and I would like to frame the debate in terms of what his local authority has achieved by active management of its estate. The council has been inventive about how it has used its civic buildings in the centre of Rochdale, which adjoins my constituency—I know it extremely well—and it took a decision to move out of its iconic grade I listed town hall, which is a fantastic building and is now used largely for civic and private events. That shows how with active planning good local authorities may move offices to the betterment of the people they represent.
The iconic Rochdale town hall was, unfortunately, one of Adolf Hitler’s favourite buildings, but he told the Luftwaffe not to bomb it during the second world war, because he wanted to take it down brick by brick and to move it to Germany. A better use of it at the moment would be to replace the chimes from the Elizabeth Tower, the bong of Big Ben in particular, which we are all missing after it came back into use for a time over Christmas and new year. I hope that, with me, the hon. Member for Rochdale will continue to press the BBC on an issue that is important to the north of England.
Tony Lloyd
I endorse strongly what the Minister is saying. Hearing the northern chimes of Rochdale town hall on the BBC would enlighten the world about the beauties of the north.
Jake Berry
We are as one on that—“bong” is all I can say.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya), who raised important issues in her constituency, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts), who has great experience as a former deputy leader of West Oxfordshire District Council. In his time there he was always involved in saving the local authority money, not for the sake of it or from any ideologically driven point of view, but so that he and his colleagues in the local government family of West Oxfordshire could invest in public services and public service delivery.
Before I move on to the main part of my speech, I will take the opportunity, on behalf of all hon. Members present, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in particular and me, to put on record our thanks to all councillors in our local government family who, regardless of political persuasion, work so hard to serve the communities that they represent.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is aware that the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in any planning applications in the United Kingdom. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the merits of Warwick’s local plan or to discuss in detail the application that he mentioned specifically. Equally, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on what is essentially a local decision by Warwick council to relocate its offices. However, I am aware that that is part of a wider efficiency plan that includes a review of council assets. Local authorities are right to manage their own assets and expenditure responsibly in a democratically accountable way. Warwick District Council is a stable, well-managed, fiscally prudent, Conservative-controlled council that has achieved a surplus on its general fund revenue budget in each of the past six years and is projected to do so again in this financial year, which shows that it has a history of taking difficult decisions to better serve the people in Warwick, as a prudent local authority.
The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about affordable housing provision. I will set out our national policy on this issue and what our national planning policy framework does to encourage the delivery of affordable housing. I will touch on parking facilities and how the framework promotes sustainable transport solutions. I will also say a bit about how we require local authorities to make sure that the money they expend is spent well and that they take prudent investment decisions.
The Government’s priority is to boost housing supply and to build more affordable homes, supporting the different needs of a wide range of people. That is why the Prime Minister recently announced an additional £2 billion of funding for affordable housing, increasing the affordable homes programme in the 2016 to 2021 budget to more than £9 billion, to deliver a wide range of affordable housing, including social rent homes, by March 2021. The new funding will support councils and housing associations to build more genuinely affordable homes in areas of acute affordability pressure, where families are struggling with the cost of rent and some families may be at risk of homelessness.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of homelessness and families waiting on the list during his maiden speech; it is absolutely right and appropriate that in this House we focus on what is a hugely important issue for us all as constituency MPs and for the Government. Our expanding programme will provide a wide range of homes to meet the housing needs of a range of people in different circumstances and different housing markets. Further details on how social rent will be prioritised in the areas of greatest need will be published shortly. The Government have also confirmed plans to create a stable environment by setting long-term rent deals for councils and housing associations in England from 2020. Increases will be limited to the consumer prices index plus 1% for the next five years until 2020.
On our national planning policy, our housing White Paper shows that the Government are strongly committed to a plan-led system, where new homes are provided through up-to-date local plans prepared in consultation with local people. The giveaway about local plans is in their title: they should be local, widely consulted on and driven by local authorities, not by Government. The White Paper also includes proposals for local authorities to have clear policies for addressing the housing needs of particular groups. As part of that, we expect local authorities to identify their affordable housing need. As always, we expect them to make a planning judgment—as they do now—to understand how many affordable homes should be built in their local planning area.
As I started out by saying, it is up to local authorities to determine how their own affordable housing policy is applied, and to determine their own planning applications in line with their own view. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Viability is a material consideration. Different sites have different costs, and it might be appropriate for local authorities to seek different levels of local planning applications, including affordable housing, in certain circumstances.
Matt Western
I am interested to hear the Minister’s specific comments on One Public Estate and the fact that this authority has chosen to ignore the possibilities offered by the Government’s own policy on that. Also, will he concentrate on the 40% figure, where the authority is failing against it at a 0% level?
Jake Berry
The hon. Gentleman tempts me down a path. I am tempted, but I will not venture down it, because, as I am sure he is aware as a county councillor and as a Member of this House, the Secretary of State in my Department has a judicial role in local plans, local planning policy, and all planning applications in England. Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to comment in the way that he has asked.
Viability assessments play an important role in making sure that both plans and individual proposals are deliverable. However, we recognise that viability assessments can add complexity and uncertainty to the planning process, which have led to delays and diminished contributions towards infrastructure and affordable housing. That is why in our recent planning consultation we included proposals that seek to simplify the process, creating more certainty about the contributions that developers are expected to make. That will also increase transparency —I think that the hon. Gentleman will like that—so that local people can better understand what contributions may be expected to be secured from developers. Of course, that will not be the whole solution, and we will continue to consider further reform of developer contributions.
I note that the hon. Gentleman has concerns about parking provision in his local area. Planning policy on transport provision set out in our national planning policy framework promotes sustainable solutions to give people a real choice about how they travel. The framework expects councils to support developments that facilitate the use of public transport, walking and cycling where it is reasonable for them to do so, and to focus significant developments in locations that can be made sustainable in terms of transport. Local authorities are expected to improve the quality of parking in town centres so that it is convenient, safe and secure.
All local authorities have a duty to deliver the best value for the people they represent. I hope that Warwick District Council and all local authorities will have in their mind when they look at plans anywhere in the country how they can save money for the council tax payer and refocus that on the priorities that we have discussed, such as affordable housing, which, as we all know, is hugely important. Our Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that tackling the housing crisis is the top priority for her Government and I am absolutely proud to play my part in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in ensuring that we deliver on that promise.
Question put and agreed to.
Disability Confident Scheme
(6 years, 11 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
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Disability Confident scheme.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank the Members who have made the effort to attend the debate, which I secured because I am a passionate believer in the ideals represented by the Disability Confident scheme, the support it offers and the progress it has made.
As recently as the 20th century, disability often prevented individuals from contributing to their communities and to society as a whole. At the turn of the 20th century, “defective” individuals were identified and separated from their communities through legislation such as the Mental Deficiency Act 1913. Meanwhile, adults who suffered an injury that caused a disability were often forced out of work and left reliant on rudimentary health and benefit schemes. Fortunately, in recent decades, Britain has made significant progress in guaranteeing rights and opportunities for disabled people. From the appointment of Britain’s first Minister for disabled people in 1972, to the discrimination and equality legislation of the 1990s and the early 21st century, our country has begun to catch up with the contribution, intellect and determination of so many disabled people across the United Kingdom.
I wish to cover three key components of the scheme in depth: the intent to provide equal opportunities for disabled people to be active participants in society; how the scheme contributes to reducing the disability employment gap; and how to encourage and engage employers to become more confident in employing and retaining disabled people.
First, let me expand on what I mean by intent. The Government should work to ensure that disabled people are not underrepresented in the workplace. Over the past seven years, it has been a common refrain of the Government not only that work should pay but that it is the most effective way of contributing to society. The logic of that belief is sound and has led to the Government overseeing the lowest unemployment in 43 years and, since 2010, the fastest rate of job creation. More than 600,000 more disabled people are in work now than were seven years ago. The employment rate among people with disabilities was 1.3 percentage points higher between April and June 2017 than in the same period in 2016, which means that the number of people with disabilities in employment rose by about 104,000.
Such opportunities help to provide work to formerly workless households and to provide disabled and non-disabled individuals with purpose, colleagues and community—factors that are widely recognised as helping to contribute to good physical and mental health. The Disability Confident scheme is consistent with that belief and complements other Government initiatives in work, welfare and health.
My second point is about the disability employment gap, which is defined as the difference between the employment rates among disabled and non-disabled people. There are currently 3.4 million disabled people in employment, which is approximately 49% of all disabled people. On its own, that sounds reasonable, but 80% of non-disabled people are currently in employment. The overall unemployment rate is 9% among people with disabilities but only 3.8% among people without disabilities. We should be determined to close that gap.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that we should aggressively pursue the UK Government’s target to halve the employment gap between disabled and non-disabled people, and that Disability Confident will help to reduce that gap?
Luke Graham
I could not agree more. That is a laudable target, but we should always try to go a little further. In my view, the target is there to be exceeded, and I am sure that the Minister will do everything she can to achieve that.
Let me dig a bit deeper and draw some gender and regional comparisons. Between April and June 2017, about 2 million women and 1.5 million men with disabilities were in work. That means that the employment rate among people with disabilities is about 50% for men and 48.6% for women. It is worth noting that more working-age women than working-age men have disabilities, which explains the discrepancy between the totals and the percentages of men and women with disabilities who are in work. However, the gap between the employment rates among women with and without disabilities is smaller than the equivalent gap for men. Although there is some reasonable news, it is tempered by the fact that the disability employment gap is still 27 percentage points for women and 35 percentage points for men.
It is also worth looking at the regional breakdown across the UK. Annual population survey data show that between July 2016 and June 2017 employment among disabled people was highest in the south-west of England, at 58.5%, and lowest in Northern Ireland, at just 36.7%. Scotland ranks third lowest in the UK, ahead of only Northern Ireland and the north-east, with a rate of 43.4% compared with the UK average of 49.7%. It is worth noting that those regional discrepancies by and large reflect the overall employment rates of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.
The data highlight the issue at hand. I secured the debate so that we could continue to raise awareness in the Government and in the public and private sectors of the contributions and under-appreciated talent of disabled people in the UK and, in so doing, help to bridge the disability employment gap.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that the fact that Disability Confident is a UK-wide scheme is excellent because it allows companies across our country to take part? Small companies such as Jaycees, a computer shop in Forres just two doors down from my constituency office, groups such as ENABLE Elgin, which does great work across Moray, and even globally renowned firms such as Maclean’s Highland Bakery, Walkers Shortbread and Baxters Food Group are all signed up to the scheme.
Luke Graham
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The scheme is commendable, and being UK-wide allows it to provide consistency and a standard for employers, both large and small, across the United Kingdom.
My third point is about employer engagement and retention. The Disability Confident campaign was set up by the Government in July 2013 and aims to help employers improve how they attract, recruit and retain disabled workers. The scheme also aims to educate employers about the benefits of employing disabled people. Some 5,000 employers have signed up to the scheme since 2016, including my own parliamentary offices, Clackmannanshire Council and Perth and Kinross Council, which both cross through my constituency, and several other businesses in my constituency. I encourage everyone in this place to sign their offices up for it. It is quick and easy—it takes only a few minutes. If hon. Members need any help, they should pop by my office. I am also pleased to say that the main Departments have achieved Disability Confident leader status, a standard to which many organisations should aspire.
In researching for this debate, I came across a number of exciting case studies, including a company in my constituency that has signed up for the Disability Confident scheme. The Glenalmond Timber Company in Methven has been signed up for two years and has taken on a number of employees through the scheme. Most recently, it hired Colin, who is deaf. Colin started only a few weeks ago, but in that time he has been made to feel part of the team. Jed, his team manager, helped him to settle in by learning sign language. Jed commented that he “saw the man, not the disability”. In return for that commitment, the company gets an enthusiastic, hard-working and happy employee. Indeed, Colin’s wife commented that she had never seen her husband so happy.
Glenalmond Timber Company has also worked closely with the local jobcentre and disability centre to maximise the benefits of the Disability Confident scheme and what the company can offer through it. Staff have nothing but positive comments, and Jed has been invited to speak to students in local schools about his experience and about how they can be involved in skills development schemes and apprenticeships to ensure that their talent is not wasted.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. Although I very much support the scheme—that is why we are all here—many small and medium-sized business in Northern Ireland do not have the resources to participate in it. Companies that want to be part of the scheme but have upstairs offices or would have to widen doorways for people who use wheelchairs or take measures to allow visually disabled people to fully participate cannot take part because of the cost of renovating their buildings. Does he agree that that is a shortfall of the scheme? Perhaps the Minister will address that in her response.
Luke Graham
I realise that the scheme is a start, and later in my speech I will come to a number of areas that I hope the Minister and the Government will seek to develop further.
I was talking about the Glenalmond Timber Company. For people who do not know, Methven is a village in my constituency—it is not a bustling metropolis. There is not a huge amount of infrastructure, nor is there a particularly strong disability lobby that has worked hard on local or national Government. However, a company there is committed to seeing the person and not the disability, and it has reaped the positive results of that. I commend the Glenalmond Timber Company for the work it has done through Disability Confident. I hope the Minister will join me in visiting its site in the near future.
Of course, it is not just local businesses that are involved; national and international businesses have also signed up to the scheme. I thank Sainsbury’s, which has provided information on cases across the United Kingdom. It is a large corporation that has been highly involved in the Disability Confident campaign. One of its employees in the north of England experienced some mental health issues and has only just felt confident enough to talk about his condition at work. Although he requested to remain anonymous, he commented:
“There is still a stigma about mental health, so I was nervous about talking about it. But receiving a firm diagnosis recently made it easier for me to speak up. Everyone I’ve had contact with here has been really supportive and keen to help. I worked with my line manager and HR to come up with adjustments, which have made a massive difference. Flexible rotas, extra preparation time at the start of shifts and the addition of a click and collect shift to my working week have made things less stressful.
I’m now really enjoying my job. There’s great camaraderie and team spirit, and with regular reviews as we go along, there’s no reason I won’t be able to stay in the role long-term…I’d advise colleagues dealing with mental health conditions to take that first step and talk to their managers. Once you’ve said the words, it gets much easier.”
Those words are great to hear and show that the scheme is making a great start, but there is still a lot of work to do.
The 2017 Conservative manifesto committed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) mentioned, to getting 1 million more disabled people into employment in the next 10 years. The Government therefore released a White Paper entitled “Improving Lives: the future of work, health and disability” in November last year. The strategy is based partly on supporting disabled people to find work but also on providing investment to support them to stay in work, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The White Paper states that the Government will
“increase the reach and effectiveness of Disability Confident”,
while the Disability Confident business group has been established to provide leadership, peer-to-peer support and the sharing of best practice. Furthermore, the White Paper included the following policies and proposals. First, the roll-out of the personal support package, which includes the recruitment of 200 community partners, 300 disability employment advisers and about 100 small employer advisers. It will also provide support for individuals to help find and keep a job. Secondly, the Government have committed—I am sure that the Minister will elaborate on this—to explore the best options to provide support to those with more complex needs, and those who are furthest from the labour market across the United Kingdom.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being generous, and it is a huge pleasure to see another member of clan Graham representing Ochil and South Perthshire in the House. Does he agree that there may be a good case for the Government to consider doing what they did so successfully with apprenticeships: to provide small employers with an incentive to hire people with disabilities? If that were in the form of a national insurance break, that might be the catalyst that enables us to move at the pace we want in taking people with disabilities into employment.
Luke Graham
Indeed. I will come to that point towards the end of my speech.
The Government’s proposals are all laudable and aspirational, and I am sure they will receive cross-party support in their implementation. I also ask the Minister to ensure that any new provisions are UK-wide and not limited by devolution settlements anywhere in the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is most kind in giving way. The other reason I wanted to come to the debate and make a comment was that over the years I have heard from a number of civil servants employed by Government who have lost their jobs due to their ill health—irritable bowel syndrome is one such example. It is a colossal experience for the person concerned, but even though they were employed by Government, the Government paid those people off. This debate is an opportunity to raise awareness in all Government Departments to ensure that people are not penalised because of their ill health in jobs they wish to stay in.
Luke Graham
I could not agree more. I hope that, through further speeches, we will hear more case studies and examples to try to raise the profile of the issue further. I know that the debate will not be left in this Chamber but that it will be continued by Members across the House in their constituencies and hopefully in the main Chamber. As I said, I urge cross-party support, because everyone has a role to play in helping to achieve the Government’s commitments as well as getting behind some of the Government’s policies and practical applications to try to ensure we achieve the targets set.
The Disability Confident scheme is about creating a movement for change, getting employers to think differently about disability and to act to improve recruitment and retention of disabled workers. The scheme has three levels that have been designed to support employers on their Disability Confident journey. An employer will complete each level before moving on to the next.
At the start of an employer’s Disability Confident journey, it can sign up via gov.uk with its Disability Confident commitments and identify at least one thing it can do that will make a difference for disabled employees. The second step is to become a Disability Confident employer. Such an employer will need to undertake a self-assessment, testing its business against a set of statements grouped into two themes: getting the right people for the business; and keeping and developing those people. For both themes, the employer will need to agree to take all of the actions set out in the core actions list and at least one from the activity list to make good on its commitment.
The final level, achieved by some Government Departments, is level 3, a Disability Confident leader. For that, an employer needs to meet two additional elements. First, it must challenge itself through self-assessment and open up to external challenge to ensure it really is pushing itself and delivering the best for its people. The second element is leadership within industry and among peers as well as with its own communities and supply chains.
By working through the scheme, employers also get access to a wide range of information, good practice and other resources, including links to Department for Work and Pensions programmes that can provide practical assistance. For example, Access to Work provision rose by 8% last year, and for some groups it rose at an even faster rate. For example, the number of deaf people who had support approved increased by 13%. There was also a significant increase in the number of people with provision approved who have mental health conditions, which was up 37%, and those with learning disabilities, which was up 25%. For young people aged 16 to 24, the increase was 26%.
Those metrics are all encouraging, and the scheme has the right intent and policies to progress. However, no scheme is perfect, as alluded to by other Members, so I ask the Minister and the Government team to look at continuously improving the scheme over the next few years and ensure that it is regularly reviewed so that we can check progress and see if anything can be done to provide UK employer incentives, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises, where cash is more constrained and it is more difficult to make the changes that would allow extra people to enter our workforce and increase our productivity.
John Lamont
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a second intervention. He described well the different levels of the scheme and employers who have signed up. Is there also a need to ensure that employers who have signed up do not rest on their laurels on the first level but are encouraged to move on, develop the programme and progress through the levels of the scheme?
Luke Graham
Absolutely—my hon. Friend makes a valid point. Even at level one, employers are making a commitment to take action within the next 12 months, and the mechanism must be used to ensure that those commitments are followed through. Commitments are easy to make online, but there needs to be the follow-through to make a real difference.
Quite simply, we cannot afford to allow any of our citizens’ talents to go to waste. For our United Kingdom to reach its full potential, every one of its citizens must reach theirs. Harnessing the skills and talents of everyone is at the heart of a successful economic plan, but good employment delivers much more than just a strong economy. Having a good job is good for our health: it keeps people healthy, both mentally and physically. I want disabled people to have every opportunity to go as far as their talents will take them. That is the sort of aspirational country I want to see, and that is what this scheme is starting to deliver.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) on, and thank him for, securing this extremely important debate. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, I am pleased that we are having this debate. I share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment that we should be having these debates in the main Chamber as well. This week, I applied to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on the potential that disabled people bring to our economy. We must harness their skills and potential, and I would hope that the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members here today would support that application.
The Disability Confident scheme is extremely symbolic. I have held a Disability Confident event in my constituency and would advocate other hon. Members doing so. It was important because only when we go through the process of helping employers to look at the scheme and what it would mean can we understand the hurdles that they feel they face—we can see not only the positives, but some of the limitations within the scheme as it stands.
A number of employers came along to the event on the day. We had great support from the Department for Work and Pensions and from various other organisations, and it was a successful event. I was pleased to publicise it and to tell people, “This is a really positive scheme and a positive event.” However, I would say that, in the follow-up, almost a year later, I re-contacted many of the employers who came to the day. They said, “Yes, it’s a good scheme, and we feel a bit more confident,” but confidence in itself does not always lead on to employment. While it is a good scheme, there is much more we can do.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) on bringing forward this important subject. My constituent, Atif Aslam, is a maths graduate but suffers from multiple sclerosis. Although he can access interviews, often employers do not put in place what he needs. For example, he needs a scribe in an interview if he is to fill in particular applications. He has been to interviews where he has told them in advance and the employer has not provided it. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is one thing for employers to say that they will sign up to this, but another thing for them to act on it?
Dr Cameron
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Providing adaptations is one of the challenges that employers, particularly small businesses, have come to me about following the event. They have said that they need further support from the Government. As a psychologist, I know that feeling confident is great. I feel confident that I will probably do lots of exercise this year, but whether that turns into my doing exercise might be a different story, particularly when it comes to February or March, rather than January when I am full of inspiration. We are starting off with a good scheme, but we need to build on it and my hon. Friend’s point is extremely important.
Small businesses find dealing with legislative requirements a challenge and a concern. They need help to navigate them, and support in overcoming what are mainly perceived barriers—perceived barriers can still mean businesses taking a step back from giving employment opportunities to people who have disabilities. I understand from disability organisations that the scheme itself has received mixed reviews—I am referring to Disability Rights UK research. I believe it is possible to get to level 3 of the scheme without actually employing anyone who has a disability. We want to see much more of the additional practical support that employers need.
The disability employment gap has remained pretty static at 32 percentage points for many years, which shows that we are making some progress, but certainly not the progress we need to make. That reinforces the point that we need to do much more. The APPG, which hon. Members are welcome to join, recently compiled an inquiry report looking at the disability employment gap. The report estimated that, with the current policies, as of 2016-17, it would take 50 years to meet the Government’s pledge to halve the disability employment gap. That is not where we want to be and is further evidence that much more needs to be done.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Government no longer pledge to halve the disability employment gap? It has been slightly watered down from that previous commitment, which we would all have supported.
Dr Cameron
My hon. Friend has obviously read my speech. Yes, the manifesto pledge has changed. Given some of the responses from disability organisations, the Government were obviously struggling to halve the gap, which was their initial manifesto pledge, but we must harness the potential of people with disabilities for this economy. We cannot have a good economy while people are sidelined and not part of it. Across the United Kingdom, we must do all we can to rise to the challenge and ensure we get as many people with disabilities into employment as possible, recognise their skills and abilities, and give them opportunity, hope and support exactly where it is needed.
The APPG report, by Nick Bacon and Kim Hoque from the University of Warwick, made a number of important recommendations that I would like the Minister to consider in addition to the disability employment scheme. These are things that we believe would make a difference. It is important to look at apprenticeships, which have been mentioned. When people leave school, there is often nothing to go to. That is when people can start to feel hopeless and that they are not part of society. That can accumulate into not just disability, but mental health issues, depression and feeling very isolated. It is important to act at an early stage. Apprenticeships should be made available in realms of the economy where there is growth, such as science, technology, engineering and maths, and areas where there are employment gaps and we can harness people’s potential, where that is the role they want to fulfil.
Looking at support for disabled entrepreneurs, I often find that in these debates we automatically think of people with disabilities as employees. They should also be thought of as extremely skilled and as having the potential to run businesses and employ others. Overcoming some of the challenges that are currently in the way, such as discrimination in obtaining finance and capital to start businesses, which can be particularly difficult, would make a difference.
Research shows that peer-to-peer support for disabled entrepreneurship is helpful. It helps people to speak about what is working, what the challenges have been, how they have overcome those challenges and how to move forward, with support from someone who has been through the process, which is always good. Another recommendation was to look at leveraging public procurement, particularly for big contracts, and thinking about whether we could leverage some of those public sector contracts towards inclusive companies. It would make a fundamental, significant change to the numbers of people employed.
We in Parliament have to be role models. I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has signed up to the scheme. In parliamentary work, other things are also happening that I think are very positive. I have taken up quite a bit of time, but before I finish I will briefly mention the Speaker’s internship scheme, which has now been widened. I am very pleased, because we put forward a proposal just last year, before the snap election, to increase participation in the internship scheme, ring-fencing money for disabled interns. That will start in September. Parliament should be walking the walk as well as talking the talk, so that is a positive thing and I commend Mr Speaker for showing his support and taking it forward.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) on securing this very important debate.
This Government have a breath-taking record when it comes to getting people into employment—a record for which they get insufficient credit. It is easy to see joblessness simply as an economic challenge, but for the individual concerned, securing a job can have a major impact on their sense of self-worth and confidence, allowing them to lead a full, independent and rich life. I can only imagine the intense frustration many disabled people feel in knowing that they have ideas and energy to share in the workplace but facing practical barriers in securing work.
It is stating the obvious to suggest that people with disabilities have huge wells of talent to tap if we can collectively find a way of addressing some of those barriers. Other Members have referred to the disability employment gap, which has remained persistently high for decades. Were such a gap present in other parts of the working population, there would rightly be uproar. This problem is every bit as urgent as other workforce diversity challenges.
I commend the Government for the Disability Confident scheme, which marks an important step in helping to change perceptions among employers about taking someone on with a disability. I recently met representatives from Leonard Cheshire and learned about Change100, its graduate placement programme that secures talented disabled graduates paid placements at some of the UK’s best known companies. Leonard Cheshire highlighted to me some of the simple steps that help to build a disabled person’s confidence in making a job application, such as a prospective employer displaying Disability Confident accreditation, offering flexible hours and home working and having an awareness of the Access to Work scheme, which can fund building adaptations and specialist equipment. Leonard Cheshire recommends that the Government endorse an independent evaluator to monitor the success of employers in recruiting and retaining disabled staff, beginning with Disability Confident employers. Results could then be published to see how employers compare and to encourage improvement, increasing the speed of change.
What I most want to raise is the needs of people who are unemployed and have less visible disabilities, whether mental or developmental. In the six months that I have been the MP for Hornchurch and Upminster, I have had two cases brought to my attention by the parents of young men with autism who have been desperate to secure long-term, meaningful work suited to their specific skills. Both gentlemen are very skilled and anxious not to spend the rest of their lives isolated at home.
The first, Richard, has Asperger’s and has engaged with the jobcentre but considers that disability advisers do not adequately understand and consider his employment needs. He has been seeking paid work since 2005, and the jobcentre has frequently encouraged and assisted him by facilitating work placements and courses, rewriting his CV to reflect that additional experience. However, much of that has just been box-ticking, without meaningfully improving his job prospects. Richard has still not secured any suitable long-term paid opportunities and has twice been referred to employment support services, which subsequently told him they would not be suitable for someone of his needs, which knocks his confidence again and makes it even harder for him to make the next approach in the workplace.
Those sentiments are shared by Drew, a politics graduate with autism who has struggled to find employment since 2004. Drew similarly laments the lack of personalised support in various Access to Work schemes for those with disabilities, noting that those on the autistic spectrum need not only a chance but an integrated way of ensuring that that chance pays off for them. In Drew’s case, an employment opportunity was found, but it soon became unsuitable due to difficulties in getting transport at the required shift times. When the opportunity collapsed, Drew had to reapply for unemployment benefits, forcing an individual with organisational difficulties to navigate a complex system and knocking his delicate confidence levels.
Drew’s parents recently came to my surgery and described how he gets very costly support that is not properly designed. That money would be much better spent if the jobcentre or his support workers had a focused approach at the beginning of the journey into work, helping him to establish relationships with his employer and in future with his colleagues, and helping him with his journey. If that support is focused right at the beginning, it might pay off with a much more viable job opportunity, rather than just putting a person on course after course, without any real structure to the process.
I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us whether she has looked at the specific skills that some people with autism have—for instance, IT and tech skills, which both Drew and Richard display—and whether any approaches have been made to bodies such as the National Cyber Security Centre or techUK, where those kinds of talents are really needed in the workplace but have not yet been found in sufficient numbers. I would also appreciate her thoughts on refocusing support away from courses and work placements and on to the initial stages of employment opportunities, as I have described.
Dr Cameron
The hon. Lady is making a very thorough speech. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, I have had a lot of positive feedback about the Access to Work programme. Does she agree that it is really important for that programme to be made more visible, so that there is greater awareness of it and the people who need it, just like the constituent she spoke of, are able to access it?
Julia Lopez
One of the important things about this debate is that we need to raise awareness across the board. MPs can help to do that by continuing to have debates, whether here or in the main Chamber—that is an important part of the process. A lot of employers simply do not know about these schemes and therefore do not have the confidence to access them.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) on his fantastic speech. I have known him for many years, and I am not surprised that he has a full grasp, and a very proactive and constructive way, of promoting this very important issue. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who clearly demonstrates a desire to push this.
There will be contributions from Members right across the House because we all recognise the importance of the subject, and we all have a commitment, whichever political party we represent, to see more people with disabilities having an opportunity to work. During my time as the Minister for Disabled People, that was always brought home. Whenever I went on visits, my favourite thing to say was, “If you were the Minister, what would you do?” There were some great ideas that I would happily take forward and some suggestions that we could not, but universally, people—and particularly young people—wanted the opportunity to work. That opportunity is often taken for granted, but for some, there are challenges that prevent them from enjoying it. For some, it will be full-time work. For others, it might just be an hour. I spoke to the parents of young adults whose desperate hope was that their children would get one hour a week, which would make all the difference to their quality of life. We are all determined to make a difference, and this cuts across political divides.
I saw many good examples and did lots of tours. Big employers were pretty good. GlaxoSmithKline, National Grid and Marks & Spencer had big HR teams that were skilled at ensuring there were ways of navigating the challenges that those employees might face. However, 45% of jobs are within small and medium-sized enterprises, which are not big enough to have HR departments. They would often shy away from employing someone with a disability and did not realise that there was a huge amount of talent out there.
I know that there is, because before I became an MP I ran my own business and employed people with disabilities. I did not do that because I was ticking a box or seeking a halo. I did it because it made good business sense. We as businesses were competing for the very best people, and often by making very small changes we can tap some fantastic talent and benefit. Before I did my Disability Confident event, one of my friends who runs a business said to me, “Do you know what, Justin? I’ll do you a favour. I’ll come along,” and I told him off. I said, “It’s nothing to do with favours. This has to work for you. There are reasons why it hasn’t worked for you in the past, and this is why we need to do a Disability Confident event.” Through the Disability Confident campaign, we can give employers the confidence to employ people with disabilities. I pay tribute to the DWP Disability Confident team, who were fantastic in providing manpower and very patient when I decided to do things completely differently.
I did a reverse jobs fair. Rather than a typical jobs fair, where people seeking a job turn up and hand out their CVs to employers, we gave stalls to 25 local organisations in my constituency in Swindon who help disabled people get into work. We had Pluss and the Shaw Trust, and lots of local organisations. I then wrote to all the employers that I could find addresses for and said, “You probably have recruitment problems, because we are close to structural full employment. I want you to come along and tell all these organisations where your skills gaps are, and they might be able to match someone to you.” There were 25 organisations, and 80 employers turned up—that was 180 people.
On the day, at STEAM Museum, we had 30 employer pledges. McDonald’s alone took three young adults with a disability to start immediate employment at a newly refurbished restaurant. There were two internships. Three organisations—Swindon Borough Council, Network Rail and the Research Councils, all major employers in my constituency—signed up to the Disability Confident campaign. Swindon College launched an internship programme for those with a disability. The local enterprise partnership wrote to all the businesses to provide the information; we had three donations from businesses to some of the charities there to support their work further; and 17 businesses agreed to meet different organisations after the event to specifically talk about how they could provide people to match the skills.
A lot of the businesses were worried. Would they be able to provide a safe environment for somebody with a disability? The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has just left, made the point about the cost. That is why things such as Access to Work can help—it had a stand. Organisations understood that they could go to the employer’s business and say over a cup of tea, “This is what you will need to do to make a change. We will help to do that. We will not just drop somebody off on day one and then hope it all goes well. We will work with you because, when this is a success, which it will be because these people have great skills, you will keep coming back to us.”
Crucially, we all want more disabled people to have an opportunity. Everybody gains because the employers have skills gaps. People are determined to contribute and want to work. They are enthusiastic and talented. Through the Disability Confident campaign, we have an opportunity to share best practice and promote it. I fully support what the Government are doing. The issue has total cross-party support and I pay tribute to every individual MP who has taken the time to do a Disability Confident event. They are making a difference. I have spoken to the young adults and they are very grateful.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who has given such a passionate account of his own personal experience. I have taken a lot from that and have been inspired to consider doing something similar in my constituency in Redditch. We have heard excellent contributions from all parties. The debate is very important and I am pleased we are having it today.
My personal experience as an employer before I entered the House taught me how valuable it is to build diverse teams, not for any altruistic reason but because it makes such a difference to the performance of the business. Like the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), I have a background in psychology and I studied workplace psychology. Diverse teams—diversity of ability as well as all the other things that we think about—have been shown time and again to perform better. They make better decisions and achieve better results, so it makes an enormous amount of sense for us all to promote the Disability Confident scheme for employers.
I agree that work is not just an economic proposition. It is about achieving human potential. It is about individuals and whatever ability they have been born with being able to achieve their potential, contribute and make a difference in their lives. It is so inspiring to hear some of the stories that we have heard today.
I am a relatively new Member. I am pleased that 23 employers in Redditch have signed up to the Disability Confident scheme. I want that number to grow and I shall take practical tips from Members to try to push that number up. I have already visited six of those employers, so I have seen what a difference the scheme makes and how transformational it is for individuals’ lives when they contribute and have a purpose. It is not just about a manufactured scheme. It is about a real contribution on the same basis as any other employee. They are valued for the contribution that they make to the business or organisation. That is what is important. People who are disabled, like people who are not disabled, deserve to be valued for what they put into the workplace and into the organisation. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), I have signed up to the scheme.
I was interested to watch the programme on TV, “Employable Me”, a few months ago, which I thought was a fantastic example of what a difference employment makes. It was inspiring and heart-warming to hear from people who had faced challenges to get into the workplace. Very often simple and practical changes can be made in a workplace. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has left, that sometimes employers can be put off. I recognise that. Working in a small business and starting up a small business without a dedicated HR function can mean that there is a fear—people visualise a lot of different equipment or modifications being needed, when sometimes that is not the case. It is very much about educating colleagues in the workplace to understand and appreciate how they can make small changes to enable people to fulfil their potential. I have personal experience of working with disabled individuals in many different walks of life. It has always been overwhelmingly positive and has made such a difference when one takes the time to understand what the challenges can be.
I welcome and commend the Government’s ambitious scheme. Like colleagues, I have a couple of suggestions for the Minister. The Shaw Trust has just won the contract in Redditch to deliver the programme there. I recommend the Minister looks at the recommendation that the trust has put forward. There is a one-stop shop, a portal, for employers to go to, where they can receive all the information and resources that are there for them to improve Access to Work. A former Minister for Disabled People referred to the Access to Work programme as one of the Government’s best-kept secrets. We should not let that be a secret. It should be a primetime headline, because it is excellent news.
The Minister might like to consider whether we should publish more figures. Should we require large companies to publish figures of their success on employing disabled people? We have seen what is happening in the gender pay gap, where there is definitely a lot more to do, but we are starting to achieve positive change. Perhaps we could do that with disability as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)
Order. To try to get all Members in this afternoon, will everyone try to restrict their comments to about three to four minutes maximum, please?
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) on securing this debate. Before I go any further, I wish to declare an interest. My wife is disabled and I think I should put that on the record. Unfortunately, it is a sad fact that the incidence of multiple sclerosis—MS—becomes more prevalent the further north we travel within the UK. My remote constituency therefore has one of the highest levels and so the issue is of enormous interest.
I have listened to the debate thus far with the greatest of interest. The experiences of the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) are instructive. The issue is about getting the disabled back to work. It is about giving the disabled dignity, quality of life and self-esteem. Whatever side right hon. and hon. Members were on in the Brexit debate, the fact is that as the UK goes into new waters we will have to maximise and utilise our workforce like never before. We will have to use every bit of brainpower and every bit of skill we have, and that links into this debate.
The tone of the debate is right because it is not about the disabled, but about employers. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, there is an issue with getting small employers to take up the use of the disabled. The scheme is a laudable UK-wide initiative, but there is a Scottish dimension. I do not want to denigrate the Scottish Government, but co-ordinating with the Scottish Government, which I am sure happens at the moment, can only be a good thing. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of possibilities. Is the enterprise network in Scotland fully engaged? Perhaps it is, but there is a useful way forward there.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) hinted at the idea of big business mentoring small businesses. That sort of expertise and knowledge can be passed on. The Government may have to enable that via enterprise agencies or whatever, but it would be useful. We need to publicise the benefits of the scheme. We need stuff in the media and on the television about how good it is. Mention was made about whether firms will stay engaged and move up the levels, and that is one way of ensuring that that happens.
What is great about today’s debate is the fact that no one can take anything away from the fundamental decency of the scheme. All parties recognise that; it is a good scheme and is well intentioned. It helps those who most need help, and I appreciate that. That is why we are singing from the same hymn sheet today, and why it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. Progressing the scheme can only be good for everyone in the UK, particularly in the slightly uncertain times ahead, as I have said. We have to maximise our potential.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) on securing the debate. It is important that it should take place now, following the publication of “Improving Lives” on 30 November. The Christmas period gave us an opportunity to read it and to consider its findings and recommendations.
The disability employment gap has been with us a long time. It is a bit like the “Mind the gap” announcement on the underground, where in some stations the same message has been broadcast for more than 40 years. We need to change the record. A good start has been made, and 530,000 more disabled people are in work than four years ago, but the gap has been stuck at around 30% for over a decade. The challenge that we now face is to remove the barriers that prevent disabled people from getting into work, realising their full potential and having the fulfilling lives that are so important to them and their families.
The barriers, which have been well discussed today, include inaccessible recruitment processes, securing reasonable adjustments in the workplace and overcoming employer uncertainty about taking on disabled people, first for work experience and then for full-time employment. I welcome the Government’s plans to test out ways of improving people’s experiences of the work capability assessment and then to deliver long-term reforms. I am grateful to the Minister for a personal assurance that she will do that.
I sense that for Disability Confident to be a success, the Government should provide a national framework, within which local people and organisations would be the champions, and understand the needs, of their local communities, and could set about delivering the scheme on the ground. The measures and support that the previous Secretary of State announced on 30 November help to provide that framework. There is a need for regular reporting and evaluation of how the campaign is going. “Improving Lives” must be a living document, not something that gathers dust on the shelf. If it is, a good databank of good practice will be built up, and can then be cascaded down to local communities. With Government in the background providing the framework and support and acting as a critical friend, delivery must ultimately be down to local people.
A possible criticism of “Improving Lives” is that it does not provide guidance on how local initiatives can be nurtured and go on to flourish. The feedback from the roundtable discussion that took place in Lowestoft as part of the consultation, and from the Disability Confident event that was put on by Jobcentre Plus, Mencap, local charities and employers in October 2016 at Lowestoft Sixth Form College, is that it is local people who want, and are best placed, to drive forward the campaign. That is an approach that we will build on locally at a chamber of commerce event in March.
The Government have made a good start in promoting Disability Confident, but more work is required to put flesh on the bones. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire will put in for a debate on this matter each year, so that annually there will be report-back sittings at which the Minister can make a statement and Back-Bench MPs can provide feedback from the communities that we represent. It is important that Disability Confident should succeed. If it does, Britain will be a much better place. Not only will disabled people and their families acquire a real sense of fulfilment and wellbeing, but so will their work colleagues.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my colleague, the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), on securing this important debate. [Interruption.] It is an Ayrshire pronunciation.
Since the inception of the Disability Confident scheme in 2013, as has been said, some 600,000 more disabled people have secured employment. While that is welcome, we must strive to improve that figure. The scheme aims to change attitudes, behaviours and cultures to ensure that the skills and talents that many disabled persons possess are not overlooked, but utilised to benefit businesses, communities and, most importantly, the individuals concerned. It is to be hoped—and I am sure that it will happen—that more employers will attract, recruit and retain disabled workers. The process includes promotion of the Access to Work scheme, which was mentioned earlier and is emerging as important in securing changes to workplaces, to allow disabled people to be employed. That has inspired more than 5,000 employers to sign up to the scheme.
Within my wider constituency area there are examples of committed employers who have signed up to and are actively participating in the Disability Confident scheme. They include South Ayrshire Council, Tartans & Tweeds in Girvan, and Ayrshire Hospice. Many others have also signed up, and I welcome their participation. I encourage businesses to consider signing up to become Disability Confident employers. Online Government guidance and resources are readily available to assist businesses large and small that want to join the scheme.
I applaud local DWP staff who are hosting employer events. Two seminars are being planned to encourage employers to become members of the scheme. MPs can all be ambassadors in our constituencies to promote this wonderful scheme. I employ someone in my own office who is regarded as disabled under the Equality Act 2010, for whom I am required actively to consider whether any reasonable adjustments are required, and that individual is an effective and valued member of my team. It is important that disabled persons have equality of opportunity and that we ensure that their skills and talents will not be overlooked.
We have come a long way since the scheme was introduced in 2013. The “Improving Lives: Work, health and disability” Green Paper of 30 November, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members, creates further opportunities for more disabled people to take up employment, with an ambitious target to secure employment for 1 million more individuals over the next 10 years. The Green Paper also explores opportunities for apprenticeships and for self-employment, as was mentioned. A disabled person need not necessarily be an employee, but could become an employer. Such opportunities are supported by 300 disability employment advisors and about 100 small employer advisers.
The Government can be proud of their endeavours and, to a degree, their success in creating an environment to enable disabled individuals to secure and retain employment, and develop their full potential.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) on obtaining the debate and on his persuasive email to colleagues encouraging us to join up, which I did. It was very easy, and I know that he will be checking how progressive we are in my office. The scheme is much needed, not least because of the statistics that we have heard, showing that about 50% of disabled people are employed, compared with 80% of non-disabled people. It will of course improve the recruitment and retention of a more diverse and talented workforce. I am pleased that I have signed up.
In my time as an MP I have the pleasure of visiting a number of businesses, many of which have signed up for the scheme already. One that stood out was Carillion, a supplier to the nuclear industry, which is working with National Autistic Society, recognising a skills gap and the fact that there could be opportunities from adapting its recruitment and retention procedures. That brought home to me the benefits to us all of improving those procedures.
Having visited businesses in my community, and organisations such as the Egremont Youth Partnership, which works with young people with disabilities, and Mayfield special school—I have also met self-sustaining groups that support parents of people with autism, such as Autism Around the Combe—I know that there is something lacking in provision during the passage from being a young person to an adult. I should like the Minister to work with other Departments, and particularly with the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, to ensure that ways are sought to improve disabled people’s access during the passage between being a young person and adult. That applies particularly to apprenticeships.
I am looking forward to the National College for Nuclear opening on 9 February. That will provide even more opportunities for my constituents and many others to work in the nuclear industry. However, when I asked what provisions it has put in place for the recruitment of disabled people, there was a gap in knowledge—I certainly noted an area for improvement.
Today’s debate has been positive, and Members’ contributions have been quite something. As always, the most inspirational point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who spoke of the role that we as MPs can play in inspiring our constituents through skills fairs and so on. I thank him once again for that suggestion, which I will work on.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
I am grateful to be called to speak, Mr Rosindell, not least because I was unable to attend the beginning of the debate because of other commitments.
I want to say how much I support the Disability Confident scheme. It has been running since 2013 and now has 5,000 participants. In March, I will attend a breakfast in my constituency, organised by the DWP and by Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, to speak to business people about the importance of the scheme. The three-level system is a good way of running the scheme, and to go from Disability Confident committed to Disability Confident employer, and then to Disability Confident leader, is an excellent idea.
It is also a good idea to link with other Departments, and there are other opportunities to use the scheme as a building block. As this Conservative Government are refreshed with dynamic new Ministers, we have a huge opportunity to take things forward. There is a long history of helping disabled people, particularly in Conservative Administrations—we had a Motability scheme running in the ’92 Parliament in my constituency —so the Minister has a great heritage to build on.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I shall do my best to summarise what we have heard this afternoon, and many confident and concerted voices from different political parties have described where we have been getting things wrong, and where we get them right. I thank you, Mr Rosindell, for the opportunity to speak, and the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) for securing this debate.
The hon. Gentleman identified progress that has been made since the 1970s. Attitudes have changed dramatically. He said that the Government must provide opportunities to get people back into work. He highlighted that 80% of adults without a disability are in work, but that only 49% of those with a disability who are able to work are in work. That figure drops dramatically to 36% in Northern Ireland and 42% in Scotland. He also talked about encouraging employers to sign up to the Disability Confident scheme. We would all echo that sentiment.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) reiterated the need to have debates such as this in the main Chamber. Like her, I have hosted disability conferences and events in my constituency, and I urge all Members to follow suit. She highlighted the fact that to close the current employment gap would take 50 years at its current rate, which is simply not acceptable. She also raised the importance of apprenticeships and helping people with disabilities to start their own businesses, and mentioned the facility for disabled internships here in Westminster.
The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) zeroed in on the practicalities of employing people with disabilities, including autism, and said that the lack of personalisation in the process only compounds the difficulties and knocks the applicant’s confidence. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) identified some big employers as being engaged, but believes that most small and medium-sized enterprises are not as capable, or perhaps less well informed, when it comes to taking up such opportunities. He highlighted how to run a reverse jobs fair—an event I have also organised in my constituency. Such events are precious because they allow employers and employees to network with each other over the course of one working day, which can prove invaluable.
The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) spoke about the benefit to the workplace of a diverse team and the value that that can bring. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) emphasised that this issue is perhaps more about employers than employees, and the benefits and fundamental decency of the Disability Confident scheme. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke about removing barriers, including employer uncertainty. That links back to my earlier point about networking events and introducing employers that have successfully employed people with a disability with those that are hesitant and need help to bridge the gap. That confidence gap can be bridged by such events.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke about how changing attitudes and cultures is crucial. The importance of the Access to Work scheme was re-emphasised, and that should be echoed by us all. The hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) said that she has visited a number of local employers that have signed up to the scheme and are already reaping its benefits. She asked the Minister to work across Departments to improve all aspects of the recruitment and retention process.
Only about 49% of working-age disabled adults are in employment compared with 80% of those with no disability. Although many disabled adults make important contributions to the economy, others face barriers to employment. Breaking down those barriers and creating inclusive workplaces is good not only for individuals who are able to get into work, but for the whole country. Disabled people have the same ambitions, aspirations and work ethic as others, but they are under represented across a broad range of industries. We should maximise the skills and talent of everyone who can contribute to our economy.
Employers should be aware that support is available to them to help to remove the barriers that prevent disabled people from utilising their talents. I strongly encourage all employers to seek out such support. Hiring disabled people is not just a moral issue; it makes good business sense. Research highlighted by a previous Minister for Disabled People, the right hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), showed that 92% of consumers think more favourably of businesses that hire people with disabilities, and that 87% of people would prefer to give their custom to companies that recruit disabled people.
In the past, we have seen how misconceptions have prevented disabled people from taking up employment opportunities. We must challenge those misconceptions. The Scottish Government have a number of programmes to help disabled people as they seek employment, including the targeted employment recruitment incentive, which is helping young people who are disabled or who have additional support needs. The Disability Confident campaign will complement that work, but we should be clear that, although much has already been done, there is still much more to do.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) on securing this important debate. He made some valuable points, particularly about engaging and encouraging employers to recruit more disabled people, and about the importance of reducing the disability employment gap. I share his pleasure in the fact that so many Departments are signed up at business leader level for the Disability Confident scheme, and I hope the Minister will ensure that all Departments do that. I am currently completing an application for my office to become a Disability Confident employer. The hon. Gentleman also recognised the importance of work and the positive impact that that can have on one’s health and wellbeing.
Good contributions were made by several hon. Members, and we all recognise the importance of the scheme. The hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) spoke passionately about the scheme that ran in his constituency. He was once Minister for Disabled People, so he is very knowledgeable about the scheme, including some of its shortcomings.
All hon. Members will be in favour of improving employment opportunities for those with disabilities and long-term conditions, but figures for the disability employment gap show that there remains a clear and continuing problem regarding access to sustainable and supportive employment. For far too long, many disabled people have not been in work. That is unacceptable, especially when we compare the numbers of those in work who are not disabled with those who are. Currently, 49.2% of disabled people are in work.
The Disability Confident scheme was designed to address the clear failures of our employment support system. However, we have so far seen very little evidence of its success at tackling the problem. That is demonstrated by the employment gap. In fact, what we have seen from the Government is a shift in direction. At the 2015 general election, the Conservatives promised to halve the disability employment gap by 2020. They have since dropped that commitment and are now looking at a slightly lesser target. It is slightly less ambitious—they now seem to say that they will not halve the disability employment gap by 2027.
That is also true of the Disability Confident scheme. The Government were supposed to
“assess specific, measurable, action taken by employers”
as a result of the scheme. That has shifted. The Government now claim that they are
“not able to measure the number of disabled people moving into employment as a direct result of it”.
How are we supposed to assess whether the Disability Confident scheme is actually improving people’s access to employment? There is a clear need for a meaningful method of evaluating the scheme and its effects in terms of getting disabled people into work.
Many disability organisations have sent us briefings, and Disability Rights UK has highlighted the concerns. When the Department for Work and Pensions launched the scheme, it did not refer to how it would look at job outcomes. What is more important is evidence—we do not see the attitudes of employers and their understanding of disability employment. For one thing, many of the employers that have signed up to the scheme are large employers that transferred from the old legacy scheme—the two ticks system. Obviously, what we need to do, looking at the numbers going forward, is see how we can continue to encourage other employers. As has been made clear, the scheme has about 5,000 members, which is great, but we have to consider that in context: there are more than 4 million small and medium-sized enterprises in this country. I would be keen to hear the Minister say a bit more today about what we are doing to encourage more businesses to become part of the scheme.
This matters because the attitudes of many employers remain the central barrier to recruiting disabled people. The charity Leonard Cheshire Disability found that 60% of line managers surveyed stated that concerns about the costs of workplace adjustments prevented them from employing a disabled person, so it is clear that employer attitudes are not shifting. Work needs to be done on improving the attitudes of employers. If we look at the details, we see that often there is a lack of knowledge about reasonable adjustments, which is obviously another barrier.
Not many employers are familiar with the Access to Work scheme. We all know that that is probably one of the most popular schemes. It is effective in its results in supporting people in work, and it supports people to stay in work. However, I always say, as I heard another hon. Member say, that it is one of the best kept secrets, because so many people are not aware of it and what it can do. How can the Disability Confident scheme grow and expand if employers are not aware of the Access to Work scheme and the important role that it plays in supporting disabled people into work? I have been a beneficiary of the scheme throughout my career.
I am conscious of the time, but will say a bit about awareness raising. Between 2014-15 and 2016-17, the Government spent about £13,500 on promoting the Access to Work scheme. I think we would all agree that a little more needs to be done on improving and raising awareness of the scheme. It would be very welcome if the Minister outlined what plans we have to raise awareness and for ensuring that Access to Work will be adequately funded. Obviously, we all want demand for the scheme to increase, because we all want more disabled people to get into work. I therefore want to hear more about ensuring that the scheme is adequately funded.
Disability Confident is a voluntary scheme. There is a question about how we can further encourage and incentivise employers to become part of it. The scheme is good in part and well intentioned. As I have said, it is sometimes difficult to measure the good impact. Not evaluating the impact is how we end up with a scheme under which, as has been pointed out, it is possible to achieve level 3 accreditation without actually employing a single disabled person. More needs to be done to ensure evaluation. I therefore ask the Minister again whether she agrees that the Disability Confident scheme should measure the number of disabled people moving into work. To build on the current scheme, there should be some sort of independent evaluator to monitor and evaluate progress under the scheme and how well employers are doing in recruiting disabled people and retaining them in work.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I add my warm congratulations on securing the debate to all those expressed by other hon. Members towards my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham). This is one of those rare occasions in Parliament when we have much agreement. My hon. Friend did a splendid job of outlining the Government’s achievements and had obviously done a huge amount of homework to understand and describe all the data, so I am not even going to bother. He can consider himself as knowledgeable as the Minister on all the statistics and data.
I do not have much time and will not be able to respond to everyone’s suggestions in as much detail as I would like, so I will write to everyone who took part in the debate to respond in more detail. However, as there have been really good suggestions and some concerns raised, I will, in the few minutes available to me, talk about those.
First, on the scale of our ambition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could not have made it clearer that she believes in a country that must work for everyone, not just the privileged few. For our nation to be successful, we need to build on all the talents of all our citizens, which includes people with disabilities and health conditions. We are very ambitious to ensure that people who are disabled or have health conditions can play their full part in society, which of course includes employment, to the extent that they can, so we are determined to do everything that we can to build on the progress that we have seen. We have heard today about the hundreds of thousands of people now in employment who were not previously. Just in the past few years, we have made a significant improvement, but we are ambitious to do more. We have set ourselves a target of 1 million, which is a really good starting point, but like my hon. Friend, I believe that targets are there to be busted—to be exceeded. We will all be celebrating when we get past that point.
“Improving Lives: the future of work, health and disability” sets out a very comprehensive strategy for delivering on our ambitions. We have firm plans, which are detailed in that document. We are taking action across three settings: in welfare, with the work that the DWP does; in the workplace, in partnership with employers; and, very importantly, in the health system. For the first time, we have a joint unit between the DWP and the Department of Health and Social Care. Colleagues have rightly made much today of the importance of different parts of Government working together. That joint unit is a step in the right direction. In addition, I will be chairing a meeting of Ministers across Government to ensure that we are doing everything we can in each Department. We have heard about the work that we need to do with the Department of Health and Social Care and with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I see the industrial strategy, clearly setting out that we want to see growth right across our country, as a key part of enabling me to deliver on my targets. We will be setting out very clearly how we can work with employers to create healthy, inclusive workplaces where people can thrive. Part of the problem is not just getting people into work—most people will acquire their disability during their life—but enabling adaptations to be made in the workplace, so that people can stay in work. That is probably more important with mental health than anything else. “Improving Lives” was our response to the Stevenson-Farmer review, where we adopted all of the recommendations that were made. We are encouraging employers to look carefully at what more they can do to support people with mental health issues.
The key part of our plan is to improve access to occupational health. For too long, occupational health services have been the Cinderella services of the NHS. Our joint unit with the Department of Health and Social Care will bring real focus to that. The plans that we have set out will require a lot of innovation. We are building a very robust evidence-making framework, so that we are sure we are capturing information about what works.
Some questions were raised around the House about the possible negative impacts of devolution. I want to reassure hon. Members that this is a UK-wide ambition and a UK-wide scheme. We work very constructively in Scotland. I want to give some examples. We have recruited 24 community partners with lived experience of disability to work in our job centres. We have appointed 12 new small employer advisers. We have implemented more than 11 peer support job clubs. That is just in the first few months. I hope that is reassuring that our ambition is for this to be a UK-wide scheme.
Of course, this is about establishing strong partnerships with employers and listening to their concerns. We have heard about some of those concerns today. I want to point out that we now have 5,357 companies signed up to Disability Confident. The vast majority—67%—are SMEs, with 46% being microbusinesses where people employ just one or two employees. We are getting to those small employers, but we accept that there is more work to be done. Those barriers, which have been articulated so well today, exist in a lot of employers’ minds. What are we doing about that? We are very actively promoting Access to Work. We are doing that through working with networks of organisations, such as the chambers of commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the local enterprise partnerships—businesses themselves.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
It has always occurred to me that Access to Work is a great tool when someone has their job, but a bit like a journey, they need petrol to put in the car to get to the journey. There should be access to work experience and job interviews. What does the Minister think about expanding the scheme to cover those as well?
Sarah Newton
I appreciate that intervention because I can clarify that that already exists. Access to Work can be used in all of those circumstances. Perhaps in the past not all of the job coaches in all of the jobcentres knew about that. We have made a massive investment in training our job coaches so that they are fully aware of all of these opportunities, and we have trained additional specialist disability advisors in the jobcentres, as well as our community partners, with their lived experience.
The amount of training and information from the job coaches goes to the heart of some of the points that were extremely well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who spoke about her constituent Drew. His journey is one that I am sure we all recognise from our constituency casework with young people and their parents. The parents are really worried about what happens to their child, particularly if they have learning difficulties—autism was the case quoted with Drew. When they leave education, they want to work, they have a passion to work, but they can find it very challenging to navigate the system. That should not be the case now. His job coach in the jobcentre will have access to all these different support services. Our innovation and our vision is about putting the person at the centre of their journey to work and fitting the support and the services around them. Access to Work is the key part of that, but other things are available as well, such as tailor-made support packages depending on the level of support that people need.
I want to reassure everyone that Access to Work is a demand-led funding pot. As the demand grows, so does the funding. Year after year we put more money into that pot. The amount of money one can have every year goes well over £40,000, so it is a considerable amount of money to enable people into work and to stay in work. Under the Equalities Act 2010 employers have responsibilities to make reasonable adjustments. A key part of the role of the Access to Work team in the Department is to have those conversations. It is a three-way conversation between the person seeking work or wanting to stay in work, the employer and ensuring those services are funded through Access to Work. We have people from the DWP present today, from Disability Confident and Access to Work. I am sure they will be really pleased to hear hon. Members compliment their work. Certainly in my time as a Minister I have seen what an extraordinarily dedicated team of people we have, not only on the frontline in our jobcentres, but in the Department. I hope they have received those comments and will take them back to their colleagues.
What more can we do for SMEs? In our plans we recognise the valuable contributions that have been made by, for example, the Shaw Trust, which has advocated for a portal. We are now actively looking at designing a portal so that employers have a one-stop shop to see all of the benefits and supports that are available. That will be live this year. We are also looking at what more we can do for incentives. This has come up a bit today. There were suggestions about using some of the lessons from apprenticeships. Again, we have committed to look at what incentives would work for employers. I am very engaged with large, small and medium-sized businesses. I am fortunate to have a great leadership group of people from businesses of all sizes and all different sectors working with me, to really help get this right for employers. For example, we have committed to looking at whether a national insurance holiday would be an incentive to help businesses employ more people with disabilities.
A couple of other questions were raised about the quality assurance of the programme. Just to reassure hon. Members, if an organisation reaches level 3, it has to be independently audited. Somebody goes into those organisations to make sure they are actually delivering on what they say they are doing. It gives me great pride to say that every Government Department has now reached level 3. Just before Christmas I attended quite a scary meeting of all the permanent secretaries—these are truly the people that run our country—to give them their level 3 certificates. I have set them a very clear challenge for this year: to use their leverage with supply chains—Government are a huge purchaser of services—and to have a discussion when they are commissioning or purchasing services about whether they are working with Disability Confident employers. All of those permanent secretaries work with a lot of arm’s length bodies. They have committed to me to work with those organisations. People expect us to lead from the front in Government and they expect public services to be a leading example. I am working to ensure we will do that.
It remains for me to touch on one final issue, going back to young people, which various hon. Members raised: why do we not do more about supported work experience and apprenticeships? I can reassure hon. Members that the Government have put a lot of money— a lot more than in the past—into enabling more apprenticeships for disabled people, to ensure they are properly supported, and have put a considerable amount of extra money into supported internships. I recently visited companies that were taking on many more young people as a result.
I want to praise everybody who has taken up this opportunity, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), whose work is inspirational. We have set up a meeting, which all hon. Members have been invited to, to learn how to become Disability Confident and how to set up the inspirational sort of meeting that we have heard about today. I thank everyone for what they have done and ask that they please come to this meeting, so that they can all be part of the change that we all want to see.
Luke Graham
I have 20 seconds, and I just want to thank all hon. Members for contributing so much. To pick up the point my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) articulated so clearly, this scheme is not a favour, it is not charity, it is about realising true talent. Disabled individuals have been the President of the United States, and have unlocked the secret of the universe in the case of Stephen Hawking—and that was before the scheme! I look forward to seeing what they can achieve after the scheme has been in place for a few more years.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Cancer Treatment: Patient Travel Times
(6 years, 11 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
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered patient travel times for cancer treatment.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I should also like to consider satellite radiotherapies at Westmorland General Hospital.
Almost every story that I have heard or read in recent times about the national health service has been negative. I understand why, given the debate in the main Chamber at this moment, but I sometimes wonder how much this further damages the morale of the thousands of professionals who work in the national health service. So I want to start by paying tribute and saying a massive thank you to those NHS professionals who work tirelessly up and down the country, day in and day out, to look after us and our loved ones when we need it most. I especially want to put on record my appreciation for those who work in cancer care. We have some of the best cancer care in the world. We should all take a moment to recognise the fantastically high standard of treatment that we have in this country, delivered by professionals whose competence and compassion are the hallmark of our NHS.
But here is the problem: yes, we have world-leading treatment, but it is not truly available equally. The availability of care depends hugely on people’s ability to access it. I welcome, and have done so on the record, the £130 million announced by NHS England that is to be invested in improving radiotherapy treatment, and the new service specification, which aims to improve standards across the country. Working in clinical networks and developing specialised services has a strong evidence base, but what is not addressed is the inequality in access to services that already exist. That inequality will only get worse if it is not addressed now by NHS England. I am grateful to the Government that the consultation on allocating that investment has been extended to 24 January, not least because it gives the Minister the chance to amend the criteria and the priorities for allocating services.
I passionately believe that one of the criteria in allocating improved radiotherapy services must be the shortening of the distances that people have to travel, especially for those with more common cancers. My position is backed up by evidence, including a publication in The BMJ in 2016 indicating that outcomes are worse for people who need to travel further. Let me be clear what “worse outcomes” actually means. Worse outcomes can mean patients actively deciding to forgo potentially life-saving or life-lengthening treatment because getting to hospital is just too much of a trauma for them owing to the length and difficulty of the journey that is required. Worse outcomes means choosing forms of treatment that may be less effective than radiotherapy because the nearest unit is too far away. Worse outcomes includes patients failing to complete a vital course of radiotherapy treatment because they simply cannot cope with the gruelling, wearying travelling every single day.
Action Radiotherapy estimates that one in six of us will need radiotherapy to treat cancer at some point in our lives, but easy access to this treatment can depend entirely on a postcode lottery. It is the sad reality that in rural areas of England travel times to cancer treatments can be unbearably long for too many people, and patients are often forced to cover these long distances on public transport. Not everyone has the option of travelling in the relative comfort of a personal car, and even if a person does, driving themselves or being driven, day in and day out for four to six weeks, is a massive challenge. I believe that it is frankly cruel, if we could do otherwise, to force people who are already very poorly to make a two or three-hour round trip every day, for weeks, in order to receive life-saving care.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I am a cancer survivor. I survived stage 4 cancer and I had a month of radiotherapy; I had to get the bus most days to get there, and caught a nasty infection because of the travel time, so I fully appreciate where he is coming from. I would like to highlight the cases of families with children with cancer. According to CLIC Sargent there are fewer than 20 treatment centres nationally, and that makes life extremely difficult for families who are having to travel for treatment. Will he pay tribute to CLIC Sargent for the respite care, finance and accommodation that it provides to families going through this terrible process and journey?
Tim Farron
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those issues and his own personal experiences. As I will come to in a moment, the issues affecting children and young people are even greater. I am very happy to pay tribute to the work and provision of CLIC Sargent and, in particular, to recognise the impact on people with cancer who have young children themselves. Maintaining an income and maintaining family life is an immense challenge, and the distances involved can make it yet harder, so I thank him for that intervention.
In its 2007 report, the national radiotherapy advisory group recommended that cancer patients should have to travel no more than 45 minutes one way—an hour and a half both ways—to receive radiotherapy treatment. This was adopted in the service specification by NHS England, but has since disappeared. Experts in the field maintain that travelling any longer could have a hugely negative impact on treatment outcomes and patient wellbeing. If preventing unacceptable travelling times became a part of NHS England’s criteria for delivering radiotherapy, it would hugely increase our chances of bringing a radiotherapy satellite unit to Westmorland General Hospital in Kendal.
Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way during his important and passionate contribution to this debate. I know that he is focused on England, but may I share with him that in Scotland the issue is the same, if not worse, because of the rurality of Scotland and the distances travelled? I find some of his points very interesting when we have the Ayrshire and Arran health board not closing, but reviewing, a chemotherapy unit, Station 15, at University Hospital Ayr. The closure of that unit would impose a 32-mile round trip on patients who, to exacerbate that, may have travelled a 40 or 50-mile round trip. The issue is UK-wide, so I thank him for securing this debate.
Tim Farron
I very much acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s powerful point. In general, it is important that none of us are misunderstood here: centres of excellence are incredibly important; nevertheless access to treatment is also important. Where we are at the moment means that we are looking at the former to the exclusion of the latter, when both could be considered.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
If I may, I would like to declare that my wife is a therapeutic radiographer in an NHS cancer trust, and put that on record. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). From a Welsh perspective, we are seeing some people travelling 60, 70 or more miles to get radiotherapy treatment. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that satellite centres from specialist centres are the way forward? My wife works in the Hereford cancer unit, a satellite centre from the specialist centre in Cheltenham, which knocks 40 miles off people’s journeys.
Tim Farron
I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman’s wife for her work, but also to say that he is absolutely right. There are great models, including from the Christie in Manchester, where they already operate satellite services. Arguing for rural or any form of standalone cancer services is foolish and is not what I am asking for. I am asking for satellites of existing, established, high-quality cancer units such as the Rosemere in Preston, the Christie or others of that nature. Making sure that we meet those needs by having a satellite unit at the Westmorland General Hospital in Kendal would have a positive impact on the lives of thousands of people in south Cumbria who are living with cancer. That is what I ask the Minister to do.
Radiotherapy treatment at Westmorland General Hospital is long overdue and would mean the world to local people, who now have to make the long journey to Preston for treatment. Let us be clear: the Rosemere unit in Preston is excellent—my own mother received wonderful treatment there, and the quality of the service and care provided by NHS professionals still moves me when I look back today—but for most people in south Cumbria, it is ludicrously distant.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Will he also note the importance of local charities? In my constituency, we have a charity called York Against Cancer, which has raised £15 million over the past three years. That money goes towards running a local minibus from York to Leeds for patients who have to be treated at Leeds in the radiology department.
Tim Farron
I am very happy to acknowledge the work of local charities in my area. The Rosemere Cancer Foundation and South Lakes CancerCare do immensely good work, just like the charities in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.
For some people living in the remotest areas of my part of the world—in south Cumbria—who are eligible for hospital-provided pick-ups, a round trip to access treatment in Preston, including waiting times, could easily surpass six hours. That is on a good day, when all standards are being met.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on this very important matter. The area of Cornwall that I represent has similar issues to those in Cumbria, and NHS England is consulting on closing our only treatment centre for radiography in Truro. That would mean people from the far west of Cornwall having to travel all the way to Plymouth for treatment. At the height of summer, when the roads are busy, that could easily be a five or six-hour round trip. Does he agree that that is far too long to expect patients to have to travel to receive this essential treatment?
Tim Farron
Yes, I fully agree. That is why the NHS England consultation is the right time to set criteria. If we all say, “We’d rather like it if these issues are addressed,” nothing will happen, but if they are set as firm criteria and priorities as a consequence of the consultation, something should happen. The hon. Gentleman was right to raise that point.
Requiring NHS trusts to make it a priority for investment to ensure that radiotherapy is available more locally—such as by bringing a satellite unit to our local hospital in Kendal—would significantly improve outcomes for patients. That has been the focus of our long-running community campaign. I want to say a massive thank you to the many thousands of people who have been involved in that campaign so far. Just before Christmas, on behalf of our community, I presented a private Member’s Bill that would specify 45 minutes as the maximum time that patients have to travel to access radiotherapy treatment. I urge the Minister to support that Bill and ensure that the Government accept it.
I was asked on the radio this morning why, after nine years of fighting this campaign, I had not just accepted defeat and walked away. The answer is that every week in Westmorland, more families learn that they must fight cancer, and we have no right to turn our backs on them. Sadly, the challenge of cancer renews itself week after week, and so our zeal in fighting for those families must also be renewed week after week.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
Some 840,000 people live in West Sussex and yet we are the only county in the whole of England that has no radiotherapy facilities within its boundary. I can also confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti). I recently visited the Sussex Snowdrop Trust, which looks after desperately ill children. The stories of them traveling up to London or Southampton and having to stop several times along the way were heartbreaking; it is the worst thing to happen when they are facing that kind of trauma. I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) completely that patient travel times need to be taken into account during the consultation. I hope that they are, and that St Richard’s Hospital in Chichester is considered as a worthwhile investment for LINAC—linear accelerator—machines to help local people in West Sussex.
Tim Farron
All the points that the hon. Lady makes are absolutely right and relevant to those of us who are here today—especially so, given the nature of her county.
Our community in south Cumbria remains proud that we won part one of our fight for a cancer centre. When we launched our campaign in 2009, it was for chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In 2011, we cut the ribbon on the Grizedale ward—the chemotherapy unit—and we are determined to win our fight for radiotherapy too. We have had an overwhelming response to the petition we launched again last September, adding to the 10,000 people who signed the original petition. Thousands more have written in and shared their stories with me locally and nationally. They include stories of the pain they went through in travelling hours every day to get the treatment that they desperately needed; stories of families who suffered watching relatives deteriorate as the long days of arduous travel visibly took their toll; and stories of choosing not to proceed with treatment because of the unbearable rigours of travelling huge distances. All those people have told me how a centre at Kendal could have helped them and their loved ones.
Most of us know, and all can imagine, the shock of being diagnosed with cancer. It is a life-shattering blow. Imagine then being faced with weeks of daily, grindingly long and tiring journeys to receive care. The travel can become the biggest part of the problem. One of my constituents, Philip from Grange-over-Sands, gave me this story, and his words speak more powerfully than any I could use. He said:
“At the age of 81 I had to attend 37 visits for treatment between the May and July 2013. The round trip from Grange to Preston Hospital was in excess of 100 miles per day whether by road or by train and then bus to the hospital. The times of my treatment varied day by day from 8am to 6pm. The treatment machine was not always available at the specified time which meant further time added on to the days travelling. All the above resulted in a very stressful time for myself and my wife on top of suffering from prostate cancer.”
Thankfully, Philip has now been discharged following three years of follow-up visits. He added:
“I trust that future patients may get their treatment at Kendal so good luck with your efforts.”
I was also contacted by the parents of Josie from Oxenholme. They told me:
“After a truly horrific chemo-therapy regime, which nearly killed her, Josie was left shattered and we faced the prospect of having to make daily trips for 4 weeks to Preston for Radiotherapy. The round trip typically takes 4-5 hours. She is left tired and with little time in the day to do much else. A unit in Kendal would have transformed this experience and left her with more energy and time to take more care of herself.”
Lastly, the words of Magda from Windermere sum up the problem perfectly:
“The whole idea of ever having to do any of this again would make me think twice about undergoing the treatments I was offered”.
Thousands of residents joined me back in 2009 when we launched a similar campaign to bring chemotherapy treatment to the south Lakes. Back then, patients had to travel many miles for any kind of cancer treatment. Thanks to local support, the chemotherapy ward at Westmorland General Hospital opened in 2011, and since then hundreds of local people have benefited from treatment there. We showed that when a community gets behind a campaign and the Government recognises that there is a real issue, changes can be made, funding can be allocated and problems can be solved.
It is true that the problem of outrageous travel times thankfully affects a relatively small proportion of the population throughout the UK—evidenced by the fact that although this is a massively important issue, only a few of us are here today—but in the places where access is a problem, it is a dreadful problem. NHS England must address it directly and explicitly in its current consultation on radiotherapy. I ask the Minister to ensure that NHS England does just that.
Solving the problem for south Cumbria would not create an expensive precedent—there are relatively few sizeable communities in this position—but for the people who are affected, living in rural areas makes accessing treatment unbearably difficult and arduous. That was highlighted recently by Age UK’s Painful Journeys campaign. It would cost the Government a relatively small amount to fund a satellite radiotherapy unit in Kendal: a capital cost of about £12 million—a sum that had been earmarked during the coalition Government in early 2015. That investment would lead to important changes. Above all, it would stop local people opting not to take up lifesaving treatment because of the need to travel those distances. In south Lakeland, the number of people aged over 60 is 10% above the national average, so older people and people with disabilities in our area are disproportionately negatively affected by distant access to radiotherapy treatment. That makes it all the more important for us to take advantage of this consultation to tackle the problem.
The Equality Act 2010 was passed by the House to ensure that services are offered to people in such a way as not to discriminate against older and disabled people, among other characteristics. Through those unbearably long travel times, those groups are disproportionately disadvantaged and indirectly discriminated against in breach of that Act.
My request is simple. I want travel times and equality of access, particularly for people who are older or who have disabilities, to be key criteria when allocating cancer services. This NHS England consultation on radiotherapy is the opportunity to ensure that those criteria are set so that access is prioritised. I want the Minister to agree to do that today. An expectation should then be placed on hospital trusts to ensure that satellite units of existing established centres are provided in rural communities such as the south Lakes to meet those criteria. Only then will our community be able to access cancer treatment fairly, equally and safely.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. It is also a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I wish to associate myself with his opening comments in praise of the NHS. Demand for NHS services is constantly increasing. We always want the best we can possible get, but by making that case, we often sound as if we are talking the NHS down. Nothing could be further from the truth—we have the best national health service in the world. I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman is nodding his head, and I am grateful for the persuasive way in which he made his case. He can consider that a very good representation in response to the consultation to which he referred. The points he has made will be reflected on keenly.
Improving cancer outcomes remains a priority for the Government. The work under way is making a difference: cancer survival rates in England have never been higher and have increased year-on-year since 2010. The decrease in cancer deaths means that around 7,000 people are alive today who would not have been had things stayed the same.
We are committed to implementing every one of the 96 recommendations in the cancer strategy for England and to making a difference to the millions of people living with the disease and the thousands more diagnosed each year. We are providing the funding to match our commitment. NHS England has confirmed £607 million in funding to support the delivery of the strategy between 2017-18 and 2020-21.
We want our cancer services to be the best in the world, and we want patients to have access to the treatment and services that will give them the best chance of a successful clinical outcome. That includes the time they spend travelling for treatment. We know that cancer treatments can be arduous. Patients often undergo treatment daily and treatments can last several weeks at a time. Ideally, we want patients to have treatments at their local hospital.
However, specialised cancer treatments are not always best delivered locally. We want patients to have the best possible care available, but for certain cancers that sometimes means seeing a specialist multidisciplinary team with a full range of clinical expertise and capability. Although local is good, we clearly cannot always have specialist care provided as locally as we would like.
A perfect example of that is proton beam therapy treatment. Patients with high-priority cancer types requiring that treatment are sent to Florida and Switzerland at great cost to the NHS, because we have been unable to provide it here. In April 2012, the Government announced a £250 million investment to build proton beam therapy treatment facilities at the Christie in Manchester and University College London Hospitals. The Christie’s facilities will become operational later this year and will offer patients access to world-class treatment on the NHS.
Over the last few years, we have seen astounding technological advances. The UK is leading from the front in using cutting-edge technology in the form of whole genome sequencing to transform healthcare and health research. Wherever possible, it is right that patients have easy access to those life-saving treatments.
The same principle applies to radiotherapy. Around four in 10 of all NHS cancer patients are treated using radiotherapy. Recent advances have helped to target radiation doses at cancer cells more precisely, which means far fewer doses, better outcomes and improved quality of life for patients. That is a crucial part of why survival rates have continuously risen in England.
One of the cancer strategy’s key objectives is to deliver a modern, high-quality cancer service. In October 2016, NHS England announced a £130 million fund to modernise radiotherapy across England that will upgrade or replace older treatment devices over two years.
Tim Farron
The hon. Lady mentioned proton beam therapy, which is a wonderful treatment. We are grateful for the investment of more than one Government, which has ensured that it is coming to Manchester and London. She also talked about upgrading existing equipment, which is a reminder that 80% of commonly occurring cancers will still be treated by linear accelerators, albeit regularly upgraded. Therefore the delivery of proton beam therapy and other specialist and precise treatments, and the investment in more locally delivered treatment from linear accelerators in places such as Westmorland, are not mutually exclusive. We need to do both.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I absolutely agree—the two are complementary and need to be key ingredients in a successful strategy to combat cancer.
NHS England is not only modernising existing radiotherapy services; it is currently consulting on a new model for them, as the hon. Gentleman said. The aim is to encourage radiotherapy providers to work together in networks to concentrate expertise and improve pathways for patients requiring radical radiotherapy for less common cancers. That will help to improve access to more innovative radiotherapy treatments, increase clinical trial recruitment and ensure that radiotherapy equipment is fully utilised. There is no intention to reduce the number of radiotherapy providers, nor is that considered to be a likely outcome of the proposals being consulted on.
We will continue to ensure that travel times are taken into consideration when looking at cancer treatment in this country. The National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service is evaluating the impact on cancer outcomes of patients living different distances from a cancer centre. Public Health England is also testing travel times from several available datasets, so a programme of work can be established that incorporates data on travel times.
One of the first outputs of that work will be a report on whether there is any demonstrable difference in radiotherapy treatments associated with the time taken to travel to a specialist cancer centre. We expect the first results of that work to be published in the spring. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have a considerable interest in the outcome.
In the current NHS England consultation, there are proposals that would allow local commissioners and providers to plan, review and redesign services through a joint radiotherapy board. Any case for change would determine the optimum location to achieve the best impact for patients, so it would be possible for patients requiring radiotherapy for common cancers to be treated at a satellite centre. Specialised commissioners will always want to balance patient travel with issues such as the sustainability of the service, whether the service is accessible enough to patients to be financially viable, and ensuring that patients who have to travel are supported in other ways, including through transport and accommodation.
I hope that meets with a positive reaction from the hon. Gentleman. We are consulting on making services more accessible and looking at travel times. I dare say that we will continue to have this debate over the coming months, not least because of his private Member’s Bill.
I understand that the hon. Gentleman recently met his local clinical commissioning group at Morecambe Bay to discuss the accessibility of services. I am encouraged that that dialogue is taking place at a local level.
I hope that what I have set out gives the hon. Gentleman some reassurance. I emphasise that cancer remains a priority for the Government. We remain committed to ensuring the best possible treatment and to achieving easy access in terms of travelling time for all cancer patients, regardless of where they live. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Gatwick Airport: Growth and Noise Mitigation
(6 years, 11 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
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered growth and noise reduction in Gatwick Airport.
Thank you, Sir Christopher, for allowing me to address this Chamber. I am delighted to have the privilege of congratulating you on your well-deserved honour, which recognises your lifetime of service.
The issue of aircraft noise is incredibly important to me, and I am afraid that many in the Chamber will have heard me speak about it many times. It is also important to all the residents of Tonbridge, Edenbridge and surrounding villages—indeed, I have received more correspondence on this issue than on any other since I was elected. That is unsurprising for those of us who live under the flightpath in the beautiful villages of west Kent, which are the most beautiful in England, as we all know—I declare an interest because our home is there. The impact of aviation noise on the economic prosperity and environmental sustainability of our communities has been severe.
Why am I raising the matter now, when many villages in Kent, Sussex and Surrey have been experiencing noise from flights for half a decade or more? In 2013, the introduction of the aviation policy framework meant a dramatic change to the flightpaths of the Gatwick airport approach. Many of the villages around Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling are now overflown as they have never been before. I therefore wish to focus on what Gatwick and the wider industry are doing or not doing to reduce noise from approaching aircraft as the airport continues to grow.
It is great that there are busy airports in this country, proving the case that you have made many times, Sir Christopher: that we are a global country open for business with the whole world. It is wonderful that communities from across the world are using the airport, but the impact on communities who live under the flightpaths are also of great concern to us all, and we should take into account the impact of each aircraft that arrives or leaves.
I am well aware of the London airspace management programme and of the importance of getting it to properly reflect the views of communities. The global implementation of P-RNAV—precision area navigation—will require more to be done to reduce noise, but it will not be implemented until the early 2020s. Communities such as ours need action to address the problem now.
This may surprise you, Sir Christopher, but extraordinarily enough, I would like to acknowledge the change in attitude from Gatwick airport. Not only does it say that it is helping with the work of the London airspace management programme, which I welcome, but it has listened more in recent days and its attitude has improved dramatically since I first met its representatives in 2014.
The arrivals review was much needed and proposed some good ideas. I am grateful for the work done on it by Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, whom I am glad to see in the Gallery today, and for the community representation, but it needs to go further. For example, modifications have been made to the whine of the Airbus A320 that many of us will have heard. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who worked so hard to achieve those modifications, is not present, but I know that he is on Government business abroad—he is in our thoughts, and I know we are in his. The modifications are welcomed by all communities, but they are not enough and they were even agreed before the arrivals review was completed.
Recommendation 11 of the review would have provided a fair solution, utilising both sides of the airport equally on days with no wind, but it was rejected. It should have happened as part of the commitment to implement the review in full. It has also been admitted by almost all those involved that recommendation 10—widening the swathe—will not alone cure the problem, so we clearly do not have the solution to the noise issue.
Growth comes at a price to the communities affected. The impact of both arrivals and departures is heard for many miles around on all sides. Complaints continue to increase and new protest groups have sprung up all over Kent, Surrey and Sussex. These folk are protesting not because they want to, because they have nothing better to do or because they have a history of direct action, but because aircraft approaching Gatwick are having a serious impact on their lives, their health, their children’s development and their right to enjoy their properties in peace.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I know that he has done a great deal of work on the matter and that it has caused grave difficulties in his constituency. Does he agree that one of the problems of dealing with Gatwick—indeed, with any airport—is that people must be able to trust the information that they get from it? In East Grinstead in my constituency, there are constant complaints about erring off the straight and narrow. It is clear that trust has broken down between residents and the airport. What suggestions does my hon. Friend have for a remedy? Does he agree that it is a very serious problem?
Tom Tugendhat
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for expressing that essential point. The noise management board, which is part of the solution, has begun that work, but of course it cannot solve the problem alone. As he would expect, I will come on to the Department for Transport and its role in restoring trust. I welcome his points.
I remember David Wetz, who lives in Chiddingstone, telling me last summer that he was unable to enjoy his daughter’s birthday celebration properly outside because normal conversation simply was not possible in the garden. That is a disgrace. It is not a matter of nimbyism. It is about people wanting to live a normal life without having a motorway built over their heads.
As representatives in Parliament of communities such as Chiddingstone, we are responsible for representing their interests to the Government—I pay tribute not only to the right hon. and hon. Members present, but to the many others who have joined groups with us. It is clear that we need to enforce a better balance between the interests of the aviation industry and of local people affected by noise. Successive Governments have designed policies that seek to achieve that balance, but we must consider whether Gatwick is complying with them and whether the Department for Transport is enforcing them in its role as noise regulator.
The key policy—it is a welcome policy—on noise is the 2013 aviation policy framework, which clearly stated Government policy on aviation noise as
“to limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I know that the debate is about Gatwick, but the same issue affects other airports. Belfast City airport has a cut-off time of 9.30 pm for aeroplanes to land. Obviously there are cases in which aeroplanes land later, but a system of fines is in place and the money goes into the community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what happens at Belfast City—a smaller airport, but one that is surrounded by houses—could well be helpful for his investigations, and indeed for the Minister and his Department?
Tom Tugendhat
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has come up with some suggestions, and I would be happy to look into them later. In fact, some interesting work has been done on the approaches to Schiphol airport with respect to the effect of laying out the ground on how sound travels. There are interesting ideas out there, and I certainly welcome looking at Belfast’s example.
The policy set out by the Government is clear: they do not endorse any increase in the number of people significantly affected by aircraft noise. That approach is a welcome change, but Civil Aviation Authority data demonstrate that it is not being followed. Since the policy was introduced and the flightpaths were altered radically in 2013, Gatwick has increased its flight numbers by 12% and its passenger numbers by 22%, but the number of people significantly affected has not reduced. In fact, it has risen every year.
The Minister will know about the 57-decibel average noise contour—after all, it is the Government’s preferred noise impact measure. Using that calculation, the number of people affected by aircraft noise has increased by 27% since 2013. Looking at it geographically, the affected area has increased by 8% across Kent, Surrey and Sussex over the same period. Using the Government’s preferred data method, we can show that noise is continuing to get worse in the communities affected, despite the policy. My question for the Minister is clear: why have the Government failed to implement the aviation policy framework in full? Their own figures clearly show that the number of people being significantly affected by aircraft noise has increased.
The aviation policy framework rightly looks at sharing the benefits of growth between the aviation industry and local communities. Indeed, to quote it directly:
“The industry must continue to reduce and mitigate noise as airport capacity grows”.
I hope everyone includes in their definition of “the industry” airlines, airports, National Air Traffic Services, the Civil Aviation Authority and all those industry representatives who sit on Gatwick airport’s noise management board. Have the benefits of growth been shared? Certainly, many people are benefiting from the airport—Gatwick and the air industry have grown—but both collectively and within their individual areas of responsibility, they have not done enough to reduce noise.
I am afraid that it remains unclear what the industry has done so far, particularly away from the confines of the noise management board. At the Gatwick airspace seminar and noise management board public meeting only last month, we heard that the airport requires airlines to contribute to the reduction of noise. We also heard very clearly from the chair of the noise management board, Bo Redeborn, that this issue would not be considered because it is outside the terms of reference of the board. However, in a letter to me and six other colleagues on 6 December, the day before the airspace seminar, the Secretary of State for Transport mentioned that Gatwick’s noise management board was the place to discuss these matters. We obviously need a little clarity. Which one is it? Should the noise management board be looking at these matters at the expense of the industry doing anything to reduce and mitigate noise as airport capacity grows? If so, that is in contrast to the policy. However, it is clear from Bo Redeborn’s comments last month that the noise management board is not the place to discuss these matters, contrary to the Secretary of State for Transport’s letter.
I am disappointed that repeatedly the Department for Transport seems unwilling to take a view on whether its aviation policy framework is being properly implemented or not. My view, however, is clear: I agree with Bo. It cannot be left solely to the noise management board, although it definitely has a role. The line from the policy is clear and it is the whole industry that needs to do more, individually and collectively, to reduce and mitigate noise. Passing the issue to the noise management board for its consideration is being used as a reason not to enforce policy, which is a great shame. My second question to the Minister is this: what steps will he or his Department take to ensure that the industry will reduce and mitigate noise on its own, outside of the agreed work programme of the noise management board?
Finally, I will again quote from the aviation policy framework—everybody’s favourite bedtime reading. The framework says it is clear that the Government want
“to incentivise noise reduction and mitigation”.
Sadly, in the considerable correspondence that I have had with the Department for Transport over the past few years, I cannot find many examples to highlight what incentives have been offered for noise reduction and mitigation. It seems that Gatwick airport’s compliance with the aviation policy framework is largely optional. As Gatwick, along with Heathrow and Stansted, is a noise-designated airport, the Secretary of State has direct responsibility for regulating noise at the airport. It is for the Department for Transport to ensure compliance—that cannot be delegated down to the airport’s noise management board.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I will just say how important the south-east airports are to the regional airports and how important economically the south-east airports are to Aberdeen. I know that he will visit the north-east soon, so today I will highlight the heliport at Aberdeen. During his campaigning on noise, I would also like him to emphasise the issue of helicopters, because, as he is well aware, helicopters dwell, as opposed to just flying in on a flight-line. The residents of Dyce, near Aberdeen International airport, are blighted by the noise from helicopters. I would be very grateful if he could remember helicopters as well as fixed-wing aircraft.
Tom Tugendhat
I will be absolutely delighted to remember that. Helicopters are not an enormous issue around the area that I represent, but the issue does arise, and when I am up in the north-east of Scotland I will look out keenly for helicopters.
Community groups, including those who are not affected by helicopters, are represented on Gatwick’s noise management board and wrote to the Secretary of State on 11 October last year—I urge community groups in my hon. Friend’s local area to do likewise. That was followed up on 2 November with a letter from myself and my right hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), and my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), for Crawley (Henry Smith), for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), whose support I very much welcome. We specifically asked what the Government were doing currently to address noise, given that it has been evident for the past half a decade. I am afraid that I was deeply disappointed, as was every resident and community group representative who I have spoken to, that responses from both the Secretary of State and the new Aviation Minister—Baroness Sugg—failed even to mention any action that the Department for Transport was taking. Instead, we heard that the existing channels of communication were satisfactory, when sadly they evidently are not.
As Gatwick is a noise-designated airport, the Department for Transport is responsible for regulating noise at Gatwick and it must take its role as a regulator far more seriously, so my third question to the Minister is this: what measures will he or his Department take to deliver a reduction in noise that meets the aims of the Government’s policy regarding the significant growth of Gatwick airport in recent years? I am sure that that question will be familiar to the Secretary of State because it is exactly the same one that we put in writing in November last year and that was not answered properly in his response on 6 December.
To be clear, three issues clearly arise from the motion. The first is that more needs to be done to ensure that the aviation policy framework is enforced in full; the second is that the industry needs to do much more to reduce noise; and the third and final one is that the Department for Transport needs to take its role as a noise regulator more seriously.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I welcome the fact that he is here—I appreciate that the Aviation Minister sits in the other place and that my hon. Friend is, as it were, taking one for the team. It is very welcome that he is responding on her behalf.
Before I wrap up, I should emphasise that the only reason I called for this debate is that it is evident that the Department for Transport can do more, should do more and must do more to deliver peace to west Kent. As Gatwick is a noise-designated airport, the Department’s role in this regard is to fulfil its statutory responsibility. A Government should be able and willing to implement the policies that they have introduced. That is all we ask the Department for Transport to do. It should not be the job of local communities to hold Gatwick airport to account with regard to its growth and consequent noise reduction measures.
I urge the Minister to meet me and representatives of local community groups, including the excellent Gatwick Obviously Not! group, which is based in Penshurst—some of its members are represented in the Gallery today. They can express to the Minister in words that are even clearer than mine exactly what the impact is. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ comments.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this debate on an issue that affects not only Gatwick but other airports, like the one in my own constituency of Edinburgh West. Residents living around Edinburgh airport are constantly bothered by the number of planes and the noise they make. Nevertheless, Edinburgh airport is a vital and growing hub for tourism and industry, not only for my city but—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. This is a debate on a narrow subject—growth and noise reduction at Gatwick airport. Okay?
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
If the hon. Lady is going to make a contribution to the debate, she needs to confine her remarks to the subject matter of the motion.
Christine Jardine
Indeed; I understand completely. I was simply going to relate how similar the issue is in Gatwick and in Edinburgh, and how—perhaps—Gatwick airport is an example of what we should be pursuing across the country. Unlike Gatwick, Edinburgh airport is not an airport that is particularly restricted at night by legislation. Like at Gatwick, however, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) mentioned, the problem is endured at a number of airports around the country, and Gatwick provides us with an example that we could perhaps follow.
The general volume of air traffic in this country has grown significantly over the past 10 or 20 years. At Edinburgh airport, we now have 12.4 million passengers annually. I imagine that that number of passengers is not as large as the number at Gatwick, which I understand is owned by the same company that owns Edinburgh airport. There is a direct connection between the two. What we have to do with both is find a way to balance the needs of the communities around the flight path and the needs of the airport.
It should not be a burden to live near an airport. An airport should be an asset, and communities such as those in my constituency—Cramond, South Queensferry and Ratho— that are constantly disrupted in their night- time routines should not be expected to suffer that without some support, including legislative support if necessary, from the Government. Indeed, those residents brought me some evidence—I am sure it is relevant to Gatwick as well—of how there is a link—
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
Order. I well understand that the hon. Lady has a deep constituency interest in Edinburgh airport, but this debate is about Gatwick airport. Frankly, I think it is very unfair of her to use examples from her constituency to try to produce a nebulous connection between Edinburgh airport and Gatwick airport. If the hon. Lady wishes to speak about Gatwick airport and the subject matter of this debate, which is growth and noise reduction at Gatwick, she can continue to do so. If not, I will call the next speaker.
Christine Jardine
Apologies. I was simply wishing to illustrate that residents around Gatwick will be suffering from the same sort of inconvenience. The evidence that has been brought to me appears to show a link between the sleep disruption caused by aircraft noise, particularly at night, and conditions such as high blood pressure, stress and coronary problems. Noise between 10 pm and midnight—the evening period, rather than the overnight period—is a particular problem at all airports, but specifically at Gatwick, given the number of flights involved.
Gatwick is an illustration of the problem, and it shows exactly why we need some legislation to control noise. The aircraft and airlines have improved the engines in recent years. Although easyJet is about to buy a fleet of jets that are much quieter than those it has currently, I doubt that one airline alone would be sufficient for residents around Gatwick. They would like to see more control and legislation that insists that more airlines use similar aircraft and includes restrictions on numbers and times. Gatwick is an example that we should take to the rest of the country. We should use it to show us where we should be going in having a balance between our communities and our airports.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate you on your elevation. I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) in calling this debate. As he explained, the background to it is a significant increase in the number of flights to and from Gatwick airport. Since 2013, the number of flights has increased by 12% and the number of passengers has increased by 22%. That has resulted in an increase in noise not just in the immediate vicinity of the airport, but in rural areas, such as the one I represent in Arundel and South Downs, in the approach to the airport for both take-off and arrival.
As my hon. Friend explained, the Government’s policy is that future aviation growth should share benefits between the industry and local communities. Therefore the question is: how is growth that has already taken place and future growth to be shared with the communities that many of us represent? So far as we can see, there has been no such sharing. There is no doubt that the increase in growth has been good for elements of the local economy, for those who are using the airport, including me, and for the country as a whole, but it is difficult to see a benefit for local communities, which calls into question whether the Government’s key objective is being fulfilled.
The Government’s second objective is to limit and where possible reduce noise. The second question is, therefore: to what extent has noise even been limited, let alone reduced? What precisely is their policy to ensure that the objective is met? That policy can be expressed only through the operation of Gatwick airport, and it is not at all clear that its noise management board is doing anything other than providing a talking shop where community groups are encouraged to make their representations known. Adjustments can be made to flight paths, approach lanes and so on, but there is no strategy to reduce noise. There are no metrics by which the airport can be held to account for that noise reduction. That is the key point: there is no plan.
The Government have effectively conceded that point, because their response to the concerns raised on our community’s behalf by various community groups and by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling on behalf of a number of us was to say, “There will be an aviation strategy that will look at how noise can be reduced.” It is wonderful to know that there will be an aviation strategy; it would be good to know when that aviation strategy is coming. My hon. Friend the Minister has been hard at work today—first thing this morning he was doing a debate on a different matter, which I also attended—but it would be good to know when the strategy is coming. Will he say a little more about how that might affect the reduction in noise that the Government are committed to? For all we know, that aviation strategy might be months or years down the line. We do not know what it will say on noise. At the moment, there is meant to be a policy to reduce noise. I return to the key question: why is there not a plan that Gatwick airport, which is making a great deal of money from this expansion in aviation—I am not criticising the expansion at all—must subscribe to that sets out how it will reduce noise?
Sir Nicholas Soames
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), because they have both made powerful points. I first took part in a debate on aviation noise 34 years ago, when Gatwick was in my constituency. We had to deal with the BAC 111, which made a noise like a screaming banshee. It is true to say that aircraft noise is much mitigated now. The point that my right hon. Friend makes is terribly important, because it requires only a tweak, not major change, and the absolute enforcement of discipline in terms of the pilots.
Nick Herbert
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Only he could introduce phrases such as “screaming banshee” into a debate. He draws my attention to another point. Part of the increase in flights from Gatwick has been in long-haul flights, which are a relatively new development and mean much bigger planes. Even if the newer planes are less noisy, residents and groups such as Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions and the Association of Parish Councils Aviation Group—one of its representatives is a constituent—are saying that there has been an increase in noise as a consequence of the new flights. Will the Minister tell us more about the aviation strategy and when that is coming? Specifically, why is there not a plan ahead of that strategy that Gatwick is required to adhere to, setting out metrics for how the increase in passengers and flights over the last few years will be mitigated through noise reduction and how future growth will ensure a reduction in noise? It is no good just saying that there will be a strategy in the future; our communities want action now.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this important debate. In my constituency, it is estimated that 4,000 people are directly affected by aircraft noise from the planes at Gatwick airport. That figure relates to homes within a 20-mile radius of Gatwick, however many people further afield are also adversely affected. Since being elected in June last year, I have met community leaders from groups such as Pulborough Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions and Communities Against Gatwick Noise and Emissions, representing residents in the villages of Ifold, Plaistow and Loxwood, all of whom are heavily impacted by the airport.
As my hon. Friend said, concerns were escalated in 2013 when the airport moved the minimum instrument landing system join point back from seven nautical miles to 10 nautical miles, which led to an increased concentration of arrival traffic over areas in my constituency. Since then, the arrivals review has led to the minimum join moving back to eight nautical miles, which has only partially addressed some of the residents’ concerns.
As we have all said, the benefits of Gatwick should not be overlooked in today’s debate. Gatwick airport adds £5.3 billion to the UK economy, and that figure is set to grow with the increase in passenger numbers and flights since 2013 that has been discussed already. The increase in aircraft using the airport has of course led to a higher usage of flight paths in and out of the area. Route 1, for example, flies over Plaistow and Durfold Wood, and has seen an increase of 6% in one year alone—2015-2016.
Part of Gatwick’s success has been realised through the growth in long-haul traffic, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) said. That growing market, although good economically, brings with it a greater noise burden for communities such as those in my constituency. Larger and louder aircraft have been flying in to land at low altitudes, some at less than 4,000 feet and as far out as 18 miles from the runway. Those same communities suffer arrivals too, turning at 3,000 feet above their homes. There is constant traffic in those areas.
The issue is one of balance. We must ensure that we meet the demand for international and regional connectivity, as that does benefit local businesses, travellers, holidaymakers, employees and the local economy. However, noise mitigation must be a priority to protect the communities that surround our airports. I welcome the work of the Gatwick noise management board, which brings together the community and the airport to share ideas and air concerns. I hope that all parties maintain that working relationship and ensure that it is not just a talking shop, but seeks the best outcomes for communities and businesses.
Continued community involvement is key, so I am pleased that the Government have decided to form an independent commission on civil aviation noise, with the aim of ensuring that all aerospace changes are properly considered, with the needs and concerns of local communities heard. The move to a more transparent air-management strategy can only benefit the airport and the people who live nearby. The introduction of options analysis in airspace will further that, allowing those who will be affected to engage with any changes that airports propose—at least, that is what I understand it will do. I am also pleased that the metrics and appraisal guidance to assess noise impacts are being updated to include a wider radius around the airport, which will better represent the impacts of air traffic on the wider community. I particularly welcome that, having been woken up myself by a plane at 6 am last Saturday, despite living more than 30 miles away.
Tackling the challenge of aircraft noise pollution will be helped by developments in technology. Many advances have been made already, such as better air traffic control, which led to a reduction in stacking over airports. There is also a drive to produce quieter aircraft, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) just mentioned. I am optimistic that the market will rise to that challenge, but Gatwick also needs to ensure that it is using the latest in the quietest technology.
Having worked in the travel technology sector for more than 10 years, I am more than aware of the growing demands that the industry faces. There is a need for more capacity, and the UK must maintain its position as a global leader by being accessible internationally, particularly as we leave the European Union. However, the skies over the south-east of England are some of the busiest in the world, and as our airports grow to support our economic growth we must put the communities that live in their shadow at the heart of any changes that we make. We seek the support of the Department for Transport to lessen the burden of excessive airplane noise on those local communities.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I came to today’s debate very conscious of the noise problems experienced in Sussex, Surrey and Kent, but I am a broad-minded fellow, Sir Christopher, and I also recognise the difficulties faced by constituents in Edinburgh, particularly when there are flights taking off no doubt to go to Gatwick. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) for introducing the debate. For a debate that is focused on noise-deadening, my hon. Friend is clearly today soft of voice, but as ever loud in impact. I share his frustration and much of his prescription.
I am very conscious that my constituency of Horsham has seen the largest concentration of flight paths since the change to departures originated by Gatwick in 2014. My constituency, notably the village of Copthorne, to the east of Gatwick, is affected, as is a very large swathe of my constituency to the west, which gets no respite, with multiple departure routes and arrivals day and night. I understand the yield management rationale for Gatwick to increase the number of long-haul flights, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) mentioned, that has, in the view of many of our constituents, made a bad noise problem worse. While I am on the subject, I also agree with his comments regarding the noise management board.
There are joint interests right across the swathe of counties affected by Gatwick, but I must emphasise how deeply affected those rural communities that lie close to the airport are. Those communities suffer most from constant noise. Night noise, as has been mentioned, is a major issue. The impacts need to be shared to give communities periods of respite. May I particularly say, at the outset, that it is simply not acceptable for people in communities that already suffer greatly to have their lives made even more miserable through increases in night-time noise caused by a decrease in the joining point for arrivals—a point on which I respectfully, and most unusually, differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan).
Germane to the issue of noise is the overall increase in pressure on our communities from all aspects of pollution arising from Gatwick’s expansion. An increase in passenger numbers of 8%, with an aspiration to 50 million, has an inevitable impact on local road and rail congestion to constituencies immediately around Gatwick, with air and noise pollution adding to the inevitable difficulties that my constituents face daily on our road networks and on Southern Railway, through extra congestion produced by increased utilisation of the airport. For any hon. Member who doubts the ongoing difficulties on Southern Railway, may I recommend the debate on rail franchising that is currently taking place in the main Chamber—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is speaking at the moment. I daresay that many of us will head there next.
My constituents suffer particularly from congestion and noise pollution, but I recognise that they are far from unique, with the number of air traffic movements growing every year since 2013, by 12% in total. I do not object to Gatwick seeking to maximise the utilisation of its current footprint, but what we have every right to expect and insist upon is that it adheres to the spirit and the letter of the aviation policy framework published in 2013, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling. It states that
“future growth in aviation should ensure that benefits are shared between the aviation industry and local communities.”
My right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs drew the House’s attention to the fact that there has been a significant improvement in Gatwick’s bottom line. I have seen estimates of £350 million to £450 million. Even at the bottom end of that scale, on the basis of earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and an amortisation multiple of seven for such a cash-flow generative business, an increase in value of some £2.5 billion would be expected. Those benefits must be shared with the community in the form of aggressive attempts by Gatwick to cut down and mitigate noise pollution. My hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling referred to Bo Redeborn and Graham Lake, who are in the Gallery today.
Many hon. Members mentioned the arrivals review. There was also promise of a departures review, which we are yet to see. There is so much more that can be done with Gatwick; it is not unreasonable for our constituents to expect to see it, nor is it unreasonable to expect the Department to be rigorous in ensuring that Gatwick observes the Department’s declared policy. I await with interest the Minister’s concluding remarks.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this important debate.
The aviation sector is one of Britain’s success stories and, as the UK’s second biggest airport, Gatwick is an important factor in that. Gatwick contributes £5.3 billion to UK GDP, as well as generating 85,000 jobs nationally, with around 24,000 on the wider airport campus alone. However, we all recognise that aviation noise can be a source of constant annoyance to those who live under airport flightpaths, and causes tension between airport authorities, airlines and local communities. As well as the annoyance and disruption, there are genuine public health concerns about exposure to aviation noise. In January 2016, the Aviation Environment Federation published a report stating that, in the UK, more than 1 million people are exposed to aircraft noise above levels recommended for the protection of health.
I am aware that Gatwick is trying its best to address the issue through a series of initiatives. In January 2016, it set up an independent noise management board, which includes community groups, industry experts and other stakeholders. Some of the actions it has taken include incentivising airlines through its charging regime to modify aircraft to reduce aircraft noise and increasing continuous descent operations, for which it is the No. 1 performing airport, with a CDO performance level of about 90%. Extending the boundary of their noise insulation scheme by 15 km to the east and west has also been helpful. There is more that could be done, but it needs to be addressed as an industry, with the support of the Government.
In April 2013, Sustainable Aviation produced a noise road map showing how aviation can manage noise from aircraft operations between now and 2050. Improved technology means that aircraft designs today are 75% quieter than they were 50 years ago. As a result, the population affected by aircraft noise around airports has fallen substantially, despite a significant growth in air traffic. The road map shows that continued investment in research and development has the potential to build on that success and reduce noise from aircraft by a further 65% by 2050.
In order to achieve that, the Government need to be doing more to assist the industry and to encourage further research into new technologies. The UK has the potential to be a world leader in the sector. What are the Government doing to support research into new aircraft and engine technologies?
I would also like to ask the Minister about airspace design. There is scope to further reduce noise output through improvements in the way airports, airlines and air traffic management operate. The aviation sector is already investing in new technology and new airspace design to ensure a lower noise impact. However, it has told me it could do more. Improvements such as steeper approaches require additional changes to airspace and operational controls. What are the Government doing to help bring those changes about?
Finally, will the Minister provide an update on the independent commission on civil aviation noise? The Government’s response to the consultation on UK airspace policy states that they intend to set up the commission by spring 2018. We welcome that decision. However, the commission will not have any enforcement powers or an ombudsman role or any other statutory role, which gives rise to the question as to what it will actually do. Given that the issue of an independent aviation authority or noise ombudsman, as it is sometimes referred to, was put forward by the Airports Commission in 2015, will the Minister give us an idea of when the commission will get the statutory powers that it requires?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
May I say what a delight it is to have you in the Chair, Sir Christopher, especially in your recently dignified form? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) on securing this debate about growth and noise reduction at Gatwick, and all those Members who have spoken. My hon. Friend has proved himself on this issue as on every other to be an indefatigable campaigner—a tribune of his people—and still more strikingly so with a voice that is obviously failing under him. We can only congratulate him on his courage and resolution.
As my hon. Friend acknowledged, this matter falls briefly but unhappily into what might be referred to as a ministerial limbo, and therefore I am responding on behalf of the Government—I should say that I am very far from an expert on these matters, as I fear will become strikingly clear with the passage of time. I also pay tribute and offer my pity, if I may, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) for having to put up with me twice in a single day, once on transport for the north and once on noise in the south. Those issues are not necessarily as different as one might think.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Government recognise that noise disturbance from aircraft is a serious concern to local communities. The concern can be still more pronounced when an airport is experiencing growth of the kind that has been seen at Gatwick. The Government’s role is to ensure that the right balance is struck locally and nationally between the environmental impacts and the economic and consumer benefits that aviation growth can deliver. Those environmental impacts of course include noise.
I need hardly say that the value of aviation does not need to be debated in this Chamber. It connects us with the world and allows us to visit our friends and family, to conduct our business and to see foreign countries and further parts of this country. The sector is also, as has been recognised, a very important part of the economy, directly supporting more than 230,000 jobs with many more employed indirectly. It contributes around £20 billion annually to the UK economy. The inbound tourism industry alone across the country is worth a further £19 billion.
Although there has been an aerodrome at Gatwick since the 1930s, the commercial airport as we know it today was opened by Her Majesty the Queen in 1958. In its first year of operation, just 186,000 passengers passed through the airport. Today, it is the UK’s second largest airport and helps take more than 44 million passengers to 228 destinations in 74 countries around the world every year.
As has been recognised by several hon. Members, Gatwick is a very important local employer—it is important to put that on public record again from the Government perspective. Almost 24,000 people work on the Gatwick campus across 252 different companies, with 2,800 directly employed by the airport. Nationally, the airport supports a further 61,000 jobs and contributes more than £5 billion towards our GDP. As such, it is a key part of our national infrastructure. Its local economic impact and the local economic value of its recent growth are significant drivers of growth and prosperity in the south-east. That means better pay, more jobs, stronger local businesses and growing asset values.
The Government recognise and have made clear that the benefits of airport growth must not come without due consideration and mitigation of the environmental impacts of aviation, in particular those impacts caused by the noise generated by aircraft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling mentioned, the Government’s policy, as set out in the aviation policy framework, is
“to limit and where possible reduce the number of people in the UK significantly affected by aircraft noise.”
My colleagues have recently brought forward new policies and measures in line with that aim. It has been suggested that nothing has happened, but I understand that that is not true and I want to put some of the measures on the public record. They can then be discussed and debated and used as a framework for further discussion.
As hon. Members are aware, the Government set noise controls at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports using powers in the Civil Aviation Act 1982. My Department has the power to direct those airports, including Gatwick, to fine for noise infringements. I have no doubt that Gatwick’s management is, or shortly will be, following this debate closely. The responsibility—as matters presently stand, pending a further aviation strategy—lies with Gatwick, as advised, with potential enforcement from the Department.
One of the main controls the Government set is restrictions on operations at night time, because we recognise that noise from aircraft at night is, among many unacceptable aspects of aircraft noise, widely regarded as the least acceptable. In October last year, the Government introduced changes to improve the night flight regime. By introducing a new quota count category for the quietest aircraft, the Government are seeking to improve transparency for communities and to ensure that all aircraft movements will count towards an airport’s movement limit, whereas before such aircraft were exempt.
I reassure hon. Members that the Government have maintained the previous movement limit for night flights at Gatwick, which has been fixed for many years. It will guarantee until 2022 no increase in flights beyond what was already permitted. Furthermore, among other measures, from later this year there will be a reduction in Gatwick’s quota count limit, which should incentivise airlines to purchase quieter aircraft to make use of the airport’s permitted noise and movement allowances.
Separately, last October the Government published our decision on how we aim to support airspace modernisation, which includes new policies to ensure noise is more thoroughly considered in these important decisions. As hon. Members may know, the way our airspace is managed is based on arrangements that are in many cases almost 50 years old. In today’s world, that approach is increasingly inefficient, and can lead to unnecessary delays for passengers and an excessive impact on the environment around airports. We therefore need to modernise our airspace to enable the UK to keep pace with the rest of the world in exploiting the newest technologies. Advances in technologies have provided great improvements in the environmental performance of aircraft airframe design and engines, in terms of both noise and carbon emissions, and that has had a substantial effect on the noise experienced on the ground. For example, new-generation aircraft such as the Airbus A350 and Boeing 737 MAX have a noise footprint that is typically 50% smaller on departure and 30% smaller on arrival than the aircraft they are replacing.
We expect aircraft noise to continue to fall in the future, compared with today’s levels, and we believe that that trend has the potential to outweigh the noise generated from increases in air traffic. My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is no longer in his place, discussed the screaming banshee of the BAC 111. There is no doubt that, as it and the A320 indicate, tweaks to aircraft design can greatly improve noise performance. As he said, the noise experienced over the past few years may have actually decreased by some measurements. I respectfully suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling that it may not be correct to measure from just 2013. Possibly the correct measurement for noise is to look at before the recession of 2007-08—the Gordon Brown recession, as I like to refer to it—when noise levels were not quite at the level they are now in terms of the number of people affected, but were certainly significantly higher than in the intervening period.
Tom Tugendhat
I am loth to be pedantic with the Minister, but he understands better than anybody, having represented his community in Herefordshire so assiduously for so long, that, although an incremental change downwards is to be welcomed, should an uptick come, it is hard to remember where we were 10 years ago—it is very easy to remember where we were before the uptick.
Jesse Norman
I am exceedingly aware of that. It is generally a feature of human consciousness that we ignore the things we benefit from but are extremely angry if things we enjoy are taken away from us. This is an example of that. I would not derogate for a second from what my hon. Friend said.
To say that we believe that the trend has the potential to outweigh the noise generated from increases in air traffic is, of course, not to say that as aircraft get quieter there are not difficult issues that need to be addressed with the implementation of the new technology. One major component of airspace modernisation—some hon. Members touched on this—is performance-based navigation, which allows aircraft to fly their flightpaths far more accurately than they could with previous navigation techniques. That has obvious benefits in terms of noise, because populated areas can be better avoided, but it also poses challenges—I do not need to remind hon. Members that with great power comes great responsibility —particularly in its effect on those directly underneath flight paths that experience a greater concentration of aircraft. That requires proper administration and control, and a sensible and considered approach. That is why the Government have brought about a new requirement for options analysis to be used when developing proposals to change the use of airspace. That will enable communities to take part in a more transparent airspace change process, and it ensure that options such as concentrated routes versus multiple routes and the degree of respite that can be offered, which has been discussed today, can be given proper consideration.
The Government recognise through the 2014 “Survey of Noise Attitudes” that attitudes towards aviation noise are changing. That goes to my hon. Friend’s point. The work carried out during the SONA study shows that sensitivity to aircraft noise has increased. The same percentage of people are registered as “highly annoyed” at lower levels of noise than in a past study. That is what we should see in an increasingly prosperous society. The threshold for interruptions and loss of amenity should go up. That is not a bad thing by any means, although it might be highly distressing for those involved. That is why the Government have introduced new metrics and appraisal guidance to assess the impact of noise on health and quality of life. In particular, it will ensure that for future airspace changes, noise impacts much further away from airports are considered much more than they are at present.
As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned, the Government have also committed to creating an independent commission on civil aviation noise later in the spring. ICCAN, as it is known, is designed to help rebuild some of the communities’ trust in the industry that we recognise has been lost, and will ensure that the noise impacts of airspace changes are properly considered. Communities will be given a greater understanding of and stake in noise management.
Alongside the Government’s work, Gatwick, which in this case is the responsible entity, is seeking to address the concerns of the communities surrounding the airport. I welcome the tone of the constructive remarks in relation to how Gatwick is engaging with those around it. In response to the significant concerns raised in 2014 and 2015 about Gatwick-related aircraft noise, the airport has launched several programmes of community engagement, most notably the noise management board, which is independently chaired and attended by representatives from several local community groups. Its role is to develop, agree, and maintain a co-ordinated strategy for noise management for Gatwick on behalf of stakeholder organisations. My officials are actively involved in that work, and all evidence raised at the NMB is considered in the development of Government policy. If it is for Gatwick, as the responsible entity, to take action, it can do so under advisement from the NMB.
Furthermore, and in accordance with its obligations under the environmental noise directive, Gatwick will later this year publish its draft noise action plan for 2019-23, which will provide an opportunity for the public to have their say on what it is doing to mitigate noise. The final approval of the noise action plan falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but my officials will work closely with the airport and officials at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as the plan is developed.
Finally, I want to return to aviation in the national context and the aviation strategy, which has been discussed. It is subject to a process that is already under way. We seek for it to be comprehensive in its scope. It will seek to address many important issues, such as security, connectivity and skills, and the development of innovation and new technology, which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East raised—I have some experience of our great investment from when I was at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, through the National Aerospace Technology Exploitation programme, and our relationship with some of the big aircraft manufacturers. Hon. Members may be pleased to know that one of its objectives is to consider how we support growth while tackling the environmental impact of aviation. As the Secretary of State said in his recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, one of the issues that the Department wants to consider is whether there should be new framework to allow airports to grow sustainably. That means looking at trends in aviation noise over the long term and how they relate to growth in aircraft movements.
I want to give my hon. Friend a moment to finish, so I will speak for just a second longer. This issue is relevant not just to Gatwick, but to all airports across the UK, and it demands a national approach. We cannot prejudge the process, but one of its outcomes may be that we will want to clarify our existing aviation policy and how it should be monitored and enforced. My colleagues and I recognise the importance of accountability, and that may well be something that needs to be considered as part of a more developed overall aviation strategy framework.
Jesse Norman
As I have described, that work is going to start this year. It is quite substantial, and there will be several levels of consultation. I cannot tell my right hon. Friend when it is going to end. It is the nature of these things that they are open-ended, but it is very much at the forefront of my colleagues’ minds.
The Government recognise that colleagues from across the House and the communities they serve want faster progress, both at Gatwick and at other airports, but we believe that the new aviation strategy is the best vehicle by which to co-ordinate and implement any potential change in a properly informed and considered way. As I said, there will be a series of consultations. I will relay the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling for a further meeting with my colleague the Aviation Minister, and I am sure she will take it with great seriousness. I thank him for securing this constructive debate, and I thank hon. Members from across the House for their valuable contributions.
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who has arrived in the nick of time. His presence and support is always gratefully received.
I want to reinforce three very brief points. The Minister responsible should take time out of her schedule to meet the community groups and the noise management board. Gatwick Obviously Not! and other groups have done an awful lot to ensure that their requests are not only appropriate and reasonable, but well argued and practical to implement. I also suggest that, as the London airspace management programme phase 2 is developed, it should take into account the full review of airspace policy that the Government have promised. The policy must not weaken the relationship between growth and noise. Indeed, it should be tightened.
I thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) and for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Gordon (Colin Clark), for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) and for Horsham (Jeremy Quin), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for their contributions. I thank the Minister for responding for the Government.
Written Statement
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign Affairs (Trade): Post-Council Statement
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
The EU Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) met twice in Buenos Aires during the 11th ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
The first meeting of the FAC (Trade) took place on 10 December before the formal opening of the WTO ministerial. The second meeting of the FAC (Trade) took place on 13 December just before the conclusion of the ministerial. At both meetings, the Council adopted conclusions. Both sets of conclusions are available as an attachment online.
At the ministerial conference WTO members committed to securing a deal on disciplining certain forms of fisheries subsidies by the end of 2019. They also committed to improve the reporting of existing fisheries subsidy programmes. In addition, Ministers decided to extend the practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions for another two years, and to continue negotiations in all areas. In addition, WTO members agreed to the creation of the working party on accession for South Sudan.
The ministerial met key UK objectives by setting the foundation for discussions on a number of new issues. A significant number of WTO members agreed to advance discussions on: digital trade, domestic regulation in services, SMEs, and investment facilitation. The UK will work closely with the EU and other WTO members to ensure that the momentum behind these initiatives is maintained in 2018.
At the 11th WTO ministerial conference, 118 WTO members adopted a joint declaration on trade and women’s economic empowerment, committing to promote women’s economic empowerment through trade. The UK supported this initiative.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2018-01-10/HCWS396/
[HCWS396]
House of Lords
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Retirement of a Member: Lord Clinton-Davis
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Agency Nurses
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clark of Windermere
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord O’Shaughnessy on 27 November 2017 (HL3070), what assessment they have made of the operation of the “break glass clause” in the supply of agency nurses to hospital trusts from off-framework agencies.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, significant progress has been made in reducing agency staffing in the NHS. In 2016-17, the NHS spent £700 million less on agency staff than in the previous financial year. The “break glass” clause is one of a number of measures introduced to support patient safety while we seek to reduce the use of agency staff. Since a peak in April 2016, the number of nursing shifts procured from off-framework agencies has more than halved.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer on this very complicated issue. However, does he recall his Answer to my Written Question of Monday in which he confirmed that the incoming Conservative-led Government in 2010 cut the number of nurses virtually every year, sometimes in excess of 10,000, with the result that we have fewer nurses working in the health service today than in 2010? That is the cause of our reliance on agency nurses, which costs the NHS billions of pounds. This cannot continue, so will the Minister use his influence to try to ensure a proper workforce plan for the NHS so that we have sufficient staff to meet the needs and demands of the British people?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord is quite right that we need sufficient staff. He will know that when the Government came to office in 2010 difficult decisions needed to be made about the funding of all public services, because of the economic situation at the time. It is worth pointing out that, since that time, there are over 10,000 more nurses on wards, which is obviously particularly important at this time of year. In terms of the future figures, I hope he will be aware that there will be an increase in the number of training places for nursing—£5,000 a year. Indeed, Health Education England, which is responsible for workforce planning, will deliver a long-term plan to make sure that we can tackle this issue, which has been a long-standing problem for the NHS.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, the Royal College of Nursing surveyed its members on this issue and two key things came out. One was that they wanted flexible working hours and the other was that they wanted the ability to choose a ward or specialty. It is clearly better for nurses to be employed by their trust rather than through an agency, so what are NHS trusts doing to accommodate nurses’ desire for flexible working patterns and a choice of where they work?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
On the issue of flexible working there is an important distinction between agency working and bank working. Bank working provides a degree of security and familiarity, in that the nurses employed by nursing banks often work in the same hospitals. That is one of the most important ways that we can provide the flexible working which, as the noble Baroness quite rightly said, nurses want.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
Can the Minister reassure the House on the supply and retention of psychiatric nurses, and that they are getting the excellent support that they especially need? He might wish to write to me on that.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I will certainly write to the noble Earl specifically on psychiatric nurses. He will, I hope, be aware of the plan to recruit many more mental health staff as we seek to radically improve outcomes and delivery in that area.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, as a former hospital chairman, I am aware that agency staff are called in only when they absolutely have to be, when there is no other alternative. I wonder whether the National Health Service has looked at offering existing nurses in hospitals the opportunity of doing some more work out of hours, as some of them would find that convenient. There is a tendency for doctors as well as nurses to look for locum and agency jobs because they are better paid.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
It is that last issue that we are trying to address. One factor is that there is now an hourly rate price cap on agency spend, precisely to drill down into that issue. The reason that the number of agency staff went up was in response to the Francis review and what it said about safe staffing levels in the service. The immediate response was to deal with that through agency staff. That was expensive, of course, which is why we have had to push down those costs. Nurses have to come from somewhere, and my noble friend is quite right that using existing nurses and support from nursing banks is one way of meeting demand with better value for money.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, I noted carefully the Minister’s words about 10,000 extra nurses on the wards. Can he update the House on the position for community and district nurses?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The number of those nurses has fallen—as have the numbers in mental health, which is worth pointing out—and we are trying to address this. I think I made a slip of the tongue a moment ago when I said that £5,000 more will be spent each year on training nurses; I meant that there will be 5,000 more student nursing places.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, the Question further teases out the sometimes expensive inadequacies in workforce planning in our NHS. Under the circumstances of the winter crisis and the 40,000-nurse shortfall, clearly trusts have no choice sometimes but to take on agency staff in specialist and other services—and this is expensive. Does the Minister expect that the late funding made available for the winter crisis will be spent largely in this way? Will his department penalise trusts for using agency staff in this way?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right that agency staff are sometimes used to fill vacancies—about nine out of 10 vacancies are filled in that way. The key is to make sure that they are used in a proper, planned way that is not expensive. The point about the “break glass” clause is that the rules that exist to cap agency spend can be broken where there is a need and where that need is approved by the trust for patient safety purposes. That is an important feature of the system.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, in this present crisis, are more nurses taking advantage of the “break glass” clause?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The number of uses of the “break glass” clause has actually fallen since April 2016, which was the peak. This shows that there has been a much more planned use of bringing in extra staff as they are needed, rather than an ad hoc response, which was what it was designed to address.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, now that the noble Lord’s department has had “Social Care” appended to its title, does he agree that community and district nurses must be a vital part of the interface between healthcare and social care? As he has indicated that he accepts that there are fewer of them, what is being done to ensure that there are more in the future?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
That is an incredibly important point. We know the role that district and community nurses have, particularly in the interface between hospitals and social care. I have pointed out that more nurses will be trained. That will provide an opportunity to recruit to those areas which have not seen the increases that other areas of nursing have done, including district and community.
Local Congestion: Investment
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of investments in local roads on traffic congestion and productivity in local areas.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, as set out in last year’s Transport Investment Strategy, our investment seeks to reduce congestion, raise productivity and support new housing. We estimate from investment appraisals that local major road schemes approved by the department since 2012 will produce an average of £4.50 return for every £1 invested. The department’s evaluations found that local major schemes have been successful in delivering reductions in congestion, often leading to better access to employment and local businesses.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the Minister. I am glad about the investment in motorways, bypasses and some of the other things to which she refers, but do we deal adequately with local congestion, which is hitting productivity and increasing air pollution and is frustrating for those of us sitting in traffic jams? Is she aware that the challenge fund rules under which smaller councils apply for capital are costly and a bureaucratic deterrent to spending the money that the Government have rightly made available for local roads?
Baroness Sugg
My noble friend raises an important point, and I know that she met recently with the Roads Ministers to discuss this. We have been investing heavily in motorways and it is right that we concentrate spending where it is needed most, but we know that other important roads have long gone underfunded. That is why we are consulting on introducing a major road network from 2020. That will provide a share of the national roads fund to invest in bypasses and road widening to help improve congestion. My noble friend also raised the point of the complexity of these processes. There are many different schemes available for additional funding to local authorities—which, of course, is welcome—but they can be complex. In last year’s Transport Investment Strategy, we committed to providing targeted support to local authorities to help develop their bidding and delivery capability in order to ensure that they get the appropriate funding.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are quite rightly pleased about the investment in motorways and I think we would all agree with that, but the cuts in local government have meant there have been massive cuts in local road expenditure. Are the Government going to do what they normally do—create a crisis and then claim credit when they do something about it?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, much of the funding for local roads is paid directly to local authorities through the direct transport funding and the local growth fund. However, we recognise that local authorities do not always have enough money to tackle the large projects which are needed to improve productivity and reduce congestion. That is why we have a number of schemes to help local authorities pay for those, such as the major road network that I have just mentioned, the pinch-point scheme and the national productivity investment fund.
Lord Spicer (Con)
My Lords, ever since Quintin Hogg, as he then was, went north in his flat cap, money has poured into the north-east. At the same time, the north-east has remained one of the poorest areas in this country. Is there a question involved there somewhere?
Baroness Sugg
I am sorry: I missed the question. Perhaps my noble friend could repeat it.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, there is a virtually permanent traffic jam on the A49 in Hereford. This is a vital route between north and south Wales and into the Midlands. Thousands of Hereford residents, as a result of the traffic jam, suffer dangerously poor air quality from the permanent congestion. Hereford Council has a well-worked out plan, which would involve regeneration, for a bypass. Does the Minister agree that this should be a top priority for the funding that the Government have offered for local councils?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I agree absolutely that the funding we are making available should address exactly the problem raised by the noble Baroness. As I have said, the major road network would fit that requirement.
Lord Stern of Brentford (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that dealing with congestion is not always best done through tarmac? There are tremendous opportunities in design, digital management, road pricing and public transport.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I agree that there are many different ways in which we can tackle congestion, including bypasses, link roads, road widening and, as the noble Lord says, new smart technology could help in this.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not understand why the Government do not have any sort of plan for traffic reduction. Every time you build a road, you actually encourage traffic and create more air pollution and more congestion. Why not reduce traffic?
Baroness Sugg
We are looking to reduce congestion, but obviously people still need to travel and to drive to work. More than 17 million people use the roads to commute to work, and I think that we should encourage that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the Centre for Cities, a think tank focused on the economic benefits and development of cities, has recently questioned the effectiveness of investment in roads as a catalyst for local economic development in the light of the evaluations that have been undertaken. It suggests that the evidence is far from conclusive and comments that other ways of investing money to reduce congestion could be more effective. Can the Minister say what evaluations of the impact of investment in local roads the Government are relying on to show that such investment does represent value for money in terms of reducing congestion and increasing productivity in local areas, as compared with other ways of investing the money to achieve the same objective? Will the Government make those evaluations, on which presumably they rely, publicly available, if they have not already done so?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I mentioned in my Answer to the original Question that the average is a return of £4.50 for every £1 invested. Our last evaluation, back in 2014, looked at how the investment we are making benefits the economy. We are carrying out a new study that will be available later this year to ensure that we are spending money wisely.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con)
My Lords, one of the main causes of traffic congestion in towns seems to be when roads are dug up. Can my noble friend the Minister comment on the success of efforts to get the utilities to co-ordinate their digging-up-the-roads efforts?
Baroness Sugg
I agree with my noble friend. I believe that around 2.5 million roadworks are carried out in England each year, which cost the economy around £4 billion. My noble friend has rightly raised the lane rental schemes which we have been trialling. They have encouraged the utilities to work together at weekends and in the evenings in order to reduce roadworks and therefore congestion. The schemes have been successful and we have seen congestion in London and Kent cut by around a half. At the end of last year we announced that these schemes will continue after the trial period, and we are consulting on extending the scheme nationwide to spread their benefits to the rest of the country. We will publish our response on that in the next few months.
Georgia
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking with the international community to ensure that Russia respects the territorial integrity of Georgia and withdraws its troops from Georgian soil.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Georgia with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Moscow. The UK is a staunch supporter of Georgia’s territorial integrity and sovereignty. Last year we supported two UN resolutions on Georgia’s breakaway territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia using OSCE statements to call out Russian activities; we have funded secondees to the EU monitoring mission and contributed to NATO and other international efforts to build Georgian resilience to Russian pressure.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. It is coming up to 10 years since the Russia-Georgian war, and after all that time Russia is still in control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia while its troops are camped only 20 miles from the capital city, Tbilisi. Furthermore, it was reported last year that Russia has been moving its control points forward by several hundred yards, to the dismay of local farmers. Does the Minister not agree that this position is totally unacceptable and that it would be fatal for the international community to acquiesce to it in any way? We need new initiatives to get Russia to respect Georgian integrity.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble and right reverend Lord is of course right to point out the recent attempts by Russia to further strengthen its intervention in the breakaway regions. I assure all noble Lords that the Government continue to use all their international influence. Most notably, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister met with the Georgian Prime Minister in the margins of a recent meeting in Brussels, where the integrity of Georgia, concerning specifically the two regions the noble and right reverend Lord mentioned, were discussed and prioritised. We continue to support that. We of course continue to support the efforts currently under way in Geneva in this respect.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, obviously next week the NATO military committee will meet to discuss defence resilience in Georgia. Also, just before Christmas the EU high representative made a statement on the situation, particularly on the peacebuilding efforts of the EU. Will the Minister tell us how much the Government are involved in those peacebuilding efforts to ensure we have a solution that does not involve more war?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord may well be aware—I have already alluded to it—of a recent bilateral meeting between our Prime Minister and the Georgian Prime Minister. We continue to support Georgian efforts within Georgia itself on the specific issues he raised on enhancing and securing the democracy that is currently in play. We want to further ensure its sustainability. Indeed, we are providing additional funding in the region of £5.5 million to support it. We stand behind Georgian integrity. We make that point to the Georgians bilaterally and we have made it clear in our interactions with the Russians. We continue to do it through all international engagement, including in the EU.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister recall how much British policy towards Georgia in the 26 years since it became independent has been closely co-ordinated with other EU member states? I recall, on one visit to Tbilisi, being invited by the British ambassador to sit in on one of these meetings in which EU ambassadors were drafting a joint report. I know that they had joint meetings with local Russian representatives, with the OSCE and with the Georgian Government. When will the Government explain to Parliament how they will organise continuing co-ordination with our European partners, with whom we share very common interests in this area, after we leave the European Union?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As the noble Lord will be aware from his own experience, it is not just our relationship through the EU. That will remain important once we leave the EU, but those relationships continue through other fora as well, such as membership of NATO—there are alliances there—and through the Security Council. France is a notable and permanent member and we can have candid discussions with other permanent members, such as Russia, which has a key influence in Georgia. I assure the noble Lord—indeed, the whole House—that we will continue to strengthen our international relationships, not just in Georgia. Where we need to work constructively, progressively and proactively with European partners we will continue to do so.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that we need to tread with great care here? One of the reasons for the tension and difficulty is the very loose talk there was some years ago about Georgia becoming part of NATO and the threat that that was to Russia as it stood at the time. We need to be extremely careful not to make this a real cause célèbre. We need to try to defuse some of these areas because the tension between Putin and ourselves is too great anyway.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important issue. It is why we have been working on not just restating the importance of the territorial sovereignty of Georgia, but building sustainable democracy in Georgia. The noble Lord is also quite right to point out the importance of the Russian relationship. Therefore I was delighted, as I am sure all noble Lords acknowledged, that for the first time in almost six years we had a Foreign Secretary visit Russia. He had a very constructive and open dialogue with the Russians on a variety of issues, including the current situation in Georgia.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)
Could the Minister identify those sovereign states that specifically guaranteed the integrity of this country upon it achieving statehood? Is that not an agreement binding in public international law still?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
All noble Lords will be aware that, with the exception of Russia, as I mentioned, there are only, as I understand it, three countries—Nicaragua and Venezuela are two—which have actually recognised the two breakaway republics. To answer the question in reverse, all countries with the exception of those four recognise internationally the territorial sovereignty, including that of Georgia, over the two breakaway regions.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, do the Government agree that your Lordships’ collective wisdom would be of value to them in the controversial area of our relations with Russia generally? If so, will they consider arranging a full debate here before too long?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The collective wisdom of your Lordships’ House is of great value to the Government in all instances. As for a debate on Russia, I am sure that the appropriate usual channels will accommodate that request.
House of Lords: Membership
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to pause making further nominations for membership of the House of Lords by virtue of a life peerage until arrangements for reducing the size of the House have been agreed.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, while the House cannot keep growing indefinitely, it is important that the House’s expertise can be refreshed and renewed from time to time to ensure that it continues to fulfil its vital role in scrutinising and revising legislation. The Government thank the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and his committee for their work and the House for expressing its views in the debate on 19 December. We are now considering the committee’s recommendations carefully.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but does he recall the debate on 19 December, when the collective wisdom of this House was very strongly that the Prime Minister should show restraint in making any further nominations to the House while we are considering the question of the size? Would it not be an embarrassment and make a nonsense of any further consideration of the Burns report if the Prime Minister were to go ahead and make a series of nominations before we have considered it fully?
Lord Young of Cookham
The point that the noble Lord has just made was made in the debate. I thought that it was dealt with very well indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who said:
“We are told that a further list of appointments is about to be published but I do not share the apocalyptic view expressed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Steel. I believe that this can be regarded as a legacy issue arising from the May general election that does not inhibit the adoption of the approach in the Burns report”.—[Official Report, 19/12/17; col. 2017.]
I hope the noble Lord is reassured by the words of the former Cabinet Secretary.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I always enjoy listening to the noble Lord’s answers: he has perfect comic timing. As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, there is widespread support in your Lordships’ House for the principles and recommendations of the Burns committee to reduce the size of your Lordships’ House. We know that for Burns to be effective the Prime Minister has to exercise restraint and a sensible, proportionate approach to appointments. It would be entirely unacceptable for Mrs May to announce a raft of new appointments and only later to accept Burns—I think that that was part of the point that my noble friend was making. I am happy now to make an offer and give a commitment to the noble Lord and to the Government that if the Government are prepared to accept the Burns proposals, including that departures from and introductions to this House should be on the basis of two out, one in and a 15-year term limit, probably from the recent general election, we will abide by that. Will the Government agree to do so as well?
Lord Young of Cookham
As I said, the Government are considering the report and will make their views known shortly. But to pick up the point that the noble Baroness just made, in her speech—she made a good speech, if I may say so, as did my noble friend and the Leader of the Lib Dems—she said:
“It is not about giving up patronage or appointments but about showing some restraint, as it used to be”.—[Official Report, 19/12/17; col. 2105.]
The Prime Minister has demonstrated restraint. Putting on one side David Cameron’s resignation honours, in the past 18 months the Prime Minister has appointed eight new Peers: five Cross-Benchers and three Ministers. I think that is demonstrating the restraint that the noble Baroness has just asked for.
Lord Tebbit
My Lords, is there not another way that this little dilemma might be resolved? It is quite clear that when we look at the electorate as a whole and the votes that have been cast in recent elections, the Lib Dem Peers are grossly overrepresented here. Suppose 50 of them did the decent thing and resigned, this would all be resolved.
Lord Young of Cookham
If I may say so, my noble friend’s question is addressed not to me but to the Benches opposite. It is indeed the case that on almost any objective basis the Liberal Democrats are overrepresented. In credit to them, they actually recognised this during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, when he spoke on behalf of the Lib Dems, recognised that their numbers would have to come down under the proposals of the Burns report. However, for the Lib Dems to unilaterally cut their numbers without anybody else doing anything at all would be to exhibit a generosity for which the Liberal Democrats are not well known.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, looking beyond the issue of restraint at the current time, the conclusion of the report was:
“Our proposals would only work, though, if the Prime Minister (and her successors) undertook to appoint no more new members than there were vacancies, and to do so in the proportions implied by our recommendations”.
As has been said, the agreement of the Prime Minister is absolutely central to implementation of the report, and that was stressed throughout the debate. The Leader of the House was in listening mode during that debate. I ask the Minister: has the Leader had the opportunity to discuss the issues with the Prime Minister, and if she has not yet, will she do so in the very near future?
Lord Young of Cookham
As the noble Baroness said, my noble friend sat through nearly all the speeches in that debate. I can say that she will be having a discussion with the Prime Minister to discuss both the Burns report and the debate that we had in this House, and the Government’s recommendations or views will be known in due course. I hope the House will understand that there were only three sitting days after the debate on 19 December. We have been back after Christmas for only three days. The Prime Minister has had personnel matters on her mind in the meantime. So I think the Government are entitled to a little bit of time before they come out with their views.
Lord Tyler (LD)
In the discussion to which the Minister has just referred, will he and his colleagues make it absolutely clear to the Prime Minister that a very large majority of the speakers in that debate on 19 December made it absolutely clear that the proposals of the Lord Speaker’s committee are wholly dependent on the Prime Minister accepting the principle that was inherent right through the report that there must be two out before there can be one in? Will the Ministers on the Front Bench make that clear to the Prime Minister? If she is not prepared to respect that, how can we expect anything to come from this exercise?
Lord Young of Cookham
In the analysis of the speeches in that debate, by my calculation, only nine out of 95 contributors were opposed to what was in the recommendations. I think that is as near a consensus as you are ever going to get in this House. I have to say that I thought the noble Lord struck a slightly different tone in his wind-up speech from that of his noble friend Lord Newby. Winding up for the Liberal Democrats —despite what the noble Lord has just said—he referred to Burns as,
“a temporary expedient … a process appropriate for the membership of a gentlemen’s club”—[Official Report, 19/12/17; col. 2100]—
and an “incestuous” process that runs the risk of leading to our abolition. That does not sound to me like wholehearted support for Burns.
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clauses 5 to 41, Schedule 2, Clauses 42 to 47, Schedule 3, Clauses 48 to 53, Title.
Data Protection Bill [HL]
Wednesday 10th January 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection Act 2018 View all Data Protection Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 74-III Third marshalled list for Report (PDF, 153KB) - (8 Jan 2018)
16:36 - Division on Amendment 107B - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 204 - Amendment 107B agreed.
18:50 - Division on Amendment 127A - Ayes: 238 / Noes: 209 - Amendment 127A agreed.
19:10 - Division on Amendment 147 - Ayes: 217 / Noes: 200 - Amendment 147 agreed.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
We are making great progress on this Bill.
Clause 25: National security: certificate
Lord Ashton of Hyde
(a) by adding conditions; (b) by omitting conditions added by regulations under paragraph (a).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“( ) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (5) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
(a) by adding conditions;(b) by omitting conditions added by regulations under paragraph (a).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend Schedule 11 —(a) by adding exemptions from any provision of this Part;(b) by omitting exemptions added by regulations under paragraph (a).”
Lord Puttnam
Lord Puttnam (Lab)
My Lords, the last time I cleared a room like this, it was a very bad film indeed.
Amendment 103A is connected to Amendments 103B, 103C, 124A, 124B and 125A, and I move it with the support of my noble friend Lord Stevenson and the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Holmes. In a well-run world, this group of amendments should not really need to be moved or pressed. They are designed purely to ensure that we have the data commissioner—and the office of that commissioner—that we need. Frankly, they are the natural consequence of all the debates that have occurred during the passage of the data protection legislation.
There can be no more important role over the next few years than that of the Data Commissioner. The organisation she is being asked to regulate is the largest in the world. A quite extraordinary statistic is that the four largest companies—Google, Amazon, Facebook and Apple—have between them a larger market capitalisation than the FTSE 100. That is the scale of the businesses we are asking the Data Commissioner to regulate. At the same time, under the Bill at present the resources available to her are wholly inadequate to that task. We went through a similar operation 15 years ago with Ofcom, and out of that, and through the collective wisdom of this House, we were able to ensure that Ofcom had the resources to become what is genuinely the gold standard of any media and telecoms industry regulator in the world. That is an achievement of this House of which we should be very proud. The purpose of these amendments is to achieve exactly the same for our ICO—something we can be proud of and that can do the job given to it.
During the passage of the Bill, we have loaded the ICO with significant new and additional responsibilities. The idea that we might have an underfunded and underresourced regulator that is not adequate to the task we are giving it is unthinkable. The purpose of these amendments is to prevent that. I could go on at some length, but I think the mood of the House is that it wishes to move on, so I shall listen to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak now as I have some information which may help the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and other noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments.
As I have repeatedly said during the debates on the Bill, the Government are committed to ensuring that the commissioner has adequate resources to fulfil her role as a world-class regulator and to take on the extra regulatory responsibilities set out in this Bill, so I agree with pretty well everything the noble Lord said. That is why we legislated for a new, GDPR-compliant charging regime in the Digital Economy Act, which we will turn to in the next group, but it is also why the commissioner needs to be able to recruit and retain expert staff.
I am therefore very pleased to announce that the Government have today granted the Information Commissioner’s Office pay flexibility up to 2020-21 so that it can review its pay and grading structure. The commissioner will have the independence to determine the levels of pay necessary for the ICO to maintain the expertise it needs to fulfil its new and revised functions as a supervisory authority, subject to the standard public spending principles. I am also pleased to say that the Information Commissioner has agreed these arrangements. She said:
“I welcome the positive response to my business case for pay flexibility at the ICO. I am confident that this will allow me to prepare the ICO for its critical role under the new data protection regime ensuring that the UK has a strong and expert regulator in an area recognised for its importance to the digital economy and society as a whole”.
This flexibility underscores the UK’s commitment to an independent and effective data protection regulator, and I think goes a long way in responding to the points raised by the noble Lord’s amendments. We all want an efficient, well-resourced ICO, so I am very pleased that this agreement has been reached. I should have said at the outset that I am very grateful to the noble Lord for coming to talk to me about it. I am glad to say he was pushing at an open door.
Lord Puttnam
I thank the noble Lord, who has been extraordinarily generous with his time. He and his officials could not have been more helpful in reaching what I regard as a perfectly satisfactory conclusion. My only wish is that we have a regulator that can do the job required of it and tackle the abuses along the way confidently and competently. I am extraordinarily grateful for this outcome. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(and see also the Commissioner’s duty under section (Protection of personal data))”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Duty to support small organisations
(1) The Commissioner is to provide additional support to—(a) small businesses,(b) small charities, and(c) parish councils,in meeting their obligations under the GDPR and this Act.(2) The additional support in subsection (1) may include, but is not limited to—(a) advice on how to comply with the provisions of the GDPR and this Act;(b) access to pro formas to demonstrate compliance with the GDPR and this Act; and(c) in relation to fees to be paid to the Commissioner, discounted charges or no charges.(3) In this Act, “small businesses” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Enterprise Act 2016.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, we have had something of a break, so perhaps I should remind the House what lies behind my Amendments 106, 125 and 127. It is the wish to reduce, as far as possible, the burden that the GDPR and the Bill will place especially on small entities—notably, small businesses, small charities and parish councils. I might add that it behoves us to stand back from time to time and recognise the burdens we all too often impose on people and businesses. This is very often for good reasons, but it can seem overwhelming for those at the receiving end, and it is important to minimise the burden where we can legitimately do so.
I also place on record my thanks to the Minister for a helpful meeting about my concerns. Against this background, Amendment 106 would place a duty on the Information Commissioner to support such small entities in meeting their obligations under the GDPR and the Bill. It gives examples of how this should be done, including compliance advice and zero or discounted fees. This is important both practically and as a manifestation of how the state expects the commissioner to approach her duties. We should always remember that data protection will sound forbidding to some small organisations.
Furthermore, parish councils are fearful that they could face new costs of up to £20 million in total on one reasonable interpretation of the present text. They have been advised that an existing officer of a council could not act as a DPO because they are not independent. My noble friend Lord Marlesford mentioned this issue at Questions in December but, happily, I believe the Government take a different view, and it would be helpful to hear that on the record from my noble friend.
On the same lines, Amendment 125 would require the Secretary of State to consider fixing charges levied on small entities by the commissioner at a discounted or zero level. We need to find a way to avoid the imposition of significant costs for small entities into the future as cost recovery escalates in the administration of data protection.
Amendment 127 goes a little further. It would require the commissioner to have regard to economic factors in conducting her business. This is a fundamental point. The commissioner’s remit contains elements which are similar to those of a judge and focuses predominantly on individual rights and protections. But the analogy is imperfect. Judges must go where justice takes them. The commissioner’s role is different in important respects, and economic factors ought to hold a high place in her consideration. This is important for UK competitiveness and for continued growth and innovation, which is also of benefit to business, citizens and data science—and, indeed, UK plc.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the commissioner concentrates on this economic angle by reference to the commissioner’s annual report. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, may remember that we introduced a special reporting requirement into intellectual property legislation which helped to ensure the right culture in that increasingly important area.
I should add that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot and to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their involvement, and I am hopeful that the Minister will be able to meet the concerns I have outlined in my three amendments in a sympathetic and practical way.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her amendment. She made a very good case. Current fee proposals really are very flawed. Clause 132, “Charges payable to the Commissioner by controllers”, states:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations require controllers to pay charges of an amount specified in the regulations to the Commissioner”.
That, compared to the existing regime of registration, seems far more arbitrary and far less certain in the way it will provide the resources that the Minister, in a very welcome fashion, pledged to the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. It is far from clear on what basis those fees will be payable. Registration is a much sounder basis on which to levy fees by the Information Commissioner, as it was from the 1998 Act onwards.
I wish to be very brief; this has already been brought up. The Minister prayed in aid the fact that there are already some 400,000 data controllers and it was already getting out of hand. If the department—indeed, if the ICO—is going to be in contact with all those it believes to hold data as data controllers, it will have to have some kind of records. If that is not registration, I do not know what is. The department has not really thought through what the future will be, or how the Information Commissioner will secure the resources she needs. I hope that there is still time for the Minister to rethink the approach to the levying of future tariffs.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
I just want to ask briefly whether small organisations will also include clubs and societies. I do not know whether that has been dealt with before. For instance, I am the chief of Clan Hay and we have a Clan Hay society. It does not make money, but it has membership lists and branches abroad. I discussed it with the ICO before this came up, and it thought we would definitely have to comply. I hope we will be covered as a small organisation.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I have been involved from time to time in the creation of very small charities of a local nature, or have been involved in advising such organisations. I strongly support Amendment 106 moved by the noble Baroness. There is a real danger that, unless the ICO produces clear and simple pro formas that can be filled in quickly and easily by such organisations, they will be put off forming such charities, and local communities will thereby be deprived of great advantages that would be created by local citizens, which is something I understand the Government wish to encourage.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support strongly my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in these amendments, particularly Amendment 106. It was a glaring bureaucratic nonsense when it appeared in the Bill, and I referred to it at Second Reading. The Government must recognise that they have to be practical in the imposition of burdens on small bodies that are trying to serve the community. I declare my interest as the chairman of a parish council that would be very adversely affected if this were unchanged.
I do not necessarily expect bureaucrats in Whitehall to take on board the realities of grass-roots democracy in parish councils, but I would hope that Ministers, particularly those who are Members in another place—who have constituencies and whose job it is to be in touch with the real world—would never let this through. It is quite unacceptable as it stands, and I strongly support my noble friend. I hope the Minister will explain how he will deal with it.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, to add to what my noble friend Lord Marlesford said, in small villages, a small number of people do everything. That is increasingly true as many villages become, sadly, of one class and one age group. The person who is helping to run the parish council is also on the parochial church council and running the small local charity. These people are already worn down by the burdens that we lay on them. I speak from the countryside. We must ensure that we do not drive the few remaining people who will bear the burdens of the community away from those institutions because we ask them to do things that are, first, heavy and, secondly, inimical. If the Minister says, “It will not be like that”, then we have got it wrong because we have given the perception that it will, and we must destroy that perception rapidly if we are happy that the Bill does not need the amendment. My view is that it does. I hope my noble friend will reassure me on that, but it is not me who must be reassured, it is the hundreds of people around the country who do these jobs for nothing, and yet for the good of all.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that a small number of people do everything in small communities. It sometimes feels like that here. I do not think that we need to say much more; all the issues have been raised and I am sure that when he responds, the Minister will answer some, if not all, of the questions. The underlying theme is that we do not want to spoil what is a very good Bill with desirable aims by failing to pick up all the areas that it needs to address, because there will be benefits from it, as we have heard. I think that the Government understand that, but they must not be in the position of willing the ends of policy without also willing the means.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, my predecessor in this role, for once again bringing the topic of small businesses to the House’s attention. Other noble Lords have extended that from small businesses to small organisations—indeed, even clans. While I am on the important subject of the clan, the noble Earl asked whether they would be classed as small organisations. I am sure that they are not small, but the answer is yes, they will be subject to the provisions of the GDPR.
The serious, general reason is that the GDPR, which is EU legislation which comes into direct effect on 25 May, is there to protect personal data. We must remember that the importance of protecting people’s personal data, particularly as it has developed since the most recent Data Protection Act was passed in 1998, has extended dramatically and concerns very personal items that belong to people. That is why it does not entirely matter whether it is a small or large organisation. Public authorities, such as parish councils, and other small organisations, such as charities, must take personal data seriously. They have obligations under the existing Act, but under the GDPR, they have more, and that is why. However, I and the Government instinctively support small organisations where we have it in our power to do so. I shall return to some of the specific points later.
I thank my noble friend for bringing this matter to the House’s attention and for coming to discuss it at length; I welcome this opportunity to provide some reassurance. As I have said at previous stages of the Bill, I wholeheartedly agree that the Government should recognise the concerns of the smallest organisations and continuously look at ways to support them through the transition to a new data protection framework. The amendments tabled by my noble friend have all been designed with small organisations, charities and parish councils in mind.
Before I address each amendment in turn, I remind noble Lords that the Information Commissioner’s Office already produces a variety of supportive materials intended to help organisations of all sizes to navigate their way to data protection compliance. I strongly encourage businesses to consult these, and to make use of the commissioner’s new dedicated helpline, provided specifically for small organisations. I am pleased to say, in answer to my noble friend Lord Marlesford and, in part, to my noble friend Lord Deben, that the Information Commissioner has agreed to issue advice to parish councils, which will be published shortly. That is one of the organisations to which my noble friend referred. I understand exactly what he is saying, as I live in a small village and my wife is a parish councillor. I assure noble Lords that the issues of the Data Protection Act in relation to parish councils have been aired vociferously, and not only in this Chamber.
In addition, it is worth noting that the process for paying annual charges to the commissioner will become simpler and less burdensome, which I am sure will come as welcome news to small organisations—but we will return to that point shortly.
Amendment 106 would add a new clause that would give the Information Commissioner a duty to provide additional support to small businesses, charities and parish councils to meet their requirements under the GDPR. This may include, among other things, additional advice and discounted fees paid to the commissioner. I think that my noble friend Lord Marlesford, raised a point earlier on, and I hope that it will be helpful if I put it on record that parish councils can share duties like a data protection officer, which is a public authority that they have to have, under the GDPR, with other parish councils as well as with district councils. Parish clerks can also fulfil that role.
While I agree with my noble friend that small organisations should be supported to meet new obligations under the GDPR and this Bill, I cannot agree with the obligations that that would place on the commissioner. As I mentioned earlier, the commissioner has already published a wide breadth of guidance online and is continuing to develop this guidance as we near the date of GDPR implementation. I mentioned an example just now. Only recently, she updated her small business portal to make it easier for organisations to access GDPR-related resources. Given that the commissioner is already so active in this field, which the Government and, I think, my noble friend fully support, I fear that additional prescriptive requirements would distract rather than contribute.
Lord Storey (LD)
While the Minister is responding on this issue—I was not allowed to move Amendment 87A because somebody shouted out “not moved” when it was in fact not moved by myself—could he include schools in his comments?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We were going to have a debate on that—I gather that the Liberal Democrats did not want to bring it forward—but the basic answer is that schools have responsibilities under the GDPR. They particularly have responsibility for personal data relating to children; they already have extensive responsibilities under the current Data Protection Act. So it is very much an issue for schools. In this case, to help them, the Department for Education is going to provide guidance—and I am assured that it will be out very soon. So they have particular responsibilities. The kind of personal data that they handle on a regular basis is very important; I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned an example of some of the personal data that they hold in relation to free school meals, which has to be protected and looked after carefully. One benefit for the school system, as far as other organisations are concerned, is that they will have central guidance from the Department for Education—and I repeat that that is due to come out very soon.
I turn to Amendment 125, also proposed by my noble friend. It seeks to introduce a requirement on the Secretary of State, when making regulations under Clause 132, to consider making provision for a discounted charge—or no charge at all—to be payable by small businesses, small charities and parish councils to the Information Commissioner. Clause 132(3) already allows the Secretary of State to make provision for cases in which a discounted charge or no charge is payable. The new charge structure will take account of the need not to impose additional burdens on small businesses. This may include a provision in relation to small organisations.
I am happy to confirm that the Government have given very serious consideration to the appropriate charges for smaller businesses as part of the broader process for setting the Information Commissioner’s 2018 charges. The new charge structure will take account of the need to not impose additional burdens on small businesses. It is important to note, however, that small and medium organisations form a significant proportion of the data controllers currently registered with the ICO—approximately 99%, in fact. The process of determining a new charge structure is nearly complete and we will bring forward the resulting statutory instrument shortly. I would, however, like to put one thing on the record: in putting together that charging regime, we have been mindful of the need to ensure that the Information Commissioner is adequately resourced during this crucial transitional period, but I want to be clear that the Government do not consider the 2018 charges to be the end of the story. There may well be more we can do further down the line to modernise a regime that has not been touched for the best part of a decade.
Amendment 127 would place an obligation on the commissioner, in her annual report to Parliament, to include an economic assessment of the actions that the commissioner has taken on small businesses, charities and parish councils. I agree with my noble friend about the importance of the commissioner being aware of the impact of her approach to regulation during this crucial period. As I said to the commissioner when we met, we must nevertheless also be mindful of maintaining her independence in selecting an approach. Even if we did not think that having an independent regulator was important—I want to be clear: we do —articles 51 to 59 of the GDPR impose a series of particular requirements in that regard. But, all of the above notwithstanding, I agree with a lot of what my noble friend has said this afternoon.
Turning to amendment 107A, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, concerning the registration of data controllers, I remember the Committee debate where the noble Lord tabled a similar amendment. I hope that I can use this opportunity to provide further reassurance that it is unnecessary. The Government replaced the existing notification system with a new system of charges payable by data controllers in the Digital Economy Act. We did this for two reasons. First, the new GDPR has done away with the need for notification. Secondly, and consequentially, we needed a replacement system to fund the important work of the Information Commissioner. All this Bill does is re-enact what was done and agreed in the Digital Economy Act last year. We legislated on this a year earlier than the GDPR would come into force because changes to fees and charges need more of a lead time to take effect. As I have already said, these new charges must be in place by the time the GDPR takes effect in May and we will shortly be laying regulations before Parliament which set those fees.
Returning to the subject matter of the amendment, under the current data protection law, notification, accompanied by a charge, is the first step to compliance. Similarly, under the new law, a charge will also need to be paid and, as under the previous law, failure to pay the charge is enforceable. We have replaced the unwieldy criminal sanction with a new penalty scheme—found in Clause 151 of the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, can the Minister explain what the trigger is for the payment of the fees?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
A charge will need to be paid if you are the data controller.
Lord Clement-Jones
That is not what I meant. That is not a trigger; it is notification by the data controller.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
If you process and control data, you will need to make a notification to the data commissioner. I do not understand why that is not a trigger.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Exactly, so my point, which I was coming to but which the noble Lord has very carefully made for me, is that, in doing this, the Information Commissioner will obviously keep a list of the names and addresses of those people who have paid the charge. The noble Lord may even want to call that a register. The difference is, unlike the previous register, it will not have all the details included in the previous one. That was fine in 1998, and had some benefit, but the Information Commissioner finds it extremely time-consuming to maintain this. In addition, as regards the information required in the existing register, under the GDPR that now has to be notified to the data subjects anyway. Therefore, if the noble Lord wants to think of this list of people who have paid the charge as a register, he may feel happier.
I have talked about the penalty sanction. When the noble Lord interrupted me, I was just about to say—I will repeat it—that the commissioner will maintain a database of those who have paid the new charge, and will use the charge income to fund her operation. So what has changed? The main change is that the same benefits of the old scheme are achieved with less burden on business and less unnecessary administration for the commissioner. The current scheme is cumbersome, demanding lots of information from the data processors and controllers, and for the commissioner, and it demands regular updates. It had a place in 1998 and was introduced then to support the proper implementation of data protection law in the UK. However, in the past two decades, the use of data in our society has changed dramatically. In our digital age, in which an ever-increasing amount of data is being processed, data controllers find this process unwieldy. It takes longer and longer to complete the forms and updates are needed more and more often, and the commissioner herself tells us that she has limited use for this information.
My hope is that Amendment 107A is born out of a feeling shared by many, which is to a certain extent one of confusion. I hope that with this explanation the situation is now clearer. When we lay the charges regulations shortly, it will, I hope, become clearer still. The amendment would simply create unnecessary red tape and may even be incompatible with the GDPR as it would institute a register which is not required by the GDPR. I am sure that cannot be the noble Lord’s intention. For all those reasons, I hope he will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank the Minister for going into the issues in such detail, and for the support that is now being offered by the ICO through the transition. We have heard about the helpline, the websites, and new guidance—not only for parish councils, which I regard as a major breakthrough, but for small business and schools. That is all very good news. There will be a charge but it will be modulated, as I understand it, in a way to be decided and brought before the House in an order. I think the Minister understands the wish of this House not to load lots of costs on smaller businesses as a result of this important legislation, which we all know is necessary for a post-Brexit world.
My only concern related to the Minister’s comments on what we might put into the report, because he rightly said that the Information Commissioner had to be independent, which I totally agree with. Equally, I thought that without undermining her independence, it was possible to ask her to report on economic matters and, for example, on how business learns about data protection and how that is going. I do not know whether he is able to confirm that today, but he made a point about independence and it was not clear whether it would be possible to put something into the reporting system.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We are keen that the Information Commissioner be independent and is seen to be independent, and I know that the commissioner herself is aware of that. I cannot commit to anything today, but I will certainly take back my noble friend’s question and see what can be done while maintaining the Information Commissioner’s independence.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
On that basis, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Mitchell
“(j) maintain a register of publicly controlled personal data of national significance;(k) prepare a code of practice which contains practical guidance in relation to personal data of national significance.(2) For the purposes of sub-sub-paragraphs (j) and (k) of paragraph (1), personal data controlled by public bodies is data of national significance if, in the opinion of the Commissioner, —(a) the data furthers collective economic, social or environmental well-being,(b) the data has the potential to further collective economic, social or environmental well-being in future, and(c) financial benefit may be derived from processing the data or the development of associated software.”
Lord Mitchell (CB)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 108. The points I am addressing were glossed over in Committee, and I now wish to expand on this important issue.
Data is the new oil. This has been said many times in your Lordships’ House, but as each day passes it becomes more true. Without stretching the analogy too far, in our country big data is about to become the 21st-century equivalent of North Sea oil. Because big data has such value, it will come as no surprise to see big tech companies swarming all over it. They have to because it is their lifeline. Many of our public bodies, particularly the NHS, are custodians of massive amounts of data, which big tech is eager to get its hands on. But we as legislators who act for the public good also have a responsibility to ensure that the public are protected and that, simply put, our treasure is not taken from us without clear authority or appropriate recompense. The data the public bodies hold belongs to us all. It is ours—our communal property—and we must tread carefully.
I will make one point as strongly as I can. I am a product of the data revolution; I have been professionally involved in the digital industry for over 50 years. For 40 of those I was an IT serial entrepreneur. This industry has been good to me; I fully understand that the tech sector needs light regulation. I know that at its best the digital revolution is a force for good but, equally, I know the dangers it poses, so I am trying to be cautious in what I propose. We stand at a crossroads. Computing power has reached astronomical capabilities, software is increasingly complex and artificial intelligence is now making dramatic inroads. Plus, we see the exponential availability of digital data. All these have contributed to the creation and brilliance of algorithms. The one thing we know for certain is that these exciting developments will keep on growing at exponential rates. In medicine, for example, new tools are being developed that are already enhancing diagnostic and treatment capabilities that could benefit all manner of healthcare, in particular our ageing population.
I welcome these developments, as I am sure we all do, many of which have come from our own private sector, and we should rejoice at this example of British expertise. However, at the same time we need to strike a balance between the ambitions of 21st century businesses and the responsibility of government to steward assets and resources of national significance so that the proceeds of technological developments benefit us all. My two amendments seek to codify how valuable, publicly controlled personal data is shared with big tech companies, and to ensure that financial returns, combined with wider social, economic and environmental benefits, are optimised.
I can best demonstrate the scale of this issue if I refer to the NHS. Ever since its formation in 1948—maybe they were kept even before that—the NHS has kept records of tens of millions of patients, literally from cradle to grave. These records are either in written form, or increasingly in digital format, but the magnitude of the collected data is huge. Very few countries can match the length and depth of the health records that the NHS is trusted to retain on behalf of the general public. Such data is called longitudinal data and, when it is bundled together, has great commercial value.
At Second Reading I gave the example of a company called DeepMind, which is a British subsidiary of Google. I visited DeepMind, which is an impressive organisation based here in London. It has purchased access to millions of anonymised data records from institutions such as the Royal Free and Moorfields Eye Hospital. It does not buy this data outright—it does not have to. It simply buys access. Such access enables it and companies like it to use very powerful computers and very sophisticated software to process millions of records with the help of artificial intelligence and machine learning.
This synthesising of data using AI capabilities is designed to produce algorithms, and it is these algorithms that become the product that companies such as DeepMind are able to monetise. They do this by selling the algorithms and their consulting services to the likes of pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers and even back to the NHS itself. It is a global business and very profitable. At the Royal Free, these algorithms are being used to detect the early onset of kidney disease. At Moorfields Eye Hospital, also here in London, spectacular advances have occurred in similarly detecting potential optical problems.
This is data processing used for the benefit and enhancement of all mankind and we should welcome it. However, I am concerned that this precious and unique data is being offered to big tech companies by our public bodies in the absence of clear and consistent guidelines and without asking how best to obtain value for money in the broadest sense of the term.
Having dealt with big tech companies for most of my life, I know that they are staffed with exceptionally clever people and are no slouches at driving hard bargains. Unlike our NHS, they are not consumed with the day-to-day preoccupation of trying to balance their current budgets; with hundreds of billions of dollars in the bank, they can afford to play the long game, and it is easy to see who holds the aces in any negotiation. Put simply, I wish to protect our public bodies and ensure that we do not give away our inheritance. That is why we need to codify how we will obtain value for money from the sharing of data of national significance with the private sector.
My proposal is not just for the NHS and it is not just for now. All public bodies need protection and guidelines today and well into the future. That is why I have introduced my amendments. In Amendment 107B I seek, first, to require the Information Commissioner to maintain a register of publicly controlled personal data of national significance and, secondly, to prepare a code of practice containing practical guidance in relation to personal data of national significance. These are defined in subsection (2). In Amendment 108 I have set out the requirements of the code on personal data of national significance.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I want briefly to express sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. I share many of his concerns but essentially I think that we should look on the most optimistic side. I hope that he is also really describing the opportunities that can be made available with this kind of data, provided that it is accessible in the way described. I know that the noble Lord takes considerable inspiration from Future Care Capital’s report on intelligence-sharing unleashing the potential of health and care data in the UK to transform outcomes. I thought that it was very good and well considered.
The noble Lord has put down a very important marker today but my one caveat is that I am not sure that there is yet a settled view about how to deal with this kind of data. In Committee we talked about data trusts. In her AI review, Dame Wendy Hall also talked about data trusts. I know that we need to head in a direction that gives us much more assurance about the use of the data in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, has described, but I am not sure we have quite reached a consensus around these things to come to the decision that this is the best possible model.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, in earlier amendments I have tried to interest the Government in the idea of establishing what I loosely call a copyright of one’s personal data. Another possibility put forward in a different amendment is that one could think of data provided by individuals as matters that would be controlled by them through the role of a data controller. I am not trying to be in any sense critical of the Government’s response to this but I think I was ahead of my time—a nice place to be if you can—and I do not think the idea is quite ready to be turned into legislative form. I suspect that the solution lies in a data ethics commission, an idea that we will come to later in the agenda. Such a commission may be established by statute, either today or through some future legislative process, so that we can begin to think through these important issues. I was interested in a lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, said in his introduction of the amendment because it has bearing on these issues.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we are not quite there yet. However, worrying issues have been raised that need to be addressed, particularly in relation to data that is acquired, used and commercially exploited without necessarily being certain that we are getting value for money from it. The amendments are relatively mild in their exhortations to the Government, but they certainly point the way to further work that should be done and I support them.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, for taking the time to come and see me to explain these amendments. We had an interesting conversation and I learned a lot—although clearly I did not convince him that they should not be put forward. I am grateful also to the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Stevenson, who said, I think, that there may be more work to do on this—I agree—and that possibly this is not the right time to discuss these issues because they are broader than the amendment. Notwithstanding that, I completely understand the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, has raised, and they are certainly worth thinking about.
These amendments seek to ensure that public authorities—for example, the NHS—are, with the help of the Information Commissioner, fully cognisant of the value of the data that they hold when entering into appropriate data-sharing agreements with third parties. Amendment 107B would also require the Information Commissioner to keep a register of this data of “national significance”. I can see the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. It would seem right that when public authorities are sharing data with third parties, those agreements are entered into with a full understanding of the value of that data. We all agree that we do not want the public sector disadvantaged, but I am not sure that the public sector is being disadvantaged. Before any amendment could be agreed, we would need to establish that there really was a problem.
Opening up public data improves transparency, builds trust and fosters innovation. Making data easily available means that it will be easier for people to make decisions and suggestions about government policies based on detailed information. There are many examples of public transport and mapping apps that make people’s lives easier that are powered by open data. The innovation that this fosters builds world-beating technologies and skills that form the cornerstone of the tech sector in the UK. While protecting the value in our data is important, it cannot be done with a blunt tool, as we need equally to continue our efforts to open up and make best use of government-held data.
In respect of health data, efforts are afoot to find this balance. For example, Sir John Bell proposed in the Life Sciences: Industrial Strategy, published in August last year, that a working group be established to explore a new health technology assessment and commercial framework that would capture the value in algorithms generated using NHS data. This type of body would be more suitable to explore these questions than a code of practice issued by the Information Commissioner, as the noble Lord proposes.
I agree that it is absolutely right that public sector bodies should be aware of the value of the data that they hold. However, value can be extracted in many ways, not solely through monetary means. For example, sharing health data with companies who analyse that data may lead to a deeper understanding of diseases and potentially even to new cures—that is true value. The Information Commissioner could not advise on this.
That sharing, of course, raises ethical issues as well as financial ones and we will debate later the future role and status of the new centre for data ethics and innovation, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned. This body is under development and I am sure that this House would want to contribute to its development, not least the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and his Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence.
For those reasons, I am not sure that a code is the right answer. Having heard some of the factors that need to be considered, I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Perhaps I may offer some further reassurance. If in the future it emerged that a code was the right solution, the Bill allows, at Clause 124, for the Secretary of State to require the Information Commissioner to prepare appropriate codes. If it proves better that the Government should provide guidance, the Secretary of State could offer his own code.
There are technical questions about the wording of the noble Lord’s amendment. I will not go into them at the moment because the issues of principle are more important. However, for the reasons I have given that the code may not be the correct thing at the moment, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate. I also thank the Minister for agreeing to see me prior to the Recess and for his comments today. However, this is an issue of precision—and we need precision on the statute book. All that has been suggested to me, which is that it can be found elsewhere or will be looked at in the future, does not give the definitive answer we require. That is why I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Mitchell
“Code on personal data of national significance
The Commissioner must prepare a code of practice which contains—(a) best practice guidance in relation to information sharing agreements between publicly funded data controllers and third parties;(b) guidance in relation to the calculation of value for money where publicly funded data controllers enter into information sharing agreements with third parties;(c) guidance about securing financial benefits from the sharing of such personal data with third parties for the purposes of processing or developing associated software, and(d) such other guidance as the Commissioner considers appropriate to promote best practice in the sharing and processing of personal data of national significance.”
Baroness Kidron
“Age-appropriate design code
(1) The Commissioner must prepare a code of practice which contains such guidance as the Commissioner considers appropriate on standards of age-appropriate design of relevant information society services which are likely to be accessed by children.(2) Where a code under this section is in force, the Commissioner may prepare amendments of the code or a replacement code.(3) Before preparing a code or amendments under this section, the Commissioner must consult the Secretary of State and such other persons as the Commissioner considers appropriate, including—(a) children,(b) parents,(c) persons who appear to the Commissioner to represent the interests of children,(d) child development experts, and(e) trade associations.(4) In preparing a code or amendments under this section, the Commissioner must have regard—(a) to the fact that children have different needs at different ages, and(b) to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.(5) A code under this section may include transitional provision or savings.(6) Any transitional provision included in the first code under this section must cease to have effect before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the code comes into force.(7) In this section—“age-appropriate design” means the design of services so that they are appropriate for use by, and meet the development needs of, children; “information society services” has the same meaning as in the GDPR, but does not include preventive or counselling services;“relevant information society services” means information society services which involve the processing of personal data to which the GDPR applies;“standards of age-appropriate design of relevant information society services” means such standards of age-appropriate design of such services as appear to the Commissioner to be desirable having regard to the best interests of children;“trade association” includes a body representing controllers or processors;“the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child” means the Convention on the Rights of the Child adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 20 November 1989 (including any Protocols to that Convention which are in force in relation to the United Kingdom), subject to any reservations, objections or interpretative declarations by the United Kingdom for the time being in force.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(1A) In relation to the first code under section (Age-appropriate design code)—(a) the Commissioner must prepare the code as soon as reasonably practicable and must submit it to the Secretary of State before the end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, and(b) the Secretary of State must lay it before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Records of national security certificatesRecords of national security certificates
(1) A Minister of the Crown who issues a certificate under section 25, 77 or 109 must send a copy of the certificate to the Commissioner.(2) If the Commissioner receives a copy of a certificate under subsection (1), the Commissioner must publish a record of the certificate.(3) The record must contain—(a) the name of the Minister who issued the certificate,(b) the date on which the certificate was issued, and(c) subject to subsection (4), the text of the certificate.(4) The Commissioner must not publish the text, or a part of the text, of the certificate if—(a) the Minister determines that publishing the text or that part of the text—(i) would be against the interests of national security,(ii) would be contrary to the public interest, or(iii) might jeopardise the safety of any person, and(b) the Minister has notified the Commissioner of that determination.(5) The Commissioner must keep the record of the certificate available to the public while the certificate is in force.(6) If a Minister of the Crown revokes a certificate issued under section 25, 77 or 109, the Minister must notify the Commissioner.”
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, government Amendment 118 responds to an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I said then that I recognised the concern that had been expressed about the lack of transparency as regards national security certificates and that I would consider what more could be done to address this.
Having reflected carefully on that debate, and on representations from the Information Commissioner, I am pleased to move Amendment 118 to address this issue. It inserts a new clause into Part 5 of the Bill which requires a Minister of the Crown who issues a certificate under Clauses 25, 77 or 109 to send a copy of the certificate to the Information Commissioner, who must publish a record of the certificate. We would normally expect the published record to be a copy of the certificate itself. As I indicated in Committee, a number of the existing certificates are already available online.
As an important safeguard under the new clause, the commissioner must not publish the text or part of the text of the certificate if the Minister determines, and has so advised the commissioner, that to do so would be against the interests of national security or contrary to the public interest, or might jeopardise the safety of any person. Where it was necessary to redact information in a particular certificate, there would still be a public record of the certificate as set out in subsection (3) of the new clause. While in practice we expect that most certificates will continue to be published in full with no need for such restrictions, as is currently the case, this provides an important safeguard where it is necessary for a certificate to include operationally sensitive information. The commissioner must keep the record of the certificate available to the public while the certificate is in force, and if a Minister of the Crown revokes a certificate the Minister must notify the commissioner.
In the Information Commissioner’s briefing to this House on the Bill, she stated that there should be a presumption in favour of placing national security certificates in the public domain where to do so would not damage national security. She also noted that adopting a provision requiring her to be notified when a certificate was issued would provide a further safeguard to help inspire public confidence in regulatory oversight. I agree with her.
We have listened to concerns, and trust that this amendment will be widely welcomed. Indeed, it is worth recording that the ICO’s latest briefing on the Bill said that the amendment was,
“very welcome as it should improve regulatory scrutiny and foster greater public trust and confidence in the use of national security certificate process”.
I beg to move.
Amendment 118A (to Amendment 118)
Lord Paddick
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we are very grateful to the Government for introducing Amendment 118. We still believe that they could and should have gone further. Taking the example of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016—the fact that Ministers are unable to authorise interception without oversight by an independent judicial commissioner of that decision—we wonder why that sort of oversight could not be applied to these certificates as well. Clearly, we are grateful to the Government for going as far as they have done. We are just disappointed that they did not go as far as we wanted.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennedy is not available at the moment. He is occupied with a personal matter and has asked me to say that he supports the words of the Minister. She has listened to concerns. It is very welcome that she has done so and we agree with the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(2) But this section does not authorise the making of a disclosure which is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. (3) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (2) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Baroness Hollins
“Inquiry into issues arising from data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of news publishers
(1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into allegations of data protection breaches committed by, or on behalf of, news publishers.(2) The inquiry’s terms of reference must include, but are not limited to,— (a) to inquire, in respect of personal data processing, into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct within news publishers and, as appropriate, other organisations within the media, and by those responsible for holding personal data;(b) to inquire, in respect of personal data processing, into the extent of corporate governance and management failures at news publishers;(c) in the light of these inquiries, to consider the implications for personal data protection in relation to freedom of speech; and(d) to make recommendations on what action, if any, should be taken in the public interest.”
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, some in this Chamber have taken the view that the Leveson agreement, which united all parties across both Houses just four years ago, has been overtaken by events and that yet another inquiry into press regulation is now needed. That is precisely the pattern of events that has followed virtually every single inquiry into press misconduct over the last 70 years, when Governments of both left and right have first prevaricated and then surrendered to concerted press lobbying, with missed opportunity after missed opportunity. Let us be clear where we are: Parliament has already legislated, with the help of a cross-party consensus, for much of the Leveson frame- work. We have a royal charter and a Press Recognition Panel, both following the Leveson recommendations. We have the establishment of a recognised press self-regulator, which meets the Leveson criteria. So a failure to fulfil the whole cross-party agreement does not represent a failure of the Leveson inquiry, or of the recommendations that followed, but rather of political courage to complete the jigsaw.
This amendment, tabled by me and supported by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord McNally and Lord Lipsey, would require the Government to proceed with a public inquiry into data protection breaches at national newspapers. I am grateful for their support and for the encouragement I continue to receive from so many Members across your Lordships’ House. But a brand new inquiry is unnecessary, as the spirit of this amendment would be fully satisfied by the completion of the second part of the Leveson inquiry. That is my amendment’s intention, which is why the terms of reference specified in the amendment so closely resemble those of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry, within the scope of the Bill with respect to data protection.
There are three reasons why part 2, or a very similar inquiry, should go ahead. First, there is the sheer scale of unlawful conduct and the lack of any accountability. Secondly, there are the traumatic consequences for the many ordinary people who are victims. Thirdly, there are the ongoing implications for the conduct of powerful press organisations today. I shall deal with each in turn briefly.
Part 2 of the Leveson inquiry was designed to delve into the extent of criminality, its cover up, and the collusion between press and police, how it was able to persist, and who was ultimately responsible. We know, for example, that private data belonging to thousands of individuals was illegally accessed on a more far-reaching scale, and in many ways more consequential, than in phone hacking. This type of data theft was rarely in the public interest and was therefore unlawful. We know that these activities were not restricted to the News of the World—far from it: they took place at the Mirror, the Sunday People and the Sun, while evidence has emerged that they took place at the Daily Mail, the Express and the Times as well.
A six-week civil trial of the Sun for four claimants, with 50 more following, is starting imminently, alleging widespread data theft from 1998 through to this decade and an illegal cover-up. There has still been no inquiry into this widespread illegal conduct, and the only senior newspaper executive held to account is Andy Coulson at the News of the World. If corporate misbehaviour on this scale had occurred in any other industry, our newspapers would quite rightly have been calling for heads to roll and for government to intervene.
It is perhaps unusual to mention this, but I have some special guests today who have been personally affected by the misuse of their personal data. I have not spoken personally before, and it is not easy to do so, but it seems that some people do not understand what goes on in our media. Members of your Lordships’ House may be familiar with some of the abuses and intrusions that my family suffered and know that I gave evidence to part 1 of the Leveson inquiry, but they may not be aware that our data rights were repeatedly breached by newspapers. One consequence of having your personal data stolen, and not knowing how, is what it does to your own behaviour. I actually withheld information about my daughter’s progress from close family and friends after her life-threatening spinal injury because I began to suspect people I knew of speaking to the media. I stopped trusting people, even people in my own family, my neighbours and my best friends. I did not trust them. I did not know about hacking and blagging. I actually used to joke about how I thought perhaps the journalists who sent flowers to the hospital every day had put a chip in them so that they could capture our conversations in the waiting room when my daughter was fighting for her life in intensive care. That is what I thought. My daughter’s story was primarily a good news story, the triumph of hope over adversity, a story of recovery, not tragedy, but we had to cope with frequent door-stepping and long-range lenses being used to steal pictures, and the intrusion went on for months and months.
At the time of my daughter’s injury, I was a university professor and the head of a prestigious academic professional college. I was amazed by the prevalence of plagiarism in the press. Plagiarism in academia is a dismissible matter. I had no idea, until my family was the subject of intense media scrutiny over many months, just how commonplace plagiarism is. Typically, one paper’s so-called news on Wednesday would simply be downloaded and reprinted, virtually word for word, in a second unrelated paper on Thursday and in another on Friday, and if the second and third papers added a couple of new words, they might even call it an exclusive. When I, as an academic, publish findings, they have to be accurate. One newspaper article had 28 supposedly objective facts, of which only two were correct. The noble Lord, Lord Black, will be pleased to know that the Daily Telegraph was the most restrained newspaper, but your Lordships’ House may be surprised to know that the only serious and accurate article about the implications of a high-level spinal injury for a pregnant woman was in Hello magazine. It was a good article.
Data theft—often disingenuously referred to as leaks—also affects public bodies. I asked to see the Secretary of State in the Department of Health after a story about my learning-disabled son appeared in the Daily Mail. The account was uncannily similar to some evidence he had given in confidence to a government taskforce. The Secretary of State apologised and said it was the fourth data leak that month, but could not or would not tell me how this intensely private information came to be published in a national newspaper. I spoke about that to the Leveson inquiry. The response was that the information was already in the public domain. It was not, and my son was a vulnerable adult, and printing his photograph put him at risk.
Some people experienced much worse than this, and their names are etched in all our memories. Remember the heartache of the Dowler and the McCann families? Alongside other media assaults, these families had personal data stolen and processed by the media. There are countless other private individuals whose lives have been irrevocably changed by hostile and misleading reporting, often following data breaches through the theft of medical records, bank account details, phone numbers or other private data.
Before today’s debate, I met with Edward Bowles, whose 12 year-old son Sebastian lost his life in a bus crash in Switzerland. At a time of such trauma, his and his family’s suffering was made worse by the conduct of national newspapers which, in addition to repeated other intrusions, stole images of the family and published them without consent. These included images of Mr Bowles and his nine year-old daughter grieving after Sebastian’s death, and family photographs taken from Edward’s private Facebook account. Sebastian’s last personal messages to his family from the school’s website were obtained and published without even asking the family.
These data breaches were committed by newspapers with no public interest whatever and occurred in the middle of part 1 of the inquiry, when the press were supposedly on their best behaviour. This is why we still need to understand how such gross and widespread abuse was allowed to happen in the first place and to ensure that ordinary people are protected from those who steal private data to further their own corporate interests. We do not know how much improper and unlawful use of our data was going on, or may still be going on, because of a widespread cover-up. Corporate governance structures remain unreformed and many of the same newspaper executives remain in place.
I chaired a meeting for journalist whistleblowers before the Recess and we heard evidence of the kinds of data theft that they were commissioned to carry out by their editors in pursuit of stories with no public interest whatever. They were confident that these practices persist today, despite assurances from editors and proprietors that those days are gone. Their stories deserve a wider audience. Part 2 of the Leveson inquiry would allow them to be told and allow us to understand from the past how we can better protect the public interests of both private individuals and journalists in the future. The Government have been consulting on whether to complete the Leveson inquiry since November 2016—over a year ago. It should never even have been a matter of consultation but simply a matter of good faith that an inquiry promised to victims of crime should be completed. The failure to go ahead brings public inquiries into disrepute.
It is time to stop prevaricating and act decisively. I hope the noble and learned Lord the Minister will be in a position to assure your Lordships’ House that he has a firm commitment to commence part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Without such a promise, I intend to divide the House, and I hope the House will support both my amendments and the important amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, Amendments 147, 148 and 216, which are tabled as a package. I hope we will make serious and genuine progress towards independent press regulation today. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 147 and the consequential Amendments 148 and 216 in this group. It may be convenient if I suggest to the House the choreography of how this group might work. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has moved her amendment, which is what we are debating now and will decide on. I will speak to my amendments only once now, and other noble Lords can contribute to all the amendments being debated. I expect that the Minister will reply, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, will respond, and we will then deal with her amendment. After the formalities with other amendments, I will formally move my Amendment 147 and deal with any points arising from this debate in respect of it. I believe it is in order for noble Lords to make a substantive contribution after I move my amendment, at that time, but it may be more convenient for the House for noble Lords to do so now, during this current debate.
It goes without saying that I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, in her Amendment 127A. We must get to the bottom of what has been going on. My amendments would incentivise media operators to sign up to an independent press regulator in respect of data protection claims. This is achieved in the same way as the yet-to-be-commenced Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. My consequential Amendment 216 ensures that Amendments 147 and 148 come into effect on Royal Assent, and deny Ministers the discretion not to implement what Parliament might agree to, as has been done with Section 40.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
Before my noble friend moves on, would he care to tell your Lordships why he is making a serious distinction in law between IPSO and Impress, because to the minds of many of us, IPSO is a perfectly well regulated and constituted regulator?
Earl Attlee
My noble friend makes an excellent point, which I shall come to in a moment.
The third claim is that the Leveson system is unnecessary, as the new IPSO is much better than the previous Press Complaints Commission. I dealt with this in Committee by identifying some, but not all, of IPSO’s deficiencies. These are, first, that IPSO is not obliged to consider discrimination complaints from a group—for instance, a religious or ethnic group. It has also not yet dealt with a matter so serious as to merit levying even a £10 fine. Finally, in three years of operation, IPSO has not arbitrated a single case. In Committee, I was not challenged on any of those assertions, and I am not surprised, because they were checked very carefully.
I hope that noble Lords will support me in the Division Lobby in order that the House of Commons is given the opportunity to provide the vital costs-shifting protection that the public need and deserve in respect of data protection claims. Of course, this would also send a clear message to the Government that they should bring into force the rest of Section 40 immediately, as Parliament agreed to and voted for in 2013.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill (LD)
Is the noble Earl aware that there are some, including myself, who believe that Section 40 is unlawful and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, since it imposes a burden on a newspaper to pay the costs of proceedings even if it is successful, and is discriminatory and arbitrary?
Earl Attlee
There is a simple answer to that—the noble Lord should test that in the courts and test it in Europe.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for mentioning one of the many cases over the years in press law that I have lost. I mention to noble Lords another of those cases, in the Court of Appeal in 2015, when I represented entirely unsuccessfully Mirror Group Newspapers, which sought to overturn the very substantial damages that had been awarded to individuals, some of them famous and some of them not, whose mobile phones had been hacked by journalists and whose data had been used to write articles breaching their privacy. A woman who had had a relationship with an England footballer was awarded damages of £72,500. An actress who appeared in “EastEnders” was awarded £157,000 in damages—and so on.
The reason why the courts awarded damages of that extraordinary magnitude, far more than you would get if someone deliberately ran you down and severely damaged your health, was precisely because of the factors that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned in opening this debate. It is about the personal nature of the intrusion and the suspicions that are engendered as to how the press obtained this information. Was it from friends or relatives who had betrayed you? It is about the very real impact that this has on your personal behaviour; it inhibits, inevitably, the communication that you have with friends and relatives. The claimants in these cases were represented by expert solicitors and by a counsel acting on a conditional fee basis, which meant that, when they won the case, MGN had to pay substantially increased costs, as well as insurance premiums. The costs—because the case related to dozens of claimants—were in the millions of pounds. Similar claims have been brought against other newspaper groups, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned in her opening remarks that further proceedings are imminent.
I mention all this to emphasise that, when newspapers breach data protection laws, as they have, they have paid for it, and rightly so. Nobody who knows anything about what used to be called Fleet Street could seriously doubt that journalists and editors now take data protection seriously. They would be mad not to do so. In the past few years, editors and journalists have gone to prison for criminal offences related to breaches of data protection. Editors and journalists have lost their jobs in relation to such matters. A prominent newspaper, the News of the World, was closed down. Newspaper groups have paid tens of millions of pounds—perhaps more—in damages and costs. This Bill will create a powerful new administrative machinery to enforce data protection law. All that is rightly so, and I complain about none of it; it is absolutely right that the rule of law applies.
The question is whether we really need a public inquiry on this subject, which will take years to report and cost a fortune to the public purse, occupying the time of busy people who can productively be engaged on other matters. I say to the House that we do not need an inquiry to establish what happened in the past—any number of trials, criminal and civil, have examined the facts, sordid as they are—and we do not need a public inquiry to ensure higher standards of conduct in the future. An inquiry in the terms set out in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would be so broad in nature that it would impede the ability of editors and journalists to get on with the vital work of holding government and powerful private individuals and companies to account.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, it is such a relief to hear the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, admit to the House, as he did at the beginning of his speech, that he sometimes loses a case. In fact, even as a meagre lawyer, I enjoyed success over him on an occasion in the European Court of Justice. However, it is disingenuous of the noble Lord to say that we should wait to hear whether the Government intend to do anything about Leveson part 2. We know that that is not the intention of government. The dragging of feet on all this has made it very clear that the Government do not want to fall out with their friends in the press or to lose the editorial support they get from sections of the press. We should be very clear that it is not likely to happen with the current Government.
I have great sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and what she is saying, because I share the concern that not all these lessons have been learned. There are ways in which we already see reluctance by those who are now seen as having authority to hold the press to account to take action. Therefore, I do not share the concern that this amendment is unlawful. I do not believe that premise is true and I think that it will be tested in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who often represents the press, may end up representing newspapers as opposed to individuals who have suffered transgressions. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, as I have seen too much of this bad behaviour going on.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am a criminal lawyer and I have seen the ways in which the police have leaked information. I am afraid that I have also seen bad behaviour on the part of police officers in divulging information to the press. Concerns have often been raised that there may be what used to be called “a drink in it” for subverting the proper processes by which high standards are maintained. Therefore, I do not share the confidence of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that everything will be fine as the measure runs through. I still feel that the press has lessons to learn. I hope that we listened to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, had to say.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I declare an interest. When I was a commander in the Metropolitan Police service, my personal details—this was in breach of data protection—were secured by Mulcaire, the private detective employed by a newspaper. This was discovered by the Metropolitan Police in 2002, but I was not told about it until 2010, when the Guardian alerted my lawyers to the fact that this had taken place. However, in the course of what subsequently transpired, I was shown an internal memorandum of the Metropolitan Police service, which showed that in 2002 it was aware that my phone and that of the then Deputy Prime Minister had been hacked into, and it never informed me of that. Therefore, noble Lords will understand that I should declare that personal interest.
However, I want to tell the following story to the House. I went with the family of Milly Dowler to see the then Prime Minister, the then Deputy Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition to talk about the family’s experience. Noble Lords will recall that Milly Dowler went missing, was kidnapped and murdered, and that her family kept trying to call her mobile telephone. However, the phone relayed the message that the voicemail box for that number was full. Therefore, the family was losing hope that she might still be alive. Then they tried to phone again and found that some of the messages had been listened to. That gave them hope that she might still be alive. However, it transpired that there was room in that mailbox because journalists had hacked into her voicemail and had listened to some of the messages.
On the evening before the first of those meetings with the then Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, Milly Dowler’s father was telephoned by Surrey Police to tell him and the family that Surrey Police knew in 2002 that journalists had hacked into Milly Dowler’s voicemail, thereby allowing further messages to be left, as the journalists involved had called the police incident room to tell them that they had illegally hacked into the voicemail. However, it was not until nine years later and the imminent meeting with the then Prime Minister, the then Deputy Prime Minister and the then Leader of the Opposition, that the police felt obliged to tell the Dowler family that they knew from the outset that her phone had been hacked into. They did not offer any explanation for not having taken any action in relation to that illegal hacking into that phone.
These are the sorts of issues involved. This is not just about the conduct of the media. The aim of part 2 of Leveson is to examine the relationship between the police and the media and between politicians and the media, not simply the conduct of the media themselves. That is why we need part 2 of Leveson, and that is why I support Amendment 127A.
Viscount Hailsham
My Lords, I will speak briefly, both to the proposed new clause in the amendment moved by the noble Baroness and the proposed new clause moved by my noble friend.
I am against the suggestion that we should have an inquiry. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that we know enough already. The facts have been canvassed time and time again, in inquiry, in criminal cases and in civil cases, and the time has now come for policy. We do not need new facts—we need a policy decision, and that is essentially a matter for government and Parliament. If we call for a further inquiry, the policy decisions will be postponed. A further point is that, if the proposed new clause is carried, the pressure will be on a judge-led inquiry. In the generality, I am against judge-led inquiries when they address matters of major general policy. Judges are good at identifying facts and deficiencies in existing legislation, but they are not well placed to address general policy issues.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
The noble Viscount said a few moments ago that we do not need an inquiry because we have all the evidence and all the facts we need. What are the Government hesitating for, then? If we have all the facts and the evidence we need, the Government must have them too. However, they are not proceeding. That is the dilemma that the House faces, and that is why I strongly support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
Viscount Hailsham
But the irony is that if we have a new inquiry, we will postpone the moment when the Government come forward with a policy. The only way you will get a policy decision is to press the Government to make their policy decision, not by holding a further inquiry.
The second point I want to deal with is my noble friend’s Amendment 147. I am not in support of it. First, I am against making a distinction in law between an approved and an unapproved regulator. I am bound to say that when I look at IPSO, I do not find it lacking; it seems to be a perfectly constituted and responsible regulator. I certainly do not want to make a distinction in law between Impress and IPSO. I very much hope that IPSO, which is backed by the industry, will get much greater support than it has hitherto received.
Secondly, on the issue of costs under my noble friend’s amendment, I believe that an award for costs should be within the discretion of the trial judge. The consequence of this proposed new clause is to make an award against a successful defendant when the institution and carriage of the litigation was conducted by the unsuccessful plaintiff or complainant. That seems to me to fly in the face of every notion of justice I have ever encountered. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, would agree with that proposition. Therefore, I very much hope that your Lordships will not agree to this proposed new clause. I accept that my noble friend has referred to the provisos, which enables the unapproved regulator to gain the costs. However, if my noble friend will forgive me, the second of the provisos is drawn in such general and loose terms as to be unintelligible, even to the cleverest of judges.
Earl Attlee
Of course, my amendments are entirely modelled on Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act, which Parliament passed.
Viscount Hailsham
That may be so, but Parliament makes errors, and this House is in the business of looking again at what we have done in the past. We have to ask ourselves: what is just and equitable in the context of this case? I therefore very much hope that we will not approve a new inquiry and that the proposed new clause so eloquently moved by my mentor will fail.
Lord Lipsey (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am one of those who backed the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and I want to intervene briefly to make a point about the beast with which we are dealing. I refer noble Lords to the piece in today’s Times—a newspaper at which, incidentally, 25 years ago I was deputy to the editor. The headline reads:
“Peers hijack data bill to attack free press through back door”.
In today’s Times, evidently, the facts are free but comment is sacred.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I hope that for the last time on this Bill I declare my interest as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group, and I draw attention to my other media interests in the register.
Amendment 127A, which I shall speak to first, is, as we have heard, an attempt to bring in by statute part 2 of the Leveson inquiry, but of course it is not quite Leveson 2 because this time there is no inconvenient mention of the role in the events of the past of some politicians and the police, who are noticeably absent from the scope of this amendment. So the target is four-square the press, and I believe that those who back the amendment are happy cynically to sweep everything else under the carpet.
I have four points to make. First, another inquiry is completely unnecessary because there genuinely is nothing left to unearth which has not been gone into in microscopic and comprehensive detail and been covered during the years of inquiries and investigations, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham said. Yes, bad things went on in a small number of places, but the full force of the criminal and civil law leading to prosecutions and often eye-watering amounts of compensation, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, along with rigorous judicial and parliamentary inquiry, has been brought to bear on them.
We had Leveson part 1, which cost taxpayers £5.4 million at the height of austerity and cost the core participants many tens of millions of pounds in legal costs. We should remember that Leveson had judicial powers of inquiry greater than those given even to Chilcot, who was investigating an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands of people died. We have had three exhaustive police investigations, with more people working on them than investigated the bombing at Lockerbie, in which over 200 souls died, costing the same taxpayer another £43 million. We have had three parliamentary inquiries by Select Committees in another place, one into press regulation by our own Communications Committee and one by a Joint Committee. There was a forensic investigation by the United States Department of Justice into voicemail interceptions and payments by public officials, after which it declined to prosecute. There has also been an investigation here into corporate liability in relation to data offences. After detailed consideration of that, the DPP said that no action was to be taken.
I cannot think of a comparable situation where so much has been done to get to the truth. So it is little wonder that Sir Brian Leveson himself, in concluding a ruling in the course of part 1 on 1 May 2012, questioned its value, saying that it would,
“involve yet more enormous cost (both to the public purse and the participants); it will trawl over material then more years out of date and is likely to take longer”,
to complete. I agree with that.
It was said in Committee, and has been hinted at here, that one of the issues that needed to be looked at again was Operation Motorman, despite the fact that Leveson took evidence on it and made recommendations. However—this goes to the heart of the matter—that concerned journalistic activity prior to 2003, 15 years ago. Does anyone believe that going over all that material again will be in any way fruitful, especially when many of the people involved will have left the industry? Some of them have died, and at least some will have forgotten the circumstances around actions that took place at the turn of the century.
My second point is that since the events that were at the centre of Leveson 1 took place, there genuinely has been a sea change in the regulatory framework surrounding journalism and publishing, which makes an inquiry unnecessary. In the past five years, the Press Complaints Commission, of which I was once director, has been closed and IPSO put in its place. I do not think that this is the time for a debate about IPSO, but it is an organisation with real powers based in civil law, which means that it is a regulator able to extract real penalties, far removed from the conciliation service that the PCC offered. Perhaps not visible to the naked eye, IPSO has also brought about, as I know from personal experience, a huge transformation of the internal complaints handling and governance procedures of newspapers.
My noble friend Lord Attlee mentioned the arbitration scheme. He should know from checking his facts that IPSO does now offer a low-cost arbitration scheme. The claimant fee for an initial ruling is just £50—I do not think you can get much more low-cost than that—and a maximum of £100 if the full process is used.
Lord Black of Brentwood
The scheme has only just come in following a pilot, so we need to give it a bit of time to see whether it will take effect.
Building on the issue of public interest, my third point is that I do not believe the industry can afford the distraction of such a huge inquiry at a time when many parts of it are struggling for survival. On one level, there is the sheer cost. Leveson 1 cost the industry many tens of millions of pounds in legal fees and management time. Any follow-up inquiry of this sort would, as Sir Brian himself intimated, be even longer, even more complex in view of the time that has elapsed and even more expensive. Under the terms of the amendment, it would impact on every part of the media, including the local press and the magazine sector, which were completely cleared in Leveson 1. The amendment puts those proved innocent back in the dock. Indeed, its terms are so wide that it would even draw in the international media, such as Buzzfeed, Reuters and the Huffington Post, as well as broadcasters including the BBC. Quite apart from the cost, there is the profound distraction that it would entail for those who are seeking with great speed to change their business so that they can survive in the digital age.
The spectre of yet another inquiry is a toxic threat to a free and independent press. I have lost count of the number of times during the passage of this Bill I have heard from those who said it was appalling to suggest—which I never have—that they do not believe in press freedom; that they were champions of press freedom through and through. Maybe, but I say to them: if you will the ends, you have to will the means. Setting up this inquiry is absolutely not willing the means for the survival of the free media in this country.
The issue of tumultuous change leads me to my fourth point. This amendment points very much to the past, one long hauled over. I know that bad things went on but we should be desperately trying to point to the future. One problem with the first part of the Leveson inquiry was that it ignored the reality of the new media environment and global competition in news. The world that this amendment seeks to investigate has gone. We should be looking now at how we can support free media by working out how best to regulate the currently completely unregulated online platforms of Google and Facebook, rather than heaping yet more burdens on a part of the media that is more heavily regulated than anywhere in the western world, constantly scrutinised and buckling under serious commercial pressure. It is time to draw a halt to this and look to the challenges of the future.
I turn briefly to Amendments 147 and 148 in the name of my noble friend Lord Attlee, which attempt to bring in a version of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. These are deeply pernicious amendments and would, I say to my noble friend, have a destructive impact on our free press, not just national newspapers but the local press, the magazine and periodical business, and the international media. The so-called process of cost shifting, which lies at the heart of this, means that all newspapers and magazines not signed up to a state-approved regulator would be liable to pay for the other side’s costs in an action for a breach of data protection, whether they win or lose the case. Because data touches on virtually every aspect of the news operation—from the genesis of a report to its ultimate archiving—a legal action relating to almost any journalistic activity could be dressed-up in a way that would take advantage of this malignant law. It would open the floodgates to hundreds of baseless claims that would put the very existence of many newspapers, particularly the local press, in grave jeopardy.
The aim of this is to use the law to blackmail—I use the term advisedly—publishers into a system of state-approved regulation. Punishing newspapers for telling the truth as a ruse to impose such controls is wholly inimical to press freedom and alien to democracy. In the current situation, the problem is even worse because the faux regulator “approved” by the Press Recognition Panel is bankrolled by the anti-press campaigner Max Mosley. My noble friend Lord Attlee asked about state control. As he knows—he and I have talked about it—the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 gives this House the power to change the charter by a two-thirds majority. However, in many ways even that is a red herring, because Parliament can vote at any time to overturn that and change the terms of the royal charter in a way that would extend state control of the press.
Given that the publishing sector has made it clear that it will never join an approved regulator, this amendment would have the most profound impact across all journalism, but particularly on investigative reporting. It would give anyone who wanted to suppress a journalist’s inquiries a blank cheque to bring a legal action, knowing that they would not have to pick up the cost. Very few publications would ever let a case get to court because of the crippling costs involved, and would either have to stop investigating the moment that a legal action was threatened or be forced to apologise for printing something that was true. This would be particularly pertinent in investigations where there could be multiple legal actions. For instance, had this provision been in place, it would have been impossible for the Telegraph to conduct its investigation into MPs’ expenses—perhaps some Members of this House would be entirely happy about that.
For all publishers, there would be serious commercial consequences at a time when the vast majority of the industry is struggling. It is inevitable that some newspapers would go out of business as a result of just a handful of cases brought under my noble friend Lord Attlee’s amendment, with disastrous consequences for the plurality of the media. I wonder whether he really wants “Attlee’s Law”—as I have no doubt it would become known—to be responsible for closing newspapers, journalists losing their jobs and investigations being stopped in their tracks?
Lord Black of Brentwood
I hear noble Lords disagreeing, but I have to tell them that it is true. If you are a struggling local newspaper making barely any profit, one or two actions brought under this provision would bankrupt you.
Many other serious legal issues arise from this amendment relating to the European Convention on Human Rights, which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has already dealt with. It is for this reason, and all the reasons I have outlined, that Section 40 has been roundly condemned as an assault on free speech by virtually every international press freedom organisation, including Index on Censorship, the Committee to Protect Journalists, the World Association of Newspapers and the International Press Institute. It is why, rightly, the Government undertook a comprehensive consultation on whether to introduce it last year.
In closing, whatever that consultation says—and I agree that it would be quite wrong to support this amendment in the absence of the Government’s response—Section 40 remains pernicious in principle and would be disastrous in practice for the free and independent media that I believe we all want to see flourish in this country. I hope my noble friend will not press his amendment.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I too oppose the amendments in this group. I want to focus particularly on Amendment 147, which would, in effect, introduce a Section 40-type penal costs provision into the present legislation. But I seek first to dispel a basic misapprehension on this issue.
Section 40 is said simply to be implementing Leveson. I suggest that it goes very substantially further than that. The relevant Leveson recommendation is recommendation 26, under the heading “Encouraging membership”. The amendment deals, as does Section 40, with both the carrot and the stick, in both instances in more extreme terms than the recommendation. I shall forgo any question of the carrot—it is not necessary to discuss that; it is wrong, but it is not necessary to discuss it—but turn to the second part, the penal cost provision of recommendation 26. It reads as follows:
“On the issue of costs, it should equally be open to a claimant to rely on failure by a newspaper to subscribe to the regulator thereby depriving him or her of access to a fair, fast and inexpensive arbitration service. Where that is the case, in the exercise of its discretion, the court could take the view that, even where the defendant is successful, absent unreasonable or vexatious conduct on the part of the claimant, it would be inappropriate for the claimant to be expected to pay the costs incurred in defending the action”.
Given that recommendation, the suggestion is that the court could take the view that even where the newspaper wins, it would be inappropriate for the claimant to be ordered to pay the newspaper’s costs. Critically, there is nothing there about the newspaper, even when it wins, being made to pay the unsuccessful claimant’s costs.
In the provision as it is sought to be introduced, whether you look at it as Section 40 or as Amendment 147 —which is perhaps more convenient because it is in identical terms to Section 40 except in two wholly immaterial respects—subsection (3) goes way beyond that recommendation. In that instance, the court must—note the word “must” towards the end of the paragraph—award costs against the newspaper to the unsuccessful claimant unless, under this highly abstract concept in paragraph (b),
“it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award or make no award of costs”.
The plain intent of that provision is to drive newspapers which will not sign up to a recognised regulator to do so by threatening that they will pay the costs, come what may, except only in a vexatious case.
Anyone who is besotted with that mismatch should look also at two other passages in the report. I shall not weary your Lordships with them now but just note that they are at paragraph 5.6 of the report, at page 1770, and paragraph 6.8, at page 1514.
I shall make one final observation on this issue. Not only did Leveson’s recommendations plainly not go as far as Section 40—now the proposed Amendment 147 —but they did not win the total support of all his six assessors. Notably, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, now the shadow Attorney-General, who was the director of Liberty at the time and one of the assessors, made plain her deep reservations about Leveson’s recommended regulatory scheme and, in particular, once it came to be established under the rubric of the royal charter.
My second and briefer point is that IPSO—the noble Lord, Lord Black, made this plain a moment ago—now has in place an arbitration scheme that is fully Leveson-compliant. As we have seen, the essential justification suggested for not awarding successful newspapers their costs in these cases but rather requiring them to pay the losing claimants is that, unlike a newspaper signing up to Impress, the claimant has not got the opportunity of a low-cost arbitration. That is now categorically no longer the case. IPSO offers just such an arbitration scheme—including, incidentally, explicitly for data protection claims. This scheme was finally introduced in November after being trialled for a year. However, it was trialled on less beneficial terms than it is now introduced on. There used to be a scheme which cost £300. Now, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, made plain, you pay £50 down and the most you can be required to pay beyond that is another £50—£100 in all. This scheme is overseen by specialist barristers and managed by CEDR, which is Europe’s largest independent provider of alternative dispute resolution. There is less cause now for even the recommended possible sanction by Leveson than there used to be.
My next point is perhaps of reduced significance because of the availability of the arbitration scheme now introduced, but the Bill makes specific provision to assist a claimant in a data protection proceeding against newspapers to apply to the Information Commissioner to fund the claim. Clause 165(6)(a) makes plain that the commissioner’s assistance may include,
“paying costs in connection with the proceedings”.
Not only is this manifestly not the right Bill to introduce by a side-wind legislation that was originally designed for other cases under Section 40; it is the least possibly appropriate Bill in which to do so.
I am tempted to raise a number of other points but I shall not succumb to the temptation because many have been made by other noble Lords. However, with the best will in the world, this is an ill-judged group of amendments and it will do this House no credit to pass them.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I wonder whether I will win the sympathy of the House by saying that I am not going to make a speech. All I want to say is that I have given notice to my Chief Whip, as a cuckoo in the nest, that I cannot support these amendments and that if there is a Division I shall vote against them.
The only other point I wish to make was made by the noble Lord, Lord Black, in passing, at the conclusion of his speech, when he referred to the wider world. The rest of the free world that believes in free speech looks with amazement at these debates and thinks how on earth can we be wasting time debating this kind of thing when the press has done what it has done. With Alan Moses, a really independent Court of Appeal judge as the chair and Anne Lapping, a very independent non-lawyer, as the deputy chair of IPSO, having set up a scheme, why on earth are we wasting time in going over past history instead of letting them get on with it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, I came intending to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, asking in effect for Leveson 2, and the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, in effect introducing Section 40 for data protection. The more I have listened to the debate, the more I am absolutely convinced that both those amendments are correct.
I have found it appalling to listen to the smug reassurances of the apologists for the media that everything is now fine as far as data protection is concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, drew our attention to the experience of the Bowles family when their son was killed in an accident. While Leveson 1 was going on—the latest moment at which it was alleged that the media had reformed—they were breaking the Bowles family’s data protection rights, to publish whatever they liked.
I do not know the extent to which the media were tricking or are continuing to trick people into giving out medical records, banking information and private photographs, or taking photographs from sources they should not, or going to the police and getting information from them. I am pretty sure that it is still going on, but I do not know the extent of it. The thing that will reveal the extent of it and the extent to which media owners are involved would be Leveson 2. That is what we as politicians promised at the time. The assertion, made in particular by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Black, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that we should just stop now because everything in the garden is rosy flies absolutely in the face of the evidence. We would look like politicians who are continuing to collude with the media.
Viscount Hailsham
The point is not that everything is right. We accept that it is not, but the facts are already known. What now needs to happen is that the policy needs to be formulated and brought to Parliament. An inquiry would postpone the day when that could happen.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I disagree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says—namely, that the facts are already known—because the apologists are saying that everything is okay now; I do not include him as an apologist because he has a slightly different position. I point to the case of the Bowles family, which indicates that things were not okay when the first Leveson inquiry was going on. The basis on which it has been asserted by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Black, along with others, that we should not go ahead is because everything is okay. Well, it is not.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I just to make something quite clear. I hope that the noble and learned Lord is not suggesting that I am saying that everything is fine.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
This is the crux of the position. Now that it seems to be accepted that things are not okay, if that is the case, what is required is an inquiry. As I understand what is being asserted, a change is proposed in the form of Section 40 and there are those who say that we should not make a change. I think that it is important not to be taken in by the siren song that everything is okay.
It is important that there should be a second inquiry. We promised it and we should not break that promise. I also think it would be wrong to suggest that Sir Brian Leveson is against a second inquiry. I do not know what his position is, but we should not assume that he is either in favour or against it; his views need to be canvassed. I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
Lord Pannick
I am not suggesting that breaches do not occur; I am not an apologist. My position is that if and when errors are made and wrongful acts occur, the law has ample means of dealing with them. We do not set up a massive public inquiry in areas of the law or practice whenever there is a risk that wrongful acts are going to take place. My position is that we have inquired sufficiently into these matters, and to the extent that there are still wrongful things going on, the law provides perfectly adequate remedies, and indeed under this Act there will be perfectly adequate administrative procedures.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I have two comments to make in response. First, the Leveson 2 inquiry was promised. As I understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, now, he is saying that maybe wrongdoing is going on and it is the same as was expected before, but promising Leveson 2 was a mistake. Secondly and separately, Sir Brian Leveson found in his report that the remedies of the law, the remedies to which he referred, were open only to the wealthy. That is what he found as a provision. Therefore, the suggestion that the law provides an adequate remedy before the recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson is, in my view, wrong. I pray in aid of that the conclusions that Sir Brian Leveson made after a full inquiry.
I turn now to the amendments tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I strongly support them and I think that they are entirely appropriate for this Data Protection Bill because they deal with those who abuse data protection. Why should people not have protection in relation to this? I strongly disagree with the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, that this goes further than Leveson. It does not, because what Leveson said was that if a newspaper can join a body which could provide a cheap way of dealing with it and it does not, it should be liable to pay the costs unless there is good reason not to. That is precisely what the amendment does, and I say that with some added experience in relation to this. I was involved at the time when Section 40 was being drafted. It was in effect an agreed draft between the Government and their lawyers, with Mr Oliver Letwin representing the Government along with the full majesty of the Treasury Solicitor advising him. We were trying to agree an amendment that gave effect to Section 40. It was passed almost unanimously by the House of Commons and it was passed in this House as well. The suggestion that it goes further than what Leveson proposed is wrong, so I strongly support it.
Having had the benefit of all of those lawyers from the Government at the time, I also strongly disagree with the assertion by the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Lester, that this would be in breach of the Human Rights Act. It most certainly would not, and I am encouraged in that by what was said by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Please do not listen to the siren song of the media. Give people the protection that everyone thought they were entitled to. It does not infringe on a free press; it simply makes sure that people like the parents of the victims of the Soham murderer do not have their data mined when there could not be any possible justification for it.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to speak, but I feel impelled to do so. I have no time for the media. I have been libelled and I disliked the experience a great deal. But what we are being asked to provide is a remedy. They are saying that the current remedies will not do and that the remedy is an inquiry. As a judge, I have chaired a number of inquiries, and there are other former judges in this House who have done so. They are inevitably long-winded. This one would go on for a very long time, so I would ask this question: what sort of remedy would there be at the end if the inquiry is mired in a huge number of lawyers making a great deal of money out of defending all sorts of groups of people? At the end of the day we would get—what?—a report.
Lord Finkelstein (Con)
My Lords, I first declare my interest as a Times columnist. Perhaps I may also start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the opportunity to listen to what she had to say, which it was impossible to do without regarding it as moving and passionate and a cause for reflection. It would be an insult to free debate if I did not say to the noble Baroness that listening to her has made a deep impression on me. I thank her for what she had to say.
I am afraid that I do not agree with the remedy being proposed by the noble Baroness. Perhaps I could propose a minor procedural innovation, which is that before people go through the Division Lobbies and vote for a further inquiry, they might be required to provide evidence that they have read all of the previous one. It ran to 2,000 pages, with 115 pages on data protection, which people may not have come across because they started on page 997. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested that a second inquiry which delved into the relationship between politicians among others and the press was a good idea. That inquiry was also conducted by Leveson. I know that because I was in it. It was set out in the third volume, and not many people who were not working in the legal departments of newspapers mentioned it to me.
I understand the comment from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about the Times’ comments this morning. It is the normal habit of columnists to say, “I didn’t write the headline”, but in this case I am happy to stand behind it. Of course I understand that nothing would occur less to noble friends and noble Lords than to attack free speech—nobody thinks that that is what they are doing, and de jure they can claim that it is not what they are doing—but please do not have the impression that, de facto, it makes no difference to the free publication of criticism and newspapers if we have yet another inquiry. I know that it is not what the motivation is, but it is effectively harassment to continue to ask the same questions and have inquiries into the same issues. We have heard many moving examples that are covered by two things. They were either raised by the Leveson inquiry or they are capable of being dealt with by criminal, political or arbitration solutions. The idea of having another inquiry therefore justifies how the Times put it this morning.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I am not a lawyer or journalist. If I was to describe myself as anything it is a jobbing politician. But each and every one of us in this House has to make their decision as a jobbing politician. Quite frankly, and with the utmost possible respect—I know that is what you always say when you are about to be rude—having listened to the lawyers, my head spins. That is why, in the end, we have to make a political judgment.
The truth is, we are where we are because the press that the noble Lord, Lord Black, speaks for—I make no criticism of that—decided that they would not co-operate. We could have had a working system backed by a royal charter from the beginning. Those of good will on all sides could have made that effective. It was the decision of the noble Lord and his friends not to make it work. Everything we have had since then flows from that determination that they would not make the legislation, which passed through both Houses with massive majorities, work. That is why we are in the position we are in now.
We then have to add to that the fact that, sadly, the Conservatives decided to go back on the pledge that the Prime Minister of the day made to the victims that they would have the full second inquiry. They put it into their manifesto, which, noble Lords may have noticed, did not get the approval that they would then claim as a strength in this House.
The position we have now is that the consultation is in the works. Lord Leveson, who must be a glutton for punishment, has said that he wants to look at not only the conclusions, but the submissions and will make positions of his own. What worries me is that, unless we do something tonight to send this matter forward to the other place, it will be taken out of the hands of Parliament. It is a rough old way of doing it, but by passing this amendment it will go to the Commons at a time when the Commons will be cognisant of the amendment as an opinion of the House of Lords, the outcome of the consultation and the opinions of Lord Leveson. That strengthens the position of Matt Hancock, the new Secretary of State—an appointment I very much welcome—but we all know how it works: Ministers in the department may be very willing to give assurances that we will have an inquiry somewhere down the line, but then they will get a call from No. 10 saying, “You can’t: you won’t do this”. We have to strengthen the hand of Ministers who want to carry this through to a proper and honourable conclusion.
We have again heard all the usual arguments. There is no threat of state control of the press. I say to the noble Lord, Finkelstein, to look again at that headline and see whether he is still proud of it. Another Lord Attlee once said he only read one newspaper, the Times, and that was for the cricket scores. I am not sure he would trust the cricket scores these days.
One pertinent item of briefing noble Lords will have had, and to which a number of Members have alluded, was in the rather shrill briefing paper from the News Media Association, which says that,
“the industry faces acute challenge from global digital platforms which reap commercial rewards from the news industry’s investments, yet invest nothing in news content themselves and are treated as mere conduits, with freedom from the responsibilities and liabilities of publishers”.
As the noble and learned Lord said, that is the real challenge to the press. The noble Lord is diverting and losing friends by this obstinate refusal to build the strength that would come from royal charter-approved press regulation. I know that he worked with the PCC, but this is not a 10-year problem. For the last 30 years, we have had this problem that press regulation by itself has never carried credibility. It did not carry it in his day, which is why they got rid of it. If I can remember rightly, they got rid of the one before that in the midst of a scandal. They will probably get rid of IPSO when the next scandal comes along, because it will not work.
I suggest that we strengthen the hands of Ministers by passing these amendments to make sure that, when it goes to the Commons, there is an opportunity in the light of all the facts to make a fully informed decision. I was one of the Ministers who signed the royal charter. I can assure the House that for both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers—we were in full consultation with the Opposition at that time—the one thing we wanted to avoid was any sniff or smell of state regulation. The real intention was to protect the press, not just the press owners. My belief is that, if they had followed through on the royal charter and had a proper regulator, it would protect individual journalists. I always remember during another scandal a very senior member of the Times had just rewritten their regulations yet again. I said, “What if the Daily Mail scooped you on something that you decided was prevented by your new charter?” He said, “Rupert would fire me”. It is that that we want to protect individual journalists and their integrity from.
This would be a step forward. It would keep the political debate going in the place where it needs to be made—the House of Commons. We should make sure that we vote as politicians, thinking about the reality of it. All my life in politics I have made judgments on things by looking around and seeing who was smiling. If noble Lords defeat these amendments, those who will be smiling are those who have done most damage to the press by what they did while in charge of the press. Those who will be in despair are those individual citizens who have not seen their privacy or civil liberties protected. The House would feel ashamed of itself.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I sense that the House wishes to move on, to hear from the Minister and move to the inevitable vote, which I think would be a good thing for all of us. Therefore I will not speak at length. We have had a really important debate today, ranging from the deeply personal to the high realms of public policy, and it is very hard to find a balancing point at which we might, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has just said, actually find a reason for dividing on the various issues. It is complicated and multilayered. It is also time-sensitive and there are very inconvenient issues in the way. However, one can dig down a little and start with the fact that the Bill, as I have always said and will continue to say, is not the right Bill to solve all the problems in relation to press regulation in the future. It is a Bill about data protection and although it has elements that obviously bear on everything we have been saying today and in the previous debates around the need to balance the rights to privacy against those of freedom of expression, it is not a complete picture and we should not think it is.
It is important that we learn our lessons and move forward. We have an existing framework, set out in the Data Processing Act 1998. It has worked well; it has been said that it will work well in future, and the Bill establishes that again as the basic understanding on which we operate. I welcome that, but we are uncertain about how the issues that were raised between 2010 and 2013, the period that led to Leveson 1, are going to be resolved in the Bill—maybe they cannot be. They include the need to ensure that, for all time, there is an effective redress mechanism for those affected by illegality and bad culture in the press, and that we should understand and learn the lessons of what has happened in the past. We certainly have a lot of information but I do not think we have a full understanding of it all.
As has been said by a number of noble Lords, we must anticipate changes that are in train for the new media, the media sources of information and news and the changes in consumption. We have to explore—this is really important—how we sustain our huge tradition of quality journalism without which this democracy would be a shadow of its current self. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, in a very powerful speech, said we need to go back and rethink what we were thinking at the time Leveson was set up, the promises that were made and the impact it will have on the country if we do not deliver on those promises. We promised the completion of the Leveson inquiry. Whether it is Leveson 2 or another inquiry is a lesser point than the need to honour that promise. Too many people are relying on it, too many people will be upset if it does not happen and we will all be the losers.
The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said that this is really a policy issue, not an issue around data processing: noble Lords will have understood from what I said earlier that I agree with him. The problem is that we do not control policy—we are unable to put any pressure on that. The victims do not control policy. The Cross-Benchers and Liberal Democrats do not. The Government control policy but successive Governments have seemed unable to move forward. I happen to think, from private conversations, that a lot more unites us on this issue than divides us across this Dispatch Box.
I would welcome some words from the Minister explaining precisely what will be the way forward. However, I do not think he will be able to do that, for all the reasons that have been given about the inconvenience of timing, the difficulty about cutting across other measures that are in place and the need to think through some implications. I am sympathetic, but the problem is that we need action; we need to move this forward, and the only power we have is to put an inconvenient roadblock in the current thinking. That is why I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and I will support—although I think that they are probably not the whole story—the amendments in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. It is important that the Government own up to the fact that this is a problem of their own making, show that they understand the issues and take action.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise that there is great deal of passion and genuine concern on all sides of the debate and on all sides of the House on these matters. I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the passionate way in which she advanced her argument on these amendments, and also to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Casting my mind back to my limited experience in government—and limited it is—I am slightly perplexed. Usually, Government are accused of seeking to avoid issues or hard decisions and of kicking matters into the long grass by proposing an inquiry. For me, it is a novelty that the matter should be reversed in this fashion. Indeed, I note that a number of noble Lords have made the same observation in various ways in the course of this debate. For us, it is a matter of concern that we should move forward and look at how we can maintain a suitable, appropriate and respectable media for this country, but also the freedom of that media, which underpins our democracy.
It is appropriate to notice that the media landscape has changed significantly since the Leveson inquiry was set up. We have witnessed the completion of three detailed police investigations, extensive reforms to policing practice and significant changes to press self-regulation, which have moved on even further in the recent past, with the changes to IPSO. Of course, we have seen that civil remedies, civil proceedings, provide an effective route for parties, particularly in the context of litigation where conditional fee agreements are available. The Government published a consultation in November 2016 to look at whether part 2 of the Leveson inquiry was still appropriate and, indeed, proportionate and in the public interest.
I note that date, November 2016, because one noble Lord referred to the delay. I just make the point, which I have made before, that progress on that consultation was delayed because the Secretary of State was subject to an application for judicial review with respect to the consultation process. It was not a case of the Government trying to delay that process; we were really quite anxious to bring it forward. Once we were able to proceed with that consultation process, we received more than 174,000 responses. That in itself demonstrates the depth and strength of public feeling on this issue.
We are currently consulting with Sir Brian Leveson as the chair of the inquiry. Sir Brian has asked to see the results of the consultation, along with individual responses to the consultation that were submitted by core participants in the Leveson inquiry. I notice that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, observed that Sir Brian’s views need to be canvassed. I entirely agree: that is what we are in the process of doing at the present time. It is not only right that his views should be canvassed in this context, it is actually necessary. The Leveson inquiry has not been terminated; it proceeds under the Inquiries Act 2005 and it cannot be brought to an end until the Government have formally consulted Sir Brian and considered his comments with an open mind on how to proceed further. That consultation is in train. When Sir Brian has shared his formal views with us, we will look to publish the Government’s response to the consultation. It would be our intention, subject to Sir Brian’s views, to publish his response at that time as well, in order that that can be in the public domain.
Amendment 127A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, assumes that the existing inquiry will be brought to an end, but, as I say, that decision has not—indeed cannot—be taken at this stage. If, for example, Sir Brian produces compelling reasons for proceeding with part 2 of the inquiry in some shape or form, the Government would have to give reasonable consideration to those representations and will do so. However, we clearly do not need two public inquiries going on at the same time into the same issues: that is where we would end up, on one view of this process. We have to take events in their proper order and this amendment is plainly not in its proper order; it is plainly premature and cuts across the present statutory process that is being carried on pursuant to the Inquiries Act 2005.
However, I emphasise that the Government are determined to address the challenges of the new media landscape in which we all live—not just the obvious printed media but the digital media and the issues that turn on that. We are in the process of developing a digital charter to ensure that new technologies work for the benefit of everyone, with rules and protections in place to help keep people safe online and ensure that personal information is used appropriately. We are also working to deliver on a commitment to ensure a sustainable business model for high-quality media online. Again, that underpins freedom of expression and our democratic way of life.
These are matters of active consideration for the Government. It is in these circumstances that I emphasise that the noble Baroness’s amendment is not appropriate at the present time and would simply lead to confusion in this already difficult landscape. Let us move on: let us complete the process in which we are currently engaged; let us receive Sir Brian’s representations with regard to the consultation process; let the Government make a decision by way of their response to that consultation; let us look at it—the idea that it would not be examined in this House is almost mythical, to be perfectly candid. Of course it will come under scrutiny in this House. I would be amazed if it were simply to pass unnoticed in the night. There can be no question at all of that happening.
Turning briefly to Amendments 147 and 148, again, I recognise that these are modelled on Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and I recognise that Section 40, and press regulation more generally, is a matter that people have incredibly strong—and diverse and conflicting—opinions about. I understand and appreciate the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has done in this area and I appreciate her own personal exposure to the difficulties that have emerged in the past with regard to the abuse and misuse of personal data. Again, I reassure noble Lords that the Government are firmly committed to ensuring that the sort of behaviour that led to the Leveson inquiry never happens again. We are determined to address that.
However, we cannot ignore the various concerns that have been raised regarding Section 40. I am not going to go into the issue of convention compliance or any technical issues about that; nor will I elaborate upon the point that Section 40 does, albeit by agreement between various parties, go further than the actual recommendations in Lord Justice Leveson’s original report. Again, that is why the Government have issued their consultation, which will look, among other things, at Section 40 of the 2013 Act. That matter will be addressed. As I say, the Government will publish their response to the consultation shortly. When I use a term such as “shortly” I see some rolling of eyes but let me be clear: the response to the consultation will await the opportunity for Sir Brian to make his own submissions. We will then give due consideration to those, as we will to the 174,000 responses to the consultation.
We understand the serious nature of the matter before us and it will be fully addressed but we do not believe that at this time it is appropriate to advance a provision similar to Section 40 but only in relation to data protection. There is a much wider issue at stake here and that is the issue that needs to be properly addressed and bottomed out. At the end of the day it would not be appropriate simply to carve out one provision on data protection for the purposes of this Bill in order to replicate the sorts of provisions that we see in Section 40 of the 2013 Act.
Of course we have to cast our minds to the abuses of the past but if we are going to make effective policy we have to look to the future and determine how the balance of interests is going to be achieved between the right to data protection, the right to privacy and the need to maintain a free and vibrant media and free expression. These amendments cut across the proper process that we are now following regarding part 2 of the Leveson inquiry and Section 40 of the 2013 Act. That work is ongoing. Of course we are determined to maintain that work and to bring it to a conclusion. This is not the time or the mechanism by which to try to address these issues. I fear that doing so would complicate an already complex picture. I urge noble Lords to withdraw or not move their amendments.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful response and to noble Lords who have spoken. I was accused of bullying the press during the last debate on this Bill in December, and of harassment today—astonishing accusations under the circumstances. These amendments are designed precisely to provide access to justice and protection from the real bullies—the corporate publishers, the wealthy proprietors, their editors and their well-paid lawyers. Victims have to be psychologically very robust to take a case to court and to take on these bullies, and most choose not to. My family chose not to.
These amendments are about providing accountability and curbing the abuse of power through understanding the extent of the data breaches that have taken place, and I believe—and I am not alone in believing—that we have seen only the tip of the iceberg. Journalist whistleblowers speaking to Members of your Lordships’ House before Christmas gave us good evidence that data breaches continue.
To the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I say that if newspapers took data breaches seriously they would be clamouring for the Leveson inquiry to be finished, to get to the bottom of it. I would ask: why have the Mirror Group and other newspaper groups been trying to cover up for so long if they are committed to reform? If Sir Brian Leveson were to advise that part 2 is not needed, it would be easy enough for this clause to be removed later.
I am sure that we are united in wanting high-quality news provision. There are many challenges to achieving this, whether in print or online. With no disrespect to the Minister, I suggest that my Amendment 127A provides just the incentive the Government need to focus their attention on unfinished business from the Leveson inquiry, as well as the serious longer-term issues mentioned in the debate. It would require—encourage—the Government to proceed with a public inquiry into data protection breaches by the media, whether this one or the existing part 2 of Leveson. It is mildly insulting to be told that my amendment is premature. Frankly, the Government have had long enough to think.
I spoke briefly earlier about some of the personal consequences of data theft for me and my family, and I want to bring your Lordships’ House back to a consideration of the victims. Nothing prepared my family for the media frenzy that followed my daughter’s life-changing injury, and it continued for months. The relentless intrusion, stalking and data stealing by the press was a life-changing experience for me. I once said that it was worse than adjusting to my daughter’s injury. Even 12 years later, new evidence is emerging about the probable theft of my daughter’s medical records. My eyes were opened to inaccurate, corrupt and illegal practice and yet the public still believe what they read. From the comments made by some noble Lords today, I sense continuing ignorance about the current low standards in some publications. It is very difficult to believe. I found it hard to believe what happened to me and what I see still happening to people today. It is hard to believe that it is really happening.
The Minister promises serious future attention. This is a Government whose intention was laid out in their election manifesto: to abandon part 2 of the Leveson inquiry, which could have been well under way, and thus to abandon the victims of press abuse. The terms of the Leveson inquiry were established by Parliament for good reasons and they are as relevant today as they were six years ago. Leveson part 2 is overdue and it should begin without delay. It is an inquiry begun by government and delayed by government, hence the purpose of Amendment 127A.
Perhaps I could end by reflecting on the last time a Government failed to stand up to the power of the press. The Prime Minister at the time, Sir John Major, admitted to Sir Brian Leveson that it was a missed opportunity. We must not allow it to be missed again. Parliament could provide a little extra encouragement and support to government by agreeing to my amendment today. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(b) provide for the maximum penalty that may be imposed in relation to such failures to be either the standard maximum amount or the higher maximum amount.”
“( ) In this section, “higher maximum amount” and “standard maximum amount” have the same meaning as in section 150 .”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(7A) Section (Approval of first guidance about regulatory action) applies in relation to the first guidance under subsection (1).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Approval of first guidance about regulatory action
(1) When the first guidance is produced under section 153(1)— (a) the Commissioner must submit the final version to the Secretary of State, and(b) the Secretary of State must lay the guidance before Parliament.(2) If, within the 40-day period, either House of Parliament resolves not to approve the guidance—(a) the Commissioner must not issue the guidance, and(b) the Commissioner must produce another version of the guidance (and this section applies to that version).(3) If, within the 40-day period, no such resolution is made—(a) the Commissioner must issue the guidance, and(b) the guidance comes into force at the end of the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which it is issued.(4) Nothing in subsection (2)(a) prevents another version of the guidance being laid before Parliament.(5) In this section, “the 40-day period” means—(a) if the guidance is laid before both Houses of Parliament on the same day, the period of 40 days beginning with that day, or(b) if the guidance is laid before the Houses of Parliament on different days, the period of 40 days beginning with the later of those days.(6) In calculating the 40-day period, no account is to be taken of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than 4 days.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Earl Attlee
“Publishers of news-related material: damages and costs
(1) This section applies where— (a) a relevant claim for breach of the data protection legislation is made against a person (“the defendant”),(b) the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and(c) the claim is related to the publication of news-related material.(2) If the defendant was a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (or was unable to be a member at that time for reasons beyond the defendant’s control or it would have been unreasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must not award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—(a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or(b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.(3) If the defendant was not a member of an approved regulator at the time when the claim was commenced (but would have been able to be a member at that time and it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the defendant to have been a member at that time), the court must award costs against the defendant unless satisfied that—(a) the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or(b) it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.(5) This section is not to be read as limiting any power to make rules of court.(6) This section does not apply until such time as a body is first recognised as an approved regulator.”
Earl Attlee
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to these exceptionally important and good-natured debates. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I say that I do not propose to move Amendment 215, which is later in the Marshalled List, but I shall move Amendment 216.
I know that I enjoy considerable support around the House, but we need to be sure that we are doing the right thing in sending this matter to the House of Commons. That is why contrary voices and cautious voices are welcome. I am not convinced that my noble friend Lord Black is correct in claiming that these amendments will result in state regulation of the media and the press. He is correct in stating that the royal charter can be changed, but it requires a two-thirds majority in the UK Parliament, including in your Lordships’ House. The most important point is that it requires the unanimous approval of the press recognition panel, not to mention the Scottish Parliament.
As my noble friend recognises, the reality is that it would be far easier to insert some new primary legislation to deal with a perceived problem in the future. That would be rather more difficult to get through Parliament if we already had a good system of independent press regulation in place. Sir Brian Leveson considered these arguments and many more from press representatives, and he was clear in his view that only the recognition system proposed in his report can provide a regulator that is genuinely independent of politicians and the press. Sir Brian said that the incentives I propose are necessary, and I am sure he would not describe them as blackmail. I am at one with my noble friend about the need for a genuinely free press, and I honestly believe that my amendments help.
My other point about so-called state regulation is this: there is already state regulation of the press by means of the courts. Judges are appointed by the state and their level of remuneration, which needs looking at, is ultimately approved by the Prime Minister. A multimillionaire can prevent publication by threatening a publisher with court action with unsustainable and uncertain legal costs. These amendments, which are similar to Section 40, can protect publishers while also providing the public with the protection from press abuse that they need and deserve. I hope that the House, when it considers this amendment, will think of victims who were left powerless after some newspapers, in the words of Sir Brian Leveson,
“wreaked havoc in the lives of ordinary people”.
I hope newspapers will be encouraged to join a recognised regulator to give their own journalism the protections this cost-shifting provision provides while also ensuring that their readerships are similarly protected. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
We have had the debate already. We should now move to the vote.
Lord Finkelstein
I am just asking a question, although I thank the noble Lord for his advice. There is a consequent question, subject to the vote we have just had, that I think changes the situation. I just wanted to have my noble friend Lord Attlee’s view—
Lord Finkelstein
What would my noble friend’s reaction be if the inquiry that we have just voted for determined that the proposal that he has just made is a foolish one?
Earl Attlee
My Lords, the answer to that question is simple, and applies to Section 40. If the Government determine that Section 40 is not a good idea, then they should repeal Section 40 by means of an Act of Parliament. They could do the same if my amendment is agreed to.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
( ) the person acted—(i) for the special purposes,(ii) with a view to the publication by a person of any journalistic, academic, artistic or literary material, and(iii) in the reasonable belief that in the particular circumstances the obtaining, disclosing, procuring or retaining was justified as being in the public interest.”
Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Duncan of Springbank
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 September 2017 be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 29 November 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, the order before the House has been made to ensure that the policy set out in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 can be fully implemented.
That Act contains a number of provisions which arise from Lord Carloway’s review of Scottish criminal law and practice. These include reforms of arrest and custody laws designed to provide flexibility for police in conducting investigations while ensuring fairness for suspects. It will also allow suspects access to a lawyer whether or not they are to be interviewed by the police. In addition, the Act specifically states that the police have a duty not to deprive people of their liberty unnecessarily.
As a consequence of some of these measures it is necessary either to amend the law elsewhere in the United Kingdom or to make provision in relation to Scotland, where the reforms apply to reserved matters. Making such amendments is not within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, so it is necessary for this order to be laid before the United Kingdom Parliament. It is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows the UK Government to make legislative changes which are necessary or expedient in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament.
The order makes provisions about arrests effected both in Scotland, and outside Scotland, in connection with crimes committed in Scotland and the investigation of Scots law crimes and extradition matters in Scotland. The draft order was previously considered in Grand Committee on 29 November. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, raised some concerns. Specifically, he was troubled by the impending merger of the British Transport Police with Police Scotland—a position I might add that was shared by many in this House. The noble Lord declared the move to be,
“dangerous, reckless and ought to be stopped”.—[Official Report, 29/11/17; col. GC 9.]
That brings us to the amendment this evening. There is always a danger in seeking to anticipate the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, before he has made them, but it is important to recognise that while this order touches on the British Transport Police tangentially, it is not its principal focus. In so far as the British Transport Police operates across the United Kingdom, the order will have no impact whatever on the ongoing merger of the policing of Scottish railways. It is for that reason I beg to move.
Amendment to the Motion
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order includes provisions relating to the British Transport Police; and calls upon Her Majesty’s Government to review the operation of those provisions in the light of concerns that incorporating British Transport Police into Police Scotland will reduce operational effectiveness.”
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to move this amendment. When the Minister said that the merger was,
“dangerous, reckless and ought to be stopped”,
I thought he was going to make my speech for me, which would have been unusual—and unusually kind as well. He rightly said on the actual specifics of the order that, if we were to vote against it, it would not necessarily achieve what I want to achieve. What I want to achieve can be achieved using this debate as a lever, and an opportunity to put pressure on the Minister. I shall come to that in a moment. It is a really important and urgent issue, which is why I welcome debating it on the Floor of the House.
What I am urging is not, as the Scottish Transport Minister has mischievously been claiming, that the devolution of the British Transport Police should be reversed totally. What I want to argue and press is that there should be an agreement between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the form that devolution should take. There is great and growing concern, as the Minister and others have acknowledged, about the plan to integrate the British Transport Police in Scotland into Police Scotland. It would be only the Scottish part of the British Transport Police that is integrated into another force. It obviously would not happen in England.
Quite apart from the current operational problems at Police Scotland, which no doubt others will touch on, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has said that no business case has been made for the merger. The Association of Retired British Transport Police Officers has written to me expressing concern about the pension implications. Those noble Lords who have had the opportunity to read the Scotsman will have seen that around two-thirds of British Transport Police officers have said that they are unsure whether they will transfer to Police Scotland if the merger goes ahead. That would undermine the whole position and really create problems.
In the consultation on the proposed merger carried out by the Scottish Government, a large majority of respondents opposed it. But that has been totally ignored by the Scottish Government. When the Scottish Parliament Justice Committee considered this last year, both the Labour and Tory Members—there were no Liberal Democrat Members on the Committee—opposed the amalgamation, but it was pushed through by the SNP majority. When it came to the Scottish Parliament itself, Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat opposed it but, again, with their friends the Greens the SNP Government pushed it through.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, with characteristic vigour, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, has laid out the many misgivings that have been expressed about the proposed merger—it is not even a merger but a dismemberment of the British Transport Police, with the Scottish part of it being put into Police Scotland. Many of the arguments were rehearsed when your Lordships’ House debated the devolution of legislative competence for dealing with the policing of railways and railway premises during the passage of the Scotland Act back in 2016.
Before coming back to that, perhaps I may do the unforgivable and talk about what the order and the amendment say. As the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, indicated, the order takes forward the response by the Scottish Parliament to a decision of the Supreme Court on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, sat in the Cadder case. I have a vivid memory of the time, because the Scottish Parliament had to pass emergency legislation immediately to address the breach of the European Convention on Human Rights that had been identified by the Supreme Court. At the time, as Advocate-General for Scotland, I had to take careful note of what was going on in the Scottish Parliament. We had a TV monitor of the parliamentary proceedings in my office because we had to decide very quickly whether we wished to make reference to the Supreme Court if we thought that any Bill had gone beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and whether any amendments being passed right up to the last minute would change that. It was open to me under Section 33(3) of the Scotland Act 1998 to indicate to the Presiding Officer that I would not use the four weeks available to consider whether there should be a reference to the Supreme Court and to indicate that I would not refer it. At that point, with concurrence from the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate, the Bill could go immediately for Royal Assent, and that is what happened.
It was always anticipated that there would have to be further legislation, which came along six years later, but with the benefit of a review undertaken by the then Lord Justice Clerk, now Lord Justice General Carloway. It is the provisions of that 2016 Act—which, I should point out, received Royal Assent two months before the Scotland Act 2016, to put into perspective what we are debating today—that give rise to the order. As the Minister said in his opening remarks, many of the provisions are to increase the rights of suspects held in detention and deal with the powers of police. Because the Scottish Parliament cannot legislate for police outside Scotland in relation to an arrest made in respect of a crime committed in Scotland, or make legislative provision for the British Transport Police—at least, it could not in 2016—the order is necessary to ensure that if the British Transport Police, for example, arrest someone, that person should have the same rights as if they were arrested by a constable of Police Scotland.
That is perfectly proper. These are the provisions of the order that relate to the British Transport Police, along with a further provision relating to stop-and- search powers, which are important and which we do not regret—far from it. I rather suspect that if Her Majesty’s Government reviewed the operation of the provisions in the light of incorporating the British Transport Police into Police Scotland, they might well find that it makes things simpler, because it would not need to be included in the order.
That is why I have misgivings about supporting the amendment, but it is important to reflect on some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. It is important to say at the outset that the integration of the Scottish part of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland was not a recommendation of the commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin. It recommended devolution of legislative competence in relation to the policing of railways and railway premises and that the British Transport Police should become a cross-border authority. It is the SNP’s interpretation that it has to be integrated into Police Scotland. Integration was only one of three options that the British Transport Police working group identified. Significantly, it was the option with the highest degree of risk and was opposed by most stakeholders.
The noble Lord mentioned the recent report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary in Scotland. He found in paragraph 47:
“As the decision to transfer BTP’s functions in Scotland to Police Scotland was a Ministerial decision, no single, detailed and authoritative business case which articulates the benefits, disadvantages or costs of the transfer to Police Scotland was developed”.
In many respects, the Scottish Parliament has been asked to do this blind but, as we have heard, there is a majority. There was a failure to consult in any meaningful way, a failure to work out how we maintain the detailed expertise of the British Transport Police on the railways postmerger, how costs would be assigned and how potential disputes would be resolved. That is being done at a time when it is fair to say that considerable challenges face Police Scotland as a result of what I and my party believe was a botched centralisation. Indeed, my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Scottish Parliament were lonely voices when they made the case against the centralisation of Police Scotland. We have seen a succession of resignations, suspensions of senior officers and early retirements, both in Police Scotland and the Scottish Police Authority. We welcome Susan Deacon’s appointment and hope she can get a grip on things, as she has recently taken the reins. There has been a failed IT project and a report from the Auditor-General in Scotland referring to a number of instances of poor governance and poor use of public money. If that had happened in the second biggest police force in England, let alone the second biggest in the United Kingdom, we would probably have had a “Panorama” special by now. I am not sure why the media have not latched on to what has been going on.
I do not think the time is right at all for this merger. There are other issues which the Chief Inspector of Constabulary has identified in his findings. Among them are the facts that full costs have not been assessed, and the financial impact on railway policy in England and Wales of transfer of railway policing in Scotland has not yet been fully assessed. In that respect, will the Minister tell us, if it transpires that there are costs to transport policing in England and Wales, under the various memorandums of understanding with regard to allocation of costs, where will that cost fall? Will it fall to the Scottish Government to bear? That will undoubtedly be important as things go forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the potential issue of transfer of property. Are there any consequential orders or steps that have to be taken under the Railway Policing (Scotland) Act 2017 that would involve the United Kingdom Government in giving full effect to that? What would be the UK Government’s policy in relation to it? As the noble Lord said, there is some leverage here, and I hope it is used sensitively.
It is also fair, however, to acknowledge that this Parliament, including this House, agreed to the devolution of railway policing in Scotland. I was going to say that the ship has sailed but it is probably better to say that the train has left the station. It is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. My Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Scottish Parliament, supported by Labour and Conservative MSPs, sought to delay the merger until 2027 at the very earliest, failing which to oppose it outright—but it was a decision of the Scottish Parliament to reject that delay and, indeed, to support what happened. It would be remiss of this House to gainsay what has been done by the elected Scottish Parliament, but there are issues still to be determined and some indication of the Government’s stance on those would be very welcome.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord may be correct about the train having left the station, but I remind him that during the passage of the Scotland Act as it now is many of us warned about this problem—and he himself made a speech exactly saying that. But such was the political imperative from some people not to be seen doing anything that would cause an upset with the Scottish nationalists that we allowed this to go ahead. The result is that we are looking at the prospect of the destruction of an organisation that has served this United Kingdom well for more than two centuries. Is it two centuries, or over two centuries?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Since 1826. Okay, so it is almost two centuries—certainly since there were first proper means of crossing the border at speed.
I just find it extraordinary. What can possibly be driving this? What can be the motivation? At a time when we are threatened by lone-wolf terrorists, travelling around the country, when we have seen attacks in Glasgow, Manchester and Birmingham, what on earth could be driving this? Why would someone want to break up an organisation which has a proven track record of success, which has shown great expertise, and which is specialist in its nature? How will the practical problems be resolved? Does the policeman have to get off at the station as soon as the train reaches the border and someone else come on board? What is driving this? I have come to the conclusion that the answer lies in the name—the British Transport Police. This is the sort of ideological battle that we thought we had put behind us in Scotland being translated into something that threatens the security of people in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
There is no station at the border at all, whatever, in Scotland, between Scotland and England. The first station is Carlisle, which is in England.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
There is also Berwick. Of course, the noble Lord is right about that, but the people who are responsible for this act of vandalism—because that is what it is—would want to have a station there because they want to have a border there. That is the point that I want to make.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, made the kind of speech that we expected from him—a very careful, legalistic speech that points out, quite correctly, that what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is proposing is not really relevant to what we are all talking about. I hope that he will not press the amendment to a vote, because I would find it very difficult to vote against this measure, for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord gave. I would find it difficult to vote in favour of his regret amendment, but I absolutely agree with him in his analysis of what needs to happen and on the levers that are available to Ministers to prevent it happening.
One point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, made that I thought was very interesting is about who will bear the costs of this, if it happens. I remind the House of the famous no-detriment principle, under which the costs of having to put this right for the rest of the United Kingdom should be borne by the Scottish Parliament. So not only will the taxpayer lose out in Scotland but also the citizen from the point of view of security.
I make one final point. I do not want to repeat all the arguments put forward at the time of the Scotland Act, as it now is, in 2016. The conduct of the Scottish Government in respect of Scottish policing is extremely worrying for everyone in the United Kingdom. We have a situation whereby a police chief constable has been on leave for some time while accusations were investigated. The Scottish Police Authority on 8 November wrote to the chief constable asking him to come back to work on 10 November, and the Scottish Police Minister, Mr Matheson, overruled the independent authority and told it to withdraw the letter asking the chief constable to come back to work. The independence of the police from political action is a fundamental part of our constitution; so is the rest of the United Kingdom really happy for the British Transport Police to be put in the hands of a Government who show little respect for the independence of police authorities or the constitutional principles involved?
I was very much opposed to creating a single police authority in Scotland for the very reason that it creates a risk of political interference in the operations of the police. That single authority has been created; it has not produced any of the savings that were considered likely to arise, and it has created a huge problem of morale. There have been several examples whereby Police Scotland has fallen below the very high standards that we have been used to in a generation. I say to the Scottish Nationalist Government in Edinburgh, first put your house in order before you wish to destroy an organisation such as the British Transport Police. There is a duty on Ministers to do everything that they can to prevent this happening, albeit that the powers lie. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and agree with him in his objectives, but not—
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
In his contribution, the noble Lord mentioned terrorism, which is a critical issue. I speak from the other side of the border—Cumbria—where we of course have the experience of two other police constabularies: the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence Police. These are absolutely critical in the way that we monitor possible terrorism. Have these two forces played any part in the debate in Scotland?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I do not know the answer to that question but I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be happy to deal with that when he comes to reply. I know others want to contribute so I ought to sit down, but I hope that, in his response, the Minister can offer some comfort. This matter is about not just Scotland but the security of the whole of the United Kingdom and a Government putting politics before the safety of the people.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)
My Lords, I come in just after the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, because I agree with a great deal of what he said. Unlike him, however, I was a great advocate for a national police force in Scotland. I have spent a lot of my professional life in the Nordic countries and they all, without exception, have a national police service. I saw no reason why Scotland could not exactly fit the same mould of an excellent national police force.
However, like a lot of other people, I have been underwhelmed by the way that the concept—I still believe in the principle—has been implemented in Scotland, but I do not believe that this is the right place or time to talk about the ills and misfortunes of Police Scotland. What I would say—and I will try to be very brief and not repeat what has been said already—is that it seems absolute folly to think of going for an amalgamation of a very professional, exceptionally efficient force like the British Transport Police, with its special expertise in anti-terrorism, which is of very great relevance right now. To try to amalgamate that with Police Scotland—even if Police Scotland was not in such a dire situation in many directions—would, at the best of times, lead to a situation of uncertainty and change. We really should not inflict this on the country. Apart from efficiencies and principles, there is also the question of the effect on the security of the country, and I really think it should be avoided at all costs.
Lord Empey (UUP)
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his customary understated and quiet way, has introduced this proposal and, I have to say, it brings back memories of when we discussed the Scotland Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has pointed out, every concern that Members expressed at that stage has been borne out. I believe there is an overwhelming national interest in this, not simply a Scottish interest. The British Transport Police is a national police force in Great Britain. Its expertise is unique in this country. The policing requirements, training and experience of a normal, geographical, territorial constabulary are entirely different from a transport-based police force, which does a very specialist job. Policing trains, rail lines, stations and all that goes with the transport network is an entirely different discipline, requiring different training, different equipment and a completely separate constabulary—which is exactly what we have. All the reports that have been written about it have indicated that it is performing well and according to target. I understand the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, makes about the legal position and I accept that there is devolution, but there is a national interest here which, in my opinion, should overrule a simple matter of devolved matters. I ask the Minister, in his summing up, to address this.
There is an example, which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned and which I think came up in the 2016 debate. We understand that the Scottish Parliament will want a say and an interest in what is happening in Scotland—a perfectly reasonable position—and there is a way of doing this, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, with the chief constable going not only to the Scottish Minister of Justice but perhaps the Scottish Parliament or the relevant Scottish police authority. There is a precedent for this. We had an argument in Northern Ireland over the jurisdiction of the National Crime Agency. A lot of people objected strongly to that, but the Government took the view that, because they had UK-wide responsibilities, because gangsters operated across and between islands, and because of the necessary expertise that was required, the National Crime Agency had to have a role in Northern Ireland. The argument was whether an officer of the National Crime Agency could have the powers of a constable. That was blocked for quite some time until a settlement was reached. The settlement was that the head of the National Crime Agency would go to the Policing Board and would contact the chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. They would do that as and when required, but at least annually, so that there was a clear link between what was happening in the two forces.
We raised the question in the debate in 2016 about the contracts, and we have already heard some disturbing statistics mentioned by other Members about the numbers of police officers who may not wish to transfer. The fact is, the expertise and experience is going to be lost. We had that problem when the Police Service of Northern Ireland came in and we lost enormous numbers of detectives, for example. It has taken years to get that experience back. What happens if it is the same for the British Transport Police? We have to remember—the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made the point—that, in mainland Europe, there have been a number of attacks on trains, where a terrorist gets on in one country, travels to another and the explosions and deaths occurred on the way. This is one way in which they move around their equipment and terrorist activities. I am not an expert on Police Scotland, but any territorial constabulary does not have this expertise, experience or capability. Who is going to train them? The only people who have that experience currently are the British Transport Police.
I am very much of the view that this is an ideologically driven proposal by the Scottish Government because it is the “British” Transport Police. I sincerely hope that this is not the reason but, were it to be the reason, is it any justification for putting the safety of the people of the United Kingdom at risk simply to abide by an ideological demand? The United Kingdom Government have a responsibility for national security which overrides any devolved institution. I sincerely hope that, in his reply, the Minister will agree at least to look at this and to engage with the Scottish Government to see if he can persuade them to see common sense. The UK Government and the Secretary of State for Scotland have a responsibility to ensure the security of Scotland as part of the United Kingdom—we should exercise that.
These proposals are devoid of merit in my view. There is a way out—which has been set out very clearly—that will ensure that devolution is respected; that the Scottish Government are given their place; that the Minister of Justice will have regular reports, both written and verbal, when he or she would require them; and that the policing board in Scotland and/or a committee of the Scottish Parliament should be able to call upon the chief constable of the British Transport Police if they felt it necessary. All those things could be done. We can have a win-win situation for everybody, where national security is guaranteed and the Scottish Government are given their place. That would be the way ahead and I sincerely hope that the Minister will take it upon himself to go back and ask the Scottish Government to revisit this issue.
Baroness Liddell of Coatdyke (Lab)
My Lords, I will not delay the House long. I have not yet had the opportunity to speak to the Minister across the Dispatch Box and therefore welcome him to his post. However, I would be grateful if he could answer some troubling questions.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes said that there are two counterterrorism forces in the United Kingdom: one is the Metropolitan Police, the other is the British Transport Police. What discussions have taken place between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on ensuring that intelligence transfer, which is absolutely critical in the fight against terrorism, is in no way compromised by this decision? I take on board the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, about the expertise and experience of a force that has to deal with problems such as terrorism. There is an accumulated knowledge that cannot necessarily be written down. It comprises a knowledge, an instinct and a recognition of where problems lie.
Over the weekend, we saw the figures mentioned by my noble friend Lord Foulkes—namely, that about two-thirds of the British Transport Police do not wish to go down this transfer route. How will the capability of the new force match the knowledge and experience of the existing British Transport Police? These issues should be above and beyond party political concerns. We all know what the terrible attack on Glasgow Airport felt like. We know the difficulties of communicating intelligence to people who may not have a background in the intelligence community. I look to the Minister for reassurance that this is being discussed with the Scottish Government, the Metropolitan Police and the police forces in England, and with the intelligence and security services for the whole United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned the extent to which we have seen all aspects of transport, including trains, being used as a means of promoting terrorism. We need reassurance on this. Like many of my noble friends and noble Lords, I am concerned about the jingoism around this issue: it has to have Scotland and a tartan stamp on it. We are dealing here with people’s lives and livelihoods. The lives are more important than anything. We need answers. I say from this side of the House that we need reassurance from the Government that they, too, share this concern and are raising it in a pointed and deliberate manner to get the kind of answers that will keep people safe not just north of the border but south of it as well.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I too will be extremely brief. For many years, I have helped, supported and encouraged the British Transport Police and I remember very well the Act that went through and the concerns that we had then about what would happen if the BTP were joined with Police Scotland. I agree with my noble friend that this is not about the BTP joining Police Scotland, although I am sad about that because that is really what we are all talking about.
I admit that the example I am about to give may not be a very good one, but I want to draw your Lordships’ attention to what happened when the royal parks police force was promised that the parks would continue to be policed adequately when it was merged with the Metropolitan Police. That did not happen—did it?—because the Metropolitan Police force is far too busy to be involved with looking after parks. As I said, this is not an ideal example but it indicates what could well happen if the measure we are discussing goes ahead—and so it will when the BTP joins Police Scotland, which I am afraid is not a very shining example of a police force. What happens when a train reaches the border? I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who asked exactly the same question about what happens either side of the border. Will the BTP have to disembark and hand over to the relevant other branch of the BTP? What will it call itself, because it will not be British anymore? I predict—
Baroness Adams of Craigielea (Lab)
We should remember that Scotland does not have a border only with England, but also with Northern Ireland. All that separates us is the Irish Sea. What will happen to the ferries? Will the British Transport Police and the Scottish police change mid-Irish Sea? Will we set up a hard border between Scotland and Northern Ireland? Are we taking Scotland out of that equation? This is more about nationalism than devolution.
Baroness Harris of Richmond
The noble Baroness makes a good point and I concur with what she says. I predict that this will go horribly wrong at some point and that is a real shame. I hope that the noble Lord has listened very carefully to the views that have been clearly expressed around the House, and certainly the resolution that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, talked about, as that will be extremely important.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, as a fairly frequent traveller on the east coast railway line from Edinburgh to London King’s Cross, I would like to say a word or two about this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, pointed out, there is no train station at the border, which you reach a little north of Berwick-upon-Tweed on your way to Dunbar. As I understand the situation, that means that in order to police effectively south of the border, British Transport Police officers will have to get on to the train at Waverley in Edinburgh, so they will travel the whole way down the line, as they do at present. Going north, they cannot get off at Berwick-upon-Tweed, because they still have several miles to run in England before they reach the Scottish border, and they will have to travel all the way to Waverley.
Therefore, the ridiculous situation created by this proposal by the Scottish National Party is that the British Transport Police force will remain on the train, as it does at present. It will cease to provide the kind of security north of the border that the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, talked about, although to do its job effectively in England, it will have to travel the whole journey. Therefore, members of the Scottish police force will be travelling on the train, getting off at Berwick if they are lucky—but not every train stops there—or going all the way down to Newcastle and then having to travel all the way back again. I cannot speak for the west coast line because I am not so familiar with it, but presumably the same problem applies there, and you have to travel at least to Carlisle before you can get off the train.
Lord Maxton
It is even worse on the west coast, because Carlisle is even further south than Berwick-upon-Tweed.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, a curious feature of this measure is that if British Transport Police officers are brave enough to exercise their powers as British Transport Police officers north of the border, they are given the power to do that by paragraph 2 of Schedule 2. In fact, the paragraph is consistent with the idea that we do not go ahead with the merger at all. It is a perfectly sensible method of solving the problem which the Smith commission had to face up to, which was to say that the functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland will be a devolved matter. That is a perfectly sensible proposition. What has gone wrong is the Scottish National Party’s interpretation of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said.
For all the reasons that others have given, I am strongly against the merger. However, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, I cannot see anything wrong with the order we are asked to consider. Therefore, if the Motion were pressed, I regret that I would have to vote with the Government because that is the state of play. However, I entirely sympathise with the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, to the Minister. Given the practical example I have given to the Minister, I hope that he can point out to the Scottish National Party that it is a waste of public money to have two police officers travelling on the train from Newcastle all the way to Edinburgh and back again just to solve the problem of the merger which it is trying to advance.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
My Lords, in opening the debate, the Minister referred to the degree of opposition to this proposal in this House. He was not wrong in that. He could also have mentioned the degree of opposition in the Scottish Parliament, most particularly among his colleagues in the Conservative Party, who are on record as opposing this proposal most vigorously, particularly Ruth Davidson. He could have included the Liberal Democrats and the Labour opposition in the Scottish Parliament as well. But above all, he should have mentioned the opposition of the British Transport Police and the British Transport Police Authority. When it gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament in March, it said that dealing with fatalities, for example, could take 50% longer under the new plans, and that,
“there is well-defined evidence that a non-specialist force is less able to provide the consistent levels of service that a dedicated policing commitment can offer”.
Decades of experience of dealing with IRA threats would be lost, and the work that the BTP undertakes as the lead authority on scrap metal theft across the whole of Great Britain would also be lost if this proposal went through.
Fortunately, there is an opportunity for the Scottish Parliament to think again about the model of devolution which it is putting forward. Indeed, it would have been helpful if this House had passed the amendment which a number of us tabled almost exactly two years ago, which made it clear that, while we were not opposed to devolution of transport policing in Scotland, that devolution should be on the basis that a force linked to the British Transport Police should be the agency that carries it out. I spoke to the chief constable of the British Transport Police, and he is entirely happy with that. Indeed, in its evidence to the Scottish Parliament the BTP said that it is happy to have a direct relationship with Scottish Ministers and with Holyrood. If it is necessary to change the name of the force in Scotland, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, referred to, that is possible—there is no reason why it should not be called “Transport Police Scotland” or “Scotland Transport Police”. Nobody is hung up on the name of the British Transport Police. What matters is that the job is done properly and in the most effective way.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Lord says that nobody is hung up on the name of the British Transport Police, but the Scottish National Party is.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
The noble Lord is of course absolutely right.
I will finish by picking up one of the points that the noble Lord made and adding to it. He referred to the no-detriment principle in the Smith commission report. Principle 5 of that report says that the package of powers agreed through the Smith commission process should,
“not cause detriment to the UK as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts”.
It is evident that there is a financial implication. There is also an implication for travellers travelling between England and Scotland, who will suffer a detriment, as a number of speakers in this debate have indicated. Therefore, when the Minister goes back to talk to the Scottish Government, he must take seriously the need for that no-detriment principle to be applied and impress on them that it certainly applies in this case.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will be able to answer on behalf of the United Kingdom Government and not simply on behalf of the Scotland Office, because this raises a whole number of implications. The idea of integrating the Scottish component of the British Transport Police into Police Scotland raises a number of issues.
I admit that when I first heard about this proposal, the cynical part of me—which colleagues will know is not often to the fore—assumed that this was about the following. As I understand it, when, in its wisdom, the Scottish Parliament created Police Scotland, it agreed a floor on the number of police officers. Indeed, the different parties were bidding against each other as to quite where that floor should be. I would like to know whether the officers transferred will be part of that floor or not. The motivation behind all this may well be that, rather than change the floor, which would obviously raise all sorts of difficult political issues, this is a way to ensure that the floor is achieved simply by transferring in from outside a number of officers from the British Transport Police. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many officers are concerned and where they sit with regard to the statutory floor in terms of the British Transport Police.
The second question is about the viability of what is left of the British Transport Police; again, the British Government must, presumably, take this extremely seriously. What is the percentage or number of officers who are being taken out of the British Transport Police, and where does that leave the rest of the British Transport Police and its infrastructure and arrangements? Clearly, if that is the case, that raises big issues.
While the Minister is about it, perhaps he can tell us also what has become of the Government’s infrastructure policing review. Again, this is critical to the future of the British Transport Police. At one stage, the present Prime Minister, when she was Home Secretary, put forward a number of proposals which would have involved the Ministry of Defence Police, as has already been mentioned, and the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, bringing them together, possibly with elements of the British Transport Police. Was this part of some master plan to dismember the British Transport Police? If that still exists and the review is continuing, it makes it even more imperative that we look at the future of the British Transport Police. I assume that the Government, collectively, are doing that.
Lord Stephen (LD)
My Lords, as a former Transport Minister in Scotland who worked closely with the Labour Party to ensure that there was greater devolution of transport powers, particularly with regard to the railways in Scotland, of course I strongly support the principles of devolution that the Smith commission supported and which this Parliament legislated on. I also fully understand the position as explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and as will no doubt be explained by the Minister again in his summing up. However, albeit that we understand the legislative position and there seems unlikely to be a vote this evening, we are very deeply concerned about what is proposed.
First, on the situation with Police Scotland, I was always opposed to the creation of a single police force in Scotland, and it has turned out to be a shambles and a failure. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, spoke about that eloquently. We have a situation where this decision by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to try to get rid of the British Transport Police in Scotland has clearly been taken for dogmatic, doctrinaire, nationalistic reasons. We have heard from speaker after speaker that there are deep concerns about operational policing, the possible impact on the train operating companies, potentially higher fares, and the minimum police numbers—the floor that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, correctly identified. There is much concern about this wrong policy. Surely, whatever the legislative or legal position, in these circumstances we can call out the SNP Government and urge the Minister strongly this evening to do something about this situation. If strong action is not taken now, the UK dimension of the institution that is the British Transport Police and the co-operation and policies that we have learned about this evening to support anti-terrorist measures will be scrapped by a Scottish Government who put removing the word “British” first, and the quality of the service and of the work being done by that institution will be undermined and pushed to the back.
I am sure that we could point to other areas where we see this sort of erosion and wrong policy. There is a long list of UK institutions of real excellence in this country—I think of the education system, the research councils and the health service—where this sort of approach would be the wrong one to take, but we could be seeing the thin end of the wedge here. There are real concerns about pushing the boundaries in other policy areas. This is not about devolution; it is about dogma and nationalism. Therefore, this evening we should be really concerned about what is happening here, and we must urge the Minister, in his summing up, to give the sort of reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, is looking for. This issue is really important and we need to do something about it.
Baroness Adams of Craigielea
My Lords, I shall not go over all the things that we have already gone through. I have grave concerns about this issue—I had concerns about a single police force in Scotland—but I do not think that this is how the Government in Scotland look at it. We have seen this approach from this Government from the beginning. They suck powers up from local government and they suck powers down from the UK. This is all about getting independence by the back door. The noble Lord is absolutely right when he says that it is the thin edge of the wedge. Every time we pass legislation in this House with consequences for Edinburgh, they will jump on it and suck it up. It really is incumbent on the Minister to see that they do not cut the borders between England and Scotland and between Scotland and Northern Ireland, creating a Scotland-only enclave and taking all the powers to themselves.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be brief. In preparation for the debate two years ago, I checked with officials and Ministers in the Department for Transport here, first, whether they approved of this proposal and, secondly, whether they had been consulted. The answer was no in both cases. They did not know that it was happening. They shrugged their shoulders and said, “Well, the Government have decided to do it”, and the Labour Party at that time went along with it. That is why we had a debate two years ago and it is why we divided the House at half past eleven at night. We nearly won but not quite. However, we were right, and nearly everybody who has spoken tonight has confirmed that.
I want to make two points. As one noble Lord said, the BTP is funded in England and Wales by the operators and Network Rail. As we all know, Network Rail is now owned by the Government. So who is funding the BTP in Scotland, and what about Virgin Trains, which goes up the east and west coasts? Does it fund the police until it gets to Gretna or Berwick, and who is funding it beyond there? This affects the franchises. There is a problem with the franchise on the east coast main line at the moment.
Finally, I turn to Article 6 of the draft order. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, it allows the British Transport Police to cross territories. The British Transport Police from England may be able to go north into Scotland, but the order does not say anything about the Scottish police being able to chase people south of the border. Does that mean that they will have to get off at a station at around that point? I do not think that there is a station at Gretna any longer, but does it mean that they will have to get off at a station somewhere around there? If the British Transport Police is mentioned in this order as being allowed to go north to arrest people or whatever, I need an answer from the Minister on what will happen with regard to police going in the other direction. How will the Scottish transport police, or whatever they are to be called, be able to operate south of the border without them being mentioned in a new Article 6(d) in the order as being allowed to work extraterritorially? This situation seems extraordinary, and I look forward to the Minister’s answer.
Lord Clark of Windermere
My Lords, this debate has inevitably centred on Scotland and the British Transport Police, but civilian police forces such as the British Transport Police—I emphasise “civilian” police forces—were created for a particular reason. There are at least two other such police forces. The Ministry of Defence Police—not the “Redcaps”—and the Civil Nuclear Constabulary were similarly created for a particular reason.
Having lived for most of my life in the borderlands in the north of England on the opposite side to Scotland, I am very aware of those three civilian police forces, and I am interested in the Government’s reaction. If they concede on the British Transport Police but do not follow the sensible suggestions of my noble friend Lord Foulkes, what will happen to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary? I declare an interest as a former director of Sellafield. I shall be a bit circumspect in what I say about the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, but we should bear in mind even now the transport of material from Dounreay and other sites in Scotland to Sellafield. All those trains are accompanied by armed members of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, just as every defence establishment in Scotland is policed by the Ministry of Defence Police, a GB body. So, when we talk about this order, I am interested in what happens to the other comparable civilian police forces.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, if I say anything, I will only be repeating some of the things that have already been said a lot more eloquently. It only remains for me to say that we fully support and congratulate my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock on his determination and persistence in this matter. He has made a reasonable request. I know from previous experience that the Minister is a serious and flexible man, and I am quite sure that he will respond in a positive manner.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, on his brevity. I was hoping for a longer intervention so that I could just gather together some more of my papers before I began—they are piling up around me.
I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for initiating this debate. The sheer number of contributions, and their quality and breadth, is testament to the need for this discussion. It is important for me to stress, however, that this debate was born of a particular order but, having heard several noble Lords, much of the discussion has not focused on the order itself. If your Lordships will forgive me, I will touch on the order at the outset because it is important to stress why it is before us tonight. I will then spend most of my time talking about the issues that have been raised.
I turn, first, to the purpose of the order. It has been laid simply to ensure that the measures contained in the 2016 Act that affect the law elsewhere in the UK, which apply to reserved matters in Scotland, can be amended as required. The Scottish Parliament cannot do that and we have to do it. That is the purpose of the order. It makes provisions about arrests effected both in Scotland and outside Scotland in connection with crimes committed in Scotland that are being investigated under Scots law or where extradition to Scotland has been necessary. In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, this is the aspect that allows the British Transport Police to reach beyond and equalises the ability of the police to act in each other’s jurisdictions. That is already contained in the order.
These provisions are important because they are part of the ongoing devolution settlement. The process for developing such an order is in itself important, both by the manner in which the two Governments co-operate and collaborate and by the means by which they are adopted and introduced in your Lordships’ House and the other place. It is simply a way of ensuring that devolution works effectively.
In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, I should also stress that further orders affecting the British Transport Police will be coming. He will be aware of Sections 90 and 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which touch on the transfer of people, assets and liabilities from the British Transport Police and the ability to make any consequential provision. Further orders will be made specific to this—
Lord Maxton
Will there also be orders relating to the different legal systems in Scotland and England? That is relevant to any discussion on British Transport Police.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. The orders, when they arrive, will be constructed through the collaborative process between the two Governments, which I touched on a moment ago. In any order, they will bring forward proposals that comply with both Scots law and the broader law of England and Wales. We should be able to have that before us.
It is important to stress, as several noble Lords have, that the Smith commission and the legislation by which its conclusions were enacted are important elements of the continuing Scottish devolution process.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
I apologise to my noble friend but am I being stupid? When he said that there will be further orders in connection with the British Transport Police, is he saying that the Government intend to support the break-up of the British Transport Police?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
To be clear, in this instance, the Smith commission and the rules that it contained devolved to the Scottish Parliament the right to take this matter forward. The Scottish Parliament has determined how it shall do so. Today’s discussion is about how it has interpreted the clauses. At present, it is anticipated that we must make sure that the ongoing British Transport Police continues to function. I will come to the points raised in a manner that will, I hope, satisfy noble Lords—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, because he has cottoned on to something important. The Minister said, I think, that one of the orders would relate to the transfer of property, which I mentioned. I hope that order will not be laid until such time as any action that he proposes to take as a result of this debate is concluded.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has anticipated what I will say shortly. Perhaps noble Lords will allow me to make some progress on the broader position.
I emphasise again that whatever reservations noble Lords may have about this approach, we must recognise and respect the agenda of the Scottish Parliament. That is part of the ongoing Smith agreement. However, let me turn to the matter that has most exercised the noble Lords here today—
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to make some progress. I may have time to give way to him later.
Lord Berkeley
I want to ask the Minister about what he has just said before he moves on to the next point. He mentioned that under Article 6(b) the British Transport Police will be able to go north of the border. But will he respond to my question? Will Scottish police be allowed to go south of the border or will they be seen as foreigners and so not allowed in?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord has again pre-empted what I am about to say. To be very clear, the purpose of the order is to ensure that criminals can be pursued in either direction. It seeks to equalise the ability of the transport police to function in both jurisdictions, and it delivers that.
I come back to the remarks made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. The functions of the British Transport Police in Scotland will be a devolved matter. However, in the previous debate, the noble and learned Lord went on to say that that is slightly different from saying that British Transport Police itself will be devolved. It is, therefore, a matter of some interpretation. We have heard a number of points thus far from noble Lords on why that interpretation does not meet the test of good policing within the wider infrastructure of the United Kingdom.
Recent press reports of morale in the Scottish division of the British Transport Police show that up to two-thirds of officers are unsure whether they will transfer to Police Scotland following the merger, and only one-third of officers have declared that they definitely intend to do so. That should give pause for thought and concern. It is also worth stressing that, importantly, British Transport Police has, throughout its history, been a success. Since 2005, it has reduced crime on Scotland’s rail network by 56%, an achievement that compares favourably with an overall reduction of crime in Scotland of 38%. That is no mean feat and certainly worthy of praise. We should recognise that here.
The ultimate test of the merger under discussion is whether it makes the policing of Scotland’s railways better. As a former Member of the European Parliament, I recall how important it was that, before substantive changes were made to legislation, serious impact assessments were undertaken to ensure that the outcome would be delivered by the means chosen. That important element is missing from some of the discussions being put forward. I say that as a member of the travelling public and in recognition of the concerns that have been expressed by a number of the agencies and bodies cited this evening.
Before I conclude, I will touch on some of the substantive points made. I begin with the confusion that may have arisen around what will happen next. We need to put at the fore of our minds that this involves police officers who have delivered for the betterment of our country. The merger is not due to any failing of theirs and at no point should it be recognised as such. Nor is it a failing of British Transport Police in any element of its operation.
Some of the issues raised tonight need to be dealt with in great detail, but I will touch on what the noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, said. He talked about the inclusion of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary and the Ministry of Defence Police. It is important to stress that the Smith commission did not at any point intend to devolve these aspects. Therefore, although they are touched on in the order, at no point will these functions be onward devolved to the Police Scotland operation. That is particularly important.
To make this move work, a joint programme board has been created. That board is particularly focused upon where the points of friction rest and how they can be addressed going forward. I will come back to its role in delivering the outcomes that noble Lords here today would like to see.
The noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, touched upon one of the most fundamental questions—terrorism—and how we can assure there is no diminution in our preparedness, our scope, our ability to operate and our attention to the issues before us. There are pre-existing protocols between Police Scotland and the various agencies and constabularies south of the border. These will continue to deliver against that outcome. It is important, however, that they are tested to make sure that they are fit for purpose in that regard.
This is not only about Scotland—it is important to stress that. The British Transport Police covers the whole of our country, not only one part of it. Further, we have to recognise that the threats to our country are not specific to one nation or region but, rather, in many instances are a threat to us all. We must recognise, therefore, that there will be responsible agencies which will take these matters forward.
Let me touch on where we can make serious progress. To address the challenges of the onward devolution of the policing of the railways in Scotland, the two Governments have established a joint programme board. The board is currently working to achieve an orderly transfer and to provide affected officers and staff with clarity at the earliest opportunity. The board has sought to address the findings of the recent report on devolution conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland, which has been cited by a number of noble Lords today. Its principal purpose is to ensure that each of those issues is addressed head on.
Therefore, minded as I am of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and other noble Lords, following this debate I will secure a meeting with the UK Government co-chair of the joint programme board. At that meeting I will take the salient points from this debate and put them before it. I will ask the board to produce a report, which I anticipate will form the basis of a formal discussion between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Scotland. Thereafter I will write to the noble Lord with the result of that discussion and place a copy of that in the House. The next meeting takes place on 30 January 2018.
I stress again that there are two further Scotland Act orders pertaining to the British Transport Police. I will report back before these orders are laid.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
When the British Government’s representative—the Minister responsible for this—attends that board, what will his policy be? Will it be to maintain the British Transport Police or to allow it to be broken up?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord, once again, puts his finger on the issue. Our purpose will be to ensure that the answers which come from the board are satisfactory. If they are not satisfactory, then opportunities will be provided for this House and others to move forward in a different way. Oh, I heard someone say, “What does that mean?”, which is a helpful remark. I was trying to be cryptic in one sense. I am basically saying that this is not the end of the story. I hope that we will receive satisfactory answers at the programme board which will allow us the clarity to establish that we are satisfied that policing on our railways is not affected to the point of detriment.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I think I understand what the Minister is saying and I agree with him. The Minister or the representative to the programme board is going to go to the board, express the points of view that have been made here—which have come from the unionists, the Conservatives, the Cross Benches, the Liberal Democrats and Labour—and report back to us. If we are not happy about the outcome, then there are two more orders which may or may not be laid and which we may or may not pray or move against. That will give us the opportunity after the programme board to know whether we are happy and whether or not the House and the Minister want to go ahead with those two further orders.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
The noble Lord may well say that but I stress again that the important thing is that the salient points raised by noble Lords today are considered in all seriousness by the programme board. I hope there will be an opportunity for that board to respond and to satisfy all the questions raised today. I have noted them down. To put them in context, we need to know that terrorism and security issues are addressed head on—there can be no diminution in these. We must recognise that this involves real police officers and that there can be no impact upon their well-being, their morale or their situation, and that they must be treated with respect throughout this process. We must be cognisant of the no-detriment principle. Where there are costs, we must understand how those costs will be allocated fairly and appropriately. We must also recognise that they should not be unfairly or inappropriately placed elsewhere.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
On the question of costs and the no-detriment principle, is this a matter for the joint programme board to sort out or do the United Kingdom Government have a view as to how any detriment to the British Transport Police in England and Wales should be addressed?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
We want to make sure that a no-detriment principle is adopted throughout, so there should be no impact on parts of the United Kingdom as a consequence of this which would have to be met by those who are affected by it.
It is important to note the other issues that we need to be very clear about. The British Transport Police is a specialist constabulary, not a traditional one. It focuses on particular aspects of enforcement which are important and cannot simply be substituted by officers from other traditional constabularies. We must not lose sight of that. Any risk that there may be flight from the particular integrated elements would in itself be a problem for the overall functioning of transport policing in Scotland. There can be no diminution in the quality of the service. We also have to recognise that throughout this area there is an issue of being respectful to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament itself, through the Smith commission and onwards, is the principal interlocutor in addressing this matter. We cannot lose sight of that fact because it is also important.
Perhaps I may be a little more bold and say that in some respects this is one of those issues where one can see the difference between a unicameral and a bicameral Parliament. Perhaps if the Scottish Parliament had a second Chamber, some of these matters might have been addressed in a slightly different way. However, that might be a little bit provocative.
Let me conclude with a quotation which I am sure will be familiar to noble Lords, but perhaps they do not necessarily know its source. When I say the name Thomas Bertram Lance, I suspect that there will be blank stares. He was the director of the Office of Management and Budget in Jimmy Carter’s presidential Administration. In 1977 he coined the maxim,
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.
In some respects, we should always recognise the importance of that particular dictum. However, I should stress that that conclusion must be determined by the Scottish Parliament as a matter of course. It is that Parliament’s responsibility to hold to account the Scottish Government, who have moved this matter forward.
I appreciate that I have not had time to touch on all the issues raised in the debate but I hope that I have been able to give the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, some comfort in my remarks so that he will not be regretful and therefore not press his amendment to the Motion. I hope that this has been a satisfactory response to our debate.
Lord Empey
Perhaps I may raise one point with the noble Lord. Where is the national interest in all of this? The Scottish Parliament cannot reflect it. A programme board is made up of two halves, one half of which is the Scottish Parliament and the other the UK Government. That board cannot have a national responsibility because it is made up of one part which does not have such a responsibility. My concern in all this is that the national security interest is going to fall between two stools. I would like an assurance from the Minister that that is not the case.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I believe that I can give that assurance. The very fact that the comments made in this debate shall be summarised and transmitted very clearly to the programme board means that the views of noble Lords will not be lost. I also believe that those views represent the entire breadth of concern expressed, certainly in this instance throughout Scotland but also beyond. That must be reflected on by all those who take as their responsibility the forward movement of the British Transport Police and its future policing policy.
Lord McAvoy
Could I ask the Minister to convey the answers that he has not been able to give in this debate to the various noble Lords who asked those questions, and to distribute those responses?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Yes, I am very happy to do that. We have a note of the questions and I have several responses in handwriting that I cannot quite read. That is one of the reasons I have not been as fluent as I might have been on some of the points. Where noble Lords have not received an adequate response, I will do my utmost to ensure that the answers are conveyed to them.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, first I thank the Minister for his courtesy and sympathy in the run-up to this debate. He has been really helpful. I should also thank my noble friend Lord McAvoy for turning the screw on him on our behalf. My understanding is that he is mindful of the very great strength of feeling on all sides of the House and in every party and that that will be conveyed to the programme board. He is going to report back to us and that report will come before any further orders might be put forward in relation to the British Transport Police. I can assure him that we will remain vigilant and look carefully at what progress, if any, is made by the programme board, although we hope that it will be. We will keep an eye on it and we may return to these issues at a later stage. Meanwhile, in the light of what he has said in his response, I do not wish to press my amendment to the Motion to a vote.
Data Protection Bill [HL]
Wednesday 10th January 2018
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection Act 2018 View all Data Protection Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 74-III Third marshalled list for Report (PDF, 153KB) - (8 Jan 2018)
Lord Ashton of Hyde
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I turn to the new offence of reidentifying de-identified personal data. As a new clause, with no corresponding parallel in the 1998 Act, it has been a hot topic throughout the passage of the Bill and the Government welcome the insightful debates on it that took place in Committee. Those debates have influenced our thinking on aspects of the clause and I will elaborate on the amendments we have tabled in response to concerns raised by noble Lords.
By way of background, Clause162(3) and (4) provide a number of defences for circumstances where reidentification may be lawful, including where it was necessary for the prevention or detection of crime, to comply with a legal obligation, or was otherwise justified as being in the public interest. Further defences are available where the controller responsible for de-identifying the personal data, or the data subjects themselves, consented to its reidentification.
As noble Lords will recall, concerns were raised in Committee that researchers who acted in good faith to test the robustness of an organisation’s de-identification mechanisms may not be adequately protected by the defences in the current clause. Although we continue to believe that the public interest defence would be broad enough to cover this type of activity, we recognise that the perception of a gap in the law may itself be capable of creating harm. We therefore tabled Amendments 151A, 156A and 161A to fix this. These amendments introduce a new, bespoke defence for those for whom reidentification is a product of their testing of the effectiveness of the de-identification systems used by other controllers.
A number of safeguards are included to prevent abuse. I particularly draw noble Lords’ attention to the requirement to notify either the original controller or the Information Commissioner. In addition, the researcher cannot intend to cause, or threaten to cause, damage or distress to a legal person. That means, for example, that those self-styled researchers who attempt to use their discovery to extort money from either the data controller or the data subjects they have reidentified are not protected by this new defence.
We fully appreciate the importance of the work undertaken by legitimate security researchers. I assured noble Lords in Committee that it was in no way our intention to put a halt on this activity where it is done in good faith, and the amendments I am moving today make good on that commitment. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister. We on these Benches had considerable activity from the academic community, security researchers and so on. I am delighted that the Minister has reflected those concerns with the new amendments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I echo the noble Lord’s words. We also welcome these amendments. As has been said, this issue was raised by the academic community, whose primary concern was that the way the Bill had originally been phrased would make important security research illegal and weaken data protection for everyone by that process. It would also mean that good and valid research going on in our high-quality institutions might be at risk.
I do not in any sense want to question the amendments’ approach, but I have been in further correspondence with academics who have asked us to make a few points. I am looking for a sense that the issues raised are being dealt with. Either a letter or a confirmation that these will be picked up later in the process of the Bill is all that is necessary.
First, it is fairly common-sense to say that companies probably would not be very happy if a researcher picks up that they are not doing what they say on the tin—in other words, if their claim that their data has been anonymised turns out not to be the case. Therefore, proposed new subsection (2)(b) may well be used against researchers to threaten or shut down their work. The wording refers to “distress” that might be caused, but,
“without intending to cause, or threaten to cause, damage or distress to a person”,
seems a particularly weak formulation. If it is only a question of distress, I could be distressed by something quite different from what might distress the noble Lord, who may be more robust about such matters. I think that is a point to take away.
Secondly, we still do not have, despite the way the Minister introduced the amendment, definitions in the Bill that will work in law. “Re-identification”, which is used in the description and is part of the argument around it, is still not defined. Therefore, in proposed new Clause 161A(3), as mentioned by the noble Lord who introduced the amendment, the person who,
“notified the Commissioner or the controller responsible for de-identifying the personal data about the re-identification”,
has to do this,
“without undue delay, and … where feasible, not later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it”.
That is a very tight timetable. Again, I wonder if there might be a bit more elasticity around that. It does say “where feasible”, but it puts rather tight cordon around that.
We are trying to make it safe for researchers and data scientists to report improperly de-identified data, but in the present arrangements the responsibility for doing all this lies with the researcher. We are asking a researcher to go to court, perhaps, and defend themselves, including arguing that they have satisfied Clause 162(2)(a) and (b) and Clause 162(3)(a), (b) and (c), which is a fairly high burden. All in all, we just wonder whether how this has been framed does the trick satisfactorily. I would be grateful for further correspondence with the Minister on this point.
Finally, there is nothing in this amendment about industry. It may not be necessary but it raises a question that has been picked up by a couple of people who have corresponded with us. The burden, again, is on the researcher. Is there not also a need to try to inculcate a culture of transparency in the anonymisation processes which are being carried out in industry? In other words, if there is a duty on researchers to behave properly and do certain things at a certain time, should there not also be a parallel responsibility, for example, on companies to properly and transparently anonymise the data? If there is no duty for them to do it properly, what is in it for them? It may well be that that is just a natural aspect of the work they are doing, but maybe the Government should reflect on whether they are leaving this a little one-sided. I put that to the Minister and hope to get a response in due course.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support on this. I accept that there may be things to look at that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has mentioned. It is better to consider those things properly rather than give an answer off the top of my head at the Dispatch Box. I certainly commit to taking those points back and having a look at them. It may be that, when we correspond, something can take place in another place. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
( ) the person acted—(i) for the special purposes,(ii) with a view to the publication by a person of any journalistic, academic, artistic or literary material, and(iii) in the reasonable belief that in the particular circumstances the re-identification was justified as being in the public interest.”
( ) the effectiveness testing conditions were met (see section (Re-identification: effectiveness testing conditions)).”
( ) the person acted—(i) for the special purposes,(ii) with a view to the publication by a person of any journalistic, academic, artistic or literary material, and(iii) in the reasonable belief that in the particular circumstances the processing was justified as being in the public interest.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“Re-identification: effectiveness testing conditions
(1) For the purposes of section 162, in relation to a person who re-identifies information that is de-identified personal data, “the effectiveness testing conditions” means the conditions in subsections (2) and (3).(2) The first condition is that the person acted—(a) with a view to testing the effectiveness of the de-identification of personal data,(b) without intending to cause, or threaten to cause, damage or distress to a person, and(c) in the reasonable belief that, in the particular circumstances, re-identifying the information was justified as being in the public interest.(3) The second condition is that the person notified the Commissioner or the controller responsible for de-identifying the personal data about the re- identification—(a) without undue delay, and(b) where feasible, not later than 72 hours after becoming aware of it.(4) Where there is more than one controller responsible for de-identifying personal data, the requirement in subsection (3) is satisfied if one or more of them is notified.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(2) Before making regulations under this Act, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Commissioner, and(b) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply to”
“( ) Subsection (2) does not apply to regulations made under section 17 where the Secretary of State has made an urgency statement in respect of them.”
“(5A) Where regulations under this Act are subject to “the made affirmative resolution procedure”—(a) the statutory instrument containing the regulations must be laid before Parliament after being made, together with the urgency statement in respect of them, and(b) the regulations cease to have effect at the end of the period of 120 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made, unless within that period the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5B) In calculating the period of 120 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than 4 days.(5C) Where regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (5A), that does not—(a) affect anything previously done under the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”
“( ) In this section, “urgency statement” has the meaning given in section 17(4).”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“(a) to amend or replace the definition of “the Data Protection Convention” in section 2;(b) to amend Chapter 3 of Part 2 of this Act;(c) to amend Part 4 of this Act;(d) to make provision about the functions of the Commissioner, courts or tribunals in connection with processing of personal data to which Chapter 3 of Part 2 or Part 4 of this Act applies, including provision amending Parts 5 to 7 of this Act;(e) to make provision about the functions of the Commissioner in connection with the Data Protection Convention or an instrument replacing that Convention, including provision amending Parts 5 to 7 of this Act;(f) to consequentially amend this Act.”
“( ) Regulations under this section may not be made after the end of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Clement-Jones
“(2A) A body or other organisation which meets the conditions in subsections (3) and (4) may also exercise some or all of the rights under subsection (2) independently of the data subject’s authority.(2B) Subsection (2A)—(a) applies in respect of infringements occurring (or alleged to have occurred) whether before or after the commencement of this section; and(b) is without prejudice to the generality of any other enactment or rule of law which permits the bringing of representative proceedings.”
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, as a result of the vagaries of grouping, redrafting and so on, I am in danger of being the tail that wags the dog on this group of amendments, especially as Amendment 175 deals with the processing of personal data to which the GDPR does not apply. Amendment 175A is a much broader amendment, dealing with the implementation of not only article 82 but other aspects that are extremely desirable.
I know that the Minister will be fairly brief in response, so I will not rehearse all the arguments we put forward in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, led on this group of amendments and put forward many of the arguments made by a great number of organisations, such as Which?, Age UK, Privacy International and the Open Rights Group, for this kind of group representation, along the lines of the super-complaints in the Consumer Rights Act, which are highly desirable. I recommend—which shortens the job I have of introducing this amendment—that the Minister reads the blog on the Privacy International site written by the chair emeritus of PI’s board of trustees, Anna Fielder. She puts the arguments extremely well and wrestles with some of the points that the Minister made in Committee, which is extremely useful. I am certainly not going to go through all that, let alone the polling data, which I think refutes quite a lot of what the Minister said. This is extremely desirable. I support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has tabled. It is quite comprehensive in many ways. I look forward to his introduction of his amendment.
Finally, a very important factor in all of this is the support of the Information Commissioner. She has come to the conclusion, as she wrote very convincingly in her second memorandum, that we need to have this kind of right of representation where consent has not necessarily been obtained. I think we should listen very carefully to what she has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his introduction and for paving the way to the comments I want to make. He suggested further reading but I might be able to shorten the reading list for the Minister, because I am going to cite a bit of what has been sent as part of that package. We went through most of the main issues and had a full response from Ministers the last time this was raised, in Committee. But since then we have of course amended the Bill substantially to provide for a significant amount of age-appropriate design work to be done to protect children who, either lawfully or unlawfully as it might be, come into contract arrangements with processors of their data.
That data processing will almost certainly be done properly under the procedures here. We hope that, within a year of Royal Assent, we will see the fruits of that coming through. But after that, we will be in uncharted territory as far as younger persons and the internet are concerned. They will obviously be on there and using substantial quantities of data—a huge amount, as is picked up when one sees one’s bills and how much time they spend on downloading material from the internet and has to find the wherewithal to provide for them. But I am pretty certain there will also be occasions where things do not work out as planned. They may well find that their data has been misused or sold in a way they do not like, or processed in a way which is not appropriate for them. In those circumstances, what is the child to do? This is why I want to argue that the current arrangements, and the decision by the Government not to allow for the derogation provided for in the GDPR under article 82 to apply, may have unforeseen consequences.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for supporting Amendment 175A, and I look forward to her comments later on, particularly in relation to children’s use. It is important to recognise that, if there is a derogation and it is not taken up, there has to be a good reason for that. The arguments brought up last time were largely along the lines that it would be overcomplicated to have two types of approach and that, in any case, there was sufficient evidence to suggest that individual consumers would prefer to be represented when they do so—of course, that falls away when we talk about children.
In Amendment 175A, we are trying to recognise two things: first, the right of adults to seek collective redress on issues taken up on their behalf by bodies that have a particular skill or knowledge in that area and, secondly, to do this without the need to form an association with an individual or group, or a particular body that has a responsibility for it. The two parts of the amendment will provide a comprehensive regime to allow victims of data breaches to bring proceedings to vindicate rights to proper protection of their personal data, always bearing in mind that children will have the additional cover provided by theirs being a third-party involvement. We hope that there will not be serious breaches of data protection. We think that the Bill is well constructed and that in most cases it will be fine, but the possibility that it will happen cannot be ignored. This parallels other arrangements, including those in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which apply to infringements of competition law—not a million miles away from where we are here—and for which there is a procedure in place.
To anticipate where the Government will come from on this, first, I think they will say that there is a lot going on here and no evidence to suggest that it should work. I suggest to them that we would be happy with a recognition that this issue is being applied elsewhere in Europe and that there is a discrepancy if it is not in Britain. Secondly, there may be a good case for waiting some time until we understand how the main provisions work out. But a commitment to keep this under review, perhaps within a reasonable time after the commencement of the procedures—particularly in relation to children and age-appropriate design—to carry out a formal assessment of the process and to consider its results would, I think, satisfy us. I accept the argument that doing too much too soon might make this difficult, but the principle is important and I look forward to the responses.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too want to speak to this amendment, to which I have added my name, and I acknowledge and welcome the support of the Information Commissioner on this issue. I support the collective redress of adults but I specifically want to support the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on this question of children.
At Second Reading and again in Committee I raised the problem of expecting a data subject who is a child to act on their own behalf. Paragraph (b) of proposed new subsection (4B) stipulates that,
“in the case of a class consisting of or including children under the age of 18, an individual may bring proceedings as a representative of the class whether or not the individual’ s own rights have been infringed".
This is an important point about the right of a child to have an advocate who may be separate from that child and whose own rights have not been abused. Children cannot take on the stress and responsibility of representing themselves and should not be expected to do so, nor should they be expected to police data compliance. Children whose data is processed unlawfully or who suffer a data breach may be unaware that something mischievous, harmful or simply incorrect has been attached to their digital identity. We know that data is not a static or benign thing and that assumptions are made on what is already captured to predict future outcomes. It creates the potential for those assumptions to act as a sort of lead boot to a child’s progress. We have to make sure that children are not left unprotected because they do not have the maturity or circumstances to protect themselves.
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, earlier this evening, the age-appropriate design code was formally adopted as part of this Bill. It is an important and welcome step, and I thank the Minister and the new Secretary of State Matt Hancock, whose appointment I warmly welcome, for their contribution to making that happen. Children’s rights have been recognised in the Bill, but rights are not meaningful unless they can be enacted. Children make up nearly one-third of all users worldwide, but rarely do they or the vast majority of their parents have the skills necessary to access data protection.
The amendment would ensure that data controllers worked to a higher standard of data security when dealing with children’s data in the first place. Rather than feeling that the risk of a child bringing a complaint was vanishingly low, they would know that those of us who advocate for and protect the rights of children were able to make sure that their data was treated with the care, security and respect that we all believe it deserves.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their comments. Although I have to say at the outset that we have some reservations about these amendments, I think we might be able to find a way forward this evening. I have listened to the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, and taken their remarks on board, but I have especially listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who spoke about children. We have some experience of her input in this Bill. I obviously take a lot of notice of what the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Clement-Jones, say but, as you know, familiarity and all that, so I have certainly listened especially to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.
The Government are sympathetic to the idea of facilitating greater private enforcement, but we continue to believe that the Bill as drafted provides significant and sufficient recourse for data subjects. In our view, there is no need to invoke article 80(2) of the GDPR, with all the risks and potential pitfalls that that entails. To recap, the GDPR provides for, and the Bill allows, data subjects to mandate a suitable non-profit organisation to represent their interests following a purported infringement. The power will, in other words, be in their hands. They will have control over which organisation is best placed to represent their interests, what action to take and what remedy to seek. The GDPR also places robust obligations on the data controller to notify the data subject if there has been a breach which is likely to result in a high risk to the data subject’s rights and freedoms. This is almost unprecedented and quite different from, say, consumer law where compulsory notification of customers is rarely proportionate or achievable.
These are very significant developments from the 1998 Act and augment a rapidly growing list of enforcement options available to data subjects. That list already includes existing provisions for collective redress, such as group litigation orders, which were used so effectively in the recent Morrisons data breach case, and the ability for individuals and organisations to independently complain to the Information Commissioner where they have concerns about how personal data is being processed.
What these initiatives have in common is that they, like the GDPR as a whole, seek to empower data subjects and ensure they receive the information they need to enforce their own data rights. By comparison, Amendments 175 and 175A would go much further. I stress that, as I have already said, we are not against greater private enforcement, and I have borne in mind the points the noble Baroness made about children. We also have reservations about the drafting and purpose of these amendments, all of which I could of course go through at length, if the House wishes, but in view of what I am about to say, I hope that will not be necessary.
Since Committee, the Government have reflected on the principles at stake here and agree it would be reasonable for a review to be undertaken, two years after Royal Assent, of the effectiveness of Clause 173 as it is currently drafted. The Government are fully prepared to look again at the issue of article 80(2) in the context of that review. We are serious about this. We will therefore amend the Bill in the other place to provide for such a review and to provide the power for the Government to implement its conclusions.
In view of that, I would be very grateful if the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment this evening and other noble Lords do not press theirs.
Baroness Kidron
Before the Minister sits down, can I get absolute reassurance from him that this is not pushing it into the future, where it will languish? Will the Government be looking to this review to actually solve the problem that we have put forward on behalf of children?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
It absolutely will not and cannot languish, because we are going to put in the Bill—so on a statutory basis—that this has to be reviewed in two years. It will not languish. As I said, if we were just going to kick it into the long grass, I would not have said what I just said, which everyone can read. We would not have put it in the Bill and made the commitments we have made tonight.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and am only sorry that I, rather than the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, have the privilege of responding. The Minister came back, I thought, very helpfully. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made a superb case for these rights to be implemented earlier rather than later. If we are creating all those new rights for children under the Bill, as she says, we must have a mechanism to enforce them. I believe the Minister said that the review would be two years after the Bill comes into effect. I hope that that is an absolute—
Lord Clement-Jones
Let us hope that that is treated as an important timetable. I was interested that the Minister expressed his sympathy—I know that that was genuine—but then went on to talk about risks and pitfalls, and very significant developments, which all sounded a bit timid. I understand that we are in relatively novel territory, but it sounded rather timid in the circumstances, especially where the rights of children are concerned.
One point the Minister did come back on was group litigation orders. Class actions are very different from the kinds of representative action that we are talking about under these amendments. For example, they would be anonymous and the consent of the data subject would not have had to be acquired, unlike with a class action. They are very different, which is worth pointing out. There are some egregious issues in terms of the use of people’s data—the Equifax case, Uber, and so on. We need to remind ourselves that these are really important data breaches and there need to be remedies available. We, on this side of the House, and those on the Benches of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, will be vigilant on this aspect.
The one area of clarification that I did not receive from the Minister was whether this would apply to processing of personal data that was not under the GDPR. Will it be under the applied GDPR, and would that apply?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think it applies to the whole thing, but if I am wrong, I will certainly write to everyone who is here.
“Framework for Data Processing by Government
(1) The Commissioner must prepare a document, called the Framework for Data Processing by Government, which contains guidance about the processing of personal data in connection with the exercise of functions of— (a) the Crown, a Minister of the Crown or a United Kingdom government department, and(b) a person with functions of a public nature who the Commissioner recommends is specified or described in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(2) The document may make provision relating to all of those functions or only to particular functions or persons.(3) The document may not make provision relating to, or to the functions of, a part of the Scottish Administration, the Welsh Government, a Northern Ireland Minister or a Northern Ireland department.(4) The Commissioner may from time to time prepare amendments of the document or a replacement document.(5) Before preparing a document or amendments under this section, the Commissioner must consult—(a) the Secretary of State, and(b) any other person the Commissioner considers it appropriate to consult.(6) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(7) In this section, “Northern Ireland Minister” includes the First Minister and deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the Government introduced quite late in the proceedings in Committee a group of amendments that set up a parallel system under which data processing undertaken by government departments could be considered to be governed. Our Amendment 176 attempts to ask some questions, and in that sense it is a probing amendment. It probably does not work as it stands, on reflection, but it raises important points. Because the Government introduced the amendments so late in the day, I feel justified in asking for a response to some of our questions around them. The scrutiny that we could have given to the amendments did not take place, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his name to the amendment and look forward to his comments later.
The main purpose of the amendment is to get on record from the Secretary of State a set of answers to questions. To be clear, we are talking about the framework for data processing by government to which the original amendments apply, and to which our amendment refers, covering all data held by any public body, including the NHS. It is both outside the ICO’s jurisdiction and under the direct control of Ministers. The courts are bound by the framework, as are tribunals, and a special case exists only for international law. I am not quite sure how that works, so maybe we can get some answers on that. There may well be updates, but if there are changes, they will be applied retrospectively. It is quite a significant package in terms of powers. I understand that there may be nothing wrong with that if everything else is working. In a sense, if one wants efficient government and effectiveness, one is asking for such things to be in place. I am not criticising that.
There are questions. First, on the name, why is it a framework and not a code of practice? Codes of practice are defined in the Bill and have considerable consequences as a result. There is a standard for developing them and a process under which they take place. There are regulatory arrangements and the involvement of Parliament, but that does not apply to the framework. In other words, the Government’s own data does not go through the processes that apply to other data.
Why do the Government’s proposals exempt public sector processing from normal data protection law? Surely if the concern is about making sure that a subject’s data is always looked after properly, and data controllers, whoever they are, are doing it in accordance with the procedures set out at length by the Bill, in the GDPR and in the derived legislation that will take place—if we leave—under Brexit, all we are getting is a way of keeping people out of any consideration regarding the data that is held by government. Citizens’ data should really belong to citizens and we should not have a situation where it is looked after by Ministers on behalf of Ministers and there is no external view.
One could make a strong case—I am not necessarily doing that, but others have—that the Secretary of State has the power to create their own framework for the data protection of their own data and their own department. They can ignore completely what the Information Commissioner may say about that framework—she has no locus in that. The framework can be brought to Parliament but it is a negative procedure, not an affirmative one, so it is very difficult to scrutinise. We can vote against it; we can certainly discuss it if we see it in time, but it will not be at the same level of scrutiny as perhaps applies to other matters. Barriers can be raised, and the ICO’s enforcement mechanisms can be fettered, extended or changed.
I am sure that the Minister will have good answers to that and I am in no sense trying to attack the basic principle. I just wonder whether there is not a case here for Caesar’s wife—excuse the old-fashioned language, but it is a quotation, not a reference. Caesar’s wife was always required to be above suspicion, above any other public person in Rome of the day. I say that with detailed knowledge having just been to the RSC’s performances of the Cicero plays, as I think I already mentioned. Sorry if I am boring people.
Nevertheless, it raises in one’s mind the issues of standards and propriety in public life in a forceful way. Blood was more common then than it might be today, but the issue is right. If you are in a public position and a public responsibility is placed on you, you must not only be above reproach, you must be seen to be above reproach. I am not sure that the government amendments satisfy that. I beg to move.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I have only two brief observations to make, one supportive and one otherwise. My supportive observation is that I am very much in favour of the use of the affirmative resolution procedure for the approval of regulations, rather than the negative one. I add in parenthesis that I have always believed that we in Parliament should be able to amend under the affirmative resolution procedure. When we come to the European Bill, that will be particularly important, but that is for another day.
Where I disagree with the noble Lord is on his proposal that the commissioner should be responsible for preparing the document. That seems to me essentially a matter for the Secretary of State, because of the principle of ministerial responsibility. Ministers can be questioned and quizzed in a way which is utterly impossible for Parliament to do with the commissioner. There is also a small technical point. If a Minister has to come to Parliament—for example, under an affirmative resolution procedure—to argue in favour of regulations which he or she has not made, but which have, rather, been made by the commissioner, that could be at least a trifle embarrassing.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, I hear what the noble Viscount said about the amendment, but the problem is that even the affirmative resolution procedure is not necessarily a good way to test the framework. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, was unusually kind about the Government’s framework. As he said, the Secretary of State can produce a framework that applies data protection to his own department; ignore what the Information Commissioner says about the framework; lay his own framework for Parliament through the negative procedure—I take the noble Viscount’s point about the affirmative procedure—which means it is very unlikely to get much scrutiny; and raise barriers against the ICO’s enforcement mechanism. He can then, as part and parcel of the framework, extend or introduce frameworks to include any other public sector body. Frankly, the Secretary of State can pretty much do what he or she wants. We should not be saying that the framework is essentially like a statutory code of practice; it is a very different animal.
This is our first debate on the architecture that the Government have imposed. In Committee the Minister produced a whole raft of amendments introducing the framework and we did not have a chance to scrutinise it properly. The Information Commissioner is not very happy with this architecture either. That is utterly clear. It is not just opposition parties or organisations such as medConfidential that are unhappy. The ICO has stated:
“The Commissioner understands the needs for government departments and public bodies to be clear about the legal basis for undertaking the functions and this is particularly true when processing personal data. However the provisions as drafted appear to go beyond this limited ambition and create different risks that must also be considered. She has made clear her concerns to government and these are set out below”.
I should very much like to hear what sort of dialogue the Government have had with the ICO because, frankly, at the moment they seem to be overriding any powers or involvement that she has in this framework. I am afraid that I am raising the temperature slightly at this time of night, but the framework for government data protection is not in fact data protection at all.
Earl Attlee (Con)
To regain some favour with my noble friend the Minister, may I just say a little word about affirmative orders? It is tempting to say that we should have affirmative procedure but, at the end of the day, we will have at some point to debate those affirmative orders, and they keep mounting up. In respect of negative instruments, there is a praying period and we can flag them up for debate and have them debated in the Chamber in exactly the same way as we can an affirmative order.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
But I think that the noble Earl would accept that the last time a negative instrument was prayed against successfully was something like 1940—certainly a long time ago—and it was about the use of petroleum with open flames.
Earl Attlee
The noble Lord may be right but, of course, it is equally very rare that we turn down an affirmative order.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have participated. I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about our brief debate on the final day in Committee, so we can do a bit tonight. I hope that by the end I will be able to convince noble Lords that this is not quite as sinister as has been made out. I am going to duck, if I may, the argument about the affirmative procedure and whether it should be amendable, particularly given other Bills that are coming before this House soon. After all, I was only reappointed yesterday.
It is helpful to have this opportunity to further set out the purpose and operation of Clauses 175 to 178 and, in doing so, explain why the amendments in this group are unnecessary—except, of course, the government amendments. As noble Lords will now be aware, the Bill creates a comprehensive and modern scheme for data protection in the UK. No one is above the law, including the Government. That partly answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The Secretary of State cannot do whatever she or he wants because they are subject to the GDPR and the Bill, like everyone else. When I go further and explain the relationship between this framework and the ICO’s guidance, if it is issued, I hope that will further reassure noble Lords.
While we are on this subject, the reason the Bill uses the term “framework” is that it uses the term “code of practice” to refer to a number of documents produced by the Information Commissioner. As this document will be produced by the Government, we felt that it would be clearer not to use that term in this case. It is purely a question of naming conventions—nothing significant at all.
Inherent in the execution of the Government’s functions is a requirement to process significant volumes of personal data, whether in issuing a passport or providing information on vulnerable persons to the social services departments of local authorities. The Government recognise the strong public interest in understanding better how they process that data. The framework is therefore intended to set out the principles and processes that the Government must have regard to when processing personal data. Government departments will be required to have regard to the framework when processing personal data. This is not a novel concept. Across the country, organisations and businesses produce guidance on data processing that addresses the specific circumstances relevant to them or the sector in which they operate. This sector, or organisation-specific guidance, coexists with the overarching guidance provided by the Information Commissioner.
This framework adopts a similar approach; it is the Government producing guidance on their own processing of data. The Information Commissioner was consulted during the preparation of these clauses and will be consulted during the preparation of the framework itself to ensure that the framework complements the commissioner’s high-level national guidance when setting out more detailed provision for government.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, the Minister said that the Information Commissioner was consulted, but what was her view? Can the Minister put on record what the Information Commissioner’s view about the final architecture was? She has made it fairly clear to us that this is not satisfactory, as far as she is concerned.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
When I said that she was consulted, I said what I meant. This is one of the few areas in the whole Bill, I think, where we do not have complete agreement with the Information Commissioner. I think that she is worried about complications regarding independence and the extent of her authority in this. I am not pretending that she is completely happy with this, but I hope that I will address how the two interlink and we can come back to this if the noble Lord wants. I acknowledge his point that she is not completely happy with this but, as I said before, it is one of the few areas in the whole Bill where that is the case. Certainly, we have a very good relationship with the Information Commissioner, as evidenced earlier this evening by her agreement on pay and flexibility. Importantly though, whatever she thinks of it, she will be consulted during the preparation of the framework itself to ensure that it complements the commissioner’s high-level national guidance when setting out more detailed provision for the Government.
As I explained in Committee, the Government’s view is that the framework will serve to further improve the transparency and clarity of existing government data processing. The Government can and should lead by example on data protection. Amendment 176 is designed to address concerns about the potential for confusion if the framework is produced by the Government, I respectfully suggest that these concerns are misplaced. The Secretary of State’s framework will set out principles for the specific context of data processing by government. It will, as I have set out, complement rather than supplant the commissioner’s statutory codes of practice and guidance, which will, by necessity, be high level and general as they will apply to any number of sectors and organisations.
Requiring the commissioner to dedicate time and resources to producing guidance specifically for the Government, as the noble Lord’s amendment would require, would hardly seem to the best use of her resources. Just like a sectoral representative body, it is the Government who have the experience and knowledge to devise a framework that speaks to their own context in more specific terms.
Lord Clement-Jones
I am sorry to keep interrupting the Minister, but is he therefore saying that the frameworks cover government and that the ICO’s codes of practice cover government as well?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Absolutely. The framework exists like other sectoral guidance that is produced, under the overarching guidance produced by the Information Commissioner. In a minute I will provide further reassurance on how the two interlink.
As I have already set out, the Government will consult the commissioner in preparing the framework. Importantly, she is free to disregard the Government’s framework wherever she considers it irrelevant or to disagree with its contents.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I know that we should not be intervening like this on Report, but the phrasing that the Minister just used is of interest—to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, as well, I think. What does “irrelevant” mean? Can the Minister unpick that a little? Either the Secretary of State has the power to do something, or not. If that power is conditional on the ICO having given broad agreement to it, under what conditions can the ICO intervene? Can it be because the commissioner regards it as irrelevant? What does that mean?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think it means that, if the Information Commissioner were considering the case of a data breach committed by the Government, she would normally take the framework into account, as she would take into account the guidance that other sectors produce. If, however, there were circumstances in which she did not consider that it was relevant for her investigation into whether the law had been broken, given that she is the enforcer of the law, she would be free to disregard it. The words “must take into account” mean that she is not bound by the provision but has to take it into account. She is, after all, the regulator who sits above all data processors.
I reiterate that the guidance will provide reassurance to data subjects about the approach the Government take to processing data and the procedures that they follow when doing so. It will help further strengthen the Government’s compliance with the principles of the GDPR.
Amendments 177 and 178, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, concern the process for making the guidance. The guidance may be revised if Parliament does not approve it or if it needs adjustment to be compatible with international obligations. It would be odd and irresponsible to abandon the problem these clauses are trying to resolve if Parliament does not approve the guidance. A revised version should be prepared. Similarly, data protection rules are often international in nature and indeed this Bill is based on three international instruments, so revising the guidance to maintain compatibility must be the sensible approach.
Amendments 179 and 180 seek to limit the effect of the guidance. Persons must have regard to the guidance but there may be good reasons why processing data in a particular set of circumstances can lawfully be conducted in a manner outside the guidance. As long as regard has been had to the guidance but good reasons for departing from it or for its non-applicability have been established, it is perfectly proper and within the norm of usual public law principles to do so. Clause 178 ensures that those principles are enforced.
In our view, the existence of a framework in no way impinges upon the commissioner’s independence. Clause 178(5) simply requires the commissioner to take a provision in the Government’s framework into account if it appears to her to be relevant to the matter in hand. For example, if the commissioner were to investigate a data breach by a government department, she may consider it relevant to consider whether or not that department had applied the principles set out in the framework. It is standard practice for the Information Commissioner to take into account relevant sectoral guidance when examining issues related to the processing of personal data by a particular sector. Clause 178(5) simply reflects that practice. Furthermore, nothing in Clause 178(5) constrains the Information Commissioner in any way. She is free to disregard the Government’s framework wherever she considers it irrelevant or to disagree with its contents, as I said.
Government Amendments 184A and 184B are technical amendments and are similarly designed to assist with the Government’s compliance with the GDPR. Most bodies falling within the Bill’s definition of government departments are Crown bodies. Such bodies cannot contract with each other as the Crown cannot contract with itself. This constitutional quirk means that the usual GDPR requirement that controllers and processors must have a contractual relationship is impossible to satisfy where one department is processing on behalf of another. These amendments resolve this situation by allowing departments to enter into a memorandum of understanding between each other instead and remain GDPR-compliant.
On the basis of my comments, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and support the government amendments in this group.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I thank the Minister very much indeed for his very full response. I will read it carefully in Hansard but at this stage, although it is a rather complicated issue, I understand where he is coming from and I think we can probably let it rest at this point. If there is anything else, I will write to him rather than prolong the discussion today.
I opined that negative resolutions were rarely voted down and cited 1940 as the last occasion that that happened, but I was wrong. Some 40 years ago on 24 October 1979, the Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) (Revocation) Order 1979 was defeated late at night during what appears to have been rather unsavoury activity by members of the Labour Party who hid in cupboards and things and then jumped out. Mr Hamish Gray, whom Members may recall, was unable to sustain the standing order and it had to be brought back later on—it was all very complicated and Hansard is wonderful about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Personal data ethics advisory board and ethics code of practice
(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent Personal Data Ethics Advisory Board (“the board”) as soon as reasonably practicable after the passing of this Act.(2) The board’s functions, in relation to the processing of personal data to which the GDPR and this Act applies, are—(a) to monitor further technical advances in the use and management of personal data and their implications for the rights of data subjects;(b) to protect the individual and collective rights and interests of data subjects in relation to their personal data;(c) to ensure that trade-offs between the rights of data subjects and the use and management of personal data are made transparently, inclusively, and with accountability;(d) to seek out good practices and learn from successes and failures in the use and management of personal data;(e) to enhance the skills of data subjects and controllers in the use and management of personal data.(3) The board must work with the Commissioner to prepare a data ethics code of practice for data controllers, which must—(a) include a duty of care on the data controller and the processor to the data subject;(b) provide best practice for data controllers and processors on measures which, in relation to the processing of personal data—(i) reduce vulnerabilities and inequalities;(ii) protect human rights;(iii) increase the security of personal data; and(iv) ensure that the access, use and sharing of personal data is transparent, and the purposes of personal data processing are communicated clearly and accessibly to data subjects.(4) The code must also include guidance in relation to the processing of personal data in the public interest and the substantial public interest.(5) Where a data controller or processor does not follow the code under this section, the data controller or processor is subject to a fine to be determined by the Commissioner.(6) The board must report annually to the Secretary of State.(7) The report in subsection (6) may contain recommendations to the Secretary of State and the Commissioner relating to how they can improve the processing of personal data and the protection of data subjects’ rights by improving methods of—(a) monitoring and evaluating the use and management of personal data;(b) sharing best practice and setting standards for data controllers; and(c) clarifying and enforcing data protection rules.(8) The Secretary of State must lay the report made under subsection (6) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we can be quite brief on this matter. It is an open secret that both the Government and Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition, joined by others who have signed Amendment 181, were keen to try to move ahead with the idea of setting up a data ethics board or panel and giving it powers and teeth, particularly in light of the recent Budget, in which it was clear that there was money available for it to be established and start spending. We felt that it would be nice to get that going. Unfortunately, the rules of the House are so tight that it has not been possible to find a form of words for the powers that would be used to set up this advisory board which would be sufficiently broad to give a proper basis for the ambitions that we all share for it. On the basis that I think the Government may have something to say about this, I will not extend the discussion on this, because there is so much common ground. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, but to get the debate going I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, we are at the last knockings on most of the Bill. It is rather ironic that one of the most important concepts that we need to establish is a new data ethics body—a new stewardship body—called for by the Government in their manifesto, by the Royal Society, by the British Academy and by many others. Many of those who gave evidence to our Select Committee want to see an overarching body of the kind that is set out, and with a code of ethics to go with it. We all heard what the Minister had to say last time; we hope that he can perhaps give us more of an update on the work being carried out in this area.
This should not be and I do not think it will be a matter of party contention; I think there will be a great deal of consensus on the need to have this kind of body, not just for the narrow field of data protection and the use of data but generally, for the wider application in the whole field, whether it is the internet of things or artificial intelligence, and so on. There is therefore a desire to see progress in fairly short order in this kind of area. One of the reasons for that is precisely because of the power of the tech majors. We want to see a much more muscular approach to the use of data by those tech majors. It is coming down the track in all sorts of different varieties. We have seen it in debates in this House; no doubt there will be a discussion tomorrow about social media platforms and their use of news and content and so on. This is therefore a live issue, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that the new Secretary of State is dynamically taking this forward as one of the top items on his agenda.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I can certainly confirm that the new Secretary of State is dynamic. In this group we are in danger of violently agreeing with each other. There is a definite consensus on the need for this; whether there will be consensus on the results is another matter. I agree with the analysis given by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, that the trouble is that to get this into the Bill, we have to concentrate on data. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, outlined, many other things need to be included in this grouping, not least artificial intelligence.
I will briefly outline what we would like to do. For the record, we understand that the use of data and the data-enabled technologies is transforming our society at unprecedented speed. We should expect artificial intelligence and machine learning to inform ever more aspects of our life in increasingly important ways. These new advances have the potential to deliver enormous benefits to society and the economy but, as we are made aware on a daily basis—like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I am sure that this will be raised tomorrow in the debate that we are all looking forward to on social media—they are also raising a host of new and profoundly important challenges that we need to consider. One of those challenges, and the focus of this Bill, is protecting people’s personal data—ensuring that it is collected, retained and used appropriately. However, the other challenges and opportunities raised by these technologies go far beyond that, and there are many examples that I could give.
Therefore, in the Autumn Budget the Government announced their intention to create a centre for data ethics and innovation to maximise the benefits of AI and data technologies to society and the economy, and to help identify and address the ethical challenges that they pose. The centre will advise the Government and regulators on how they can strengthen and improve the way that data and artificial intelligence are governed. It will also support the effective, innovative and ethical use of data and artificial intelligence so that we maximise the positive impact that these technologies can have on our economy and society.
We are in the process of working up the centre’s terms of reference in more detail and will consult on this soon. The issues it will consider are pressing, and we intend to set it up in an interim form as soon as possible, in parallel to this consultation. However, I fully share the noble Lord’s view that the centre, whatever its precise form, should be placed on a statutory footing, and I can commit that we will bring forward appropriate legislation to do so at the earliest opportunity. I accept the reasoning from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on why this is not the appropriate place due to the limitations of this Bill, and I therefore hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am very grateful to the Minister for that response. That is probably the right way forward, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
(a) its functions under the data protection legislation, or(b) its other functions relating to the Commissioner’s acts and omissions.(2) But this section does not authorise the making of a disclosure which is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. (3) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (2) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
“the made affirmative resolution procedure | section 169” |
Lord Ashton of Hyde
( ) Where government departments are not able to enter into contracts with each other, a provision of the GDPR or this Act that would require relations between them to be governed by a contract (or other binding legal act) in writing is to be treated as satisfied if the relations are the subject of a memorandum of understanding between them.”
Lord Ashton of Hyde
(2) But this section does not authorise the making of a disclosure which is prohibited by any of Parts 1 to 7 or Chapter 1 of Part 9 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.(3) Until the repeal of Part 1 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 by paragraphs 45 and 54 of Schedule 10 to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is fully in force, subsection (2) has effect as if it included a reference to that Part.”
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
My Lords, I am not really allowed to do this, but I would like to express my appreciation to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, for her education on Amendments 209 and 210. Fortunately, I have not had to read them out.
Clause 195: Commencement
Earl Attlee
“( ) sections (Publishers of news-related material: damages and costs) and (Publishers of news-related material: interpretive provisions);