Coronavirus

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Being certified as having had a vaccine includes being on a vaccine clinical trial. The deputy chief medical officer, Professor Jonathan Van-Tam, has written to participants in vaccine clinical trials, who are doing, as my right hon Friend says, a great service to their country and indeed to the world by offering themselves to have an unlicensed vaccine in order to check that it works. I am very grateful to all of them. We will not put them in a more difficult position because of that.

We will make sure that when it comes to someone proving that they have been certified as vaccinated, being on a clinical trial counts as certified and continues to count as certified during a grace period after they are unblinded, so that if they are in the placebo arm, they can get both jabs and will not be disadvantaged for being on the clinical trial. That is a very important point. I am very glad that right hon. Friend raises it. If anybody from any part of the House gets that question from a constituent, please point them to the comprehensive letter by Professor Jonathan Van-Tam that explains and reassures.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, but then I will make some progress.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. May I commend him for the efforts he has put in to keeping colleagues informed and responding to their questions along the way? It has been extremely good. Can I press him on this two-week break point that he and the Prime Minister have referred to? What underpins that? Is it simply a desire to get through a certain number of vaccinations—a figure that he presumably already knows? Or is it uncertainty over the data as it currently exists, because if it is, and given that this should be led by the data, there is every likelihood that in the next few days, we will get some indication as to whether the increase in the delta variant incidence is being translated into intensive care unit admissions and deaths? Can he give me and others considering how to vote this evening any comfort on that two-week point? If we have the sense that there may indeed be a genuine break at that point—if those cases do not translate into deaths or ICU admissions—we will be a little more comfortable.

[Matt Hancock]

As so often, my right hon. Friend, who is one of the most astute medical practitioners in this House—crikey, I could get myself into trouble there, because all the medical practitioners in this House are astute, but he is also a public health expert. I will start again. My right hon. Friend’s point was a really good one and very astute. He is exactly right about our approach: the two-week review is a data review.

Up to around 10 days to a week before the decision making cut-off for the proposal to take step 4 on 21 June, it looked like hospitalisations were staying flat, despite rising case rates. We did not know whether that was because of a lag or because there was now going to be no cases turning into hospitalisations. That remains the case now for the link to the number of people dying, because the number of people dying each day in England is actually slightly falling at the moment—thank goodness —and there has not been a rise in the number of deaths following the rise in the case rates, which started about three weeks ago. Within a couple of weeks, we will know whether that continues to be flat or whether it rises a little. It has risen a little in Scotland; I just put that warning out there. That is precisely the sort of data that we will be looking at at the two-week point. We have been absolutely clear that the goal on which we hang the decision ahead of 19 July is one of delivering the vaccines, and we have a very high degree of confidence that we can deliver the vaccines that we think are needed in order to be able to take step 4 on 19 July.

I hope that was a clear and comprehensive answer, once I untangled myself from my initial response to my right hon. Friend.

Covid-19: Government Handling and Preparedness

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]]

How does my right hon. Friend account for the yawning difference between the account given to the Select Committee yesterday and rehearsed by the Opposition today, and the balanced and objective accounts that continue to be given by the National Audit Office on this pandemic, notably the one published earlier this month detailing the Government’s response to the pandemic? May I ask specifically how he will take forward one of the principal recommendations of that report—that we need to plan for a sustainable healthcare workforce that can be organised at pace in the event of a future emergency of this sort, and that we particularly need individuals who are properly skilled and updated to fill gaps that may arise as a result of a future pandemic?

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend is quite right on both points. Not only have we been transparent and accountable to this House, and straight with this House about the challenges, but we have welcomed the National Audit Office into Government throughout the pandemic, and it has published repeatedly. For instance, it published on personal protective equipment, showing that we successfully avoided a national outage of PPE. It has reported on every aspect of the pandemic, and we have learned the lessons that are in those reports. I recommend to the House the National Audit Office’s latest publication, which summarises all these lessons and learnings. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of those is making sure that we have high-quality workforce planning for the future.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]]

The staggering success of the covid vaccination programme means that on current trends, sadly, non-covid viruses may well kill more people this winter than the coronavirus. Is my right hon. Friend confident that an effective flu jab will be available to address this year’s emergent strains of flu? What will he do to maximise uptake of the flu vaccine by vulnerable groups? What is the latest on a covid booster dose this autumn? Would the flu jab be given at the same time?

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend is quite right to ask all those questions. In fact, I met Simon Stevens and the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment about the matter this morning, because we want to ensure that the flu vaccine programme this winter is a success. We had the biggest flu vaccination programme in history last winter. We are currently trialling the co-administration of flu and covid vaccines—I am waving my hands because one goes in each arm. We are looking at that for the autumn as part of a booster programme for covid. A lot of work is under way in this space; I suggest that my right hon. Friend discusses it with the Minister for Covid Vaccine Deployment, who is now responsible both for the covid programme and for the flu programme, in order to better tie them together.

Public Health

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We have to see the impact of that vaccination on the reduction in the number of deaths, which I very much hope we will see at that point. That is why we will take an evidence-led move down through the tiers when—I hope—we have broken the link between cases and hospitalisations and deaths. We will need to see the protection in lived reality on the ground, but we will watch this like a hawk. My aim is to keep these restrictions in place for not a moment longer than they are necessary.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for everything he is doing, but the logic of his anticipating what is going to happen in two, three or four weeks’ time from the number of cases we are getting at the moment is that we can do the same in reverse. That is to say that when we have a sufficient number of people vaccinated, we can anticipate how many deaths will have been avoided in two, three or four weeks’ time. As this cuts both ways, that means that he will be able to make a decision on when we should end these restrictions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has just suggested.

[Matt Hancock]

The logic of the case made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is right, and we want to see that happen in empirical evidence on the ground. This hope for the weeks ahead does not, however, take away from the serious and immediate threat posed now, and I wish to turn to what is in the regulations and the actions we need to take.

The Office for National Statistics has reported that one in 50 of the population has the disease, some with symptoms and some without. The latest figures show that we have 30,074 covid patients in UK hospitals and that the NHS is under significant pressure. Admissions are now higher than at any point in the pandemic, and so on Monday all four UK chief medical officers recommended that we move the country to covid-19 alert level 5. In practice, that means that they believe that without action there is a material risk of healthcare services being overwhelmed. It is for that reason that we have placed England into a national lockdown, alongside action taken in each of the devolved nations. Every single citizen needs to take steps to control this new variant, and this personal responsibility is important. To give the NHS a fighting chance to do its vital work of saving lives, it is on all of us to support it.

The regulations set out that everyone must stay at home save for a limited number of reasons permitted in law, including: essential shopping; work, if it cannot reasonably be done from home; education or childcare if eligible to attend; medical needs, including getting a covid test or getting vaccinated; exercise; escaping domestic abuse; and for support bubbles where people are eligible. These regulations are based on the existing tier 4 regulations, with some additional measures that reinforce the stay-at-home imperative.

These include: stopping the sale of alcohol through takeaway or click and collect services; and closing sport and leisure facilities, although allowing playgrounds and allotments to remain open. I know that these further restrictions are difficult, but, unfortunately, they are necessary, because we must minimise social interaction to get this virus back under control. These measures came into force first thing this morning under the emergency procedure and will remain in force subject to the approval of this House today.

Coronavirus Vaccine

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 2nd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We are very happy to work with Devon County Council if it wants to come forward for that sort of model. We are constantly learning from around the country. The local-national partnerships often bring lessons, because people have chosen to do things slightly differently in a local area, and we can all learn from that. As for Devon coming into tier 1, Devon does have lower rates than many places, but it is not the lowest area in tier 2, as that honour belongs to my own county of Suffolk. There are elevated numbers of cases in some parts of Devon. What I urge everyone in Devon to do to get into tier 1 is to abide by the tier 2 rules and, more than that, to take personal responsibility to do all they can to reduce the spread of the virus.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I say a big well done to everybody involved with this triumph. I share the Secretary of State’s concern over vaccine hesitancy, and he is right to say that everyone in this House has a duty to try to dispel it. Does he agree that, had this House not taken the decision on 16 October to empower the nimble MHRA and leave regulation instead to the European Medicines Agency until 31 December, he would not be in this happy position today?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, I am very glad that we changed the law to allow the MHRA to make this authorisation on UK terms. This House voted unanimously to do that—well, we did not even have a vote as it went through without one. I am really glad that we were able to do that. I want to thank my right hon. Friend for his support and encouragement throughout this period. It has been a very, very long year as Health Secretary and I really appreciate his support.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Programme motion
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

We keep the countries on the quarantine list under review—absolutely we do—and that is a weekly exercise that is led by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

There is now compelling evidence to suggest that vitamin D may be useful in reducing mortality and morbidity from this disease. It is safe, it is cheap, and it is already recommended by the Secretary of State’s Department for certain groups. Given our need to tackle this disease, and given that vitamin D requires three months to build up sufficiently to protect against respiratory infections, what advice will he give urgently on the use of this particular intervention?

[Matt Hancock]

We are increasing the communications to people about the benefits of vitamin D, and as I said to the House on Thursday last week, we are also instituting further research into the points that he, as an experienced and qualified medical professional, sets out so clearly.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Yes. I know the Welsh borders extremely well. My hon. Friend is right to raise the need to work cross-border. We work as closely as we can, supporting the Welsh Government, for example, with their testing capacity and with test and trace. We are working on better data sharing between the two Governments, not least because of the importance for those who travel across the border.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I can get a routine blood test result on the same day with no problem, but a swab test typically takes days, not hours, severely limiting its usefulness as a public health tool, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) described. Does my right hon. Friend believe that directors of public health should have access to comprehensive datasets in good time if they are to identify the clusters that he envisages in his statement?

[Matt Hancock]

Yes, absolutely—in real time, effectively.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am very reassured to hear that by the end of the week, care settings will all get PPE, which is not what the leader of my council was being told recently. I accept the Secretary of State’s reassurance: it is really good news. Can he further reassure me that the PPE, when it arrives, will be to the right specification, in particular FFP3 respirator masks and not simply paper masks, which are next to useless?

[Matt Hancock]

If there are specific concerns about the non-delivery of PPE to council settings, I want to know about them through the hotline that we have set up precisely to short-circuit such problems having to be brought to my attention on the Floor of the House. Let us fix them directly. On the second point, it has got to be the right stuff according to the clinical guidelines.

Coronavirus Bill

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I want to bring to the attention of the House to the professional indemnity clauses. Where there is no existing professional indemnity agreement in place the Bill provides legal protection for the additional clinical responsibilities that healthcare staff may be required to take on as part of the coronavirus response. I do not want any clinician not to do anything that they can do because that they worry about indemnity and what might happen if it goes wrong. I want everybody in the NHS to do their very best to the top of their qualification, looking after people and keeping them safe.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I commend the Health Secretary on everything that he and his team are doing. To ensure that returning healthcare professionals can do so at the right time, when the disease peaks around Easter, we have to move at pace to put the indemnity that he has cited in place, to ensure that people are physically and mentally fit to do this work and, crucially, to ensure that they are skilled or reskilled to do what we are asking of them. Can he assure the House that those three things are being put in place?

Coronavirus

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 11th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

Of course we will provide guidance in languages other than English. We are developing this guidance at speed, and I commit to making that available as soon as we practically can.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

May I commend my right hon. Friend for the sure-footed way he has approached this, and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) for his balanced and measured response? The Health Secretary knows well that the problem with intensive treatment units and intensivism is not so much the kit, as the people. What is he doing to ensure that clinicians within the service who are in non-acute specialties are given the skills they need to deal with what may be coming?

[Matt Hancock]

As my right hon. Friend knows, we are inviting and encouraging recent retirees and health care leavers back in, and we will provide for some of that in the Bill. We are also ensuring that as we make what is effectively a big change to the NHS case mix, and do fewer elective operations and focus more on respiratory diseases and coronavirus, there will be a retraining exercise for people to go on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

As I say, the good news is that local authorities can all plan, with confidence, on the basis that these budgets are going up in real terms, and the exact details will be set out imminently.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Traditionally, public health was about infectious diseases and sanitation. More recently, it has become about lifestyle issues. Given the epidemics of the 21st century, particularly covid-19, what measures will the Secretary of State be taking, in allocating the public health grant, to refocus on infectious diseases, both current and those that are likely to come?

[Matt Hancock]

That is an incredibly important question—one that we will be addressing in the run-up to the spending review. The truth is that the public health grant is but one small part of the overall effort of local authorities to improve the health of the residents they serve. Although it is an important part, and it is good that it is going up in real terms for every local authority, we have clearly got to ensure that the whole effort of a local authority is there to improve public health.

Coronavirus

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I have not seen those specific reports, but I know that the House of Commons Commission met this morning. Parliamentary accountability is incredibly important. I will be doing all that I can to ensure that Parliament stays open through this process, and that we follow the clinical advice on how that can happen so that we keep that parliamentary accountability. It is a decision for the House, but my position and that of the Government is clear.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Government are absolutely right to be putting a lot of public money into research on a possible vaccine, but the Secretary of State will know that research is no good unless we can produce vaccine at scale, and this country is not great at doing that. What can he do to ensure that we grow indigenous capacity very quickly so that the public, and particularly key workers in our health service, do not have to wait in line when a vaccine becomes available?

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We do have significant vaccine capabilities, and not only in research, where we are world-class, but in some production, for instance in Hamilton in Scotland. The broader point is that investment in the whole production chain and not just research is critical.

Coronavirus

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

The hon. Lady is right with regard to concerns about under-reporting, especially in some countries. I am afraid I do not recognise some of her clinical observations, and I do not recognise the idea that we should change travel advice between China and Italy. We should base travel advice on expert clinical evidence. I am very happy to ensure that she receives a full briefing from medical experts, so that she can get the clinical points right.

On thermal detection, rather like stopping flights this is against clinical advice. The clinical advice is not to undertake thermal detection, because we get a lot of false positives. Indeed, the only country I know of in Europe that undertook thermal detection at the border was Italy and that is now the scene of the largest outbreak.

Finally, the hon. Lady made a very important point about people in work and self-isolation. Self-isolation on medical advice is considered sickness for employment purposes. That is a very important message for employers and those who can go home and self-isolate as if they were sick, because it is for medical reasons.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Mercifully, nobody in this country has yet died of coronavirus, but every year 600 people die of seasonal flu. In the phase to which my right hon. Friend refers, is he redoubling our efforts to ensure that the elderly and the vulnerable in particular are vaccinated against seasonal flu, therefore perhaps mitigating pressures on our national health service in the event that coronavirus becomes more of a problem here and makes demands particularly on intensive care beds?

[Matt Hancock]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The vaccination rate was, I think, at a record level this year, and it is very important. The simple measures that everybody can take, such as washing hands and using tissues, protect us against flu as well as coronavirus.

NHS Long-term Plan

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

I welcome much of the tone of the hon. Lady’s remarks. The truth is that it is critical to ensure that we have the workforce and the people to deliver the plan. There is a whole section of this plan, as well as ongoing work, to deliver that. I want to clear up this point: in the immigration White Paper published by the Home Secretary before Christmas, as now, there is no cap on recruitment numbers for nurses and doctors. The proposal is that the cap will not necessarily apply within a shortage occupation. We will be recruiting people from around the world to work in our NHS.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much congratulate my right hon. Friend on the 10-year plan and on his announcement of the Harding review. Will Baroness Harding look particularly at the way in which pay and pensions are structured for general practitioners and pinch-point specialists within the NHS, since they are retiring or going part time at the moment—a full 10 years before the time they had anticipated when they went to medical school?

[Matt Hancock]

We are already looking at that subject. It is very complicated because of the nature of assets owned by GPs—their value having risen sharply over the last generation. However, we have record numbers of GPs in training. Although we need to ensure that we retain more GPs and encourage as many as possible to be full time, we have successfully breached our target; we are training more GPs than we had planned to, and that is a good thing.

Data Protection Bill [Lords]

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Matt Hancock]

That is absolutely right. The minimum access cost will be £50, which means that everybody has access to justice at low cost. There is more to it than that, however. Some people argue that the £60,000 limit on damages is too low, but the arbitration scheme does not stop somebody going to court, so there is access to justice where damages should be higher. The arbitration scheme is an addition to, rather than a replacement for, going to court. It introduces a robust and fair system that is easy for everybody to access, so everyone can have access to justice.

The section 40 amendments would, ironically, have the opposite effect, because anybody with the means to take small newspapers to court could stop them publishing stories for fear of having to pay the costs, even if they get everything right.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Is it not the case that IPSO proposed its arbitration scheme only when a number of colleagues had tabled amendments that were distinctly unhelpful to the print media? Can we trust that organisation? Will my right hon. Friend be extremely careful about removing the boot from the neck of IPSO, particularly in relation to the review period? I know that he will come on to talk about that shortly, but will he consider tightening the review period, because at the moment it gives IPSO the best part of a decade before there is any prospect of further change if the industry does not behave itself?

[Matt Hancock]

I agree with the sentiment, which is that we have to ensure that the press remains free but also fair and reasonable, and that is the purpose of the amendment proposing a review period of four years. We will not let matters lie.

Some have asked, “What happens if newspapers pull out of the IPSO scheme?” I think that would send a terrible signal of the newspaper industry’s attitude to the standards that it rightly ought to sign up to. The review is there precisely to address my hon. Friend’s concerns.

BBC Pay

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is right to suggest that the problem is not principally that women are paid too little in organisations that are, in one way or another, funded by the public, but that men are paid far too much. What cognisance has he taken of organisations beyond the BBC, such as universities, that are quite egregious in this matter, and what does he think can be done to sort it out?

[Matt Hancock]

Over the past seven or eight years, we have brought in measures to ensure that people in the public sector are paid appropriately and that there is much more transparency. We implemented those measures in the civil service and in other areas of public life, so that there was not this problem of too high pay at the top, but some organisations have not implemented the same sorts of approaches, and now, where a body is funded by the taxpayer or licence fee payer, the problems of ignoring the need for that restraint are being brought into the light.

Voter Registration

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

The right hon. Gentleman is nodding, so I am delighted that there will be that Lib Dem support. The question he asked is about a very important matter, which we will take into consideration.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Minister is clearly putting a great deal of energy into ironing out this particular glitch, but he needs to be seen to be fair to both sides, given the likely closeness of the result on 23 June. How much energy is he therefore applying to quantifying the number of non-eligible EU nationals who have been sent postal votes? Clearly, after the event some in the leave camp may call things into question if we have not quantified what correspondence was sent out in error.

[Matthew Hancock]

We know that that number is less than 5,000, according to the Electoral Commission, and the problem has been fixed. By contrast, it will be impossible to know the total number of people—asked for by the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake)—who between 10.15 pm and midnight last night tried to register but did not succeed, because some people tried again and succeeded. That is why seeing what we can do to extend the deadline—which seems to have broad support across the House—is the right way forward.

EU Referendum: Civil Service Guidance

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

What we are saying is that the Government have a position and the civil service will advise on that position. If Ministers have taken a personal decision to campaign personally, in a personal capacity, against the position of the Government, it is inappropriate to ask civil servants to support that other position, which is not the position of the Government.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much appreciate that the Minister has qualified and caveated some of the guidance that has recently been issued. Does he not agree, however, that there is a danger that without further clarification we could have the ludicrous situation where Freedom of Information Act requests, or requests made by Members of Parliament through parliamentary questions, could get information out of Ministers that those Ministers would have been denied by their own civil servants?

[Matthew Hancock]

I do not know whether that was directed at people on the shadow Front Bench, but the situation is as I have set out. The key point is this: if we were to take any other position, we would have civil servants being asked not to support the position of the Government. We are approaching this in the way these things have been approached in referendums in the past—in 1975 and in the Scottish referendum—which seems perfectly reasonable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course we have had to make savings in the number of civil servants as we have reduced the deficit, but there are far more UK civil servants working in Scotland than civil servants working for the Scottish Government. It just shows that, for Scotland as well as for the rest of this United Kingdom, we are that much better together.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

In supporting citizenship and volunteering, what lessons can be learned from the excellent Team Rubicon UK, led by my constituent General Sir Nick Parker? It involves recruiting veterans and ex-servicemen to do great work, notably during the recent flooding.

[Matthew Hancock]

I want to pay tribute to Team Rubicon and all those who work with it. The role that veterans can play in shaping the future of young people and showing what it is to serve their nation is invaluable, and it is a lesson from which all of us can learn.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Matt Hancock and Andrew Murrison

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Hancock]

I was going to come on to the work of my hon. Friend and his Select Committee in making sure that the Bill is in the best possible shape. I am very grateful for the work that he did at the end of the last Parliament, after the National Audit Office report, to make sure that when we had a Bill, it gave the commission the necessary powers.

We believe that the Charity Commission has the power to convene meetings in public. However, I recognise that there is a question over whether it does so. During the passage of the Bill, we will look at that point in more detail. We are prepared to accept amendments, if they are necessary to bring clarity on the point that my hon. Friend raises.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that pre-legislative and legislative scrutiny are extraordinarily important in this place. Will he observe, for the record, how much legislative scrutiny is being performed by Her Majesty’s official Opposition, since there are precisely no Opposition Back-Bench Members in the House?

[Matthew Hancock]

I hope that this Bill can unite both sides of the House. I welcome the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) to her place. My hon. Friend has made his point very clearly and it will appear on the record, but I do not want to get into an unnecessary dispute with the Opposition, given that I hope we will have all-party support for this important Bill which will strengthen the role of the Charity Commission and, ultimately, be in the best interests of charities throughout the land.

As I said, we want to provide a tough, clear and proactive regulator. Under the strong and capable leadership of William Shawcross and Paula Sussex, there has been a direct focus on tackling abuse and mismanagement. However, an effective regulator needs to have teeth. As the NAO reported, the commission needs our help to address the “gaps and deficiencies” in its legal powers. The Bill will close those gaps in the commission’s capabilities, as well as tackling a number of damaging loopholes in charity law.

Let me briefly outline the five new powers that the Bill confers. These powers will help to protect the public, the staff and the people our charities serve from those who would seek to exploit them. First, the Bill will extend the automatic disqualification criteria. Currently, the focus of the law is on barring people who have misappropriated charitable assets, but the criteria are far too narrow. We will extend them, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said, to include people with unspent convictions for money laundering, bribery, perjury or misconduct in public office, those on the sex offenders register, and those convicted for terrorism offences, including individuals subject to an asset-freezing designation.

Secondly, the Charity Commission will be given new powers to disqualify in instances where an individual has behaved in a way that makes them unfit to be a charity trustee, acting on a case-by-case basis and using its judgment and discretion. That new power is essential to empower the Charity Commission to tackle those who would bring charities into disrepute, and I hope that it will be used with care and decisiveness.

Thirdly, the Bill gives the Charity Commission a new official warning power in response to low-level misconduct. That will allow a more proportionate approach for less serious cases. Fourthly, the Bill grants a new power that allows the Charity Commission to direct the winding up of a charity following a statutory inquiry. That would apply if the commission proves that a charity is not operating, or that its purposes could be promoted more effectively by ceasing to operate, and that to do so would be in the public interest. We expect that power to be used in limited circumstances, and it is subject to several safeguards.

Fifthly, the Bill closes a loophole that allows offending trustees to resign before they are removed by the commission, and then act as a trustee for a different charity without fear of repercussion. That will ensure that trustees are no longer able to escape accountability if they abuse their position of trust. As with all the commission’s existing powers, all five of those proposals would be subject to the general duty to have regard to best practice. With the exception of the official warnings power, all the commission’s new powers are subject to a right of appeal to the charity tribunal.

All five measures that I have outlined are essential to protecting the interests and reputation of the vast majority of charities that are run by people of great integrity. The Charity Commission was closely involved in developing the powers, and it fully supports them. In addition, independent research for the Charity Commission found that 92% of charities supported new, tougher powers for the regulator.

We also intend to remove clause 9, which was added on Report in the Lords. We have serious concerns about the unintended consequences of that clause, as it attempts to encompass complex case law into a single statutory provision. It would also impose a major new regulatory responsibility on the commission. Clause 9 was not proposed because of concerns about charities in general, but in a narrow attempt by the other place to undermine the Government’s manifesto commitment to extend the right to buy. It is regrettable that a Bill with widespread support was used in that way, and we cannot allow that to stand. I urge the House to reject that anomalous clause and consider the matter elsewhere.

The challenge of regulating charity fundraising has already been mentioned. We can be incredibly proud that we are one of the most generous countries in the world when it comes to charitable giving, but although people are happy to give, they do not want to be bullied or harassed into doing so. A voluntary donation must be voluntary. Earlier this year we heard about the tragic case of Olive Cooke, Britain’s longest-serving poppy seller. For years, she was targeted with hundreds of cold calls and requests for money. More than 70 charities bought her details or swapped them with other charities, and in one month alone she apparently received 267 charity letters. Sadly, since then more cases of unscrupulous fundraising practices have come to light, and we must act.

We began by asking Sir Stuart Etherington to review the regulation of fundraising over the summer, backed by a cross-party panel of peers, and I thank them for their work. Sir Stuart recommended a new, tougher framework of self-regulation, and we are working with charities to deliver that. Lord Grade of Yarmouth will chair the new independent body at the heart of that framework. It will be paid for by large fundraising charities, and it will be able to adjudicate against any organisation that is undertaking charity fundraising. The body will be accompanied by a fundraising preference service—similar to the telephone preference service—which will give the public greater control over their consent to receive charity fundraising requests.

Next, we will prohibit contractors from raising funds for a charity unless the fundraising agreement between them explains how the contractor will protect people from undue pressure, and sets out how compliance will be monitored by the charity. It will require large charities to include a section in their trustees’ annual report on the fundraising undertaken by them or on their behalf. That will include an explanation of how they protect the public in general, and vulnerable people in particular, from undue pressures and other poor practices.

[Matthew Hancock]

I welcome that review, and I hope that during the passage of the Bill we can consider—and where appropriate take on board—any recommendations to improve it. I am glad that the work of that Committee is taking place concurrently, and I hope that recommendations will come forward in time for them to be considered for the Bill.

[Dr Murrison]

How can we make more explicit the amount of money spent on management overheads, and in particular the £80 to £120 per direct debit set up that goes to chugging agencies? That must be made crystal clear to people. That is, on average, the amount for the first year of any direct debit set up in favour of a charity. At the moment, people are not clear how much of their generosity is being expended on management overall and on that practice in particular.

[Matthew Hancock]

I am a great fan of transparency and a supporter of transparency across Government. We should consider carefully whether further transparency should be applied to charities, and how that is best delivered. I have no doubt that transparency begins at home for charities, and best practice is for them to be widely transparent about their operations. There is a question about whether we should do more in law, and balanced arguments in both directions. I hope we can consider that during the passage of the Bill.