House of Commons
Thursday 29 November 2007
The House met at half-past Ten o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Treasury
The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—
Local Government Finance
Treasury Ministers meet regularly with ministerial colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to discuss a wide variety of issues, including local government finance. The local government settlement for 2007-08 was set out to the House in December 2006. The Secretary of State will announce the next provisional finance settlement very shortly.
I am the only Member of the House whose constituents have lower council tax bills this year than last year, thanks to the new Conservative council in Hammersmith and Fulham. Across the UK, council tax has almost doubled under Labour in the past 10 years, but despite that, the Government claim to want lower bills. How can hard-pressed councils deliver lower bills, faced as they are with the worst financial settlement in 10 years under the Government?
May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there have been real-terms increases for councils in every year of this Government? That was not the case in the last four years of the Conservative Government. Councils have seen real-terms increases of 39 per cent. in their resources. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that his local authority is also pursuing an extremely aggressive programme of cuts in services locally. Given that his council received a 3.4 per cent. increase from the Government last year, we would argue strongly that that was sufficient both to keep council tax down in Hammersmith and Fulham and to maintain good services for vulnerable people in his community.
When my right hon. Friend is considering the settlement, particularly in the case of Hammersmith and Fulham council, will he look at the £34 million of cuts aimed at vulnerable people in that borough, which are being made to achieve a 50p a week cut in council tax? Those cuts are embarrassing to many Conservative councils, which are wondering how they will convince the Government that they are short of money when Hammersmith and Fulham appears to be able to come up with sums of money simply by attacking vulnerable people in the borough.
We gave a generous increase to the council last year, which should be sufficient to keep council tax down and provide good services to vulnerable people. I am aware that there have been some changes to the provision of social services in Hammersmith and Fulham, and other changes too. We believe that the funding given was enough to keep council tax down and provide the services that my hon. Friend’s constituents depend upon.
Is it right, given the additional responsibilities that are placed upon local government by central Government, that, on the one hand, the resources allocated—certainly to my own council—are inadequate, while, on the other, if councils wish to raise the council tax locally in order to provide the level of service that they believe people deserve and expect, they are not able to do so because they are capped?
There is a legitimate criticism to be made about the level of burden that is placed on local authorities by central Government—I hear the hon. Gentleman on that point. That is why, working together, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and I, in order to inform the spending review, have conducted a rigorous exercise cutting the number of targets that we place on local government. There will be a significant reduction in those targets, down to a total of 198 from well over 1,000. I understand the message delivered by the hon. Gentleman, but we are clear that the settlement that we have provided in the comprehensive spending review enables councils to keep council tax rises to substantially below 5 per cent. and also to improve services and maintain good quality services that people depend upon.
Does my right hon. Friend think it interesting that when the Conservative chairman of the Local Government Association recently commented that this was the worst settlement for local government in the past 10 years, he made no comparison with settlements of 15, 20 or 25 years ago?
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point: so often the context is missing. I have those figures—11, 12, 13 and 14 years ago, there were real-terms cuts every year in the funding provided from central Government to local government. In 1995-96, for instance, there was a 4.6 per cent. cut. As my hon. Friend will remember from his background in local government in Sheffield, that caused deep and devastating cuts in the services that his constituents at that time greatly depended upon. That is the difference between our record and the record of the Conservatives, and they should show a little more humility when commenting on such matters.
Bank Charges
The Government have made no such assessment. The OFT began its formal investigation into whether the charges levied by banks breach the unfairness test in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 in April 2007. Until recently, there had been no High Court cases on that subject, but it soon became clear that a wider test case was needed to resolve the issue and to provide legal certainty. That process is now under way, and it is initially focused on clarifying whether the regulations apply or not.
I thank the Economic Secretary for that full answer, for which I am most appreciative. Millions of families could face additional bank charges, because data files containing their banking details are God knows where. [Hon. Members: “Reading.”] Will the Government assure me that they have spoken to the banks to ensure that, if the loss of data leads to identity fraud that causes accounts to be overdrawn through no fault of the families themselves, the Government will underwrite the resulting charges, ensuring that individuals do not suffer for the deplorable error of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?
Order. I remind the House that the reading of supplementary questions is not desirable.
The Government are, of course, in continual dialogue with the banks, but as the banks have reported to us that there is no evidence of fraudulent activity, I consider the hon. Gentleman’s question to be hypothetical.
It is a frustrating time for many of my constituents who are caught up in the waiver as they wait for the test case to come to court in January. Will the waiver be revoked if the case does not make progress or if it is delayed?
I understand the frustration faced by my hon. Friend’s constituents and, indeed, the constituents of all hon. Members. However, the decision on the waiver is entirely for the Financial Services Authority, which recently completed a review of it, and concluded that on the whole, although there are some issues to be looked at, the waiver is operating satisfactorily. It is inappropriate for me to say more while a legal case is ongoing.
One of the conditions of the waiver was that the banks did not make materially adverse changes to their charges, which is precisely what they are doing. Most recently, the Co-op bank lifted its daily overdraft rate, which particularly affects low-income customers. Because the condition of the waiver is now being breached, surely the Economic Secretary should be calling for the FSA to raise it.
The waiver is a matter for the FSA. As I have said to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Jessica Morden), the FSA recently completed a review of the waiver consulting both consumer groups and banks. The findings suggest that the waiver is working satisfactorily. If the hon. Gentleman has evidence to the contrary, I would be happy to pass it on to the FSA.
HMRC (Personal Data)
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that I made in the House on 20 November and to what I said in yesterday’s debate.
It is clear that the matter goes much wider. On 31 October, my constituent, Mr. King of Bexhill, received a letter from HMRC, in which he was advised that a CD that had been sent to his pension provider, Standard Life, containing his surname, national insurance number, date of birth and plan reference number, had gone missing. He wants to know how many other CDs went missing before the CD that was sent to Standard Life, as well as the one that was sent out by HMRC with 25 million names on it. How many CDs went missing? How many of them have been accounted for? How many of them are still missing? And why, when CDs have gone missing in the past, did Ministers not act beforehand?
On the discs that went missing from the Standard Life, the hon. Gentleman will recall that I referred to that matter specifically in my statement on 20 November. As a result of that incident, HMRC wrote to all those affected, including the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. The circumstances relating to the losses of that material, and in relation to the much larger loss of child benefit records, are currently the subject of investigation by Kieran Poynter, the senior partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers. We will have his interim report in three weeks’ time, and, as I said yesterday—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here for yesterday’s debate—I intend to report to the House when I get that report.
In yesterday’s debate, the Government said that HMRC is still sending out CDs from time to time and encrypting them only when necessary. Why is it necessary to send out any CDs, and why, if CDs must be sent out, which is obviously the worst possible method, is it not always necessary to encrypt them?
It is necessary from time to time for information to be sent between offices, which is normal. We have ensured that procedures have been tightened, particularly in relation to bulk transfer. The transfer of information by HMRC will be the subject of the report that I have commissioned. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, many hon. Members and many people outside this House that we need thoroughly to examine how information is transferred and to ask ourselves whether it needs to leave a particular building in the first place. If information needs to be transferred, we need to consider the necessary security such as encryption or another appropriate measure. I have given Kieran Poynter wide-ranging terms of reference, so that he can cover all those matters. We will receive his interim report fairly shortly, and we will get a wider report in the spring, which will allow us to take whatever action is appropriate.
Does the Chancellor now regret that both he and the Prime Minister specifically allocated initial responsibility to a junior official? Does the Chancellor regret that that individual has been hounded and forced into hiding?
As I said yesterday, what I said in my statement on 20 November was absolutely correct in accordance with the information that I had then and that I have now. I covered all such matters in yesterday’s debate. As I say, we will have the interim report from Kieran Poynter very shortly; that will allow us to draw conclusions and take the necessary action as a result of what happened.
After the Chancellor was informed of the loss of the data, why did it take him six days to inform the banks? Why does it appear from the e-mails released by the National Audit Office that it took seven days before HMRC searched the offices of the NAO?
Again, I explained that when I gave my statement on 20 November. When I was told what had happened, I asked HMRC to carry out a thorough search, using its Customs investigations officers. When it was clear that that had not found anything, the Metropolitan police were called in and they carried out various searches. The position is that various buildings belonging to Revenue and Customs and the NAO were searched at various times as it became clear that the discs had gone missing. However, I covered all those points, both in my statement and in the debate yesterday. As I say, not only is the Metropolitan police investigation continuing, but we will have the results of Mr. Poynter’s review fairly shortly. We can then discuss the matters further.
Northern Rock
As I said to the Treasury Committee on 25 October and in my statement to the House on 19 November, I do not believe that it would be in the public interest to publish the letters at this time. But I will keep the position under review, as I said then.
How, precisely, are the Government funding the £25 billion support package for Northern Rock? If that support is, as we are told, coming from the “contingency fund”, how much is left in that fund?
The money provided by the Bank of England comes directly from it, but of course the Government stand behind the Bank of England to provide the necessary support. However, I say this to the hon. Gentleman: when I authorised the Bank of England to provide support for the Northern Rock bank, that was widely welcomed; indeed, the Leader of the Opposition said that he wholeheartedly supported it. I am sorry that many Conservatives are now trying to run away from that decision. I believe that it was absolutely right then and it remains the right thing to do now.
Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer recall that way back in February 1974, the Government had to intervene on another giant, Burmah Oil? They had to take it over because otherwise it might have caused a run in various other areas. The result was that Burmah Oil’s price rise was enormous in the following months, when Margaret Thatcher’s husband decided to sue the Government because he wanted the elevated price rather than the price when Burmah Oil collapsed and—
He should retire.
Oh!
I do remember Burmah Oil, but not in sufficient detail to be able to comment on what my hon. Friend has said. As I said a few moments ago, it was absolutely right to support Northern Rock when it got into difficulties because of the wider interests of maintaining financial stability in the system.
Does the Chancellor not appreciate that his lack of transparency on all these issues gives further rise to the suspicion that his actions in mid-September were driven more by keeping his own heartlands in the north-east happy and by his having an eye towards what was going to be an early election? Does he not realise that transparency is now of key importance if there is to be general confidence in his actions on Northern Rock, going forward?
The hon. Gentleman makes light of the importance of Northern Rock to the north-east of England. It is a very important company that employs more than 60,000 people. It was decided that we should intervene to support Northern Rock because of the threat to the wider banking system if it had gone down. I repeat that I was absolutely right to authorise that support and, having authorised it, we need to see it through. A lot of Opposition Members are now trying to run away from that decision, which they initially supported. It was the right thing to do because it was important that we maintained confidence and stability in the banking system. That is why we will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure that that happens.
Can the Chancellor clarify the exact level of security that the Government have on their £24 billion loan to Northern Rock? Is it not the case that while half of it has good security, the other half is optimistically secured against the bank’s free assets, the value of which is now under question in the falling housing market?
As I said when we last discussed these matters in the House, the Bank of England’s lending is secured against assets currently held by Northern Rock, as we would expect. I am not sure whether the Liberal position is that we should or should not have intervened; that is not terribly clear to me. However, having decided to take the action to support Northern Rock, it is important to see it through. At the moment, discussions are taking place with Virgin with a view to a possible acquisition, and clearly I will keep the House informed. Having decided on a course of action, the important thing is to see it through to ensure that we can maintain stability in the wider system as well as ensuring that we do everything that we can to help the position in relation to Northern Rock.
Given the huge amount of taxpayers’ money now pledged, rumoured to be about £25 billion, why should the actual amount of the loan, the terms of the loan and the repayment schedule continue to be kept secret from Parliament?
For the very good reason that if central banks provided what would in effect be a running commentary on such support, they would find it difficult to be able to intervene. The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Treasury Committee, and one of the questions that it is considering for the future is how the Bank of England and other central banks provide effective support. There has been a lot of discussion about that. Providing a running commentary on what central banks happen to be doing at times such as this would not be a very good idea, but, as I said when I appeared before the Committee, I know that it is considering the matter, and I will be happy to consider any recommendations that it has.
The protection of the position of the depositors and shareholders of Northern Rock is of pre-eminent importance, but does the Chancellor agree that while the liquidity crisis of the world’s largest banks continues, consideration should be given to an easing of the regulatory capital requirement under the Basle agreement?
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that protecting depositors is important; that is why I provided the guarantees that I did when Northern Rock got into difficulty. In relation to the wider issues, I also agree that it is not just capital adequacy that is important but the availability of liquidity. The House may be aware that the Bank of England announced this morning that it is injecting additional sums into the system through its market operations, especially as we approach the year-end, when banks will be reporting. I think that the Governor made a statement to that effect when he appeared before the Treasury Committee earlier today.
I am sure that many people will welcome the fact that the Bank has said that it will make that facility available and that it stands ready to take whatever action is appropriate to ensure that overnight bank lending rates remain as close as possible to the Bank’s current rate.
The Chancellor previously told the House that he could not publish the letters from the Governor of the Bank of England and the chairman of the Financial Services Authority because although the Governor agreed to his letter being published, the chairman of the FSA did not agree to his letter being published. Question 4 asks the Chancellor to publish the Governor’s letter. Will he ask the chairman of the FSA if he has any objection to the Governor’s letter being published, and if he does not, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House a commitment that he will publish it?
As I said in my initial reply, I will keep the matter under review, but I have also said that the Governor’s letter, the letter from the chairman of the FSA and my reply to them have to be seen as a whole. I do not think that it is in the public interest to publish them at the present time.
Work Force Skills
As Lord Leitch set out in his independent report on the UK’s long-term skills needs, the improving skills profile in the UK work force over time has contributed to economic growth. He also concluded that a skilled work force are increasingly critical if the UK is to continue to grow to meet global challenges. [Interruption.] Therefore, the Government will increase expenditure on higher education and adult skills by £2.2 billion over the next three years to support further improvements in the UK skills base at all levels.
Would my hon. Friend agree that—[Interruption.]
Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has had his question and now he must listen to others. It is something he will have to learn, and it is not too late for him to learn after all his years in this House.
Tell George to shut his—
Order. The hon. Gentleman has got to be quiet.
Would my hon. Friend agree that for regions such as the north-east, a highly skilled work force are essential? Would she congratulate the North East Process Industry Cluster, based in Teesside, which is doing a lot, not only to identify skills shortages and to ensure that they are filled, but to encourage youngsters in schools and to target women with regard to the good career structure in the process industries?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the Government and employers work together to identify those areas where there are skills shortages and act with the money that we have been able to give to deal with them. The latest national employers’ skills survey has just demonstrated a fall in employers reporting skills gaps—down from 22 per cent. of employers in 2003 to only 15 per cent. this year.
Does my hon. Friend agree that employers must play a much bigger role in improving the skills levels of the UK work force? Does she also agree that more must be done to get employers to meet this challenge?
I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments. That is why the train to gain budget, which involved employers closely in the design and supply of training in employment, has been doubled and will stand at £1 billion by 2010-11.
Given the constant complaints of industry about the poor technical skills base in this country, why is it, after 10 years, that we still lag so dramatically behind competitor countries such as France and Germany?
We started from a lower base after 18 wasted Conservative years, which saw apprenticeships all but destroyed, massive youth unemployment and an entire generation condemned to the scrap heap. We have made great progress in the last 10 years, and we intend to make even more in the next three.
Given the need for great skill when undertaking banking transactions, such as making large loans or keeping money markets liquid, what plans are there for Treasury Ministers to go on courses?
I have a degree in economics; it is not a bad start.
Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government’s commitment to skills has led to 1.8 million people finding jobs because of the new deal? Because of that and other skills initiatives, and the strong economy, unemployment in my constituency is now beneath the national average. Under the Tories it was 40 per cent. in some areas.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. We now have 2.8 million more people in work than we had 10 years ago, and 1 million fewer on out-of-work benefits, which cuts the bill of failure and allows us to give opportunities to many people that were never there in the 18 wasted Tory years. We intend to continue, deepen and broaden that good record.
The Minister will have seen in the newspapers this morning that the UK has fallen down the world rankings in the league for the reading skills of 10-year-olds. Does she consider that to be a good thing for UK skills in computing or a bad thing for UK skills overall?
One-to-one support is being funded in the comprehensive spending review. I might ask the hon. Lady what her views are on ageism in the work force, given her comments earlier.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) praised apprenticeship schemes on Teesside. I want to praise apprenticeship schemes on Deeside. The Airbus factory in Broughton in north Wales has run 1,200 apprenticeships over the past 10 years, and dozens of those young apprentices are from my constituency. Those top-quality jobs have primed our local economy, which is one of the fastest growing in the country. What plans does my hon. Friend have to come and visit the Broughton factory and see the best practice in the UK?
I am more than happy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see the great work that is being done. The Government have funded a renaissance in apprenticeships. There are now 250,000, and there were only 87,000 when we came into power. We have further plans to create 500,000 by the end of the comprehensive spending review period. Those apprenticeships offer fantastic skills and opportunities, none of which was available during the era of mass unemployment when the Conservatives were last in power.
Public Sector Pensions
The latest published estimate of the total liability for the UK’s unfunded public service pension schemes is £530 billion as at 31 March 2005. As we stated in the pre-Budget report, updated estimates will be published alongside the next long-term public finances report.
Despite being repeatedly pressed by the Opposition, why has it taken the Government so long to address the anomaly whereby the discount rate applied to the public sector pensions liability calculation has not for years reflected the Government’s cost of borrowing, which is what private sector companies are required to do?
The hon. Gentleman will know that those are complex calculations. The Government makes updated assessments of the discount rate. Indeed, we are applying new figures released from the Office for National Statistics in October and will come back soon with an updated assessment of the long-term liability. We will publish that in the context of the long-term report on the health of the public finances, which will be published in the new year.
The Minister has just admitted that the last Government assessment of public sector pension liability is well over two and a half years old. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) will be interested, because he no doubt represents a large part of that liability.
Actuaries Watson Wyatt estimate that the liability today could be as high as £960 billion. Perhaps the Minister can confirm whether the two-and-a-half to three-year cycle between forecasting public sector pension liability is a new approach to Government policy, or did Ministers not get round to doing it earlier merely because of incompetence?
I have voted more often than her and all the Tories put together.
I shall let my hon. Friend speak for himself.
The Conservative party has to be a bit careful with the figures. Let us be clear about what the estimates are. They are notional figures that relate to all future payments that will have to be made over eight decades. The hon. Lady’s colleague, the shadow Chief Secretary, told the Sunday Mirror last week that that will mean that
“Every family in Britain will pay £33,000 to fund the pension promises he has made to public sector workers.”
Yes, he says. That is an alarming and misleading statement to make to the families of this country. They will not have to find £33,000 to fund those commitments.
As for my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), with age comes a certain maturity and wisdom that are sadly lacking among those on the Conservative Front Bench.
Is it not worth remembering that pensions are deferred salaries? The work that we get from our public sector, on low pay and working long hours, means that the liabilities of the public sector pension are value for money.
I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments. We have been looking at public sector schemes, which—especially the teachers’ scheme, the civil service scheme and the NHS scheme—have been subject to reform in recent years. Let us remember that those reforms, which we debated, were difficult, but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, they are sustainable as they go forward now, and give a fair return to those valuable public sector workers who provide services on which we all depend. The implication of the quote of the shadow Chief Secretary that I read out is that the Opposition would not fund those schemes in the way in which we propose. They need to explain to public sector workers exactly what they would do to those pension schemes.
The Chief Secretary has just referred to the public sector pension liabilities, which pay the pensions of millions of public sector workers who have retired over many years, as though they were some rough estimate that the Government can choose to publish when they like. They are already nearly a year behind their original schedule for publishing the figures. Surely he should take the matter far more seriously.
I take it extremely seriously. As I explained to the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire), it is a complex calculation and we will therefore take our time to get it right. It is a complex figure which should not be grossly simplified and misrepresented. The previous long-term public finance report, which was published last December—nearly but not quite a year ago—stated that public sector pension schemes were sustainable over 50 years. That is a fair judgment which we made and put into the public domain. When we have new figures, we will put them in the public domain so that a balanced judgment can made on them rather than the alarmist and misleading debate that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are trying to get going.
Schools (Funding)
Per pupil expenditure in England has risen from under £2,500 in 1997 to £5,600 in 2007-08. That has supported a sustained increase in attainment. In 2007, 60.3 per cent. of pupils achieved five or more GCSEs at grade A to C—up from 45.1 per cent. in 1997.
Schools in my constituency have improved considerably under Labour, but official unemployment is still 10 per cent. and worklessness is nearly 50 per cent. after 10 years of a Labour Government. How will we convince kids to buy into staying on at school and in education up to the age of 18 when, in my constituency, on finishing education they still cannot get a job?
I recognise the issues to which my hon. Friend draws attention because my constituency has a similar profile to his. The figures that I read out do not show that the improvement in schools has been much more marked in areas such as those that he and I represent than it has been in the rest of the country. I believe that that will bring long-term benefits to the economies of Leigh and the part of Birmingham that he represents. Long-term unemployment is significantly down in the west midlands from around 36,000 to 11,000, but he is right: as the Prime Minister made clear this week, we need to do more to integrate the benefits system and the skills services on offer to get people back into work.
Could the disconnect between results in the constituency of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon) and the hundreds of millions of pounds spent on education in the past 15 or so years be accounted for by the university of Cambridge’s primary review report, which was produced this month? It stated that the hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on various educational policies, which were poorly researched, not tried out on the ground and largely a waste of money.
I hear that complaint from Conservative Members. [Interruption.] I have the greatest respect for my old university, but the figures that I read out tell an impressive story. Sixty kids out of every 100 leave school with better skills as opposed to 45 kids out of every 100. That is 15 more kids in every 100, which is a significant improvement in 10 years. However, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), the position is much better in constituencies such as mine, where the figure for schools whose pupils get five A to Cs at O-level was approximately 15 per cent. in 1997. That has increased to around 50 per cent. today. The investment has led to a big improvement. I would be surprised if the hon. Gentleman had not seen better school buildings and more teachers in his area.
Can I tell the Minister about a great news story in my constituency, where new specialist engineering colleges such as Freebrough college are opening thanks to £5 million of Government support? Thanks to the Government’s commitment to engineering, we will see many engineers in years to come. May I thank the Minister for the support that he has given to my constituency, particularly in rural parts, and ask him to ensure that investment keeps coming through?
I am happy to accept that and should like to repay the compliment to my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done to improve education on Teesside. He is absolutely right: because of the policies that the Government have taken forward, areas such as Teesside are benefiting from much closer integration between the business community and the education service. That is why the Opposition are taking on, lock, stock and barrel, the proposals that we have put forward to improve education in this country.
Credit Unions
The Government regularly meet representatives from the voluntary sector. I most recently met credit unions when I visited Manchester about a month ago, where I was delighted to visit the offices of Manchester credit union and meet representatives of the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd.
Just over a year since the Farepak fiasco, what further steps are being taken to help credit unions such as the Cashfields credit union based in Hucknall meet the needs of the more economically disadvantaged members of our society?
I was delighted to hear of the formation of Cashfields in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I understand that it is relatively new and I wish it every success. Following the collapse of Farepak, more that 100 credit unions throughout the country now offer Christmas savings accounts, which is to be welcomed. I shall shortly be publishing the results of the Government’s financial inclusion action plan, which will include further measures to support the growth of credit unions.
Tax Credits
Accuracy in processing remains high, at around 97 per cent. As the House knows, tax credits provide crucial support to some 6 million hard-working families in Britain. Tax credits staff are working hard to improve the service to customers.
What action are the Government taking to amend the 35-year-old European regulations that require the payment of child tax credits to migrant workers whose children live abroad, about which the Government tell us nothing, but which should be fair to both migrant workers and host nations, such as the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Austria?
As the hon. Gentleman said, those rules have been in place for a long time. The Government are in discussion with European partners about all such rules, as they affect all our citizens throughout Europe. He will know that changing rules of that nature requires agreement throughout the whole of Europe.
Personal Data
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave some moments ago.
We have heard a lot about what advice has been given to banks regarding the loss of personal details. Given the sort of information that has been lost by the Government, one thing that could be dangerous is its use to apply for credit cards. What action have the Government taken in that regard?
We have been in consultation with organisations such as Experian to discuss what could be done to protect people from identity fraud and to prevent the use of that information by criminal elements. As things stand, both the police and the banks are advising us that there is no evidence of fraudulent use of the information, which we believe could still be found. That is why the police inquiry and the searches are ongoing.
The Minister will know that I have apologised to the Chancellor for yesterday. I do not hold Ministers accountable for the random actions of individuals, but Ministers do have to answer for the fact that individuals can access data, even after so many security reviews, without a relatively simple management system overlay to provide an audit trail and to ring alarm bells.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the apology that he has offered for yesterday, although it was a very entertaining intervention. In response to his question, I would say that he is right. That is why we have invited Kieran Poynter to conduct a review. That will not take a long time; we need swift action on this in order to be satisfied that all the necessary protection and security is in place. My right hon. Friend and I look forward to receiving the interim report on 14 December.
Co-operatives
The Government recognise the major contribution that co-operatives make in providing greater choice and diversity in financial services and the wider economy. We intend to update the legislation governing co-operatives to enable them to compete with other companies and to serve their local communities more effectively. We consulted on legislative reform in the summer, and I am pleased to say that we received more than 200 responses. We will publish further consultations later this month.
I greatly welcome the work that the Government and my hon. Friend are doing on reviewing the industrial and provident society legislation. I agree that co-operatives play a huge role across the country. In advance of introducing any primary legislation, will she review whether steps could be taken immediately under regulatory reform legislation to increase the £20,000 limit on withdrawable share capital? Will she also consider relaxing the requirement on interim accounts that exists for co-ops in the same way that it does for companies?
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s suggestions. When we publish our ideas on these matters before the end of the year, we will look at absolutely everything with a view to making legislative and non-legislative changes. I will certainly take on board the points that she has made. In response to her wider point, I agree that co-ops play an extremely important part in the dynamism of our economy. I want to remove all barriers that prevent them from competing on a level playing field and from growing.
Topical Questions
The Treasury’s aim is to raise the rate of sustainable growth and to achieve rising prosperity and a better quality of life with economic and employment opportunities for everyone.
As the Chancellor has just said, the Treasury’s aim is to raise the rate of sustainable growth and to improve quality of life, but, given that Britain is three times richer but no happier than it was 50 years ago, does he think that it is time to look beyond the crude measure of gross domestic product and to monitor other indicators of well-being?
I am willing to consider a Liberal Democrat happiness index, although I am not sure how happy the hon. Lady can be at the moment, given that most of her colleagues appear to be out on the campaign trail. Over the past 10 years, we have seen our economy grow in every quarter. We have had 10 years of uninterrupted growth, which has resulted in fewer people being out of work, more people being in work and historically low interest and mortgage rates. That has led to our country’s growing prosperity. Our job is to ensure that that prosperity continues and, above all, to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to participate in it.
My hon. Friend is quite right. We are spending about £5 billion less on unemployment benefits than we were 10 years ago. One of the advantages of having a strong economy with more people in work is that money is not wasted on unemployment benefits, as it was as a result of the high levels of unemployment that we saw 10 or 15 years ago. Also, we are paying less in debt interest because the level of borrowing and debt that the Conservatives ran up meant that that was the first call on a lot of the extra money that was spent.
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about aggressive credit selling. That is one of the reasons why we are supporting the growth of the credit union sector, which can provide affordable credit to those who need it. An independent review of the voluntary banking code has recently been completed, and the banks published the review’s recommendations and their response last week, on 22 November. That confirmed that the banks will strengthen and enhance the code in key areas, including the provision of more support for people in financial difficulty and the introduction of enhancements to responsible lending practices, involving the rigorous assessment of borrowers before loans are made, which I hope will help. In addition, the Government have made extensive changes to consumer credit legislation to strengthen consumer protection.
May I ask the Chancellor a question about what the Governor of the Bank of England has just told the Treasury Select Committee? He said that “the short-term outlook” for the economy is “uncomfortable” and “highly uncertain” with slowing growth and rising inflation. Is that assessment shared by the Chancellor and what impact does he think it will have on public borrowing this year?
The hon. Gentleman is right that the Governor spoke to the Treasury Committee this morning and said that there is continuing uncertainty in the financial markets—something that I have said on a number of occasions over the past few weeks. We do not yet know the full extent of that uncertainty, particularly in the United States, which is important because of the size of the US Government.
The Governor said today that he expects the economy to slow down, which is exactly what I said in the pre-Budget report when I revised downwards our growth expectations. The Governor also said today that inflation has come down since the peak in March this year, but the Monetary Policy Committee will keep that under review.
Perhaps the Chancellor could answer my question on borrowing when he gets up again. Will he also deal with the point that the Governor has announced an emergency five-week facility over the year-end because of what he calls
“the fragility in the banking system”?
Clearly, the tripartite arrangements set up by the Government did not work as expected in September, which the Government have explicitly acknowledged in setting up a review of those arrangements. What assurances can the Chancellor give the House now as we approach this difficult year-end period that measures are in place to ensure that the tripartite arrangements will work much better if there is a problem in a particular bank? Will we know who is in charge in a liquidity crisis?
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman asked about borrowing. I set out my forecasts in the pre-Budget report and I will keep the House updated. For the past 10 years borrowing generally has been very substantially lower than we have seen in the past.
I said in reply to an earlier question that the Governor has announced additional facilities to be put into the system, which is the right thing to do, especially having regard to the present uncertainty. The House will know that a number of banks are due to report, although the Governor made the point in his remarks this morning that what banks have been able to report has reassured the markets in respect of individual institutions. I assure the House that the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and the Treasury are keeping these things under constant review and that we will take whatever action is appropriate. Today’s announcement by the Bank of England, putting money into the system, will be welcomed. It is entirely the right thing to do. Indeed, the US Fed and the European Central Bank have taken similar action over the past few days.
The Government are committed to meeting their share of the EU renewables target and the energy White Paper set out a range of measures that we are taking forward, which will triple the amount of renewable energy in the UK. That includes—in direct response to my hon. Friend’s question—a planning reform Bill that will speed up issues, allowing both offshore and onshore wind farms to be brought to bear and to generate electricity in that renewable form much more quickly than would have been the case before the reforms.
Of all the problems that we face at the moment, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman could have come up with a better question than that.
Order. Topical questions must be quick.
Of course I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the wide range of tax issues that he wishes to raise, involving the way in which we support athletes and sports organisations in the United Kingdom. He will know, however, that in partnership with the lottery the Government have already committed themselves to significant funding for our elite athletes in particular in the run-up to the Olympic games, as well as support to encourage sportsmen and women to put something back into grass-roots sport and inspire young people.
As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will make a statement on the provisional local government settlement for the next three years very shortly, and my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to comment further then. However, I am sure that the Secretary of State and her colleagues have noted his points about damping. The challenge is to ensure that there is enough stability in the local government system, while at the same time making progress towards equity and conveying funds where the needs are greatest. That is the balance that must be struck.
In the comprehensive spending review, will the Chancellor ensure that there is a balance between money given to schools in rural areas and money given to schools in urban areas? Is he not disappointed that after 10 years, and despite all the money that the Government have invested in reading in schools, the school reading age figures are the worst ever?
Standards have improved, partly because—as was pointed out a few moments ago by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary—we have been increasing spending in schools. As for the balance of spending in rural and urban schools, it will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families. However, the hon. Lady must face the fact that if we are to improve skills, particularly reading skills, we must be prepared to put the necessary money into schools as well as reforming them. So far, the Conservatives show little appreciation of that.
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is a target of 400,000 apprenticeships in England; we have 250,000 today, and my hon. Friend’s constituency is getting its fair share. I also note that over the past 10 years of economic success enjoyed under this Government there has been a welcome increase in the number of people there who are economically active there, from 37,000 to 46,900.
Can the Chancellor put the record straight? Last week, during business questions, the Leader of the House said of the measures the Chancellor was taking in relation to Northern Rock:
“we are concerned to ensure that no Northern Rock shareholder, employee or saver loses out.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2007; Vol. 467, c. 1347.]
Is that actually the policy?
I set out our approach to Northern Rock in my statement on 19 November. I said then that the Government’s priorities were first to ensure that the money lent by the Bank of England was returned, secondly to ensure that we protected the interests of depositors, and thirdly to ensure the wider stability of the financial system. Those are and remain the Government’s objectives, and I think everyone is aware of that.
Is my hon. Friend aware that according to a recent report commissioned by the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, bogus self-employment in the construction industry is losing the Exchequer £2.5 billion? Will he take measures to deal with that?
The recent estimates that we have made of the money lost to the Exchequer from bogus self-employment in the construction industry is closer to £360 million, but I assure my hon. Friend that I am looking into what we can do on that difficult and complex area of construction.
For each pound that the public sector has lent to Northern Rock, how much specific security has the Bank of England taken for the taxpayer?
As I have said on many occasions, all the lending made by the Bank of England is secured against Northern Rock’s assets. That remains the case and, as I said a few moments ago in reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), one of my three central objectives in relation to getting a solution is to make sure that the money is repaid.
My right hon. Friend will be aware of the notorious NatWest Three’s decision yesterday to plead guilty to conspiring with Enron staff to defraud NatWest of $19 million. Does he agree that that vindicates the changes that the Government made to our extradition rules with the US, and that Opposition claims that—
Order. I do not want long supplementaries during topical questions.
Like many Members, I heard that news this morning on the radio, but I do not have the details so I cannot comment on them. I believe, however, that our country has the right extradition arrangements, and that we will always act in the best public interest.
Business of the House
May I ask the Leader of the House to give us the forthcoming business?
The business for the week commencing 3 December will be as follows:
Monday 3 December—Remaining stages of the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Bill.
Tuesday 4 December—It is expected that there will be an oral statement on the publication of the board of inquiry report into the Nimrod crash, followed by Opposition day [3rd allotted day]. There will be a debate entitled “Politicisation of the Civil Service”, followed by a debate on the performance of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Wednesday 5 December—It is expected that there will be an oral statement on the annual benefit uprating, followed by Estimates [1st allotted day]. There will be a debate on standards of conduct in public life, followed by a debate on benefits simplification. Details will be given in the Official Report. At 7 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 6 December—It is expected that there will be an oral statement on annual uprating of local authority allocations, followed by a topical debate: subject to be announced, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill, followed by a general debate on fisheries.
Friday 7 December—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 10 December will include:
Monday 10 December—Second Reading of the Planning Bill.
[Wednesday 5 December:
Public Administration Committee, “Ethics and Standards: The Regulation of Conduct in Public Life”—Fourth Report of Session 2006-07, HC 121-I.
Work and Pensions Committee, “Benefits Simplification” —Seventh Report of Session 2006-07, HC 436-I.]
I thank the right hon. and learned Lady for coming to the House and giving us the future business. I am only sorry that she refused my request that she come to the House earlier this week to make a statement on the sleaze scandal that engulfs her. This afternoon’s topical debate, chosen by the right hon. and learned Lady, is on the prospects for apprenticeships in England. Why are we not debating genuinely topical issues, such as party funding sleaze? [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Lady—[Interruption.]
Order. The right hon. Lady is still in order, but I caution her that she must stay in order and remember that we are talking about the business of next week.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall refer to a number of items of business for next week. On the issue I have just referred to, I say to the right hon. and learned Lady that she might be Labour party chairman, but she is also Leader of this House, and her first duty must be to Parliament and not to her party. May we have a statement on the political party funding Bill? During Labour’s deputy leadership campaign, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs declined a dodgy donation from Janet Kidd, after being warned by Baroness Jay that the donation was in fact from David Abrahams. At the same time, we now know—
Order. That is nothing to do with the business for next week. [Hon. Members: “It is.”] Order. Let me be the referee. I say that it is nothing to do with the business of next week, and I tell the right hon. Lady that she must move on from this subject. She has made her point. It is possible to overdo it, and she should move on—[Interruption.] Order. It does not help when others shout across the Chamber. I am trying to be the referee. Let us move on.
This morning, the Home Secretary said that the Government are considering changes to legislation as a result of the issues arising from the party funding debacle in the Labour party. If the Home Secretary was prepared to make that statement to the media, she should have been prepared to come to this House and answer our questions.
May we have a debate in Government time on the Government’s internal communications? We have had several issues over the past week in which it was clear that a Member of the House of Lords, Baroness Jay, who sits on the Government Benches, revealed certain information about party funding to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and to others. We now have working in the Leader of the House’s office someone who used to administer the 1000 club of donors to the Labour party. However, the Leader of the House says that none of those people ever asked her—
Order. The right hon. Lady may ask about communications, but let us not get into the detail of this matter. There will be other opportunities—[Interruption.] Order. We are talking about business questions. The right hon. Lady is experienced enough to know that she should ask for something to be debated and then move on. She should not go into the detail of this particular matter, because that is for another time.
Thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker. I try to be as helpful to the House as possible in giving explanations as to why debates on certain matters might be necessary. These matters do drive at the heart of Government—
That’s why we’re here.
Order. Do not shout at me, Mr. Stuart. As I have told the House before, I am guided by the rules that the House has given me, and those rules tell me that this is business questions. So do not tell me how to do my job. You would not know where to start.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are already questions about a planning application in Durham, and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has said that she has initiated a review of the issue of planning applications by third-party intermediaries. When will she make a statement to the House about the outcome of that review?
May we have a debate in Government time on the proper functioning of the ministerial code so that the Leader of the House can explain why, in the middle of September, she declared a donation to her deputy leadership campaign to the permanent secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs? With new questions emerging today about the role of Jon Mendelsohn, such a debate—[Interruption.]
Order. The right hon. Lady is in order, and hon. Members should be quiet.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Such a debate would enable the Leader of the House to say whether her campaign team was approached by Mr. Mendelsohn about whether they wanted to be put in touch with secret donors. There are several questions to be answered and the Leader of the House must make a full statement.
The Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and the Labour party treasurer are like the three wise monkeys. They see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. Quite simply, it won’t wash. The public know sleaze when they see it. The people know spin when they hear it, and the voters will know what to do when they have their say: they will get rid of this sleazy Labour Government.
The right hon. Lady’s questions give me the opportunity to tell the House what I have already said publicly. In respect of my deputy leadership campaign and donations to it, my campaign team and I acted at all times in good faith. We acted at all times within both the letter and the spirit of the law. We had three very clear rules: we would accept donations only from people we knew personally, whom members of the campaign team knew personally or who were existing donors. We checked every donor to ensure that they were on the electoral register as a permissible donor. When we discovered there was a problem—
Order. I remind the Leader of the House that I told the shadow Leader of the House that at times she was going beyond the business of the House. The right hon. and learned Lady is now going beyond the business of the House. She does not need to say those things—she is not discussing the business of the House.
Mr. Speaker, I am explaining why I am not seeking to give a statement to the House on the deputy leadership campaign finances, because at all times—
Order. The right hon. and learned Lady should not go into the detail of the matter because it is not the business for next week. She has said that she acted in good faith; she should now move on.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Mr. Speaker!”]—Mr. Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) can huff and puff but she will not blow this Leader of the House down—[Interruption.] I will deal with the business of the House.
The right hon. Lady asked about topical debates. The proposal came from the Modernisation Committee. The Government responded and we brought a Standing Order before the House to change the rules. The first topical debate, which was very well attended, was on immigration and was suggested by the right hon. Lady. The second topical debate was on climate change—a matter we all regard as important and topical. Today, we have a topical debate on apprenticeships. The right hon. Lady is perfectly entitled to propose subjects for topical debates, which we announce on Mondays, and I welcome her and other Members doing so. If they make proposals, I will consider them.
The right hon. Lady talked about the comments of the Home Secretary this morning, when my right hon. Friend was asked about party funding. The shadow Leader of the House and Members know that in the Queen’s Speech we announced our intention to legislate on party funding. The Liberal Democrats were prepared to co-operate in all-party talks, but unfortunately we have not been able to bring our conclusions to the House because the Conservatives walked away from the talks.
The right hon. Lady asked when the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will come to the House to report on her review. My right hon. Friend will do so when the review is concluded.
May we have a debate on the increases in military spending that have been authorised under the Government to assist our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to discuss the remarkable fact that last Tuesday General Sir Richard Dannatt and Colonel Richard Westley came to the House to brief 50 Members of both Houses on what they called the significant increases that had taken place, yet last Friday a group of superannuated military top brass, in a comfortable billet in the other place, opened a huge bombardment on the Government for doing the opposite?
There are Defence questions next Monday and no doubt my hon. Friend will have an opportunity to catch the Speaker’s eye to raise that point, especially as there are topical as well as pre-planned oral questions. As he raises an important point about defence spending, may I point out that the UK spends more on defence than any country in the world except the United States? The Conservatives were cutting defence spending. When we came in we increased it. Were the Defence Secretary to be making a statement on that point, I think he would be saying that while we have increased defence spending, the Tories were cutting it, and although they now say they want it increased they will not say by how much or as what percentage of GDP. They will not say where the money will come from and they will not say what would have to be cut to pay for it.
In recent days, we have had the opportunity to debate why the Government have put at risk millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money as a result of the first run on a bank in 100 years. We have also had a chance, today and previously, to debate why the Government have put millions of benefit recipients at risk of having their personal data lost through the incompetence of Revenue and Customs. However, given that events of recent days show that the interpretation of the law has put the Leader of the House’s own party at risk of being investigated yet again by the police—because of hundreds of thousands of pounds of dodgy donations—will she accept that, whatever her personal view, the topical debate for next week should be the funding of political parties and the restoration of public confidence? That is what the public want us to debate. Her party and ours—and I hope the Tories, as well—should debate that on the Floor of the House next week.
Secondly, although we have had a written statement, may we have an early opportunity to debate the Commonwealth conference and its outcomes? Many people in the House think that the Commonwealth is very important. There was not a prime ministerial statement—in our view, there should have been—but we could at least take the opportunity to hold an early debate on the talks in Uganda and their implications. Linked to that, it is World AIDS day this Saturday. AIDS and HIV are hugely important issues, not just in this country but across the world. Is the Leader of the House willing to take the initiative of holding a regular debate at about this time of year on what we can do both at home and abroad to reduce the incidence of AIDS and HIV, and the suffering of those who have contracted those infections?
Lastly, may we have an early debate on human rights abroad, particularly in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where we now learn that a woman who has been gang-raped is likely to be imprisoned and subject to the lash by a Government we entertained only the other day with a state visit to this country? That is not acceptable by any definition. This country needs the opportunity to debate the matter, when other countries that are meant to be our allies clearly do not understand what human rights really are.
The hon. Gentleman raised the question of Northern Rock. He knows that the Chancellor has made many statements on Northern Rock and has kept the House fully informed. He was answering questions at the Dispatch Box only a few moments ago. He will have emphasised, and I will re-emphasise, that our first consideration is the financial security of the banking system and its importance for this country. We must also have at the forefront of our mind the question of the financial security of those who have deposited savings in Northern Rock, and we must remember the many thousands of people who work for Northern Rock, which is an important institution. The hon. Gentleman can raise his concerns, but we have the right priorities at the front of our mind and we are keeping the House informed at all times, as we are in relation to the Revenue and Customs issue that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman raised a question about the interpretation of the law. It has been made clear to the House that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, there was a wrong registration, for which the general secretary of the Labour party has taken responsibility. He has resigned and we have established our own Labour party inquiry. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman that, as I said to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, I have acted in good faith and within the letter and spirit of the law at all times. However, I will take what he says as a representation for a topical debate next week.
The hon. Gentleman raised the serious question of floggings and whippings in Saudi Arabia. We are very clear in this country that we stand shoulder to shoulder with the international community in believing that floggings and whippings are in breach of human rights. They are a violation of human rights and we deplore them wherever they happen in the world.
The hon. Gentleman raised the important question of World AIDS day. Given the importance of international development and of tackling poor health and poverty throughout the world, the House, in addition to International Development questions, has regular debates on international development in not only this Chamber, but Westminster Hall. We will continue to do so.
In any discussions that we have on rules and regulations surrounding planning applications, may we take account of the terms of early-day motion 313, which I tabled on 19 November and has been signed by many hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)?
[That this House congratulates the North East Chamber of Commerce, The Journal newspaper, local politicians and all involved in the successful Go for Jobs campaign; thanks those transport Ministers who listened to the campaign and acted to bring about an end to restrictions on economic growth in the region caused by Article 14 Orders; and calls upon the Government to recognise that the excellent economic progress in the North East over the past 10 years will only be sustained and improved with a clear and comprehensive plan for the improvement of the region's major road and transport infrastructure.]
The early-day motion draws attention to the fact that a large part of the responsibility for convincing the Highways Agency to lift article 14 orders in the north-east, including in Durham, lies with The Journal newspaper and the North East chamber of commerce.
I will draw my hon. Friend’s comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
When it comes to selecting the topical debate for next week and subsequent weeks, will the right hon. and learned Lady consider either delegating that choice to Mr. Speaker, or making the choice by ballot, because it really is not appropriate that she herself should decide what is topical and what is not?
What is appropriate is for me, as Leader of the House, to do what the House has asked me to do under its Standing Orders. That is what I will do. The House will be aware that the Modernisation Committee, in its report “Revitalising the Chamber”, proposed topical debates and suggested that they should be
“announced by the Leader of the House”.
The Government responded to the report by saying that they would be
“announced by the Leader of the House following discussions”.
We are only—[Interruption.] Bear with me on this. This is the third week in which we have had a topical debate. We are genuinely concerned to make the debate in this House what Back Benchers want to debate and for it to be topical. This is only the third week, and we will review the system early in the new year. The House agreed, through the passing of its Standing Order, to the decision being made by the Leader of the House. The very first debate that I selected was on immigration, which was a subject chosen by not my ministerial colleagues, but the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, so I have been fair at all times. We will have to review the situation as it goes forward. I hope to be able to show that the House can be confident in the way in which I choose topical debates. However, if the House wants any amendments to the Standing Order, Members will have to propose them and we will have to reconsider the matter.
May we have an early debate on the way in which different agencies work together to tackle crime? The 101 service, which is based in Pontprennau in my constituency of Cardiff, North, is losing its grant from the Home Office next spring. The service has been an excellent example of the local authority, the police and other agencies working together. May we have a debate to discuss how such initiatives can continue?
I congratulate the 101 service on its important work. I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
Can the Leader of the House explain why she chose today’s topical debate, given that no one made representations for that subject? Will she ensure that next week’s topical debate deals with the loss of public confidence arising from what is happening in government at the moment, and the loss of confidence in parliamentary democracy as a result of what is going on in the Labour party, in particular?
What is going on in government at the moment is that the Government are getting on with running the country—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to suggest that we change the process by which we choose topical debates, or to make a proposal on what he considers to be topical, I suggest that he does so.
Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate next week in which the acting leader of the Lib Dems and the two candidates for the Lib Dem leadership can tell the House and the country when they are going to pay back the dodgy 2 million quid that they got from Michael Brown?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his point. We appreciate the fact that the Liberal Democrats have been prepared to engage in party talks about how we agree a consensus on the legislation for party funding reform that we proposed in our Queen’s Speech.
I seek to work closely and constructively with the right hon. and learned Lady in her capacity as Leader of the House. Will she give further consideration to the request from Conservative Members that the way in which topical debates are chosen be more transparent and democratic? If it is necessary for the Modernisation Committee to consider amendments to the current Standing Order, will she be willing to have such a discussion in the Modernisation Committee so that the Standing Order can be changed to ensure that the topical debate is just that—current and topical?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I understand the House’s concern and that it wants to get the process right to ensure that topical debates serve the purpose for which they were intended. However, the proposal was brought to the House only a few weeks ago. The House made a decision and I am carrying out my duties under the Standing Order. If hon. Members want to reconsider the situation and think that the Standing Order should be drawn differently and the process should be different, they can make a proposal. No one made such a proposal in the debate in which we considered the Standing Order, but if hon. Members want to reflect on the matter, they can bring a proposal forward. My only interest is ensuring that the House gets what it wants: topical debates.
My right hon. and learned Friend will be well aware of the case of Mrs. Gibbons, who is about to appear in court in Khartoum. This is a dreadful case and I hope that the Foreign Office is doing everything possible to get her early release. However, will my right hon. and learned Friend also reflect on the fact that it is absolutely vital that we go ahead with peace talks regarding the situation in Darfur? We must recognise that there are no representatives from the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement on the Government of national unity. These are difficult times in Sudan, so will the Government ensure that they continue to play a real part in trying to bring peace to that bedevilled land?
I pay tribute my hon. Friend’s role in the all-party group on Sudan. Let me first respond to his point on Gillian Gibbons. I can tell the House that the Foreign Secretary will be seeing the Sudanese ambassador this afternoon. The Government—and everyone, I am sure—want her free and back home, where she belongs, as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend mentioned the need for peace in Darfur. The Foreign Office wants to work with all the international community to ensure that we have peace in that terrible conflict situation.
Once we have had our proper topical debate on party funding, can some time be made available for a short debate on the operation of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency? The Leader of the House will be aware that agency staff have been in dispute with the management over pay since the earlier part of this year. The chief executive has now announced a major reorganisation aimed at cutting costs. There is real concern in the shipping industry that the agency will try to walk away from some of its responsibilities, such as ship inspection and seafarer certification. These are matters of concern to not only island and coastal communities, but the shipping industry, which earns something in the region of £322 a second for the UK. Surely that is something to which we can give some time.
I shall take that as a representation for a topical debate next week. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a debate on fisheries on Thursday. I know that that is not entirely on the point that he mentioned, but some of the issues that he is concerned about could be raised in that debate.
My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that in a previous Session, the Gambling Act 2005 went through the House, and part of that Act concerned the creation of 16 new casinos, large and small. My constituency was to have one of the large ones, but unfortunately that plan was scuppered in the other place by the Opposition. It would have meant significant regeneration for parts of Great Yarmouth and the 15 other areas. Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell us when the proposal will come back before the House, so that we can get on with the fantastic job that has been done over the past 10 years to regenerate one of the most deprived areas of the country?
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in support of the regeneration of the seaside town of Great Yarmouth. I will bring his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
I wonder whether the Leader of the House will provide an early statement on the role of the permanent secretary as the recipient of information. I understand that the right hon. and learned Lady told the Justice permanent secretary of a donation that she had received. It is not clear to me what permanent secretaries should do with such information, particularly when it is about party funding issues, and not general matters for Government.
The position on registration is as follows. There is a requirement to register donations above a certain limit with the Electoral Commission. Under the ministerial code, Ministers have to register any donations with the Cabinet Office. There is also the requirement to register in the Register of Members’ Interests. I registered all donations fully in accordance with all those three authorities. The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the permanent secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as did the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May)—I am sorry that I did not get a chance to reply to her point earlier. It is custom and practice for a Minister to make declarations to the permanent secretary in the Department in which they are—[Interruption]—or were. That was the Department in which I was at the time. In addition, I made full declarations in the Register of Members’ Interests, and to the Electoral Commission and the Cabinet Office. During the course of the campaign I had been at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so I provided the full information to the permanent secretary.
This Christmas in my constituency, the Ryhope allotment holders and pigeon men face eviction from their site by a mysterious company called Worktalent Ltd. The site contains the world’s only listed pigeon cree, or loft, as others may know it. It provides local families and children with education opportunities. Will my right hon. and learned Friend consider making time available to debate early-day motion 239, which is supported by Members on both sides of the House, so that the House can consider supporting the Ryhope pigeon men and getting the facilities back into the ownership of the community, where they belong?
[That this House supports the campaign by the Ryhope Allotment Holders to maintain and protect their environment which includes the world's only listed pigeon cree; calls upon the owners of Worktalent Ltd to withdraw their notice to terminate the lease; and believes that these historic allotments should be held in trust by the community and provide facilities for local children to enjoy and understand horticulture and the care of pigeons.]
The Government have a clear strong position on pigeon-fancying: we are wholly in favour of it. As Leader of the House, may I take the opportunity to congratulate and support the work of the Ryhope pigeon-fanciers?
I want to raise a point relating to the business of the House on the Order Paper. You know, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday, in answer to a question that I put, the Prime Minister said:
“There is not an iota of evidence to suggest that at any time until Saturday the Leader of the House knew that the donation was being given by a third party.”—[Official Report, 28 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 281.]
That question related specifically to donations made not to the right hon. and learned Lady but to the Government party. There is a topical debate today. The right hon. and learned Lady told the Modernisation Committee yesterday that there was no request whatever from anyone in the House that we discuss the question of apprenticeships. As the right hon. Lady is now at the Dispatch Box, will she take the decision to dump today’s business and remain at the Dispatch Box, and let us test the veracity of what the Prime Minister said?
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is so contemptuous of the important issue of apprenticeships. There are something like 600,000 vacancies in the economy, and if any person in the country cannot be employed, it is largely because they lack the skills that would enable them to fill those vacancies. I absolutely do not accept his argument that it is not topical and important to discuss apprenticeship, the manufacturing industry and apprenticeship in the House this afternoon. If he wants to make proposals on how we change the system of choosing topical debates, let him make them.
May we have an early debate on the future of zoos, particularly Edinburgh zoo, which is threatened by the Liberal Democrat council’s disgraceful decision to prevent the zoo from selling some land for development purposes—a decision that puts its future in jeopardy?
Edinburgh zoo is world-famous, and zoos are not only an important family day out, but important educational facilities. I know that my hon. Friend’s view is that it is typical of the Lib Dem council to be so out of touch with voters that it does not realise that.
In this place, we are all honourable Members, and the Leader of the House, above all, is meant to epitomise that. For the purposes of the business of the House next week, will she tell us her definition of the word “honour”?
Order. I call Michael Connarty.
Has my right hon. and learned Friend seen early-day motion 426, which I was asked to table by the European Scrutiny Committee, and which members of the Committee and I have signed? It asks for a specific debate on the European reform treaty before it is signed.
[That this House notes the recommendations from the European Scrutiny Committee of the House for a debate on the EU Reform Treaty before it is ratified; and calls for that debate to be arranged by the Government to allow the House to focus specifically on the Treaty.]
Our Prime Minister will sign the treaty on 19 December, but we have not had a debate in the House on a substantive motion relating to the reform treaty. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to realise that it is possible for the Government to lance the boil of the accusation that we are somehow signing the treaty in secret.
I do not think that there is anything secret about what the Government are doing on the European reform treaty. There was a report after the summit that agreed the treaty. There will be many days—days aplenty—of debate on the Floor of the House when we debate the EU reform treaty Bill referred to in the Queen’s Speech. My hon. Friend will know that under the guidance of the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, a review was held of how the House will undertake European scrutiny, to ensure that the good work that he does with his Committee can be improved.
During a recent statement on Northern Rock, the Chancellor published a consultation document called “Banking reform—protecting depositors”. The deadline for replies is 5 December, next week. However, as the Northern Rock problems have continued—not least because of the failure to disclose the letters from the Bank of England and the Financial Services Authority—there is now concern that the tripartite arrangement between the FSA, the Bank and the Treasury may not be the best model for overseeing and regulating the banking industry in this country. Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to make an early statement specifically on the tripartite arrangement between the Bank, the FSA and the Treasury, and will she ask him to put back the deadline for responses to the consultation, so that information in that statement can be fully considered and fed back in any replies?
The hon. Gentleman needs to come to the House a bit earlier if he wants to make that point, because the Chancellor of the Exchequer was just dealing with the issues that he mentions under topical questions. If the hon. Gentleman had caught the Speaker’s eye, no doubt he could have raised that point. The Chancellor has been very forthcoming, and will continue to be so.
As chair of the all-party Scottish football group, I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether we could have a debate on how genuine fans can access the people’s game. She may be aware that next year the European championship will not be shown in Scotland, but will be shown in England. Will she use her good offices and her influence with the appropriate Minister and Department to carry out an investigation into why the Scottish people are denied the opportunity to watch football, unless they have satellite television?
My hon. Friend raises an important issue that will be of concern to millions of people, and I will bring it to the attention of my ministerial colleagues.
In support of the remarks of the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the fact that the report produced by the Committee is unprecedented since 1972, because it is a unanimous expression of grave dissatisfaction with the way in which the Government have conducted themselves. With reference to the answer that the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), I regret to say that she is wrong. Under the requirements of the House, including Standing Orders, if the European Scrutiny Committee keeps a document under reserve, there is an obligation on the Government to hold a debate before that document is signed. Therefore it is imperative, and it is an obligation on the Government, to hold that debate before the Prime Minister signs the treaty.
The hon. Gentleman is a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. I hope he will make his proposals about how we can reform and improve the way in which we carry out European scrutiny in the House. Everybody would agree that it is important that the public have confidence that the House is scrutinising European legislation properly. We do not think that that is the case at present, and in the next couple of months we will introduce proposals, which we will discuss with all parties, to reform and improve European scrutiny.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
We do not have points of order at this stage. After the statement the hon. Gentleman can raise a point of order.
Does the Leader of the House recall that the Foreign Secretary promised in July, both in the House and in writing, that there would be a debate on Zimbabwe in this Session before Christmas? Given that next weekend Mugabe is coming to a European Union-African Union conference—our Prime Minister should be congratulated on saying firmly that he will not be there—is this not an opportunity for us to debate why the European Union seems to be cancelling the sanction that refused Mugabe travel in order to allow him to attend the conference? Would that not be a wonderful subject for the topical debate next Thursday?
I will take my hon. Friend’s proposal as the subject of a topical debate. She has a long-standing concern about the matter and has raised it many times. I know that it is of concern to all Members of the House.
Will the Leader of the House find time to debate the situation in Bangladesh, where not only have 3,000 people died, but with rising sea levels and climate change, up to 30 million people could be at risk in future? The debate would be appreciated by the House and by the Bangladeshi community. There was a 30-minute debate last night, for which no Department for International Development Minister was available. I should like to see the Secretary of State for International Development taking his place in that debate.
As the hon. Gentleman says, there was a debate in the House last night on the important subject of Bangladesh, and I know that many hon. Members attended and intervened. We will keep under review whether adequate time is being made available or whether information should be provided on Government action and the situation in Bangladesh.
Reverting to next Thursday’s business and the topical debate that she announced, the right hon. and learned Lady might have noticed a growing appetite among those on the Opposition Benches for a more transparent process for selection. She explained that if we are to change the process, we will have to vote so to do, but in the meantime would it not enhance confidence in the selection process if she published the list of topics from which she made her choice?
I would like to knock on the head the idea that somehow we have come up with a proposal about how this should be dealt with, and the Opposition have an alternative agenda, which we are trying to suppress. That is not the case. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to make proposals about how the debates should change, of course we will listen to them. These are early days for topical debates. We want to make sure that they go well.
It is almost a year and a half since Farepak went into liquidation, and people are facing a second Christmas without a resolution. My understanding is that a report has been prepared by the Government. May we have an assurance from the Leader of the House that it will be published quickly, and that we will have a proper debate in the House about the recommendations in the report?
Congratulate him on his award, Harriet.
I am sure the whole House would wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) on his award. He makes a serious point about Farepak. He will know that it is being investigated under the Companies Act. We are very concerned that the situation should never occur again. He has done important work by continually raising the subject.
How on earth can we, or the public, have confidence in debates in the House and in European scrutiny unless there is a full and appropriate debate in the House before the Prime Minister goes to sign the treaty? Never mind the proposals for much-needed improvements in European scrutiny. Will the Leader of the House deal with the point that it would be a breach of the existing arrangements for scrutiny unless we have a debate in the House before the Prime Minister takes that action?
We have numerous debates on European issues and numerous opportunities to raise them. If the hon. Gentleman wants to propose that as a subject to be debated on the Adjournment or in Westminster Hall, to add to all the hours that are available to discuss Europe, he is welcome to do so. As I have made clear to the House, and make clear again for the benefit of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead, we will reform the way in which the European Scrutiny Committee works.
We must move on to the next business.
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman cannot raise a point of order until after the statement. He has been here a while, has he not?
Remploy
I wish to make a statement on the modernisation of Remploy. Since Remploy was founded in 1945, it has played a central role in the lives of thousands of disabled men and women by providing supported employment for those who need it and, increasingly, by placing others in mainstream employment.
Both as a local MP and as a Minister, I have for the past 17 years worked closely with and supported Remploy and, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Remploy workers will continue to have my full support. May I record the grateful thanks of the House for the diligence and commitment of my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People.
Of course, the world has developed dramatically since the end of the second world war, not least in how the aspirations and expectations of disabled people have changed, and changed for the better. The vast majority want jobs in mainstream employment, and that is the Government’s priority. That is why we extended the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That is why we have been transforming the support that we give to disabled people, moving away from a system that abandons people to the margins to one that helps them to realise their potential.
That is why we spent £66 million last year on the Workstep programme to support 17,000 disabled people. That is why we spent £62 million on access to work, to help 24,000 people. These programmes are already helping disabled people to take their place in an inclusive society. That is why we are introducing the employment and support allowance, which will replace incapacity benefit next autumn. That is why we are extending pathways to work across the country by April next year, offering tailored support to help people on incapacity benefit back into work. And that is why last year, Remploy’s employment services division placed 5,000 disabled people in mainstream employment, for the first time outstripping the number employed by the factory network.
We have helped more disabled people into jobs than ever before. For example, since 2001 the new deal for disabled people has helped over 150,000 into work. None the less, there remains a vital role for supported employment, providing a chance to work for thousands of disabled people who might not otherwise be immediately ready for mainstream work. That has been a central part of Remploy’s work since it was founded, but increasingly, Remploy has struggled to fulfil this role effectively.
Low-wage, low-skill competition from countries like China and the EU accession states has put Remploy factories under enormous pressure. In turn, Remploy has failed to move adequately into higher-value, higher-skill work. Losses have spiralled, and Remploy’s ability to support disabled people has been put at risk. Change is therefore essential for Remploy’s 83 factories across the country, and the 5,000 people whom they employ.
Following the National Audit Office’s report in 2005 and the independent report by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Dr. Stephen Duckworth of Disability Matters last summer, Ministers asked Remploy to develop a new five-year restructuring plan. This was to modernise the business, avoid compulsory redundancy for Remploy’s disabled workers, support substantially larger numbers of disabled people into mainstream work, and stay within a funding envelope of a £555 million taxpayer subsidy over five years, to ensure that escalating costs do not put at risk funding for other Department for Work and Pensions programmes for disabled people.
The reality is that without modernisation Remploy deficits would obliterate our other programmes to help disabled people into mainstream work. With no change, in five years’ time Remploy would require £171 million a year on current trends. That would be £60 million over the £111 million funding envelope, which represents nearly the entire current annual Workstep budget.
In May 2007, Remploy made a proposal, for consultation with the trade unions, to close or merge 43 of the 83 Remploy factories. When I took over as Secretary of State a month later, however, it was clear that national and local management had not exhausted procurement opportunities to maintain the maximum number of Remploy sites. There was also a huge gulf between Remploy management and the trade unions, and the likelihood of destructive confrontation.
In August I therefore asked Roger Poole, a former assistant general secretary of Unison, to act as the independent chairman of fresh negotiations, and I want to record my thanks for the way in which he managed to achieve real dialogue and progress. Although there was no agreement on factory closures, there was significant common ground for the first time. There was agreement on the £555 million funding subsidy, on the quadrupling to 20,000 the number of disabled people Remploy would help into mainstream work, on significant cuts in management jobs and costs, on more efficient working practices, and on the vital importance of generating more public sector contracts—and, in consequence, the need for fewer factory closures.
In September I reaffirmed Government policy on Remploy: that everyone should do their utmost to get a negotiated outcome; that there would be no factory closures without ministerial agreement; and that all public authorities should be encouraged to take advantage of European procurement rules allowing contracts to be reserved for supported businesses. I also reaffirmed, as I do again today, that there would be no compulsory redundancies for Remploy’s disabled workers and that they would retain the protection of Remploy’s terms and conditions, including—uniquely for workers facing plant closures or transfers—their salaries and final salary pensions. Both workers and management now need certainty to end the insecurity and worry for Remploy employees and their families and to allow Remploy management to begin the radical changes that we all recognise are needed.
The final proposals that I am announcing today represent the best package for Remploy’s disabled employees in those difficult circumstances. Copies of the modernisation plan are available in the Vote Office, and a letter with agreed proposals to the trade unions has been deposited in the Library. There will be 15 fewer factory closures, with 55 factories remaining open and 11 merging—down from 32 closures to 17. The sales target for public procurement will increase to £461 million over five years, up from £298 million since the company’s proposals in May. That is a huge and challenging 130 per cent. increase over the current rate of sales of £200 million. There will be a total cost saving of £59 million from around 25 per cent. fewer managers, changes in working practices and reductions in non-wage costs.
Last week I had productive discussions with the leaders of the GMB, Unite and Community, joined by Remploy chairman Ian Russell, and I pay tribute to Ian Russell for his energy and commitment to get the best for Remploy workers. As a result, we have reached further agreements to protect Remploy’s future and its workers. New skills in public procurement will be brought in to ensure that its marketing and sales effort is targeted appropriately. Appropriate employment advice will be available to all disabled employees whose factories are closing. Remploy will provide a travel-to-work package wherever necessary, where employees transfer as a result of mergers. Furthermore, Remploy has been contacted by third parties interested in keeping some form of production or training at six of the sites due for closure—Lydney, Glasgow Hillington, St. Helens, Treforest, Ystradgynlais and Brynamman. At four other sites—Mansfield, Pinxton, Plymouth and York—there is the possibility of staff transfers to nearby plants, most of which are local authority-supported.
I know there will be disappointment that we are unable to keep even more factories open, but the reality is that it is simply not viable. For those sites, including those mentioned above, this is my message: if management, trade unions, MPs and others come up with a credible option involving a takeover or transfer, we will, of course, co-operate, and Remploy will help to facilitate. However, time is very short. The new funding envelope starts in four months’ time—from 1 April 2008.
We have managed to keep open 55 sites only on the basis of very stretching procurement targets and a tough forward plan. It will be up to everyone with an interest in Remploy—Government, management, trade unions, local MPs and other political representatives— to pull together to ensure that those factories meet their ambitious targets, otherwise they, too, could be put at risk.
The proposals that I have presented today are both realistic about the challenges facing Remploy and ambitious for the future. The plan makes some difficult choices, and many hon. Members wish that the circumstances were different, but we are where we are. What is now vital is that everyone concentrates their efforts on making the new Remploy a success. There will be a top-to-bottom restructuring and reskilling of Remploy. The plan will deliver a new beginning for Remploy requiring a radically new approach across the entire operation, which must include better management and better union relations. Last week, I agreed with union leaders that the modernisation and procurement plan will be properly monitored to ensure that it remains on course, so that Remploy can look to the future with a degree of confidence not enjoyed for some years—the people that it was set up to serve deserve no less. I commend this statement to the House.
I start by thanking the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of the statement.
Today’s announcement will come as a massive disappointment for thousands of Remploy workers, some of whom are in my constituency at the factory in Leatherhead, which is to be closed as a result of today’s news. I suspect that it is also a massive disappointment for hon. Members on both sides of the House who have campaigned in support of the factories threatened with closures. I do not imagine that many Labour Members entered Parliament expecting to be part of a Government who would take tough decisions such as this.
We know and understand the nature of the challenge that Remploy faces, and I know that its staff do as well. I have visited several of the threatened factories, which have hard-working and committed work forces who are very anxious about the future. No one on either side of the House would disagree with the objective of helping as many people as possible with disabilities back into mainstream employment. We all want to live in a society where people with disabilities are not outsiders. If the proposals are about achieving that goal, then they are worthy of support. However, there is one huge proviso: they have to work.
I understand the financial issues behind these changes and the importance of the Government offering a wide range of programmes to get people with disabilities into mainstream employment. However, we must not forget the interests of the people whose lives will be turned upside down by today’s announcement. The terms on offer to Remploy staff may be generous—their pay and benefits are protected—but no one will benefit if some of them end up being paid to sit at home.
I know that there are anxieties among the staff about whether the company can really deliver its promises on job placements. When I visited one factory, its workers had just been told by head office that there were nearly 100 vacancies open to them locally, but their local employment placement specialists in Remploy said that the actual number was only one third of that figure, so there is still some confusion. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what work he has done to reassure himself, and hon. Members, that Remploy is really capable of placing all the people who are being displaced by this announcement in proper mainstream jobs?
At the time of the Labour party conference, on the day that the unions were threatening to embarrass Ministers about the proposed closures and to call strike action, the Secretary of State responded—arguably he bought them off—with the promise of a review. The Government are good at using reviews as a way of burying bad news these days, but they are not so good at doing the actual burying. Is it not true that precious little has changed since the announcement of that review? Is it not true that even the factories not in the immediate closure programme now face financial targets so stringent that in reality they have little prospect of meeting them? Why did it take the threat of strike action to get the Government to consider seriously the issue of public procurement? I appreciate that the Secretary of State is new to his job, so it may well be that that question should be directed at his predecessor. Why did it take so long, however, before the issue was addressed in detail?
Will the Secretary of State say how much extra potential Remploy business he has identified since his announcement in September? What practical commitments have the Government made to the company to enable it to continue to identify potential additional business in future? What progress has he made in encouraging public bodies to adopt the permitted rules that would allow them to give Remploy and similar organisations a ring-fenced position in the procurement process?
I agree with the Secretary of State that everyone now needs to work together to ensure that the remaining factories have a strong future. Let me assure Remploy and its employees that the next Conservative Government will continue the process of identifying additional potential procurement opportunities for them and the public sector work force.
No one can have spoken to Remploy employees in the past few months without gaining the clear impression that from their perspective the whole process could and should have been handled more carefully and sensitively. If the process really works and all the employees are placed successfully in mainstream work, it will prove to be right and justified. The challenge now is for Remploy to prove that it can keep its promises to those employees.
I agree that Remploy’s challenge now is to keep its promises; the challenge for Ministers and the whole House is to make sure that that happens. Of course it is disappointing—I am disappointed—that even one factory has to close and that others are having to merge. However, that is the reality that we face. I urge the hon. Gentleman to join every other Member with an interest in Remploy in helping to make sure that the maximum amount of public and private procurement is levered in, and that, in respect of factories that are closing—I have said that 10 might—other options are explored with the help of the relevant local Members.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that we might forget about the future of Remploy employees; that is precisely why we have built protections into their future in respect of maintaining their pensions and pay. We are very aware of the need to remember them and to make sure that they have the maximum support. I do not know about his information, but there are 660,000 job vacancies across the United Kingdom in every constituency, and they include vacancies at Remploy factories. Remploy has a successful record, which, as a result of the agreement and plan, will improve to quadruple the number—at present 5,000—that it gets into mainstream jobs. We have built in protection to monitor the situation and make sure that we check whether the jobs are sustainable. That is a result of last week’s meetings, which I have described.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that nothing had changed since the Labour conference, but a lot has. We have had agreement with the trade unions on a range of different measures, although they have not accepted the closures and, like us all, are disappointed about them. There has been a lot of agreement with trade union leaders, which is why we have managed to move forward. We have also identified 15 sites that will now not be closed; others may have a future under a badge different from Remploy’s.
The hon. Gentleman asked what procurement activity I had undertaken. I have discussed that matter with a range of Cabinet colleagues, and I have written to every one of them to say that we want the maximum procurement to be levered in from Whitehall and to go to Remploy. That has had the personal backing of the Prime Minister at a Cabinet meeting. We have also contacted the Scottish and Welsh Assembly Governments about the issue and encouraged all local MPs to do the same.
As in so many other instances, after listening to the hon. Gentleman I do not know what his alternative policy is. In the absence of one, I suggest that he backs our programme.
I, too, am grateful to the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement, which will mean that more Remploy factories can stay open, through better marketing and procurement of Remploy products. That is welcome. The Liberal Democrats agree that promoting mainstream employment must be the right approach to deliver independent living and that expanding Remploy’s successful inter-work programmes is the right thing to do.
Will the Secretary of State confirm—I think that he did in his statement—that the expansion of Remploy’s Interwork programme to help 20,000 disabled people into mainstream work will still go ahead? He made it clear in his statement and in his letter to Paul Kenny that the plan is based on “extremely ambitious” targets. Although it is a nice surprise to hear about extreme ambition from the Department for Work and Pensions, will the Secretary of State say where the priority will lie if the targets cannot be met? Will it be retaining the factories announced today or helping more disabled people into mainstream work? If he cannot answer that question, will he confirm that he will make available additional resources to Remploy if it needs them to meet its target of getting 20,000 disabled people into work every year?
Today’s statement will have a devastating effect on the current Remploy work force in the factories to be closed. In areas such as north Wales, there are real local concerns about the local proposals. It seems that there is still room for local flexibility in applying the plans. What process will the Secretary of State put in place to make sure that local concerns can still be heard?
Remploy employees have endured a long period of uncertainty, which has caused real stress. Over what time scale will the closures be phased, and how long will the affected employees have to find alternative employment? Does Remploy have the additional capacity to provide the counselling and skills-focused help needed by workers in the closure areas?
Finally, will the Secretary of State put the Government’s money where his mouth is on the procurement proposals? Although his Department has made good use of Remploy services and products, answers that I have received to written questions show that the Wales Office, the Scotland Office, the Northern Ireland Office, the former Department for Education and Skills, the former Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Cabinet Office, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the former Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Treasury did not make any use whatever of Remploy products and services. What is the Secretary of State doing to encourage his Cabinet colleagues in those Departments to make use of Remploy services and products and guarantee that their Departments play a role in helping Remploy meet its procurement targets?
Let me express my gratitude for the hon. Gentleman’s support for the primary objective of putting more disabled workers into mainstream employment and of sustaining a viable, supported employment network.
The hon. Gentleman asked about what other initiatives I am taking in respect of other Departments. Officials and trade union representatives are going to each Department to see what is possible. A range of Ministers has helped with that, and we are going to take it forward. He asked whether the 20,000 disabled people—that represents a quadrupling of the number that Remploy will help into mainstream work—will be at risk if the ambitious plan is not realised. The answer is no: that part of Remploy’s funding is protected. We have already committed an average of more than £111 million per year of the £550 million to subsidise Remploy for the future. There will also be modernisation funding of more than £100 million to help, particularly with the transition; substantial amounts of taxpayers’ money is rightly going to help some of our most vulnerable disabled employees.
Of course I will respond to local concerns. The hon. Gentleman will have noted that I mentioned both Brynamman and Ystradgynlais, proposals for which have been put to me. The hon. Members for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) have already made their own plans and we are happy to talk to them about the future. However, I do not want to give false optimism; my announcements today are based on a credible plan, but a very ambitious one. Of course, we will co-operate with anybody who wants to do so about alternative options.
The hon. Gentleman asked about time scales. The proposals will kick in pretty well immediately from 1 December. However, the new funding and arrangements have to come in by the end of March, when the £555 million cost envelope over five years begins.
Finally, let me point out what would happen if we did not take these steps. By the end of the five-year plan, we would be looking at funding Remploy with an additional £60 million. That is equivalent to a substantial part of our specialist disability programmes—Workstep, access to work, work preparation and job introduction. To find that money, we would need to deprive almost 20,000 disabled people of support from those programmes. There are tough choices involved. However, I believe that this plan is the best available, and I will work with anybody to improve it.
Is the Secretary of State aware, as I am sure he is, that anybody who visits a Remploy factory is drawn to the immediate conclusion that it is a place where people go to work who would otherwise never get to work—some of them, although not all—because it is part of an extended family? Those people are also members of a trade union, which is as important today as it has always been. He said that he is going to talk to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and all these others, but will he go further? An instruction needs to go out to every Remploy management. Most of them are pathetic, as he knows. They have to be told to meet local authorities such as Derbyshire county council, Nottinghamshire county council and others in the area to try to save the two factories at Pinxton and Mansfield. If he will take those extra steps, I am sure that they will be able to come up with even more procurement, and the result will probably be to save another 200, 300 or however many hundred jobs.
I very much appreciate and echo my hon. Friend’s passionate support for Remploy workers. I first met Remploy workers some 17 years ago in my constituency. The Neath plant has subsequently merged and moved to Baglan, but I work closely with it. He rightly says that there is an extended family atmosphere, which is very precious, and that they are trade union organised, which he, like me, welcomes. As I said, we have already been in touch with the Administrations in Scotland and Wales, who have promised to do what they can, but every local authority, health trust, health authority and local education authority should look to do what it can. I cannot promise that the Mansfield and Pinxton factories will remain Remploy-badged factories, but there is interest in at least some of the staff transferring, and I will consider all credible options. However, I must not mislead anybody. It will be tough to keep the existing 55 sites open, and we must all concentrate on reaching that ambitious target. If there are other options for those sites, such as being transferred or taken over, we will do our best to help to achieve that.
The Secretary of State did not make clear the basis on which it was decided to save some factories from closure but not others. Having visited the factory in Bradford, I can tell him that many people there are very concerned at the prospect of its closing. A lot of them have worked there for many years, and while some may be able to find jobs in mainstream employment, very many will not, and those who do so may not stay for long. I hope that he will think again about the Bradford factory, which serves a very important social purpose for those people. None of them wants to sit at home and get their money—they go there because they want to do something worth while.
I appreciate the case that the hon. Gentleman makes on behalf of the Bradford site, as I do the case made by every hon. Member on behalf of their local site. We explored every available opportunity, as did Remploy. In the process of doing so, we managed to save an additional 15 factories, and there have already been discussions involving 10 of the others due for closure. I can only repeat that if a credible option comes up we will help to support it, and I urge everybody to get behind making this plan work.
Perhaps I should now deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). Yes, I do want managers to go out and do what they can. As I said, that has not been happening properly or with sufficient vigour and expertise over the years, which is why we have ended up where we are. Nevertheless, I cannot promise the Bradford site any other future than the one that I have announced to the House.
My right hon. Friend mentioned factories several times in his statement. He will be aware that I have already made several representations on behalf of a place of employment in Fforestfach in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), where 30 of my constituents work. It is an anomaly, in that it is not a factory but a shared service centre. Unfortunately, it does not appear on any of the closure lists or other lists that have been published. My constituents are very concerned about their jobs. They have been doing a sterling job in purchasing, paying bills, auditing and accounting. I would like reassurance on their behalf that they will be given the same consideration as those in the factories, because their jobs are equally important.
I agree with my hon. Friend. She has made strong representations to me and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) about the shared service centre. She will see from the documentation that it is scheduled for merger, with some of the staff being transferred to the nearby site at Baglan. We will look closely at her representations, but I cannot promise any different outcome at this stage, as we had the discussions only a couple of days ago.
I am especially concerned about young adults with learning difficulties. Does the Secretary of State agree that they need and deserve access to training and employment, because they are vulnerable adults and it is vital for their self-esteem and self-confidence that they get this help? He said a lot about physically disabled adults, but what is there in the measures that he announced specifically to assist young adults with learning difficulties who need this assistance so badly?
Our objective is to continue to work with young adults with stress or other forms of perhaps more serious mental illness, and those with a range of learning difficulties, to move them off incapacity benefit into mainstream jobs. We have been pretty successful in doing that. The hon. Gentleman is right that they need help, especially the young adults. That is why, earlier this week, we announced new programmes to support under-25s in moving off incapacity benefit—the stock of under-25s rather than those recently applying—and to reduce the numbers on incapacity benefit to significantly below what they are even now. He will know that over the past four years we have reversed the trend that started under the Conservative Government, when the numbers on incapacity benefit trebled, by reducing those numbers. In the past four years, some 120,000 people have come off incapacity benefit—the first time that this has been turned around. More and more people will do so, including those with stress, a mental illness or some form of learning disability.
This will be a very sad day in Plymouth, which has one of the factories listed for closure, where 35 people currently work. I understand that 21 of those people are looking for alternative employment, and I hope that they will soon join the 93 who have been found employment locally since April this year in local Remploy services alone; there are a lot of other help services in Plymouth. It has already been agreed that four or five of them will go to Pluss—a sheltered workshop that has, by diversifying, done exactly what Remploy should have been doing all these years. May I invite my right hon. Friend, along with my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, to visit Pluss, to give assurances that there will be employment and a place for all those 35 people, and to see how that award-winning factory operates so that he can draw on that experience when he works with Remploy to take these matters forward?
My hon. Friend has been a fantastic champion of disabled people in her constituency and I pay tribute to the way in which she has worked with the staff concerned to try to offer people a new future; she has been hugely successful so far. We will continue to work together to ensure that there is a future for others affected. The case of Pluss is a model example of what should have been possible a long time ago, and I will look to see whether I can visit, because I have heard a lot about it from her, as has my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled people. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) is right—it is a good example of some of the things that Remploy should have done a long time ago.
I was pleased to hear mention of Brynamman and Ystradgynlais in the statement made by the Secretary of State. The hon. Members for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) and for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), myself, the unions, the local authorities and the work force have been working for a successful conclusion, knowing that the status quo cannot survive. Key to the issue is the Vector furniture product; without that, those two manufacturing units cannot survive. Will the Secretary of State assure me that he will intervene on Remploy to ensure that the Vector furniture product can remain with those two very effective work forces?
I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said, and also for the work of Joyce Watson, the local Welsh Assembly Member. She came to see me last Friday to discuss a plan that she had talked about with the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) to establish whether European convergence funding could be put to a different use, perhaps involving some sort of training facility on the Brynamman site. We are also looking at what can be done on the Ystradgynlais site, but I cannot hold out any prospect of retaining the existing furniture work distributed between those sites, because that would put at risk the Baglan site—a new, state-of-the-art facility that I opened a few years ago. The matter needs more work as a result of the problems that have built up, but let us see what we can do in respect of those two sites outside the Remploy network.
I thank my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled people for the work that they have done to address this difficult issue. Will my right hon. Friend advise the House on whether mainstream work remains the prime objective of employment policy on disabled people and on whether supported employment should be seen, wherever possible, as a stepping stone to mainstream employment, rather than an end in itself?
I agree with my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to the work that he has done throughout the country and in the House to advocate increased rights and opportunities for disabled people. He has talked to me about his ideas and they are admirable. I agree that mainstream employment is a major objective of the whole of Government policy towards disabled people, and we want to see supported employment where it can be a stepping stone into mainstream employment. We are putting huge resources into Remploy over the next five years—more than £0.5 billion pounds—and there will be a vital role for supported employment. When it comes to supporting people in getting into mainstream work, Remploy’s employment services and factory network must work hand in hand.
As the other Member in this House who represents Brynamman, I am extremely disappointed with the Secretary of State’s statement. Why is it that the factories in Brynamman and Ystradgynlais, which produce a profitable product line, should be closed to make up for a shortfall in orders elsewhere in the Remploy group? The offer of the transfer of ownership is an empty one unless a product line comes with it, because a factory without a product line is simply not a credible business option.
I do not accept that the two factories are viable, because they would not be candidates for closure otherwise. We have gone through all the different criteria that we have applied and the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong: those are not viable factories. I wish that they were, as I have constituents who work at both of them and they have come to talk to me about them. I know the plants well; I have visited both. However, instead of adopting the stance that he has, I would urge him to work for a future for the site in his constituency, as many other hon. Members have done, including my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy). The best future is to ensure that this plan works and to see what we can do with the existing sites and their workers.
I should like to express my disappointment at my right hon. Friend’s response to the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) and for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price), and to beg him to reconsider the idea of the product. While Baglan is ideally situated to provide a training centre that can do everything we want to get people into other employment, there is no doubt that if we have a product that is successful and is making a profit, in an isolated valley community, it does not make any sense for a third party to take over without having the option of making that product. I would like my right hon. Friend to reconsider what he has said and see whether there is any way in which that product can be taken over if we find a viable third-party group that can do so.
I am afraid that I have to disappoint my hon. Friend. To tell it absolutely straight, I have constituents in both of these sites; I know them, and I tried my very best to save them both. But no Remploy site anywhere in the network is profitable. The network needs a huge subsidy, as it has had in the past, which is right, because we are talking about supported employment. I wish it were otherwise, but those two sites are not viable. If we tried to keep them open, they would pull down the rest of the network, including those working in the furniture area at Baglan as well. Having had Ystradgynlais and Brynamman in mind, which are remote from the Baglan site up at the top of the valleys, we have made additional transport cost support available where necessary, and I hope that that will help. I hope that my hon. Friend noted that.
We agree with the principle that as many people as possible need to be encouraged into mainstream work, but can the right hon. Gentleman reassure me that support will be in place for vulnerable people who may have been working at factories for a very long time and for whom closure or even merger, which represents longer journey times, will pose significant difficulties? Will he give some more detail on the specifics of skills and counselling advice that will be given to those people?
Yes, I can confirm that those important points are built into our plan, and they were reinforced in detailed discussions we had with union leaders last week.
May I say to my right hon. Friend that many of us appreciate that he has had a most difficult job in dealing with this situation? I thank him and my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for disabled persons’ rights for the sheer sensitivity that they have applied to this extremely difficult situation. It is important that my right hon. Friend continues to work with management, and Mr. Russell has made a substantial contribution; in many ways, it is a great pity that he was not there earlier. The role of the trade union movement is extremely important because it understands that for many people, working in Remploy is therapeutic.
Finally, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) on his outstanding representations, which have meant that the Lanarkshire factory has been retained and that training will take place? Given the support of the Lanarkshire community for Remploy—I am sure that such support is present elsewhere—we welcome that decision in what is an extremely difficult situation.
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s support and for what he said; the situation has been very difficult. I think that we have the best possible outcome, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy) on the work that he has done in his constituency. That is a model of what needs to be done in such circumstances, and I urge others with local concerns to look at it.
The Remploy factory on the west side of Edinburgh at South Gyle is not down for closure. Will the Secretary of State take on some concerns expressed to me by employees there? One is that all Remploy factories struggle to be viable because of the central, top-heavy management costs that have been distributed throughout the entire network. Secondly, while there is a push to get many employees into mainstream employment, many struggle. For example, those who use sign language can do a mainstream job, but are isolated if they are the only such person in their workplace.
The hon. Gentleman makes some good points, to which we are extremely sensitive. He will have noted that I said that management costs are to be reduced by a quarter, which is a pretty substantial amount. I also said that I wanted better management. The new chairman, Ian Russell, who was appointed earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), has proven to be outstanding. He has won the confidence of trade unions so they feel that they have someone who is driving forward the best possible plan. We wish him all the best.
Will the Secretary of State say what decision he has made on the Remploy factory in the Wirral? Will he clarify the conditions for workers moving from secure employment to the private sector? Are we right to conclude that they will never suffer pay cuts or cuts in pension entitlement throughout their working lives? Although everyone in the House wants the Government’s programme to be a success, sometimes successes are more difficult to achieve than we realise at the outset. Will the Secretary of State come back to the House in a year’s time so that we can consider how performance has matched his high hopes?
The conditions that Remploy workers who are unable to continue to work for the company will enjoy are unique, as my right hon. Friend has noted, and final salary pensions and salaries will be maintained. We have built in a monitoring mechanism. I am certainly happy to report on where we are, in writing or orally, in a year’s time.
There is a full list—I am not sure what the factory is called. [Interruption.] Perhaps it is Wallasey? There is a full list in the Vote Office. I am trying to search for the correct one. It is not called the Wirral.
It might be Birkenhead, or Wallasey.
Birkenhead is one of the factories that is to merge. There is a CCU unit there.
May I first congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his statement? It was an extremely difficult statement to make, as hon. Members and hundreds of Remploy employees today had the final confirmation that their factory is to close. I am in the fortunate position that the factory in my constituency, the Aberdeen Remploy, is to be saved. My right hon. Friend did not read out the list, but I hope that it still is.
My right hon. Friend made a number of references to changes in management. That is crucial. One of the most serious criticisms of the way in which Remploy has been run concerns the quality of the management. Management needs not only to be cut, but to be improved, too. Extremely difficult targets have been set, and I for one do not want to be here in three or four years’ time after we have gone through another similar process.
Remploy management have been particularly deficient in centralised purchasing, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) mentioned. Since we launched the campaign to save our Remploy factory in Aberdeen, we have encountered a huge response from the local community and local businesses. “Local, local, local” is a strong marketing tool.
I very much welcome what my hon. Friend has said, and the work that he has put in to get new work for his factory, including from the oil industry. Aberdeen will remain open, partly because of the work that he has done.
Let me clarify my earlier point for my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), because there is a long list of factories involved. Birkenhead CCU will merge, but Birkenhead factory will stay open.
I am glad to hear that the Treforest site is now off the list for immediate closure. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about that? Would it not be a better idea for Treforest to become a social enterprise, perhaps with help from the Welsh Assembly? It could move into a new factory and not work under the badge of Remploy, but retain its contracts. Instead of making table tops in south Wales, taking them all the way to Sheffield to put legs on them and then bringing them back down to Wales to sell them, would it not make sense to make a complete unit in south Wales? What on earth has Remploy been doing, buying tables from Complexia which is not a disabled company?
I understand my hon. Friend’s points. Treforest is on the list for closure and will remain so. I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that I have had expressions of interest from two Welsh Assembly Government Ministers—the local Assembly Member, Jane Davidson, and the deputy Minister concerned, Leighton Andrews—to consider whether the Assembly Government can help to give Treforest a viable future. As my hon. Friend says, it will operate under a badge other than Remploy. If that is possible, we will facilitate it if we can.
I appreciate the endeavours of the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), who has responsibility for disabled people. However, I am greatly disappointed by the decision on the Barnsley factory, which is in my constituency. It is listed as a merger with Sheffield but it is in effect a closure because Sheffield is a good distance from Barnsley and many people from that factory will not travel to Sheffield. In Barnsley, we have a high level of people on incapacity benefit and probably a larger number of disabled people than any other metropolitan borough. There will be little chance of finding those people jobs in the mainstream. Will the Secretary of State consider reviewing whether factories should be kept open in areas such as Barnsley, which have high levels of incapacity benefit and disability? In such situations, there is a need to keep supported employment. Will he review his decision? The factory in Barnsley has started to improve, and I ask him to give us the opportunity into the next year to see whether we can build on that improvement and retain the factory.
I am afraid that, much as I would like to, I cannot give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. He came to see me a few days ago with colleagues. Much as I would like to keep the Barnsley factory open, along with the others that are due for closure, to do so would pull the whole lot down. That is the problem. In the Jobcentre Plus district that encompasses Barnsley, 580 disabled people secured employment in the first six months of 2006-07. It is possible to see a future for his constituents, and I hope that we can work together to achieve that.
In Sheffield, we have an excellent modern Remploy factory that has not been threatened with closure, but my concern whenever I have been to visit is that it does not appear to be working at anything like full capacity. The complaint that is heard over and over again from trade union reps and employees is about the several multi-tiered levels of management and the lack of focus in management on getting in high-quality, high-value work. The Secretary of State has given assurances on a national level about reductions to management costs and refocusing. Will he assure us that there will also be local discussions between management and trade unions, so that there can be agreement between them to work together to ensure that we get in the extra work that is needed to keep the proposals on course?
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. To visit a factory such as his—many others are like it—that does not work at its full capacity and where working practices have not been of the current age, to put it diplomatically, has often been as much of a disappointment to the employers as it has to everybody else. He will see in the detail that Remploy will be restructured and reskilled from top to bottom, led from the top by the chairman, Ian Russell. We are determined to get a modern, viable Remploy network, of which the Sheffield factory will be an important part.
I thank my right hon. Friend for listening to the powerful arguments put forward by the work force at the Ashington factory and lifting the threat of closure. That has been welcomed by the whole work force. The Ashington factory is the only facility of its type in Northumberland. However, although it is an excellent site, it is much underused. Would my right hon. Friend consider expanding the Ashington site and making it a centre of excellence for training, allowing not only disabled people but able-bodied people and apprentices to use the facilities?
I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said and for his constructive suggestion. I agree that it has been a source of frustration. I visited his constituency, although not the site, earlier this year. He lobbied me most strongly on the matter. It is a source of frustration that the maximum potential for Remploy sites has not been developed. Ashington is a good example, as the training dimension could be so developed.
It would be churlish not to accept that there has been significant progress under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial team, not forgetting the terrific campaigning work carried out by the trade unions. However, Glasgow’s Hillington factory is still under threat of closure. If there are talks with third parties, will my right hon. Friend allow reasonable time for those discussions to come to fruition? If and when the factory is closed, will he assure those who want to stay in the Remploy family that they will be allowed to transfer to other Remploy sites that are close at hand?
Yes, of course, if it is feasible for transfers to take place, they will. I applaud my hon. Friend for his work to secure alternative opportunities, about which he is in discussion. That is why I mentioned his site of Glasgow Hillington, for which we are looking to provide a secure future. I want to place on record, as my hon. Friend has, my appreciation of the work of the trade union movement. It has made life difficult for the Government, but that is its job, and it got a much better plan out of it. The trade unions did not get all they wanted—I did not get all I want; it is not possible—but a much better outcome was secured through the pressure that they applied.
I thank the Secretary of State for the decision to keep the Wrexham factory—the only such factory in north Wales—open, in response to the tremendous local campaign that Councillor David Bithell led. Union representatives Dennis Morgan and Ray Lonsdale also played an important part. I am anxious about the local stakeholder groups, which I want to be taken forward as powerfully as possible. May I therefore invite the Secretary of State to chair the first meeting of the Wrexham local stakeholder group, of which I expect to be a member, as soon as possible?
I appreciate the work that my hon. Friend, local councillors and others that he named have done, which helped persuade me that the Wrexham plant has a viable future simply because it has so much energy behind it. However, it is still important to lever in more public and private procurement, and I know that my hon. Friend will do his best through the stakeholder group to achieve that, and we will support him. I cannot promise to chair the group’s first meeting. If I visit his constituency, as I have done from time to time, I will see what I can do, but I do not want to mislead him about that.
The reason that my right hon. Friend has not heard from me or my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) is that we are not yet in a position to approach him with a project for the Woolwich factory. In our discussions, it has come to light that the cost of the site to the freeholder is £24,000 a year, but it shows up as £140,000 in the Remploy budget for Woolwich. There is more to investigate regarding the Woolwich factory. Remploy has said that it will lay on a bus to take workers from Woolwich to Dagenham, which will take approximately an hour on top of the journey that factory workers have to make to Woolwich to get the bus. The cost is likely to exceed the costs of the site, as described by the freeholder. We believe that more is to be had from the site and that more investigation is needed. May I urge my right hon. Friend to give us a little more time so that we can approach him with a project to salvage the site, if possible? It looks as though it will cost Remploy more to effect its plans than to keep the site open.
I do not think that that is right, but I shall obviously look into the figures that my hon. Friend cited. As in other areas, 300 disabled people were placed in mainstream work in the Jobcentre Plus district that includes his constituency and the Woolwich plant in the first six months of last year. There are opportunities out there, and we will work with those who do not want to move to the alternative site with which Woolwich is merging. I know, because my hon. Friend has spoken to me about it, that the time problem is serious. If there is an alternative—if the local borough council or anyone else can help provide an alternative for the site, albeit not under a Remploy badge—of course, we want to help facilitate that.
Points of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should be very grateful for your guidance. During business questions today, I suggested to the Leader of the House that topical debates should be chosen not by her but by Mr. Speaker or by ballot. There is a good precedent for both. Although she seemed to understand my point and be reasonably sympathetic to it, she appeared to labour under the misapprehension that the House had placed upon her the responsibility for choosing the debate. I have had a chance to cast only a cursory look over Standing Orders, but that does not appear to be the case. I should be grateful if you could confirm that.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that there was an exchange of views about topical questions at business questions. It is the case that the Leader of the House sought to give the House the impression that she was interpreting and implementing new Standing Order No. 24A, which the House passed on 25 October. During the debate on the modernisation of the House, the Leader of the House said in response to the shadow Leader of the House:
“She asks for the subject of the topical debate to be announced by the Leader of the House following consultation with business managers. As I have stated, that is indeed what we envisage happening, and that would include consultations through the usual channels.”
In winding up the debate, the Deputy Leader of the House reaffirmed:
“We are completely open to Back Benchers nominating subjects, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the House pointed out that they could do so at business questions.”—[Official Report, 25 October 2007; Vol. 465, c. 448-98.]
It has become apparent in the past few days that consultation did not take place about today’s debate. Indeed, the Leader of the House confirmed yesterday to the Modernisation Committee that no requests were submitted to her for today’s debate, while the usual channels submitted two questions.
My point is simply that the Standing Order contains no indication that the Leader of the House is responsible for the choice of subject rather than its announcement. In fact, the Standing Order does not even state that she is responsible for announcing the subject. Would you be kind enough to ask Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of Standing Orders, to invite the Leader of the House to visit him to discuss the proper manner in which Standing Order No. 24A, which was passed on 25 October, should be implemented?
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have some sympathy with the idea that Back Benchers should have some say in the subjects for the topical debates. However, surely there should be some formal structure for determining the will of Back Benchers, rather than simply having a group of Members turn up at business questions and hijack it for some political purpose. That will do the House and the country no service and we need to formalise the process so that Back Benchers have some input into it.
I said on the occasion of the first topical debate that we were on something of a voyage of discovery. We certainly have not finished travelling yet. Topical debates are an experiment and the Standing Order to which hon. Members referred is possibly open to more than one interpretation. It states:
“A Minister of the Crown may indicate that proceedings on a motion… are to be conducted as a topical debate.”
That is perhaps capable of interpretation in more than one manner. It depends on the emphasis one places on “may” and “indicate”.
The House has decided on the experiment. It is perhaps a pity—I say that as a reflection, not a reproof—that more hon. Members were not in the House when the Modernisation Committee’s report was debated. Many matters were covered and clearly not everyone was au fait with the implications of what was being done.
I am sure that Mr. Speaker has heard the earlier exchanges, as has the Leader of the House, and that they will read what has just been said in the Official Report. However, I am sure that minds are not closed to examination of the way in which the experiment should develop. It is not cast in stone. The Leader of the House is currently “indicating” and, hopefully, in view of what has been said, more consultation will take place about the final choice that is made. However, at the moment, as the Standing Order is written, it appears to be a rightful decision for her. I hope that that is helpful.
Perhaps Sir Patrick wishes to pursue the point.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your invitation and for your comments. However, from what I saw and from what you said, there appears to be no obligation on the Leader of the House to make the choice. I believe that it would fulfil the requirements of hon. Members of all parties if the choice were delegated from the usual channels and the House either vested the responsibility in Mr. Speaker or held a ballot.
The hon. Gentleman has put that on the record and I am sure that those matters will be further considered. Other aspects of the topical debate may also need to be considered as we proceed.
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During business questions, the Leader of the House made a number of assertions that on reflection she may wish to withdraw. The matter relates to a potential breach by the Leader of House, and possibly also by the Prime Minister, in respect of a resolution of the House of 17 November 1998.
The position is that the European Scrutiny Committee has been clear in calling for a substantive debate on the reform treaty before its signing by the Prime Minister in mid-December. That has also been backed up by early-day motion 426, tabled by the Chairman of the Committee and others, including me, which has been corrected, with the word “ratify” being supplanted by the word “signing”.
The situation in respect of that resolution is unprecedented since at least 1972. In a nutshell, the position is that:
“No Minister of the Crown”—
which includes the Prime Minister—
“should give agreement in the Council”
or in the European Council
“to any proposal for European Community legislation…which is still subject to scrutiny”.
The resolution also says that reference to an agreement to a proposal includes an agreement to a programme, plan or recommendation for European Community legislation, as well as a political agreement.
I should be grateful for a written formal ruling, I presume from Mr. Speaker himself, with respect to this question and to paragraphs (3) and (4) of the resolution, which deal with the basis on which the Minister may give agreement. It is not necessary for me to go through them in detail, but there are provisions that give the Minister the right to give agreement in certain circumstances with which I think the Prime Minister would find it impossible to comply. In those circumstances, I should be grateful if we could have a formal ruling on the matter, which goes to the heart of the manner in which the Government have produced the treaty and are proposing to sign it and how the United Kingdom is to be governed, and raises matters that are reminiscent of the difficulties that arose as far back as the 17th century, when we had similar problems to do with how this country was to be governed.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish this matter were taken seriously, because the last report from the Cabinet Office about breaches of scrutiny showed that not one breach of scrutiny in the last quarter was deliberate—in other words, a Minister knowing that they would breach a scrutiny reserve and doing so in contempt of our Committee. It would be terrible if the Prime Minister went to the next European Council and signed the reform treaty when there was a scrutiny reserve on it. The matter is easily dealt with, because it would mean a debate, I hope on the Floor of the House, on the reform treaty before the Prime Minister gets into that embarrassing situation.
I am not sure that I can help the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) on what happened in the 17th century, or that he would expect me to be able to do that today. Paragraph (4) of the resolution to which he referred allows Ministers to give agreement prior to the conclusion of the process of scrutiny for “special reasons” and provides that Ministers should explain those reasons “at the first opportunity”. That is the procedural cover for the situation. It is a matter of political judgment as to how important a measure is in a particular instance. That is not something on which the Chair can rule, but as the Standing Orders are written, it is possible in those circumstances for a Minister to agree the particular matter.
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I deliberately did not go into the particular point that you raised because I thought it could be dealt with at a later stage. However, in the light of what you have just said, I still request a formal ruling from the Speaker on the subject, because the provisions contained on page 947 of “Erskine May” elaborate on your point as follows:
“In practice this is usually when the minister believes that an agreement on a text which is in the interests of the United Kingdom might be threatened by his imposition of a United Kingdom parliamentary scrutiny reserve.”
I think that it would be impossible for the Prime Minister to discharge his duties under those criteria.
I think that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to draw the Chair into a political argument on that particular point. It still is a matter of interpretation on the words that he uses as to whether the Minister, be it the Prime Minister or any other Minister of the Crown, believes that something is of sufficient importance. That is a matter of interpretation and it will be a matter of political debate. However, Mr. Speaker’s attention will be drawn to this exchange. If the matter needs to be clarified or refined beyond what I have said in trying to assist the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker will communicate with him.
Topical Debate
Apprenticeships (England)
In the light of the difficulties that arose yesterday—no time limit was imposed when there appeared to be a paucity of speakers, but when the debate began there was suddenly a sufficiency of speakers, creating a difficulty on the time limit situation—more careful examination of the Standing Order suggests that while the announcement of a time limit would ideally be made earlier in the day when, under perfect circumstances, all hon. Members who wish to speak in a debate have let Mr. Speaker know of their desire, it is still possible for one to be announced at the start of a debate. I realise that this gives no notice to Back Benchers, but it may be wise under the circumstances for me to impose a time limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches. I hope that we shall thereby be able to have a complete debate.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of future prospects for apprenticeships in England.
The Government are determined to build on the foundations laid over the past 10 years to accelerate the growth of apprenticeships over the next decade.
Does the Minister share my surprise that this debate is a topical debate, notwithstanding the fact that no Member of the House applied for it to be the topical debate for this week?
I think that what is available for our young people by way of vocational qualifications, employment, education and training is topical in families and schools up and down country. I also think that the debate is topical given that the Prime Minister has made announcements on apprenticeships in the past few days. On that basis, I am pleased to be in the House to make this statement.
On the matter of topicality, will the Minister join me in congratulating the apprentices of Babcock Marine, to whom I hope to present some awards tonight and who are the first such to graduate since the company was taken over? They have a great interest in knowing that the future of apprenticeships is secure, unlike during the 1990s, when there were no apprenticeships at the dockyard, the biggest employer in the west country.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course I congratulate the young people in her constituency on all that they have achieved.
I start with a quotation from Sir Terry Leahy, the chief executive of Tesco:
“I am a huge fan of apprenticeships because I have seen what they can do for individuals and also what they have done for my business.”
Many top business leaders in this country share that conviction. It has been my great privilege over the past few months to travel the country visiting employers and apprenticeships, from meeting sheet metal workers in Huddersfield and seeing the recent launch of the media apprenticeships with the BBC in Manchester to seeing apprenticeships last week in Birmingham and talking to electricians in that area this week. Apprenticeships are vital and employers say that they are important to their productivity.
I accept the popularity of apprenticeships among employers. Does the Minister accept, however, that they are not popular enough among employees, given that only about 40 per cent. of people complete their apprenticeship? If we could be much more rigorous in defining what constitutes an apprenticeship, they would become more popular, by which I mean that more than 50 per cent. of people would complete them.
The hon. Gentleman is wrong: the completion rate for apprenticeships is now 63 per cent. It has gone up from the dire situation in which there was little or no inspection for apprenticeships and in which less than a quarter of them were completed. When the hon. Gentleman speaks to employers, he will find that they say that there are always many more young people than they can provide apprenticeships for.
Order. It is easier if the Minister can make a quick decision as to whom among these many Members he wishes to call. Perhaps Mr. Hayes would like to intervene on him first, and Mr. Sheridan later.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister is right to say that the number of completions has risen from a very low base. Will he give us some comparative data? What, for example, is the completion rate for apprenticeships in Germany?
The hon. Gentleman will know that Germany has a long-standing position on apprenticeships relative to the rest of the world. He will also know that we have been building apprenticeships up, given that there were only 75,000 in this country in 1997. He is not comparing like with like, because in the end, apprenticeships depend on investment from the Government and on employers being willing to take them up on that basis. That had not been the case here in the past.
The Minister referred earlier to the BBC. This ambitious plan applies only to England, and not to Scotland. How will that impact on Government Departments, public bodies such as the BBC, and Ministry of Defence establishments in which people wish to apply for an apprenticeship?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will know that we are in constant dialogue on this matter; I have spoken several times to my opposite number in Scotland. This is a devolved issue, but across the UK we can all share the desire to see an increase in the number of apprenticeships. I shall talk later about the fact that there is huge scope to increase apprenticeships in the public sector. That will include the armed services as well as the BBC and others.
I should like to make some progress before I give way again.
I should like to put on record the success of our British world skills team in Shizuoka, Japan, just a few weeks ago. We came 11th out of 46, and we won four medals and nine medallions of excellence. I pay tribute to Gary Tuddenham, who won the cabinet-making gold medal for this country. Of course, he was an apprentice. I also recognise that many hon. Members were apprentices, including Mr. Speaker, who was a sheet metal working apprentice. I hope that all hon. Members will support the drive to increase apprenticeships. That should be a cross-party desire.
Apprenticeships contribute to the development of a fairer, more inclusive society. In a fast-changing world, they help people to acquire the skills that will secure a better future for themselves and their children. In that sense, the economic rationale for them is clear. More than that, however, I believe that their ethos contributes strongly to people’s personal development. In my maiden speech, I argued that we must invest in people’s souls as well as in their skills. Apprenticeships do more than equip people for work; they equip them for life.
To be an apprentice is to be mentored, to learn through real-life experience and to build relationships with those who have something to pass on. Apprenticeships provide the structure, direction and routine that are sometimes missing from the lives of young people. At a time when people worry about the shortage of role models for young people, and about the risk that young men, in particular, will drift into gangs, the positive relationships that an apprenticeship provides can clearly work wonders.
Does the Minister agree that the kind of apprenticeships that he is describing, which are work based and have a mentor with the specific skill that the apprentice is being trained in, are by far the most popular, and the most likely to lead to employment? What percentage of all apprenticeships are work based?
We are talking about an increase of 250,000 apprenticeships at this time, and they are work based. I suspect that behind the hon. Lady’s question is the idea of programme apprenticeships, of which there are more than 24,000. Those apprenticeships are important as well, and I would encourage Opposition Members to look carefully at them before condemning them. There is a group of young people who do not yet quite meet the standard necessary to take up an apprenticeship. The opportunity to do a programme apprenticeship for a year, often based in a college, will often enable them to get to a place where they can take up an apprenticeship, so they are worth while. They are not included within our overall figures.
The hon. Gentleman must be straightforward about this. When Professor Alison Fuller gave evidence to the House of Lords inquiry into apprenticeships recently, she said that many apprenticeships had
“zero involvement from the employer”.
Was she telling the truth?
As I have said, there are 24,580 programme apprenticeships, which are college based and provide young people with a route into apprenticeships. In that figure is included young apprenticeships—for young people in schools—and pre-apprenticeships, which prepare young people for taking up an apprenticeship. Business and industry are saying that they want to be in schools so that they can expose young people below the age of 16 to those sectors. That is all worth while, notwithstanding our desire to grow apprenticeships.
On the question of popularity, I should like to tell the House that young people in my constituency have benefited from a 95 per cent. increase in the number of apprenticeships in the past 12 months. That is very significant; it is one of the highest rates in the country. Does the Minister think that there might be a role for apprenticeships in dealing with some of the issues that we have just been considering in the statement on the future of Remploy factories? Will he comment on the possibility of providing apprenticeships for some of the younger disabled people who are currently working in Remploy factories? Also, does he think that the present rate of take-up of apprenticeships would be as easy to continue if there were no increase in the participation age in education and training to 18 years? The Opposition are arguing for no change—
Order. Interventions should be short at all times, but especially in topical debates. The Minister’s time is being taken up.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on that contribution. I share his praise for everyone in the learning and training sector in his constituency for getting the rate up. He is absolutely right: following the Leitch report, my Department and the Department for Work and Pensions have the key job of looking again at employability and skills together. That must include programmes and appropriate apprenticeships for those with disabilities, and we will continue to do that. If I may, I will answer his last question later in my speech.
I went through an apprenticeship scheme in the 1960s, along with 250 other colleagues. We were there to supply fitters, electricians, blacksmiths and welders to the mines of south-east Northumberland. Before we even set foot in the workplace, we had a year’s full-time education and training. That is a good model to continue for the future.
Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the case better than anyone for the benefit of vocational training in schools as well as in the workplace.
Alongside the new diplomas, apprenticeships will give a real quality choice for young people and adults who want to learn. Whether they are taking a full-time diploma in college or an apprenticeship while at work, the future of vocational learning is, on that basis, a bright one. Apprenticeships will make a major contribution when we raise the school and training leaving age to 18 so that all young people can stay in education and training and work towards gaining the skills they need to progress into either higher education or employment.
In July we published “World Class Skills,” setting out how we plan to improve the skills of our people in order to compete successfully in the world economy. Apprenticeships are a major part of our strategy and we are committed to providing 400,000 apprenticeship places in England as our contribution to the overall aim of having 500,000 apprenticeships in the UK by 2020.
Does my hon. Friend agree that in order to fill our skills gap, we need to take very seriously the potential of young women in our society? What concrete steps will he take, together with his colleagues in the Department for Children, Schools and Families, to ensure that all our careers advisers and those in a position to offer advice to young people offer a full range of opportunities, particularly to young women, and to encourage them to think about taking apprenticeships in areas that they would not traditionally consider as suitable for them?
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that contribution. She is right that if young people are to take up apprenticeships, they need the right advice and guidance in schools. Legislation published today and the forthcoming education and skills Bill show that we—along with Connexions and independent advice and guidance counsellors—are trying to ensure that there is a standard across the country and that women in particular can gain access to that advice. I would also say to my hon. Friend that it is important that our sector skills councils are there, driving this agenda in their respective sectors. I was very pleased to see that Construction Skills is absolutely determined through its sector skill agreement to see more women take up opportunities in construction. We are seeing more women coming forward in that sector, although often a bit later, which is why adult apprenticeships are so important in order to allow people to take up those opportunities. That issue cuts to the heart of the apprenticeship review.
What are the Government going to do about the fact that many young people do not have the necessary English and maths even to achieve a level 2 apprenticeship qualification?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that a key component of apprenticeships is basic skills within the context of apprenticeships. We also hope to come forward with plans to develop functional skills within the context of our review, so that we can continue to develop skills in vocational training, whether it be through the diploma or apprenticeships.
There are currently around 250,000 apprentices. When we came to power, the figure had dropped alarmingly to barely 75,000. The country's proud tradition of apprenticeship had almost been wiped out by the previous Government; we were determined to reverse that, and we have done so. More than 130,000 employers already offer apprenticeships. We have also had great success in increasing the quality of apprenticeships.
Talking about the opportunities for employers to participate in providing more apprenticeships, does the Minister agree that one measure of the success of developing sites for the Olympics, for the Thames Gateway and for many other regeneration programmes will be the number of apprenticeship opportunities created by them and how they add to the skills base of this country’s work force?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was at the Olympic site a few months ago and was pleased to be able to announce an extra £5 million from the Learning and Skills Council precisely to ensure that young people and adults can secure apprenticeships and benefit from the need to acquire the necessary skills in their particular areas. Indeed, I met some young people who had gained apprenticeships in carpentry and joinery in preparation for the Olympics. My hon. Friend has thus raised a very good point. We also needed to improve the quality of apprenticeships, which we have done by ensuring quality inspection and by seeing poorer providers moved out of the system.
The comprehensive spending review has provided us with more funds to invest in apprenticeships. The total funding for adult skills and apprenticeships will rise to a record £5.3 billion a year by 2011. The Learning and Skills Council budget for the next three years has set aside enough funds to increase the number of apprenticeships in England in line with what the Prime Minister has said.
I am not giving way because I am running out of time.
Increasing the number of apprenticeships will not be an easy task. To give just one example, in London alone, despite the cohort of 100,000 young people, there are only about 5,000 apprenticeships. Indeed north London, which includes my own constituency, has the lowest proportion of apprenticeships in the country. We have set up a review in order to meet employers’ needs, to look again at the bureaucracy associated with apprenticeships and to assess important issues of equality and diversity as apprenticeships are taken forward. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already set out the fact that we need a matching service; following pilots, we will bring it forward.
The essential key to our ambition is to grow the number of apprenticeships—not just for the sake of charity, but because it is beneficial to the country, beneficial to business, beneficial to the young people who take up these opportunities and because it goes to the heart of what community is. It is all about passing learning and skills on to the next generation so that we can be a powerhouse in the world into the future.
Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House of the tight rules that apply to Front-Bench speeches. They have one minute added for every intervention up to 10 or up to six in the case of the Liberal Democrat spokesman. If Back Benchers take all those opportunities, they will be reducing the number of Members who can speak in the debate by about three.
It is for that reason, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I will not take many interventions, as I do not want to deprive Back Benchers of their chance to speak.
We welcome the Government’s announcement of a draft Bill on apprenticeships in this parliamentary Session. Frankly, however, if the Prime Minister were serving an apprenticeship on leadership, the report on his progress so far would suggest that he had neither the aptitude nor the skills for the job. Nevertheless, we support the aspiration of increasing the number of apprentices in training, but let us be clear that these announcements follow 10 years of the Government’s failing to develop an attractive pathway for vocational learning.
I have to say that we have heard so much of all these aspirations before. Back in 1997, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about the significance and importance of apprenticeships. In his 1998 Budget speech, he said that he needed to deal with the skills shortages that were holding back our economy. He said much the same in 1999—that we needed to make a “quantum leap” in skills. In 2001, he spoke again of our duty to invest in skills—and so on and so forth. Yet, as the Government’s own report on skills, commissioned by the then Chancellor and completed by Lord Leitch, said, after 10 years of Labour Government, Britain is suffering from a fundamental skills shortage—some would call it a skills crisis—which is having a dramatic effect on our competitiveness.
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who is a very important man.
That is very kind. I think I am right in saying that there are sectors and age ranges where the drop-out rate is as high as 60 per cent. Does my hon. Friend believe that we could deal with it if we were much more rigorous about what constituted an apprenticeship and what accreditation was provided or might not that start to constrain some of the available opportunities?
My hon. Friend, with his usual perspicacity, has hit on the very nub of the weakness in the Minister’s argument. He is right in two respects. The Minister shakes his head, but he is wrong to do so. He knows that completion rates in, for instance, retail and health care are well below average: indeed, fewer than 50 per cent. of apprentices in those areas complete their apprenticeships.
My hon. Friend is also right in suggesting that what the Government have done over those 10 years is re-badge a whole batch of training which, while worth while of its kind, is not what most people regard as an apprenticeship. In the eyes of most members of the public and, indeed, most Members of Parliament, an apprentice is an eager young learner acquiring, at the side of an experienced craftsman, a key competence that is likely to increase his or her employability and to fill a market need. Sadly, many apprenticeships do not now meet that definition, as I shall explain in my short but stimulating peroration.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I will give way once more.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his very good definition of apprenticeship. Could he find any models of master-craftsman Ministers in the Government to whom all the struggling Ministers could look? I am rather challenged to think who might fulfil that role.
I do not want to digress, but I think that most of the mentors might be drawn from the ranks of former senior Ministers on our side of the Chamber, although I do not want to flatter my right hon. Friend unduly.
Out of fairness and for the sake of equity, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I am most grateful.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is taking an historical perspective. Does he agree that one of the reasons why there was such a serious decline in training and apprenticeships is the massive de-industrialisation that took place during the Conservative years, along with the widespread privatisation of the public sector, which used to provide tens of thousands of apprenticeships for our people? Does he also agree that we can now expand the public sector and develop direct employment as a basis for further training and apprenticeships in the future?
The hon. Gentleman has a noble record of concern and knowledge in this field. I know that he is committed to the principle of apprenticeships that teach and test real competences, but I have no intention of debating the ancient history which I know is his preoccupation. What can be truthfully said is that Governments of all political persuasions, and parties in this Chamber of all colours, have a key responsibility to ensure that those young people and others who engage in apprenticeships study matters that increase their employability. That should be the acid test of apprenticeships. When someone signs up as an apprentice, the least that we owe that person is to ensure that when he or she has completed the course successfully, he or she will be employable. If we do not do so we shall be cheating apprentices, and cheating employers as well.
I am sorry that my hon. Friend did not return to the past, because I am, perhaps, one of the few people in the Chamber who have taken people on and given them what I think we would call an apprenticeship. The key to it was that they worked in the business, went away for professional training, and were given a job at the end of it. Some actually became directors of my company. That is what apprenticeship is about: it is not about some fuzzy training that does not involve any part in the business.
I too was a business man, although altogether less distinguished than my hon. Friend. Like him, I found that training of that kind was both efficacious for business and right for the people being trained. It gives people a sense of accomplishment based on the recognition that they have gained something of use in terms of their future employability.
When I embarked on my description of apprenticeships, the Minister began to look disappointed. I do not want to disappoint him in turn, but he is not half as disappointed as the young people aged between 16 and 24—more than a million of them—who are not in education, employment or training, and he is not half as disappointed as those of us here, in all parties, who regard the fact that that number has grown by 15 per cent. since his party came to office as one of the biggest indictments of the Government over the past 10 years. So many shattered dreams; so many broken lives. Reducing the number of NEETs depends on making training more attractive to both potential learners and potential employers.
I do not want to make what I think should be a cross-party debate too partisan, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have reduced long-term unemployment and scrapped the youth training scheme which left many of my contemporaries on the dole for months and years on end. I would add that rounding up the figures to include students on gap years does the hon. Gentleman’s case little service.
The Minister really must learn to be more precise about numbers. The 15 per cent. figure that I gave is based on exactly the same measurement as was used in 1997. It included gap-year students then, and it includes them now. It is true that not every single one of those NEETs is a hapless and helpless young person desperately seeking a job or training, but I estimate that a very large proportion of those 1 million young people fall into that category, and that is not good enough. It is not good enough for the Government, and it is not good enough for the House. We all have a responsibility, and I share the view that this is something that we should all take very seriously indeed.
My hon. Friend has spoken of the skills crisis. Has he thought about the fact that a number of skills—particularly creative skills such as thatching and gold-leaf signage—are in danger of dying out? He will recall that when York Minster burnt down, the whole country had to be scoured to find enough stonemasons and wood-carvers. Those may be creative skills that do not occur to some young people, but could be offered to them at careers advice level.
My hon. Friend has heard me speak many times about the need to elevate craft, and to recognise that the accomplishments delivered through the acquisition of craft skills are not only important in terms of the difference that they make to individual lives but important to all our lives, for the very reasons that she gave. I hope that—in the non-partisan way that the Minister described—the debate will stimulate a real recognition of the significance and value of craft: the beginning of an understanding that it is not only academic prowess that matters, and that for millions of individual Britons, and for the whole of Britain, craft skills count.
We fear that imposing a target of the kind described by the Minister for the number of apprenticeships—a target that owes more to the desire to make a political impact than to the measurement of economic need—will cause apprenticeship numbers to grow at the expense of quality. Moreover, we fear that that has been the case over the past 10 years. Earlier I defined most people’s understanding of an apprenticeship as the teaching and testing of real craft competences, but the reality has become very different. Many apprenticeships are virtual affairs. As the adult learning inspectorate warned in its final days—and in the light of its warning, it is perhaps no surprise that it was abolished—
“some apprentices can potentially achieve the full requirements of the apprenticeship framework without having to set foot in a workplace”.
I have already mentioned the evidence given to the inquiry carried out recently by the House of Lords, which suggested that many apprenticeships featured
“zero involvement from the employer”.
The inquiry was also told that in reality apprenticeships could mean simulated work-based provision rather than training in a real workplace. The Government may claim that the number of apprenticeships has increased since 1997, but, as the House of Lords inquiry reported,
“most of this increase has been as a result of converting government-supported programmes of work-based learning into apprenticeship.”
All that training is below level 3—the accepted level of apprenticeship before 1997—and the reality is that much has been a glorified rebranding exercise.
That is not to say that some—much, indeed—of this training does not have value. I acknowledge what the Under-Secretary said: it might be good—or virtuous, even—to provide training that allows people, particularly NEETs, to gain their first experience of such education and to return to learning. After all, many such people have been cheated the first time round, because of the paucity of their experience at school.
As the Minister for Schools and Learners is present, we should, perhaps, remind him yet again that according to written parliamentary answers more than 40,000 young people a year leave school functionally illiterate and/or innumerate. If that remains the case, it will be unsurprising if many drift into unemployment. The fact that the Under-Secretary claimed in response to an earlier intervention that one of the purposes of apprenticeships is to provide basic skills is proof that apprenticeships have been re-branded. That is nothing like the original concept of apprenticeship—which I should add, for the Under-Secretary’s benefit, is rooted in our past as well as Germany’s.
Just for the record, it is important that the hon. Gentleman recognises that what I said was that basic skills are a component of all apprenticeships.
Yes, but the Under-Secretary must not give the impression that that is the place where most people should acquire their basic skills. I have two small sons—both of them are lovely and, to be frank, I would rather be with them now than here in the Chamber. I would be furious if either of them could not learn to read, write and count by the time they left primary school, still less secondary school. Barring very special conditions or special needs, no child should leave school at 16 functionally illiterate and innumerate. The acquisition of those skills at school should be the entitlement of every parent and child.
The Minister knows that very well, and I shall give way to him.
May I ask the hon. Gentleman how furious he was in 1997, when 100,000 fewer children were leaving primary school with the required level of literacy and numeracy?
I can remember very little from 1997, apart from the triumphant victory the Conservatives achieved in South Holland and The Deepings.
To call training that is not a legitimate or real apprenticeship by that name risks diluting the brand—a brand which, as the Under-Secretary said, is universally respected and understood. To do so is not fair to employers and cheats learners.
My hon. Friend is making a good point about how apprenticeships should not primarily be about remedial teaching of English and maths skills. Is it not the case that because they are going that way, we now have more level 2 and fewer level 3 apprenticeships, whereas we need more at level 3?
I am coming on to that very point, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding me that I need to do so swiftly.
As has been implied, the problems I refer to have been exacerbated by the programme-led apprenticeships that were introduced in 2003, which enable apprentices to begin their training at a college or training provider even though they have yet to secure a work placement. A survey by the adult learning inspectorate found that colleges were to told to rebrand learners as apprentices simply because they were working towards qualifications which were also part of the apprenticeship framework. Overnight, the number of apprentices increased by more than 30,000, yet only 3,000 of them actually progressed to a full apprenticeship with a work placement. That was sleight of hand, and it diverted attention from a fact that has been raised: fewer people are currently studying for traditional work-based apprenticeships at level 3 than when Labour came to power.
The Government’s own figures—[Interruption.] It appears that the Under-Secretary is looking aside for guidance from his officials. I suspect, however, that he knows very well that the Office for National Statistics figures—I am happy to give them to him before the wind-up, if he wishes—show that the number of level 3 apprenticeships has fallen by 34,000 since the turn of the decade. A graph in a House of Lords report—[Interruption]—which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) has to hand, confirms those data, and it is neither fair nor reasonable to pretend that the growth in level 2 numbers compensates for that fundamental weakness at level 3. Lord Leitch identified it in his comprehensive report, the House of Lords report identified it, and the Government’s own answers to written questions confirm it.
Is it not manifestly obvious that some of the people who some years ago would have been doing an apprenticeship are now going on to university, which indicates rising levels of achievement? Secondly, how does the hon. Gentleman expect to get more people in apprenticeships at level 3 without boosting the number on apprenticeships at level 2?
The hon. Gentleman is trying to help his Front-Bench colleague, but I do not think that that is the argument that the Under-Secretary was making.
I think that the hon. Gentleman would confirm that there were 75,000 apprenticeships in 1997. I can tell him that there are now more than 98,000 level 3 apprenticeships. It is axiomatic that there are more level 3 apprenticeships under this Government than there were under the previous Administration.
Well, the Under-Secretary can trade figures with me, but I have to hand the figures for the last year for which reliable data are available, from the House of Lords report published earlier this year. They show a steady decline in the number of level 3 apprenticeships since 2000. I am happy to let the Under-Secretary have these figures, and he can examine them before he sums up the debate.
The truth of the matter is that the Under-Secretary knows in his heart that there has been a trade-off between level 2 and level 3 training. The lack of employer engagement and the different degrees of genuine practical experience help to account for vastly different outcomes between Britain and other countries with established apprenticeship systems.
I mentioned earlier that Germany had a higher completion rate. The figure that the Under-Secretary was reluctant to give us is that in Germany 79 per cent. of apprentices complete their training. In countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, offers of apprenticeships enable individual firms to signal skills needs to young people—
Order. I call Mr. Robert Flello.
In view of the number of Members wishing to speak in the debate, I will endeavour to keep my remarks much briefer than the 10 minutes allocated to me.
Let me first highlight the relevance and topicality of apprenticeships. Hardly a single conversation passes between me and my constituents about the regeneration work in, and needs of, Stoke-on-Trent without the issue of apprentices being mentioned. This is an extremely important debate, and I am delighted to be taking part in it.
I was saddened and disappointed by the contribution of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes). I feel very sorry for the almost 2,000 young people in Stoke-on-Trent alone who have completed their apprenticeships over the past four years. To listen to Opposition Members, one would think that they were worth nothing. I resent that on behalf of those young people, because I think those qualifications are extremely valuable, and I look forward to their having fantastic careers and futures.
There is a huge opportunity for my constituency, the wider city of Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire, and I am delighted that my Front-Bench colleagues are taking through the proposals to widen and expand the scope for apprenticeships. Whether in construction or IT, health care or new growth areas—such as those that are climate change-related, or to do with new technologies or logistics, which is a strong and growing sector in north Staffordshire—there are great opportunities for young people to get involved and learn many skills that will be of practical use to them in future. To take one example, the logistics industry makes use of a wide range of skills, from those of an HGV driver to those of a picker/packer.
Many young people tell me that they have paper qualifications but they really need practical experience. That is why apprenticeships are so valuable in providing opportunities. Much comment has been made about the need to bring in workers from other countries to take some highly skilled jobs, and it is incumbent on the Government and on employers to ensure that home-grown talent is trained and given every opportunity to take up such jobs. We need to embrace workers who come to contribute their skills to this country, but that must be alongside the utilisation of the potential and skills of our young people.
One of the barriers to apprenticeships is the size of some businesses. For example, many of the firms involved in construction in Stoke-on-Trent are one-man operations—I use the term advisedly because most of them are exactly that.
I should declare an interest in that I served an apprenticeship in the construction industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that the massive skills gap in the construction industry was caused in large part by the Government encouraging construction industry tradesmen to become self-employed on 714 or SE60 certificates in the 1980s and 1990s? That meant that there was no longer any incentive, or indeed finance, to take on apprentices.
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The “white van man” phenomenon and self-employment were good in terms of ensuring that we have an enterprise culture, but it is difficult for such small businesses to offer apprenticeships to young people. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to continue to pay close attention to these matters. I hope that he will ensure that those very small firms get the support—and, where necessary, financial help—to enable them to give young people opportunities to learn crucial skills.
The need for such skills is evident in north Staffordshire. Thanks to the Government, a new hospital is being built in Stoke-on-Trent. We are having a few difficulties with the building schools for the future programme at the moment, but I hope that we will soon see some brand new schools and the refurbishment of existing schools, as part of that £200 million programme. A brand new oncology department and maternity unit are also being built in the area.
We are also one of the nine housing market renewal pathfinder areas, and the renew programme has already brought £67.5 million of Government-backed money into north Staffordshire. That investment has levered in many millions more in additional private sector funding to rebuild and refurbish houses in the area. In the construction industry alone, many job opportunities are being created and it is important that they give rise to apprenticeships, so that young people can get involved and make a fantastic contribution to their communities—where they will be able to see the fruits of their labour—as well as learning valuable skills for the future.
I apologise to other employers in Stoke-on-Trent about whom I will not have a chance to speak, but the developer at Weston Heights—formerly known as Coalville—has engaged local young people on apprenticeships, and it is fantastic to see them engaged in building their own communities. That is to be celebrated.
I hope that when my hon. Friend winds up, he will talk about pay for apprenticeships. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned “ancient history”, and it is amazing how anything that happened more than 10 years ago is given that description. Under previous Administrations, young people on apprenticeships were often glorified tea-boys and girls, and paid accordingly. The national minimum wage certainly did not exist.
We need to persuade business to take on apprentices, not to force them. It is important to take the business community with us, and most of it does see the value in apprentices. However, we should perhaps apply a little force when the Government are letting contracts, when it should be a condition that local people be offered apprenticeships and given the opportunity to make a contribution. The contracts should include minimum numbers for such jobs.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
No, because time is ticking on—
You get injury time.
Indeed, but colleagues would suffer injury if I were to give way and thus take longer than appropriate.
I mentioned the importance of apprenticeships in providing experience to add to the skills gained in education. Given the Government’s intention to increase the leaving age for education—in its widest sense—to 18, it is important to have a wide range of opportunities in place, so that young people have a choice post-16. NEETs have been mentioned, and apprenticeships must be at the heart of the opportunities offered to young people.
Under this Government, apprenticeships have flourished, are flourishing and, I hope, will flourish. It is a great shame that the Opposition have missed the opportunity to support and applaud the Government’s work in overturning the previous paucity of provision. We should all get behind these proposals.
I apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather), but it is a genuine pleasure to me to take part in the debate. I hope that my first opportunity to speak from the Front Bench on this issue will be a positive experience. I shall stick to the remit of the future prospects for apprenticeships in England. There are concerns, and as a representative of an Opposition party, I shall voice those concerns, but I hope to do so constructively, because it is important—as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) said—to send a strong message on this issue.
As a representative of a Welsh constituency, I realise that this is an English debate, although 100,000 of the 500,000 Government target will presumably be Welsh or Scottish apprenticeships. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about his liaison with the devolved Administrations, especially in Wales.
I do not doubt the target or the need, but I wish to raise some practical concerns. First, and fundamental, is the need to get employers positively engaged in apprenticeships and other work-based training. In a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, it was revealed that there are 1 million businesses with one or more employees in England, but only 130,000 employers actively participate in the scheme. That needs to increase dramatically. I am reminded that the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) asked the Minister last week who would be responsible for selling the need for apprenticeships to small and medium-sized enterprises.
That is a crucial issue. At present, only 13 per cent. of businesses are involved in apprenticeships, and there is a particular need to consider small businesses. Yesterday, there was a debate in Westminster Hall about further education in south Yorkshire. In that region, there is a shortfall of suitably sized businesses. Like many of my colleagues, I represent a rural constituency. How are we to involve companies in those areas? There are particular challenges in rural areas.
Funding for apprenticeships for the over-25s is significantly lower than for the under-19s. Leitch said that 70 per cent. of the 2020 work force will already have completed their compulsory education, so there is a pressing need for reskilling and upskilling—not only for young people, but for people who need to re-engage with new skills. We need to look into the message the funding regime sends people who have already fallen through cracks in the education system. They need to be confidently involved, which is why independent careers advice is so important for them.
After the last big expansion of the apprenticeship programme, completion rates fell. In 2001-02 they went down to 24 per cent., although they have significantly increased since. I applaud the increase but there is still a long way to go, and it requires proper active engagement with employers.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can he explain, in the Liberal view, what should be the role of regional government in England in apprenticeship schemes?
I was about to refer to regionalism. Not just regional government but local government has a responsibility in these matters. There is a case for local and regional government to be more involved; they offer apprenticeships to 14 to 19-year-olds, and such schemes should be expanded so that we can build on some of the recommendations in the Lyons report about moulding educational programmes to local need, which is important.
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that under the previous Government there were no apprenticeships, except in local government? The trade union movement undertook massive agitation for the reinstatement of apprenticeships.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation, which relates to a general point about public sector participation. When the Prime Minister made his speech in October, he talked of the need for more apprenticeships in the public sector—in local authorities, in the health service, in Whitehall, perhaps even in this place. We could follow the model of the Ministry of Defence, which has had some success in that regard.
New apprenticeships need to be more employer-based. I take the Minister’s point about people who may be struggling to reach a level 3 apprenticeship. As a former teacher, I am sensitive to the need to remember that apprenticeship is an individualised process. We sometimes get embroiled in an array of targets, but we are talking about individual people, so an individualised approach to learning and apprenticeships is fundamental. I will not lament programme-based apprenticeships, because the future has to lie with employer-based schemes, and we look forward to them.
Some points have been raised by charities. In light of the plans of the Department for Work and Pensions to get people off incapacity benefit, Barnardo’s pointed out that we need to help people with disabilities to take up supported apprenticeships. That is a resonant point in view of the statement we heard earlier. The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), who is no longer in the Chamber, made the important point that we need to debunk some of the stereotypes about women in apprenticeships.
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in some areas of employment, notably retail, hospitality and the service industry, which seem to attract more women as employees, there is often no wage benefit after someone has completed an apprenticeship?
I cannot go into great detail on that point, but I very much concur with what the hon. Lady says.
In the Prime Minister’s speech on 31 October he announced a UCAS-style matching scheme. That proposal gets to the nub of the challenge facing the Government and all parties. Such a scheme would match young people with apprenticeships in every area, which is a huge challenge given the realm of sectors involved. The Association of Colleges has cited some sectors, such as electrical installation and telecoms, where if that matching process is to be a reality a huge amount of work will have to be undertaken to engage employers. We heard earlier, and during questions last week, about the challenges facing the building sector.
Demand for apprenticeships outstrips supply by a factor of 10, so if the UCAS-style model is to be valid for young people, there must be some equity. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how we can sell these ideas. In a Westminster Hall debate, I referred to the need to sell the idea of apprenticeships to employers and schools. It is a huge agenda. Who will be responsible for it? Will it be the Learning and Skills Council or local government? It is essential that we get the message across.
I offer the House an example of a pioneering scheme from my constituency. Llwyn yr Eos school in Penparcau near Aberystwyth has established a young artisans club—children aged between seven and nine are involved in simple carpentry and joinery work. If we can do something like that for youngsters of that age, we have to achieve it further along the education system.
I am positive, but I am sceptical about targets. We need to see the substance that will result from the review in January and the Bill. The Liberal Democrats look forward with some enthusiasm to taking part in that debate—not uncritically, but recognising that it is fundamental if the targets identified by Leitch are to be realised.
rose—
Order. We have 30 minutes left, which will allow only three speakers if everyone sticks to the 10-minute rule. I do not want to micro-manage the debate any further, so I hope that Members will recognise the fact that others want to make a contribution.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Conscious of your comments, I shall try to stick to five minutes to enable my colleagues to contribute.
I am lucky enough to represent the city in which I was born and brought up—a city dominated by the naval dockyard, which has provided high-quality skilled jobs for Portsmouth people for centuries. I remember as a child seeing traffic coming to a standstill at outmuster time as thousands of dockyard workers exited the gates on their bicycles. When I was at school, the pinnacle of every young lad’s ambition—it was overwhelmingly lads—was to pass the dockyard entrance exam, get their apprenticeship and learn their trade, secure in the knowledge that with those skills they would be set up for life. As a result, Portsmouth did not have a large culture of going on to higher academic education.
Unfortunately, during the 1980s and 1990s—those long, depressing years of Tory rule, when the economy foundered and public funding was cut relentlessly—slowly but surely those apprenticeships died out. The dockyard was run down and later generations had no opportunity to learn a trade. As there was no family history of higher education, young people left school at 16 to be dumped on the scrapheap of the dole queue with no prospect of work, so more children were brought up living in poverty with neither parent in work.
It is no wonder that in my constituency, when this Government took office in 1997, there was generational unemployment, lack of aspiration, poor educational results and poor health. Like me, the people of my constituency have not forgotten who was responsible, even though the Conservatives have reinvented themselves and seem to have selective memories. It is important to remember that we cannot solve 18 years of neglect overnight. Two generations of unemployment, poverty and lack of aspiration take a long time to turn around.
In the past 10 years, Labour’s massive investment in public services has delivered real improvements. In Portsmouth, we have seen huge improvements in educational attainment since 1997. Back then, only 25 per cent. of young people got five good GCSEs. We have now doubled that to 50 per cent., but that is not good enough because it means that half our young people are still missing out. The issue is not just about qualifications; it is about boosting confidence and self-esteem so that young people believe that they can achieve, and can go on to further and higher education.
I wholeheartedly support raising the education participation age to 18 and I am saddened, but not entirely surprised, that the Conservative party opposes our plans. The Conservatives did nothing to raise aspirations for ordinary working class kids when they were in power, so why should they be any different now? Raising the education participation age to 18 is not about forcing young people to stay on at school. Training is the key word. Building on the Leitch review of skills, we are not simply saying that all young people must continue studying academically for another two years. I want vocational skills to be accorded the same respect as academic skills, and I want those skills to be nurtured in a proper training workplace environment, as part of a modern, structured apprenticeship. Apprenticeships can be a route to high-level professional skills. For example, the Association of Accounting Technicians offers a vocational route to entry into professional accounting qualifications.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
I am concerned about others having time to make speeches, but given that my hon. Friend probably will not get to make a speech, I shall give way.
I am most grateful. My hon. Friend is talking about the way in which training should take place. Will she acknowledge that, for the chemical process industry, a general science GCSE is not acceptable? We have to teach physics, chemistry and maths if we are to have apprentices with the qualities that the industry requires.
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The teaching of science is important. If people do not get those science qualifications, they will not have the skills to compete in the global marketplace. We have to look at how those subjects are being taught in schools, to make them relevant and to get young people interested in science-based subjects at a much earlier age.
We have to harness talent and work towards developing world-class skills. Raising the age at which individuals leave education or training is vital, not just as a message of individual economic prosperity for people, but as a tool of social justice, to ensure that in families that have suffered generations of unemployment, young people have the chance to succeed. It is also good for the British economy. As I said, we face ever-increasing globalisation, and ever-increasing competition from places such as China and the United States, so it is more vital than ever that we have a highly skilled, well-educated work force.
That is also important for the social glue that binds our communities together. A family in which the parents have had access to good quality training and skills, and have aspirations for the future for themselves and their children, is a family in which the parents will be good role models for their children so that generational unemployment is replaced by generational aspiration.
I am still slightly bemused as to why this subject was regarded by the Leader of the House as the hot topic of the week. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was on the right lines when he said that perhaps the Government want to point out that the fact that the Prime Minister has had a 10-year apprenticeship does not necessarily mean that he is any good at the job at the end of it. There certainly seems to be evidence that if the current fundraiser for the Labour party had had an apprenticeship, he might have realised that what he was doing, which he thought was lawful, was actually unlawful.
May I help my hon. Friend with his confusion about why this subject has been chosen for today’s debate? Could the decision relate in any way to the fact that the Prime Minister gave a speech last Monday on climate change, and the hot topic for the debate on the subsequent Thursday was climate change? This Monday, the Prime Minister spoke on skills and apprenticeships, and this Thursday we are debating them.
Order. May I help both hon. Gentlemen? Such limited time as there is ought to be devoted strictly to the topic that is before the House.
Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why I am going to start off with a dictionary definition of an apprentice, which is very much in tune with what my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings has been saying. The New Oxford Dictionary of English, second edition, 2003, defines an apprentice as:
“A person who is learning a trade from a skilled employer having agreed to work for a fixed period at low wages”.
That is what the general public understands by “an apprentice”. To be an apprentice is a privilege and a good thing. There are a host of families—thousands of families—who hope that they will be able to get their children into apprenticeships.
The Government, however, have devalued the word “apprentice” so that it is no longer the subject of pride. Indeed, if we allow an apprentice to be regarded as somebody who has not even got the basic skills in maths and English, we are in danger of reaching a stage at which a young person who says that they are an apprentice will be looked down on, instead of looked up to, as has traditionally been the case.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will not, because we are all trying to make as much progress as possible.
The Government have devalued the currency of apprenticeships. To force businesses—this is what seems to be in the pipeline—to take on people who do not even have basic elementary skills in maths and English as apprentices will damage the competitiveness of our economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, in 1997, there were 75,000 apprentices. They were genuine apprentices. They had already attained level 2 qualifications and were aspiring to level 3 equivalent qualifications. The comparable figure today is 98,000. Let us compare 75,000 with 98,000.
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that completion rates in 1997 were poor and that it was important to increase level 2 apprenticeships so that young people could progress to level 3 apprenticeships, as well as to increase level 3 apprenticeships for young people who could move into an advanced apprenticeship straight away? We are talking about both, not either/or.
It is obviously important to raise the skills of all our young people. However, I am concerned that the Government have dumbed down the apprenticeship process.
It is important that we button down this point. Despite the Minister’s assertions, which are ill judged, it is clear that the number of level 3 apprenticeships has declined since 2000. The truth is that we have traded level 3 for level 2, as my hon. Friend said. That is not fair to learners and it is not right for employers. The Minister should acknowledge that, as I hope my hon. Friend will make clear.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When the Prime Minister starts citing figures, why does he not compare the 75,000 figure in 1997 with the 98,000 figure now? I concede that there are now more apprenticeships than in 1997. However, between 1997 and 2000, the number rose higher than it is now. Since about 2000, the number of level 3 equivalent apprenticeships has declined. The change is going in the wrong direction.
It is absolutely clear from the figures that the Minister—I am sure that this is not deliberate, or at least I hope so—is not comparing like with like. He compared a figure of 75,000 for 1996-97 with one of more than 250,000 today. However, those figures relate to completely different things, so I hope that he will set the record straight in his winding-up speech.
I think that we have done that for the Minister. We have put the spotlight on this issue. We must make it clear that when the Government talk about apprenticeships, they are talking about something of a much lower grade than when the Opposition were in government.
My hon. Friend’s comments about maths and English qualifications are absolutely right. Does he agree that an exception could be made for students who have been in special education, who might take a bit longer to acquire necessary skills in an apprenticeship, but could become extremely reliable employees who would not get bored and tend to take days off by pretending to be ill?
I am with my hon. Friend absolutely on that. That was why I thought that yesterday’s threat by the Prime Minister of imposing minimum wage legislation on apprentices’ employers was a damaging development. The dictionary definition of “apprentice” that I cited makes it clear that an implicit aspect of being an apprentice is taking a lower wage to reflect a lack of experience and skills. There is a partnership between an employer and an apprentice under which the apprentice agrees to learn and work on the job, and the employer gives his time freely. Obviously, however, the employer cannot afford to give the apprentice the full wage that he would pay to someone who was fully qualified.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will not give way again.
In reply to Question 10 during yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions, which was asked by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), the Prime Minister seemed to be saying that he was thinking of extending the minimum wage legislation into the area of apprenticeships. However, that would be extremely damaging to the job prospects of those who aspire to become apprentices.
I am keen to ensure that more people in this country want to take on skills, especially in manufacturing. However, we will not achieve that aim if we start pretending that the role of employers is to prop up the failures of the state education system. About £50,000 of taxpayers’ money has been invested in the education of each child leaving school at the age of 16. The Government are now saying that because so much of that money has been wasted on those pupils who have not learned what they should have been learning in school, or have not been taught properly—those who have missed out on their right to learn—we will give another £3,000 per pupil to try to make all the difference post-16. That is not a solution; it is a sticking plaster over a problem that has become much worse under this Government.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will not.
We all agree with the concept that apprenticeships are a good thing, but the way in which the Government have redefined them will ultimately prove to be the downfall of proper apprenticeships and will create a disincentive for people to take on apprenticeships and try to reach the level 3 A-level equivalent. Some people with an aptitude for manual trades might not be able to take academic A-levels, but be able to take on a good apprenticeship, for example in some of the aerospace firms that operate successfully in my constituency. Those firms are looking out for really good-quality applicants to become apprentices, such as people who might have been able to go to university, but choose instead to go into a trade in such a manufacturing industry. Indeed, the firms prefer to take people with the right aptitude and qualities straight from school because they find that those people are able to understand and work on the job to a much greater extent than those who have graduated from university, who are not necessarily so much in touch with reality.
I think that employers in my constituency want good quality placements for apprentices, especially in manufacturing. They do not like the idea of a new Bill that will centralise, control and redefine the concept of apprenticeships, while effectively putting a big burden on employers.
I take on board my hon. Friend’s point about micro-management and supply-side measures, but does he acknowledge that it is important to redefine apprenticeships to ensure that they are mentored and workplace-based, and does he agree that it is important that they deliver real competences; that group training associations might be helpful in that regard for smaller businesses; and that we need an all-age career service to advise young people on how to achieve apprenticeships that are in line with their aptitudes?
I have no disagreement with the points that my hon. Friend makes.
Let me make a suggestion. I am not sure whether it is yet the policy of my colleagues on the Front Bench, and it is certainly not yet Government policy. Incentivising young people to take apprenticeships is vital, and we know that the level of remuneration is critical to that, but there is no point in forcing employers to pay more than the economic rate; if we do, in the end they will not offer the apprenticeships. My suggestion is that the Government should offer national insurance credits to people in genuine apprenticeships. They would not have to pay national insurance contributions so long as they were in an apprenticeship. Also, people in genuine apprenticeships, particularly level 3 equivalent apprenticeships, should have an additional tax allowance before they have to start paying tax. What those young people are interested in is take-home pay—the money in their pocket at the end of the week. Instead of forcing employers to pay more, through higher wages and imposing the minimum wage, the Government, to help incentivise apprenticeships, should reduce the tax burden on those young people, who are the future of our country.
Finally, I was depressed to read a previous debate, in respect of an intervention in which my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked whether the taxpayer incentives in apprenticeship schemes should apply only to British citizens. I would have thought that that was vital, because we have limited resources; they should go to British apprentices, rather than to those from foreign countries.
As chairman of the all-party skills group and a member of the Select Committee on Innovation, Universities and Skills, which hopes to scrutinise the apprenticeship reform Bill, I think that today’s debate is extremely topical. I am extremely proud of the Government’s record and achievements on the subject. Those Opposition Members who came to snipe, not speak, should be ashamed of themselves.
In the brief time available to me, I want to make two or three key points. There has been a lot of discussion in the debate about the nature, structure, and other aspects of apprenticeships. We need to look at the structure of apprenticeships and the progression process; that is clear from research that is being conducted and from the round table discussions held in the House at the beginning of the month, in which the Minister and I took part with a range of people from the sector. The London figures that he quoted amplify that point.
There is no getting away from the fact that completion rates are improving. They have gone from 24 per cent. in 2001 to 62 per cent. today, but we need to look carefully and clearly at whether we need to do something about the structure of apprenticeships, particularly for those people who are coming back to reskill. We have to consider whether a greater combination of on-work activity and apprenticeship activity, and perhaps a modular approach in some cases, will increase completion rates. That is important. It is particularly important for women who are coming back into the sector to reskill, and who may need time out for caring and other duties.
Does my hon. Friend accept that some apprenticeships are of very good quality? I can give examples from my constituency, where there is an excellent partnership between Durham community business college and a further education college; they have a centre of excellence. Those good quality apprenticeships are responsible for pushing up completion rates from 707 two years ago to more than 1,300 now. That is why we should be supporting and extending apprenticeships.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and she makes the point well that the co-operation of universities and others is key to what we need to do. We also need a culture change at an earlier stage in schools, because without the right sort of careers guidance, if the right attitudes are not inculcated in schools and without the involvement of hands-on advisers from businesses and organisations, people will not take up apprenticeships later. This is a whole-school and whole-area option.
In the various announcements that we heard from the Secretary of State on Monday, I was impressed by his focus on an all-age solution. Adult apprenticeships, particularly in the area of re-skilling, where we know there is a demographic gap, are key. We must get that right. We must review advice and guidance. I look forward to seeing how the Government take forward the ambitious ideas for a personal career and advancement scheme.
In my constituency in Blackpool, we have a large number of small and medium-sized businesses. The Government’s involvement and support are critical, so I welcome the £90 million announced on Monday. My further education college, for example, has a virtual restaurant—it serves food, and for training purposes the structure is exactly the same as that of an ordinary restaurant. That is the sort of on-the-job work that is necessary. If we are to achieve the improvements that we want in Blackpool as part of our regeneration programmes, such an approach is important, as is investment in the public sector. I agree with the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) of a requirement on firms taking public sector contracts. We may need some age-proofing requirements as well.
In conclusion, the debate is timely. It is right that the Government should take the time to examine the structure of apprenticeships and how we define and run them. It is also right that the Government should take no lessons from the Opposition, with honourable exceptions. I would exempt my hon. Friend—he is a friend—the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who has done sterling work in the all-party group. There is no comparison between the record of the present Government and the record of Opposition. The fact that their spokespeople—the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), for example—downgrade, snipe at and criticise the vocational measures that we are introducing underlines the point.
I hope we can agree that the debate has been topical and interesting. I pay tribute to my Lib Dem colleague, the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mark Williams), and to all my hon. Friends. We are all agreed about the importance of apprenticeships to the country and to young people and their families.
It is a shame that Conservative Members were not prepared to move on from the position that we inherited in 1997, when apprenticeships were at an all-time low and the only offer for young people not able to take up an apprenticeship or go to university was the failed youth training scheme. None of them was prepared to mention that.
I shall deal with some of the points that hon. Members raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) spoke about small businesses and how we could encourage more of them to offer apprenticeships. He is right to say that our review should examine that point carefully. I was up in Birmingham last week, where the Birmingham electrical training unit is acting as a hub for small businesses in that area and providing apprenticeships in those small businesses. We may well develop that model further.
Will my hon. Friend visit the north-east and the north-east chemical industries cluster? Those small industries together produce an excellent training apprenticeship at level 3. It would be a great pleasure for him to visit. More than 90 per cent. of the youngsters who join the scheme end their apprenticeship brilliantly.
The north-east was the first area that I visited in this ministerial post. I am happy to return, particularly following the announcement of the new skills academies for the processing industries in that area.
The Minister will not go to Scotland, because it lies outside his remit. However, he will be aware that the Commission for Employment and Skills applies to Scotland. Will he undertake to convey his positive impression of apprenticeships to the Scottish National party Administration, who have put a freeze on apprenticeships?
I am aware of that freeze. I talk to my opposite number in Scotland all the time about skills issues and the benefit of apprenticeships. The Government are not alone in talking about apprenticeships. When the Opposition condemn apprenticeships, they should remember that companies such as British Telecom, British Gas, Tesco, Rolls-Royce, BMW, Ford, BAE Systems and Toyota all support apprenticeships, which are fundamental to this country. Those industries, businesses and companies are testimony to the expansion that we have made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South has mentioned pay. Following the apprenticeship review, we will refer the matter to the Low Pay Commission again.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry)—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings, the motion lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to Temporary Standing Order (Topical debates).
Common European Asylum System
I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Document 10516/07, Commission Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System; notes the continued importance of working collectively on asylum issues with other Member States; further notes the importance of the Dublin II Regulation, the current responsibility mechanism to deal with asylum seekers; and supports the Government’s position that proper implementation and a full evaluation of first phase instruments should take place before embarking on a second phase of legislation.
It gives me great pleasure to speak today about the important issue of asylum and how we work with our European partners to make sure that we have a common approach while protecting the UK’s interests and sovereignty on that matter. We are here specifically to debate the green gaper published in June this year by the European Commission on the future of the common European asylum system. The green paper invited member states and relevant stakeholders to express their views on the future of European Union asylum work.
The 1997 treaty of Amsterdam and the 1999 Tampere European Council committed member states to establishing minimum standards for asylum procedures and policies across the European Union. A series of asylum directives were subsequently agreed and the procedures directive, the last of those, will be implemented in the UK on 1 December this year.
The implementation of the minimum standards directives has provided the basis for a common approach across Europe. That has helped to tackle asylum shopping, while also allowing member states to reflect their own distinct domestic circumstances.
My hon. Friend knows that one way in which we can assist in co-operation between various European countries is to make sure that we deal with asylum cases as speedily and efficiently as possible. I know that she is now the champion at the Home Office for ministerial correspondence. What steps has she taken to ensure that the immigration and nationality directorate deals with asylum cases much more quickly than it has done previously?
My right hon. Friend is generous to suggest that I have made progress on that issue in my five months at the Home Office. The Border and Immigration Agency, which was formerly the IND, now has an approach based on dealing with new claims within six months from end to end. On legacy claims, soon caseworkers will be allocated cases, and they will deal with those cases from end to end. We hope that that will speed up both new asylum cases and deal with those who have been waiting for their claims to be assessed. My right hon. Friend is right to acknowledge that that is part of dealing fairly with claims across Europe. The Government have long acknowledged the importance of a Europe-wide approach to asylum and to migration in general. The framework under which we currently operate, which the green paper suggests that we review and assess, helps to reduce the risk of a weak link in the chain of dealing with asylum seekers across Europe. We have an opt-in, which we have chosen not to use on a number of measures. However, our practical work with other member states, particularly some of the newer European Union partners, helps us preserve our strong border controls—a strong tenet of the Government’s approach to migration—by strengthening Europe more generally.
The UK has benefited immensely from working with European partners on European and asylum issues.
I am most interested in my hon. Friend’s emphasis on our strong border controls. Are those reflected in other European member states? Do those states take a view similar to ours?
We have chosen not to opt into certain Schengen arrangements. We have protected our sovereignty along our borders so that they are strong. We could sum up our policy by saying that we have our own strong borders and that by participating in Europe on certain immigration issues, and in supporting European countries, we effectively have “borders plus” through the strengthening of the wider European border. There is a double ring to make sure that we keep track of who is coming into our country. Next year, we will introduce a points-based system for migrants outside the asylum route and we will be able to count people in and out.
We are here to talk mostly about asylum and the Commission’s green paper. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) intervened, I had been about to give a couple of examples of good co-operation with European partners. One example is our work with the French Government to strengthen our border controls and protections at Calais and other channel ports.
Does my hon. Friend recall that we had difficulties with the French Government in respect of asylum seekers? Does she think that the position has now been strengthened? Are the relationships getting better or worse?
The relationships are considerably better. People from the British Border and Immigration Agency are working across the channel. For example, the passport of someone travelling on a ship or a Eurostar train will be checked on the European side rather than when the person arrives back in the UK.
We have good relationships with our European partners. The framework under which we are operating is working well. We are keen that it should be better evaluated before we take the next steps. Although we are interested in what the green paper says and the questions that it asks—it has a number of those—we feel that it is a bit early to learn the full lessons, although in general we have made considerable progress.
We also learned lessons from Sweden when setting up our gateway resettlement programme for refugees; we are gaining from such cross-country inter-state working, some of which is dealt with by the Commission and some of which is dealt with through operational co-operation, outwith the formal structures of the European Union, between states.
More should and could be done at the European level to facilitate such practical engagement; only through the active participation of all member states can we expect to see greater convergence and higher standards. An example of that is our interpreter support service and the identification of lead countries, helping those from some national groups with claims. That allows us, for example, to support countries on the EU border when someone presents for asylum. The UK or another country may have expertise with that national group. Britain and other lead countries provide expertise and interpretation by video link. That is a good example of practical co-operation that has come from the work done by the heads of border agencies across Europe, and it demonstrates that there is more than one way in which we can co-operate across Europe.
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way a second time. Do the Government support the proposal, put forward at the start of The Hague programme, for the creation of a European support officer and office to deal with common asylum issues?
That is one of the discussions in the green paper. We will wait to see what the Commission comes up with on that. Realistically, there is not a great deal of time to take major legislation through the European Parliament and processes before the 2009 European elections. When we see what the Commission comes up with, there will have to be discussion about what is feasible and practical. The issue raised by my right hon. Friend is certainly of interest to us.
We are encouraged that the Commission has confirmed that it will undertake a feasibility study of how best to take forward the sort of practical co-operation that I have been talking about. We will actively support measures that encourage that spirit of co-operation without undue bureaucracy. We are also mindful of the need for more to be done outside the borders of the EU. The UK fully supports the EU’s regional protection programme, which allows refugees access to protection quickly and close to their countries of origin.
In the UK, we have introduced several measures that have increased the robustness of our asylum process and reduced the number of unfounded asylum claims. Those measures, which include the expansion of our fast-track process—when people arrive, their claim is initially triaged, or assessed, and determined so that they then leave the country or are accepted as refugees within two or three months of their arrival—and the introduction of new offences for passengers who attempt to conceal their identity or their country of origin by deliberately destroying their documents, have reduced asylum applications to the lowest levels since 1992. The annexe to the green paper produced by the Commission provides some of those figures in more detail.
The use of the Eurodac database allows the UK and other EU nations to check the fingerprints of those seeking asylum. In this way we can identify, and have identified, those who have previously made claims in other countries. We have used the Dublin II regulations to good effect to remove people to their country of original claim. Under that mechanism, about 100 people a month have been returned to the member state responsible for considering their claim. It has discouraged multiple claims from individuals looking to play member states off against each other and reinforces the important collective responsibility between member states.
We look forward to the Commission’s evaluation of the regional protection programme and to the expansion and further development of the policy, underpinned, of course, by appropriate funding. We are keen to share our experience of resettlement work. The UK is one of the few member states to have a formal resettlement programme. We will continue to be proactive in providing assistance. Through our gateway programme, we have provided space for 500 people a year, and that number will rise to 750. We look to other member states to establish formal programmes through mentoring and shadowing the work within Europe that we are pioneering in the UK. We will assist them in doing that.
The green paper considers the first phase of legislation, some of which I have discussed, and asks what amendments need to be made. In our response, which was submitted at the end of the summer, we made it absolutely clear that we believe it is too early to make those judgments. We stated that a timely evaluation must not be rushed and needs to consider the extent to which the provisions of the minimum standards directives have been adopted within national legislations, how they are operating in practice, and whether they have had the desired outcomes. We believe that it would be unwise to embark on introducing new legislation without a firm understanding of what works and what does not work within the existing instruments. That view is shared by many other member states, by non-governmental organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and by the European Scrutiny Committee. The Committee rightly acknowledges that the green paper raises important questions. We in the UK see the current regulations and our opt-in right as “borders plus”—strong UK borders being strengthened, when we use the opt-in, to allow us to work with partners to strengthen the wider EU border, as well as what we do through informal co-operation.
It is important that we keep the best of what the current regulations provide. We are not saying that the review is wrong but that further proposals for legislative changes are premature. However, that is not to say there is no work to be done on reducing the discrepancies that exist between member states, as the Committee’s paper rightly acknowledges. Some variance is to be expected, as types of cases received vary across the Union, but, as we know from experience, significant divergences in practices will only encourage secondary movement, whereby someone arrives in a country because they know that it is easier to get into that country through an asylum route, and then moves to the country of their choice at a later date. Common treatment is important.
My hon. Friend is talking about disparities among different member states. I am concerned about the disparities among rates of recognition of people applying for asylum in the EU from the same country. Iraq is an example of where there are huge differences in the percentages of claims that are recognised. Does not that need to be addressed, whether in this legislation or through discussions among the member states?
As ever, my hon. Friend raises a very pertinent point. It is one of the reasons we are keen to see what the Commission comes out with in its response to the green paper. Although we want UK sovereignty to be preserved, we recognise a common interest in ensuring that the best of what we have is rolled out throughout Europe.
We welcome the publication of the green paper. We will continue to seek to influence developments and will participate in developments, or opt in, if it is in the UK’s interest to do so. We look forward to the Commission’s proposals being published in early 2008. I reiterate that the Government remain committed to strong UK borders, but we are also keen to ensure that the European border is strong. We will work with the Commission, the European Parliament and our EU partners to ensure that this works.
I beg to move, To leave out from “seekers” to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
‘but recognises that asylum policy, as an essential component in the control of the UK’s borders, should remain under the control of the British Government.’.
I listened to the Minister’s speech with interest, particularly the first few minutes, when she was dealing with more general immigration policy rather than the document before the House. As gently as possible, I say to her that if she really believes that the current system of immigration control we have in this country amounts to “borders plus”, she is the last person left living on fantasy island.
I start by setting out the principles by which we should operate in deciding what is proper with regard to using our membership of the European Union as a way of improving our asylum policy. I shall then move on to some of the problems that we have with the Government’s approach and the details of the document before us.
The basis for our asylum policy should be that we do need proper co-operation—indeed, better co-operation—among the member states of the EU because a prosperous and free Europe is inevitably an attractive destination for genuine refugees, whom we all welcome, but also for those who use the asylum system that has been built up since the second world war as a disguise for economic migration or occasionally something worse, such as crime or terrorism.
We all agree that asylum shopping is harmful and that sharing the burden of support for genuine refugees in Europe is sensible. Indeed, I would go further and suggest that sharing some of the burden in combating illegal immigration is sensible, and I suspect that the Minister would agree. Many of us remember last year’s crisis, when thousands of west Africans took a dangerous sea voyage to the Canary Islands to get inside the EU. Those poor, wretched people had, in many cases, paid their life savings to people traffickers and many died on the journey. Spain wanted help from us and her other European partners and it was sensible to give it because, to some extent, the borders of the Canary Islands are Britain’s borders as well.
We are, therefore, absolutely convinced of the need for intelligent co-operation, and we can accept the principle that anyone arriving at the border of a member state of the EU claiming asylum should be treated in roughly the same way, under the same set of rules. However, it is not sensible to say that the only way we can achieve that is by handing over powers of rule making to the Commission, which is what the document suggests. It is also what the Government are doing, even though anyone who had not followed what they had been doing, but merely went on what the Minister said they had done, would think they were doing something different.
That is the difference between us and the Government on this issue, which is the point of our amendment. Since the treaty of Amsterdam, the EU has had the competence to legislate in this field, but with a British opt-out, or a possibility to opt in—whichever way one wishes to describe it. However, in practice the Government have not chosen to exercise the opt-out on asylum matters, so it has been pointless. The Minister explained that the Government had taken the opportunity to opt out in some immigration matters, in order to preserve the integrity of our borders, as she put it, and they have. But on asylum matters, the Government have always opted in, and I was quite surprised that the Minister did not take the opportunity to explain why they had taken such a radically different approach in those two fields.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us the measures that he thinks that the Government should not have done that on.
I shall deal with the details in a second.
I am genuinely puzzled, particularly after having listened to the Minister’s speech, by the Government’s stance. It is clear from the Government’s motion that they recognise that the Commission is trying to take all power in asylum matters and that they think that that is the wrong way to go. The motion states that we should not move to the second phase in which we will have a full “Common European Asylum System”. That phrase is at the heart and, indeed, at the start of the EU document, but, unless I missed it, it did not cross the Minister’s lips in the course of her speech.
The motion says that proper implementation of the first phase must happen, followed by a full evaluation of the first phase instruments. They clearly do not want to move to a common asylum system, but in the past five years they have not lifted a finger to stop us doing so. Is that a cock-up, or a conspiracy? As so often with the Government, it is hard to tell.
Let us take a look at what the Government have opted into, to address the point made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). Directive 2004/83/EC defines minimum standards on qualifications for refugee or other international protection status and sets out the same core criteria for being a refugee as the Geneva convention, which is not a matter of controversy. It also stresses that each application must be determined individually, which prevents the designation of certain countries as safe. The ability to say that a country is safe would at times be found desirable by any Government when operating an asylum policy, so that puts a constraint on Ministers that they might not want.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands the way the designation works. When we started to apply that in the UK, some of us opposed it. We said that it was not a good idea to say that certain countries were safe because it involved making assumptions about individuals. The Government held to the position that even when a country was designated as safe, individual cases needed to be considered. The fact that a country might be regarded as safe in general terms does not mean that an individual from that country cannot present a good case.
I suspect that we would rapidly get out of order if we pursued the point. The debate would be interesting, and the hon. Gentleman and I simply disagree on that detail. However, it goes beyond the scope of what we are discussing.
Let me reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). If, for example, a secularist or leftist is sent back to an Islamist country that is otherwise regarded as safe, is that acceptable?
The only time that it is acceptable to designate a country as safe is when that country is safe. We have had asylum applications in this country during the past few years from citizens of the United States of America. It is patently absurd that our asylum system should spend time and resources on applications from functioning, friendly democracies rather than those from people who come from countries where many citizens are, sadly, in danger. Although it may be more comfortable to say that anyone from anywhere can claim asylum at any time, the practicalities of what has happened to the asylum system over the past few years suggest that that is an unrealistic approach. That is why I take issue with those Labour Members who support the Commission on that matter.
While we are going through the details, I point out that the directive also created a whole new category of people to whom the member states owe a duty of protection above and beyond those categories encompassed by the 1951 refugee convention: those who qualify for what the Commission calls subsidiary protection. Whether that is desirable is another legitimate cause for debate. The directive also goes beyond the convention in respect of the rights that refugees can exercise while they are in this country.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the current state of our immigration policy. The Government have indeed opted into more than 40 asylum measures, as shown by recent parliamentary answers. We effectively have a European common policy, which greatly restricts our national freedom of action. Is it still my hon. Friend’s policy that:
“We will take back powers from Brussels to ensure national control of asylum policy”?
That was our manifesto promise in 2005. Is it still his policy?
The amendment states that it is for the British Government to make such decisions. My right hon. Friend says that we have already lost all powers. That is going too far. Clearly, considerable powers remain in the hands of British Ministers and we want to retain them. That is the point of the amendment, as my right hon. Friend knows.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned subsidiary protection. However, as I understand it, the green paper asks how a single procedure for assessment might work and what uniform protections might be entailed in that, and I am at a loss to find a difference between the Conservative and the Government position. The Minister suggested that she and the Government wanted to ascertain how all the countries’ procedures came out in the wash when they were enacted before making a decision. I am struggling to find a difference between the Government’s position and that of the Tories.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s confusion as, if he simply listened to the Minister’s comments, he would believe that the Government’s position was considerably more robust than it is. I am pointing out that, for all the Government’s cautious words, in practice, over the past five or six years since the implementation of the treaty of Amsterdam, they have simply gone along with everything and effectively attempted to help set up an entirely centralised one-size-fits-all policy. Although co-operation is sensible and we should answer the questions in the green paper, we should not contract out the ability to make decisions to the Commission. That is the point of our amendment, for which I hope the hon. Gentleman will vote later.
I am greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend’s comments because the words in the amendment
“should remain under the control of the British Government”
mean just that. The corollary, to follow up the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), is that, although we want to give protection to genuine asylum seekers, many are not genuine, and when difficulties arise we want to ensure that we have our own Westminster legislation so that we control matters, as the amendment suggests.
I am deeply grateful that my hon. Friend supports the amendment—that is a source of unalloyed joy.
We do not want to have an argument about people’s atavistic views of the European Union but to discuss how to achieve our end. The problem with the Government is that we do not trust them on asylum seekers because they have never given us cause to trust them. When the Government are trustworthy, we might go along with them, but, given that they are untrustworthy, we will not go along with them. I wish that some of my hon. Friends would stop trying to bring their views about Europe into a simple issue about asylum seekers.
I am deeply grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is right to say that the discussion is about how we run a fair, firm, humane and civilised asylum system. Proper co-operation on aspects of such a system is essential among the member states of the European Union. As all of them are prosperous democracies—many of the new democracies of central and eastern Europe are becoming increasingly prosperous—they will attract genuine refugees and those who are, frankly, not genuine. However, the desire for that degree of co-operation does not mean that we need to contract out decision making to the European Commission on the measure.
My hon. Friend is making an important speech and his words will be studied. He has already said that we have contracted into 40 or so directives that restrict our freedom of action. Is there not a conflict between that and the amendment, which says that such powers
“should remain under the control of the British Government”?
I should therefore like to ask my hon. Friend whether he thinks the directives that we have opted into are reversible and whether we should reverse those opt-ins where necessary, in order to regain the national powers that the amendment so rightly asserts we should regain.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his kind remarks, but I am also determined to stay in order. I have moved an amendment to the motion before us, which concerns a project of the Commission on the next steps. I am sure that there are things to be said about previous steps that have been taken, by both the Commission and the Government, but they are not desperately germane to this debate.
I shall study the hon. Gentleman’s speech very carefully in Hansard tomorrow. Will he clarify current Conservative party policy in respect of the processing of asylum applications? Is it still the Conservative party’s policy that asylum applications should be processed on an offshore island?
The world has moved on since 2005 and the Conservative party has moved with it. Sadly, the right hon. Gentleman appears to have failed to do so, although I do not blame him. He is nostalgic for the days when the Labour party was an election-winning machine, rather than the increasingly disreputable shambles that it has become in 2007. We in the Opposition will continue to move on, with constructive and creative policies for Britain.
If we consider what the Government do, rather than what they say they do, it is clear that Ministers are happy for important parts of our asylum policy to be set through directives, rather than by the Government reporting to the House. I imagine that they are a little embarrassed about that, given the chaos of wider immigration policy. Although the number of asylum seekers has been declining in recent years, as the Minister pointed out, largely because wars in the Balkans are thankfully just a bad memory, we cannot know that that will remain the case. It is therefore important, as part of the wider changes that are desperately needed in the immigration system, to have a fair and robust asylum system. It will be easier to achieve that if decisions are made by the Government in co-operation with our European partners than if policy is made by the Commission, with the Council making decisions under qualified majority voting on whether to implement them.
As the Minister said, the Commission has asked a number of pertinent questions, some of which this and subsequent Governments will inevitably have to address. She said that she had objections to some of the Commission’s ambitions, but without the exercise of our opt-outs, her objections are pointless. The Government seek to delay movement into the second phase, when we would indeed lose any control over our asylum policy, but her stance would be a lot more credible if she or her predecessor had taken any effective action over the past five years.
Such action can be taken without our signing up to a fully centralised policy. The Minister mentioned our relationship with France in this regard. The Government should be making more efforts to impress on the French authorities that it is unacceptable to recreate in Cherbourg the conditions that used to obtain at Sangatte. Sangatte camp has been closed, but many of the problems have moved along the coast, which the Minister will be aware is a growing issue. I should like more Government action in co-operation with the French authorities on that.
A second piece of action that I would recommend to the Government would be to do more to protect British lorry drivers, increasing numbers of whom are reporting that they have been attacked or threatened by people trying to use their trucks as a way of coming into Britain illegally. Even more worryingly, I have received reports that officers at Calais are more concerned with keeping the trucks rolling on to the ferries than with allowing British drivers to go through the channel that allows their trucks to be properly checked by the heat scanners. There is clearly much work to be done by the British authorities in this area, and I am sure that the French Government would be receptive.
Those are two concrete examples of how British policy in this area could certainly be improved by greater co-operation among member states. They do not require new directives or any other kind of legislation. They simply need effective action by the British Government. Asylum policy need not be an area that divides the two sides of the House. My essential message to the Minister is that it is not her words or her stated policy that are deficient; what is not working is the policy that she is, in fact, following. Having negotiated an opt-out from these provisions of the Amsterdam treaty, the Government have behaved as though the opt-out were unnecessary. They have been wrong in that presumption. We have tabled our amendment because it would send a powerful signal to present and future Ministers that British policy on asylum—which should be fair, humane, and competently run—was ultimately the responsibility of the British Government. I commend our amendment to the House.
I have heard so much about general immigration policy from the Opposition Front Bench that I wondered whether the Conservatives had read the Green Paper or the Government’s response before they tabled their amendment. They seem to have tried to push enough in to make the amendment credible. In reality, however, they seem to be agreeing entirely with the Government’s submission on the Green Paper. But perhaps they did not read it.
The point of the European Scrutiny Committee sending this document to the House is partly to illustrate the service that we believe we provide to the House in summarising important and complex documents, recording the Government’s view of them—all of which are available for people to read—and allowing the House to debate the issue. We need to debate the issue, but not to pile into the debate anything that the Conservatives might want to use to pad out their speeches. We have had much padding from the Opposition today. This debate is about asylum and about the Green Paper from the Commission on asylum. That is quite specific; it is not about immigration, border controls or anything else. It is about how we deal with people who eventually reach an EU country and apply for asylum.
The 1999 Tampere European Council agreement established the aim of working towards a common European asylum system. That is clearly something that the Opposition may wish to resist, and that would be a valid point for them to make in this debate, rather than all the other things about general immigration that they threw into the mix. The first phase involved putting in minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers and procedure for considering their applications. It was decided at Tampere that, in the longer term, there should be a common asylum procedure with uniform status throughout the EU for people being granted asylum.
The Council of Ministers has put forward and adopted four directives and three regulations since 1999. At the end of 2004, the European Council invited the Commission to evaluate the existing legislation and proposed legislation to implement the second phase by 2010. There might be serious points of contention about that. The Green Paper deals with this issue.
The Green Paper was issued in June 2007, and it asks that we should introduce common standards. It also talks about mandatory rules. This would mean that asylum seekers would be treated equally and that standards of protection would be fairer and higher. The Government, and the Opposition, would say that, in principle, those are good aims. None of us would wish anyone who had genuinely fled from a threatening situation and come to this country or any other part of the EU as an asylum seeker to be treated any less well than anyone else, although there are suspicions that some of them are not treated well enough at the moment.
Many people are allowed to stay in this country after suffering incarceration. Sadly, more than 60 children are incarcerated with their families in Harmondsworth at the moment. Thank goodness that, in Scotland, we have driven out that terrible blight on our society by not having asylum seekers’ children in Dungavel. I was happy to be part of the leading group that convinced the Government that it was not a good idea to make that rule binding in Scotland because it would have breached the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. In fact, believe it or not, this country actually takes a derogation from the UN convention on the rights of the child so that we can lock up the children of asylum seekers. That is an appalling situation under any Government, but it is an even more terrible shame, sadly, under a Government whom I support.
The Green Paper invited some views on more equitable sharing among member states of administrative and financial burdens and on assessing asylum applications. It went as far as putting forward the idea of actually sharing the physical burden by redistributing people across Europe if too many people landed in one country. In the example given, Spain was overloaded with west African asylum seekers. It is possible that in the Commission’s vision of the long-term future, those asylum seekers would need to be redistributed throughout Europe.
More effective EU support for developing countries is another theme. People flee countries that are near points of conflict and then go beyond them to the next country of safety, ending up in Europe. In fact, it would be possible to provide support for countries that are located alongside violent areas or areas where there are threats of violence. It might be possible for people to be supported to stay there rather than be driven forward and end up being trafficked. As the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) accepted, people sometimes pay their life savings to get dumped on an inflatable dinghy in the middle of the ocean.
We also want more practical data co-operation between members and views were sought on improving the EC’s capacity collectively to participate in international agreements. There is some criticism in other parts of the world that we are not doing as well as we could in that respect and we are encouraged to respond to it. That was the Green Paper.
We are happy that we are having this debate now because the Commission had a public hearing on 18 October. It will now move forward to presenting a policy plan, which is what the Government responded to and what our debate is all about. Quite frankly, at this moment, I am not sure that much has been said on the Floor of the House that will help to develop that policy plan.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is suitable for the European Union to get involved with the two issues that he raised? It is difficult for all the member states individually to deal with the countries neighbouring those where there are conflicts, so it is much more sensible for the EU to do that. Similarly, it is much more sensible for the EU to put forward to international organisations the general policies that we share in common. We really must not allow our particular views about the EU in general to make it difficult for us to make sensible decisions, but it is still quite reasonable to say that in the particularities of asylum seeking in our own countries, it is also reasonable for the national Government to feel that it has an important—in this particular case, absolute—role as well. There is a sensible way out of this, instead of the head-banging position that we so often get into.
I strongly welcome that contribution, which I believe also reflects the Government’s position. The response to the Commission that was sent to our Select Committee and the explanatory memorandum, of which everyone presumably has a copy, makes it clear that the Government are saying that good common progress has been made so far, without any mandatory decisions being taken. There are also four directives and three regulations.
The Government are clearly saying that we should not move forward with any other legislation at this moment. The Government motion ends by saying
“before embarking on a second phase of legislation”,
but I would have been happier if it were changed to “before considering” a second phase of legislation. We are in now in a period when it is necessary to let the legislation sink in.
Let me make one specific point. The Government pointed out in their response that the qualification directive came into force only in October 2006, whereas the procedures directive will not be implemented until December 2007. One of the first-phase proposals is not yet in operation, so I believe that the Government had taken the right position in saying that we need a serious period of reflection.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly given that he seems to have written his speech before listening at all to mine. He has not addressed my central point, which is that whatever the Government say in their response to his Select Committee or anything else, their actions—since Tampere and the Amsterdam treaty—make it clear that they are quite happy in practice to move towards a fully centralised system. It is the disparity between words and action on the part of the Government that I sought to point out. From everything that the hon. Gentleman has said so far, I rather think that instead of encouraging my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) to vote for the Government motion, the hon. Gentleman should be voting for our amendment.
The conflation of the Schengen agreement which emerged from Amsterdam and the asylum decisions at Tampere is completely false. The Schengen agreement involved conditions that we are steadily opting into, and—particularly in relation to information transfer—we are the keenest on its implementation. SIS I, the first Schengen information system, has not been implemented as we wished it to be, but SIS II is now being introduced. I believe that the way in which we are inserting ourselves into the Schengen process is justifiable, given the great benefits that we will gain.
On asylum, the subject of the Tampere proposals, it is a different matter. The Dublin agreement, which allows people to be returned to the country where they first applied for asylum, was a major breakthrough, and we use it again and again. We have made fundamental progress by securing right-of-return agreements with other countries from which people have come and applied falsely for asylum.
There is no open door in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has intervened several times today, has many constituents who feel abused by the strictness of our asylum-seeking process. But I know of many cases in Scotland of people who, having been incarcerated and threatened with expulsion, were eventually granted the right to stay when a reasoned view was taken about the conditions that they had left and the danger posed to them should they return. Is that not what we are about, as a civilised nation? Is that not what we have been about for many years?
I am reading a book the first word of whose title I cannot use because it is unparliamentary, but the second word is “foreigners” and the first begins with B. It is an excellent study of immigration, and of people seeking asylum who add to our community. For hundreds of years waves of people have arrived here: the Huguenots driven out of France and the Irish driven out of Ireland by poverty and starvation, the first wave of Jewish people driven here before the pogrom. followed by the second wave of people from the Jewish nations, driven out of Russia and elsewhere before the war. All those people have fertilised and grown in our island in a very, very positive way, but each time they arrived there was xenophobia. The same phrases were used about the Italians, the Irish and the Jewish people when they came here, and they were used about the Huguenots when they came. We keep doing it, and I am sorry to say that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman and some of his supporters are doing it again now.
The reasonable comments of the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) are leading us, in a balanced way, towards progress, but it must be progress; it cannot be stagnation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) has been making the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but in what I consider to be a much more sensible way. What my hon. Friend is saying is that the Government could have had our support if they had managed to make the distinction that the hon. Gentleman is making. If the Government were a Government whom we trusted on asylum, we might be able to go along with them when they told us that some things would be done more effectively on a wider basis. If, however, they say that to us in the context of their total failure to deal with the asylum situation at home, we have to remind them of their responsibility towards this country in this country. People like me, who can hardly be accused of xenophobia, are enthusiastically in favour of the amendment because the Government have got it wrong, not because the European Union has got it wrong.
Whether the right hon. Gentleman recognises it or not, the amendment is all about the Government’s retreating from the positive, open approach of working co-operatively across Europe. It is a typical marker to win the support of xenophobes and people who think that the motion means “Let us retreat behind barriers and”—as suggested by the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—“rescind the opt-ins.” That is why the amendment was tabled, and people will have recognised that view in the right hon. Gentleman’s speech.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Not yet.
The amendment is predicated on an argument about emigration into which as much as possible could be thrown to frighten the people. However, our Government have been seen in some quarters—such as Positive Action in Housing, which campaigns in Scotland—as being far too tough on people genuinely seeking asylum. The idea that we should retreat behind a barrier and say, “This will always by something we do at UK level without co-operating with anyone” is frightening.
I shall take one more intervention, and then I will want to get on with my speech.
As the hon. Gentleman has monstrously accused me of xenophobia, I am glad he has given way. Does he not recognise that if we do not have controlled borders, which would include a confident asylum system under which we could accept refugees who are in genuine danger, our country will be more likely to have problems with real xenophobes? Those who argue that anyone attempting to discuss in a sensible and moderate fashion controls on immigration is themselves xenophobic are not only absurd but, frankly, dangerous, because they are the people who leave the field clear for the real racists and the real bigots. Moderate, mainstream politicians must address these issues, because if we are driven off the field to the dressing room there are nasty people out there who would much prefer to address them.
If the hon. Gentleman was trying to say that, I apologise. It did not sound like that to me, but if that is what he was trying to say I fully agree, and that is also the Government’s position. The Government’s response to the Green Paper was clear. They said that “a mandatory single procedure”, which we already have, would be useful, but they also said that the idea of speeding up integration—in other words, of giving money to integrate people more quickly, before their asylum decisions are made—would be negative. They continued in similar fashion: they say it would not be appropriate to share the physical burden—to share people out across Europe—but they also say that sharing the financial burden of a proper asylum process would be sensible, and they support the idea of giving people in countries where there is conflict or terror security in nearby countries. The Government take a balanced view on this matter. They say that it is far too early to move to phase 2—that we are still implementing phase 1, and that we want a period of reflection on that before deciding what to do in the longer term.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he on reflection withdraw the implication, which I think he made in relation to me, that either the Opposition amendment or the proposition that national control is desirable is the same as xenophobia? It is a modest proposition to state that a country should define who its citizens are and defend its own borders, if necessary in co-operation with other countries. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw any implication that I or my hon. Friends are in any sense racist or xenophobic in advancing that proposition?
I think that that is the first time that the word “racist” has been used; it has not been used until now by any Member in this debate. I hope that my remarks will read as I intended in the Hansard report. What I said is that the right hon. Gentleman proposes—he proposes it regularly, and makes a good case for it in his own eyes—that we should withdraw from what we have already signed up to. He proposes that we opt out. That is the aim he expressed earlier, and it involves retreating behind the barriers and giving away what we have now got by doing things in co-operation. That is the point I was making. I hope that no inferences were taken by him, or by anyone else who heard what I said, that he is a xenophobe. I know that he is not one, but I do think that he is a little Englander in this matter. He wants to retreat behind the barriers and give up the benefits we have gained, and I am sorry that I cannot agree with him on that and never will.
I will leave this exchange now, if I may, as I have a speech to finish.
The UK has a long and proud record of accepting people. If each country were to try to deal with this matter alone, we would not make progress. The EU is now a common space. If people seeking asylum in one EU country are granted the right to stay, they will eventually be able to travel throughout the EU. The scale of migration across national borders has grown enormously, and we can only deal with that on an EU basis. We cannot deal with it country by country, because if that were the case people would flee from one country to another country. If we had not managed to have the Dublin agreement, for example, we would not be able to stop people asylum-shopping and they would be able to move from country to country.
The EU shares best practice and has made great progress in the first phase of the Tampere agreement, and we are now in the right position to see whether the agreements—the four directives and the three accompanying pieces of legislation—will work and whether we need to move forward. That is what the Government are saying. It is time to take stock. We cannot conclude that when phase 2 starts, a common asylum policy could not make progress through other legislation. We are not taking a view on that at the moment. We are saying, give the policy time to settle in and let us see what happens.
We may want to go beyond minimum standards to higher standards, but we may never wish to have mandatory standards. There is a long way between where we are now and where mandatory standards would take us. It may be that we eventually agree that we want mandatory standards, because other countries may not provide proper processes or integration for people in their countries. That would drive people out of those countries and over to this country, so we may need to raise the standard in other countries for our benefit.
This is an important debate, and it should focus on asylum, not on other things that may be wrong with the immigration system. Although the issues are the responsibility of one Department, they are dealt with differently. We need to treat asylum seekers with respect, because they may genuinely be fleeing in terror of their lives and need our succour and support. We need a system that reveals whether their claims are false and, if they are, to return them to their country of origin. That is eminently sensible, and the Committee did not oppose the Government’s position. Indeed, we thought that it should be brought to the attention of the House and commended. The amendment is unnecessary. It would be better to accept the Government motion and not press the amendment to the vote, but I know that the Conservatives intend to do so, for their own reasons.
As we have already heard, the common European asylum system seeks, most notably, to prevent asylum shopping across Europe. For example, under an effective common asylum system, people seeking asylum in Germany would not be able to present themselves for a second time in another EU country such as the UK.
The structure created by the common asylum system demonstrates that the EU can be a serious force for good in reducing the number of asylum claims to the UK. That must cause significant mental discomfort to those Members for whom the words “Europe” and “asylum” are triggers to start snarling and frothing at the mouth. It must be hard for them to discover that one is the best mechanism to deal with the other. In any case, it is not my job to provide psychological support to the Conservative party.
The Green Paper introduces stage 2 of the common European asylum system. To an extent, the Liberal Democrats agree that it is too soon to move ahead with stage 2 before we have judged the success of stage 1. We cannot yet judge whether what was agreed is what has been implemented.
I would be interested to hear from the Minister the extent to which she thinks that Dublin II—a regulation that enables the sharing of information to prevent asylum shopping around the EU—is working in practice. There are doubts that it is working well, and those add further weight to the argument that we should concentrate on getting stage 1 right before proceeding to stage 2.
Nevertheless, the Green Paper deserves proper scrutiny, as it raises issues that are relevant to the Hague programme as it moves forward. Although the Government are right to say that we should not rush to judgment, they should not use that as an excuse to ignore the Green Paper and the serious issues that it raises. For example, it gives us the opportunity to consider again whether we should allow asylum seekers to work. The Liberal Democrats take the view that asylum seekers should be permitted to work if their claim has not been decided within two months. It is not only inhuman to prevent asylum seekers from working, but a drain on the benefits system and causes serious social problems.
I do not mean to stereotype, but asylum seekers are often among the most enterprising and talented people. Of the asylum claims I have dealt with—my constituency is in the lake district, so I have not dealt with as many as some hon. Members—most have come from professional people, including doctors, nurses, teachers, and other people who have the skills for which we are crying out, and the desire and the work ethic to go out and earn a living rather than sit and wait for a decision, living on benefits. Many of the more right-wing newspapers to which the Government are often keen to pander are apoplectic at the thought of asylum seekers claiming benefit, so why not silence them by allowing asylum seekers to earn a living?
That is another, and very proper, criticism of the Government’s policy towards asylum seekers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the fact that the Government take so long to process the arrangements of perfectly decent people, especially if in the end they exclude them, is a crying scandal? That is a question not about the motion, but about the confidence of the House in a Government who let down every asylum seeker, whether genuine or not.
The right hon. Gentleman makes yet another good point. We want an effective asylum system in the UK and throughout Europe, and a European system that works effectively is bound to be better than even the most effective system operated in isolation.
When talented people are refused the right to work and forced to exist on benefits and charity, it can often cause serious problems, including resentment and even social disorder. As well as being inhumane, forcing people to be idle is just plain witless—and counter-productive.
The Green Paper gives us the chance to look at uniform status across the EU for intermediate categories of residency, such as temporary leave to remain and its equivalents. The asylum system is labyrinthine and complicated, and consequently expensive. Uniform status could allow us to simplify the system, to the benefit of the UK and its citizens.
I urge the Government not to give in to their reflex fear of being seen to be too EU-friendly. I shall not wax lyrical to quite the incendiary levels of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), but I note the somewhat predictable amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). No matter how much money and effort the Conservative party spends on trying to modernise its image, all it takes is a mention of asylum or Europe, or in this case both, to make its members return to type—unreconstructed, insular and with their heads in the sand. Sangatte was the result of countries acting in isolation over asylum. Uncontrolled asylum shopping around the EU is a consequence of isolated asylum systems. The price of insular asylum systems is unnecessary expense, human misery and failure to remove unsuccessful asylum seekers. If that is what the Conservative party wants, so be it, but we shall have no part in it.
The proposed system is a tremendous opportunity to sell the European Union to our constituents and to the media. It is the sort of issue that reminds knee-jerk little Englanders that although the EU is far from perfect, its existence and our membership of it are essential. There are two forms of leadership, are there not? In the first, someone checks which direction the crowd is taking and runs round to the front, to pretend that was the way they had always intended to go. In the second form, they take a stand and try to persuade the crowd to change direction and follow them. Of course the first is not leadership at all, and my fear is that on Europe and on asylum the Government have too often chosen the spineless option and followed the crowd. However, on this issue, they could demonstrate to the crowd that there is sound reason for changing direction in terms of popular attitudes towards Europe, so I urge them to take that opportunity.
Many of those points would be close to irrelevant if the UK had an asylum system that actually worked. Unfortunately, we have a system in which the number of deportations is down and where, in relation to some countries, the number of decisions overturned on appeal is up to 40 per cent. The Government are so desperate to deal with their pitiful record on deportations that they are, in effect, starving out unsuccessful asylum seekers, making them destitute, to lever them out of the country. That is an outrage against humanity, and the Minister should be ashamed that it is taking place on her watch.
The European Scrutiny Committee report is not the most riveting of documents, but it is worth reading to the end, not least because in the penultimate paragraph, on page 50, there is some light humour:
“The UK will be keen to share its experience of improving the quality of initial asylum decisions”—
presumably with our EU partners. However, I am not convinced that they will be particularly keen to follow our example of failure in deportations and an appeal rate against bad decisions of 40 per cent.
I mentioned psychology earlier. I have a friend who is a psychology teacher. She informs me that there are four stages of learning: unconscious incompetence, where one does not know what one is doing but one thinks one does; conscious incompetence, where one does not know what one is doing, but has realised that fact; conscious competence; and then unconscious competence. I am sure that most people, including those of us present today, do not get to number four, or even number three, that often. The key job is to remain consciously incompetent—in other words, to be aware of the fact that other people have something to teach one, and not be overblown about one’s own ability. The Government’s statement that they feel that they have lots to share with the rest of the European Union demonstrates that they are well and truly unconsciously incompetent on the issue of asylum.
In the light of the failings in the operation of the UK asylum system, will the Minister accept that it is time for us to have an independent asylum agency, which would remove from Governments the temptation to play politics with this sensitive issue and remove the issue from the Government’s reverse Midas touch? There are excellent examples of that approach working in other countries—notably Canada, which has a much better record of ensuring that unsuccessful applicants leave quickly and humanely, and which can boast that, far from having up to 40 per cent. of decisions reversed on appeal, only 1 per cent. of decisions are reversed.
Having an effective, humane and operational system for dealing with asylum applications is a necessary prerequisite for ensuring that the common European asylum system is effective. That does not alter our view that the system is desirable and that although it is right to ensure that we evaluate stage 1 properly before rushing into stage 2, the Government should nevertheless take seriously the issues raised in the Green Paper.
I will speak briefly on this matter, because most of the arguments have already been rehearsed. I am happy to support the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). I find myself in agreement with a lot of what he has said this afternoon. I pay tribute to the Minister for the sensible and measured way in which she introduced the debate on immigration, as she did only a fortnight ago. The document will be discussed properly and consulted upon by Parliament, by the Government, and, I am sure, by the European Scrutiny Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), which has a diverse cast of characters, some of whom are in favour of the European Union and some of whom are not quite so sure. Giving Parliament the chance to scrutinise such important documents is an important way to approach the European Union.
I was present as a junior Justice Minister at the Tampere European summit in 1999, when Finland had the presidency of the Union and when the whole justice and home affairs agenda was launched. It is good and proper that, eight years later, we are working closely with our European partners on asylum. Tampere became The Hague programme, and following The Hague we had the four directives on asylum, with which the House is familiar. It is right and proper that the Government should stop and evaluate what has been achieved so far in their desire further to improve co-operation between our country and our European partners.
I agreed with the first comments made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I have a lot in common with him. We celebrated our birthdays on Monday, along with Tina Turner—separately of course, not together. He was right to say that this is an ideal opportunity and an ideal function for the European Union. With external borders that need policing and scrutinising, it is vital that we work together with the other members of the EU to have a common policy. I would probably go slightly further than the Government. I understand why they are concerned and reticent about moving forward on the issue, but we cannot achieve a solution to the asylum problem unless we work closely with our partners.
Can the right hon. Gentleman not accept the distinction between co-operating with other countries, which we all believe in, and irreversibly handing over powers to another organisation on something as important as immigration? That is an important democratic distinction that we make, which I think he fails to make.
I understand that distinction, and I do not think that we have handed over the powers; we are very careful. In all debates with a European tinge, I make the point that British Ministers—whether Conservative or Labour—go to summit meetings, as the right hon. Gentleman did when he was a Minister, to protect British interests, not to give things away. He is quite wrong: the Government are protecting and defending our position.
It is right for us to determine whether we can improve co-operation. I hope that we will give sympathetic consideration to the creation of a European support office. I know that the proposal is at an early stage and I realise that it has come about only as a result of what was decided at The Hague, but we need to look at it.
If we examine such co-operation and support among EU colleagues, we must be concerned about the database. We will need to ensure that data held not only by ourselves but by other EU countries are protected, especially in view of the current climate. We must also ensure that our computer system is compatible with those in other countries. There is no point having fingerprints and data on a computer in France if that information cannot be read in the UK, and if the two computer systems cannot speak to each other, because there would thus be no prospect of achieving the laudable aims that the Government propose.
My second point relates to a matter raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, and to some extent by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. It is right to lament the delays in the asylum process. I do so every week, and I will tomorrow, when a lot of constituents will visit me—more than 100 come every Friday—all of whom will have immigration problems and complaints about delays in the Home Office. The right hon. Gentleman was a member of the Conservative Government, so I must point out to him that the delays that we are experiencing now are nothing compared with those pre-1997. I went to the immigration and nationality directorate then and saw hundreds of unopened letters and immigration cases that had not been dealt with.
My hon. Friend the Minister reminded us that she was only five months into the job. She needs to give resources and ministerial time to replying quickly to Members of Parliament about asylum cases. Cases must be dealt with quickly so that people who apply and are not successful are told to go as soon as possible. In the long run, that will save her a lot of headaches. It will also save the Home Office a lot of stamps, which it would otherwise have to use to reply to right hon. and hon. Members. Such a process is right and fair for those making applications. If people’s applications are genuine, tell them quickly, and if their applications are not genuine and do not succeed, tell those people quickly, so that they can leave the country. That is the cardinal principle that Minister should set out to Lin Homer every Monday morning when she gets her asylum and immigration statistics, because it is of paramount importance.
The Minister must examine the question of asylum seekers who are not allowed to work while their claims are being processed. If the Government want to prevent those people from working, they should process the claims quickly. However, there is constant delay. I am sure that I shall hear tomorrow, as I did last Friday, about cases that have lasted for four or five years without a decision. The people affected who are claiming asylum cannot work, and in fact, they are not on benefits either. They are in a dire situation as a result of the Government’s handling of the process. The Minister should look at what is happening and, perhaps in a limited number of cases, ensure that progress is made.
Will the Government please continue to do what they are doing regarding co-operation on asylum? We cannot solve the issue on our own. We must consider the number of people who are allowed to come to this country from France. I understand that 17,000 people—perhaps the Minister will tell me whether that figure is correct—have been moved from country to country to ensure that their asylum claims are processed properly. That is far too many people. We must ensure that once an asylum claim is made in one EU country, it is dealt with, rather than having a situation in which people are moved from country to country, eventually ending up in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will give us the figures and ensure that she raises that point next time she has a ministerial meeting in which she discusses justice and home affairs.
It is no secret that over a number of years, and over the course of several Bills, I have often regarded this Government and the previous Government as being far too tough on asylum. The move towards common policies across Europe is desirable. I look at the issue from the point of view of the people who come to Europe and ask for protection. It does not make sense that if two people who came from the same country and who faced the same conditions went to two different EU states, they would be treated in totally different ways and go through totally different procedures, and that totally different criteria might be used in determining their asylum applications. Such a situation will lead to shopping around. It will lead to people who come to Europe trying to see which country is the softest touch.
One of my concerns about common procedures across Europe was that they might start to drive standards down, rather than up, so I am pleased that the Green Paper focuses on putting protection back on the agenda. Some of us feared that moves towards common procedures and standards would have the opposite effect. In many ways, the Green Paper is saying that refugee protection should be back at the top of the agenda.
I listened to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who spoke for the Opposition, talking about what has happened so far. He said that what the Government have done caused problems, but I found his arguments difficult to follow. He picked a couple of examples. He mentioned safe countries, but his interpretation of the directive concerned was wrong. Be that as it may, I do not agree with the concept of safe countries and white lists. It is clear in the Geneva convention that each claim has to be considered on its merits. Whatever anyone does, we cannot prevent people from saying, “I want to claim asylum.” We may look at the claim and decide that it is nonsense, to refuse it and to remove the person—we may do so quickly, if it is obvious that the claim is nonsense—but we cannot stop someone saying that they want to claim asylum. It is impossible.
The hon. Member for Ashford talked about subsidiary protection. We have always had subsidiary protection in the UK; we used to have a system in which people might be given asylum or exceptional leave to remain, or be refused. That has always been the case. All right, the terms have changed—humanitarian protection is the term that we use now—but there has always been subsidiary protection, so I do not know what problem he was referring to. The argument seemed to come down to his saying, “We welcome genuine asylum seekers, but we don’t want non-genuine asylum seekers.” The suggestion is that other EU countries are quite happy to have lots of non-genuine asylum seekers, and to have a common process that encourages them, which is utter nonsense. Every EU country has the same interest in accepting people whose claims are justified and rejecting those whose claims are not justified. I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman showed me that the common asylum system has so far generated more non-genuine claims in this country; I cannot see that any such thing has happened.
As I say, in many ways, the Green Paper puts protection back at the top of the agenda, and that is welcome. I understand why the Government say that we need to proceed with caution; it is too soon after the introduction of the first phase to evaluate it. We cannot evaluate something that has not yet been fully introduced. The Commission needs to do that before proceeding to further proposals. However, I hope that we will proceed, because some proposals in the Green Paper really do matter and could improve things for people who come here for protection. The rights given to people who have subsidiary protection have always been inferior, and I have never understood why. I refer to the right to family reunion, the length of time that people had to wait before their family could join them and the ability of people who have been given protection to move within the EU.
I have dealt with ridiculous cases from time to time. I remember dealing with the case of a family who became divided as they fled from their country of origin. One of them, a 17-year-old, ended up in my constituency. The rest of his family were elsewhere in Europe and there was no way of bringing them together. It was stupid that two halves of a family had asylum claims being considered in different countries and there was no way of bringing them together. Even when they had been given asylum, there was no easy way immediately for that person to move and join his family.
There are things that can be done outside the judicial process—outside the framework of the law. Some of those have been mentioned this afternoon and none of us has any problem with them or with trying to achieve greater practical co-operation. It may be a good idea to try to get greater practical co-operation with, say, the French Government, but that does not diminish the good sense of considering common systems on asylum. It is part of an answer, not the whole answer.
Some of the suggestions in the Green Paper are eminently sensible, such as the suggestion that we examine reception criteria, criteria for detention, whether people have rights to work and what those rights should be. If they are eminently sensible in the UK, I do not see why they are not eminently sensible across the EU and why we should not be talking to other EU countries about reaching common standards in those areas. There are areas in which we should be doing a much better job than we are doing, especially on detention. I still think that we detain far too many people, for far too long, and we are still detaining children. But it does not make sense to have that debate within one EU country.
Finally, I hope that if the Green Paper proceeds and there are further proposals from the EU, we will be able to have full consultation and a full debate in Parliament. It is right that such important EU proposals are debated on the Floor of the House, not just in a European Committee. Whatever comes back and whether the Government propose to accept it or not, I hope that we can have a proper debate on it in the House as early as possible.
With the leave of the House, I shall reply to some of the points that arose in the debate. I should start by saying how nice it is to observe the new-found unity of the Conservative party on the issue of Europe. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) rightly summed up the difficulties often faced by the Conservatives on the issue.
It was disappointing to hear from the Conservatives that their policy was not to tackle immigration across Europe. It is worth stressing at the outset that the Green Paper is a discussion document. Some of the contributions painted it as a hard and fast policy document. However, it lists a number of questions and does not give the answers. It is a shame that some of the contributions to the debate did not contribute, as my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) said, to the debate that Europe is having on the subject.
The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) began by being very rude about my belief that our asylum process is getting better, but asylum claims are at their lowest since 1992. Last year we removed more people than ever before, while the number claiming asylum has fallen to levels not seen since 1993. The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of relations with France. My hon. Friend the Minister for Borders and Immigration met his French counterpart, Brice Hortefeux, earlier this month following Monsieur Hortefeux’s visit to London in October. The meeting was constructive, and both Ministers agreed on the importance of continuing the working relationship at all levels, particularly on the maintenance of juxtaposed controls.
I want to correct a factual point. The hon. Member for Ashford discussed the issue of safe countries, and it is worth stressing the letter of the law. Article 30 of the procedures directive allows the national designation of third countries as safe countries of origin. In the UK, that is our non-suspensive appeal process, which we continue to operate.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk made an informed and passionate contribution. He rightly pointed out, in a way that I do not need to, the incoherence of the Conservative position. He also raised the issue of children in detention. Rather than detaining the House, I am happy to write to him about the progress that we are making in that area and the work of the Clannebor project and the Kent pilot to establish programmes that will hopefully reduce the need to detain children; the Kent pilot starts next week. Last week, I met MEPs and had a constructive discussion about our detention estate, including the issue of children. I look forward to their report on the matter.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made a number of predictable points. His party’s policy is to have an amnesty to allow all comers to work in the UK. His speech included the outrageous slur that the Government are starving out asylum seekers, which I must contest. There is always support for people who are going through the claim process. Those who cannot be removed for various reasons outside their own control also receive support. Once a decision is made and someone is told that they must leave the country, if they do not leave voluntarily, we enforce deportation. Even with voluntary removal, we provide a package of support to enable such people to establish themselves back in their home country, if they want to do so. I also need to correct him on a fact: in quarter three of this year, 23 per cent. of appeals were allowed, rather than the 40 per cent. figure that he suggested.
The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) raised a number of points. It is worth saying that the total number of people awaiting a decision on asylum has decreased by more than 1,000 compared with last year’s figure. We are reducing the backlog, which arose on his party’s watch. We are taking measures to tackle the backlog, which we take very seriously. [Interruption.] I am the second largest customer of the Home Office for my constituents on this issue in terms of correspondence to the Border and Immigration Agency and Ministers, so I know the facts and the reality on the ground. The number of new applications processed under the new model is increasing. We are improving our targets to grant or remove new asylum cases within six months. The target for the proportion of cases that are concluded within a six-month period will increase in steps to 90 per cent. by the end of 2011. We are addressing the issue in steps, because it would be foolish to promise what we cannot do, but we are determined to deliver.
As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) made sensible and well-informed contributions. I look forward to continuing the constructive debate on asylum with them, unlike Conservative Members. I wonder what the motive is behind the amendment, which seems confused and contradictory. Much of what Conservative Members have said agrees with Government policy. I wonder whether they have another motive outside this House and what they will do with the outcome of the vote, if they press the amendment to a Division. I urge them not to do so, because our positions on this issue are not radically different.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Union Document 10516/07, Commission Green Paper on the future Common European Asylum System; notes the continued importance of working collectively on asylum issues with other Member States; further notes the importance of the Dublin II Regulation, the current responsibility mechanism to deal with asylum seekers; and supports the Government’s position that proper implementation and a full evaluation of first phase instruments should take place before embarking on a second phase of legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(3) (Liaison Committee):
Estimates
That this House agrees with the Report [27th November] from the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Michael Foster.]
Question agreed to.
Convicting Rapists/Protecting Victims
It will be appropriate to impose a time-limit. Front Benchers are allowed 20 minutes; they may consider taking rather less. A time limit of five minutes is imposed on Back-Bench speeches.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of the Government consultation on convicting rapists and protecting victims.
I welcome the opportunity to open this debate on convicting rapists and protecting victims, which follows the publication yesterday of our response to a consultation paper of the same name.
Rape is one of the most feared and most damaging crimes in our society—5 per cent. of women and 0.4 per cent. of men have been raped as adults—and it devastates the lives of victims, often some of the most vulnerable people there are. The harm caused can be severe and long-lasting, affecting the sexual, physical and mental health of the victim. It takes enormous courage for a victim of sexual violence to report such a crime and they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and to see justice done. Our new public service agreements will, for the first time, make it clear that tackling sexual violence must be a priority across England and Wales.
Contrary to the popular view—it cannot be said too often—rape is not usually perpetrated by a stranger: a man in a mask on an isolated footpath hitting someone over the head and grievously injuring them. According to the British crime survey, 54 per cent. of rapists are current or former partners of the victim and only about 17 per cent. could be called strangers. With non-stranger rape, there is often no independent witness present and little or no forensic evidence.
The Government have already made a number of changes to the law and to how police and the Crown Prosecution Service work together to try to tackle rape. In particular, we have excluded much previous sexual history evidence from trials. That used to undermine victims and make it frightening for them to countenance coming to court. We have strengthened the law on rape through the Sexual Offences Act 2003, improving the definition of consent and requiring that any belief that the complainant was consenting has to be reasonable before it can operate as a defence. We have updated the law on bad character and hearsay to ensure that all relevant evidence is considered by a jury.
We are determined to take all measures necessary to improve the conviction rate in rape cases. Ministers have said many times that the conviction rate is unacceptably low. Increasing the conviction rate is vital in order not only to deliver justice for victims but to send a deterrent message to potential offenders, prevent rapists from committing further offences and secure the confidence of victims and the wider public in the criminal justice system. It is also important for the criminal justice system, as a low conviction rate can deter the application of the rigour and thoroughness that it is appropriate to apply to inquiries into serious sexual offending behaviour.
My hon. and learned Friend will want to congratulate the CPS in Wolverhampton on securing a conviction rate of about 80 per cent. The difficulties to which she referred are particularly hard when cases involve children. Will she make that a feature of the consultation? There is an unfortunate case in my constituency with which the CPS has been unable to proceed simply because it involves a child’s word against an adult’s, even though more than one alleged offence against the same person is involved. Will my hon. and learned Friend pay particular attention in the consultation to that difficult and sensitive area?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the interest that he has taken in such issues, which are extremely difficult. Measures have been put in place to try to support children so that they can come forward and give appropriate evidence, but it is not always practical or appropriate for cases to be continued in every circumstance. If I can assist my hon. Friend with any particular element of the case that is troubling him, I would be pleased to meet him about it.
Has my hon. and learned Friend been able to gather any evidence on the degree to which sexual assault referral centres such as Millfield house in my constituency, with their counselling sessions and sympathetic medical examinations, have been able to assist in encouraging and enabling women to pursue rape cases? Does she share my hope that with the belated awareness of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) about the importance of the matter, the Opposition will vote in favour of measures that will enable us to increase conviction rates, rather than oppose them as they have sometimes done in the past?
Since a good deal of the fall-out for people who complain about rape happens at the start of the process, it is common sense that sexual assault referral centres, which support complainants as if they were patients and look after their needs, are bound to encourage them to have the confidence to remain in the prosecuting process. Although no concrete research shows that that is the case, it is counter-intuitive to suggest anything else. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Judy Mallaber) knows, we have multiplied the number of sexual assault referral centres as fast as possible in the past few years. There are approximately 19 and there should be one in every criminal justice area in two years.
Yes, I welcome the Opposition’s new interest in the topic of rape and hope that they can now support our measures.
I am obviously pleased about the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on the subject, but to suggest that it is a new interest, when the Solicitor-General knows that we both served on several Bill Committees in which we scrutinised those matters closely—and, indeed, agreed on many things that needed to done—is perhaps not the best way to start such a debate.
Unfortunately, my last recollection of a Conservative attitude to rape is the suggestion of anonymity for male defendants, to—as it was put in Committee—“level the playing field”. I am therefore sorry to say that I cannot accept for a moment the contention that the Tories have systematically supported the things that we tried to do to improve the conviction rate. Indeed, I have already said that we excluded previous sexual history, which was done nearly over the dead bodies of Conservative Members. Many years ago, before we were in government, I drafted amendments for a Back Bencher who presented them in a Committee on a much earlier criminal justice measure. We begged the Conservative Government to introduce limits on the admissibility of previous sexual history. That was rejected out of hand. I am afraid that we are considering a fairly new road to Damascus conversion for some Opposition Members.
Will the Solicitor-General give way?
I shall carry on because I have given way at least three times in the past five minutes and there is much to say.
Let us consider the conviction rate, which stands at 5.7 per cent. for reported rapes. We do not know how many rapes are reported but we believe that the figure is approximately 15 per cent. That is an increase on the historic number. The figure of 5.7 per cent. represents a decrease in the conviction rate, which has been falling since the 1970s. In the past decade, especially in the past five years, there has been a significant increase in reporting rape, and it is important to put the conviction rate in that context. Overall, since 1997 when 6,500 rapes were reported, the figure has increased substantially so that 14,500 rapes were reported in 2005-07.
That rise in reporting is important because it demonstrates that victims increasingly have the confidence to come forward, and that the steps that we have taken in the past decade expressly to give them confidence of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley described, are starting to work. More victims have the confidence to come forward and complain. There are greater numbers of convictions for rape and the overall percentage is moving in the right direction. In the past year, 863 individuals were convicted of rape, whereas 618 individuals were convicted of rape in 1997. Approximately 250 more rapists are convicted every year as a consequence of enhancing people’s confidence to come forward.
I am happy to say that conviction rates on complaint are beginning gradually to turn the corner. I do not pretend that 5.7 per cent. is much to write home about, but it is an increase of 0.5% per cent. in the past two years. Although that sounds small, the figures together represent a 10 per cent. rise in the past two years. We have increased by a third the number of people who are convicted annually of rape. The conviction rate is starting to increase, so there is hope that the measures that we have put in place are starting to bear fruit. However, it is clear that there is more to do.
We put out a consultation paper in 2006 on four issues that we thought could strengthen the existing legal framework. They related to the consent element in rape, evidence or information about the psychological reactions of rape victims, the use of video evidence and the law relating to the admissibility of evidence. Let me go through each of them quickly.
Under the current law, the statement that a victim of a sexual offence makes to someone else can be heard by a jury only if it is made as soon as it could reasonably have been made after the offence. It is now pretty well known that victims of rape or other sexual offences may delay making their complaint for a variety of reasons, the trauma being one of them, the humiliation and embarrassment being others. We believe that juries should be allowed to hear and take account of as much relevant evidence as possible, so we shall legislate to make statements from victims about a rape automatically admissible, whenever they were made. We have decided, too, that it is right that the new legislation will apply to every offence. We will include evidence of all complaints and all offences, subject always to the judge’s discretion to exclude evidence that it is unjust to admit.
My hon. and learned Friend will know from the discussions that we have had that I spent most of the summer recess serving as a juror on two complicated rape cases. I am intrigued by what she just said, because—I do not know whether hon. Members are aware of this—jurors receive a transcript of the defendant’s statement to the police, but not one of the complainant’s. The victim’s statement is not taken into the jury’s retiring room, so jurors just have one version of events. Is my hon. and learned Friend saying that such evidence will be admissible and that jurors will be able to read the victim’s statement?
No, that is not quite my point. My hon. Friend has raised the issue with me and I understand her concern. She is saying that when a defendant is interviewed by the police the answers to the questions are always given to the jury when it retires, but not the complainant’s statement. I am talking about a different point, although when I talk about videoed evidence my hon. Friend will find it helpful that we have made a different step from the one that I have just set out.
We are determined to ensure that rape complainants receive the fullest protection that they can. Since video recorded evidence can be accurate and compelling, we intend to extend the video recording special measure to adult complainants in cases involving sexual offences. We shall vary the legal test, so that such recordings are automatically admissible. Prosecutors will also have a broader discretion to ask supplementary questions of a witness. That means that when the police first feel able to interview a complainant, they will not do so by writing down a statement; rather, they will video what she has to say. That video will stand as her evidence in chief in court, although the prosecutor will be able to ask supplementary questions if he wishes and cross-examination will of course follow thereafter. That will help to address the problem that my hon. Friend raised and ought to shorten the period that the complainant has to spend in the witness box, reliving the intimate details of the trauma. The new procedure should also give the jury a good, fresh impression of her evidence.
I am going to carry on, because I have got a lot to say and I am conscious that others wish to speak. No doubt Opposition Members will take their chances to do so.
Capacity to consent has been a difficult area. Problems occur where a person is intoxicated. A person can be intoxicated to the extent that they do not have the capacity to consent. That can be exploited in order to have sex and if it is, that is rape. We have asked whether the law in that area needs changing. Contrary to some assertions in the press, we were never contemplating a grid system, whereby a person’s capacity could be judged against what they had drunk, but the problem was highlighted when the Crown withdrew a case in Swansea because the complainant could not say that she had said no, as it were, because she was very drunk. The question whether she was so drunk that she did not have the capacity to decide either way was not left to the jury, but now we have a judgment from the Court of Appeal, in the case of R v. Bree last March, saying that that is how the law should operate. A person’s capacity to consent through the drink or drugs is what matters, and that capacity can evaporate well before she becomes unconscious. That is the issue to be left to the jury now. It is not a question of asking, “Was she so drunk that she can’t remember whether she consented or not?” Rather, the jury must ask whether she was so drunk that she could not have had the capacity to say yes or no.
We do not feel that we have to do any more, because that case has clarified the law. It is notable, however, that as recently as July, there was another case on almost exactly the same facts, in which the judge at first instance behaved in almost exactly the same way. That case has come to the Court of Appeal and been put right, and the law has now been set out with even greater clarity. The Judicial Studies Board has issued guidance on this matter for judges, and it is imperative that they take it on board. I know that the board will make greater efforts to spread the judgment if it needs to. It is obviously a matter for concern that, having had a clear judgment in March, the same issue had to go to the Court of Appeal following a case in July. We have already put this into guidance for our police and prosecutors on sexual offences.
We also looked at whether evidence on the psychological impact of sexual offending on victims should be presented in court by experts, and whether there were other ways of presenting juries with the information about victims in general, rather than about the behaviour of a specific individual. A lot of myths surround the crime of rape. An Amnesty International document produced in 2005 identifies a blame culture against victims of rape. Similar research in the US suggests that that is an important feature in many acquittals. Every report from the Crown Prosecution Service inspectorate and from the inspectorate of constabulary has talked about the scepticism about rape complainants that is borne of myths, and about the misunderstandings about how complainants will behave after they have been raped.
It has been practical to train those myths away from professionals. Lawyers and prosecutors have been trained, and judges go on serious sexual offence courses. Barristers will now have to go on a course before they can prosecute rape cases. Juries, however, have so far been out of reach. We now consider it desirable for juries to receive information about the psychological reactions of rape victims, in order to dispel these myths. However, rather than have the prosecution present evidence, we are going to set up a group of academics, doctors and—I am happy to say—judges to help us with this proposition.
I commend my hon. and learned Friend for the extensive training throughout the criminal justice system that she has outlined. Is she aware, however, that there is a huge variation in the performance of the various police authorities? My own police authority in Bedfordshire is, sadly, among the worst for tackling domestic violence and rape. Will she ensure that there is greater scrutiny of police forces, as well as greater training, so that we can be assured that there is not a postcode lottery when it comes to the effectiveness of the police’s prosecution of these cases?
My hon. Friend is right. She makes a very good point, and I will return to it in more detail later. Happily, my own police authority, Cleveland, is somewhere in the middle.
We shall ask the group of academics, doctors and experienced judges who have dealt with a lot of sexual offending—with the blessing of the senior judiciary—to decide what even-handed material could helpfully be put together to give to juries. They will do that job quickly; they have already met once in the course of the consultation, and they will meet again in December. We are seeking to get on with this. Justice must not be defeated by myths and stereotypes.
I should like to ask, for the sake of clarity, whether this new system will operate in a way similar to that in which expert evidence is brought before a court in any other kind of case. Expert evidence can be given on the psychological effect of rape. If it were a motoring offence, the expert evidence could be on the state of the tyres, or something like that. I do not mean to draw a parallel between the two; I am merely asking for clarification on how this will work in court. I am very much in favour of it, and I wonder whether it will work along similar lines to expert evidence.
I am glad to have the hon. Lady’s support. The experts, particularly the psychiatrists’ expert, feel confident that there is a broad understanding among experts of what might be called typical—that may not be the right word—responses from rape complainants, so I am hopeful that there could be a consensus in respect of what information could usefully be put before juries. Unless they have some specialist knowledge or unless they have been exposed to rape themselves, jurors will not follow it, as it is quite counter-intuitive. We hope that this will not need to be expert evidence in the sense of being partisan on either side and that it could be put before the jury in some neutral way in order to dispel these myths so that the jury’s minds will remain open in a way that we hope all British jury’s minds are open. That is how I hope it will work.
I must say that I feel reasonably optimistic about this and I am particularly pleased to have the judiciary so fully on board in respect of it. A member of the senior judiciary told me this week that when he had been on the serious sexual offence training course and had heard from psychiatrists what reactions are or are not typical of rape complainants, he said that it was like scales falling from his eyes. He felt that it could be hugely helpful for jurors as well, which is very cheering.
There is a bigger job than just for juries, as awareness raising is a serious issue and it is a responsibility of all of us—politicians, experts and victims themselves, if they can manage it—to help change public opinion. There is also the media. It was quite by accident—I do not usually have this invidious habit—that I listened to “The Archers” last Sunday. It is running a storyline at the moment about a young woman—[Interruption.]—youngish, is she? She was raped some time ago, but had not complained and was helping the man out. She failed to report it, but I think that she has now. The programme showed how traumatised she was and how difficult she was finding the whole process. I think that that is quite helpful—depending, I suppose, on how the storyline develops from there.
Let me move away a little from the criminal justice system and speak about the broader work being done to tackle rape and other sexual violence. Consultation is very important and we believe that reforming the law will improve outcomes, but is not enough in itself. We have a cross-governmental action plan to prevent sexual violence, to increase access to support for victims and to improve the way in which cases are investigated and prosecuted.
Has the Minister had the chance to read the End Violence Against Women report “Map of Gaps”, which was published this week? In particular, what does she make of the finding that most women in the UK do not have access to a local rape crisis centre? Do the Government intend to address that problem?
I have read “Map of Gaps” and I have enormous respect for End Violence Against Women. I shall come on to that in due course, if I may.
It must be our ultimate aim to prevent sexual violence, challenge the culture that tolerates it and support those at risk of victimisation across the board. Attitudes need to be addressed very early. As days go by, we are educating the next generation of jurors, so we must start with education. All secondary schools deliver sex and relationship education and by the end of 2009 we expect them all to meet specific standards in relation to personal, social and health education, including sex, relationships, emotional health and well-being.
Clearly, we need to challenge the behaviour and attitudes of the minority of men who think that it is okay to have sex without consent. Last year, the Government ran a pretty effective and very hard-hitting campaign stressing the importance of active consent to sex. My colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker), has helped to launch the men’s coalition. I am very pleased about it, as it is a group of leading men’s organisations that aims to provide a male voice to challenge exactly that culture—any male culture that colludes with any kind of violence against women. The men’s coalition will challenge that and we will continue to see what else we can do to support it and spread its work.
Those who commit sexual offences receive tough sentences. The average length of a sentence for rape has doubled since the 1980s—it is now about seven years, whereas at that time it was three years and four months—and we have introduced indeterminate sentences for people convicted of rape who pose a danger. Fifty-seven people are serving life sentences for rape. On release, serious sex offenders are managed through multi-agency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—by the police and offender management services. MAPPA appears to work: in 2006-07, only 0.08% of high-risk offenders managed within MAPPA were charged with a further offence.
Increasing access to health and support services is very important. We have a duty to help those affected by sexual violence to deal with the consequences of their ordeal, and I am pleased that we have been able to invest around £10 million in services.
I welcome the opportunity to debate the Government’s response to the report, and the responses that the report received, on what is an extremely important topic. I also welcome the opportunity to examine more widely issues relating to what is acknowledged in all parts of the House to be not only a very serious offence, but a serious problem.
This is not a new topic. The Solicitor-General and I had the pleasure of debating it during consideration of the Bills that became the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On the whole, in my experience, there is cross-party agreement on the issues. Indeed, the changes that we brought about as a result of the Sexual Offences Act, involving definitions of rape and issues concerning capacity, were welcomed throughout the House, and that is exactly as it should be.
I am slightly sorry that at times the Solicitor-General appears to consider this an area in which she alone, or her party, enjoys a monopoly of wisdom or, indeed, caring. I do not think that that is fair to the Conservative party, or indeed to other right hon. and hon. Members. But I want to enter into the debate in a good spirit. If I highlight issues about which I have some concerns, as I shall do shortly, it is not because I do not wish to support the Government’s intention of ensuring that more of those who have committed rape are convicted, but because we must be careful not to undermine the basis of the criminal justice system in a way that would lead to miscarriages of justice, thus ultimately doing nothing at all to ensure that more rapists are brought to justice.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will in a moment.
I remind the Solicitor-General that when we passed the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Government expressed the hope that it would make a substantial difference to conviction rates in rape cases. There is no escaping that: it was why the Government introduced the Bill, and it was one of our reasons for supporting measures that we considered fair, reasonable and proportionate.
As the Solicitor-General said, although the Act has gone some way towards improving conviction rates, it has had nothing like the impact for which the Government hoped. I venture to suggest that that is because of the increase in the number of rape allegations in the last 30 years, caused partly—and very properly—by the right to complain about rape in marriage and partly by the rise of what is colloquially known as date rape, involving persons who have had an intimate relationship that may have ended recently or may still be ongoing at the time of the rape.
That is not date rape.
Rather than speaking from a sedentary position, the hon. Lady should listen to what I have to say. She can intervene in a moment.
I accept that the term “date rape” is sometimes used in the context of people who are raped during a date with someone whom they do not know very well, but I have also heard the term used in the sense in which I am using it, to denote rape involving individuals who are known to each other.
The hon. Lady has made her point, and I am not going to get involved in an exercise in semantics as that would not be helpful.
I think there might be agreement that, as the hon. and learned Lady said, the rise in rape is not a result of stranger rape, or people being dragged into the bushes or knocked over the head in a darkened lane at night, but in large measure results from the fact that people are properly coming forward and complaining about rape in the context of a relationship where they know their assailant. As the hon. and learned Lady acknowledged in her speech, that presents a real challenge, and we in this House must address it. First, we must ask how we can ensure that women who have been raped come forward and make allegations when we know—this is a telling fact—that many such women are in some uncertainty as to whether the allegation they wish to make constitutes rape. In many cases it almost certainly does—that point was picked up in Government statistics. We must also address how to ensure that that happens while also ensuring that there is fairness for the accused, and how to get such cases through the courts so as to ensure the conviction of those who are guilty.
That is a very real challenge because all the evidence suggests that there are two major reasons why conviction rates are so low. First, a substantial number of the cases complained of never reach court at all. It is worth running through the statistics on why that is the case: one sixth of the complaints initially made are not investigated because the police conclude—one hopes they are right in this—that they are false; a quarter are dropped because of insufficient evidence; and one third are withdrawn, often because the victim will not co-operate further, which presents another challenge that should cause us a great deal of anxiety. We also know that once such cases get into court, the nature of the allegations presents juries with enormous difficulties. They must decide whether a very serious offence has been committed, and if the person accused is of previous good character and the consequence of conviction is a long period of imprisonment—as it should be—if there is any doubt, the defendant is entitled to the benefit of it. We have seen over and over again that such cases present real problems. It is worth noting that the conviction rate in such trials is now 44 per cent., and although that is too low, as the hon. and learned Lady has said, it is substantially higher than the initial statistics would suggest.
I must also say that it is not my professional experience that jurors treat rape allegations lightly. Rape is viewed in our society as a very serious matter, although I agree with the hon. and learned Lady that there might be issues about young people’s attitudes as to whether certain sorts of behaviour may render a subsequent complaint by a victim in some way wrong—I think we are in agreement that we would not wish to countenance that.
What should we do? My right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has made the point, which has been picked up, that greater support for rape victims is needed. It is worth pointing out that there were 68 rape crisis support centres in 1984 and there are only 45 today. There are funding issues in respect of whether the centres can survive in the long term when they tend to have a hand-to-mouth existence. I very much hope that the Government will be able to address that. As the hon. and learned Lady will be aware, we have said that the three-year funding cycles are unsatisfactory.
I think that there is also complete common ground between the hon. and learned Lady and me on wider educational issues. It is vital that there is an understanding within the sex education context of people’s rights in intimate relationships. That should be inculcated and fully understood at a young age, because in the long term that might do more to reduce the incidence of rape than almost anything else. I hope that the Government will have the opportunity to look—we will support them in doing so—at ways in which to take that forward.
We also need to consider whether we are getting the right sentences, although I acknowledge that the Solicitor-General says that some of the statistics show a continuing rise in sentences in rape cases. That is also a difficult area, but if the Government make any suggestions, we will consider them creatively.
I turn to the issues raised in the report. I note that the first recommendation is that the Government take the view that there is no need at present to interfere further with the law on capacity, and they are right. We carried out a major change in the 2003 legislation and, while I share the Solicitor-General’s disquiet about the problems with several cases in which the judiciary and, sometimes, prosecuting counsel did not seem to understand the new rules, any form of legislative change takes time to be transmitted down the chain. I am pleased to hear about special training for those prosecuting such cases.
I am sure that the Solicitor-General will agree that the case of R v. Bree has laid down clear parameters on the issue of capacity. I hope that those are properly understood and that, as a result, we will have no further instances of trials being abandoned even though the issue of capacity could be resolved in the jury’s mind. I endorse the judiciary’s assertion in R v. Bree that it was certainly not Parliament’s intention to say that a person lacked capacity only when they became unconscious, and I am pleased that that has been made clear.
I find the second issue, that of expert witnesses, more difficult, and I shall explain why. I was struck by the Solicitor-General’s comments, because her language about a desire to see expert evidence admitted or special training for juries was much stronger in tone than the contents of the Government’s response in the report. I do not know whether that indicates some difference of view between the Solicitor-General and others in the Law Officers’ Department or the Home Office about how to approach the issue, or whether it is her personal view. In any case, one does not match the other, and I detected considerable hesitation in the report, insofar as it made it clear that there were potential problems with getting expert evidence admitted, which the Government fully recognised. I share those concerns.
I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but he appeared to be eliding what I took to be two separate issues. One is training for juries, and the other is expert evidence on a particular offence. Those appear to be separate to me, but the hon. Gentleman appeared to elide them.
The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Perhaps in eliding those issues I am reflecting in part a slight uncertainty about the Government’s aim. There are different ideas. One would involve giving jurors a pack before they start a rape trial, giving the background statistical issues on rape and the problems of post-traumatic disorder leading to victims complaining only a long time after the event. The other would bring experts into court to explain those issues to juries in the course of the trial.
Both present difficulties. If we were to do that, the defence would have to be entitled to do the same thing. The Solicitor-General shakes her head, but on the basis of equality of arms and fairness of trial, it would be difficult to avoid that. The problem, as those of us in the legal profession know, is that some experts are tremendous individuals who act neutrally, and others can be hired guns who will say virtually anything in court that anybody wants them to say. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) says, “Most of them”.
There is plenty of material that I can imagine defence counsel wanting to put before juries about, for example, the claimed incidence rates of false allegations, that I would not particularly want handed out. I am by no means clear in my mind as to how that problem can be overcome. From reading the Government’s report, I detected that although they intended to consult further, they had not made up their mind, which is why I was struck by the far greater note of certainty given by the Solicitor-General at the Dispatch Box. I shall take it that the Government’s position is as set out in the paper, in which case I unreservedly welcome it. If there is a sensible way forward that meets the needs of fairness to defendant and victim, and the prosecution—it is an advantage to the prosecution—we shall look at it sympathetically, but there are real issues and problems about bringing in experts. I cannot conceive of a circumstance where an expert could be brought in for one side without allowing the other side to have their pennyworth-say on the matter.
I know that the hon. Gentleman has not had long to read the document, and that as the concept is relatively new it is not easy to grasp. We are not talking about expert evidence now, as I thought I had set out reasonably lucidly for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), although expert evidence was certainly within our contemplation when we launched the consultation, and most of the senior judiciary who responded were in favour of expert evidence and did not see the problems the hon. Gentleman has found with it. As he has not had much opportunity to read the document, let me make it clear that the idea is to try to find something consensual that can be put before a jury as a piece of public service information, not related to this or that defendant or this or that complainant, and I am enthusiastic about the prospect. It could be a key piece of public education material for jurors and other people, and I am sure he accepts that is long overdue. I am so pleased that the judiciary are joining in with that effort.
I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for her remarks, but I shall simply quote the Government’s position:
“The Government’s view is that whilst it would be desirable for juries in rape cases to receive expert evidence concerning the characteristics of behaviour and psychological reactions that victims of rape may demonstrate, so as to seek to break down what are well recognised to be stereotypical myths about the way rape victims react, there are substantial risks to this proposal and it should be approached with caution.”
The document goes on to refer to general evidence, but the high point is:
“Consequently we will continue to look for ways in which general expert material could be presented in a controlled and consistent way with a view to dispelling myths as to how victims behave after incidents of rape. We will ask the experts who came to help us in formulating the Government’s response on this issue to continue to work to find an appropriate and fair way forward.”
To which I say hooray, but I inferred from the Solicitor-General’s comments that there was much stronger certainty of a particular outcome than I read in the report. That is all I wanted to say on the matter.
I am not sure why the hon. Gentleman is either nit-picking or trying to count the number of angels on the head of a pin. Does he support the endeavour of seeking to dispel the myths and stereotypes that impede successful convictions in rape cases or is he against it, as the Tories have repeatedly been against attempts to improve conviction in rape cases?
Again, I quote from the Government’s report, which states that if there is
“an appropriate and fair way forward, if that can be achieved, we will be prepared to legislate”.
That is our position, too, but it is not what the Solicitor-General has told the House in the course of the debate. It is slightly regrettable that the Solicitor-General’s views in the debate appear to be at variance with what the Government said.
It is my document.
In that case, the Solicitor-General did not read it before she came to the Dispatch Box.
I want to turn to the other points that arise about research, but before I do I want to say one more thing. A point was made about whether there should be more research into juries’ attitudes. I suggest to the hon. and learned Lady that that might be quite sensible. The point has been made that there is a problem in relation to general societal attitudes, perhaps particularly among young people, when it comes to whether rape is really rape if somebody has worn provocative clothing or if it has taken place in particular circumstances. I wonder whether that is in fact the attitude that gets taken into the jury box. It might be worth looking at whether those are the key problems in rape cases.
I think the hon. Gentleman may have misspoken slightly. The existing evidence shows that myths about rape and attitudinal problems are mainly held by the older part of the population, rather than the younger part.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I may have done so. I simply make the point that we do not have jury research in this area, as far as I am aware. It would be possible to carry out such research. If the Solicitor-General would like to promote that, either herself or through the Ministry of Justice, it would be worth while. Such research might also clear up the question whether it is mainly older people or younger people who hold such attitudes. My point is that to take general societal attitudes and then say that jurors will invariably hold those attitudes at the end of a trial, when they have heard the evidence, is not necessarily borne out by my experience as a practitioner. My experience is that people may come into the jury box with prejudices, but if cases are properly presented on all sides, they often do not have them by the time the trial has come to an end. Equally, sometimes, they may do. It is an issue that we just do not know about.
On special measures, the proposals in respect of video recording appear to us to merit careful consideration. I can certainly see that there are some powerful arguments for extending the rules on video recording to make it of general application, as long as that can be done in a way that ensures that the defence is still in a position to put its case. We already allow that in a number of categories. The Solicitor-General did not have time fully to develop her arguments, but we would certainly be willing to support the proposal, as long as we were satisfied that fairness in the trial process could be maintained.
I am strongly of the opinion that it must always be the choice of the victim whether they wish to have that process in place. To deny a person the right to go into the witness box in court and to explain in front of a jury what happened to them is something that should not be undertaken lightly. It would be contrary to all normal principles of justice—if the person wanted to go into the witness box. However, these are areas where better protection needs to be provided.
There have been a number of statements about the impact of such evidence. It is quite right that, if one is looking at a small video screen in a jury box, the impact may not be very significant at all. Equally, if one puts a big plasma screen up on the wall, it may be argued that the impact is disproportionate. These are quite difficult areas. One of the reasons why we have always tended to require people to come to court to give evidence is that it is a controlled and quite neutral environment. There are always risks that if one moves outside such an environment, that can be exploited. That does not necessarily follow and there are powerful reasons for arguing that video evidence may become the norm in most rape cases, but there are issues that need to be guarded against. I am sure that the Solicitor-General will be able to respond positively to those points.
I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion, because I am conscious that others wish to participate in the debate. I repeat what I said at the outset: we need to ensure that justice can be done for victims of rape. It is a difficult area. We need also to recognise that it is difficult possibly because of societal attitudes that need to be changed, but also because jurors, who in my experience try to do their best, are often confronted with impossible questions to answer in rape cases. We need to do our utmost to ensure that those questions are presented simply and in a way that does full justice to victims’ problems. However, we need to ensure that the rights of defendants to a fair trial are recognised, too. We cannot escape that, and I say to the Solicitor-General that that is as important an aspect of justice as the rights of the victim. We need to ensure that both are protected.
Order. The hon. Gentleman’s time is up.
There is approximately half an hour left for the debate. I make a further plea that the remaining Front Bencher and Back Benchers impose on themselves even tighter discipline than the five-minute limit that I originally suggested for Back Benchers.
It is a shame that there is so little time for this important debate, especially given the wide interest in the House.
I should say at the outset that I welcome the Government’s decisions on the consultation. They have made the right choices. I have one small quibble on the matter of expert evidence, but I have a suggestion that I hope might be helpful.
The high 95 per cent. attrition rate in rape cases is a matter of deep concern. Other crimes have similar attrition rates, but they are not as serious as rape. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is right that there are inherent difficulties involving evidence in the vast majority of rape cases—some 80 per cent.—in which the victim knows the defendant. However, such a high attrition rate requires not just an explanation, but correction.
The attrition rate itself must be seen in the light of the whole process, not just the events at trial, although there is, of course, feedback between several parts of the system. There are at least seven points determining when cases drop out of the system: whether they are reported by the victim in the first place; whether they are recorded by the police; whether they are pressed by the victim; whether the Crown Prosecution Service charges; whether evidence is offered by the prosecution in court; whether the case is put to the jury by the judge; and whether the jury finds the defendant guilty. There are problems at each stage, although I do not have time to go into all of them. There are worrying aspects of what happens in rape cases, which justify further action.
The hon. Gentleman pointed out that a sixth of cases drop out because they are not recorded by the police as rapes. “Without Consent”, a report by Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution inspectorate and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary that was published in January, shows that a third of those cases have been “no crimed”, to use the jargon, mistakenly. The fact that the Home Office’s counting rules are not being complied with in one third of those cases is a matter of deep concern.
The vast bulk of cases drop out of the system at the CPS charging stage. Why is that going on? For the most part, the CPS says that there is insufficient evidence, but that covers a vast variety of circumstances. The key is case building and co-operation between the police and the CPS—and bringing in the victim as well—to ensure that cases are as strong as possible. There are several purely practical problems at that stage: the quality of the interview; who is doing the interview; what they know about the law; and what they know about what will be required at trial.
The question of the quality of videos often comes up when one speaks to practitioners on the bench and at the Bar. Expanding the use and availability of video evidence is a good idea, but a video makes little difference—in fact, it can harm a case—if it shows the tops of people’s heads and if what they are saying cannot be heard.
Moving on to the central point—jury acquittals in cases in which it is suspected that the jury has borne in mind myths and stereotypes about rape—research indicates that, unfortunately, it is not just juries who hold incorrect or objectionable views. Such views can also be held by the police and, dare I say it, prosecutors and even judges. The only comment that I shall make about the myths is that there is a difference between the factual errors to which people are prone, and the attitudinal problems. There are factual errors about what rape is—about whether it has to do with strangers or acquaintances, whether there is resistance, whether the person who is raped has reported it early, and even the extent of false allegation. There is very little objective evidence that there are significantly more false allegations of rape than false allegations of other crimes. One need only think of thefts reported for the purposes of insurance to see how the usually suspected differences are not always accurate.
There is a distinction between factual errors and attitudinal problems such as the belief that there is such a thing as contributory negligence—that is, that victims are to blame for the crimes committed against them. It will be easier to overcome the factual errors than to overcome the attitudinal errors. I differ slightly from the Government on one point—the question of expert evidence, and how one gets across the point about myths and stereotypes. I urge the Government to leave open the possibility of using expert evidence. The document seems to rule that out, but I urge them not to do so.
I find it difficult to see that presenting a pack to a jury beforehand is not a form of giving them some expert evidence before they start. I find that distinction rather blurred.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but juries currently receive some training on the general functions of juries in the form of a film, or short TV programme. I am attracted to the suggestion that the myth-busting document be delivered not as a booklet, which will have a rather limited impact, but as a film or TV programme. However, I add that the possibility of oral expert evidence should be left open. As I understand it, the Government’s objection to that—the hon. Gentleman reflected this point—is that it would lead to a battle of experts. There would be an expert on one side and an expert on the other, and then a whole day would be spent in bickering.
Under rule 35 of the civil procedure rules—I must admit that I am more familiar with them than with the criminal procedure rules—the court has a power to order the parties to produce a single expert, agreed on by a panel. That might be a way forward that allows the possibility of an oral general expert witness system.
I want to make one further point about what happens at trial. It concerns sexual history evidence. I ask the Government to reflect further on a long-standing problem. A great deal of work has gone into the question of whether the former practice of regularly cross-examining women on their sexual history deters people from reporting rape, and it clearly does. The law has been reformed, but a report for the Government by Kelly, Temkin and Griffiths showed a need for further reform, further clarity in the law, and further care to be taken over the extent to which that evidence is allowed. It is true that for the most part, that evidence is now handled far more sensitively than it was before—partly, I suspect, because defence lawyers who go over the top with that sort of evidence know that what they are doing may be taken into account by the judge on sentence. Nevertheless, there is research on that point which indicates that a further look should be taken at such evidence.
The Government are on the right track and I congratulate them on the document that they have produced, but there is a very long way to go before we get justice for the victims of rape.
I am sure that Members in all parts of the House can agree that forcing someone to have sexual intercourse without consent is an appalling crime, and that the trauma of rape is one of society’s most pressing problems. It has profound immediate and long-term consequences for women’s physical and mental health, yet rape is shrouded in a cloak of secrecy and the problems that it creates are rarely acknowledged. So I welcome the Government’s measures to help jurors and others working in the criminal justice system, such as the police and judges, to understand the reality of rape and to try to dispel the myths and stereotypes that we have been discussing this evening, which contribute to the extremely low conviction rate for this offence.
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has said:
“It is an undeniable truth that rape is a difficult offence to prosecute”,
and she is rightly determined that all parts of the criminal justice system should work together to ensure that the cases that come to court are as strong as possible.
An Amnesty International opinion poll in 2005 showed that one third of the UK public believe that a woman is partially or totally responsible for being raped if she behaves “in a flirtatious manner”, is “drunk” or is wearing “sexy or revealing” clothing. These attitudes, parading as common sense, appear to pervade the criminal justice system and many jury rooms. The reality of rape is that at least 47,000 women in England and Wales are raped each year, and the majority of those rapes are committed by someone whom the victim knows, often a partner or an ex-partner.
The Government’s progress on rape since 1997 is commendable. Strengthening the existing legal framework further will not only improve the outcomes of rape cases in the UK, but send a strong message to the rest of the world that rape is an appalling crime, that it devastates the lives of victims and their families, and that rapists must and will be penalised accordingly. As well as strengthening the legal framework, it is important to improve care for victims and witnesses. I commend the Government on that area of work, too.
In my constituency, Calder Valley, the sexual assault referral centre has given much needed support to both victims and witnesses in a safe, women-only environment. The extension of this network will ensure that victims receive appropriate medical care and counselling, and will assist the police in their investigations through forensic evidence.
In the Government’s action plan on sexual violence published last April, reference is made to the funding of the distribution of a legal handbook entitled “From Report to Court”. That is for adult survivors of sexual violence and will help to demystify the criminal justice system and help victims to make an informed choice about whether to pursue a criminal justice resolution. I hope the Minister will be able to announce financial support to revise and reprint that valuable report.
In conclusion, I am delighted that there is to be more support for survivors of rape and other sexual offences, and strategies to improve the conviction rate. These are important strands of the Government’s goal to end all forms of violence against women in the UK. I hope that parliamentary time will be found to debate the relevant legislation as a matter of urgency.
In view of the time and the number of hon. Members who want to speak, I will not go over ground that has already been covered, except to underline the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) that over hundreds of years in this country we have deliberately constructed a system of criminal justice where there is a chance that the guilty will go free, to avoid the prospect of the innocent being convicted. I do not believe that the Government intend to undermine that principle, but we should address the issue, like all others within the criminal justice system, with that in mind.
I shall turn to what the Government want to do about what I accept is a real problem. The concept of general expert evidence causes me particular concern—I declare an interest as a non-practising criminal barrister. If the evidence is agreed between the parties, it seems to me that it must be equivocal—it must be the sort of evidence that will not tremendously assist the jury. If it is a question of two separate experts giving evidence on the likely behaviour of a rape victim, neither of those experts will be dealing with the specific set of circumstances that the jury is confronting in the case.
That the evidence may not be of particular assistance to the jury in deciding the specific circumstances of the case is not the only issue, because the situation may be worse than that. If the expert or experts provide a list of the types of behaviour in which a genuine rape victim may engage, the danger is that if a particular genuine rape victim, who is the prosecution’s main witness, has not demonstrated any of those types of behaviour, the jury might conclude that that person is not therefore a genuine rape victim. That is a real concern about the Government’s proposal.
It would be wrong to conclude that the problem is necessarily within the trial process. Other hon. Members have already referred to the fact that the attrition rate is most severe in cases of rape before the case gets anywhere near a jury. I shall make one quick remark about videotaped evidence in chief, which, broadly speaking, I support—it seems sensible to extend that measure. My only caveat is that it seems equally sensible that the judge should make it clear to the jury that that option is available to every complainant in a rape case, so the jury does not have the sense that videotaped evidence marks out that particular case as distinctive, which might be prejudicial to the defendant. It seems to me that that would be a sensible safeguard.
The other half of the argument is just as important, if not more so. It concerns how one assists those who complain of rape, through every stage of the process. I accept the Solicitor-General’s statement that it is helpful to have sexual assault referral centres. However, I wonder whether, in parts of the country where there are already very successful voluntary sector agencies providing just that type of support, it is really necessary to reinvent the wheel.
The Solicitor-General opened the debate by criticising the Conservative Government, but over the past 11 years we have seen the end of the yearly funding cycle for rape crisis centres. The number of centres has fallen from 68 to 45, and support for victims is now worse under this Government than it ever was before.
I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not helpful to approach such serious matters in a partisan manner. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield has said, it is regrettable that the Solicitor-General engaged in doing that earlier.
I want to conclude by discussing the crucial question of the voluntary sector. In my constituency there is an organisation called Rugby ROSA—the Rugby rape or sexual abuse support project. That organisation provides first-class support to precisely the people whom we have been discussing throughout this debate. It will run out of money and shut down entirely in March, unless something substantial is done. I do not see why it is sensible for the Government to invest money in a new organisation when they could invest in existing voluntary sector bodies that do the same work just as well, if not better.
It is worth noting that that organisation in my constituency is the only organisation in Warwickshire that offers support not only at the time of a criminal proceeding, but for a long time thereafter, and not only to women, but to men, too. It is important to remember that the victims of rape or sexual abuse are male as well as female, and it is important to make sure that the provision of support and services is across the board and for both sexes. I hope very much that the Solicitor-General can help me with that.
I also hope that there is not a situation in which Government funding is allocated for the sexual assault referral centres, but money that could go to the voluntary sector to support the type of services that I have described is diverted into other services that simply replicate—or perhaps do not do as well as—the work that the organisations in my constituency and elsewhere do exceptionally well.
I hope that in pursuing what I understand are well-meant efforts to deal with what I accept is a serious problem, the Solicitor-General does not throw the baby out with the bathwater and damage the best aspects of the British justice system or reinvent the wheel by making the state an inadequate substitute for what the voluntary sector already does well.
As I said earlier, while many Members were enjoying their summer holidays I spent most of my time ensconced in a court room, dealing with just these types of cases. What I want to say is based not only on my experience as a juror on rape cases, but on my work experience before entering the House, when I worked on many mass-market women’s magazines and on teenage magazines. In addition, I represent Cleethorpes, whose neighbouring constituency is Great Grimsby. Ian Huntley committed many sexual offences in those two towns before going on to murder the two little girls in Soham. Nobody believed the young women who kept coming forward to say that Huntley had sexually assaulted or raped them.
First, I want to praise the Government, who have done a lot, although we can do more to increase the conviction rate.
Done what?
The hon. Lady asks what the Government have done. She does not know her subject. The Government have done a great deal to assist rape victims.
Jury education is vital; the myths need to be dispelled. I have listened to what other Members have said, particularly the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), many of whose comments were completely wrong. The Liberal Democrats have got it right. Jurors have to sit through training on their first day, when they are shown videos, given leaflets and told all sorts of things. People can do it; leaflets to guide people, not necessarily only in rape cases, but in any cases, could easily be produced. Generally speaking, however, people know what robbery is, but there are still myths around rape. The myths that there were when I was working on women’s magazines are still there now, and we must tackle them if we are to convict more rapists.
Over the years, I have heard all sorts of things about rape cases—“She wasn’t upset enough,” “She wasn’t traumatised,” or “She was truanting from school.” Such allegations get thrown in to cast aspersions on a person’s character. If the victim did not run away, fight back or scream, or if they knew the accused, or had had a drink or a joint, people almost believe that there was contributory negligence. That implies that the woman—such cases largely involve women, although not always—somehow brought it on herself. We owe it to justice to spell out that issue so that jurors know that those are all myths.
If we are to consider the court experience, we need to do an awful lot more work on consent and what constitutes consent. Again, it is almost as if there were contributory negligence—“She accepted a lift from him,” or “She went for a drink with him, got in the car and went back to the flat; she knew what was going to happen.” People believe that such prior activities constitute consent. That issue has to be spelt out to jurors far more explicitly.
We must also consider the test of being beyond reasonable doubt. That needs to be spelled out to juries, particularly in these kinds of cases. I am sorry to say this, but far too many defence barristers say to people, “If you have any doubt”. The test is whether something is beyond reasonable doubt, not any doubt.
The victim statement should be given to the jury when it retires to consider its verdict. At the moment, only the alleged rapist’s statement is given to the jury. If it is a long trial or there are multiple defendants—if, say, it is a gang rape—we only get their version, not the victim’s. If the victim’s version was given, we would serve justice very well.
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has done a good job. If anybody has been through these experiences and wants to get in touch with me, I am happy to listen to their experiences.
With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Something very queer went wrong with the clock earlier; it seemed to go in two directions at once. I told the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) that I would deal with “Map of Gaps”, the report by End Violence Against Women, and I will do so now. I have immense respect for End Violence Against Women. Liz Kelly, the chief researcher on that document, is going to serve on our group of experts, which aims to produce some myth-busting information and to advise on how it might be put before juries. The research in “Map of Gaps” is a useful snapshot of local services for women who have suffered violence, and it shows some significant gaps.
Contrary to the assertions of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mrs. Dorries), our funding of support services for those who have suffered from violence against women has increased enormously—from £250,000 annually in 1997 to £3 million now. She really needs to think, read and understand that the Government whom she supported did nothing about domestic violence and nothing about rape. Unfortunately, the speeches by Conservative Members indicate that their attitudes have not changed. I agree that Rape Crisis centres need securer funding. We have a stakeholder group working with Rape Crisis, and we have rolled over its victims fund financing for another year to help it to secure its funding, which will ultimately have to be local.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran) made the good point that the 5.7 per cent. conviction rate hides a lot of variations. Some police forces manage as high as 13 or 14 per cent., others less than 1 per cent. We now have a Home Office unit working with the police to spread best practice. That should help considerably, practically and quickly. I am grateful for the broad welcome for the document given by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). I agree that previous sexual history and its admission continue to be an issue.
I welcome the doughty support of my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Chris McCafferty). I welcome, too, the sensitive response to jury service that my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) demonstrated. She has talked to me about that issue several times, and she has confronted the issues on the front line that we are trying to develop policy to deal with.
I was disappointed by the responses of the hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright), who made poor contributions cautioning me that we must not bend the rules against defendants at a time when we are trying to make trials fair for victims as well—a long-term and profound need that they continue to be unwilling to address. It was clear that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield had either not read the document or misunderstood it, because video evidence will not be forced on to any rape complainant, but will be a matter of choice on the face of the document. Furthermore, I am afraid that his inept or deliberate attempt to textually criticise a paragraph in the document to try to undermine what the Government intend to do reflects badly on the Opposition, on a total lack of interest, despite the leadership of the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron). We will continue to champion the rights of rape victims.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of the Government consultation on convicting rapists and protecting victims.
Allergy Services
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Liz Blackman.]
I am delighted to be able to introduce this debate on allergy services. Allergy comes in many varied forms and guises. It can be mild or severe; it can affect one organ only or several parts of the body; its severity can vary over time; and there can be a single allergic cause, or several. By their nature, allergies are complex. We certainly need to carry out further research into how they work, in order to improve the way we treat and even prevent allergy and to bring better quality of life to allergy sufferers.
At this point, I feel that I should declare an interest, having suffered from allergies since a very young age; indeed, I recently completed the Loch Ness marathon in aid of the charity The Anaphylaxis Campaign. I have a severe reaction if I eat any nuts, which results in the onset of anaphylaxis and an emergency trip to hospital The excellent work of charities like The Anaphylaxis Campaign and Allergy UK in raising awareness of allergies and providing support to sufferers should be commended.
The first myth to dispel is that allergies are a niche issue. Recent research consistently shows huge increases in both the amount and seriousness of allergies occurring in society. In this House, many Members have experience of allergies either personally or within their families, and indeed recently I was delighted to be a founding officer of the new all-party parliamentary group on allergies, along with the hon. Members for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) and for Eccles (Ian Stewart).
In truth, this is an area of urgent concern, an issue of major proportions and a matter that the Royal College of Physicians has seen fit to label an “epidemic”. Against this backdrop of growing seriousness, I want to use this timely debate to ask why there is such a lack of urgency from the Government to tackle what is, in terms of our future health needs in this country, a sleeping giant.
Rates of allergy in this country are among the highest in the world. An estimated 30 per cent. of the population have an allergic disease—that is 18 million people. Among children, this figure rises to 40 per cent. In any one year, 12 million people—a fifth of the population—will seek allergy treatment. All the evidence indicates that the amount and seriousness of allergies is increasing rapidly. The Royal College of Physicians has estimated that there has been a threefold rise in incidents of allergy in the last 20 years.
Severe and life-threatening allergies are now more common, with increasing numbers of children affected in particular. Peanut allergies, previously rare, now affect one in 70 children. Latex allergies now affect 8 per cent. of health care workers, whereas before 1979 only two cases had been reported. Hospital admissions for anaphylaxis have increased sevenfold in the last decade.
The financial cost of allergy to the health service and the economy as a whole cannot be ignored. More than 12.7 million working days are lost each year as a result of asthma alone, and Asthma UK has placed the total annual cost of asthma to the economy at £2.3 billion. Adverse drug reactions account for 5 per cent. of all hospital admissions, and 15 per cent. of in-patients have a hospital stay prolonged as a result of drug allergy. Allergic disease accounts for 6 per cent. of GP consultations and 10 per cent. of the GP prescribing budget. The cost of allergy to the national health service has been estimated at £1 billion.
Figures can be persuasive, but it is often people’s individual experiences that make the most compelling case. This quote comes from one serious allergy sufferer:
“My quality of life is non-existent. I know this may sound extreme to a lot of people but I would be prepared to lose an arm and a leg if it meant my asthma would go away. I face daily restrictions in every aspect of my life. I don’t have enough breath to push a trolley around the supermarket. I’m not allowed on an aeroplane and it’s impossible for me to get travel insurance. Winter is also a problem for me—I can’t go outside because the cold air can set off my asthma.”
A couple of my constituents who suffer from a latex allergy came to see me. Eleanor McKendry previously worked in the NHS where she developed the allergy and so is no longer able to work in her trained employment. She even finds attending out-patient appointments as a patient a challenge, owing to the lack of provision of latex-free environments, even within our hospitals and health care services. Lesley Shannon, another constituent, faces a daily game of Russian roulette even when she goes to do her grocery shopping. She has found that supermarkets often have latex balloons that advertise in-store promotions but which can trigger a life-threatening reaction if she is anywhere near them.
I know from experience how terrifying an anaphylactic reaction is. Symptoms develop quickly, within minutes of exposure to the allergen. I get an unpleasant tingling sensation in my mouth and throat, which is soon replaced by swelling, and breathing becomes incredibly difficult. At the same time, my forehead and palms start to sweat, feeling clammy, and I come over all feverish. My heart rate speeds up, prompting a feeling of panic that is not helped by the fact that I find it difficult to draw breath. That is a terrifying enough experience for me, an adult who has experienced it before. I understand my condition and know what I have to do—get to hospital, where I will be treated successfully. I also know that I am carrying an emergency dose of adrenalin in my handbag if I should need to take that en route to the hospital. How much worse must it be for the parent of a baby or young toddler who cannot explain their symptoms if the child goes from being perfectly okay to life-threateningly ill within a short space of time? That is what people face.
There are many difficulties. First, the range of allergens is broad. Common food allergens include nuts, fish, seeds, milk and kiwi fruit. There are many others, too. There are also chemicals, latex, dust, pollen, house mites and grass—the list goes on. Identifying the allergen can be difficult, and avoiding it is sometimes impossible.
I have given the examples of Eleanor trying to avoid latex in health centres and Lesley trying to avoid it in shops. As someone with a nut allergy, I can assure hon. Members that ensuring I do not eat any nuts is no easy task. Companies seem to be more aware of their responsibilities, but rather than providing helpful information, more often there is a generic statement that the product may contain traces of nuts. I challenge hon. Members to look at the back of packets next time they do their shopping—they will see just how many products carry such warnings. Even in the catering outlets in the House, a legal disclaimer at the bottom of every menu states that nothing can be guaranteed nut-free. I wonder where I am supposed to eat.
Many issues surrounding allergy must be addressed, and I hope that the all-party group will do so over the coming months. That needs to be done not only with the Department of Health but with those in charge of housing, the environment and business regulation. However, I want to focus on the right course of action for the Department of Health to tackle this growing and potentially fatal condition.
Four key reports from recent years inform the allergy debate. The first, produced by the Royal College of Physicians in 2003, puts into stark relief just how urgent the allergy epidemic has become. Worryingly, it states that, for allergy patients, the health service is
“failing to meet the most minimal standards of care”.
It paints a picture of a service in which GPs deal with the majority of allergy cases, despite having no clinical training in allergies, and in which patients are referred to a succession of different specialists, resulting in confusion and inadequate treatment.
The overriding criticism in the report is of the shortage of specialist allergy expertise. The whole UK has just six fully staffed allergy clinics, unequally distributed with a strong south-eastern bias. There is a major shortage of specialists with expert knowledge. It is reckoned that there is one consultant in a mainstream medical specialty per 100,000 members of the population; the equivalent figure for consultant allergists is one per 2 million.
The report’s recommendations are clear: to create more consultant posts and funded training posts in allergy, to form the basis of a genuinely national allergy service for the NHS, to set up regional allergy centres with appropriate staff levels, and to ensure even distribution across the country by locating at least one such centre in each former NHS region.
The second report was published in 2004 by the Select Committee on Health. It mirrored many of the points made in the 2003 report. It, too, identified a lack of training and expertise in allergies among health professionals in primary care. It also found that the level of allergy expertise at consultant level was inadequate and called the distribution of just six allergy centres “manifestly inequitable”. The Select Committee supported the royal college’s proposal for a specialist allergy centre in each former NHS region, with a minimum of two adult and two paediatric allergy consultants. Long term, it argued that allergy should have a full specialist consultant work force, as is the case in many other countries, with an extra 10 training posts introduced year on year.
The Government’s response to the Health Committee’s report pledged a review of allergy data and demand for treatment. Disappointingly, however, it failed to address directly any of the Committee’s recommendations, whether on GP training, consultant numbers or specialist allergy centres. I hope that perhaps today the Under-Secretary can respond to the specific points that the Committee’s report raised.
In 2006, the Department of Health published its review, as it said it would in response to the Health Committee report. However, again, those hoping that the Government would act on the Health Committee recommendations were left wanting. Despite conceding that people with allergies often feel let down by the poor service that they receive, finding that some people can wait three to nine months for an appointment to see a consultant and even stating that
“a significant number of deaths could potentially be prevented”
by an improved service, the review’s recommendations fall short of what was hoped for.
The review finds that incomplete research makes it difficult to establish compelling evidence of the need for and quality of allergy services, and raises problems with drawing up a strategic national view of how services should be developed. We are told that the Department will ask local health commissioners to establish levels of need for allergy services, allow strategic health authority work force planners to explore scope for additional training places and ask for development of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines on allergy to be considered. Given that that response was made in 2006, I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity to update the House on the action that has been taken on those recommendations.
The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on allergy was published in September this year. Again, the findings are familiar. The report’s recommendations echo those of the Royal College of Physicians and the Health Committee, especially on the need for specialist allergy clinics and improved GP training. Helpfully for the purpose of the debate, the Government’s response to the Lords report was published earlier this week.
The response reinforces the Department’s determination to devolve decision making on allergy care and avoid developing a strategic overview of allergy services. It states that
“local need is what will determine how allergy services should be provided”,
placing the responsibility for allergy services squarely in the lap of primary care trusts.
On GP training, the response notes that no allergy-related guidance topics have been included in the NICE work programme yet. It states that the Department of Health
“is not responsible for setting curricula for health professional training”,
but, clearly, the Under-Secretary knows that she can bring her influence to bear. What does she intend to do to ensure that our GPs receive the training they need to diagnose and treat allergies swiftly and effectively, especially given that more and more people are coming through their doors who need that expertise?
I have set out the evidence that makes it clear beyond doubt that we are facing an allergy epidemic. Increased numbers of allergy sufferers, increased severity of allergies and especially pronounced evidence among children are all symptoms of the problem. I have set out the recommendations of the Royal College of Physicians as well as those of the Committees of both Houses. They centre on the need to increase consultant numbers and the provision and geographical equity of specialist allergy clinics, and to improve the training of GPs in allergy diagnosis and treatment.
I have also covered the Government’s reaction to the problem, both through their responses to the Select Committee reports and their review, which was published last year. They amount to an admission that there is a problem, as well as a commitment to assess how to deal with it, but unfortunately little more than that.
I would like to ask the Under-Secretary to answer some further questions. Does she agree that there is a considerable gap between the necessary measures recommended by independent reports into allergy services and the steps that her Department has so far proposed to take? How seriously does she take the allergy epidemic that we face? We must remember that we are talking about a problem that affects 18 million people in this country. Does she think that enough is being done about it? Does she genuinely believe that local primary care trusts are best placed to combat the allergy epidemic? We all understand the notion that solutions are best delivered in response to local needs—and we want our health care services to be locally accountable—but, given the constraints faced by PCTs on budgets and through centrally driven targets, coupled with the lack of strategic central guidance on allergy, I fear that there will be little incentive for them to make tackling allergy their prime concern.
I look forward to the Under-Secretary’s comments.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on her success in the Speaker’s ballot and on choosing allergy services as her subject. It is clearly close to her heart and it is an important topic to debate. I thank her for bringing to our attention an issue that affects so many people in our country.
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady’s gallant fundraising efforts, especially for the Anaphylaxis Campaign, which plays an important role in supporting people who are affected by anaphylaxis. I am a former nurse and have been on the receiving end of patients admitted in anaphylactic shock, so I recognise the obvious fear and anxiety felt in that situation.
As the hon. Lady is acutely aware, I take very seriously allergic reactions to pollen, pets, foods and a range of other agents that she mentioned, and in particular reactions to latex among NHS staff. The number of people suffering from allergic reactions has trebled in the past 20 years and a third of the population are estimated to suffer from an allergy at some point in their lives. The severity of the reaction ranges from mild to severe and potentially life threatening, and the treatment options reflect that huge range.
Many people choose to self-diagnose and treat. Others may require treatment from their GP surgery or in specialist clinics. Many experience serious consequences because of their allergy. Each year there are more than 3,000 hospital admissions for anaphylaxis alone. Allergic conditions represent a huge challenge, not just for our health care system, but for society as a whole. In addition to the obvious health effects, allergic reactions can make the most simple and everyday activities difficult—including even eating in this House, as the hon. Lady said—and can pose a major risk to an individual’s health and well-being.
The timing of this debate is opportune, as the hon. Lady acknowledged. On 27 November, the Government published their response to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report on allergy. We welcomed the Committee’s report, which highlighted the fact that the issue needs to be addressed by a range of stakeholders, including the Government. We recognise the importance of allergies and are committed to helping to alleviate the burden of allergic disorders. The Command Paper that we published on Tuesday highlights some of the strategies that are being developed and implemented to address the challenge illustrated in the Committee’s report. I shall touch on those later.
The Lords Committee inquiry into allergy is of course not the first time that allergy issues have been scrutinised by a parliamentary Committee. In 2004, the Health Committee published a report of its inquiry into the provision of allergy services. That report reflected earlier findings published by the Royal College of Physicians in 2003, namely that serious problems existed in the provision of allergy services.
In response to the Health Committee’s report, we carried out a review of the available data and research on the epidemiology of allergic conditions, the demand for and provision of treatments, and the effectiveness of interventions. Working closely with stakeholders—people with allergies and their families, patient groups, clinicians and representatives from the independent sector and industry—we sought to identify actions that could be taken at local and national levels to improve services for allergy.
The review was crucial as a first step towards building a programme of improvements that would be based on sound evidence and reflect the views of stakeholders. The review report, which we published in July 2006, highlighted the range of existing service provision for allergy. That provision includes more than 90 allergy clinics in England led by a range of specialists, including allergists, respiratory physicians and dermatologists, as well as services provided by general practitioners, the mainstay of allergy care. I note the hon. Lady’s point about GP training, which I hope we will take note of in Ara Darzi’s report on chronic conditions.
The Department of Health’s review identified good practice across the wide range of services available for people with allergies, and the spectrum of skills and competences of clinicians involved in their care. To take just one example, clinical immunologists at the Royal Victoria infirmary in Newcastle oversee a nurse-led allergy clinic, in which a nurse will see a complete referral and go through the whole treatment process without having to consult a doctor.
In their reports, both the Health Committee and the Royal College of Physicians made the case for a model of care that would be driven and funded from the centre. In taking forward our improvement and reform agenda, we have moved away from a top-down management approach, as we develop a devolved and self-improving health service, where the main drivers of change are patients, commissioners and clinicians. Indeed, the Department’s review concluded that one of the key levers for change for allergy services in the future will essentially continue to be for local rather than national level action.
I accept the Minister’s premise that it is important to have local drivers for health care, but some aspects surely need to be driven by a national strategy—for example, the number of training places that are to be provided for consultants and junior doctors, so that our allergy specialists of the future can be trained. I am worried, given the present rate of training, that we will end up with fewer allergy specialists than we have now, because of the number that will retire in the coming years. What will the Minister do to expand the number of training places in specialist allergy services?
I take the hon. Lady’s point very seriously. The management of chronic conditions is part of Lord Darzi’s review. During that review, we are looking at work force planning, training and specialist skills, and in particular, at raising the role of the specialist nurse in this area. That is why it is so important that we understand local needs, and that the consultation is driven by local people and local clinicians.
The Department’s review concluded that one of the key levers for change for services for allergy in the future will, essentially, continue to be for local rather than national level action. It is for local health commissioners to consider the need for local services in light of local priorities. The evidence presented in the report of our review should help them to do so. The new report by the Lords Science and Technology Committee adds to that evidence base.
We published the commissioning framework for the acute sector last year, and followed it with the commissioning framework for health and well-being, which was issued as a consultation document this March. PCTs have to carry out a local needs assessment, identify gaps or inadequacies in provision, and then produce a strategic plan for their health community. One of the key requirements of this process will be to ensure that patients and the local community are properly involved in the process of deciding priorities. Through patient choice and expert commissioning, local communities will be able to determine the type and quality of services that they require in order to deliver better health care.
We have considered, with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the scope to develop definitive clinical guidelines for allergic conditions. We have commissioned Skills for Health to develop with stakeholders national occupational standards for the UK for allergy, and commissioned the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to scope the development of care pathways for children with allergic symptoms. We have also endorsed the need for more training numbers for allergy as part of the annual review process. We have asked deaneries and trusts to consider the possibility of increasing local training posts for allergy, and invited key research funders to note the gaps in the research evidence highlighted in the review.
Some of these actions are referred to in the Government’s response to the House of Lords report. The focus of the Lords inquiry was wide-ranging and explored the impact of allergy not only on the health service but on society and the economy as a whole. Nevertheless, at the core of the Committee’s report were a number of recommendations of direct relevance to this evening’s debate—not least those relating to the provision of specialist allergy centres and work force capacity and capability, which I know are of particular concern to many people, including the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire and, I would guess, my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Mr. Joyce).
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—
Order. It is customary in these debates for Members to ask the permission of the Member whose Adjournment debate it is, and of the Minister, before intervening. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has done that.
I have indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.
That is fine. Thank you.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on securing this important debate. A number of my constituents have raised this issue with me. They have also been extremely complimentary about the organisation Allergy UK and, in particular, about those little cards that it issues containing information in many different languages. This is a small but important point. Those cards enable people to travel around the world with information on the things that they are allergic to in their pocket. Several of my constituents have come up to me individually and been very complimentary about Allergy UK, and I wanted to put that on the record.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point and for the important work that he and the hon. Lady do on the all-party group on allergies.
The Committee’s proposal to establish a lead strategic health authority for allergy merits careful consideration and we shall explore the feasibility of that approach with interested parties, including strategic health authorities and specialised commissioning groups. If a lead SHA were established, it would need to evaluate with its PCTs and in light of local needs and priorities whether a pilot allergy centre would be more beneficial to people suffering from allergies than other possible models for enhancing local services. The spirit behind this is to show the hon. Lady the extent to which flexibility could be delivered around allergy services.
In our own review of allergy services, we acknowledged that there would continue to be a need for a critical mass of allergy specialists. We have been able to create an additional five centrally funded allergy training posts this year and five immunology posts as well. We have asked the NHS to look at whether it needs to commission more local training posts. We have also recognised the importance of GPs and others in primary care having sufficient clinical knowledge.
The Minister is being very generous. She says that she has asked the NHS to report back on whether it feels the need for more training posts, so can she clarify when the response from the local NHS is expected?
I am happy to write to the hon. Lady, as I do not have that information at the moment.
Work on national occupational standards to provide a competence framework for all staff is also very important, as was mentioned earlier. In terms of professional education, the Lords Committee’s recommendations are consistent with our review. We would encourage the royal colleges to work together with the bodies responsible for medical training at all levels to enhance the knowledge and expertise of those working with people with allergies.
In conclusion, the hon. Lady has raised many important points this evening. We welcome this debate and share her desire to see that people living with allergic conditions receive the services they need and deserve. Reforming health care is all about finding out the facts, identifying the problems and facing up to the challenges with strategic solutions, which we have sought to do through our review of allergy services. Our response to the House of Lords inquiry demonstrates, I hope, our continued commitment to improving allergy services. I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government will continue to provide support and encouragement to the health service to ensure that that happens. I would also encourage the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk to continue with their excellent work on the all-party group.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Six o’clock.