Work Capability Assessments

Debate between Mike Penning and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on getting here this evening. I know that she was delayed on the train. I think it very important for a debate that is on the Order Paper following a Member’s success in the ballot to be heard: that is only right and proper. Actually, this is a bit like groundhog day. According to my file, this is the hon. Lady’s fifth debate on the subject. She said that it was the sixth; perhaps we missed one.

I thank the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), for being present this evening. I am slightly concerned, because I said many of the things that I am about to say to her Committee only a few days ago. I hope that its members will pay attention to what I say, because during the speech of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East I feared that the report might have already been written. I said openly and honestly that I wanted to do exactly what the Chair of the Committee said should be done—to make the process fairer, better and quicker, which I think is what we all want.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I should like to make some progress first, not least because I want to congratulate the hon. Lady a little more. We have plenty of time, after all—with your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

May I just say, for the purpose of clarification, that any comments that I made about the Select Committee related to evidence that had been given in public? I was not in any sense referring to what the Committee would or would not recommend in due course, because we have not yet reached that stage.

[Mike Penning]

I was questioned extensively by the Committee about mandatory reconsideration delays, which are the subject of this evening’s debate. As you will probably have noticed, Mr Deputy Speaker, I rarely speak from notes, but I shall try to stick to what I said during the Committee’s evidence sessions.

There are two or three points I can make, but in some respects we will have to wait for the statistical analysis. I would love the data to be published now, but it is not ready. As soon as it is ready, I will publish it. As I said to the Select Committee recently, the statistics are being analysed and they will be published as soon as they become available.

Mandatory reconsideration is being done in order to get decisions right—to give decision makers the opportunity to look at things and make sure we have got the decision right. If there is any new evidence, it can be brought forward at that stage. That, among other things, is clearly having an effect on the number of appeals going to the tribunals—although we do not know to what extent, as the statistical analysis has not yet been released—and I think that is a good thing. As I said to the Select Committee, if this means that fewer judges are employed handling tribunals, that is a good thing. I am not certain the judges feel that way, and some of the comments from some judges more recently may indicate that. However, it is important that tribunals are gone to as a last resort in order to make the judgment as to whether DWP officials and decision makers have made that final decision correctly to the best of their ability.

If we can have fewer people going to appeal, that will be better. Appeals are dropping across the benefits handled by the Department, and especially those in respect of WCA. That is not solely due to mandatory reconsideration. There are about 80% fewer appeals, like for like.

Have delays been caused as we brought in the process? I have been open and honest about that before, and the answer is yes, but I would rather have slightly more delays than have decisions incorrectly taken and then turned over at tribunal. The decision on the mandatory reconsideration was prompted in part because I had sat in on a tribunal hearing and so much evidence was being brought in on the day of the tribunal. Everybody has the right to do that, and judges certainly have the rights and powers to look at that evidence, but my decision makers and officials had had no opportunity to look at that evidence. It is very important that we get this right.

At this stage in the process, the decision has been made that the person concerned is not going to get ESA. That is why we refer them across to JSA while the process is continuing.

The hon. Lady quoted from the DWP guidance specifically on the 14-day question. She pointed this out:

“The 14 day Temporary Periods of Sickness rule in JSA is in place to protect people from losing their entitlement when they have a short period of sickness. It was never intended to protect people with long term conditions.”

The following bullet point is very important, however:

“Claimants with longer term conditions can have their availability”—

for work in this case—

“restricted because of a physical or mental condition as long as the advisor thinks it is reasonable to do so”

based on the information before them.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The guidance the Minister quotes is one thing, but there is clear evidence—not just from Citizens Advice Scotland and my advice surgeries and those of my colleagues, but from up and down the country—that people in this position are not being allowed to claim JSA. They are being told that, because of their unfitness for work and in order to keep to the conditions, they cannot receive that benefit and they are turned away. Can the Minister assure us that he will make sure that will not happen?

[Mike Penning]

I will do everything I can, but I think it would have been right and proper for the hon. Lady to have gone on to say that there is specific guidance for people with long-term illness, as it is important to put that on the record. On the point she makes, I want all the staff in the DWP who have face-to-face contact with claimants and members of the public to have as much information as possible to make sure they can make the right decision. That is exactly why the guidance was changed in April. It was a decision that I made, and I asked my officials to make the change. I am not in any way saying that mistakes do not take place. We have a very large benefit with huge amounts of face-to-face contact across the board, whether it is in Jobcentre Plus or with officials in my own Department, and we make mistakes; no one could say otherwise. It would not make any difference who the Government were or who was standing here as Minister. I hope that they would all say, “We never get it perfect all of the time.” However, we should get as much of it right as we can and as often as we can, which is why mandatory reconsideration is vital to ensuring that the system works. As the hon. Lady and the Chair of the Select Committee said, when we are re-looking at a case and find that a person is entitled to benefit, we should ensure that their housing benefit and council tax benefit are not affected. All that must join up together.

Without a shadow of a doubt, we will work very hard to put in place the right training and guidance to ensure that the decision makers get things right. It is a big job, and I have only been here a short time, but we are getting there. As a Minister in the DWP, I am absolutely determined that we will ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely; that it goes to the people who need it; that we put in place training for the right people; that any delays that are taking place—and they are taking place—are brought to a minimum; that we get out statistics; and that we are open and honest with the public, which I will be if there is a debate again next week or the week after, and that will remain the case for as long as I am a Minister in the DWP.

Question put and agreed to.

Work Capability Assessment

Debate between Mike Penning and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

As usual, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Weir. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing this short debate.

I have looked extensively at some of the correspondence that the hon. Lady has had with Sir Andrew Dilnot, who runs the UK Statistics Authority. She had let me see a copy of her speech—she has stuck rigidly to the letter of it—so that I could do some research. I was slightly surprised, as I believe that Sir Andrew has answered, in his letters to her, many of the questions that she raised today. However, I will try to elaborate on that a bit.

Mandatory reconsiderations were brought in for reasons that I think we would all agree with: to ensure that we get the decisions right before we go down the enormously costly and lengthy route of tribunals and appeals—costly to the taxpayer and to the individual. A mandatory reconsideration can produce the right decision earlier.

We have debated at length as to how we can get a shorter distance, so that we can get the right decision through. Tribunals and appeals are enormously stressful for claimants, and sometimes the length of time is unnecessary. If we can get the decision appraised before it goes down the tribunal route, which we are doing with mandatory reconsiderations, we can save a lot of time, and it would be unnecessary to go through the tribunal. It still leaves an opportunity for the individual, should they wish, to go through the appeals and tribunal process, but if we can get the decision right, there will be no need to do so, which I am sure is what we would all like to see.

The issue about reconsideration of the statistics, which is the main thrust of the hon. Lady’s speech, was something that I thought Sir Andrew Dilnot’s letters to her, copies of which I have seen, have extensively answered, particularly the one of 21 February 2014. She quoted extensively from the letter, but some other quotes from that letter are relevant. He stated,

“since the publication of the statistics is up to 10 months behind the application reference point, we expect it to take some time for the effects of such procedural changes to flow through into the published statistics.”

He went on to say that departmental statisticians

“will consider your request for more detailed presentations of the statistics”.

That is exactly what the letter said. He went on to look at that.

The hon. Lady will know, as will the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, who is in the Chamber, that it is not possible for a Minister to instruct his departmental statisticians to do statistics in a certain way. We can look at something—that is exactly what we are doing—but I cannot instruct the statisticians to produce statistics in the way that the hon. Lady has asked. I think there is some merit in what she is asking to be done, but it will be for Sir Andrew Dilnot and his team and my statisticians to work together on that. I know that the hon. Lady corresponds extensively with Sir Andrew Dilnot and I am sure that he will confirm what I have said.

It is important that the statistics are right; all hon. Members would want that. The rationale behind mandatory reconsideration was to get the whole thing right. Sir Andrew Dilnot stated in his letter of 21 February that it was too early to have the sort of statistics that the hon. Lady mentioned. I am more than happy—and I have—in the light of the letters that I have seen, and in the light of the hon. Lady’s requests in correspondence with Sir Andrew Dilnot, and his comments, to ask my statisticians to look at this to see whether what she has asked for is possible. But I stress again that, as a Minister of the Crown, I cannot instruct statisticians in my Department to do what she asked. It was for them to make sure that we have a robust situation, but I can imagine the controversy that there would be in the House if a Minister was speaking in the House and it became public knowledge that statisticians had been instructed by a Minister to do things in a certain way.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I can understand why it would be a matter of concern if a Minister told statisticians not to record something, but surely a Minister will have a view about the form of statistics and the kind of information to be published; and presumably, these are bits of management information which are there anyway.

[Mike Penning]

Certainly, Ministers have a view on lots of things, but there is a difference between having a view and instructing departmental statisticians to do their statistics in a certain way. I have asked whether I have the powers to do so, should I wish to do so, and I understand, having received advice, that I do not. It is for my statisticians to work on producing statistics on mandatory reconsideration in a way that is as informative as possible, working with the UK Statistics Authority.

Regarding the clarification of that point, and with regard to the very narrow title of this afternoon’s debate, I honestly thought that Sir Andrew Dilnot had answered the questions that the hon. Lady has asked in this debate, which is why I reiterate that I was slightly surprised that we had the debate. The hon. Lady knows that my door is always open. We could have openly discussed this matter, if she had had anything to clarify. I know that Sir Andrew Dilnot’s officials are listening to this debate and want to work with her.

At the moment the information is not ready. It is not in the format that she is asking for. As soon as it is ready it will be published. It may not be in the perfect format that the hon. Lady is looking for. I have asked for this matter to be reviewed, and Sir Andrew Dilnot is doing the same thing, and I look forward to the response. However, I cannot instruct the statisticians to do so and I would not do so.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I was not suggesting that a lot of the data would already be there, but we are expecting far more such decisions to be taken. It is important to start planning for that, as I am sure the Minister would agree.

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly what the statisticians are planning for. Actually, with mandatory reconsideration we were trying to see whether we could get the decisions right before they went to appeal. It is early days yet—it is a bit like the early days with the personal independence payment, which we were discussing only this morning, where the early data reveal that the number of cases going to appeal is a lot less than expected. It does appear that the mandatory reconsideration work is working, but when the statistics come forward that will be for everybody to know.

I know that those in Sir Andrew Dilnot’s office are listening to this debate and I am sure that they will correspond with the hon. Lady on the points that I have raised in the debate and on points raised by her as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Incapacity Benefit Migration

Debate between Mike Penning and Sheila Gilmore

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Westminster Hall

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to respond under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, to this wide-ranging debate on incapacity benefit migration. Let me touch on the last point made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He knows me well enough to know that I will naturally write to him and other colleagues on any points that I do not manage to cover in my contribution. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) on securing the debate. She and other colleagues know that my door is open. She has used that opportunity to come to see me in the past, and I am sure that she will come to see me in the future.

If it is okay with you, Mr Turner, I will not go back over the history of this matter, because the hon. Lady covered it eloquently. I will touch on some of the relevant issues that are around now; obviously, some of them have existed since the system’s inception.

There will be some Members and other people who passionately believe that assessment should not take place. I disagree with them, and I think that the hon. Lady is agreeing with me, from a sedentary position, that assessments should take place; I think that that is her position.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I certainly agree that assessment should take place. I am not sure how, without assessment, we could establish that people were unwell or incapable of work, however we want to define it. The question is really about the process that we use.

[Mike Penning]

I wanted to give the hon. Lady the opportunity to clarify her position. In some cases, face-to-face assessments are what is required, unlike on IB where it was hardly ever face to face.

[Sheila Gilmore]

On the question of face-to-face assessments, one of the interesting points has been that sometimes they are better and sometimes they are not. It depends on the person. One of the things that I have come across in the past year or so is that quite a large number of people have been reassessed on paper rather than face to face, but have been placed in the work-related activity group and later discovered that not all the information was in the paperwork in the first place. I can see that we need both.

[Mike Penning]

As I said, there are some who agree with us that in certain circumstances, face to face is required. I passionately believe that face to face is not required in every case, whether in the WCA or in PIP. We have to make sure that we get it right. There are people who do not think that that should be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Clearly, as the Select Committee knows, Atos was already getting into backlogs. That is why I talked about turning off the tap—stopping the reassessments and doing only the new applications, to ensure that we got those right. By doing that, we were allowing people who needed it to get through the system as fast as possible, and we intended to get to those who already had it later, because the backlog was becoming intolerable and unacceptable.

When I made the statement last week, we also issued an invitation to tender. We had already put out an invitation to tender for multiple contractors. We cannot go as fast as we would like with Atos leaving, so we will now be seeking a tender from a single contractor, and within that process there will be the decision to move to multiple contractors. That gives us a great opportunity to make the contract into a better format than we had before. We can deal with capacity issues by making sure that we get the flow correct and take care of the backlogs. Atos is still committed to working on the backlogs as we approach the date of its exit. There are issues around the software that we are using, which is Atos’s software and which we will continue to use. The new contract gives us an opportunity to migrate to a new supplier with the capacity and the skills that we need. We also have an opportunity to learn from Dr Litchfield’s report so that we get the assessments right, particularly when it comes to mental health, which the shadow Minister mentioned.

[Sheila Gilmore]

There clearly is a capacity problem, which has been building up. The Select Committee raised that point back in 2011, when there were problems with potential capacity. Will it be more expensive to take on a new contractor to get the capacity right, or does the Minister feel changes could be made, for example on reassessments, which could keep the cost down, similar to that with Atos?

[Mike Penning]

I think we are going to have to wait for the tenders to come in, but we are asking for a contract of a different sort from that let to Atos in 2008. No Minister coming into government is allowed to see advice from a previous Administration. With hindsight, that is probably right, although I have struggled with it in the three Departments I have been in over the past four years. One difficulty is that I therefore cannot see the assumptions that Atos made, based on the bid, about how it was going to make a profit out of its part of the scheme. I can now see such detail going forward, and there will be assumptions in the contract about what the profit margins will be, but the biggest thing for me will be putting capacity and quality together simultaneously. If we do not get that right, we will end up in the position to which the hon. Lady alluded.

Capacity is important, but—this falls partly within my ministerial portfolio, but not wholly—so is getting individual help to those moved on to the Work programme. Getting that right is really important. I will write to colleagues with more up-to-date figures on where we are on that, but it is crucial that we give confidence to people who want to go into work that they can go into work. Many people think that they cannot work until we give them the confidence and skills to return to the workplace or to enter it for the first time.

Something that I have touched on a couple of times, but will mention again, is the fact that when the Prime Minister asked me to take on my new portfolio, which is very different from how previous Administrations, and indeed the current Government, have previously run things, I asked for responsibility for the Health and Safety Executive. One of the biggest reasons was that I am an ex-firefighter, so I have seen how health and safety can work to make the environment we live in much safer, but I have also all too often seen health and safety being abused and used as an excuse for why something cannot be done, whether in the leisure or commercial sector. I was passionate in thinking that if I could look after health and safety along with my other responsibilities, I could break some of the myths about why people cannot get back into the workplace, or ensure that disabled people already in the workplace did not have to leave. We are currently working on that, and that has gone down particularly well with commerce and a lot of disability groups.

There have been some myths out there about why people cannot work. It is all about confidence. That is why I have been taking the Disability Confident campaign around the country, asking employers to give people an opportunity and to have the confidence to take people on. The larger companies have always been good at that, but small and medium-sized enterprises, which employ more people in this country than all the corporates put together, have some real confidence issues. We have been ensuring that they have as much confidence as possible.

[Mr Adrian Sanders in the Chair]

It has been a real eye-opener for me to be in a position to see Atos coming away from the system and the new contracts being issued. I have tried desperately to ensure that we listen, because no matter what our political colours, I passionately believe that we need to get this right. That is true not only of me—Ministers and Governments come and go—but of all of us, because we must get the right system in place for those who need it. It must be right for the taxpayer and for those who need help.

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for about 30 seconds, Mr Sanders. I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on her debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mike Penning and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 24th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I would hope that everyone across the House condemns any of the abuse and the threats against the employees of Atos as completely unacceptable, no matter what their view of Atos.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

This Government have had nearly four years to sort this out, and pinning the blame on Atos will not get around that. Why, knowing the weaknesses of that organisation and all the flaws in how it was working, was it awarded a contract to implement the personal independence payment, which is causing huge delays?

[Mike Penning]

The contract for WCA is completely different from the contract for PIP, with a completely different set of assessments. Four years in, we are still trapped by a contract signed by the previous Administration —something that I intend to get out of, but without penalising the taxpayer.

Welfare Reforms and Poverty

Debate between Mike Penning and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

Apart from a short comfort break, I have sat through the whole debate, finding it very interesting. I found the tone and manner of most of it to be exemplary, and a credit to the House and the Backbench Business Committee. I will take exception with the Opposition Front-Bench team, because if they were so determined that they wanted this they could have had this debate and pushed for this inquiry during Opposition day debates last week or later in this week. They could even have signed the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher), but they did not; there are three names on the Order Paper, but none from the Front Bench. They have suddenly decided—[Hon. Members: “It is a Back-Bench debate.] So why did we have the debate last week? What about the business next week? They have not done it.

Let us not get into the semantics of what went on but look at what happened during the debate. [Interruption.] For someone who sits there and complains about other people chuntering from a sedentary position, I must say that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is the leading expert in it. We heard contributions from: the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton; my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies); the hon. Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick); my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy); the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram); my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming); the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson); my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley); and the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for West Ham (Lyn Brown), for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz). As I say, it is a credit to the Backbench Business Committee that it listened to the Back Benchers and tabled this debate.

The contribution from the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton was wide ranging. I am pleased that he did not place all the blame on the coalition Government, not least because he was aware that the work capability assessments were introduced by the previous Administration, as was the Atos contract, which we discussed at Work and Pensions questions. So we inherited the assessments that are being complained about by hon. Members from across the House today, particularly those being carried out by Atos. We are working hard to improve the situation and deal with the mess we inherited. [Interruption.] I would like to know how it is possible that we are making it worse, as the contract we are working to is exactly the one we inherited. The hon. Member for Derby North, from a sedentary position, asks why. We were trapped in this because the previous Administration signed the contract. We need to make sure that the work capability assessment works as we go forward.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

I will not give way, because I do not have time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth raised the most important issue, and I am pleased that the shadow Secretary of State is here now. The shadow Minister engaged in a rewriting of history. My hon. Friend and several others alluded to the fact that the shadow Secretary of State said that Labour would be tougher than the Tories on welfare and on welfare reforms. There was no nuance about helping more people. Labour said it would be tougher than the Tories on welfare. We have saved £83 billion on welfare spending—that is the predicted saving. I would like to know where those cuts would take place if not through welfare reform. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) says from a sedentary position that the cuts would come through jobs, but more than 1 million people have been placed into jobs since this Government took office. That is most important.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mike Penning and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 18th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend has been campaigning hard on behalf of his constituents and we have been working closely with the Ministry of Justice, which is why I can announce that there were six sessions per month in June 2012 and there are now 18 sessions per month, a 300% increase, and we intend to do better.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

People in Kettering and claimants elsewhere might be able to get a quicker resolution of their cases if the testing of the new descriptors for mental health and fluctuating conditions were brought to an end. It is more than two years since Professor Harrington suggested action. When will we see the results?

[Mike Penning]

I am sure that in the hon. Lady’s constituency as well as in Kettering, we are working very hard to bring down the time it takes, particularly in the tribunals. We have been working closely on the area of mental health, and we will continue to work to make sure that everybody gets a fair deal from the process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Mike Penning and Sheila Gilmore

Thursday 10th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

13. What assessment she has made of the effect on road safety of the decision to permit longer heavy goods vehicles.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning)]

The Government’s response to the consultation on the use of longer semi-trailers includes a revised impact assessment. It indicates that the forthcoming trial of 1,800 trailers should result in a marginal reduction in accidents and fatalities and their associated costs.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Given that the original consultation document admitted that longer lorries are less safe, and in the light of the tragic circumstances of last week, which were admittedly different, do the Government not now have cause to reconsider taking any risk with safety by introducing such lorries?

[Mike Penning]

What happened on the M5 was a tragic incident, and our thoughts and sympathies are with the families who have lost their loved ones and the people who are still very seriously ill in hospital. No assumptions should be made until after the police inquiry is completed.

The research was undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory, a world-leading independent body. It indicates that there will be a 1.6% reduction in road casualties.

Ship-to-Ship Oil as Cargo Transfer

Debate between Mike Penning and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mike Penning]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is trying to go. Let me be honest and say that I do not know. In the way that I am looking at the matter now, I do not think that that matters, because it is about whether Parliament was fully informed and had an opportunity to go through the process that was required for such important regulations.

I set out in my letter quite firmly that, although this important issue seems techie, it is not. The environment comprising this country’s shores is important. This is not a devolved matter. I listened intently to hon. Members’ comments. Although we have to take into consideration the views of other Parliaments in the United Kingdom and those of other Members of Parliament, this decision is being made by one of the few ministerial roles that still deals fully with the United Kingdom. I am proud of that.

I considered carefully, and understand exactly, what the regulations were trying to do: protect the environment and bring some ports inside regulation—the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife mentioned Scapa Flow earlier—that are outside both it and the European habitats directive, which is not acceptable.

I accept that regulation is required—there is no argument about that—but we are looking for suitable regulation for the process, which is why we have gone into consultation. We need to consider whether the regulations are a sledgehammer to crack a nut, in certain respects, and whether they are enforceable. That is why I asked for the consultation and suspended the implementation of the regulations, scheduled for October. I did not revoke the SI, which was another option that could have gone ahead. Instead, I delayed its implementation for six months so that we could consult fully—Parliament should do that—and find out about any other concerns that the public, those involved in shipping, the RSPB and others may have about how the regulations will work in practice. I do not know what those concerns are, because the consultation is not over. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has already mentioned the concerns in Falmouth about how the regulations will work.

[Sheila Gilmore]

After such a long gestation period for the regulations, does the Minister understand the scepticism and anger in the communities that have campaigned about this matter and want to see it happen? I came off Edinburgh city council in 2007. We were discussing regulations then and there was a bit of confusion about the degree to which the Scottish Parliament could take part. After such a long time, does the Minister understand how people feel, and is he prepared to give clear reassurance to those who want clear regulation in this regard?

[Mike Penning]

I understand the public’s concern, throughout the country, about what would happen if there was an oil spill and about the dangers to the environment. I also understand that the consultation was lengthy. But the regulations are sitting there and there is genuine concern on both sides of the argument about whether they go far enough. As the Minister responsible, it is crucial that I ensure that the legislation that is put before the House is fit for purpose.