Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: Pathway 3

Debate between John Baron and Jim Shannon

Thursday 19th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon]

I certainly do. I am sure that when the Minister responds, such questions will be fully answered. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise that issue.

We all know what happened when the rapid Taliban advance in 2021 culminated in the fall of Kabul and Operation Pitting. We also know that as these events unfolded, the UK Government implemented the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and, exactly one year ago, the Afghan citizens relocation scheme. This debate serves as a moment to look back on the last year and assess, as the hon. Lady said, how far we have moved on that; many of us feel that we have not moved.

The ACRS has three pathways. The first is for people who have already been airlifted out of Afghanistan—there were some of those—and now need help settling in the UK. The second is for those who have already escaped to a third country, such as Pakistan, and are in the hands of the UNHCR. The third is the one that probably reflects our British values the most. It is no secret that I am very proud to be British. I look upon this great nation as a nation that delivers on its compassion and understanding, and therefore I want this scheme to be implemented in its totality. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, who will follow me, will confirm that as well. We have a real problem. For those who have been identified as belonging to a particularly vulnerable group, two issues emerge in relation to pathway 3 time and time again. The first is a lack of clarity, and the second is a lack of urgency. Where is it? I cannot see it at all.

When the scheme was launched, a core component of pathway 3 was the focus on providing safe asylum routes to help members of minorities who were specifically identified as being at the most risk under Taliban rule, and I give the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay lots of credit for consistently speaking in defence of the scheme. The three groups identified were religious minorities, members of the LGBT community and pro-democracy activists. All three groups were deemed to be under a high risk of a violent attack but had been excluded from the ARAP scheme.

Even at the outset of ACRS, there was confusion about when people could expect to start receiving help. The scheme launched with the intended aim of resettling 20,000 people in five years. However, Afghans were only allowed to register an expression of interest seven months after the scheme formally opened. In the short time that that window was open, over 11,400 expressions of interest were submitted under pathway 3. The vast majority of those who expressed an interest had to wait, even though their lives were in danger. I have the utmost respect for the Minister, but that is why we are so frustrated about where we are.

The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay is likely to go into greater depth on this issue, and I want to give him lots of time to put forward his understanding of where the scheme is and where it is going. Last Wednesday, he led a Westminster Hall debate on British Council contractors who are eligible for pathway 3. Indeed, at the opening of the scheme, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) stated that, alongside GardaWorld contractors and Chevening alumni, they would be the priority group for 2022. Some 200 teachers, security guards and frontline staff were to be offered a safe haven in the UK alongside family members. These people represented those who worked on the frontline, who were recruited to teach British values across Afghanistan. They were people who we—this country and the United Kingdom Government—left behind, and it is clear that we owe a duty to them. As such, I was delighted to hear the Minister confirm during last week’s debate that half the contractors have had their applications granted. Maybe I will leave that point to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. What appals me is the fact that we sought assurances in that debate, we received them, and we seemed to be finally making progress—I will go into that in a bit more detail later. The debate was on the Wednesday afternoon, and then I was phoned on the Thursday evening and informed by a Guardian journalist that the Government were retracting those assurances. We now have a mish-mash of assurances, some of which are in Hansard and some of which are not. That is one of the things we need to sort out in this debate—clarity—and I am looking forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister providing it.

[Jim Shannon]

In a couple of sentences, the hon. Gentleman has succinctly summarised where we were last Wednesday and where we are today. Unfortunately, we have not seen the clarity that is necessary.

There are questions to ask. How many people have been accepted under the ACRS? How many people fit into each category? How many of those accepted are still in Afghanistan, living under the threat of violence from the Taliban? Will the scheme continue in 2023, and when will the scheme finally open to at-risk minority groups, such as religious minorities, the Hazaras and LGBT people? Will the estimate of 20,000 still be reached? The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay covered the issues surrounding British contractors so well last week.

On 30 September 2022, a suicide bomb exploded at the Kaaj Educational Centre in Kabul. The school is in the Hazara district and was packed with hundreds of girls preparing for exams to enter university—young girls just wanting to have a life and to plan a way forward. They were brutally attacked, and some of them were killed. Some 54 students were killed, and over 100 were injured.

There has been a long history of the Taliban targeting the Hazara Muslims. Recent years have seen an increase in attacks, and at least 700 Hazaras have been killed by the Taliban or Islamic State Khorasan since August 2021. There appears to be a deliberate targeting of young Hazara girls—not just in violent attacks, but in an attempt to rob the community of ladies and young girls. I have three granddaughters, and I want them to have opportunities. If they were living in Afghanistan, they would not have any opportunities—that is a fact.

Taliban fighters have sought to remove girls from their communities through forced marriages, rape and forced engagements. I was shocked to find out that in some cases, those girls have been as young—it is hard to even say it—as three years old. What is going on in this world when we hear things like that? In Afghanistan, we see a clear attempt to destroy the Hazara community using violence and killings, but also through the forcible transfer of children out of the group; both acts can be indicators of genocide. The Hazaras are far from the only group at risk, but we need them to feature in this process.

Other religious minorities have also been devastated under the Taliban. The number of Sikhs and Hindus in Afghanistan fell from 400 to 150 in three years, with attacks by IS-K against both communities having been reported. There used to be 15,000 Christians in Afghanistan, but 13,000 of those have relocated to the United States of America, Albania or Brazil. The US scheme was set up after the ACRS, using in part the model that the UK promoted in our resettlement scheme—they liked our model so much that they made it their model for bringing people in. I speak up for the Hazaras, the Muslims, the Christians and others, because Christian minorities have to be protected if they are not going to get protection in Afghanistan. Since 2004, Afghanistan had enshrined freedom of religion within its constitution. Today, however, religious diversity in the country has been all but extinguished, with those who remain facing the risk of attacks, atrocity crimes or charges under sharia.

As well as religious minorities, thousands of pro-democracy activists have been left at risk. Some are journalists and some are activists, but many were excluded from the list, and I, like others, want them to be included on it. Members of these groups cannot sit around for five years waiting for a decision; they cannot wait. There is an urgency about this, and an ache among those of us who are speaking for a response from the Minister about where we are. In the year that the ACRS opened, not a single British Council contractor, GardaWorld contractor, Chevening alumnus or member of an at-risk minority was brought out of Afghanistan under pathway 3. What? Why have a scheme if it does not work? It is so frustrating. I am not being critical and nasty—you know that is not in my nature, Sir Charles—but I feel an absolute frustration with where we are.

The Scottish Refugee Council—believe it or not, I genuinely look to Scotland to see what it does, because many times it is far ahead of us—has reported that between January and June 2022, more than 2,000 Afghans sought safety in the UK by making a small boat crossing across the channel. These are desperate asylum seekers, not economic migrants; they are people who just want to live and to have a future. That report also notes that 97% of asylum claims from Afghans who have made those crossings have been successful.

The delay in opening safe migration routes for Afghanistan has directly contributed to some of the most vulnerable groups in the world risking their lives by paying criminal gangs to cross the English channel in a small boat. At best, a lack of clarity and urgency in the scheme is causing more fear, uncertainty and suffering for some of the most at-risk groups in Afghanistan. At worst, the delay and the lack of access are directly putting lives at risk. What is happening in Afghanistan is a humanitarian disaster on an immense level—a level of intensity that cannot be imagined, in my mind at least. A rapid response to disasters is key to saving lives, and we need that urgency. We need to see that rapid response, with our Government and our Minister working hard to make that happen.

However, Afghanistan is not the only humanitarian disaster that the UK Government are responding to. Two months after the opening of the ACRS, Russia invaded Ukraine. That invasion triggered the largest mass migration in Europe since the second world war as refugees fled Ukraine. I commend the Government’s quick action in that case, setting up the Ukrainian resettlement pathway, and I am proud of the response of my community, with many in Strangford supporting and hosting Ukrainians. We have a missionary society, Faith in Action, led by Donald and Jacqui Fleming and a fella called Tinsley. Those people are part of that response, and we have brought many Ukrainian asylum seekers—they are not here forever, but only for a certain period of time—to my town of Newtownards and across Northern Ireland, supported by church groups.

There is a marked difference in how the Government have responded through the two schemes. It has been reported by the BBC that fewer than 10 staff in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are working on ACRS. In contrast, there is a team of 50 staff working on behalf of Ukrainians. To clarify, I am not saying that there should not be such a large team working on the Ukrainian scheme—I am glad that there is—but why is there not such a large team working for Afghans as well?

I understand that the Government’s role is to set priorities, and that many priorities have been re-evaluated in the light of Russia’s aggression. I still believe passionately that we are a generous country and, as far as I am aware, no statement has been made to the House on changes to the ACRS. However, one year on, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is clearly not working. That is the situation and why I have secured the debate to request change on behalf of those people.

Last week, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay highlighted the failure to support British Council contractors who were being prioritised in 2022. The scheme fails to support minorities, leaving many with an uncertain future, forced to live in hiding, suffering regular attacks and worrying for their lives, not knowing what tomorrow brings, which concerns me. They are even faced with potential genocidal activities, as there has been against the Hazaras, Christians and others.

Looking to the next year of the scheme, it is vital that more information is made available and guidance for pathway 3 needs to be publicised. We need to fulfil the promises we made to British Council contractors and others employed to help further democracy in Afghanistan. I pray for Afghanistan and many other countries across the world every day, because I believe in prayer and that God gives us a job to do. While prayer is important, it is not the only thing that matters. Physical endeavours from our Government are also important.

I will draw my remarks to a conclusion as I made a commitment to you, Sir Charles, to keep to 20 minutes. More needs to be done to protect the three vulnerable groups that pathway 3 was built around. A stronger intervention is needed in light of the credible risk of genocide against the Hazaras. The all-party parliamentary group on Hazaras does fantastic work and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) has also raised the issue of Hazaras in the House.

I will pose some challenging questions for the Minister, but I do not wish to be judgmental. First, given the resourcing allocated to the FCDO and the impact of the crisis in Ukraine, is the ACRS still a priority for the Government? Secondly, does the Minister agree that we have a moral duty to help those who supported the British effort in Afghanistan and those at greatest risk because of their identity? Thirdly, with the evidence highlighted by the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee, the Hazara inquiry and others, is there enough evidence for the Minister to recognise the potential risk of genocide in Afghanistan in the near future? Fourthly, will the ACRS continue in 2023 and will it finally include at-risk minority groups, such as the Hazaras, the Christians and members of the LGBT community, as well as journalists who endeavoured to make Afghanistan a better country when Britain and other western nations tried to introduce democracy to Afghanistan?

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and giving me the chance to promote the case I have outlined. I look forward to the contributions from other hon. Members, including the shadow spokespeople. We are all here with the same message, Sir Charles: we need urgency, let us help those people and let us do it right now.

British Council Contractors in Afghanistan

Debate between John Baron and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered British Council contractors in Afghanistan.

Thank you, Ms McVey. I thank Mr Speaker for granting the debate and you, Ms McVey, for chairing it. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I declare a slight interest, in that I am chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group.

Since the fall of Kabul in August 2021, Members and peers of all parties have been united in our efforts to do right by those who worked on behalf of the UK in Afghanistan. I opposed the morphing of the mission into nation building once we had rid the country of al-Qaeda in 2001, but whatever one’s views, those people were the visible face of Britain in their country, promoting our language, culture and values. We owe them a debt of thanks and gratitude as well as having an obligation to look out for them.

I wish to raise the specific issue of the 200 or so British Council contractors who remain stranded in Afghanistan. Although all eligible British Council employees were evacuated as part of Operation Pitting, to this day around 200 contractors and their families remain in Afghanistan, often in fear of their lives, moving from one safe house to another as they are hunted by the Taliban. Those 200 have been deemed by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the British Council as in the very high-risk or high-risk categories.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his perseverance. Whenever he has raised the matter in the Chamber or Westminster Hall as a question, statement or query, I have been here to support him, as have others. Following on from what he said, last month it was reported that the Government had not granted a single Afghan citizens resettlement scheme application since the programme was opened. Fewer than 10 staff in the FCDO are working on the matter. Does he agree that 18 months on from the fall of Kabul is too long to wait for asylum for individuals whose lives are threatened by Taliban reprisals? As he said, we have a duty of care to those people.

[Mr Baron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and kind words. He is absolutely right. The scheme has existed for a year now—it was introduced in January 2022—and not one single contractor has been relocated under that scheme. I shall refer to that later.

Future of Soft Power

Debate between John Baron and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of soft power.

It is a pleasure to be called to speak, Ms Rees. I thank the Speaker’s Office for selecting it and the Minister for Asia and the Middle East, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling), for attending. I know she is very busy.

It is fair to say that the west has relaxed its guard and enjoyed a peace dividend following the cold war. We thought the concept of democracy would sweep the field—that the very righteousness of the cause would sweep all before it—and it therefore required little investment. But democracy is a fragile concept; it needs nurturing, encouraging and protecting. Many in this world do not share our values. As Ukraine has shown, we are engaged in a new battle for democracy. If there was any doubt about that, we need only look at the recent UN vote on the cruel invasion of a sovereign country, where more than half of the world’s population as represented by their Governments did not condemn it.

In this new era, this new cold war, we need to talk softly and carry a big stick, if we are to defend our values. Our values have stood the test of time but, at times, have required defending. I suggest that we now require a significant and sustained increase in spending on both hard and soft power capabilities. Soft power was a key factor in our victory in the cold war.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It was President Roosevelt who said, “Talk softly but carry a big stick”—I understand it is an African proverb. If we are going to have soft power, we need to have hard power behind it to back it up, otherwise it does not work. I think we are at the stage where we have learned from our mistakes in the west. It is time to get it right.

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have to do more to realise that democracy needs defending. We have to step up to the plate—not just this country, but the west generally—and commit sufficient resources, to ensure that we can talk softly, which we should always do first, but carry a big stick, because the big stick reinforces the weight of the soft diplomacy. We live in a hard world, but people will listen if they think we have assets that could be committed. I am an ex-soldier. War should always be the measure of last resort, but we need to talk and have the assets behind us to reinforce the weight of those talks.

This country should be proud. We have the BBC World Service, the British Council, our music industry, our culture, our values and the rule of law. There is little doubt—in fact, it has been shown through various measurements—that the UK is the world’s soft-power superpower, and we should be very proud of that.

During the invasion of Ukraine, the number of listeners to the BBC World Service in Russia went up three or four times. Listeners to the Ukrainian service went up to 5 million. Yet we are still debating whether the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring budgets should be ringfenced. There is a question mark over their funding.

The British Council last year was in touch with more than 750 million people worldwide for education, arts and the English language. That is a phenomenal achievement. On the UK music industry, I will share with colleagues that I am not very good at contemporary music, but I am reliably informed that three of the top 10 artists came from these shores. That is punching above our weight and helps to create the positive view of this country—there is a lot to be positive about—but it also reaches out and makes contact with people globally.

There is, however, growing competition for influence. We cannot stand still. Individual states, many of them not democratic, are looking to invest and are investing to enhance their soft power around the world. Cultural institutes such as the British Council are an effective way of doing so, and one which truly global nations all employ. As chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group, I will confine my remarks to that wonderful organisation.

I remind the Minister that other cultural institutes of other countries receive far greater amounts and proportions of public funding, between 40% to 50% of their total income. Whether it is the Goethe-Institut, or Confucius Institutes, or whatever, they get around half their income from the state. The amount is only around 15% from the British Government, because the British Government have said that the British Council must rely on its own commercial activities to help fund its endeavours. That is fine, except when those revenues fall through the floor in a pandemic year. It is, therefore, with regret for many of us—across the Floor in this House, but also in the other place—that the Government did not fully compensate for the loss of commercial income by the British Council as a result of the pandemic.

Cancer Targets

Debate between John Baron and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered NHS cancer targets.

I thank Mr Speaker for granting this important debate, and I thank you, Mr Streeter, for chairing it and the Minister for taking time out of his busy schedule to address it.

The matters I will raise today, as briefly as possible, are matters I have raised throughout my nine years at the helm of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer. As I near the end of my chairmanship, I thank all those parliamentarians, and the wider cancer community, who have supported and continue to support the group. They have been great stalwarts; the group has achieved much and has much to achieve. I look forward to remaining involved, but at the same time I look forward to handing over the reins.

Despite the fact that, when in government, both main parties have highlighted improving survival rates and supported process targets as a means of driving change, it remains an inconvenient truth that cancer survival rates in England and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom continue to lag well behind the international average. What is more, there is only limited evidence that we are catching up. In 2009, the Department of Health estimated that we could save an extra 10,000 lives a year if we matched European average survival rates. In 2013, the OECD confirmed that our survival rates rank near the bottom compared with other major economies, and for some cancer types only Poland and Ireland fare worse.

Of course, Health Ministers are right to point out that cancer survival rates continue to improve. That is welcome news, but it is not the full story. As our survival rates have improved, so have those of other countries, and there is very little evidence of our closing the gap with international averages, despite the considerable increases in health spending in recent decades. The major inquiry by the APPG on cancer in 2009 uncovered the main reason our survival rates are so far behind international averages. It is not that the NHS is worse at treating cancer—once cancer is detected, NHS treatment generally bears up as strongly as that of other healthcare systems—but that it is not as good at catching cancers in the early stages when treatment has the best chances of success. Late diagnosis, therefore, lies behind our comparatively poor survival rates, and addressing that is the key to improving our cancer performance. Early diagnosis is cancer’s magic key.

So how can we best achieve it? Since the publication of our 2009 report, we as an all-party group and the wider cancer community have come together and successfully campaigned for a one-year cancer survival rate indicator to be built into the DNA of the NHS, especially at a local level. Clinical commissioning groups are now held accountable for their local survival rates through both the delivery dashboard and the Ofsted-style scores.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman: we all know the hard work he does through the APPG and his personal passion for the subject. It is important to put that on the record, because we know why he is here. I have apologised to him, and I apologise to you, Mr Streeter, because I cannot stay. I have a meeting with a Minister at 3 o’clock, so unfortunately I cannot make the contribution that I would have liked to have made. I am sure that the Minister is disappointed, but none the less he will hear from me again in the near future.

Is the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) aware that the target for 95% of patients with an urgent referral to wait no longer than 62 days for first treatment has not been met at all in the past year and, further, that the target for 98% of patients to receive first treatment within 31 days of a cancer diagnosis has also not been met in any of the last four quarters? Does he share my concern and, I am sure, that of the Minister?

[Mr Baron]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. I am aware of those statistics, and I will come to the 62-day target specifically later in my address. He is right to say that many CCGs and cancer alliances are not close to achieving many of those targets. That is obviously a problem when treating cancer, but it highlights a bigger issue: we should be focusing on outcome indicators rather than process targets as a means of encouraging earlier diagnosis. I will address his point specifically in a moment.

We tried very hard to get the one-year survival rates into the DNA of the NHS. The Government listened, and we now have CCGs being held accountable for their one-year survival rates, which is good news. The logic is simple: earlier diagnosis makes for better survival rates, so by holding CCGs to account for their one-year figures and, in particular, the actual outcomes, we encourage the NHS to promote earlier diagnosis and therefore improve detection.

A key advantage of focusing on outcome measures is that it gives the local NHS the flexibility to design initiatives tailored to their own populations to improve outcomes. CCGs can therefore choose whether to widen screening programmes, promote better awareness of symptoms, establish better diagnostic capabilities in primary care, embrace better technology or perhaps improve GP referral routes—any or all of those, in combination—to try to promote earlier diagnosis, which in turn will improve the one-year cancer survival rate figures.

Rather than the centre imposing a one-size-fits-all policy, the local NHS has been given the freedom to respond to and focus on local priorities, whether that be lung cancer in the case of former mining communities or persuading reticent populations to attend screening appointments. As an all-party group we try to do our bit. Each summer, the group hosts a parliamentary reception to celebrate with the 20 or so CCGs that have most improved their one-year survival rates. Successive cancer Ministers have supported that in the past, including the incumbent.

There is strong evidence, however, that that outcome indicator is being sidelined by hard-pressed CCG managements, who are focused on those process targets that are connected to funding. If the process targets are missed, there is a cost; if the one-year figures are missed, there is not. In recent decades, the NHS has been beset by numerous process targets that, instead of measuring the success of treatment, measure the performance against process benchmarks, such as A&E waiting times.

Earlier Cancer Diagnosis: NHS Finances

Debate between John Baron and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Baron]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

We have been successful in getting the one-year figures into the DNA of the NHS, but there is no point having the tools in the toolkit if we do not use them, and one thing we are looking carefully at is the lines of accountability. We acknowledge that we are pushing at an open door—the Government have kindly accepted the need for the one-year figures—but there is still a very long way to travel. The latest Ofsted-style ratings have maintained the focus on survival rates, and yet those ratings still found that eight out of 10 CCGs must improve. That shows the scale of the challenge and the extent to which we need to raise our game.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

If I could cast the hon. Gentleman’s mind back to the previous intervention, the Be Clear on Cancer campaign identified about 700 more patients with lung cancer, which led to about 300 more patients receiving life-saving surgery. That shows that publicity campaigns work. Does he agree that the Government need to encourage the NHS to have more publicity campaigns to identify the issues and save more lives?

[Mr Baron]

I agree completely. Briefly, the initiatives that could be introduced to promote earlier diagnosis are greater awareness campaigns, better diagnostics at primary care level, better uptake of screening in screening programmes, and better GP awareness—although this is not only about GPs. A whole host of initiatives could be introduced at the primary care level to improve survival rates and awareness generally. So yes, I completely and utterly agree.

Given the limited time available, I will make a little progress on the central point of this debate. We are pushing at an open door, which is fine; we are keeping a watching brief as a cancer community; and, as I have said, the Ofsted-style ratings have shown, among other things, that a big improvement is required. The all-party group on cancer will hold its annual parliamentary reception next summer—the Minister no doubt will be invited to that—at which we will focus on those CCGs that have most improved their one-year survival rates. The Britain Against Cancer conference, which we believe is the largest gathering of the cancer community in this country, will take place at the end of this year and will also focus on that issue.

We are therefore not walking away from the issue of survival rates, but we are saying as part of our watching brief that we wish to bring to the Government’s attention the fact that when it comes to cancer treatment, earlier diagnosis can not only help patients—diagnosing cancers earlier makes for better survival rates—but save a lot of money. The later cancer is diagnosed, the more aggressive the treatments and the higher the cost. That cost is quite significant, and the cost savings from earlier diagnosis could be ploughed back into treatment for patients. At a time when the NHS is under financial pressure, we suggest that too little attention is being paid to those potential cost savings. Too little work has been done by the NHS and too few health economists are looking at how reducing costs to such an extent would benefit both the taxpayer and, most importantly, patients.

Given the NHS’s lack of focus on that area, we have had to go to outside sources to give us some sort of measure of the potential cost savings. A September 2014 report by Incisive Health and Cancer Research UK showed quite a disparity between the cost of treating patients with early stage, or stage 1, cancer and those with late stage, or stages 3 and 4, cancer. For example, the cost per patient per year of treating colon cancer is £3,300 at stage 1 and £12,500 at stage 4—a near fourfold increase. Treating stage 1 rectal cancer costs £4,400; that goes up to nearly £12,000 if it is treated at a late stage. Treating ovarian cancer costs just over £5,000 per patient per year at an early stage, but £15,000 at a late stage. That report focused on four cancers: colon, rectal, lung and ovarian. They amount to only around a fifth of all cancers diagnosed, but if such cost savings were replicated across all cancers, we could be talking about savings of hundreds of millions of pounds, and that is before we even consider the number of patients who would benefit from earlier diagnosis, which Incisive Health cites as something like 52,000.

Energy Bill [Lords]

Debate between John Baron and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

I want to speak to new clause 19, to which my name is attached.

There is much evidence to suggest that too many customers are overpaying for their energy and failing to take advantage of the best offers from energy suppliers. The coalition agreement rightly contains a commitment that energy suppliers will provide information about cheaper tariffs on the bills and statements that they send to their customers, but although energy bills have become longer, evidence suggests that the additional information has had only a limited effect in encouraging customers to switch to cheaper tariffs. What is required is much clearer information on tariffs, tailored to a customer’s actual usage and payment option, to help customers to move to a company’s cheapest tariff. New clause 19 aims to make that a reality.

The case for more clarity on bills is very strong. The average annual energy bill has doubled since 2004; bills have risen significantly this year alone, and may do so yet again before the winter. According to analysis by Which?, the cost of energy is the number one financial concern of nine out of 10 customers. It is of particular concern to the vulnerable in society, especially those who live in fuel poverty. Estimates of their number vary, but I do not think there is any disagreement on the fact that there are between 5 million and 6 million of them.

The problem is that tariff structures are too complex. According to Ofgem’s retail market review, well over 300 tariffs were available to customers at the beginning of 2011. Research by Ofgem and Which? has found that people are baffled by not just the number but the many components of energy tariffs, such as standing charges, tiered rates, discounts and cashback offers. Ofgem calculates that one third of those who switch do not achieve a price reduction, although the vast majority switch in order to save money. That fuels cynicism in the energy market. Only one in three customers trusts the supplier to sell them the best tariff, and Ofgem believes that as many as six in 10 energy customers are inactive, many being completely disengaged from the energy market and potentially paying over the odds.

A further complication is that different payment methods have different outcomes. According to Ofgem, a customer who at the beginning of last year had changed their payment method from standard credit—paying on receipt of a bill—to direct debit could have saved more than £120. Which? estimates that more than 11 million households could benefit from switching to a direct debit payment method. I do not claim that all such households would want to, or that all would be able to, because many do not have a bank account, but that figure is great enough for this issue to warrant closer scrutiny.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Clarification is needed on the green deal and prepayment meters, which are a method that households can use to manage their budget.

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman makes a decent point. There is a lack of clarity on a range of issues. We want to encourage people to get on to their company’s cheapest standard direct debit tariff. We must try to ensure that bills are clearer, otherwise people will continue to pay too much for their energy.