Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Debate between John Glen and Lord Beamish

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I can certainly reassure my right hon. and learned Friend of that. Today’s announcements about compensation, and the documents that will flow through, will constitute substantive responses to meet the expectations of many in the communities, and I will consider the formalisation of those responses very carefully to bring clarity to the matter.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Could I put on record the thanks of, I think, all of us not only to the campaigners, but to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson)? As someone who campaigned for many years on postmasters, I know how lonely it is at times when you are taking on the state and no one believes you.

I welcome the Paymaster General’s announcement of a compensation scheme based on tariffs, but can I tell him, from my experience as a member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, that the big work starts now in terms of agreeing the levels of those tariffs? Will the Government pay individual claimants’ legal bills, because they will need some legal advice on that? Could I also echo what the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), said? A lot of money is going to be paid out to people. We will get unscrupulous individuals trying to prey on people. Can I suggest that we ensure that they get financial advice and support when those payments are made?

[John Glen]

Not for the first time, the right hon. Gentleman has made some wise points, and I am grateful to him for doing so. I accept much of what he has said about the concern surrounding tariffs, but these tariffs have not been set up with financial constraints; they have been set up with the input of a range of experts to reach a judgment on what would be appropriate versus what would be a legal entitlement. The assumptions behind those bandings—severity bandings, for instance—now need to be explained and scrutinised, and that is what is going to happen.

The right hon. Gentleman made a very reasonable point about claims by unscrupulous people; the question here is how we can put safeguards in place while expediting the claims of those who have qualified. He also made a reasonable point about the professional support of lawyers and financial advisers. That, too, is at the top of my mind as I learn from some of the other scandals with which I became familiar in my role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I will take those to heart in future.

Funeral Plan Industry

Debate between John Glen and Lord Beamish

Thursday 26th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[John Glen]

Going forward, people either are regulated—those who are going on the journey into regulation by the end of July go under FCA regulation, and it will be keeping an eye on their selling practices—or become an appointed representative of a bigger, regulated firm, which keeps an eye on them, and then the FCA keeps an eye on it. Many firms, most firms—I think it is in the order of 67 firms—are going through the journey into regulation. There will be smaller firms that decide not to go on that regulatory journey, and either they will become authorised under the appointed representative regime or they will wind down, and return the funds to their customers.

Those are the two options. The FCA is working with the industry to smooth that journey. The House passed a statutory instrument to ease that process of transition. But those are the options available. Of course, we are midway through that journey, but what this afternoon’s debate has shown is the imperative of the industry working to sort out some of the issues that have been laid bare by the Safe Hands experience. I think Safe Hands is an exception, but it is a pretty awful experience for those customers. My belief is that this process of regulation will give clarity to the situation, going forward, in terms of who is regulated, how they are regulated and what being under regulation, either as an appointed representative or directly from the FCA, means. The FCA will be responsible for communicating that.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I thank the Minister for his explanation. My fear and, I think, that of the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) is that there may well be other companies like Safe Hands out there that will not go down either of those routes, so I am interested to know what the timescale will be on that. In relation to Safe Hands, he talked about the administrators. What powers does the FCA have if it finds, in those smaller companies, clear scams? I would use the word “scams”, because that is what I think Safe Hands clearly was. What powers does the FCA have then to force the closure of those schemes?

[John Glen]

As I said, it is difficult to be precise in all circumstances because every situation is different. The purpose of giving the FCA that authority is that it has the powers to fine, regulate and insist on certain levels of transparency. Ultimately, if firms that go into regulation do not align with those expectations, the FCA has the power to wind down those firms—in extremis. At this point we are at the start of the journey. The conversations I have had with Dignity—

[Mr Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[John Glen]

I will certainly give way to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment. Dignity has set up processes to ensure that they continue to comply with those regulations. Those firms that do not choose to be regulated, or do not choose to go under the appointed representative regime, will be obligated to wind down those plans and return those funds. Forgive me; I cannot give absolute clarity on the detail of that process, but I am happy to engage with the right hon. Member for North Durham beyond this Chamber to give him more clarity.

[Mr Jones]

I appreciate that the Minister has been very helpful with what he has described. However, my fear is that some of those small companies may keep trading and taking money off people when we know that they are not being regulated. Are we going to get to a date beyond which, to sell a funeral plan, a company has to either be covered by the FCA or go down the route just described? That will then give assurance to customers that at least there is some protection. I am not going to ask the Minister what that date is, but we do need some indication.

[John Glen]

My understanding is that the intention is for that process to commence at the end of July. In terms of the transition and the guidance to customers, I would need to refer to the FCA on that. I shall write to the FCA and make that letter available to the House of Commons, so that people can be clear about what the situation is.

Among the questions that the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked me was one about the Government’s actions to this point. We have taken action and we did legislate to bring providers and intermediaries within the regulatory remit of the FCA. That means that from 29 July, funeral plan providers will be subject to robust and enforceable standards on the sale of their plans. In future, consumers will have greater clarity and understanding of what is covered by their funeral plans, and will not be exposed to misleading or high-pressure sales tactics—an issue raised by the right hon. Member for North Durham. For the first time, funeral plan customers will also be able to take advantage of a redress scheme provided by the Financial Ombudsman Service, and benefit from the protection of the financial services compensation scheme. That reflects the point about this being a financial services product, raised by the hon. Member for Gordon. Indeed, we have seen a massive growth in that over the period between 2016 to 2019—a growth of, I think, 175%.

That is why we are doing it. We want to ensure that there is proper regulation that is meaningful and give consumers real assurance around what protections exist. It is also about proportionate regulation. Across my brief as Economic Secretary, I want to be able to boost competition and protect consumers. That is exactly as it should be. That is what drives me in the other areas of regulation that I am looking at, such as buy now, pay later. At the same time, the Government very much recognise the impact of the change that regulation represents for providers. That is why we introduced a transition period before the new rules came into effect—to give businesses the chance to prepare and adapt.

A key priority has been to minimise any disruption to customers resulting from the transition to regulation. The FCA has therefore said that providers who decide not to obtain authorisation, or cannot obtain it, should either wind down before the regulation comes into force or transfer their plans to a provider that will operate under the new rules. The Government recently laid a supplementary statutory instrument to make such transfers easier. That is in line with my responses to earlier interventions—I am glad my speech is in line with my head.

We are aware, of course, that when we bring a sector into regulation for the first time, some providers may be unable to meet the authorisation threshold. That point has been raised with me in representations from my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and representatives of the industry. The inability to meet those new standards due to issues with conduct, business models or trust arrangements does not mean that the regulation is at fault. Rather, the regulation is acting as a cleansing agent, weeding out unsustainable practices and preventing future consumer detriment.

Some Members have asked whether the Government are likely to compensate Safe Hands’s customers. I do not think it would be appropriate for us to set the precedent or expectation that the Government will use taxpayers’ money to compensate consumers for the misconduct of unregulated firms. The Government’s role is instead to ensure that appropriate regulation is in place to guard against such failures. However, the action of Dignity to take a lead as one of the biggest industry players, to make provision for an initial six months and develop a transition option for those who unfortunately are victims of the Safe Hands situation, is very welcome, and I call on others in the industry to follow Dignity’s example. We do not anticipate that there is something else on the scale of Safe Hands out there; we can never be sure—I do not have a crystal ball. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the industry to continue to work with the regulator to find enduring solutions for as many people as possible.

There is no doubt in my mind that, by acting to protect consumers through a robust regulatory framework, we are doing the right thing. There was a consensus across the House: it was not just this Government, but Members from the Scottish National party and the official Opposition, who called for this action three or four years ago. A well-regulated market will also promote effective competition and do the right thing by consumers over the long term. As I have said, Safe Hands customers have been assured that they will be covered for at least another six months, and I implore others in the industry—other market participants—to take further action to protect consumers of firms that will not become authorised. Taking such action is good for consumers, but also for the reputation of the funeral plans sector. To that end, the Government and the FCA will continue to work closely with each other and the sector to ensure that the shift to regulation is as smooth as possible. That is what funeral customers deserve, and it is what they have a right to expect.

I will reflect on this debate, and if there are any matters that I feel I have not adequately dealt with, I will write to Members and publish a copy of that letter for the House to see.

Covid-19: Government Support for Business

Debate between John Glen and Lord Beamish

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The advice is clear: one should get the booster as quickly as possible—I did so on Saturday—take lateral flow tests and act responsibly. On Monday, I shall take my Salisbury team out for lunch.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Public health messages need to be clear and consistent, but last night the Prime Minister’s press conference was confusing and sowed turmoil in the hospitality sector. Another sector that is already hurting is small coach and bus operators, such as Stanley Travel in my constituency, who rely on Christmas and the new year for income to tide them over the fallow period of January and February. When the Chancellor comes back from his winter sun trip to California, will the Minister ensure that he does not forget the sector as we look at support in the coming months?

[John Glen]

The right hon. Gentleman legitimately raises a point about the whole range of businesses affected. That is why the Government’s priority was to give local authorities maximum discretion in how to allocate funds. As the Chancellor has done yesterday, today and every day, he will continue to focus on the needs of the economy and businesses up and down the country.

Coronavirus: Employment Support

Debate between John Glen and Lord Beamish

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend makes a reasonable point about the hospitality sector, and a very credible suggestion with respect to VAT. Across the benefits system and the tax system, we are looking at the optimisation of interventions to support the most vulnerable and most affected at this time, and to give reassurance to the whole country. We will urgently bring forward measures to address the concerns that he has raised.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Individuals are losing their jobs now—they are in desperate need now. Andrew Brown, a freelance graphic designer in my constituency, contacted me this morning; his business has folded overnight, and he cannot apply for any grants because he works from home. What does he do in that situation? The Minister talks about the great package that was announced the other night, but councils still do not have the guidance to get that money out to businesses. I urge him to get that out as a matter of urgency, because this morning Durham County Council told me that it will not be available until the weekend, and that is too late.

[John Glen]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his points. I accept the need to give urgent advice through the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. My understanding is that that advice will be coming tomorrow. I understand—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It is too late—businesses are going bust now.

[John Glen]

I understand the frustration felt in the House. We are all receiving emails from constituents who are in a state of great anxiety. The Government are working—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

You are not!

[John Glen]

We are collectively working as hard as we can to come up with the right package as soon as possible.

Draft Financial Regulators' Powers (Technical Standards Etc.) (Amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between John Glen and Lord Beamish

Wednesday 10th October 2018 General Committees

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

As an old friend, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I suspect this the first of an avalanche of statutory instruments that will keep you and other Chairs very busy over the coming years. The Minister could not say how many SIs would be generated.

[John Glen]

I have been helpfully informed by my friends on my left that there will be about 800 SIs across Government. I provide that answer now to the hon. Member for Rotherham.

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry to be pernickety, but that is 800 across Government. Can the Minister say how many will be generated by this sole piece? He obviously does not know; perhaps he could write to Committee members.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I thank colleagues for the debate and the many points raised, all of which I shall do my best to interrogate individually. First, I acknowledge the rigour of the scrutiny from the Opposition Front Benchers.

[Mr Jones]

And the Back Benchers.

[John Glen]

I will come to the right hon. Member for North Durham later. I will do my best to deal with the serious points raised. It is worth reminding the Committee that the Government are working flat out in financial services, which I am responsible for, to secure a deal. Today, we are discussing the contingency arrangements for no deal. Obviously, there are a range of views, as expressed, about the desirability of no deal, but this is about doing what is prudent—essential, really—to have a functioning regulatory regime in place.

To refer back to the comments of the hon. Member for Rotherham, the Government expect to lay about 800 SIs before Parliament in time for exit. Some have already been laid before Parliament. I acknowledge the question from the right hon Member for North Durham about the numbers in this area, and will seek to clarify that as soon as I can. On that point, this is a live piece of work, and we are looking at how SIs should be aggregated appropriately. We are in live consultation, so I may not be able to give an accurate number.

[Mr Jones]

The Committee would appreciate the Minister taking a rough stab at it. I accept that he does not know now, but perhaps his Department could do that. The only alternative is to flood him with parliamentary questions, which we do not really want to do.

[John Glen]

I am happy to answer any parliamentary question. I think we said there are about 70 SIs, but that will not be fully accurate.

The hon. Member for Oxford East asked, at the macro level, whether financial stability will be protected. The statutory objectives of the regulators for financial stability will not change. They are enduring. A tripartite system was set up as a consequence of the crash. I think there is broad cross-party agreement on the need for that to continue, and it will.

The hon. Lady asked about holding regulators to account. Parliament will be involved in every aspect of the process to onshore EU financial services regulations, so all the changes the Treasury proposes to level 1 legislation and delegated Acts will be put before Parliament for it to approve. Any transfer of responsibility to the regulators, including any transfer of powers to make technical standards, will be put before Parliament for it to approve through affirmative-procedure SIs.

The Treasury is working closely with the Bank of England, the PRA, the FCA and the PSR on how to fix deficiencies, including in the technical standards that we propose should become the responsibility of regulators. As was said, the Treasury will be required to approve all the deficiency fixes proposed by the regulators to ensure they are consistent with the deficiency fixes that Parliament will be asked to approve in onshoring.

[John Glen]

We are seeking to give responsibility to the most appropriate body. The regulators are doing what they do. Frankly, some binding technical standards will not be suitably scrutinised or carried out within the Treasury. I refer back to the point I made about tier 1—or tier 2. Binding technical standards are sort of tier 3 within tier 2—it is a bit complicated—but basically, Parliament will have scrutiny over fundamental change, and the consequential changes that flow from that will be delegated to the appropriate body.

I think the hon. Lady asked whether this is about more than fixing deficiencies for exit. The withdrawal Act provides for the transfer of functions where necessary. Binding technical standards will need to be maintained by an appropriate body. After exit, that will be the UK regulators.

On what the hon. Lady said about her role as a Member of the European Parliament, it is absolutely right to say that we will have more to do because we will not have that scrutiny. As I understand it, MEPs can veto some binding technical standards proposals, but the UK FSMA framework of 2000 does not work in that way. Parliament has delegated technical rules to UK regulators, which is a difference.

The draft regulations set out the procedure where responsibility for future binding technical standards is transferred to regulators by other SIs. All those SIs will be scrutinised individually by separate Committees—I will probably be sat here introducing them—and subject to approval by Parliament under the affirmative procedure.

I turn to the Treasury’s authority over regulatory changes. It is appropriate that the Treasury approves all the deficiency fixes that the regulators propose, and Ministers will be accountable to Parliament for that. On the responsibility for binding technical standards that regulators will take on post-exit, the Treasury will need to approve future changes to those technical standards and will be able to veto a proposal for the two reasons set out in the draft regulations: if it appears the proposal would

“have implications for public funds”,

or if it would

“prejudice…negotiations for an international agreement”.

I cannot anticipate what they are, but all I know is that I would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny on that.

[Mr Jones]

That is very interesting. As I understand it, the buck stops finally with the Treasury and the Minister. How does Parliament get into that? Are the proposals published or laid before Parliament? How would Parliament be able to have a view of that?

[John Glen]

Any changes that the regulators make must be consistent with the higher legislation that Parliament has approved.

[Mr Jones]

What if they are not?

[John Glen]

Then the regulators would have to explain why not, and I would have to explain and justify that. They are not licensed to innovate through this onshoring process. They are not given that discretion. We talk about correcting deficiencies, which is quite a technical term, but it means that where the legislation currently refers to EU institutions and EU bodies, technical wording needs to be changed to make it legally effective. It is not about innovating in terms of doing the sorts of significant changes that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay is suggesting that I take on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

That says a lot about a lot of these things. As this SI goes through, therefore, have those various bodies that will get these powers got the necessary technical expertise to be able to determine that, or is that a Treasury decision?

[John Glen]

They have been given the responsibility where their technical expertise is formed and known, and where their role currently is to deal with this stuff. It is not exclusively about a language change, but I am just trying to give an indication of the lack of policy innovation that is going on here.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

Where there are deficiency fixes that the regulator has proposed, they will be subject to approval, but I will be scrutinisable on those decisions, through Select Committees and the normal mechanisms of Parliament.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that the Minister is saying that he, as the Minister, will be scrutinised by Select Committees and others, but what role is there for Parliament to be able to challenge any of these?

[John Glen]

Regulation fixes will be put in the public domain and laid before Parliament for information, so there is nothing hidden about it.

[Mr Jones]

That is not good enough, because I could lay anything. Let us be honest: the Minister could write anything and place it in the House of Commons Library, but if Members of this elected House do not have an ability to question or change it, is not that a deficiency in the process? Otherwise, it gives the Minister the power to decide what is deficient or not. Afterwards, he can produce a report for the Select Committee or place it in the Library, but actually we have no influence at all as Members of Parliament.

[John Glen]

I just draw the Committee’s attention back to the purpose of this, which is to onshore, to ensure that we have a regulatory regime in place for a no-deal scenario. This is not about seeking to give additional powers to change in any way the policy framework that is set by the primary legislation that we have debated in the House. We are in the realm, I think, of constructing hypothetical scenarios of fixes that produce some meaningful change, which they would not be licensed to do in the first place, and saying that those would not be subject to scrutiny. They will be laid before Parliament, but it would not get to that point, because they are not licensed to do the sorts of things that the right hon. Gentleman suggests that they would do.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

Given the relationship that the Treasury has with the different regulators, it is for them to raise concerns with me with respect to the resourcing. All parties are intimately involved in a dialogue around the construction of the process. It is not done unto them by me or the Treasury. In terms of the adequacy of the resources, at the moment I have no concerns about that—it is matter that they would need to raise with me.

[Mr Jones]

The Minister says he has no concerns about it, but he does not know what the cost is. If he does not know what the cost is, I am not surprised that he does not have any concerns about it. I would also question the leaders of those organisations. If they have taken on responsibilities without knowing what costs are going to come down the line, that is foolish on their part, I would argue.

[John Glen]

All I can say is that the lines of communication are open between the FCA, the PRA, the PSR, myself and the officials. We are pretty open and clear. If there were concerns going through this process, which started several months ago, about the availability of resources, I am sure they would have been raised.

[Mr Jones]

In my experience as a Minister dealing with the Treasury, if responsibilities are taken on and then money is asked for afterwards, there is a likelihood that it will not be given. The estimated costs should have been set out in the explanatory notes, as they usually are. It is foolish to think of going along to the Treasury later with a begging bowl and trying to get money out of it—blood out of a stone comes to mind.

[John Glen]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I will now move on to the issue of supervisory co-operation and the continuance of that, as raised by the hon. Member for Oxford East. While it is true that we will be outside the EU’s framework, we want supervisory competition to continue. I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that there exists a high level of co-operation across many countries outside the EU framework, and our regulators stand ready to do this. A point was made about optimism for the future. The Chancellor set out some great opportunities in the Mansion House speech that we will have with global financial partnerships. The regulators will be deeply involved in that.

I turn now to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay and acknowledge the quality of his articles in the Investors Chronicle. I look forward to reading his book. The powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 deal only with fixing deficiencies at the point of exit, as he will know. Wider changes need to be considered at a later date, but I think he has put on the record some meaningful analysis of the implications of the regulations for the characterisation of risk around unit trusts versus investment trusts. I have heard that, as have my officials, and we will come back on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen]

I will take on that point, while also responding to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, who made the same point about watering down of EU regulation. There is no provision to water down in the Act the regulations that we are seeking to onshore. The wider point has been made about the future direction. On that, again, I can be reassuring. We do not want to define ourselves as a nation by regulatory arbitrage.

I also acknowledge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay pointed out, that the financial services have ongoing issues with legislation that has been onshored while we have been members of the EU. They are not about reckless setting aside of prudential regulations. They are in areas, perhaps, on which there is greater emphasis in our UK financial services, as my hon. Friend mentioned, these are things that do not exist in other jurisdictions.

Those are matters that a future framework would at least give us a mechanism to examine and then there would be an understanding, if we achieve what we seek—reciprocal responses from both the sovereign regulatory supervisory bodies. But we are not starting from a point where we are seeking to deregulate.

On the point the hon. Member for Glasgow Central made about UK regulators losing influence, I visited Edinburgh and Glasgow over the recess and acknowledge the growing financial services hub that exists there. The UK is a major financial centre and UK regulators are major players in global forums for financial regulation. There are global colleges for supervision for banks, for example, where we are key players. Although I recognise that the context will be different, this is not the time for UK regulators to adopt a more detached role from international leadership in some of these areas.

Reference was made to the BBC report of the comment I made at the Lords Select Committee this morning about jobs. Throughout the last nine months that I have been doing this, I have been in frequent contact with firms about jobs lost. I was referring to a comment made by Sam Woods, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, about the contingency arrangements. In my opinion, it was not news; I was just reflecting what had been said by somebody else. Of course, contingency arrangements have been made, but I have seen no expectation or desire to move significant tranches of jobs to the EU beyond that. A deal would clearly arrest that fear. We have set out clear proposals on a future ambitious relationship with the EU. We hope that that will transpire, and we expect it to take place.

The other point was about rule-taking. We are not proposing that UK regulators will have to work within a framework, other than the UK Parliament framework. There would be parliamentary scrutiny of any significant changes that we wished to make, and we will set those changes in primary legislation.

The right hon. Member for North Durham made a point about the impact assessment. The regulations would have no cost to business, as they deal with the transfer of responsibility from the Treasury to the appropriate regulators. As a whole, the regulations will significantly reduce costs to business in a no-deal situation. That is the whole point--to ensure that the effects of the transition are minimised in an undesirable situation.

Through our dialogue with firms and trade bodies, we have attempted to minimise the disruption to firms, but it is inevitable that some preparation will be needed. The Government have committed to providing the UK regulators with the power to phase in regulatory requirements that will change as a result of exit, which will mitigate the cost to firms. Due to the wide scope of the changes needed and the broad set of firms affected, however, it has not been possible to accurately quantify the actual costs to firms—I concede that—but these regulations will reduce the cost to business in a no-deal scenario. That is undoubtedly their purpose.

[Mr Jones]

How?

[John Glen]

Because they will set a reliable regulatory framework that will mean that firms will not be at risk of defaulting or of not having the regulatory oversight that would not exist otherwise.

Mental Health

Debate between John Glen and Lord Beamish

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

It is a statement of fact that people with mental illness will self-medicate, and alcohol is the most easily available drug. I am surprised by what my hon. Friend describes. If services are taking that approach to people, that is wrong. Her point is also linked to the bigger debate about access to alcohol.

Let me return to the issue of stigma, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) raised. He quite rightly said that we do not talk about it, but we are making some progress. I thank Mind, Time to Change, Rethink and the Royal College of Psychiatrists for doing a great job of raising the issue and tackling the stigma. We should remember that it is not just the individuals with mental illness who suffer, but family members too. Earlier my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) mentioned her own family. A lot of families suffer in silence because they think there is no one to turn to. In many cases, they think they have failed in some way or wonder where they can get help. It is not uncommon—I have come across a lot of these cases—for carers to end up suffering from mental illness themselves because of the daily pressures on them.

The hon. Member for Broxbourne raised the issue of schizophrenia. I pay tribute to the Schizophrenia Commission, which reported towards the end of last year. It looked not only at services for schizophrenia, but at the stigma attached to. Again, the popular image in the media is that someone suffering from schizophrenia is potentially the mad axeman or woman next door who will come and kick the door in, when nothing could be further from the truth. When we describe people’s conditions, there is an onus on us all to describe them properly, because there are people suffering from schizophrenia who, with proper treatment and support, can function quite normally.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who introduced the Mental Health (Discrimination) (No. 2) Act 2013—a good use of a private Member’s Bill. Like my friend the hon. Member for Broxbourne, I also pay tribute to Lord Stevenson, not only for championing the Bill through the other place, but for the work he does with his new charity. Did that legislation help in itself? Yes, it did, because it sent a clear signal that we were starting to take discrimination more seriously. Will it change things overnight? No, I do not think it will, but the more we talk about the stigma, the better people can address it.

I have been criticised—we see this occasionally in some newspapers—by people who say, “Well, it’s okay for famous film stars or even MPs to say they’ve suffered from mental illness,” as though it is somehow an easy thing to do, but I can tell Members now that it is not. I would like us to reach a position where people generally are talking about mental illness, so that if people are suffering in a workplace, they can open up to their colleagues. I should point out—not just to people in this Chamber, but to those in the wider audience—that most people who are suffering from a mental illness would be very surprised by the reaction if they told people. However, it is a big step, and I know personally that it is a very difficult one to take.

One of the best examples of that was from a Channel 4 programme that I appeared on after I spoke last year—I pay tribute to Channel 4 for its work to raise awareness of the stigma around mental illness. The programme had the great title of “Mad Confessions” and was presented by a very mad individual called Ruby Wax. By chance, it happened to include one of my constituents, Derek Muir, who suffered from depression. The programme started with him talking about his depression—he had been off work for a number of months and lives in Edmondsley in my constituency. At the end of the programme they got all his colleagues together in a room and he told them. It was the first they had known about it, but the reaction was very positive and supportive. That is the point we need to get to. Sometimes it is a big step for people suffering from mental illness or depression to admit what is seen as a frailty—although it is not. The strength is in opening up and asking for help.

One area that we need to do more work in is getting mental health policies in the workplace right. I pay tribute to BT and Dr Paul Litchfield for their policies, which have buy-in not just at the level of personnel managers, but from the board downwards. They are not only talking about getting people to talk to one another and open up about mental illness, but trying to be supportive of people with mental illness. When I was at a seminar with Paul last year, somebody asked him, “Why has BT done this? Is it just to tick the social responsibility box?” He said no. Indeed, the board was quite clear: the policy makes economic sense for BT. The message we need to get across to more and more employers is: “Why write off people who are valuable to your business, just because they happen to suffer from a mental illness?” BT is to be congratulated, and I certainly congratulate the board and Paul on their work in this area.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman is making a typically brilliant speech on this subject. Will he also focus on what we could change in regard to education in our schools? For many, laying the foundations of understanding at an earlier stage, prior to the workplace, would be very effective in creating better outcomes and helping all those young people who have to witness mental health problems among adults.

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point: schools are important in this regard, and it is important to get young people to talk about the issue. I have a fantastic charity in my constituency called If U Care Share, run by Shirley Smith. It was created following the tragic circumstances in which Shirley’s 19-year-old son hanged himself. Her organisation goes into schools, youth groups and football clubs—Shirley is working with the Football Association and others—to get people talking about their emotions. We need to get more of that kind of work going.

The workplace is important. Although he is not in the Chair at the moment, I want to pay tribute to Mr Speaker, as well as to the House of Commons Commission. Following our last debate on this issue, they earmarked some funding for our own mental health in this place. Dr Ira Madan, the head of the unit across the road that MPs and staff can access, has told me that that was valuable in that it allowed her to assist Members with mental illness, and that there had been an uptake of the services since the money was made available. I would recommend that anyone who wants to go and have a chat with her should do so, as she is a very good and open individual. We must give credit to Mr Speaker and the Commission for that funding, because that was not an easy decision to make, especially as he was getting criticism from certain newspapers for giving special treatment to MPs. It is not special treatment; it is a vital service. Unfortunately, it is still not open to many MPs because of the stigma that surrounds mental illness.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between John Glen and Lord Beamish

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should be using 1997 as his starting point. Does he agree that some of the cost pressures on the procurement budget were down to the incompetence of previous Conservative Governments? I am thinking particularly of how Nimrod was procured and of programmes such as HMS Astute, to name but one other.

[John Glen]

Quite possibly, but we can make cheap points or look at the fundamental problems that go back more than 20 years.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) was looking at the respective contexts for the reviews—the one in 1997-98 and the one this year. The fundamental difference is the economic context. As the chief economic adviser to former Prime Minister Tony Blair said, the Government had a golden economic legacy. That was not the case this time, and that is a reality. We talk about strategic reviews, but they are within the context of the reality of the spending environment. There was no way in which the spending review could have been completed at a time scale different from that of the SDSR. That is just the reality, it seems to me.

There seems to be a legacy, going back to ’97 and beyond, in which decisions were delayed. The decision last year to slow the rate of the QE class carriers was absolutely the right thing to have done in the context of the bigger pressures to release money for Afghanistan, but that will mean that £600 million in extra spending will be required later. The top 15 equipment programmes are £8.8 billion over budget, with a 32-year cumulative delay. These are real challenges.

As a layperson, I look at the situation of Nimrod. I look at how the number of aircraft ordered was reduced from 21 to nine and the cost per aircraft was increased by 200%. When I also consider that it was eight years late, I see that there are fundamental problems in the whole system of government.

The second factor is making Afghanistan the No. 1 priority in the review. We can say with some confidence that the decisions made in the SDSR were completely necessary and absolutely right in respect of our commitments—more than 9,000 troops in the theatre of war. That costs a lot of money. The problem of all defence reviews is that they seek to address the long-term strategic issues. That, however, can never be done in isolation; it has to deal with current realities.

There will be some positive consequences. Those listening to the debate who have family members in Afghanistan can be assured that the full range of training and equipment is now available. Support for families is as it should be and the previous Government took good steps in that direction during their last year in power. The doubling of the operational allowance is also to be welcomed.

I am trying to be as quick as I can. The third issue that I would like to touch on is procurement. Procurement issues are systemic; there is no clear balance of power—or the balance is not right—between the MOD and the defence industry. The relationship is probably flawed. I hope that, as we see the defence industrial strategy emerge—after the SDSR, unhelpfully—we will have a serious examination of what is going on and what is required. I fear that sometimes the political pressures that obviously influence the MOD’s decision making have led it to prop up industry ahead of making the best decisions in defence terms.

I acknowledge the contribution made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson); of course there needs to be an understanding of what long-term capabilities we need to invest in, but that must not always be as a substitute for making the right defence decisions for our country’s long-term interests. Often, we do not have the same person managing the procurement process. There is a change of scope and a lack of ownership. The MOD suffers and the taxpayer suffers, too. That is a critical issue that needs to be addressed.

My fourth point is about the capacity to change, which does not exist across the services in sufficient quantity. One commentator over the summer referred to the SDSR debate—or discussion, or negotiations—as a knife fight in a phone box, which is a pretty horrible analogy but one borne out by an assessment in the immediate aftermath of the SDSR announcements of which services won. I do not think that that is helpful in edifying the consequences and impact on the defence of this nation.

Let us consider some of the specifics. We have heard a lot this afternoon about the decision on the Harriers, but my concern would be about the extent of that gap in capability and how long it will take us to get the capability in place to fill that gap. Will the Tornadoes be viable for the length of time that they will potentially need to fill the gap and how much money will be required to fill some of the gaps? There is a great deal of supposition about how some of these things might work out. That might be from necessity—it is absolutely right to say that the financial pressures have been dominant in the entire decision making process—but some real concerns about capabilities that might be lacking in the near term need to be addressed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) said, by 2020 more than a third of our energy will be delivered by water-borne means, particularly liquefied gas. We have seen the emergence of piracy on our seas. Such things might proliferate and it is difficult to determine the risk that will face our country. I am concerned that there will be a delay in the readiness of capabilities.

It is absolutely clear that there needs to be greater capacity among the services to harmonise—for example, to harmonise the frequency of deployment, particularly as the Navy and the RAF will be working more closely together. As significant reforms of allowances will need to take place, it is important that that is done with care and fairness. I was talking to a constituent just a few weeks ago who has moved with his family nine times in the past 11 years. I hope that when decisions are made about the continuation of the CEA—the continuity of education allowance—they will be made fairly so that people can have continuity in their education. That seems to me an appropriate need, not a perk.

The SDSR could never have achieved all that it set out to achieve, because of the legacy, the challenges of procurement and the real issues to do with managing a budget that was pretty restricted. It was always going to be difficult, but I think there are grounds for optimism. I commend the Secretary of State for fighting hard and doing the best he could in extremely difficult circumstances.