| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 760
million in just three years. The CITB's total reserves were £74.5 million as at 31 March 1990. It is clear that the Government are forcing the CITB to spend all its reserves as a way of helping the wind-down of that organisation.On 13 February, in the CITB's news release, the director of training, Douglas Shaw, was reported as saying :
"Forecasts of an annual deficit of between £10 million and £11 million in each of the next three years and a consequent fall in the Board's reserves make it necessary to look closely at both the nature of training and the level of support for each category."
There is a clear implication that income is falling because of levy changes and massive cuts in YT and ET funding. The net consequence is that the board uses its reserves, which will last for a finite time, or it cuts the volume or the quality of training or it cuts both. Obviously, the Government are putting the CITB in the worst of all worlds--it will not be able to satisfy construction employers, because expenditure is declining, and it is risking its reserves simply to maintain current expenditure levels. I hope that the Minister will comment on the financial difficulties facing the board as the Government's policy unfolds over the next two to three years. It is crucial that we consider all those aspects against the background of the crisis facing construction training programmes. Before the recession, the biggest problem facing construction was skills shortage. The Reading university centre for strategic studies in construction, in a report called "Building--2001", estimated that the annual skills shortfall in construction could be as high as 50, 000. The CITB annual report for 1989-90 shows that the shortage of school leavers was undermining training even further. Numbers on the CITB's two flagship training schemes, the YTS and the electrical contracting industry scheme, were down by more than 2,000 on the previous year. A total of 22,453 people started on those schemes in 1989-90 whereas a year earlier the figure was 24,621.
News comment last year also painted a bleak picture of what was in store for new entrants to the construction industry and YTS. An article in The Independent of 8 June 1990 stated :
"The biggest youth training scheme in the country, involving 37,000 construction trainees, is under fundamental review', which could lead to severe cuts or even closure."
That was dramatic news at that time, but it is now clear that the number of apprenticeships has slumped. The number of new entrants next year will drop by about 7,000 compared with the number this year. Obviously, all these financial and political pressures are having a direct result on the volume and quality of training. If this is the skills revolution about which the Government constantly talk, we should like to know how the Government can spend less, force the boards to spend less and affect quality and volume. The CITB is forced to work on the assumption that it will train even fewer entrants in the next two years. In 1991-92, the CITB is estimated to be training only 17,000 new entrants. Further evidence of training cuts comes from figures published by the National Joint Council for the Building Industries, which oversees the building industry's 8,400-strong apprenticeship scheme. That organisation says that the number of apprentice registrations is dropping drastically compared with previous years.
It would be bad enough if the industry was facing only a skills crisis. The Building Employers Confederation's
Column 761
most recent quarterly state of the trade survey, published in February 1991, shows that training is likely to suffer badly in coming months, but it also shows that 53 per cent. of building firms experienced a cut in output, in the last quarter of 1990. Sixty-seven per cent. of the top 20 national contractors reported a cut in output, and 50 per cent. of firms reported a cut in inquiries for new work. The BEC has also estimated that 100,000 jobs in the building industry could be lost by the end of this year.When the Minister opened this debate, he did not refer to the crisis facing the industry or to the fact that quality and volume training were being cut. Skills shortages stand at 50,000 a year, and the industry also faces the massive impact of the recession. Obviously we are far from having a world-class work force in the construction industry, but the industry has a great desire to work towards that objective.
This shabby tale of the Government's commitment to training in the 1990s raises several issues. The first relates to small employers. The Government are obsessed with the idea that small employers should be cut off from the reality of industrial life and from a fair contribution to training. Figures from the 1988 labour force survey and unpublished data from the Department of Employment computer show the problems facing small employers. Expenditure on training per employee in a company comprising 10 to 49 employees was 98p per hour. For a company employing between 500 to 999, the figure was £3.07. Expenditure per employee as annual costs for training for the firm employing between 10 and 49 employees was £19. However, for the firm with between 500 and 999 employees, the cost was £61.
Small employers need assistance, but the Government's logic is to exclude them. However, that places stresses and strains on the funding for the board's activities in training in general. The Government also do nothing practical to allow small employers to participate effectively in the skills training that a small company needs as much as a large company.
The Government's figures suggest that, instead of pursuing the political holy grail of voluntarism and exclusion, they should be taking a more positive look at the problems facing small employers in construction and elsewhere and then providing some practical solutions. It is evident that small employers face difficulties, but the Government, for political reasons, turn a blind eye to them. This shabby tale also raises questions about training and enterprise councils in relation to sectors. The engineering industry training board which claims a lead in the industry, was very critical of TECs in an article in the Financial Times on 24 January. It was critical because it thought that the TECs were in danger of creating alternative and inconsistent standards in relation to national vocational qualifications.
However, a much more telling criticism of the Government's approach to sectors vis-a-vis TECs appeared in the March 1989 quarterly published by Incomes Data Services Ltd., which read :
"This is the argument coming strongly from several industries at the moment, notably the Chemical Industry Association which established one of the more successful non-statutory training organisations in the aftermath of the abolition of most of the Industry Training Boards in 1982.
Column 762
Local emphasis, the CIA told a recent CBI conference on training, must not be allowed to override, dilute or prevent sectoral and national standards, must not step outside agreed sectoral and national policies and must not allow the loudest voice to fill the biggest local fist with most of the new local resources TECs will only meet their local needs inside a coherent national framework We see each TEC acting as an additional resource, as additional pressure point upon training and educational priorities, but not as a replacement for a sector's own local network'."That is industry telling the Government that their skewed priorities, which mean investment in TECs to the exclusion of sectors, are not something that British industry can support.
The Government must acknowledge that the Chemical Industries Association is responsible, powerful, efficient and forward-looking in dealing with the needs of its industry and, in particular, skills. If that is so, and we should let industry, which knows best, carry out that role, why do the Government never listen to industry? The answer is that they have closed minds and political prejudices. Time is running out for the Government to tackle the skills crisis before a Labour Government return to do so more seriously-- [Laughter.] The third issue that I wish to raise amid the laughter and merriment from the sleepy Ministers is that of the non- statutory training organisations. When the Government were dismantling the statutory training boards in the 1980s, they also set up industry training organisations--the voluntarist arm of the sectoral skills initiative. But interestingly, on 26 February 1988, a study was undertaken, and a press notice issued by the Department stated : "The research paper is the result of the first comprehensive review of the country's 102 Non-Statutory Training Organisations, which represent firms employing about five million people."
It said that more than half--56--could be described as effective. It does not need a brilliant mathematician to work out that that must mean that nearly half were, by definition, ineffective. The caveat was thrown in that some organisations were being reorganised and so could not contribute to the survey.
If that is successful voluntarism, will the Minister say why the new experiment has, in many cases, been such a magnificent failure--so much so that, on 24 January 1991, a mere three years later, a major research project to examine the effectiveness of the national network of sector- based industry training organisations was announced by the then employment Minister?
The Government stumbled into one change which, for political reasons, could never work. Therefore, three years later, after a report had told them that half the organisations were ineffective, a major review is undertaken. I hope that the Minister will consider the need not only to review the NSTOs, but to review positively the work of the construction industry training board so that it can be assured of a future beyond 1993. The lack of certainty in its work is causing immense problems.
The fourth and most important issue that the Government have failed to address is that of economic performance and productivity. Every study that compares Britain with Europe comes up with two broad conclusions. First, our European competitors have sector initiatives that are strong and employer-led, but that also have Government support. There is a relationship between all the partners, including the trade unions and the providers.
Column 763
Secondly, it is clear that every other country in Europe has a better and more consistent record of improved productivity than we do. The Government may respond and say that, in the early 1980s there was a massive shake-out of labour, restrictive practices were removed and there was an increase in productivity. But where is that productivity miracle now? It cannot be delivered through training and enterprise councils or through a company's specific training. Until we establish a better base for foundation skills for 16 to 19-year-olds, it cannot be achieved through that mechanism. It can be done through supply side initiatives in sectors. Whether in engineering or construction, it is clear that productivity is linked to supply side initiatives.The Government are throwing away an excellent opportunity to tackle the long-term productivity problems, increase output per person and reduce unit costs. That is the key to this country's success in the 1990s. Through sectors, skills and leadership, we have the opportunity to make better productivity improvements than we have at present. On small employers, TECs, NSTOs and economic performance the Government are guilty of ignoring reality, best practice in Europe, and the growing consensus in British industry about the way forward. I urge the Minister to extend the remit of NSTOs and to consider a secure future for the Construction Industry Training Board and the construction section of the engineering iindustry training board. The Government should take on board the idea that sectors should have a status similar to that of TECs. Both are urgently needed and both are part of our industrial and training strategy for the 1990s, but they are complementary. One cannot survive without the other. Obviously, the enhanced status for sectors will mean that they will become an important part of the debate rather than, as at present, being regarded by the Government as a Cinderella.
Thirdly, in public policy terms, we must get away from the simplistic "politics first, voluntarism" first attitude to statutory provision. If industry says that we need change, will the Government listen? If there is a consensus on a way forward, will the Government listen? Surely we do not need an over-prescriptive Government allowing a statutory board to continue and then setting limits and parameters within which it can operate. Is there not a balance or flexibility so that we can allow industry to work with Government to achieve the best for its sector, in the interests of its sector, and not be tied by the over-prescription that we constantly see? Fourthly, will the Government reconsider the fact that they have marginalised the employee part of the partnership? Where in this country can we find the ideal that other European countries have? We do not have it. Obviously, unless we can bring in employee representatives in a more positive way, we shall make little progress.
I do not expect for a minute that the Government will take on board any suggestions that we make, but it is clear that, if the Government will not attend to the skill needs of the nation, we certainly shall. In the remaining few months until there is a Labour Government, it is incumbent on the Minister to take seriously the issues that the Opposition raise.
Column 764
11.26 pmMr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton) : I shall speak for only a couple of minutes, and I shall do so on the basis of having worked directly in the construction industry since 1967 and having been a director of a member firm of the Building Employers Confederation, for which I also worked directly for six years. Therefore, I declare an interest as a director of a large construction company which pays levy and receives grant as a result of training.
The strictures of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) were grossly exaggerated. It is ridiculous to suggest that the Government were not listening. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has made it absolutely clear that the Government were minded to abolish the construction industry training board a couple of years ago and that they listened not only to the industry but to a considerable number of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. In particular, they listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). The training headquarters of the construction industry training board is based in Bircham Newton, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West has done an outstanding job in defending the interests of his constituents and raising these matters with Ministers. I pay tribute to him.
Having worked in the industry for many years, and still working in it, I know that the board is absolutely essential to the industry. Despite the continual use of the expression "the construction industry" by the hon. Gentleman and many other people, there is no such thing as the construction industry, except as an overall expression. There are a large number of different industries and different trades within it. Some of them do absolutely no training. The private house building sector, for example, has hardly any apprentices. The vast majority of the work that takes place on house building sites is sub-contracted to labour-only gangs and self- employed men. It is an extremely efficient system but not one which produces many apprentices. That is well known. The hon. Gentleman gave figures showing the declining number of apprentices. I remember giving exactly the same figures 20 years ago in discussions with Ministers at the time. The number of apprentices rises and falls according to the state of the industry ; at present, the industry is in recession and is therefore taking on fewer apprentices. That is extremely regrettable.
However, in practice, if there were no construction industry training board and if there were no statutory levy--in particular, if there were no levy for labour-only sub-contractors, which is rightly set at the higher figure of 2 per cent. in the order--there would be virtually no training in the industry. People would continually be poaching each other's men ; men would simply move from one site to another hunting the higher bonuses that are on offer, particularly when the industry is in good shape, which at present it is not. It is essential, therefore, to maintain the levy.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures about the exclusion of the smallest firms. I agree with the Government that it is right, although I know that that view is not popular with many of the trade associations. As I said, I worked for one for six years. Quite apart from the administrative nightmare of trying to collect any levy from
Column 765
firms that employ one or two men--or possibly no one at all--such a system would take us back to exactly the problems that we faced in 1969.I do not know whether the institutional memory of the hon. Member for Fife, Central goes back as far as that, but mine does. I worked in the industry then--directly, at the Building Employers Confederation--and I was concerned with those problems. The board nearly collapsed then. It was Robert Carr and the incoming Conservative Government who saved the board and put it on a firm basis, just as the present Government and the present Minister decided to continue with it.
The basis for the salvation of the board by Robert Carr, then Secretary of State in 1970-71 was that it was agreed that it was ridiculous to continue to allow the very large companies--I am a director of one--to make a profit out of the board and the levy because they were training so many people in management and getting all the levy back and more, while small companies employing two or three people could send to be trained once a man whom they could ill spare off site and would then have to go on paying the levy indefinitely, year after year. My hon. Friend the Minister is quite right to exclude such firms from the levy, and I support him in that regard.
Let me stress to my hon. Friend, however, that construction is not like other industries. It has a mobile work force. It does not have fixed places of employment. Men move from site to site, and sites close, often after quite a short period. If we are to retain any training in the industry at all, we must have a board and we must have a levy. We now have an excellent board with a fine chairman in Cliff Chetwood and a new chief executive in General Wilmott. I wish it every success and I look to my hon. Friend to ensure that it has a good solid future.
11.31 pm
Mr. Jackson : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) for recognising that the Government have been flexible and have listened to the industry's arguments and taken into account the special circumstances pertaining in different sectors of the industry-- hence the proposals that we are debating today. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is ironic that the Opposition should have chosen this of all occasions to denounce the Government for having ideological hang-ups about voluntarism. Perhaps the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) did not think deeply enough about the circumstances when he chose this occasion to launch his attack. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the CITB and for its work. I agree with him about it. I also welcome his endorsement of the new training and enterprise councils, although I rather regret the hon. Gentleman's tendency to attempt to set up an opposition between a TEC approach and a sectoral approach. As he said at one point in his speech, they have to be complementary. Arguments based on the premise that they are somehow rival approaches, which formed an element of the hon. Gentleman's speech, are ill founded. The TECs and the industrial training boards--the sectoral bodies--have complementary roles, and we must recognise that.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central rather ironically chose to make a strong pitch in favour of a compulsory
Column 766
levy approach to training. This is not the occasion on which to debate the Labour party's evolving policy on training, although I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take his ideas seriously. We had an opportunity for an extensive debate about these matters only a few weeks ago. The Opposition signally failed to give the House the chance to consider their latest thinking. Opposition Members said nothing about their ideas about compulsory levies--it was Conservative Members who took those matters up.The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Government's "perverted ideology" in favour of voluntary approaches. The argument about compulsory levies and their value is essentially a practical one based on what works best. The hon. Member for Fife, Central made great play of the experience of other European countries, but there is only one major one that operates the sort of compulsory levy system of which the hon. Gentleman was talking. The French have had considerable success in their training experience, but the majority of those who have examined the system reckon that their levy system has been irrelevant to it.
It is not as though we in Britain are without any practical experience of operating a levy system. We had one, under Governments of both parties, from 1964 through to the early 1980s. If the hon. Member for Fife, Central is right when he says that we do not have a world-class work force in the construction industry, the roots of that must go back to the 15 years when we had the sort of levy system that he considers to be a panacea which will solve all problems. The Government's philosophy on training, as I explained when I replied to a recent debate on the subject, is to work with employers to improve the quality and quantity of training. That is the way in which we shall achieve the productivity improvements to which the hon. Gentleman rightly attaches importance. Most employers feel strongly that a voluntary partnership will work best. Where there is support for a statutory approach, as there is in this instance, we shall accommodate it. The hon. Member for Fife, Central should recognise the irony of the Opposition rebuking the Government for our attachment to voluntarism during a debate on a statutory levy.
Mr. McLeish : The Minister cannot have it all ways. The attack on the Government's form of voluntarism was based on their hypocrisy. The CITB was given a conditional reprieve. The Government were in the curious position of wanting to step back from interfering with industry while saying to the board, "Yes, you can operate on your own, but you must have more exemptions for small businesses and a low payroll levy. You must not use funds from the levy to invest in youth training." That is a curious form of voluntarism. We have argued that over-prescription will stem from the voluntarism that the Minister is preaching.
Mr. Jackson : The other great theme of the hon. Gentleman's speech was small firms, and I shall take it up. Before doing so, I express the view that he has not recognised the extent to which there has been consultation with the industry about the operation of the CITB. The decision to retain the principle of a statutory levy arose from consultation with the industry, as did the various reforms which have taken place within the board. The hon. Gentleman must not assume that every arrangement is
Column 767
perfect. It is necessary to keep arrangements under review, and that is what we did. The consequences of that are the changes to and reforms within the CITB to which he referred.The hon. Member for Fife, Central talked about the levy and the level of the CITB's income. Secondly, he referred to the small firms exclusion threshold. The levy of 0.25 per cent. was a matter for the board, and it was the board that proposed it. The income from it will be the same as that which would have been derived from a per capita levy. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the Opposition's plan for a further review, should they form a Government. I take from that the implication that the hon. Gentleman would intend to increase the levy. I can imagine the kind of welcome that that would receive from the building industry, which I hope will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said--indeed, I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will draw its attention to the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. McLeish rose --
Mr. Jackson : Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a correction.
Mr. McLeish : There is no need for correction. The Minister has raised issues which were not discussed. No one suggested the imposition of a bigger levy. The important feature was that a Labour Government would conduct a positive review--not a political review. There is a significant difference between that, as a statement, and the logical development--as in the mind of the Minister to the position that the Government have reached.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) : A positive review results in a tax increase
Mr. Jackson : As my hon. Friend says, a positive review results in a tax increase.
The hon. Gentleman cannot attack the Government for having fixed the levy at too low a rate and then attempt to deny the perfectly logical implication that it is his intention to increase the levy. The hon. Gentleman made great play of the reduction in levy income. That was the other aspect of his argument, but he now seeks to imply that he does not believe that that income should be made up by increasing the levy, having made the point that levy income has been reduced. In fact, the reduction in the income is due to the reduction in the size of the coverage of the board due, for example, to the removal of various sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton recognised that the industry has many different sectors and aspects to it. That has been reflected in the changes in the scope and coverage of the CITB that we have developed. The board's total coverage has been reduced by 25 per cent., and that is what the reduction in income reflects.
It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman recognised the strength of the CITB's reserve position but did not seem to draw any conclusions from that about what would be an appropriate levy.
Mr. McLeish : The implication was that if the CITB continues to use up its reserves as it is doing at the moment, within a few years those reserves will have disappeared. The first question to ask the Minister is
Column 768
whether that makes sense for a board which has substantial assets and wishes to retain them. Secondly, if there are cuts in youth training funding and in the income generated by the levy, will that not result in both the volume and quality of training being drastically cut in the next two or three years?Mr. Jackson : The hon. Gentleman has a lot of explaining to do to the building industry. He wants to increase the levy--that is a reasonable implication of his remarks about its being too low--but he now says that the reserves should not be spent. It would be difficult to say to the building industry, especially in the present economic downturn, that a board with substantial reserves should maintain them--and possibly even increase them--while raising the levy that it imposes upon the companies in the sector. That is an unreasonable suggestion to make to the building industry at the present juncture, and the hon. Gentleman should reflect on that.
The hon. Gentleman's other main point related to the exemption of small firms. It was interesting that although the hon. Gentleman affected to be a friend of the small firms--"Give them a chance to contribute to the levy" seemed to be the tone of his argument--he wants to increase the burden on them. That is the logical implication of the proposition that the level for the exclusion of small firms has been set too high.
When we consider the small firms' exclusion from something like a statutory levy, we must ask whether the game is worth the candle. That was precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton. The construction industry contains an impressive number of small firms. The most recent census of production shows 160,000 such firms, many of which are very small, as my hon. Friend knows the industry so well can testify. Indeed, 14,801 firms have payrolls of £15,000 or less, and 23,022 have payrolls of £45,000 or less according to the most recent census of production.
If the scope of the levy is extended as the hon. Gentleman would like, many thousands of small firms will be brought into the requirements. Policing them will be extremely complex, difficult and burdensome, and what would be achieved as a result? Although there are many small firms in the industry, the vast majority of its employees work for the larger companies. In fact, 10 per cent. of the firms employ 76 per cent. of the employees--and pay 73 per cent. of the levy. Those circumstances are reflected in the fact that the loss of income to the CITB from raising the small firms exclusion level from £15,000 to £45,000 is only £1.8 million.
The hon. Gentleman talked about stresses and strains on the budget as a result of the change in the exclusion level, but £1.8 million out of an annual total levy income of nearly £60 million does not strike me as being a major stress or strain. The House is obliged to set against that £1.8 million the savings in hassle and bureaucracy affecting many thousands of small firms which we shall achieve by raising the small firms exclusion level. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that point.
This is a very interesting illustration of the dangers of the statutory approach that the hon. Gentleman favours. The danger implicit in any statutory approach is the extension of law-making, rule-making and bureaucracy. There is inevitably a tendency to focus on the statutory arrangements for their own sake, rather than to keep one's eye on the ball in terms of more and better training. The
Column 769
way to keep one's eye on the ball in that respect is to win the co-operation of employers rather than to proceed as the hon. Gentleman suggests.Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 29th January, be approved.
Column 770
Mr. Peter Newman
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Chapman.]
11.45 pm
Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : I want to bring to the attention of the House the sad case of my constituent Mr. Peter Newman, and to the hopelessness of that gentleman's situation. I do so with a view to drawing attention to what I think is a gap in the provision for people suffering from the mental illness of which Peter Newman is a victim. Let me begin by referring to some points in Peter Newman's recent history. Because of the shortage of time, I shall leave out quite a lot of detail.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in his place. I have received from him many sensitive, generous and kind letters about this difficult case. I know very well that he will treat it with great seriousness and will try to find an answer. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) also in his place. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) wished to be mentioned in the context of this case, as it involves a person who, in layman's language, is suffering from schizophrenia. Mr. Peter Newman has never been positively diagnosed as schizophrenic, although a social worker once admitted to his mother, quietly and without commitment, that he had been diagnosed as paranoid with psychotic phases.
One of the key points that I want to draw to the attention of the House is that psychiatrists cannot truly identify, and will not designate, Peter Newman as suffering from any real or recognisable mental illness that could be treated under the Mental Health Acts of 1959 and 1983. In my view, that is one of the gaps in the provision. Peter Newman has made two attempts to commit suicide. One of these occurred in July 1986, when he was a patient at Long Grove long-stay hospital. The fact that he had been sectioned to be there shows that he suffers from a very serious mental illness. He threw himself from a top-floor window and suffered very serious brain damage. His mother and family took a great deal of time to bring him round and restore him to some kind of normal health. In 1987, he was transferred to a hospital nearer his home--the Princess Alexandra--but he escaped and threw himself from the multi-storey car park, inflicting very serious physical damage on himself. Peter Newman is clearly very determined to commit suicide, and is thus a serious danger to himself. It is not that many of the authorities have not made some provision for Peter. It is not that they have not been very worried indeed about him and have not tried to diagnose the problem and treat it in some way. Indeed, he spent a year, at the expense of the North East Thames regional health authority, in an extremely costly and excellent hospital--St. Andrews in Northampton. The authorities have done a great deal to try to treat him. Peter Newman released himself from St. Andrews and had to be brought back, after which he finally released himself into society. That was only to pick a fight with his brother when he returned to Hertford, and the Hertford magistrates committed him to Pentonville prison, just before Christmas 1990. All of us concerned with the case were relieved that he was there, because at least he was safe
Column 771
there. The prison authorities put him straight into the hospital wing, where he remained for the whole of his three months' confinement.On his release, in January this year, there was no place for him to go. Therefore, I made arrangements with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), the Minister for Housing and Planning, for him to be given addresses of hostels in London. The prison had given him a list of hostels dated 1988, so it was well out of date. He found hostel accommodation. A few weeks later, he broke into Buckingham palace and was arrested by the police. They did not charge him, because they recognised that he was suffering from a mental illness, but instead they took him back to the hostel.
He was then found riding on the outside of trains in the Southern region, arrested again and taken back to the hostel. He was last seen walking among fast-moving traffic in Edmonton, arrested, not charged, and taken by the police to where he is now, Hackney hospital. Two doctors sectioned him under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, to be detained for a 28-day assessment order. He cannot release himself from that hospital.
I fear that, when he is released, Peter Newman will be released into a world in which there is no provision for him, and he cannot be treated or taken care of. During the time that he was in Northampton, all of us concerned in the case were worried about what would happen to him when he came out. I wrote to the district health authority and to the social services department of the Hertfordshire county council. It is worth reading their replies to me, because they are supposed to take care of him.
The chairman of the health authority said :
"The latest information I have had is that Peter Newman is due to be released at the end of next week and I have to confirm that following the Forensic Psychiatrist's report, Peter Newman will not be the responsibility of the Health Service.
I understand that he would therefore be the responsibility of the Social Services who, as you know, had provided a place for him in one of their homes but he walked out from it. They have no authority to force him to stay. I am sure that Mr. Laming"--
the director of social services in Hertfordshire county council-- "has replied to you in a similar manner and that due to his history, the Local Council representatives will be visiting him prior to his discharge concerning his housing. This action is in line with the recommendations made in the Case Conference held on 15 November 1990."
The social services director, Mr. Herbert Laming, said : "By all means, take up the case of Peter Newman, since it illustrates extremely well the difficulties which are being faced by Social Services Departments when they are being asked to provide services for people who either refuse to accept what is offered to them, or behave in ways that ensure failure of the placement, or need services which can only be provided by other agencies.
In Peter Newman's case, we have had the experience in the past that we have found residential homes which were prepared to offer him a place, only for him to refuse to accept. We have tried to accommodate him in the residential homes run by the County Council for people with mental health problems, but his behaviour could not be contained in this setting. More recently, his propensity for violent behaviour resulted in the prison sentence he is currently serving.
Of the residential resources approached on Peter's behalf by our staff, only two expressed a willingness to consider him. One is Kneesworth House, which is a private hospital, and if they were to admit him, his place would have to be paid for by the local Health Authority (as they have done on a previous occasion when Peter was admitted to St. Andrews, a similar hospital). The second offer to consider Peter came
Column 772
from a residential home in Devon, whose charges are in the region of £20,000 to £40,000 per annum The sponsorship budget available to the Department is fully committed and I regret that we are therefore unable to provide funding for such a placement."Therefore, neither the health nor the social services authorities in Hertfordshire provide a place for Peter to go. I sought a place for him from those responsible for the homeless, but found that there was no local authority provision for people in his position, so there was no question of his being offered such accommodation.
That means that Peter is left to wander aimlessly and hopelessly in London without treatment. Authorities cannot detain him to provide him with the 24 -hour care that he needs or prevent him from releasing himself. He needs to be restrained and to have his liberty curtailed, yet there is no way to do so under the current Mental Health Acts. Care can be provided by the health and social services and by homelessness offices as well as by the police and the prison service. Indeed, many mentally ill people, like Peter, are accustomed to being accommodated in their hospitals, which are the only places where they can be put. Great responsibility lies with the psychiatric services and the mental health commissioners.
At the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister, I went to see the mental health commissioner, Professor Evelyn Murphy. At present, it is the fashion to try not to keep anyone in detention if one can possibly avoid it. Although that is laudable and I understand it, it has resulted in a grey area. People are not positively identified as suffering from a mental illness under the definition of the Act, yet by any normal person's judgment, and certainly in the judgment of their family, they are clearly not acting in their own interests. They are vulnerable and a danger to themselves as well as to their community and family.
Mrs. Newman has concluded that her son is lost. He will either kill himself or somebody else. Only in the latter case will his problem be solved by a long-term prison sentence, which he will probably serve in the mental hospital wing of a prison. That is unacceptable, and we cannot allow this to continue.
I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to set up urgently a committee of experts to make recommendations on how people in Peter's condition can be detained, treated and given long-term security under restraint. If necessary, the committee should make recommendations to alter the Mental Health Acts 1959 and 1983 to permit that to happen. Secondly, I ask my hon. Friend to provide suitable accommodation as a halfway house. Perhaps such people could be identified not as mentally ill under the 1983 Act, but as sufficiently mentally ill that they cannot look after themselves and need to be looked after. I also call on my hon. Friend to meet with me psychiatric consultants and to ask them to examine the position and to make recommendations for alternatives to current practice and definitions of mental illness, so that people in Peter's position can be treated and detained, as I am sure the whole community would wish them to be. 11.59 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) for allowing me the opportunity to contribute
Column 773
to this important, albeit short, debate. I do so for a number of reasons--not least Mrs. Newman, my hon. Friend's constituent, who wrote to me about her son's case. I am particularly interested because of my membership of the Select Committee on Health. I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said. He has represented his constituent and his family positively and sensitively in a difficult area. He has highlighted one of the grave gaps in our policy on community care, with particular reference to the mentally ill--the category into which Peter Newman falls. Those people are dealt with inadequately under the current legislation, and the available accommodation is inadequate to deal with a case such as that of Peter Newman. He has spent a limited time in prison, but that is not the place for someone suffering from a mental illness. My hon. Friend has asked for certain assurances and commitments from the Government. Those requests are in line with the views of the Select Committee on Social Services, which produced a report on mental illness and community care in the previous Session of Parliament. When my hon. Friend the Minister replies, I hope that he can tell me when his Department intend to reply to that report, which has an important bearing on the serious case that my hon. Friend has raised.12 midnight
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell) : As my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) illustrates the difficulties in the law and practice in the treatment of, and facilities for, mentally ill people. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford on raising this matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield asked when the Government expect to respond to the Select Committee on Social Services report on arrangements for provision for the mentally ill. That response will be given shortly--it is reasonably imminent. My hon. Friends will appreciate that I have some difficulty in responding to the specifics of the case raised tonight. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford has argued about the specific nature of the provisions and services available to his constituent. He will understand that those issues relate to an individual case and are bound by the normal duty of confidentiality which govern the relationship between a national health service patient and his clinical advisers.
My hon. Friend disagreed with the clinical assessment of Peter Newman, but I cannot enter into an argument about that. I am not a clinician and therefore I am unable to argue about whether the psychiatrist's clinical assessment was right or wrong. Even if I were able to decide on that assessment, it would be a confidential matter between the psychiatrist and the patient and not one that should be properly traded across the Floor of the House. I do not believe that it would be right for me to get involved in the specifics of the Peter Newman case. I can, however, talk about the arrangements which are made to treat that type of patient in general, and the Government's approach to that.
Column 774
My hon. Friend said that Peter Newman "needs his liberty curtailed". That goes to the heart of the matter. The House must recognise--I know that my hon. Friend does that to deny any citizen his liberty is a grade A civil rights issue. The subject does not lend itself to administrative finesse. Parliament has rightly insisted that it should be laid down in detail in statute law. If the suspicion grew that a clinician was playing fast and loose with the statutory definition of the circumstances in which liberty can be denied, he would be hauled up not merely for his clinical judgment but also on legal grounds. It is for Parliament alone to describe the circumstances in which any citizen of this country can be compulsorily denied his liberty or be subjected to compulsory clinical investigation.The mere fact of mental illness does not remove from the citizen in all circumstances the right and ability to take decisions about his own life. Mental illness removes that right in some instances, but those circumstances are defined in the Mental Health Act 1983. If my hon. Friend wishes to argue that the statutory definition of the circumstances in which freedom can be removed needs to be extended or redefined, it is incumbent on him to propose draft amendments to the Mental Health Act to that end. Such amendments would prescribe the circumstances in which he thinks that liberty should be curtailed and which are not covered by the definitions to be found, most importantly, in section 3 of the Mental Health Act.
I put the ball back in the court of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford not merely as a debating point but because the issue has been regularly raised by those concerned about and interested in the subject. The Government have said that they are always open to proposals on how the law can be amended or refined, but we have not yet received detailed proposals showing precisely how the law is inadequate and how the grade A civil rights issue can be advanced.
It is not enough to take a particular case. There is an old saying that hard cases make bad law, so we need to define the circumstances--
Mr. Wells : It was precisely because the definitions in the Mental Health Act needed redefining that I asked my hon. Friend the Minister to help me and everyone concerned by establishing a committee of experts or a group to determine how we can alter the law to meet the gap in provision and in definition. Of course the liberty of the individual must be preserved, but not to the point of making vulnerable people walk the streets of London, without treatment, help or housing.
I need my hon. Friend's help. I do not have a research assistant to do the work. Neither I nor any hon. Member has the resources to do it. We need experts, and I am certainly no expert.
| Next Section
| Home Page |