House of Commons
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Nicola Richards (West Bromwich East) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
Tackling violence against women and girls is one of the Government’s key priorities. We are making progress in delivering various cross-Government workstreams, including the tackling violence against women and girls strategy and the rape review action plan.
Jeff Smith
Three quarters of police-recorded domestic abuse cases are closed due to evidential difficulties or because the victim does not support further action. Does the Minister agree that Labour’s proposal to put rape and domestic abuse specialists in every police force in England and Wales will give women the confidence to come forward and secure more convictions?
Kemi Badenoch
We will have 2,000 rape specialists across all police forces by April. In the autumn statement, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would provide £2 million of additional funding for a flexible fund that trials one-off payments to victims of domestic abuse. That fund was made available to victims on 31 January.
Nicola Richards
Last week, I co-hosted an event here in Parliament with a delegation from Israel who have first-hand experience of the aftermath of 7 October. They described innocent women, dead or alive, who had been raped by terrorists. Hamas desecrated their bodies and even booby-trapped them. Those acts of sexual violence must be condemned by every institution and individual who cares about women’s rights.
Kemi Badenoch
I thank my hon. Friend and her co-chair for organising what was for attendees an extremely difficult meeting. We heard the harrowing accounts of witnesses and family members of young girls who were kidnapped on 7 October, and we heard from the first responders who found the bodies of women and girls of all ages with obvious signs of sexual violence. Female soldiers were found naked with nails and sharp objects shoved into their vaginas. One told of a mother he found with her hands tied behind her back, naked and bleeding from the waist down, shot in the back of the head, and with a live grenade left in her hand for whoever found her body.
We must support the courage of those witnesses in giving that harrowing testimony about Hamas’s mass-scale perpetration of sexual violence on 7 October. We cannot be silent about these atrocities. We must ensure that the world does not forget that sexual violence shatters lives and devastates communities. The UK stands in solidarity with survivors and continues to call for the release of the remaining hostages.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I appreciate that the Government have been trying to tackle violence against women and girls, specifically with the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. Unfortunately, amendments that would have gone further to protect migrant women, who too often still feel unable to come forward and report abuse for fear of their data being shared and their being detained or deported, were not accepted. Will the Minister commit to reassessing the merits of preventing survivors’ personal data from being shared with the Home Office for immigration purposes?
Kemi Badenoch
That is a matter for the Home Office. I support all the work that Home Office Ministers are doing to tackle domestic abuse, and I know there would have been good reasons for not accepting those amendments to the Act. We will continue to do all we can. I have just heard from the Minister for safeguarding—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris)—that concessions are being made. We will continue to work with her and others to tackle domestic violence in all its forms.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
In some instances, there are good reasons why immigration control should be able to work with forces of law enforcement when it comes to domestic abuse. My constituent Emma has been serially abused, harassed and stalked by a US national, who crosses the border with no visa—he does not need one—to continue his campaign of harassment. Will my right hon. Friend please work closely with the Home Office to ensure that British women are protected from foreign abusers who have found ways around our immigration system?
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is right to raise that. I ask her to let her constituent know that the Government are doing all they can. The safeguarding Minister has said that she will write to my right hon. Friend so that this specific case can be further investigated.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
As of December 2023, 91% of all claims either had received a final decision or were less than six months old. The Windrush scheme has reduced the time taken to allocate a substantive casework decision from 18 months to less than four months. That includes making all essential eligibility checks together with a preliminary assessment to make an initial interim payment of £10,000 wherever possible.
Vicky Foxcroft
In response to a parliamentary question, the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), confirmed that by April last year, 41 of the 6,122 Windrush compensation claimants had sadly died before their claims were settled—an increase of more than 100% since 2021. Will the Minister update us on how many applicants have now died while waiting for the Government to right the wrongs done to thousands of innocent survivors and their families?
Laura Farris
I can confirm that we have been made aware of 53 claimants who have unfortunately passed away. I want to provide the hon. Lady with two reassurances: first, if we are notified an individual is suffering from a critical or life-limiting illness, their claim is prioritised; secondly, if they do pass away, their family are still able to pursue their claim.
Mohammad Yasin
Only 14% of 150,000 eligible applicants to the compensation scheme have received redress. Will the Government learn lessons from the Horizon scandal and listen to victims and campaign groups who are calling on them to lower the burden of proof for claims, and ensure that legal aid is guaranteed to all eligible claimants?
Laura Farris
So far, £75 million has been paid out on more than 2,000 claims. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not appropriate to draw precise equivalence with things like the Horizon scheme, because that involved a judicial process, with different facts, different losses and different harms. However, we have been making consistent improvements to the compensation scheme, including making it easier for applicants to use, and we have rapidly accelerated the speed at which we make our payments.
Janet Daby
Victims of the Windrush scandal have experienced huge injustices of destitution, humiliation and varied health issues, as well as delays in receiving compensation. To make matters worse, they do not currently receive compensation for the loss of private pensions. Will the Minister look into reducing the delays and compensating Windrush victims for private pension losses?
Laura Farris
We consider each claim on its facts, and no two claims are the same. I would be happy to write to the hon. Lady about specific issues, but I reassure her that we do not take a blanket approach to each individual and we assess claims individually.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Conservatives have failed the Windrush generation twice now: first by denying their rights as British citizens, and secondly by delaying their compensation, as we have just heard again. Labour would sort out the compensation scheme, re-establish the major change programme and Windrush unit scrapped by the Conservatives and appoint a Windrush commissioner to ensure that this kind of scandal never happens again. What is the Government’s plan here?
Laura Farris
I find it difficult to accept that a scheme is failing when more than 80% of claims have now received a final decision, and more than 90% have either received a final decision or are less than six months old. So I disagree with that. I think it was suggested that we should take the scheme out of the Home Office—perhaps that is Labour’s proposal. I remind the hon. Lady that Martin Levermore, the independent adviser to the Windrush scheme, supported the scheme remaining in the Home Office in his most recent report, published in March 2022.
Anneliese Dodds
There is no accountability for the failures being felt so acutely by so many people who, frankly, do not have much time left to see justice. The Windrush generation and their families helped to build our NHS, but today we see big inequalities in health outcomes. Labour’s race equality Act would include a target to close the appalling maternal mortality gap for black and Asian women. It seems another nine months have passed since the maternity disparities taskforce last met—is that because the Minister for Women and Equalities thinks this is another of her alleged fake problems?
Laura Farris
I say to the hon. Lady that that is not accepted. In fact, the Health Secretary made an announcement on maternal services this week; I think it would be appropriate to refer to my colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care, and then I will write to the hon. Lady on this point.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
I meet the Domestic Abuse Commissioner regularly, and our last joint visit was to a refuge for minoritised women for whom honour-based abuse was a specific issue. It is important work of the Home Office to look at the specific harms connected with this issue. One of the things we are most proud of is our forced marriage unit, which has provided support services to more than 300 cases in the past year. We also fund a national honour-based abuse helpline, which has helped more than 2,500 people in the past 12 months.
Kim Johnson
Savera UK, which is based in my constituency, and the Domestic Abuse Commissioner are concerned by this Government’s failure to provide a statutory definition of so-called honour-based abuse. Does the Minister agree that that will lead to under-reporting and a lack of detail on the scale of the problem?
Laura Farris
I am afraid that the Government take the opposite view. We use the expression honour-based abuse, which has been controversial in itself, because often victims understand it the best. Victims of honour-based abuse are often the hardest to reach, and sometimes are the least able to articulate their claims and to escape their circumstance. We keep the definition wide to capture successfully all the various insidious forms that it takes. Let me reassure the hon. Lady that both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office use a working definition to guide investigations and, so far, it is proving effective.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
One of the most insidious forms of domestic abuse is conversion therapy. It is cruel and it does not work. Could my hon. Friend give me some indication of when legislation will come forward to ban it?
Laura Farris
I can reassure my hon. Friend that the Government will publish a draft Bill on that in due course.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
We are helping to get young girls and women into STEM sectors in three key ways: first, by increasing the number of young girls taking up courses. We have seen a 50% increase in the number of undergraduate STEM courses taken up by young women. Secondly, this week is National Apprenticeship Week, and 70% of jobs are now accessed through an apprenticeship, which is helping young women get into STEM careers. Thirdly, we are helping women with experience of working in STEM who have left the profession to return to the workplace with our STEM returners project.
Mrs Drummond
University technical colleges are a good place for young women to start in STEM. I welcome the new UTC in Southampton, which will provide the extra places that Portsmouth UTC is unable to offer. Some 6,000 girls attend UTCs around the country, of whom 82% go on to apprenticeships, university or straight into employment—mostly into STEM careers. Does my hon. Friend agree that UTCs provide a great start to a career in STEM, and that the proposal for UTC sleeves in secondary schools will help more girls into STEM careers?
Maria Caulfield
I absolutely agree. University technical colleges provide an excellent experience for young people, not just academically but in providing technical skills. They have excellent links with industry, which provides great work experience for those pupils. I am pleased that the young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency have such great options for UTC provision.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am always encouraged by the number of young ladies and girls who wish to be involved in science, technology and mathematics in Northern Ireland. They can do the job every bit as well men. Is it not important to ensure that companies that wish to employ people do more to encourage young ladies to take up jobs?
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The Government cannot do it all; we need industry, and there are some great examples. We have a £17 million scholarship programme for artificial intelligence and data science conversion courses. We also have the UK Space Agency investing £15 million into diverse workforce streams, particularly to help young women get into the sector. He is right that we need to work hand in glove with industry.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
We all know that women take on the bulk of caring responsibilities. The Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024 will come into force on 6 April across England, Wales and Scotland, allowing carers to take a week of unpaid leave from the workplace knowing that their jobs are protected.
Mr Sheerman
The ministerial team knows that it is an absolute scandal that in all these years of so-called popular Conservative Government we have seen such a bad deal for early years, carers and talented women. Legions of them want to use their talent at work but are stopped by the highest childcare costs in the world.
Maria Caulfield
I would respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that God gave us two ears and a mouth for a reason, and I would encourage him to put his listening ears on to hear about the track record of this Government. We have, for instance, improved payments for carers, introduced groundbreaking legislation to allow flexible working from day one, and legislated for parental leave including shared parental leave and paternity leave. The kinship care strategy was launched in December to provide a funding model for kinship carers. We have gone further than any Government with our plan to improve the lives of carers and value the work that they do.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
That right to flexible working would particularly benefit workers with caring responsibilities, most of whom are women, but unfortunately the UK Government’s response to the results of their consultation on flexible working simply does not go far enough to provide some of the real practical support needed by many people with such responsibilities. Last week Nikki Pound of the TUC told the Women and Equalities Committee that one in three requests for flexible working were denied by employers. What steps are the UK Government taking to give real support to workers with caring responsibilities and ensure that flexible working is a day-one right by default?
Maria Caulfield
I am a carer myself, holding down a full-time job, so I am aware of the difficulties involved. As I have said, the Government have passed legislation allowing flexible working from day one, and we have also introduced 18 weeks of leave entitlement for parents. That is on top of the Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024, which will come into force on 6 April. We have gone further than any other Government in introducing those rights for carers.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Amanda Solloway)
The Government understand the importance of this issue. I have recently met key stakeholders representing disabled people, including members of Disability UK and cross-Whitehall colleagues.
Jamie Stone
My constituent Mr Peter Bodek has a severe lung condition which necessitates the use of oxygen. There is mould in his house, and it is getting on to his clothes. He can only afford two small electric heaters. I should be grateful if a Minister could meet me, very briefly, to discuss this rather difficult situation.
Amanda Solloway
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and I speak both for myself and on behalf of the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work in saying that of course we will have a meeting.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
In the light of some of the commentary about the employment tribunal’s judgment in the case of Professor Miller and Bristol University, I want to clarify the fact that antisemitism must continue to be challenged wherever it arises. We have seen people in this country use their views on Israel as an excuse to display antisemitism. We have seen that in protests on our streets, and also in our universities. It is therefore important to stress that this ruling does not change the fact that while academics have the right to express views, they cannot behave in a way that amounts to harassment of Jewish students. Disguising that as discourse about Israel would be no more lawful than any other form of antisemitism. The Government will consider the ruling carefully, and we will continue to do all in our power to protect Jewish people throughout our country.
Stuart C. McDonald
On Monday, my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) hosted a very positive event marking the start of the Football v. Homophobia month of action. Will Ministers join me in thanking all those involved in the campaign—which includes LEAP sports and the TIE campaign in Scotland—and offer their wholehearted support for making football a safe and welcoming sport for LGBT people?
Kemi Badenoch
Of course we join the hon. Gentleman in that. I pay tribute to the work of the Minister for Equalities, who has been very supportive of the campaign—as are all of us in the ministerial team.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Kemi Badenoch
As my hon. Friend will know, I too am an engineer by training, and we engineers have to stick together. We are very sceptical when people introduce to the lexicon terms that are not helpful to the real work of tackling serious criminal behaviour. I am not a fan of that term, and my hon. Friend will be pleased to know that microaggressions training was removed from the Government Campus prospectus in November 2022.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Under the Conservatives, police-recorded rapes have soared to record highs while convictions have fallen to record lows. It emerged last week that the Conservative police and crime commissioner in Cheshire victim-blamed girls wearing short skirts for this epidemic. Why are these attitudes still tolerated in the Conservative party?
Kemi Badenoch
Those attitudes are not tolerated in the Conservative party. I have not seen the remarks the hon. Lady refers to, but I am sure that we can investigate. However, I will push back on what she said about rape statistics. The fact is that, for the year ending March 2023, the crime survey for England and Wales shows a 5.1% reduction in the number of adults experienced domestic abuse—a statistically significant decrease—compared with the year ending March 2020.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
This Conservative Government and this Conservative Prime Minister have been clear that biological sex matters, and language is important too. We have issued guidance to trusts because there is evidence that clinical damage and harm can come with the removal of the use of the term “woman” from literature. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend’s local trust to point that out.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Mims Davies)
The hon. Lady joined me yesterday at the disability action plan event, where many stakeholders welcomed the changes and opportunities in disabled people’s lives. Many disabled people want to work, and we at the Department for Work and Pensions will always ensure that we listen to their wants and needs and that they will never be forced into anything that is not suitable for them.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
At 5 pm today, women’s groups and other community groups in Gosport will be staging a peaceful protest about the Lib Dem council’s decision to completely end all live CCTV monitoring. They are worried about the impact on people’s safety. Does the Minister agree with them?
Kemi Badenoch
It is important that people understand that CCTV and street lighting are important in helping women to feel safe on the streets. I fully understand the campaign and I am glad that my hon. Friend is supporting it. We are doing everything we can in Government to reduce violence against women and girls.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Kemi Badenoch
I am working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office on this issue. We are very concerned about the events taking place in both Israel and Gaza and we want to see the violence end. The hon. Gentleman will know about all the work we have been doing on preventing sexual violence in conflict, for example, and we will continue to do everything we can to minimise any impact on women and girls.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with Cabinet colleagues to help increase the number of female-led businesses?
Kemi Badenoch
Female-led businesses often face particular challenges, and in the Department for Business and Trade we work with the British Business Bank to ensure that those businesses continue to have access to finance. We have the Investing in Women code and a taskforce for women-led entrepreneurs. We hope that all these actions together will help improve the lives of women in business.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Lady will know that the Government commissioned that report from the Patient Safety Commissioner to look at options for redress, specifically for those affected by sodium valproate, but also for those affected by mesh. The report has been published only today, so we will look at the details closely before reporting back to the House.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
I know the thoughts of the House and the country are with the King and his family. We wish His Majesty a speedy recovery and look forward to him resuming his public-facing duties in due course.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, and I shall have further such meetings later today.
Fleur Anderson
I, too, send my best wishes to the King.
Last week, the Foreign Secretary said that, with allies, we will look at the issue of recognising a Palestinian state, so that the Palestinian people
“can see that there is going to be irreversible progress to a two-state solution.”
Afterwards, it was briefed that these words had not been signed off by No. 10. Does the Prime Minister agree with his Foreign Secretary?
The Prime Minister
Our long-standing position has been that we will recognise a Palestinian state at a time that is most conducive to the peace process. The most important thing is that we are committed to that two-state solution and are working with our allies to bring it about.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We are publishing the dentistry recovery plan today, and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will be making a statement shortly. Over 1 million more people saw an NHS dentist last year than the year before, but we know that there is more to do. That is why the recovery plan will make sure that NHS dental care is faster, simpler and fairer for patients and staff.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in sending His Majesty the King our very best wishes for his treatment. Across the House, we all look forward to seeing him back to full health as quickly as possible.
This week, the unwavering bravery of Brianna Ghey’s mother, Esther, has touched us all. As a father, I cannot even imagine the pain that she is going through. I am glad that she is with us in the Gallery today.
A year ago, the Prime Minister promised to bring down NHS waiting lists. Isn’t he glad that he did not bet a grand on it?
The Prime Minister
At least I stand by my commitments. He is so indecisive that the only bet he would make is an each-way bet.
Keir Starmer
He says he stands by his commitments. He once insisted that if he missed his promises,
“I’m the Prime Minister…it’s on me personally”.
Today we learn from his own officials that he is the blocker to any deal to end the doctors’ strikes. Every time he is asked, he blames everyone else. What exactly did he mean when he said “it’s on me personally” if he does not meet his promise?
The Prime Minister
We are bringing down waiting lists for the longest waiters and making progress. It is a bit rich to hear about promises from someone who has broken every single promise he was elected on. I have counted almost 30 in the last year: pensions, planning, peerages, public sector pay, tuition fees, childcare, second referendums, defining a woman—although, in fairness, that was only 99% of a U-turn. The list goes on, but the theme is the same: empty words, broken promises and absolutely no plan.
Keir Starmer
Of all the weeks to say that, when Brianna’s mother is in this Chamber—shame! Parading as a man of integrity when he has got absolutely no responsibility, it is absolute—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I think Members are getting carried away. Our constituents want to hear the questions and they certainly want to hear the answers. They do not want to hear organised barracking, so please, I want no more of it.
Keir Starmer
I think the role of the Prime Minister is to ensure that every single citizen in this country feels safe and respected, and it is a shame that the Prime Minister does not share that view. I welcome the fact that he has finally admitted that he has failed on NHS waiting lists. I also welcome the fact that he has finally acknowledged the crisis in NHS dentistry. He is calling it a “recovery plan”, after 14 years of Tory Government. What exactly does he think NHS dentistry is recovering from?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am certainly not having that from the Opposition Front Bench either. Please, I want to hear this. I am hoping that election fever is not coming tomorrow, so let us not behave as though it is.
The Prime Minister
As ever, the right hon. and learned Gentleman conveniently forgets the impact of a pandemic on NHS dentistry; it was specifically because of the close proximity nature of dental provision that it was unable to operate as normal throughout the pandemic—that was a recommendation of the medical and clinical experts. That is why, inevitably, there is a backlog in dental care, with the impact that this has. But that is why, as my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will outline later today for the House, we are putting in more funding to provide more NHS provision across the country, on top of plans that will see the number of dental training places increase by 40%. Our plans mean that there will be 2.5 million more NHS appointments, which is, in fact, three times more than the Labour party is proposing.
Keir Starmer
There are some areas in the country where people literally cannot have an NHS dentist, and the Prime Minister says that that is down to covid. People are literally pulling out their own teeth—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Let me just say that I do not need any more from those on the Government Front Bench either. Do we understand each other?
Keir Starmer
People are literally pulling out their teeth using pliers—an experience that can be compared with extracting an answer from the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box. The truth is that after 14 years of neglect, this “recovery plan” is just a desperate attempt to recover back to square one. If he wanted to move forward, he should follow Labour: scrap the non-dom tax status and use the money to fund 2 million more hospital appointments every year. But the Prime Minister is oddly reluctant to follow us on this. What exactly is so special about this tax avoidance scheme that means he prioritises it above the NHS?
The Prime Minister
Let us look at that record. In the NHS, we have record funding; record numbers of doctors and nurses; a record number of appointments; and higher cancer survival rates. But what is happening on Labour’s watch in Wales? Let us have a look at that. A fifth of people in Wales are currently on a waiting list; the number of waits of 18 months or more is 10 times higher than in England; and people are waiting twice as long for an operation. Labour’s failure has sent the Welsh NHS back to square one, and we will never let them do that here.
Keir Starmer
When the Prime Minister admitted that he had failed on waiting lists, I actually thought that we might be entering a new era of “integrity, professionalism and accountability”—remember that one? But just like all the other relaunches, it has proved to be a false dawn. He is still blaming everyone else and is still removed from reality. It is very simple: you can either back more NHS appointments or more tax avoidance. We know what side we are on; why doesn’t he?
The Prime Minister
The best way to ensure that we continue to fund the NHS, as we have, is not to make £28 billion of unfunded spending commitments. Just this morning, independent Treasury officials have published a formal costing of just one part of Labour’s eco promise, its insulation scheme, and it turns out that it will cost double what Labour had previously claimed—it is not the £6 billion that Labour accounted for, but £13 billion every single year. It is now crystal clear that Labour has absolutely no plan, but we all know it is going to fund that gap: more taxes on hard-working people.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister is Mr 25 Tax Rises. He is literally the country’s expert on putting taxes up, and he thinks he can lecture everyone else on the economy. Last week, he and his MPs were laughing at someone whose mortgage had gone up £1,000 a month. This week, he casually made a £1,000 bet in the middle of an interview. Last week, he thought even raising questions about the cost of living was resorting to “the politics of envy”. This week, he has finally found the cause he wants to rally around: the non-dom status. When he finds himself backing tax avoidance over NHS appointments, does he start to understand why his own MPs are saying that he simply does not get what Britain needs?
The Prime Minister
I will take no lectures about getting Britain from a man who thought it was right to defend terrorists. What we are doing is building a brighter future for our country: just last week, we expanded healthcare in pharmacies; today, we are expanding dental care; and this week, we are helping millions with the cost of living and, most importantly, cutting national insurance. That is all while the Labour party argues over 28 billion different ways to raise people’s taxes. That is the difference between us: we are delivering a plan, but they cannot even agree on one.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight our record of providing support to the country when it needed it, whether it is the NHS, vaccines, furlough during covid or, most recently, help with people’s energy bills. We are only able to afford that because of the strong management of our economy. That is why we must stick with the plan and not risk going back to square one with the Labour party, which, as we know, has absolutely no plan and will cost everyone in this country with its £28 billion of tax rises.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I begin by expressing my heartfelt sympathies to Brianna’s mother, who is in the Public Gallery. I also send my best wishes to King Charles for what will hopefully be a quick and full recovery.
The public are used to the Tories gambling on the lives of others: Boris Johnson did it with public health during the pandemic, and his immediate successor did it with household finances. Not to be outdone, on Monday this week the Prime Minister accepted a crude bet regarding the lives of asylum seekers. In doing so, he demeaned them as individuals and he degraded the office that he currently holds. Will he apologise?
The Prime Minister
We may have a principled disagreement on this: I believe, and we believe, that if someone comes to this country illegally, they should not be able to stay and they should be removed. That is why we are committed to our Rwanda scheme.
Stephen Flynn
As ever, the Prime Minister does himself no favours, because the bet to which I refer was worth £1,000, and it came just hours before he ended cost of living support worth just £900. His justification for doing so was that the cost of living crisis is easing. What does he believe leaves him looking most out of touch with the public: gambling £1,000, or believing that the cost of living crisis is getting better?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about the cost of living, but perhaps he can explain to the Scottish people why it is that, while the UK Conservative Government are cutting their taxes, the Scottish Government are raising them?
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
When it comes to illegal migrants, we need to have a system whereby, if someone comes here illegally, they should not be able to stay. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked for more information about the extent to which migrants converting to Christianity is playing a role in our asylum system. More generally, under our Illegal Migration Act 2023, anybody entering the UK illegally will not be granted asylum here. That is why we need to have somewhere to send them and why our Rwanda scheme is so important. The Labour party has blocked these measures every single step of the way, because it does not have a plan and it will not keep Britain safe.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
May I, on behalf of my party, extend our best wishes to His Majesty the King for a full recovery?
I thank the Prime Minister for his dedication and leadership in helping us to restore our place in the United Kingdom and its internal market and to revive our political institutions at Stormont. The Union is more secure as a result of our combined endeavours and, together, we have greatly enhanced the potential to build a strong and prosperous economy that will help to cement our peace in Northern Ireland.
Securing peace in an unstable world is vital for all of us, so will the Prime Minister examine the findings of a recent report by Policy Exchange that calls for Northern Ireland to play an even greater role in the defence of our nation?
The Prime Minister
May I start by thanking and paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for his own leadership over the past few months? He and I agree that the Union is stronger for the return of devolution and the work that we have done. I would be delighted to examine the findings of the report, and I have seen, with my own visits, the vital role that Northern Ireland is playing through the location of firms such as Thales and Harland & Wolff. However, as he will know, I was delighted that, in last week’s Command Paper, we specifically committed to examining how we can further bolster Northern Ireland’s share of the UK defence sector, because it is another essential pillar of our precious economic Union.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As ever, my hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Wylfa and the nuclear industry. I can confirm to her that Wylfa is a candidate for the new nuclear site and one of a number of potential sites that could host civil nuclear projects. No decisions have been taken at present, but Great British Nuclear is working with the Government to support access. We are also developing a new national policy statement, providing the planning framework for new nuclear power, and we very much welcome her, and other, contributions to that consultation.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We will continue to take a robust and proactive approach towards our relationship with China, rooted in the UK’s national interest and values. The National Security Act 2023 brings together vital new measures to protect our national security. That includes creating a foreign influence registration scheme through the Act specifically to tackle covert influence in the UK. We will continue to take all possible powers to keep the country safe.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this exciting initiative, and commend Beccy and Lindsey for their campaigning. He will know that our £150 million community ownership fund is there specifically to help to safeguard small but much-loved local assets. Our cultural development fund, which he mentions, is there to support further cultural projects as well. I will ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss the plans further, and wish him and his constituents all the best with this redevelopment project.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
In fact, what we are seeing is record investment in our towns across the UK, many of which were neglected by the Labour party for decades. If we really care about levelling up, we need to avoid saddling hard-working Britons with higher taxes, which is exactly what Labour’s £28 billion green spending spree would do.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Here in England we have a plan when it comes to education, where we are marching up the league tables, and we have virtually eliminated the longest waiting times, but in Labour-run Wales, as he said, education rates are falling and waiting lists over 18 months are more than 10 times higher than in England. It is crystal clear that we should stick to our plan for a brighter future and not go back to square one with Labour.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
It is in fact criminal gangs that are exploiting vulnerable people and leading many of them to lose their lives as they make these dangerous crossings. Conservative Members think that that is wrong, and we want to do something about it, which is why we need to get a deterrent up and running, and be able to send people to Rwanda. It is the hon. Gentleman’s party that opposes that, so the question for Labour Members is why they remain on the side of the criminal people smugglers.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
February marks Emotional Health, Boost Your Self Esteem and Children’s Mental Health Month. In recent years, about 6,500 people have died in the UK each year due to suicide. In 2021, I was nearly one of them. Luckily my attempt failed, I was found by family members quickly, I received amazing care at St Helier and Springfield Hospitals, I did not do any permanent damage and I was well looked after by the NHS in the months that followed. I want to say thank you to everyone who saved me and sorry to my family and loved ones, whom I put through such an awful ordeal. In that moment, I felt alone and scared, like there was no way out, and that the world would be better off without me in it. But I do not recognise that man any more. I know that nothing is ever really worth that, that help really is out there—and I am pretty awesome. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Does the Prime Minister agree that one death by suicide is one too many, and will he send a message from the Dispatch Box today that, whatever you are going through, you are not alone, help is out there and better days lie ahead?
The Prime Minister
I know the whole House will join me in commending my hon. Friend for his bravery in sharing his story and I can absolutely assure him that we take this issue incredibly seriously. The new suicide prevention strategy ensures that we will have the actions in place to reduce suicide over the next years, because we absolutely recognise the impact that it has on people and their families, and we should do everything we can to prevent that from happening.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady was talking about the report on Teesworks, as far as I can see. What that report noted was that the pace and scope of the regeneration had had a wide-reaching positive impact on the local economy—and of course it was an independent external report. It makes it clear that there is no evidence of corruption or illegality and the Government will of course respond to the recommendations in the report as soon as possible.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I give my heartfelt thanks to the Prime Minster for his support for our Melton, Harborough and Stamford villages following the recent devastating flooding. Tens of homes, farms and businesses in Rutland were also devastated, but our county is in effect excluded from ever receiving support in the future due to the arbitrary floor currently in place. Flood support should be based on the most affected or a percentage of population, but Rutland must have 1,000 times more flooding than next-door Lincolnshire for us ever to access support. Will my right hon. Friend please give a meeting to me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) to discuss this important issue?
The Prime Minister
I extend my sympathies to all those impacted by the recent storms and flooding. We are investing record sums in flood defence across England and a recovery support framework is in place for families and businesses in every area that has experienced exceptional flooding. I know that my hon. Friend is in touch with Ministers in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities about how those schemes affect her constituency, but I will ensure that she gets the correspondence and meetings that she needs to deliver for her local communities.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
The Prime Minister
Actually, we are investing record sums in improving hospital infrastructure across the country. In Eastbourne in particular, spades are already in the ground to deliver an elective surgical hub. I know that there is local Liberal Democrat scaremongering about the future of services, but the local Conservative MP is doing a fantastic job, engaging with her community and working with local health officials.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
It was my huge pleasure to host the aerospace defence and security industry apprenticeships event in Parliament yesterday, welcoming two apprentices from Collins Aerospace in Wolverhampton. Will the Prime Minister join me, in National Apprenticeship Week, in celebrating the opportunities that apprenticeships can provide in the defence industry, as well as in our armed forces, which are all in the top 10 apprenticeship providers?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of our apprenticeship provision, which is providing young people with opportunities across the country, particularly in the defence and aerospace sectors, as she said. Those plans are in stark contrast to those of the Labour party, which has caved in to big business and is now proposing to halve the amount of apprenticeship funding and the number of apprenticeships.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Prime Minister
The future of Grangemouth refinery is obviously a commercial decision for its owners, but I am told that the site will remain operating as a refinery until at least May 2025. In the meantime, the UK and Scottish Governments are working together to seek assurances from Grangemouth about how it is supporting employees. We remain confident in our fuel supply. On energy security, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, this Government are unambiguously backing the North sea oil and gas sector because that is how we support energy security in this country, attract investment and create jobs, particularly in Scotland.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I was very proud that it was a Conservative Government who appointed the Patient Safety Commissioner, and that we commissioned the Hughes report on medical devices and medicines, which was published this morning. Will my right hon. Friend also make me proud by addressing the points that the commissioner has raised and bringing forward a redress scheme in a timely manner?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the Patient Safety Commissioner and her team for their work on this important issue—one that I know my right hon. Friend has spoken about in the past. Of course, first and foremost, our sympathies remain with those affected by sodium valproate. We are focused on improving the system and how it listens to patients, and it is right that the Government carefully consider the report’s recommendations. The Department of Health and Social Care will respond to the report in due course, and the Health Secretary will keep the House updated on a regular basis.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Of course, we want to see every child thrive at school, which is why we have tripled the amount going into special educational needs for capital places and put more money into support ECHPs. I am sorry to hear about the case that the hon. Lady mentions. I will ensure that we continue to look at this matter in particular, because, as she said, we want every child to thrive at school.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
I put on the record my best wishes to His Majesty the King and to Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales.
Building on the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is exceptionally pleased about the Hughes report, which has been published today. A huge amount of work has been done by Members from across the Chamber, including the hon. Members for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North.
May I press my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on the fact that tens of thousands of women and children have suffered immensely since the 1970s, with Government after Government doing nothing about it? I am proud that this Government have done something about it, but I urge him, in the strongest terms, to talk to the Chancellor to ensure that we can address the issues raised in the Hughes report at the Budget.
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend and colleagues from all parts of the House for their campaigning over many years on this issue. As I said, it is right not only that we extend our sympathies to those affected, but that we carefully consider the recommendations from the Patient Safety Commissioner’s report. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we will do that with all due haste, and I know that the Health Secretary will keep the House updated.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Why did the Prime Minister downgrade the role of Minister for Disabled People? What message does he think that sends to disabled people, and will he commit to reconsider that move and ensure that the role is held by a Minister of State? If not, will he agree to meet with me and disabled people’s organisations to explain his reasoning?
The Prime Minister
Actually, the Minister for Disabled People, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), is going to do a fantastic job, because she cares passionately about this issue. This Government have a record to be proud of, whether that is supporting many more of those with disabilities into work and ensuring they can live independently, or making sure that children with complex disabilities have access to more changing places across the country. Those are the values of this Conservative Government.
I would also like to say to Brianna Ghey’s mum, who is here, that as I said earlier this week, what happened was an unspeakable and shocking tragedy. In the face of that, for her mother to demonstrate the compassion and empathy that she did last weekend demonstrated the very best of humanity in the face of seeing the very worst of humanity. She deserves all our admiration and praise for that.
NHS Dentistry: Recovery and Reform
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Victoria Atkins)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on our plan to recover and reform NHS dentistry. First, though, on behalf of the entire House and my Department, I send our very best wishes to His Majesty the King. His decision to share his diagnosis will be welcomed by anyone whose life has been touched by cancer, and I know that we are all very much looking forward to seeing him make a speedy recovery and resume his public duties.
Thanks to a once-in-a-generation pandemic, 7 million patients across England did not come forward for appointments with NHS dentists between 2020 and 2022. Since then, we have taken decisive action to recover services: we have made reforms to the dental contract, so that practices are paid more fairly for caring for NHS patients with more complex needs; and we have made sure that dentists update the NHS website regularly so that the public know that they are taking on new patients. That has delivered results, with more than 1 million more people seeing an NHS dentist last year than in the year before. However, we know that too many, particularly those living in rural or coastal communities, are still struggling to find appointments. This recovery plan will put that right by making NHS dental care faster, simpler, and fairer for patients and staff. It is built on three key pillars, which I will address in turn.
First, we will help anyone who needs to see an NHS dentist to do so, wherever they live and whatever their background. To do this, we must incentivise dentists across the country to care for more NHS patients. That is why I am delighted to tell the House that for the coming year, we are offering dentists two new payments on top of their usual payments for care—£15 for every check-up they perform on NHS patients who have not been seen over the past two years, and £50 for every new NHS patient they treat who has not been seen over the same period—because we know that patients who do not have a relationship with a dentist find it harder to get care. That is not a long-term ambition: our new patient premium will be available from next month.
We are also increasing the minimum payment that dentists receive for delivering NHS treatments, which will support practices with the lowest unit of dental activity rates to provide more NHS care. However, we know that in many of our rural, remote and isolated communities, dentists themselves are in short supply. That is why starting this year, up to 240 dentists will receive golden hello payments worth up to £20,000 when they commit themselves to working in one of those areas for at least three years. These dentists will give patients the care they need faster, make dental provision fairer and tackle health inequalities.
We are also delivering dentistry to our most remote regions without delay. This year, we will deploy dental vans to more isolated, rural and coastal areas. Staffed by NHS dentists, they will offer check-ups and simple treatments such as fillings. This model has been a tried and tested success across many regions. For example, last year in Cornwall, a mobile van visited five harbours, treating more than 100 fishermen and their families. We will be rolling out up to 15 vans across Devon, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Dorset, Cornwall, North Yorkshire and Northamptonshire. This move has been welcomed by Healthwatch, the Nuffield Trust and the College of General Dentistry. We will let patients know when vans will be in their area, so they can get the care they need faster.
These reforms will empower NHS dentists to treat more than 1 million people and deliver 2.5 million more appointments. As the chief executive of National Voices, a group of major health and care charities, said:
“This extra money…should help thousands of people who have been unable to see a dentist in the last two years to get the care they need.”
These reforms are just the beginning. This recovery plan will also drive forward reforms to make NHS dentistry sustainable for our children and our grandchildren.
That brings me to the second pillar: growing and upskilling our workforce for the long term. Our long-term workforce plan, the first in NHS history, gives us strong foundations on which to build. By 2031, training places for dentists will increase by 40%—forty per cent—and places for dental hygienists and therapists, who can perform simple tasks such as fillings, will also rise by 40%. More dentists and more dental therapists will mean more care for NHS patients.
I am delighted to tell the House today that we are going further in three key ways. First, we will consult on a tie-in to NHS work for dentistry graduates, because right now too many are choosing to deliver private work over valuable NHS care. More than 35,000 dentists in England are registered with the General Dental Council, but last year almost a third worked exclusively in the private sector. Training these dentists is a significant investment for taxpayers, and they rightly expect it to result in the strongest possible NHS care. That is why, this spring, we will launch a consultation on a tie-in for graduate dentists and how this could deliver more NHS care and better value for taxpayers.
Secondly, we will take full advantage of our dental professionals’ skills. Today, even though they have the right training, without written direction from a dentist dental therapists cannot do things such as administer antibiotics. This year, we will change this, making life simpler for dentists and making care faster for patients. As the president of the College of General Dentistry has said, the
“use of the full range of skills of all team members will enable the delivery of more care and make NHS dentistry more attractive to dental professionals.”
Thirdly, we will recruit more international dentists to the NHS. We have a plan to do this by working with the General Dental Council to get more international dentists taking exams and to get them on to the register sooner, and to explore the creation of a new provisional registration status so that, under the supervision of a dentist who is already on the register, highly skilled international dentists can start treating patients sooner, rather than working as hygienists while they are waiting to join the register.
I turn now to our plan’s third pillar, which is prioritising prevention and giving children a healthy smile for life. This begins by supporting parents to give their children the best possible start. That is why family hubs up and down the country will offer parents-to-be expert advice on looking after their baby’s teeth and gums. As those babies grow up, we will support parents and nurseries in making sure that before every child starts primary school, brushing their teeth is part of their routine.
The evidence is clear: the earlier good habits are built, the longer they will last. Seeing a dentist regularly is vital for children’s health, but since the pandemic, too many have been unable to do that. That is why this year we are taking care directly to children. We will deploy mobile dental teams to schools in areas with a shortage of NHS dentists. They will apply a preventive fluoride varnish to more than 165,000 reception-age children’s teeth, strengthening them early and preventing decay. Our Smile for Life programme has already been endorsed by the College of General Dentistry.
Six million people in England already benefit from water fluoridation. In order to go further in protecting children’s teeth, we will consult on strengthening more of our country’s water with fluoride. Again, the evidence is clear: in some of the most deprived parts of England, enhancing fluoride levels could reduce by up to 56% the number of teeth that are extracted because of decay. That is why, through the Health and Care Act 2022, we have made it simpler to add fluoride to more of our water supply. As a first step, this year we will launch a consultation on expanding water fluoridation across the north-east—an expansion that would give 1.6 million more people access to water that strengthens their teeth, preventing tooth decay and tackling inequality.
This is our Government’s plan to recover and reform dental care: dental training places up by 40%; 2.5 million more appointments; dental vans treating more patients; more dentists in remote areas; more dentists taking on NHS patients; better support for families and better care for children; patient access up and inequity coming down. It will make life simpler for staff, and treatment faster and fairer for patients and staff. We have taken the difficult decisions, and we have now delivered a long-term plan to make dental care faster, simpler, and fairer for people across the country. We are going to get on with the job and put our plan into action, and I commend this statement to the House.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I wholeheartedly associate myself and my party with the Secretary of State’s remarks on sending our best wishes to His Majesty the King. Having gone through a cancer diagnosis myself, I particularly send best wishes to his family, for whom a diagnosis is often more difficult than for the person receiving it.
Also in the generous spirit in which we have begun, may I thank the Health and Social Care Secretary for accidentally e-mailing me her entire plan yesterday? That goes above and beyond the courtesy that we normally expect. I look forward to receiving her party’s election manifesto any day now—but of course we will have to write ours first to give her party some inspiration.
After 14 years of Conservative Government, NHS dentistry is in decay. Eight in 10 dentists are not taking on new patients, and in the south-west of England the figure is 99%. One in 10 people has been forced to attempt DIY dentistry—Dickensian conditions!—because they cannot see an NHS dentist, and they cannot afford to go private. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Baker, I am sorry, but I don’t want any more heckling from you; you did a little bit earlier. I wanted everybody to listen to the Secretary of State, and I expect them to do the same for the shadow Secretary of State.
Wes Streeting
Don’t worry, Mr Speaker: I will come back to the Parliamentary Private Secretary shortly. Tooth decay is the No.1 reason for children aged six to 10 being admitted to hospital. Unbelievably, there have been reports of Ukrainian refugees booking dentist appointments back home and returning for treatment, because it is easier to fly to a war-torn country than it is to see an NHS dentist in England. Well, at least one Government policy is getting flights off the ground—and it is certainly not the Government’s Rwanda scheme failure.
Let us look at the human consequences of this Conservative tragedy. Labour’s candidate in Great Yarmouth, Keir Cozens, told me about Jeanette, a young woman in her 30s who has struggled with gum and mouth problems all her life. She used to be able to get treatment; now she cannot find an NHS dentist in all of Norfolk to take her. She cannot afford to go private. It hurts to smile, it hurts to laugh, and the pain is so great that Jeanette does not go out anymore. Just this week, she resorted to trying to remove her tooth herself. That is not right for anyone of any age, but Jeanette should be in the prime of her life. Will the Secretary of State apologise to Jeanette and the millions like her for what the Conservatives have done to NHS dentistry?
After 14 years of neglect, cuts and incompetence, the Government have today announced a policy of more appointments, recruiting dentists to the areas most in need and toothbrushing for children. It sounds awfully familiar. They are adopting much of Labour’s rescue plan for dentistry. Does that not show that the Conservatives are out of ideas of their own, and are looking to Labour to fix the mess they have made? I say: next time Conservative Ministers say that Labour does not have a plan, or that Labour’s plan is not credible, don’t believe a word of it.
There are some differences between our two parties’ approaches. Labour is pledging an extra 700,000 urgent and emergency appointments, which are additional to the appointments announced today. Can the Health Secretary confirm that the Government’s plan does not provide any additional emergency support? Labour proposed supervised early-years toothbrushing, and Conservative MPs accused it of being “nanny state”. Does the Health Secretary stand by that label, or does she now support children under five being supported in brushing their teeth?
The key difference is that we recognise that our plan is a rescue plan, and that to put NHS dentistry back on its feet, immediate reform of the dental contract is needed. Without that, the Government’s plan is doomed to fail. Do not just take my word for it; the British Dental Association has said that the plan will not stop the exodus of dentists from the NHS, will not provide a dentist for every patient who needs one, and will not put an end to this crisis.
I come to the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), and the miserable script that the Whips are spreading out on the Table. If Labour’s contract is to blame, why have the Government not reformed it in 14 years, and why are they not reforming it now? In 2010, the Conservatives promised in their election manifesto to reform the dental contract. They are bringing back not just Lord Cameron, but his broken promises. People have been desperately trying to get dental care for years, but there was nothing from the Conservative party. Now that we are in an election year, the Conservatives are trying to kick the can down the road, and are scrambling for a plan. They only discover their heart when they fear in their heart for their political futures, and the consequences have been seen: queues around the block in Bristol.
Finally, the Secretary of State is promising reform after 2025 and after the next general election. Who is she trying to kid? After 2025, the Conservatives will be gone, and if they are not, NHS dentistry will be. How many more chances do they expect? How many more broken promises will there be? We had 2010, 2015, 2017 and 2019. Their time is up, and it is time for Labour to deliver the change that this country needs.
Victoria Atkins
I tried to help the hon. Gentleman by giving him an advance copy of my speech yesterday, yet that was his speech. This Government are focused on delivering for patients. Perhaps I can help him understand the difference between the Opposition’s proposals and the Government’s fully funded dental recovery plan. The Opposition’s ambitions reach only as far as 700,000 more appointments. Our plan will provide more than three times that number of appointments across the country—that is 2.5 million, to help him with his maths. We are offering golden hellos to 240 dentists who will work in hard-to-reach and under-served areas; their proposals cover only 200. They have no plan for training more dentists; we set out in the long-term workforce plan last year, and again in the dental recovery plan, that we will increase training places for dentists by 40% by 2031.
Then we have the centrepiece of the Opposition’s proposals: making teachers swap their textbooks for toothbrushes—an idea that is hated by teachers and that patronises parents. We believe that most parents do a great job of looking after their children. I know that the Labour party does not agree with that; the hon. Gentleman called our children short and fat on a media round. We believe that most parents do a great job, and that is why we support pregnant mums-to-be, and support parents in family hubs and nurseries. We will not wait until reception class, by which time children have already got their teeth.
I want to dwell on the experience of anybody living under Labour in Labour-run Wales. Health services in Wales are devolved, and the Leader of the Opposition has called Wales “the blueprint” for how the Opposition will run our health system. Welsh Labour has the highest proportion of NHS dental practices not accepting new adult patients, and the joint highest proportion of those not accepting new child patients. In Wales, 93% of NHS dental practices are not accepting new adult patients. That is a higher figure than for any other nation in the UK. Some 86% of practices there are not accepting new child patients, which is the joint highest figure with Northern Ireland. Our plan is fully funded, but how will Labour pay for its plan? By using the magical money tree. The list of policies funded by the non-dom policy is as long as my arm. In 2022, it promised to fund a workforce plan. Last September, it became breakfast club meals. By October, it morphed into 2 million appointments and scanning equipment. By Christmas, it was funding a dentistry plan. It is the same old Labour: it has no plan.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The House enjoyed the words of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), although I am not sure how many he wrote himself; some may have seemed rather familiar to anyone who read Matthew Parris this morning on going to Ukraine to have a filling fixed.
In West Sussex, in Worthing and Arun, we want the same situation found in parts of London, where dentists have a sign saying, “New NHS patients welcome”. Has the Secretary of State been working with the British Dental Association and the General Dental Council to bring forward registrations, to get incentives right, and to make sure that dentists are no longer told, “You can’t serve any more patients because you will go above your limits”? Can she confirm that we are taking limits off, so that dentists, especially the young ones, can do as much work as they can, and can help as many patients as possible, so that we can get back to the situation that we were in before Labour changed the rules about 20 years ago?
Victoria Atkins
We have focused this plan on introducing the new patient premium—a bonus for new patients. Having discussed this carefully with professionals, we think that is one way that we can incentivise people into NHS practice. Dentists can already work up to 104% of the contract. Many do that, but some sadly do not, so we are trying to encourage those dentists who already have NHS contracts to go the extra mile and use the full slot available to them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Health and Social Care Committee took months gathering evidence and putting together a recovery plan, which the Government should have adopted. Dentists wanted that plan put in place. Central to it was reform of the NHS dental contract. However, the Secretary of State has completely failed to even mention reform of that contract. As a result, dentistry in my constituency in York, where constituents are waiting seven years to see a dentist, will not have the recovery that she talks about. Why did she not adopt our plan?
Victoria Atkins
I hope the hon. Lady will, as usual, be the help that I expect her to be to her constituents in publicising this plan. We are getting graphics and information out to all Members of Parliament, so that they can help their constituents understand what will be available in their area, because each and every one of us wants the very best for our constituents. She will be interested in the new patient premium, which is encouraging dentists back into NHS practice, or into NHS practice for the first time, and in the increased price for units of dental activity. Reform of the dental contract is part of our agenda, but we realised that we needed to give immediate help to communities such as hers.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I welcome the plan. Recovery and reform is right, and the Select Committee will study the plan carefully. The dental Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), has already been invited to come before us, so that we can talk it through with her to see whether it reflects our aforementioned report on the subject. The golden hellos, the toothbrushing for pre-schoolers—as long as the workforce can handle it—and the mobile vans are good, but even a day longer of a contract focused on units of dental activity is a problem. Can the Secretary of State say how she plans to entice professionals into returning to NHS dentistry? So many have left, and that is key.
Victoria Atkins
Very much so, and that will be primarily through the patient premium, which will mean that from next month dentists will be able to turn their signs from “closed” to “open” for NHS patients. We wanted to use levers that could be deployed immediately in order to help our constituents.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It is estimated that more than 12 million people are waiting for dental treatment, but the Government’s announcement says that it will help just 1 million. The Government’s underspend last year was £400 million, and it is expected to be the same this year, but only £200 million has been announced. This plan is a drop in the ocean. In St Albans, my dentists are desperate to provide NHS care, and my constituents are desperate to see a dentist. At the heart of the problem is the broken contract. Will the Government take up the Liberal Democrats’ plan to reform the contract and provide guaranteed access to an NHS dentist for everybody needing urgent and emergency care?
Victoria Atkins
I heartily recommend the recovery plan to the hon. Lady, because it offers 2.5 million more appointments and has a long-term ambition for the prevention of tooth decay in children. In addition, it has that long-turn vision about increasing training places for our dental professionals by 40% by 2031.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
As you are aware, Mr Speaker, I have a declared interest in this particular topic.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is aware, dentistry in England is a seller’s market. It is estimated that there are 5,000 dentist vacancies in England. When I came here in the early ’70s with my dental degree, like very many colleagues from Australia, New Zealand and so on, I presented at the General Dental Council, who said “welcome” and stamped my hand, and I went off and worked on the national health service the next day.
Now, and for decades, the General Dental Council has required graduates from world-class dental schools—every bit as good as the ones we have here—to wait, to pay and to sit what is called an overseas registration exam. Currently, the waiting list for the exam is 2,000 overseas dental graduates, many of whom are every bit as good as those we produce in this country. The GDC could change that overnight by accepting graduates automatically from known and trusted international schools. Will my right hon. Friend please have a small chat with the chairman of the General Dental Council?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend and recognise the enormous expertise he brings to the Chamber on this matter. He knows—he has genuinely talked to me about this on many occasions—the important role that the General Dental Council plays to ensure that we get international dentists registered as quickly as possible. I very much look forward to discussing that with the GDC so that we can get more international dentists on to our register and working in our practices.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I welcome much in the plan, which mirrors many of my ideas over the years, and indeed much in Labour’s plan. However, on access, the Government claim that the recovery plan will deliver care for up to 2.5 million people, but Government data shows that 12 million people in England have unmet dentistry needs, which leaves about 9.5 million people without an NHS dentist. That includes my constituent Beverley Kitson, who has osteoporosis and takes alendronic acid as treatment. The drug has damaged her teeth, and she now requires a check-up every three months after four of her teeth have decayed to such an extent that they need to be extracted. Beverley has been with the same dental practice for 50 years, but she has just been told that it is going fully private, leaving her without an NHS dentist. Will the Secretary of State guarantee Beverley that she will be able to access an NHS dentist under these plans?
Victoria Atkins
We have very much tried to ensure that dentists who already hold NHS contracts will keep them and keep working them. That is why we have fallen upon the new patient premium to make it more in their financial interests to take on new patients. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point about retention, which, again, we are looking to address through the increase in the UDA. But we all acknowledge that dentists are independent contractors, so we must ask them—and particularly those who are new dental graduates—to do their bit and help our NHS out.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
A number of NHS dentists across Erewash have recently retired, leaving a cohort of my constituents without access to NHS dentistry. Unfortunately, practices are finding it really difficult to recruit replacements for the retirees. How will the plan help speed up that recruitment so that my constituents are not without NHS dentistry for much longer?
Victoria Atkins
May I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she did in the Department and has done on this subject? We are taking a long-term view with training dentists. As I said, last year, through the long-term workforce plan, we set out an ambition to train up to 40% more dentists by 2031. As we also begin the consultation on a tie-in with those graduates, we are confident that we will see a greater supply of dentists to our NHS services.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
The £200 million pledged today is less than half last year’s record-breaking underspend. The plan says that any underspends will be ringfenced for dentistry. That was promised by a Minister last year, but it did not happen because integrated care boards were using that underspend. Why should the 73% of dentists in the west midlands who cannot and are not accepting any new patients believe it will be any different this year?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady alights on an important fact that is sometimes lost in this debate: although an NHS dentist may have an NHS contract, they may not work the whole of that contract. Some NHS dentists very much do so; others work a fraction of it. We are trying to encourage dentists who do not use their full contract to do so, because that in itself will bring in more patients. We are confident that alongside the new patient premium, that will help constituents such as hers to get the treatment they need.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Wokingham has a fast-growing population based on building a lot of new homes. So as the Secretary of State rolls out her new plans, will she also ensure that there are incentives to provide dental services on the NHS in areas where a population is moving in and needs them?
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point. Indeed, that is exactly the sort of discussion I am having with my right hon. Friend the Levelling Up Secretary, because I am really interested in having that connected and joined-up approach between planning and health. I think it could bring dividends for us all.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I do not believe that what the Secretary of State has described will deal with the complexity of dental problems out there. I have a constituent who was referred to the Manchester Dental Hospital for a possible abscess and was told that even an urgent referral would take a month. In fact, the dental hospital did not get back to her for five months after the referral; it offered her a telephone consultation. The amount of pain and infection meant that she had to seek private treatment at a cost of £4,000, but many cannot afford that, including the young man wheeled into Royal Bolton Hospital in great pain, leaking blood on the floor after trying to remove a painful tooth with pliers. What does the Health Secretary say to patients who have long-standing and complex dental problems and are paying the price by waiting in pain, paying for private treatment or trying to remove their own teeth?
Victoria Atkins
I take that constituency case very seriously. I am really keen to urge the hon. Lady that if a constituent contacts her in future with that level of discomfort and pain, she should advise that constituent to contact 111 and, if necessary, go to accident and emergency—[Interruption.] Labour Members are shaking their heads, but what she has just described is a serious situation. That constituent needs medical attention, and the NHS is there, ready and willing to help. That is the advice that she should be giving her constituents, and I hope that she takes it as seriously as I do. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The Secretary of State was giving an answer to a question. We do not need all this shouting. People might not agree with the answer, but you have to listen to the answer.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In congratulating my right hon. Friend—my personal friend—on this welcome, excellent statement, may I ask her to forgive the ferocity with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and I made the case for NHS dentistry when we met her recently? In that spirit, will she ensure that some of these new dentists come to rural Lincolnshire, where we desperately need good dental care? She has today irrigated the dental desert.
Victoria Atkins
I give my very sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend. The House can imagine the advocacy I have received from both him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). On reaching rural and coastal areas, as a proud Lincolnshire MP myself I wanted to bring about a set of plans that will address those underserved areas. I am delighted that the plan meets with my right hon. Friend’s approval.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that the NHS dentistry crisis has been 14 years in the making. She will also be aware that it is impossible for anybody in Knowsley today to sign up with an NHS dentist. The measures the Secretary of State has described may, over time, help to meet the problem, but what advice would she give today to my constituents who cannot get an NHS dentist?
Victoria Atkins
The advice and guidance to dentists will be going out today, while the new patient premium that I have told the House about will come in from March—it is weeks away.
Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for an excellent statement and an excellent plan. It is exactly what patients in Suffolk have been waiting to hear—the rural payment, the bonus there and the mobile service. I am conscious that many dentists have chosen not to have more patients, and they might blame the contract—this, that or the other. That is why I welcome her plan about potentially tying in graduates to the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) has already referred to the General Dental Council, which, in my view, has not taken full advantage of the regulations that came into force last March. Will the Secretary of State also look at the NHS’s own rules that further restrict the rapid supply of dentists into the NHS for our constituents?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my right hon. Friend for all the work she did on dentistry in the Department. I am conscious that many people have contributed to this plan; I am grateful to her and others. Again, I hear the observations on the General Dental Council, and will ensure that the GDC hears them as well. That is a fair challenge to the NHS. Colleagues will see that the plan is co-signed by NHS England, which shares our ambition to deliver those 2.5 million more appointments and set up the future of NHS dentistry for our country.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Today’s statement by the Health Secretary will have been listened to with great interest by my constituents in Edinburgh West, who share a lot of the same concerns, face the same difficulty getting NHS dental treatment and will be looking for the same sort of solution as constituents in England. Could the Secretary of State clarify for me, and for all those who come to me, whether there will be Barnett consequentials? If there are, will she impress upon the Scottish Government the need to ringfence the money and actually invest it in dental services? If not, would she be willing to share with the Scottish Government how she is approaching the problem in the hope that they might actually respond and do something?
Victoria Atkins
I hear the frustration in the hon. Lady’s question. This is a devolved area—as it is in Wales—and is therefore a matter for the Scottish National party. I assume the hon. Lady will continue her usual advocacy on behalf of her constituents to ensure that the SNP looks at what is happening in England and tries to do better for Scotland.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I really welcome this plan; I welcome the extra £200 million, the new patient bonus, the measures to get dentists into areas that do not have them and the minimum UDA. These are all good things that will help people in Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to get a dentist. Can I ask the Secretary of State to press on with two things? The first is the move to a proper national funding formula. Dentistry is the only part of the NHS without a funding formula, which disadvantages shire and coastal areas with older populations. The second is the next round of contract reform—the move to band 2b is working, and dentists are using it, but there are patients with complex cases for whom a capitation-like payment would be much better, as the British Dental Association pointed out. I encourage the Secretary of State to start working on that difficult group so that we can get extra help for them too.
Victoria Atkins
I must thank my hon. Friend for all his work. I know how much how much effort and commitment he has put into these plans, and it shows the genuine—[Interruption.] Sorry; the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) is being a little ungracious. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) has been part of the united work across Government to deliver these plans. I very much take on board his recommendations and encouragement. As I say, we see this plan as delivering 2.5 million more appointments for our constituents, but of course we want to look to the long term as well.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Is the Secretary of State aware that Rip Van Winkle fell asleep for 20 years? This Conservative Government have been asleep for even longer than that, as far as dentistry is concerned. Will the Secretary of State now wake up and talk to real working dentists, such as Phil Lucitt—one of my excellent NHS dentists in Huddersfield, who is in the Gallery with his wife today—and get something done about this crisis? It is a crisis in Huddersfield, as in every town in this country, such as Bristol, as we heard yesterday. People are in pain, people are suffering, and for 14 years her Government have done little about it.
Victoria Atkins
I must admit that I did not know quite where that question was going, but I think the hon. Gentleman is urging me to speak to dentists. I am delighted to reassure him that my ministerial officials and I do of course speak to dentists. In fact, only today I was at a practice in the heart of Westminster, speaking to a dental manager who welcomes this plan. I will veer away and resist the temptation to comment on Rip Van Winkle.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I welcome this dental recovery plan, which will help to deliver dentistry in Darlington. Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State provide me with advice on what more I can do to get my integrated care board to get on with the commissioning at Firthmoor community centre, which lost its dentistry practice 10 months ago? In looking to expand the number of dental training places, I urge the Secretary of State to look at Teesside University, which has ambitions to build on its existing dental technology provision and train the Tees Valley dentists of tomorrow.
Victoria Atkins
Thanks to the work of my hon. Friend and others, Tees Valley is a powerhouse of growth industries, as exemplified by the Chancellor in his Budget and autumn statements recently. I will take away my hon. Friend’s words of advice about his university. On the point about encouraging ICBs to take part in this work, as this plan is a joint document with NHS England, the expectation will be on ICBs to deliver the plan, because they exist to look after our constituents. This plan is one of the ways we will be able to secure that help.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
In Bedford and Kempston, like many areas in the country, we have a dental crisis. I have raised the matter of dentistry previously, including in a Westminster Hall debate. There can be no question but that under this Conservative Government there is a dentistry crisis and the people of this country have been failed. Why does the Health Secretary refuse to admit that 14 years of neglect and underspending have led us to this?
Victoria Atkins
Says the script. I assume the hon. Gentleman will welcome the 2.5 million more appointments that this dental recovery plan will deliver for all our country.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for this brilliant statement, and thank all the team for their huge amount of hard work. Today is dentist day—yesterday was dentist day for me, as I had an appointment with the Minister and an appointment with a real dentist from South Derbyshire. This news is absolutely superb. Will the Secretary of State get dentists to move to South Derbyshire, and ensure more free NHS dentistry there?
Victoria Atkins
I have no doubt that with my hon. Friend’s characteristic joy and as an irresistible force of nature, she herself will be an advert for dentists to come to work in her constituency.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
A constituent recently told me that when she tried to register members of her family with an NHS dentist, she was told that there was an eight-year wait. We know that workforce is a really big issue. On that basis, will the Secretary of State meet me and a cross-party group of Members of Parliament to talk about how we could develop a dental school at the site of the excellent Hull York Medical School to grow our own dentists for the future?
Victoria Atkins
The right hon. Lady will know that part of the focus of the long-term workforce plan is to train people where they are most needed. I will happily arrange for her to meet the relevant Minister. On registration, the current system is not like a GP practice where, once a family is registered, they can only go to that GP. The whole reason that we have been encouraging dentists to update their details on the NHS website is so that people can move around to visit different dentists to get the treatment they need. Today’s plan will help turbocharge those efforts.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I welcome this recovery plan, which provides the foundation for putting NHS dentistry on a sustainable long-term footing. I urge my right hon. Friend to continue her negotiations to replace the existing NHS dentistry contract as soon as possible, and to provide funding to the Norfolk and Waveney integrated care board so that the University of Suffolk can open a new treatment and training facility in our area, to replicate the innovative service that is about to open in Ipswich.
Victoria Atkins
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and I commend him for his work to ensure that his constituents receive the care and help that they deserve. On training, I hope he has drawn out from the plan the emphasis that we are putting on long-term ambitions. We understand that we need to train more dentists and get internationally trained dentists registered in our system. We recognise the critical role that dental hygienists and therapists can play as well.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If the Tories cared about the NHS, we would not have 7.6 million people on the NHS waiting list and dentistry in crisis. The answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) demonstrates why we are in this situation. It is not about people turning up at A&E; the inability to access NHS dentistry services leads to people being in a crisis situation and needing emergency care. After 14 years of the Tory Government, why do we need a recovery plan for dentistry?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman was obviously asleep at the beginning of my statement, because I set out what I hope is a fact agreed across the House about the pandemic—the real problem. People who had a relationship with a dentist before the pandemic do not face quite the same pressures as people who may have moved home or whose dentist may have moved practice. That is the cohort of people who we are trying to help. It really would help if Labour Members focused their arguments a little more on the facts, rather than on the scripts that their Whips have given out.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement and the meetings I have had with my neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). The Secretary of State said that Northamptonshire will be included in a dental van roll-out, which is welcome, but the rest of the statement had a very rural focus. She will recall that my Prime Minister’s question focused on shortage in Duston. Is it at least a possibility that vans will go to suburban areas as well as rural ones?
Victoria Atkins
The criteria that will apply to the areas covered by vans are clearly set on dental need and other factors such as distance from an NHS dental practice. We have been able to identify areas of particular need, where we want to get that help as quickly as we can through the dental van initiative and the other ways detailed in the plan.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Last year, about half of my constituents were able to access dental services—well below pre-pandemic levels. Under the plans, what proportion of my constituents can now hope to access NHS dental services within the next six months?
Victoria Atkins
The dental recovery plan sets out immediate-term, medium-term and long-term plans. In the immediate term, we have the new patient premium that will be live from next month, the increase in UDA value to £28 and the golden hellos that I have described to under-served parts of the country. There is a batch of measures throughout the plan to address the concerns from colleagues across the House.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I have a plan to open a brand-new NHS dentistry practice in Peterborough. New financial incentives, increased UDA rates and recruitment of overseas dentists to Peterborough are all part of that plan. Will my right hon. Friend meet me and those who want to open new NHS dental clinics in Peterborough, so that we can take advantage of every part of her excellent plan?
Victoria Atkins
I commend my hon. Friend for his excellent work as a constituency MP. It is exactly that sort of drive and ambition that will deliver results for his constituents. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss his plans, and I am pleased that our national dental recovery plan will fit well with his own local delivery plan.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I regret to inform the House that the situation in west Wales is quite catastrophic, and recent reforms by the Welsh Government have probably made matters far worse. However, my constituents and I would like to know how much of what the Secretary of State has announced today is new money, resulting in Barnett consequentials for the Welsh Government.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman articulates the case against Labour-run Wales with great power. There is £200 million on top of the £3 billion that we already spend on NHS dentistry in England
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I have raised dentistry a lot, because Stroud constituents and dentists have been really worried, so I welcome the Government’s plans with NHS England. I give credit to Gloucestershire ICB, which recognised the complexity of this issue. Post pandemic, it set about raising provision and we have decent take-up so far. My plea to the Secretary of State and to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) is to continue their relentless focus on prioritising children’s appointments, and not to let parents off the hook, because we can all do better even if it is hard to get a toothbrush in a three-year-old’s gob every night. Will the Secretary of State say more about how ICBs will be supported to deliver the plans and integrate the work that they are already doing? The local areas that are prioritising this are making a difference.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend was probably summing up this morning’s toothbrushing ahead of the school run for many mums and dads up and down the country. That is the point—we want to work with parents. We do not want to patronise them. The overwhelming majority of parents do a great job looking after their kids’ teeth. Our plans are to support those who are struggling. The expectation on ICBs is clear. The plan is a document between NHSE and us. We want to deliver this plan at local level. Expectations will be set on ICBs to make sure that they fulfil the potential of this great plan.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I welcome this long overdue focus on dental access. I am particularly interested in the 240 golden hellos that will be available. Clearly, they will be inadequate to deal with the scale of the challenge. I am also concerned that the focus of the statement seems to be on putting those golden hellos in rural areas. Visibility and transparency are needed about where they are allocated, because places such as Ellesmere Port have exactly the same issues as other areas in the country. We get phone calls every week from constituents asking where they can see an NHS dentist. We are not able to send them anywhere at the moment. Is the Secretary of State able to guarantee that in future we will be able to send them somewhere?
Victoria Atkins
I hope the hon. Gentleman will publicise the new patient premium, because that is one of the levers through which we will unlock places for new patients. I remember that he has taken an interest in this issue. I very much understand the point about location. We have set strict criteria for how dental vans will be deployed, but the new patient premium is across the country. We want as many people as possible to see NHS dentists and fill those 2.5 million more appointments.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I particularly welcome the initiative to improve services in coastal and rural areas. The Health Secretary and I are constituency neighbours, and she will know the complexities of delivering local services in what we know as greater Lincolnshire, because her constituency is in the east midlands and mine is in Yorkshire and the Humber. Can she guarantee that the whole of greater Lincolnshire, from the south of the county up to Barton-upon-Humber, will receive the benefits of the new proposals?
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to inform my hon. Friend and neighbour that the new patient premium applies across England, and of course people can move to the dental practice that can offer them the services they need, so I trust that his constituents will be as happy as mine.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Is the £200 million additional, in the sense of being diverted from other parts of the NHS in England, or is it new money from the Treasury that would attract the Barnett consequentials for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Which is it?
Victoria Atkins
We have finite resources. As I have said, this is additional money. I have prioritised dentistry across the board, but this is £200 million of additional money—in addition to the £3 billion that we spend in England.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, and I understand why some of the new resources that she has announced are directed at particular types of intervention and particular groups of patients, but does she agree that one of the downsides of such an approach, at least potentially, is the extra administration that will obstruct dentists in the effective delivery of that resource? Will she therefore ensure that the funds are easily accessible, and that there is no such extra administration that would make that more difficult? Does she accept that longevity and consistency of funding matters, because it enables dentists to plan properly for their patients?
Victoria Atkins
My ethos is to make our NHS and social care system faster, simpler and fairer, and not just for patients but for practitioners. We do not want bureaucracy to get in the way of the delivery of these services, and I am impatiently keen to get them up and running in Members’ constituencies, so we will ensure that we make it is easy as possible for dental practices to use them.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I am sure that fellow former teachers who are here today will have memories of the disappointment they felt when, after repeated delays and excuses, a student finally handed in some work, only for it to turn out to be not just a copy of someone else’s work, but a pretty poor one at that. After so much delay and uncertainty, dentistry is at breaking point, so any progress, however late, has to be welcomed. But every local professional network I have met has stressed the need for fundamental reform of the dental contract so that things can get done. Given that this Tory Government have been in place for 14 years, why will the Minister not commit herself to finally reforming the contract and providing the boost to dentistry that my constituents so desperately want to see?
Victoria Atkins
I think it is very courageous of any Labour Member of Parliament to talk about education, because we know just how dire the education results are in Labour-run Wales. Yes, I have committed to reform of the dental contract, and we will deliver these services immediately because we want to deliver results for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents as well as ours.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this vital plan, and I also thank her team for their ongoing engagement in what has been a difficult issue in my constituency since long before the pandemic. I cannot wait to see a dental van in South Molton and Ilfracombe, and to welcome new dentists to Barnstaple, Braunton and beyond. However, I recognise that this will take time. We have recruitment challenges despite our staggeringly beautiful surf beaches, which extend far beyond my right hon. Friend’s Department. Given her success in securing today’s announcement, might she be able to help me to promote these new dentistry opportunities to attract those who may not have previously considered spectacular, if remote, North Devon to be their future?
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend is exactly right. She is a wonderful constituency Member who speaks up for her constituents, and I can assure them that she has been talking to me since the moment I was appointed. As for advertising the new services, this is an opportunity for Members across the House—and I do hope that Opposition Members will be gracious—to ensure that their constituents are aware of them. We all want the best for our constituents, and the more we encourage local dentists to take up the new patient premiums and units of dental activity as well as the golden hellos, the sooner we will all see benefits in our constituencies.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
For nearly a decade, I have stood in this Chamber and told numerous Ministers that there is more chance of finding gold bricks on the streets of Bradford than there is of getting an NHS dentist when you need one. For 14 years, Ministers have made a political choice to ignore our calls, but now, in a general election year, the Government suddenly want to take part of Labour’s plan and present it as their own—frankly, it is shameless. Will the Minister at least accept that unless there is proper reform, our NHS dentistry will remain rotten to the core?
Victoria Atkins
Again, we have heard a very loud performance from the hon. Gentleman—a typically loud performance. If only it had been as factual as it was loud. I have already set out, in response to the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), the difference between Labour’s plan and our fully funded plan to secure immediate and long-term changes. After 14 years of opposition, is this it?
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
As the Health Secretary will recall, we met recently to discuss dentistry in Bracknell, so I really welcome the plan that she has announced today. Will she please confirm, for the sake of absolute clarity, that a cornerstone of the recovery plan will be quicker and easier access to NHS dentists, and also that they will be properly incentivised to absorb all the patients who need support?
Victoria Atkins
Indeed, and it was a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issues facing his constituents. I hope he recognises that we will have those aims very much in mind in the delivery of the recovery plan. We will begin to see the roll-out of those 2.5 million more appointments in the coming weeks as the new patient premium takes hold.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Last month, Healthwatch Leeds submitted evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee—testimonies from people at the sharp end of the NHS crisis. One said:
“I am really struggling to find an NHS dentist that is accepting new patients at the moment. I am an apprentice and get paid minimum wage and cannot afford a private dentist.”
Others spoke of the way in which, according to Healthwatch Leeds,
“having no access to treatment is impacting on their general well-being and mental health.”
One of them said:
“ I just don’t know what to do, who to turn to, how to get help. I just want to be able to smile again”.
Is it not the case that this Government’s plan is too little too late, and that the queues snaking around dentists’ surgeries are testimony to the failure of 14 years of Conservative government and a deliberate undermining of our valuable public services?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman has quoted Healthwatch. I presume that he will also be gracious enough to acknowledge that the move to introduce 15 dental vans has, in fact, been welcomed by Healthwatch.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
We need more NHS dentistry on the Isle of Wight. I welcome this recovery plan, but can the Secretary of State tell me by when my constituents will see its benefits?
Victoria Atkins
By 1 March, because that is when the new patient premium comes into force. Other aspects will take a little longer, but we are clear about the immediate benefits, and we want to get those out to people as quickly as possible.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
In Devon and Cornwall last year, 57% of dental surgeries had at least one vacancy. Before 2016, more than 500 dentists registered in the UK had trained in European countries, and they made up a quarter of the workforce. Will the Secretary of State heed the call from the Association of Dental Groups for it to be made easier for qualified European dentists to practise here in the UK?
Victoria Atkins
That is exactly what we are doing, and not just in relation to other European nations but in relation to other countries around the world. We want the General Dental Council to ensure that qualified dentists from overseas are recognised and supported, and get on to our registers as quickly as possible.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
Like many others, I very much welcome the recovery plan, and I thank the Secretary of State for meeting me earlier to discuss the issues that we face in York. However, may I press her on the subject of integrated care boards? Will she ensure that they are held to account? Will they face increased monitoring to ensure that they spend the allocated money on dentistry and on the target areas in the recovery plan, and will that money remain ringfenced?
Victoria Atkins
I well understand why my hon. Friend has asked that question, about a matter that other Members have also raised. We are exploring ways in which we can make the expenditure of the dentistry budget more transparent, because it is right for ICBs to reflect the needs of local residents and deliver the services that should be available under this dental recovery plan.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I very much welcome these interventions, particularly as I raised a question just a few weeks ago in Prime Minister’s questions about the time period. I am particularly pleased about that. On international dentists, I completely agree with what many colleagues have said. I have a close friend whose husband is Mexican and fully qualified as a dentist. The period between him getting the right to be in the UK and becoming a dentist in the UK is two or three years—it is far too long and there is far too much bureaucracy. I appreciate the announcement on therapists. We have 24 new ones on the new course in Suffolk, but 400 applied so I think there is room for even more therapists to play a key role. Can we also make sure that the consultation period is rapid? This is a common-sense policy and I think we should just get on with it. Finally, will the Secretary of State visit Ipswich to see the new dental centre and hear the case we are making for a dental school? We are the obvious place in the east of England, now that we have a dental centre.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend will appreciate that I get a lot of invitations, but I will do everything I can to meet him. His passion and ambition for his local area shine through, and not just in the question he asks today but in the question he asked the Prime Minister a few weeks ago. He is absolutely right: we need the General Dental Council to work with us—I think it will—to ensure that we can get more international dentists registered as quickly as possible, for the benefit of our constituents.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
I welcome what the Secretary of State has said today. I also pay tribute to the ICB in Cheshire for the work that it has done to make additional appointments available in Warrington, where it has been incredibly difficult to access NHS dentistry despite there being many dentists on the high street, because so many have decided to move away from the NHS. Can she explain how the changes announced today will incentivise dentists to return to providing NHS services, so that constituents in Warrington South can get the NHS appointments they want?
Victoria Atkins
As I have said, dentists are independent contractors but we want to encourage them back into the NHS if they have left it, and we believe that the new patient premium and the work on the UDA are just two of the levers that we can deploy to achieve that. We also have a longer-term vision for our NHS, and through the long-term workforce plan we will be training 40% more dentists by 2031. That is real ambition and a plan for the long-term future of our country.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I completely welcome this plan, and particularly my right hon. Friend’s focus on underserved areas and coastal communities. This is something I have raised before in the Chamber. Southend is a coastal city with over 180,000 residents but only three dentists currently accepting NHS patients, so we qualify on both counts. Please could she confirm for Southend and Leigh residents that we will also get either a van or better dental care, preferably within months, not years?
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that those dental surgeries already operating under NHS contracts will have the benefit of new patient premiums and the increased rate of UDA. On the dental van, she will appreciate that we are having to apply strict criteria to this, but I am delighted to see how enthusiastic she is about this recovery plan.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for this really welcome plan. Can she give any advice to patients who are registered with an NHS dentist but have not been seen in the last two years? Should they contact the dentist if they want an appointment or should they wait to be contacted? For those who are not registered, where will they find a list of dentists that they can contact to register their interest in becoming a patient?
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend and fellow greater Lincolnshire MP for her question. In terms of the mechanics of this being delivered, the new patient premiums will come into force and patients can already look at the NHS website to see which practices have places available in their area. They can go there; they do not need to have had an existing relationship with that dental practice. We will also be setting out for constituents and Members of Parliament how, once the new premium comes in, people can get in contact and get the appointments we all want them to get.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
More dentists, more appointments, more incentives for NHS work and a focus on underserved areas—this is exactly what Milton Keynes needs. I would like to thank the Secretary of State and, in particular, her dental Minister and my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), for all the work they have done, and in particular for listening to me banging on about dentistry in Milton Keynes for so long. I seek just one more clarification, please. Will the mobile dentist vans be serving hard-to-reach rural areas, such as my beautiful market towns and villages in Milton Keynes North?
Victoria Atkins
I join my hon. Friend in his praise for our right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). As I say, we are having to apply strict criteria to the dental vans. We want to get them out as quickly as possible to the most underserved areas, but we do not want dental vans to be the limit of our ambitions. The idea behind them is very much to revitalise those parts of the country that do not have NHS dental practices within a reasonable distance, and we are convinced that dental vans are just one of the levers by which we will achieve that.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am extremely concerned about access to dentistry for residents in Stockton South, so I hugely welcome this unprecedented investment and the places it will create locally. Can she confirm that the Government are committed to tackling the situation as quickly as possible and also for the long-term, and that they will continue to consult on broader workforce and contract reform?
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to confirm that. We have wanted to deal with the issues as quickly as we can, but also with an eye to the future. This is the way in which the Government set out our plans for the NHS and for our social care system. I am confident, for example, about the introduction of golden hellos for new dentists. We know that that works with GPs and we now want to try it with dentists to see whether we can get dentists into those areas that do not have the service they need at the moment.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
According to the National Audit Office, North West Norfolk has one of the lowest numbers of dentists per population. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that my constituents will benefit from the £20,000 incentives and from the mobile dental vans? On training, will she look closely at the proposal from the University of East Anglia for a dental training school? That is the obvious place to have it in the east of England.
Victoria Atkins
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I have received rather a lot of lobbying about the location of future dental schools. He will see in the plan that we are very open to the idea of training people with a view to their remaining in those areas. This is where golden hellos come in, and they will most definitely apply in the hardest-to-reach and underserved areas. As I say, we are taking very careful criteria-driven decisions about where the dental vans will be supplied, but we understand the problem that Norfolk has.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome the statement and also thank my right hon. Friend for meeting me recently to discuss dental care in Harrogate and Knaresborough, where we have recently seen two practices hand back their NHS contracts, causing significant patient concern. I was pleased to hear her comments earlier about the retention of dentists within the NHS. Does she agree that good oral health is a critical part of good overall health, that establishing best practice early in life is essential and that that involves the very earliest years and supporting parents?
Victoria Atkins
Very much so. The truth is that teeth appear long before reception class, and this is why we want to focus not just on babies and toddlers in early years settings but, importantly, on pregnant mums because their oral health while pregnant can have ramifications for their baby. The dental recovery plan is seeking to address this through a long-term sweep from the very beginning of life to adulthood, with 2.5 million more appointments and a long-term plan for NHS dentistry in our country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Secretary of State for answering for more than an hour. We will now proceed, but first I will take points of order.
Points of Order
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier this week, the Government published a written statement as a response to the consultation on their White Paper on artificial intelligence. However, this statement was very limited in detail. This is in stark contrast to both the US and the EU, both of which have set out clear responses to the challenges and opportunities of AI. The Government’s written response failed to set out the full scale of opportunities to use AI in areas such as medicine, and failed to tackle concerns about safety such as those raised recently about deepfakes. Can you advise me on how I and other Members can ask Ministers to explain this very limited response, and on what opportunities there might be for us to raise this matter in the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Yes, I can advise the hon. Gentleman, but he does not have to raise the matter with the occupant of the Chair to get that advice. We have excellent Clerks in the Table Office, the Journal Office, et cetera, who would happily give him that advice. He can submit a request for an urgent question, he can apply for an Adjournment debate or he can table a question to the relevant Minister, and I am quite sure he will get further answers to his questions.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s Question Time there was a distinct sense of déjà vu when the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), whom I have notified of this point of order, asked a question about Eastbourne District General Hospital, which is nowhere near her constituency and is rather closer to mine. It repeated an attack on the hospital by her leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), last year, when I gather that he was forced to apologise to the House for misinformation—something that we do not often hear from him.
The hon. Member for St Albans claimed—the claim was also put out by the Liberal Democrat candidate who was recently on the same BBC programme as me and, again, it had to be put right—that the paediatric department at Eastbourne District General Hospital is being downgraded. This has led to many concerned constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), who cannot be here today because she is ill, fearing that paediatrics is being closed at Eastbourne District General Hospital and that patients would have to go a long way to Conquest Hospital.
None of that is remotely true. There will be no closure. What is happening is that two paediatric departments are being merged on the same site at Eastbourne District General Hospital, and children will receive urgent care under specialist paediatric nurses for seven days a week, which they do not get now. This is a scare story, and it seems to be the subject of serial scare stories from the Liberal Democrats. This is really frightening for people and families living in that constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker, how can that correction be put on the record? Will the hon. Member for St Albans take this opportunity to withdraw her entirely inaccurate charges?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Of course, it is not for the occupant of the Chair to adjudicate on what is accurate and what is not accurate, but he has made a very serious point. I remind hon. Members that they ought to be very careful in what they say in this House because of the wide-reaching ramifications of any description they make of local events.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). He will be acutely aware that I am the health and social care spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, and that I have raised questions about hospitals across the country 16, 17 or possibly even 18 times. My concern is about the NHS and hospital services more broadly.
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will also be aware that, at a hearing of the relevant county council’s health overview and scrutiny committee in December, the local trust was quoted as saying:
“We are substituting a consultant for an Advanced Nurse Practitioner. It might be that the ANP takes a more cautious approach and sends more children over to Hastings than a senior consultant.”
If there were no reason for concern, why did the cross-party health overview and scrutiny committee vote unanimously for a pause? If there were nothing to worry about, why has the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) followed the lead of campaigners by also calling for a call-in? It seems to me that local residents have concerns, and they want those concerns to be heard in this Chamber.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Lady for responding to the point of order of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). As I said earlier, it is not for the occupant of the Chair to adjudicate between different interpretations of fact. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for taking the opportunity to put her point to the House, and I quite understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure there will be further opportunities, hopefully in the near future, for them to discuss this matter reasonably on the Floor of the House. I reiterate that it is very important that facts presented in the Chamber are accurate.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Prime Minister’s questions, I was horrified to hear the Prime Minister, in LGBT History Month and on a day when Brianna Ghey’s mother was in Parliament, make a transphobic joke in the Chamber. As elected representatives, we come to this place to improve the condition of others, do we not? At a time when the trans community is facing unprecedented attacks from people in this place, from people in the other place and from the media, it is incumbent on us all to reflect on our language, on how we approach these issues and on how we talk about the trans and non-binary community.
Madam Deputy Speaker, can you guide us on how we can ensure that the Prime Minister apologises? He was given an opportunity towards the end of Prime Minister’s questions, and he refused. Can you use your good offices to encourage him to take the opportunity to come back to the Chamber to apologise for those remarks and to remove them from the record? I do not believe his remarks reflect the views of the majority of people in this Chamber who want to respect the trans and non-binary community, and who want to make it better and easier for them to live their lives in safety instead of what is increasingly becoming a hostile environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s point, but it is often necessary for Mr Speaker or the Deputy Speakers to say that points of order are not designed to continue the arguments of Prime Minister’s questions. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, all Members are here for the time that the Prime Minister is here, and very often—indeed, almost always—Opposition Members will disagree with what the Prime Minister says. It is not for me to adjudicate, nor indeed to require him to say anything different.
I will say, however, that the hon. Lady touches on a very sensitive subject, and I understand that the mother of the tragically murdered teenager Brianna Ghey was present this afternoon. I reiterate, as I believe the Prime Minister did from what I heard at the end of Prime Minister’s questions, the enormous sympathy that everyone in this House has—[Interruption.] Could the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) just let me finish, please.
It is not for me to comment on what the Prime Minister said or did not say. On behalf of the whole House, I reiterate our enormous sympathy and, indeed, admiration for Brianna Ghey’s mother on the way in which she has conducted her public profile during this tragic time for her and her family. The House ought to show sympathy and understanding when a tragedy occurs, rather than always making political points.
State Pension Age (Compensation)
Wednesday 7th February 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate State Pension Age (Compensation) Bill 2023-24 View all State Pension Age (Compensation) Bill 2023-24 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for women born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1960 inclusive who have been affected by increases in the state pension age; and for connected purposes.
Like so many injustices created by Westminster, the lack of resolution for the 3.8 million WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—women is a disgrace. Those 3.8 million women were given the bombshell that their state pension age was going to increase from 60 to 66 just as they were about to retire and it was too late to do any proper financial planning. Many were already in ill health or worse, and others had taken early retirement and were planning to get by until age 60, when they thought they would receive their state pension.
For nine years, this place has debated the matter, hearing harrowing individual stories, with many MPs, from across the Chamber, pledging they would do all they could to help those women. But for nine years the Government have ignored the plight of those women. They hoped the WASPI women would go away, but they have not, although, unfortunately, 40,000 are dying each year without getting any form of compensation, with some 240,000 having already, tragically, passed away without receiving compensation.
For those now trying to make the best of their retirement, while facing a cost of living crisis, polling has established that half of WASPI women have struggled to pay essential bills in the past six months and, worse, a quarter have struggled to buy food. We know that this is an injustice; indeed, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman judged as far back as July 2021 that the Department for Work and Pensions was guilty of maladministration due to lack of direct communication. Yet here we are, still fighting for compensation.
The majority of the Tory Back Benchers who previously were very vocal in supporting WASPI women, including the leader of the Tories in Scotland, have all gone quiet, as has the Labour party. Astonishingly, the best I can find from the current Labour leader is:
“We’ve met many of these women and campaigners. And our hearts go out to them…It’s a huge injustice.”
He also said he would need to hear the outcome of the court case he believed was ongoing—that was back in April 2023. Just saying
“our hearts go out to them”
is as bad as saying nothing. It is completely vacuous, and there has been silence in the 10 months since, when the court case had already concluded.
I urge the leader of the Labour party: instead of letting the Tories move his political dial and political compass, find a moral backbone and make a commitment that if this fag-end Tory Government will not deliver some form of compensation, a future Labour Government will. Having said that, given that the current Labour shadow Work and Pensions Secretary has never uttered the words “WASPI” or “1950s women” in Parliament, and neither has Labour’s Women and Equalities spokesperson, I do not see much pressure being put on the Labour leader from within his shadow Cabinet. This is a shocking dereliction of duty from what is supposed to be the main Opposition party at Westminster.
It is not just the main parties here at Westminster letting down the WASPI women; the ombudsman has taken way too long and is still dragging its feet, having given the women hope and dashed it time and again. It is hard to believe that in the almost three years since the maladministration assessment, a solution is still to be recommended by the ombudsman. It is a scandal in itself that the WASPI women had to go to court to confirm the flaws in the second ombudsman report. This process should have been closed out a long time ago, and I know from dealing with constituents affected by this that they find this dragging out of the process stressful and frustrating, and is rubbing salt in their wounds. As we head towards another general election, it helps the Government hide behind the myth that they cannot do anything until the PHSO concludes.
We also know that when the PHSO does conclude, the DWP still will not admit its failure to communicate adequately and its maladministration, so parliamentary intervention will probably be required to force the Government’s hand. The purpose of this Bill is to bring forward parliamentary intervention to stop those affected women having to wait any longer. Fair and fast compensation is the simple scheme that the WASPI women are looking for, using, as a minimum, level 5 of the ombudsman scale—realistically, however, level 6 of the PHSO bandings is the most appropriate—and this Bill could deliver a simple framework.
We are talking about a practical resolution, one that does not result in astronomical sums per person. It is not asking for a reversal of pension age to 60, and it is not a full restitution of pensions for those affected by the maladministration—no matter how nice an outcome that would be. The WASPI women understand there is no blank cheque from the Treasury; they are practical and they want to get on. That said, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the UK Government have saved £200 billion from the decision to equalise the state pension age at 66.
If we look at funding in the round, changing non-dom tax status could bring in £3.6 billion a year to the Treasury, and changing the capital gains rate to that of income tax could bring in a further £10 billion to £15 billion a year. Two simple tax changes would easily pay for compensation in a couple of years and create long-term additional income for the Treasury. If the Government properly tackled the personal protective equipment and covid support frauds, they could bring in even more money to pay out. There has never been a VIP lane for the WASPI women, and no Minister has ever agreed to meet them. Can the difference in attitudes be any starker?
Is that because Ministers do not want to hear the real stories of constituents? My constituent Ann contracted viral meningitis at age 59 and a half. Following consultant advice, she opted to stop working and gave her three months’ notice, in order to retire at 60. Literally days before her retirement date, she got the news that she would not get her state pension until age 66. She was too old-school to try to change her agreement and go for ill health retiral, which would have been the most appropriate outcome, so she endured six years without employment or pension, and the associated stress of that impacted on her health recovery.
My constituent Marie’s husband got cancer and had to stop working when she was aged 59. She was forced to work on for another seven years, doing work that required physical effort while doing caring duties, in order to survive financially.
My constituent Mary went part-time at age 55, due to health conditions, and then got the pension age increase bombshell at aged 59 and two months. That forced her to work on for several years, even while having cancer treatment in her 60s.
My constituent Pamela was given the news at age 60, just as she retired. She could not get back into the workforce and suffered ill health. She was forced to downsize her property twice, and she still has a financial hangover.
My constituent Violet was widowed at age 53. She had been working since the age of 15 and had been paying national insurance contributions for 45 years, but was forced to wait another six years due to that lack of notification.
My constituent Lynn was exhausted after working for 34 years in the NHS and agreed early retirement at 55. However, she found out on her very last day at work that it would be 11 years before she got her state pension, not the five she anticipated.
My constituent Nancy was widowed at 54, while she was working part-time. This was traumatic emotionally and then financially. She suffered umpteen chronic health conditions, while caring for parents and still being forced to continue taking NHS bank work to survive.
My constituent Lesley was sometimes working three jobs to make ends meet and put money away for the future. She was the carer for her partner when he had cancer and for her dad when he had cancer. She then had a period of travelling to Southampton every weekend to visit her aunt. Her superwoman efforts would exhaust anyone, and it is little wonder that she took early retirement at age 56, only later to discover she would have to get by for a further six years before getting her pension.
I have countless examples of constituents who would have put more into private pensions and who would have topped up NI contributions. I have examples of those who have had to use their savings, who have missed out on holidays and who have generally struggled to get by because of that lack of notification. Let us not forget that many of these women are well-qualified. They are intelligent, yet they are made to feel that it is somehow their fault that they did not know. The DWP’s denials make it worse for these women.
Westminster needs to make amends for its mistakes. Let me give a reminder, however, of how it operates: the miners’ strike miscarriages of justice, the Hillsborough cover-up, the infected blood scandal going back to the late 1970s, and the ongoing sub-postmaster scandal. Those are all issues that the three UK-wide parties have been complicit in at some point or another. It seems this place never learns.
However, on a positive note, I am grateful for the cross-party support for this Bill. I pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the WASPI women, particularly locally, including Ann Hamell, who first brought this matter to my attention and has kept fighting for justice since. By sticking together, we will get some form of compensation. Even that will not undo the wrongs, and the emotional and financial distress for the women, but it will finally be an admission of guilt and a small financial redress that can bring some relief to women who were prejudiced against in terms of work pay and pension pots, and then prejudiced against in retirement since.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alan Brown, Steven Bonnar, Patricia Gibson, Jim Shannon, Marion Fellows, Grahame Morris, Amy Callaghan, Colum Eastwood, Peter Aldous, Wendy Chamberlain, Gavin Newlands and Chris Stephens present the Bill.
Alan Brown accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April, and to be printed (Bill 164).
Police Grant Report
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2024-25 (HC 482), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Police officers, police community support officers, special constables and police staff up and down the country do great work every single day of the week, keeping us and our constituents safe, very often putting themselves in the line of danger to protect the public. I am sure Members across the House will want to pay tribute to those officers and staff, and thank them for the work they do. The vast majority of officers are decent, hard-working and brave, and we owe them a great deal.
The police look after and support us; it is important that we support and look after them in return. The funding settlement that we present to Parliament today does that. We are increasing the funding available for policing by £843 million compared with last year. Last year’s funding had already been increased by £330 million, accounting for the police pay settlement, effective from 1 September, so next year’s envelope in total will be £18.4 billion.
Within that, we are prioritising the frontline. We are getting more money than ever before into the hands of police and crime commissioners, who spend money on frontline policing. Presuming they use their precept flexibility, which I think they will, police and crime commissioners will receive an extra £922 million next year, which is a cash increase of 6% compared with the previous year.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for Policing for those increases he mentions and for his help on section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and dealing with illegal motorcycles in my area. The issue is that Bedfordshire police survives on a series of top-up grants because the national funding formula is not very fair to us. Does the Minister foresee a time when we can get rid of those grants and have our core funding baked into our core funding, so we do not rely on special grants?
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend campaigns tirelessly for Bedfordshire policing and to combat the scourge of antisocial motorcycle use. I believe we will shortly be organising a meeting to discuss that issue. He is right that Bedfordshire receives special grant support in order to fund its activity, particularly in relation to gang violence in certain urban parts of the county, but he is also right that we need to change the underlying funding formula because it is over 10 years out of date. It needs to better reflect population changes and changes in crime, and better reflect issues of sparsity and rurality. The Home Office is actively working on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the very good meeting he had with Lincolnshire MPs yesterday. As he is an outstanding Minister, he will appreciate that Lincolnshire, even taking account of the extra money, is the worst funded authority in the country, with the lowest staffing level, and faces particular challenges because of its sparsity. Delivering any public service, including policing, over a sparsely populated area is a challenge. So, will he take a close look at what extra he can do in anticipation of the much-needed change to the funding formula, which he is advocating today?
Chris Philp
I met my right hon. Friend yesterday evening and he made a powerful case on Lincolnshire police, and for updating the funding formula, as we have discussed. He also made the case on Lincolnshire’s needs over the coming financial year, which I undertook to go away and look at. As he says, the issues of sparsity and rurality that affect Lincolnshire, as well as other counties, need to be properly accounted for. He spoke extremely powerfully and compellingly in our meeting yesterday.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The funding picture that the Minister paints is not entirely accurate. In West Yorkshire, direct funding from Ministers fell by £25 million between 2015-16 and 2019-20. What is more, the cumulative total of Government funding cut from West Yorkshire police since 2015-16 is more than £100 million. Once the figures that the Minister is announcing are compared to that cumulative amount, it will surely change things, and the picture will not look as rosy.
Chris Philp
On longer-term funding trends, the total cash funding for police in 2010-11 was about £13.1 billion. As I set out, it is now £18.4 billion, so it is £5.3 billion higher in cash terms. It has essentially kept pace with inflation, although crime is lower. He mentions West Yorkshire; the central Government grant for West Yorkshire in the financial year 2023-24, with the extra money for pay that I mentioned, is £415 million. Next year, the Government grant for West Yorkshire will go up by about £31 million, which is well above inflation, to £446 million. If we add in the police precept, which may go up a little bit as well, West Yorkshire’s funding next year will be 7.1% higher. If we look at policing as a whole, frontline policing will be up by 6% next year.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Can I ask the Minister about the precept?
Chris Philp
In just a moment. Overall, next year, police funding will be up 6% on this year for frontline forces. Inflation is currently only 4% and is forecast to fall further.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), is it not the reality that the contribution of the police precept to the overall cost of policing has increased substantially? In the case of Dyfed-Powys police, the precept was 37% of total funding in 2010-11, but this year it is 54.4%, so the burden is being pushed on to local taxpayers via the precept.
Chris Philp
Overall, across England and Wales, around two thirds of the total funding comes from central Government. As the hon. Gentleman says, that varies by police force, but on Dyfed-Powys police, the Government grant is going up next year by £6 million, which is nearly 10%, whereas the precept component is only going up by about £3 million. The Government grant for Dyfed-Powys will go up by double the amount of the precept increase. I say again that frontline police forces next year will have a funding increase of 6%, at a time when inflation is only 4% and falling.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Donna Jones, the police and crime commissioner for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, has launched a consultation. My view is that if constituents attach great importance to policing—certainly, my correspondence tells me that they do—then they will be prepared to pay for it.
Chris Philp
My right hon. Friend is quite right. Of course, all policing, whether funded from central Government or via the precept, is ultimately paid for by taxpayers. In the most recent spending review a few years ago, the precept limit was set at £10—that is, English forces could put up the precept by only £10. We have given more flexibility—this year it is £15, and next year it will be £13—so that PCCs can decide to increase the precept by a bit more if they choose to, which is their democratic right.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
On the issue of police and crime commissioners, I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the appalling comments made by the Cheshire police and crime commissioner about schoolgirls wearing very short skirts. This raises huge questions about whether victims can have confidence in the justice system in Cheshire. Will he take the opportunity to distance himself from those comments and join us in calling on the PCC to resign?
Chris Philp
I am afraid that I have not seen those comments, so it would not be right for me to remark on them, but I will say that the Government are completely committed to combating violence against women and girls, to increasing rape prosecutions and to increasing prosecutions for serious sexual assaults. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) and I had a meeting with policing leaders on that very topic just in the past few days, and those are actions to which we are committed.
In addition to the substantial funding increase of £922 million—nearly £1 billion—for frontline policing, an above inflation increase of 6% has been announced today. We have of course increased total police expenditure by about £2.7 billion since 2019, which has funded the police uplift programme. It is worth reiterating that in March last year, we exceeded our target, delivering 149,566 officers—about 3,500 more than we have seen at any time in the history of policing in England and Wales. That is an important commitment, and our intention is to maintain those officer numbers going forward. We have constructed the police uplift ringfence and the financial arrangements for this coming financial year to enable police forces around the country to maintain those higher officer numbers.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
As the Minister said, police forces across the country do some great work. That applies to Leicestershire police, particularly those in Loughborough who have to deal with county lines. Many of the new officers are based in Loughborough and are doing an excellent job. The increase in the precept is also excellent and very welcome in Leicestershire, but can we do more—that is, not just increase the value of the precept, but ensure that what police are asked to do is more efficient? Redaction is one example. Police should not have to redact evidence when 25% of cases that go to the Crime Prosecution Service are not taken further forward.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The issue is not just about providing more resources, but making sure that the police can operate efficiently. For example, we are rolling out the “Right Care, Right Person” initiative, which started in Humberside, to make sure that when a mental health case is purely medical, and there is no threat to public safety and no criminality, it is handled medically by the health service. Implementing that across the country will save about 1 million hours a year of police time.
There are other administrative changes that we can make, and the redaction issue is one of them. I discussed that with the new Director of Public Prosecutions, Stephen Parkinson, earlier this week, and I will discuss it with him again in March. Changing the rules around redaction will save very many hours of police time. There are also technology solutions that will help, not just in those 25% of cases in which the CPS decides not to charge, but in the 75% of cases in which it does charge. Automated redaction tools driven by artificial intelligence will save many tens of thousands—probably hundreds of thousands—of hours of police time. I am encouraging police forces up and down the country to adopt that technology to save a huge amount of time.
Before the intervention, I was saying that record police officer numbers and record funding are all well and good, but what the public want is results. As the Office for National Statistics has told us, the only reliable source of long-term trend data for high-volume crimes is the crime survey for England and Wales. That shows that overall crime, excluding fraud and computer misuse, which only came into the figures recently, went down from 9.5 million offences in the last year of the previous Labour Government to 4.3 million in the past year—a 55% reduction. Violent crimes went down from 1.8 million offences under the last Labour Government to just 900,000—a 51% reduction. Theft is down from about 5 million offences to 2.7 million—a 46% reduction. Robbery is down 74%, theft from the person down 40%, domestic burglary down 56%, vehicle-related theft down 39%, criminal damage down 72%, and even bicycle theft is down under this Government. The plan is working; let us not go back to square one.
As for homicide, the most serious crime of all, in the last year of the last Labour Government, there were 620 homicides. We have managed to get that down to 591. Every one of those crimes is a tragedy; every one of them is one too many. None the less, I am sure that all of us can welcome that reduction in homicide—
Chris Philp
—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) is about to join me in doing just that.
Matt Rodda
May I offer my support to our local police and say what a wonderful service they provide to our community? I was curious about what the Minister said about bureaucracy. It appears that what the Government have actually done in the past 14 years is cut police numbers very substantially and then replace some of those police officers with new officers who need to be trained. What proportion of those new officers are still undergoing some form of training or receiving support?
Chris Philp
To be clear, there was a reduction in police officer numbers in the coalition years—the years immediately after 2010—owing to the appalling financial conditions that we inherited. However, those police officers have been more than replaced. The total number of officers in England and Wales last year was about 3,500 higher than it was in 2010. It is therefore true to say that many officers have joined relatively recently, which means that there is a training and supervision job to do—and police forces are doing it. Retention rates are quite high. The staff survey shows quite high satisfaction rates, so with each month that passes since the influx of the past three or four years, those officers become more experienced. That will benefit our constituents and make sure that the trend of falling crime continues.
We are taking action on drugs, having closed down more than 2,000 county lines since April 2022. We are also tackling knife crime, which we discussed extensively yesterday. We are removing more than 130,000 knives through stop and search, which is important. We need to use stop and search and surrender programmes with confidence. We are investing in violence reduction units, and today we renew our commitment to funding those units and doing prevention work. We renew our commitment to hotspot patrolling against serious violence, knife crime and antisocial behaviour.
This funding settlement includes £66 million of extra money that will go to every single police force in the country for hotspot patrolling in areas where antisocial behaviour and serious violence are a problem. Where we have trialled that—for example, we trialled antisocial behaviour hotspot patrolling in parts of Essex, and serious violence patrolling in places such as Brighton—we have seen a reduction of approximately 30% in antisocial behaviour and crimes such as robbery. We know that it works. From April this year, every single police force will get that funding. I urge Members from all parts of the House to talk to their local PCCs and make sure that those hotspot patrols take place in town centres, on high streets, or wherever else, so that the public can see that the issue is being dealt with.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way.
During the years of austerity, which hit our police forces hard, we lost 21,000 police officers. He has talked about the uplift in numbers since then, but over the same period, police stations across the UK closed at the rate of one a week, which resulted in four in 10 police stations being closed during that period. What is his plan to reopen those police stations in the heart of our communities? That will be needed if communities are truly to take back some of the streets that have had massive problems with antisocial behaviour.
Chris Philp
It is up to police and crime commissioners how to spend the money in this record funding settlement. Some police forces are being creative by, for example, co-locating with fire stations. Good police and crime commissioners avoided closing police stations. For example, the former Conservative Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, managed to largely avoid police station closures—closures that his predecessor, Ken Livingstone, had planned, and that his successor, Sadiq Khan, has in some cases carried out, or at least threatened to carry out. In the west midlands, the current Labour police and crime commissioner, Simon Foster, is planning to close 20 police stations. There are ways of avoiding that by better managing the budgets. There is a record funding settlement here. These are choices made locally, and they are often avoidable.
We are also providing £1 billion for national policing priorities and capabilities, including various forms of technology, new national databases and so on. It is important that we continue to use technology to innovate. That includes investing heavily in such things as robotic process automation, which saves a lot of manual work. I mentioned automated redaction tools. Facial recognition can be used retrospectively, to identify suspects who have committed an offence and whose picture has been caught by CCTV, and used live, to spot people who are wanted by police, for example when they walk down a high street or through a train station.
In recent weeks, we have been deploying live facial recognition technology in my south London borough of Croydon. People who were wanted for rape, grievous bodily harm, drug offences, or failing to attend court have been caught wandering down the street. Our local superintendent thinks that, over about 10 deployments on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons in central Croydon between December and January, the police will end up arresting about 100 people who are wanted for really serious offences or did not turn up at court. Those people would otherwise never have been arrested. Again, Members should ask their local PCC and chief constable what they are doing with retrospective and live facial recognition. Those technologies can catch dangerous criminals who would otherwise go undetected. It is a really important area.
We continue to invest in various crime programmes. I mentioned violence reduction units and hotspot patrolling. Project ADDER—addiction, diversion, disruption, enforcement and recovery—continues, dealing with drugs, and the safer streets fund continues as well. We also continue to fund counter-terrorism policing at around £1 billion per year, in addition to our support for ROCUs—regional organised crime units—of around £25 million per year. This is record police funding. It is going up by more than inflation as far as police and crime commissioners are concerned. We hit record police numbers last year. Crime overall is 56% lower than in 2010, and is continuing to fall. There is, of course, more work to do, but we are here to fund and back the police, and to keep our constituents safe. That is what this financial settlement does.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Our thanks go to police officers, police community support officers and police staff across the country for their work. It can be dangerous, but it is always important. Our communities value it greatly, and it is essential to British life. We are grateful and lucky to have them. I also thank police and crime commissioners. They are 85 days away from the next set of PCC elections. Some will not stand again, some might not be returned, and some will be re-elected. Again, our thanks go to them all for doing a very difficult job, often across huge geographies, representing and stepping up for their communities. As I said, we are lucky to have them.
Police forces across England and Wales are still living with the impact of 14 years of failure by the Government. Rates of serious violence are up, and charge rates are plummeting. I am amazed by what the Minister said about morale among rank and file officers, which we know is at low levels. The loss of staff has been significant in the last year, and it is very strange to hear that that is not a problem. We know that chief constables and police and crime commissioners are grappling with limited resources and trying to deal with the crisis in public confidence, which is frankly disconnected from what the Minister just said. All the while, the real, everyday problems that our constituents see in their communities are getting worse, not better.
We have witnessed a collapse in neighbourhood policing in recent years, with 10,000 fewer officers on the beat. Police forces are still reeling from the years of experience and expertise that were lost when the Government cut police officers by 20,000. Of the new recruits brought in when the Government realised that grave error, an estimated 6,000 officers are not on frontline duty but are instead covering roles that are traditionally done by vital civilian staff. Is it any wonder that 50% of people say that they no longer ever see police on the streets? I ask colleagues whose case better marries up with what their constituents say: the Minister’s or mine. I know the answer.
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case. He is right that during the last decade, due to austerity, there have been substantial cuts to neighbourhood policing. In West Yorkshire, we have lost 1,000 neighbourhood police officers. Does he agree that neighbourhood policing is the essential link between the police and our communities? Not only does it increase confidence in policing but it makes the role much easier by preventing antisocial behaviour and in many other ways, because of the bond between the community and the police.
Alex Norris
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I absolutely share his view. Neighbourhood policing is the bedrock of policing. A lot of the problems that we are trying to deal with—I will speak about them in a second—have grown and festered because we have given up on neighbourhood policing for well over a decade and have lost control of our streets. Whether it is antisocial behaviour, shoplifting on high streets, the epidemic level of violence and abuse against our retail workers, communities where there is drug dealing in broad daylight, or the horrific levels of knife crime—up 77% since 2015—the experience of our constituents under this Government is that criminals get let off and victims get let down. After 14 years in government—the Minister did not use this in his statistical run-down—over 90% of crimes go unsolved, meaning that criminals are less than half as likely to be caught than they were when the Government took office in 2010. That is the Government’s record on law and order.
The Government and the Minister want us to believe that we have never had it so good, but everywhere we look there are serious problems, which are compounded to a degree by the settlement. This is an unamendable motion about more money for our policing, and of course we will support it, but the detail that sits beneath it deserves serious scrutiny. Colleagues will have seen the dismay across policing at the 6% cash increase, set below the level of the pay award. That is before on-costs, and before inflation. The settlement exacerbates rather than resolves some of the funding challenges. Particularly challenging—the Minister said this himself—is that a third of the settlement is based on the assumption that police and crime commissioners will increase council tax for local ratepayers to the maximum. Yet again we see a shift from central Government funding to local communities for vital everyday services.
As the Minister said, the Government have lifted the cap on the precept so that PCCs can raise it by £13 next year for band D properties. That in itself is a challenge for people’s finances, but it also creates differential challenges across the country, as the money is not then spread equitably. The most deprived areas of our country, which have the fewest higher-banded properties paying higher rates of council tax, get the least return from a local precept. Better-off areas will get more funding because their tax base is higher. That is not levelling up, which I suspect has long since been put in a drawer somewhere, but drives a wedge between different parts of our country when the safety and security of our constituents is at stake. That failure of leadership has consequences for less well-off areas—the parts of the country more likely to suffer from antisocial behaviour, violence, sexual offences or robbery.
Chris Philp
The shadow Minister said that the balance of funding is being shifted on to local areas. To be clear about the facts, the increase in the central Government grant going to police and crime commissioners is just over £600 million. The anticipated increase through the precept is about £300 million. The Government grant increase is about double the precept increase. The central Government finance line is bearing by far the lion’s share of the increase—about two thirds of it, in fact.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that intervention. I do not think that it is revelatory—indeed, we will decades if not a century and a half’s worth of precedent—that central Government fund policing in this country. What I am saying is that, year on year, the share provided by the local ratepayer is increasing, and this is a continuation of that. It is legitimate to ask whether that is the best funding model. I will get to the funding formula shortly, but, as I say, that differential impact is not a serious way to bring down crime rates across the country.
To add insult to injury, the Minister says in his written statement:
“When setting their budgets, PCCs should be mindful of the cost of living pressures that householders are facing.”
Are the Government for real? Given the Minister’s role in the previous Government, and given the Government’s indifference to the challenges that people across the UK face, that is front beyond imagination. Telling our PCCs that they should be mindful? I say, “Physician, heal thyself.” The public will not be taken for fools by the Government, though. Just as, when they open their mortgage statements, they know what has happened, when they open their council tax bill, it will tell them all they need to know.
I turn now to the funding formula, which other colleagues have raised. Countless Ministers, including this Minister, have stood at the Dispatch Box or answered written questions over the years, pledging to do something about a system that is badly overdue for renewal. Members across the House have been raising this for many years with the Government. In December, the Treasury informed the Public Accounts Committee that a new formula would be introduced as soon as possible. In January, the Minister said, in response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Alistair Strathern), that he would update the House on work to update the formula
“as soon as I can.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2024; Vol. 743, c. 569.]
Yet, two weeks ago, we saw in the press that the can is to be kicked down the road again, because No. 10 is worried about police funding cuts in a general election year.
Alistair Strathern (Mid Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I start by expressing my thanks for the fantastic work undertaken by local police officers right across Bedfordshire. However, with the Conservatives’ own police and crime commissioner agreeing that the current unfair funding formula leaves no meat on the bone at all for local police, does my hon. Friend agree that it is police officers and local residents who are being let down by inaction on this issue, and that Ministers owe it to them to live up to their previous commitment to ensure that a fair formula is delivered within this Parliament?
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that contribution from my hon. Friend. Yes, I think the public would expect not only that the formulas reflect the need across the country, but that when promises are made repeatedly over multiple years, those promises are kept; even if the upshot was difficult political questions, the Government ought to rise above that. Instead, it just looks as though they are trying to dodge responsibility. I hope the Minister will be clear in his summing-up about the status of that formula. Has No. 10 Downing Street told him to put it on hold? If not, when will it be announced? The public deserve to know.
Jonathan Edwards
May I ask the hon. Gentleman kindly to take a look at the recommendations of the Welsh Government’s own independent commission on the constitutional future of Wales, which reported earlier this month? The commission strongly argued in favour of devolving policing and criminal justice powers to Wales, a position that is supported by the Welsh Government and the current First Minister. That would make a huge difference to funding for policing in Wales, because it would be based on population share and Barnett consequentials of spending in England, unlike the funding formula at present.
Alex Norris
I have had conversations with my colleagues in Wales on that matter. There is something to be said about the funding formula and Barnett—I am not conflating them, but I think that shows how badly broken the formula is. That point is well made and, as I say, I have had conversations with colleagues in Wales about it.
I will move on to the Minister’s priorities, as outlined in the settlement, and the police uplift programme. As I said earlier, 6,000 of the new recruits are not where the public would expect them to be. I have had a front-row seat, over my few months in post, as the Government have gone through all the contortions on this issue. Last autumn, they told us we had record numbers of police on the neighbourhood beat, but that has long since been disproven. Earlier this year, the Minister tried a new tack and said the Government would rebadge response police as neighbourhood police, so they could add those numbers together to would match up with the rhetoric. The public have seen right through that as well.
Last week, the Home Secretary tried another approach, demanding that police chiefs put more officers on the beat as part of his “back to basics” campaign—as if those chiefs were not working in overdrive to do that all the time, all year round. We respect and recognise the huge amount of work they are doing to get police out where communities want them. That is another approach by the Government, and another one that will fail; I was in short trousers the last time they did a “back to basics” campaign, but I do not think it has a very good history and I am not sure it is the right approach for them.
What we see, as always, is denial and deflection; it is always someone else’s fault. Labour has a better plan. Our community policing guarantee would rebuild neighbourhood policing. It would put 13,000 police and police community support officers back on the beat, embedded in our communities; not counting crimes, but solving problems and working with local communities to tackle and deter crime. That would be funded through a police efficiency and collaboration programme, saving £360 million through centralised standard-setting for procurement and increased collaboration on shared services and specialist functions. The Minister said in his statement that he wants to reduce inefficiencies, so that is a two-for-one for him: more efficiency and more officers on the frontline. Why are we not seeing those plans from the Government today?
To conclude, if the Minister expects garlands from colleagues, he will not get them from Labour. He tells the British people repeatedly that they have never had it so good on crime and policing. That rhetoric does not match reality or the public experience. As a result, this settlement is in line with those that preceded it for more than a decade. It will not deliver. The Government are wrong and the public know it. I know that sometimes the public and people in the policing family lose hope; all I would say is that, if we all pull together, we can make sure this is the last police grant settlement that this Government make.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I am delighted to be able to contribute to this debate. In the interests of transparency, let me first make the House aware that an immediate member of my family is a serving police officer with Devon and Cornwall Police—and very proud of them we are. I also put on the record my huge thanks and appreciation to all police officers across Devon and Cornwall, particularly those who work out of St Austell and Newquay police stations. I have seen at first hand their dedication and they have helped me a number of times when I have needed it. They do an incredible job and I am very grateful to them.
I very much welcome the uplift in funding that has been made available to police across England and Wales today, and I am particularly grateful that the funding made available for Devon and Cornwall Police is being increased by 7.1%, which is higher than the national average and goes some way to closing the historical funding gap for our police. We are using that money incredibly well in Devon and Cornwall, particularly in recruiting more police officers.
The number of police officers in Devon and Cornwall is now at an all-time record of 3,610, an uplift of 470 above the 2019 figure. I have also been made aware that, as opposed to some other parts of the country, we have done so well in recruitment that more funding has been made available to enable us to recruit an additional 71 officers, so the number is only going to get higher. That is hugely welcome, and I pay tribute to the hard work of our police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, for the leadership and work that she has put in to get us to such healthy police numbers.
However, one thing that continually concerns me whenever I go out on patrol and observe the police on the frontline is the amount of time they spend dealing with issues that are not policing matters. Far too often they have to pick up the slack for other parts of the public sector that are not stepping up and fulfilling their roles, be that mental health support, other parts of the NHS or social services.
One thing the Minister could do to support our frontline police officers across the country is to work with other parts of the public sector and other Government Departments to ensure that they are doing everything they can to fulfil their duties, and not just taking the default position of falling back on the police to pick up the slack every time. That is one thing that I know is putting huge pressure on frontline policing, taking officers away from the job that the public actually want and expect them to be doing: keeping us safe.
Devon and Cornwall Police actually polices the largest force area, in terms of land mass, of any force in England. We also have the longest coast and the longest road network, at 13,000 miles, of any police force in England. For all those reasons, Devon and Cornwall Police faces a hugely challenging job policing two of the most rural counties in the country. In Cornwall, over 40% of people live in communities of fewer than 3,000 people, and we have no towns with populations above 25,000 people, which demonstrates just how rural and sparsely population our force area is. That has an impact on the police’s ability to deliver the service that we expect of them.
Tourism has an additional impact on Cornwall and Devon. Our average population in the tourist season increases by 7%, although that rise is concentrated in a relatively small number of areas. Towns such as Newquay see their populations go up by six or seven times the resident population in peak tourism season, so the number of incidents to which the police are expected to respond inevitably goes up significantly.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
The situation in Devon and Cornwall is similar to that in Sussex, where an influx of people to Camber Sands can mean that there are 25,000 people on the beach. That obviously makes police resourcing difficult. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when it comes to police funding, we need to consider the geography of the area and the specific and absolute need, not the relative need?
Steve Double
My hon. Friend makes precisely the point that I was about to make. In Devon and Cornwall, our geography and the number of tourists we welcome every year mean that our police force faces a unique challenge in delivering the service that we require of them.
Another point that I continually make is that in Cornwall, a narrow peninsula with only one neighbouring mainland county, we have to build in our own resilience as we cannot rely on other areas to turn up quickly to help us out. That needs to be reflected in the funding formula. I am greatly encouraged that the Government have recognised that and have committed to reviewing the funding formula by taking into consideration geography, sparseness, rurality and the impact of tourism. I urge the Minister to do all he can to get the review carried out and in place in order to adjust the funding.
We will certainly take no lessons from Labour about funding police in rural areas. It was under the last Labour Government that rural areas were virtually abandoned by the funding formula. The formula was tweaked so that all that money would go towards densely populated urban areas, even though delivering services in rural areas costs far more, so we will take no lessons from Labour on that.
I urge the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the police funding review is carried out and implemented as quickly as possible so that the funding gap with which we have had to deal for so long is narrowed, and rural areas such as Devon and Cornwall get the police funding that they rightly deserve.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the next Member to speak, I should clarify something. As the House will have noted, the Order Paper notes that the police grant report and the local government finance instruments have not yet been considered by the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. I have now been informed that the Committee met a short time ago. It has considered the instruments and has not drawn them to the attention of the House. To interpret what I have just said for the sake of anyone listening, that means that we can proceed as normal and do not have to take any further steps that we were not already planning to take.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am most grateful for that clarification.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire for setting out the Government’s proposals for the police funding settlement for 2024-25. Suffolk is due to receive an increase in core funding of 6.7%, and hotspot response finance of £1 million. Those settlements are welcome, but I will briefly raise three issues, two of which have already been addressed in some detail.
The first of those issues is the funding review. At present, Suffolk constabulary is the fourth lowest funded force in the UK, and as such, we are looking for the long-promised funding review to be carried out as soon as possible. Many of the challenges that we face are similar to what we have heard is happening in Cornwall. At Home Office questions on 27 November, I asked my right hon. Friend for an update on the progress of the review. He responded by stating:
“I completely accept the need for a new police funding formula”
and said that his team had been
“working on it extremely hard, with colleagues across government”
and that he hoped
“to have something…to say on the topic shortly”.—[Official Report, 27 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 545.]
It is in that context that I would be most grateful for a further update on the progress of the review and on when we can expect the draft proposals for the new formula. There is a worry, as we have heard, that the review is being kicked into the long grass. I hope that the Minister can allay that concern in summing up.
Let me come to my second point. For police and crime commissioners such as Tim Passmore in Suffolk, budgeting presents considerable challenges. He and other PCCs are entitled to expect consistency in Government commitments. In that respect, the changes in funding for the safer streets initiative are disappointing. Initially, the Home Office offered Suffolk £1.4 million. It then reduced that by £400,000, and it is now taking away a further £180,000. That approach is, I suggest, unfair, and it penalises smaller forces such as Suffolk constabulary, which, through no fault of its own, now faces a funding gap without any explanation or justification being given. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to review that decision, which affects not just Suffolk, but forces all across the country.
Finally, as we have heard, this is not just about money. A policeman’s lot can be made considerably easier and, I hope, happier, if red tape is reduced. In that regard, I applaud the work of Ben Hudson, the secretary and treasurer of the Suffolk Police Federation, who is ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) in their campaign to amend the Data Protection Act 2018 so as to mitigate the impact of the bureaucratic burden of evidence redaction that is imposed on police officers when they seek charging decisions from the Crown Prosecution Service. A further amendment to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill is being tabled in the other place by the noble Baroness Morgan. I urge the Government to consider this matter closely and do all they can to accept those measures. Doing so would free up thousands of policing hours every year, as pre-charge redactions would not be required, and would enable chief constables to better utilise allocated budgets, which, as we have heard today, are restricted and not quite as bountiful as we would all hope.
I hope that, in winding up, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), can allay the concerns that I have expressed: we need that long-overdue funding review; we need funding commitments to be adhered to and kept; and finally, as I have said, please, let there be less red tape.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Laura Farris)
It is a pleasure to wind up this short but perfectly formed debate on police funding, and I am grateful to the Members who have spoken in it. Before I respond to the points that have been raised, I want to offer my own personal word of thanks and appreciation for the police officers, all the staff and the volunteers who work tirelessly to keep us safe and run towards danger when everybody else is leaving the scene. We are fortunate to have them on our side.
I do not propose to repeat the headline parts of the settlement that we are debating today. I will simply say that our investment of £11.4 billion is a significant commitment to policing, which goes to the heart of our three priorities for the police. The first is personnel: we have delivered ahead of time on our commitment to recruit 20,000 police officers in this Parliament, and today’s funding will continue to support and properly resource the 149,000 police officers who are employed in England and Wales. It will also allow us to give them a 7% pay rise on average, which is consistent with the recommendation of the Police Remuneration Review Body.
The second priority is, of course, public protection. Whether shadow Ministers like it or not, we are proud of the progress that, according to the crime survey for England and Wales, we have made since 2010. I know that they do not like that survey, but the Office for National Statistics—which the public are entitled to rely on—has described it as
“the best estimate of long-term trends in crimes against the household population.”
Shadow Ministers cannot get away from the fact that that survey says that overall crime levels have more than halved since 2010. All offensive weapon crimes have come down by more than 52%, and thefts, including domestic burglaries, have halved—in fact, domestic burglary is now at the lowest level on record.
I listened carefully to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). I say this with respect: he gave three examples of where he asserted the Government had failed, but two of those concerned the retail environment. I accept that there has been an issue with retail theft, but he had to give two examples that were focused on retail crime because he did not want to get into domestic burglary.
Laura Farris
Of course it is serious, but it has fallen so much. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) quite properly talked about homicide, the maximum high-harm offence. Homicide rates have fallen since 2010, but we are making progress every year: they have fallen by 10% in the past 12 months alone.
Our third priority is performance. The Government make no apology for seeking to drive improvement and efficiencies; one such efficiency was the partnership between the police and the BlueLight Commercial exercise that has already saved over £170 million, but we are continuing to drive efficiencies through technological advancements in areas such as detection. My right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South gave the example of facial recognition technology, which has been so successful in his own constituency. There is also imagery and better intelligence, and we are improving the performance of police officers themselves through the deployment of specialist trained officers for the most sensitive crimes, such as rape. More than 2,000 specialist trained officers will be deployed across all 43 forces in England and Wales by April of this year.
I will now address some of the points that were made by hon. Members, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). First, he is correct, and it is good to see, that police numbers in his constituency have risen: they are north of 3,650 in Devon and Cornwall. He is also right to mention the fact that so much police time has historically been consumed by dealing with mental health problems, and I hope I can provide him with some reassurance. There is now a national roll-out of a scheme called Right Care, Right Person, which is effectively a toolkit that was very successfully piloted in 2021 by Humberside police. It means that police will not ordinarily attend a mental health incident: there is an exception when there is a possibility of a referral under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, but other than that, they will not be involved. It is estimated that on a nationwide basis, that could save 1 million hours of police officer time in any year. My hon. Friend also made some very valid points about geography and the special requirements of policing in rural areas, which Labour has never fully or adequately dealt with. The reason—I say this very respectfully—is that very few Labour MPs represent rural areas, and there is a consistent ignorance of the kinds of crimes that are specific to rural environments.
In his very good speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) acknowledged that Suffolk constabulary had received a percentage increase. I listened carefully to what he said about the safer streets programme and the £500,000 reduction, but I would gently point out to him that overall, Suffolk constabulary is getting an increase of £11 million in its budget. What he has referred to involves only a small number of officers, but I promise to take his point away and get back to him on it.
To conclude, we could not be clearer: public protection is our priority. We have delivered on it, and we will always stand on the side of the law-abiding majority and support the police. We will take the fight to the criminals again and again, even as their nefarious practices evolve. This Government will always ensure that police have the resources, powers and capability to do their crucial work, and this settlement underlines our enduring commitment to strong and effective policing in England and Wales. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 2024–25 (HC 482), which was laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Local Government Finance
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety (Lee Rowley)
I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2024–25 (HC 318), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this we shall consider the following motions:
That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2024–25 (HC 319), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.
That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) Report 2024–25 (HC 320), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.
Lee Rowley
Today, we are confirming the major parts of the settlement announced in December, as well as reiterating the £600 million additional funding boost announced in January. Local government has welcomed the extra money as important in offering the ability to provide further support to children, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities, while also being mindful of the increased demand for social care. Governments always need to take tough decisions, and despite the suggestions of some in this place, there is always a balance to be struck: infinite worthy demands, but finite resources. None the less, we recognise that it is important to support local government in the face of increasing demands for services and the rising inflation and costs that are the legacy of the war in Ukraine and instability in the middle east. That is exactly what we are seeking to do.
In recognition of those challenges, I am pleased to announce a settlement totalling nearly £65 billion for local authorities in England for the next financial year. The settlement includes an increase in core spending power of up to £4.5 billion compared with 2023-24; a £1.2 billion uplift to the social care grant, which can be used for children’s or adult services subject to individual local priorities; an increase in the funding guarantee, which will ensure that all authorities see a minimum increase in core spending power of 4% before any local decisions are made on council tax rates; additional support for rural councils through a £15 million increase to the rural service delivery grant; funding worth £3 million to support authorities experiencing significant difficulties because of internal drainage board levy costs; and additional funding for the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly, in recognition of their circumstances and their physical separation from the mainland. As a result, available funding for local government in England will rise by 7.5% in cash terms for 2024-25.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am most grateful for the Minister’s statement, and I am also grateful for the uplift in funding for the Island. As I understand it, that is higher than average—we are most grateful—and that took place after meetings between me and Ministers. I am also grateful that they have specifically mentioned and accepted the additional costs that the Isle of Wight faces by dint of being an island, and that we are in effect now catching up with other parts of or other islands in the UK. I am very keen for this uplift to be seen as permanent, and then to be built on. Will Ministers meet me to discuss ways in which we can ensure that the uplift for the Island and the recognition of island status are now fixed?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for, while I have been in post looking at this portfolio specifically, his invite to the Isle of Wight, his support in facilitating that and his continued work on behalf of the Island. The change, which has been brought forward today by the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and the Secretary of State, is in direct recognition of the work he has done, and I am grateful for it. I know that the Under-Secretary will meet my hon. Friend to continue that discussion.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Very briefly, is the Minister comfortable with our persisting in protecting our constituents from the local councils they elect with the referendum threshold? When are we going to allow local authorities to govern, and to suffer the consequences if the electorate disagrees with what they have done?
Lee Rowley
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising a very philosophical important point, which is about the balance between local and national Government, and he is absolutely right to raise it. It is a long-standing principle of our local government settlement that we allow local councils the flexibility to be able to make decisions about the finances in their local areas, while also taking a general view that there are caps in place on how far they can go. I will come on to say more about that in my speech, but he raises an important point, and I know it will have been noted by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
With available funding for local government in England rising by 7.5% in cash terms for the coming financial year, that significant increase will allow councils to continue to deliver local services. Thanks to the funding guarantee, all authorities will see an increase of at least 4%, before any council tax increases are taken into account.
We continue to monitor the financial health of all councils on a regular basis, using a range of data as well as extensive direct engagement. Examples of significant financial failure in local government remain low, but we will take action where necessary. We will always be ready to speak to councils should that be necessary, and should any have concerns about their ability to manage their finances or pressures that they have not planned for.
We do not just provide funding through the settlement. Separately, we are proud that there is £15 billion of taxpayer funding in a suite of complementary levelling-up projects that will help grow local economies, create local jobs, improve local transport, provide local skills training and support local businesses, making real differences to real people’s lives in communities all across the country.
Since 2021, the levelling-up fund has been changing communities across the United Kingdom, with £4.8 billion of taxpayer funds allocated to 271 projects, kick-starting regeneration and funding vital projects across the UK. Our levelling-up partnerships are delivering regeneration, and 12 investment zones are driving innovation all across the country. In addition, there is £1.1 billion for 55 left-behind towns through the long-term plan for towns, which is reviving high streets and tackling antisocial behaviour, and more than 250 venues are to be saved through the community ownership fund.
I know I speak for the whole ministerial team when I say that we cherish our close working relationship with local government partners. Every year, we have the opportunity, through consultation on the provisional settlement, to listen to them even more keenly, along with the public and right hon. and hon. Members, on the funding proposals for the coming financial year. The number of responses was particularly high this year at 267. The Under-Secretary, who is the Minister for local government—he is sitting beside me—engaged personally with over 90 Members and local government leaders. We are grateful to all who responded, and I pay tribute to the work my hon. Friend did in listening.
It was after listening to these views that the Secretary of State announced in January an additional £500 million to bolster social care budgets, which are a key concern for councils. We have heard about and listened to councils in relation to pressures on social care services, particularly for children, which we know have increased. The £500 million uplift to the social care grant, announced on 24 January, can be used for children’s or adult services, subject to local priorities. That is on top of the £1 billion in additional grant funding for social care in 2024-25 confirmed at the provisional settlement in December.
Overall, this means that, in the next financial year, local authorities with social care responsibilities will receive £5 billion through the social care grant, £1.1 billion through the market sustainability and improvement fund, £500 million through the discharge fund and £2.1 billion through the improved better care fund, and that is on top of their local decisions about funding for social care in their area. We recognise that some councils can generate more income from council tax to fund social care, so we have equalised against the adult social care precept since it was introduced, and we will continue to do that in the coming financial year.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) indicated, we have heard through the consultation—we know this from our constant contact with local government partners—that the sector is keen for progress across the board, not just in authorities with social care responsibilities. We will support all tiers of government, so we have announced an uplift of the funding guarantee proposed at the provisional settlement. This means that every council will see a 4% increase in its core spending power before any local decisions are made about council tax.
We have also heard about the particular impacts in rural areas, which is why we have announced a £15 million increase to the rural services delivery grant. That is making available a total of £110 million of taxpayers’ money, in the second successive year of above inflation increases. In recognition of the unique circumstances facing our island authorities and their physical separation from the mainland, we are increasing funding to the Isle of Wight and the Isles of Scilly.
However, we are clear—I do not hesitate to repeat it today—that this money is for the frontline services on which our communities rely. It is not to be put aside for later use, nor wasted on myriad council hobby-horses and schemes. Taxpayers deserve value for money. So many of those involved in the settlement—so many parts of the community and so many parts of the local government sector—do that brilliantly already. The small number that do not are on clear notice this afternoon that they must do so. To ensure that, we are asking all local authorities to produce productivity plans, which will encourage them to set out how they will improve service performance and reduce wasteful expenditure.
Turning to council tax, we continue to strike the balance between giving councils flexibility to make local decisions, to meet local pressures and support the most vulnerable, and continuing to seek to protect council tax payers from excessive increases. In any constitutional settlement that divides responsibilities between central and local government, it must follow that local government has the ability and the responsibility to raise some of its own funds, and that it is held to account for the decisions it makes to do that. So this year, as in previous years, we have set core referendum principles of up to 3%, plus 2% for the adult social care precept.
At the same time, it remains the case that some council reserves are significantly higher than prior to the pandemic. For some, that will be for good reasons, but a number of councils have reserves well in excess of 100% of their core spending power, and the latest data shows that about half of all local authorities have seen their unallocated reserves grow since the 2019-20 financial year. It is for those councils to decide the appropriate balance between council tax increases and the use of reserves to fund services, depending on their local context. However, I very much hope that they will consider their unallocated reserves, and I hope that appropriate questions are asked in each locality where that applies by those who are interested.
At the provisional local government finance settlement, in consideration of the significant failures of a number of councils—Thurrock Council, Slough Borough Council and Woking Borough Council historically—and their need for ongoing exceptional financing support, the Government proposed that bespoke council tax referendum principles should apply. We are today confirming those principles, with a core council tax referendum of 8% for Thurrock and Slough and of 10% for Woking. As councils with adult social care responsibilities, Thurrock and Slough will also be able to use the 2% adult social care precept, and the councils can make use of the additional flexibilities provided to support their financial recovery.
At the provisional local government finance settlement, the Department set out that councils could seek additional support from the Government via the exceptional support framework. As part of that process, the Government were prepared to consider representations from councils on council tax provision. In recognition of the scale and nature of the council’s failings, and its precarious financial situation, the Government have decided not to oppose a request from Birmingham City Council for the flexibility to increase council tax by an additional 5% above referendum principles, to start paying for the historic failures of the Labour council.
We have heard requests from devolved authorities about the benefits of tax being retained in the area where it is raised. The trailblazer deals with Greater Manchester and the west midlands are unprecedented in their reach, and include a significant transfer of fiscal power. Sixty per cent of England is now covered by a devolution deal, which is up 20% since the levelling-up White Paper was published. We will continue to expand and deepen local devolution in England through the devolution framework and the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Jacob Young).
Finally, I wish to make a general point about how local government is financed. Many right hon. and hon. Members, as well as colleagues in the sector, have emphasised the need for reform in the system—I heard that when I was covering this brief—particularly of the funding formula. We have heard those concerns loud and clear. Today we continue to restate our commitment to reform and modernise the local government finance settlement and system in the next Parliament, to deliver the most effective financial settlements for councils—[Laughter.] I hear noises from the Opposition Benches. If Opposition Members had wanted to say that at the beginning of this Parliament, when covid started and when we asked our local authorities to do the most extraordinary things, that would have been an interesting position for the Labour party had it been in government at the time. We took decisions that were necessary at the time. We are restating our commitment to reform. That is what a sensible, proportionate and reasonable Government do, and it demonstrates yet again the difference between a Labour party that is seeking to play at being a Government and will be unsuccessful, and the actual difficult decisions that are being taken every day on the Government Benches.
In a year that has seen unprecedented increases in demand for social care, housing and other vital local government services, the Government have listened and are providing more support. The above-inflation funding increase will allow councils to carry on delivering the local services on which we all depend. Because local authorities must be accountable to local people, we are putting in place ways to ensure that they are working effectively and efficiently. We have a long-term economic plan that is working. We are supporting local councils with what is needed, and ensuring that they spend wisely. That is exactly what the Conservatives have done throughout this time and what we will continue to do, and I commend the settlement to the House.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
Today should and could have been the day when the Government, after 14 years in power, finally fixed the crisis in local government. After a lost decade, they could and should have used today to turn the tide on the unsustainable and growing crisis in adult social care, children’s services and homelessness services, and finally to end the postcode lottery for those vital services that create the clean, green and safe communities in which working people deserve to live in return for the now record taxes that they pay under this Conservative Government.
After six years of single-year settlements, which started well before covid, today could and should have been the day when the Government brought forward a sustained multi-year settlement, but the Government have failed on every test. Councils of all political stripes up and down the country, covering cities, towns and counties, are being forced to the edge of survival. We know that councils are the first responder, and often the last line of defence for our communities. That they have managed to keep things going for so long is testament to their duty and public service.
I thank each and every one, every councillor of every party and every council worker, for the work they do for millions of people up and down the country. We owe them a debt of gratitude. From waste management to maintaining roads and parks, from providing housing assistance to supporting local businesses, councils are at the forefront of ensuring that communities can thrive and realise their full potential. Contrast that civic responsibility with a Government who seem happier treating local government as a political scapegoat than as an equal partner.
What support are councils receiving in this settlement? Six hundred million pounds recycled from elsewhere, and a continuation of the begging-bowl culture that continues on a never-ending loop, like groundhog day. In one of the worst cost of living crises for generations, it is a shameful indictment that the council tax bill is set to top £57 billion under the Conservatives, which is more than twice than under the last Labour Government. It stands as a matter of fact that people are paying more and more for less and less. Alongside the biggest tax burden in peacetime, that adds to the struggles households already feel when managing mortgages, food and energy bills. On top of that, working people will be slapped with yet another Tory bombshell. In fact, council tax bills under the Tories are set to rise by £13 billion over the next five years. It is clear as day that councils have been hollowed out, and they are now being told once again that the only solution is to raise council tax more and more.
The Institute for Government shows that core spending power will still be 10% lower, even after today’s uplift, than before the Tories came to power. That does not even take into account the rocketing demand in social care, children’s services and homelessness services. Ad hoc injections of cash, while perhaps offering modest relief, are a painful repeat of the sticking plaster politics that have left the country, our politics, and our public services much weaker. The Government’s reckless approach is undermining the fundamentals of local public services. Stability is needed to ensure that older people get the high-quality care they deserve and that councils are in the best place to give children the protection they need, to help put an end to the crisis in homelessness that the Government are perpetuating, and to keep our public services running where this Government have hollowed them out elsewhere in the system.
This Government’s approach is short-term and reckless, and it saves nothing. In the end the cost is huge, and we can see the consequences today. It cannot be right that there were more section 114 notices last year than in the previous 30 years combined. That is not a coincidence; it is the result of a toxic mixture of the Government’s financial mismanagement, and a deep and worrying lack of accountability. To make matters worse, the early warning system that could have raised the red flag earlier has been dismantled. In 2010, the coalition Government announced the closure of the Audit Commission. It was not without its faults and certainly was not universally well received, but removing the early warning system in its entirety was clearly going to set up problems for the future. Councils were left to inspect financial risk themselves, rather than seek value for money or even address issues of what is now clearly a broken audit market. The facts speak for themselves: in 2022-23, just five of the 467 councils delivered their audited accounts on time. That is just 1% of councils submitting audited accounts before the deadline.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions audited accounts. Does he have an opinion on the audit of Plymouth City Council’s accounts? I was delighted to go to Plymouth on Friday, and debated the matter with the Labour leader of the council. It is clear that the Labour council’s accounts have not been able to be audited, because there is a question mark over £70 million being moved from capital spend to a pension pot. Does he have a view to share on his party’s situation in Plymouth?
Jim McMahon
I thank the hon. Member for inviting me to celebrate the success of Labour in Plymouth, and the work that our councillors are doing, after taking back control, to show leadership to the city. Plymouth is a proud place, and the Labour party there is making a huge difference. He may want to consult those on his party’s Front Bench when it comes to the submission of audited accounts, because there is an issue to reconcile here. Only 1% of councils have submitted accounts; how do we break through that bottleneck, given that the market is not responding? The Government will have to respond to that sooner rather than later. I politely advise him, if I may, to withhold his criticism, and to wait to see what his Government’s approach will be. I suspect he may be slightly embarrassed.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Select Committee has written a report recently on local authority audit, which is a complete mess, with only 1% of accounts done on time. This is not a party political matter, as councils right across the country are struggling with this issue. One factor is low audit fees. Another is the complication of pension fund valuations, which is holding many accounts up. The likelihood is that the only way to get through that will be to agree accounts that are qualified because it has not been possible to confirm pension fund valuations. I hope that party political points are not made about councils and the qualification of accounts.
Jim McMahon
First, I thank the Select Committee for the work that it has done in this area. Last week, we received the report “Financial distress in local authorities”, and a great deal of work has been done to understand the detail and the contributing factors. There is no doubt that the accountancy regime for pension funds is a contributory factor to the delay in some cases. We need to know that councils are financially resilient, and that the financial settlement is robust. Where there are issues, an early warning system should allow them to be picked up earlier, so that if an intervention is required, it is made at the right time and in the right way, whereas now, section 114 notices are being issued at a rate not seen for the past three decades. That cannot stand, and it is not sustainable. We look forward to the Government’s response on that.
On the wider point about cross-party agreement, I think all of us and the Local Government Association, which is cross-party, would welcome with open arms the day when party politics was taken out of local government finance, and when there was consensus on how to fund local public services. I sincerely hope that after the next election, when those on the Government Front Bench are in opposition, they join us in that call, but let us wait and see.
The Government will know, as we do, that because of the financial fragility of local councils and the lack of an early warning system, it now takes only a small shock to send town halls into financial meltdown; the resilience just is not there. The Local Government Association has done a fantastic job in leading from the front and ensuring that adequate support is supplied when needed, but it cannot be expected to lead the charge on its own, nor should it be expected to. Councils need certainty and stability. They need to have the fear and anxiety of financial bankruptcy removed, so that they can continue to deliver for local communities. Councils need to be given adequate time to plan ahead for the fiscal year. Labour would support local councils where the Government have failed.
Single-year settlements do not provide the certainty or stability needed for planning ahead. We recognise that councils need something more than that to end this disjointed approach. Labour will embed transparency in the relationship between local and national Government, and move towards multi-year funding settlements for councils that allow them to plan well ahead. We will give towns and cities the tools that they need to foster local growth and deliver better public services. Should we be privileged enough to form the Government after the next election, Labour will empower councils to get on with the job that they have been elected to do.
Finally, we will see a radical transfer of power away from Westminster and into the hands of the British people through the landmark take back control Act, but we will not wait; where we can accelerate improvement, we will. We want a new relationship between central and local government as genuine partners in power. We want to see the right powers in the right places. Our communities are resilient, and so are our councils, but we need to do far more to work, hand in hand, as true partners going forward.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, which for me is the highlight of the parliamentary calendar. Relentlessly, year after year, I have contributed to the debate with great fondness. Last year, I remember vividly the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), advocating, from the Back Benches, for a great rural tsar. Of course, nowadays we have the great rural tsar sat on the Front Bench; I am pleased about that. I am also pleased that the debate has three hours of protected time, which is valuable. None the less, I will try not to take up too much time, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Each year, I stand up in this place to make the case not just for rural West Dorset, and Dorset as a whole, but rural Britain, in what I believe are some of our most important discussions and decisions about enabling the capability of local government. Most years, I have stood here and protested that we in Dorset have been in need of our fair share of government finances; indeed, in many previous years, we have not received that. But today is not D-day. Today is S-day, because my hon. Friend and neighbour—knight in shining armour that he is—is charging over Bulbarrow hill and through the Chalke valleys to Dorset Council in Dorchester, to deliver a £4 million boost to its finances. That is to be greatly welcomed. My other neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax), who cannot be with us as he is away on parliamentary business with the Defence Committee, has asked me to reflect his views, so that my hon. Friend the Minister understands full well that we very much appreciate this in Dorset, after many years of campaigning for a greater and fairer share.
However, it is important to note that we still need to address the fundamental structural issues that we face in local government funding. I recognise that that is a vast task, which will take considerable work. I hope that, in winding up, my hon. Friend the Minister can give not just me but a number of colleagues who are in their places real confidence that the Government intend to achieve that in relatively short order, and that we will ensure that a fairer share of taxpayers’ money is allocated to where it is required.
The £110 million through the rural services delivery grant is much welcomed. That funding of up to £3.2 million for some areas—including Dorset—is much better, but is that enough to deal with the issues we have to face? From discussions that I have had in the House before the debate, I have a real sense that it is not. The additional £1.5 billion for social care is enormously welcome. A third of the community that I represent in West Dorset is over 65, so it has additional social care requirements. Are we in Dorset really getting our fair share of £1.5 billion, given that we are talking about a few million pounds? That is a question for us to ask.
In the wider context of making the case for rural Britain, I remind my hon. Friend and neighbour the Minister, and the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, that we have had high-energy debates, it is fair to say, about local government finances with both of them. I would like to reiterate some of the unfairness that remains in the “urban versus rural financing” debate. Rural areas still receive some 59% less per head in settlement funding than their urban counterparts; in real terms, that is about £111. Rural residents will also pay on average 20% per head more in council tax than their urban counterparts—although we should probably take Somerset to one side in that assumption. Rural residents receive on average 13% less per head in social care support overall than residents of urban areas, which is very important when it comes to providing that care in constituencies such as mine and those of my hon. Friends.
West Dorset constituency, which I am proud to represent, has an enormous county boundary with the county of Somerset. Many of my constituents use services and facilities in Somerset, and vice versa. It is fair to say that over the past month, many of my constituents and people in Somerset have looked with absolute horror at how the proposed council tax increases will affect them. For the benefit of the House, I would like to clarify the extent of those increases in real terms. Those living Yeovil can expect a 90% increase in the town council precept, while those living in Taunton, the county town of Somerset, can expect a 200% increase. In real terms, that is an increase of between £109 and £277 per annum in the town council precept alone.
I am well aware of this matter because a Somerset councillor, a Liberal Democrat, works in my constituency and contributes frequently to the Liberal Democrat leaflets that are shared in West Dorset. I should say that he is the head of the Somerset Council audit committee, of all committees; I can confirm that his mantra is “raise taxes and cut services”, which is definitely what is happening in Somerset. In November 2022, the Somerset Liberal Democrats said that they needed an additional £35 million because of a financial difficulty that they had experienced. There was no reporting of any finances to the council for five months, and then, all of a sudden, out of nowhere, came a black hole of £100 million.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I am a proud serving Somerset councillor and am fully aware of the issues Somerset is facing. However, those issues have occurred not just over the last nine months, under the new Somerset Council; they have been very long drawn out. Indeed, between 2010 and 2016, Somerset faced one of the longest council tax freezes—I think it was the longest for any council across the country—under the last Conservative administration, which led to huge pressures on funding in Somerset. Indeed, under Conservative administration, the council was nearly drawn into bankruptcy in 2019 due to pressures on adult social care. Would the hon. Member agree that the issue is not a party political stance, as he is trying to make it, but the legacy left by a previous Tory administration? The issues that we face in local government go across all colours.
Chris Loder
I thank the hon. Lady very much for her intervention. She and I are frequently in Westminster Hall debating these matters with great passion and vigour. I know that she feels as strongly as I do about these matters, but it will probably come as no surprise to her to hear that I do not agree with her conclusion. Previous Conservative administrations who ran Somerset Council left a considerable legacy in terms of reserves. Since the Liberal Democrat Council was elected and started serving last year, a number of decisions have been made across the board that have ended up in the lap of council tax payers in Somerset.I am alarmed about that, because ahead of the Dorset local elections, a number of constituents in West Dorset look with great horror at what is happening in Somerset, and wonder what is truly the case.
Chris Loder
I have not quite finished replying to the hon. Lady’s previous intervention. I would like further to put into context the contrast between the finances of Somerset and Dorset. Last year, we in Dorset received just £700,000 in revenue support grants; Somerset received £8 million. Our social care grant last year was £22 million; in Somerset, it was £39 million. The high needs block funding was just £48 million for Dorset; it was £74 million for Somerset. The schools block funding was £76 million for Dorset, but £122 million for Somerset. I could go on, but I will not. There is an enormous contrast, which has happened in relatively short order. That is what happens when the Liberal Democrats run the council in Somerset, compared with a long-standing and financially well-run Conservative council in Dorset.
Sarah Dyke
I thank the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene again. He is making some unfair points that need some context. As a Dorset Member, he will know that the council tax in Dorset is vastly higher. In the local government reform back in the 1970s, Somerset was left with most of the rural county, and following the 1991 council tax change most of the higher banding was taken into Bath and Avon. We have fewer properties in the higher banded rates, so the council does not generate as much in council tax. He says that that is an issue for the Liberal Democrats, but he should remember that we are delivering on a plan to change to a unitary council that was implemented by the Conservative Government against the will of people in Somerset. We have delivered more than half the £18.4 million of savings within nine months, when the full savings were expected to be delivered within three years. The Liberal Democrats in Somerset are delivering.
Chris Loder
The reality is that the Liberal Democrats are not delivering on the Conservative legacy. That is clear for all to see, especially those who live in Yeovil and Taunton. It will hurt people financially, as they will see hundreds of pounds extra on their council tax because of having a Liberal Democrat administration rather than a Conservative one.
My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, is saving the people of Somerset from a further 10% council tax hike that the Liberal Democrats want to pile on them. I am very grateful to him, as are a number of colleagues who are not able to be here, for saying that the Liberal Democrats have to be held accountable. They have to find solutions and carry through on what was a very good proposal several years ago. I hope that the people of Somerset will benefit from his good work and, in the mid to longer term, the people of Dorset will benefit, too.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
I call the Chairman of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Let me begin by thanking a few people. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), referred to the report “Financial distress in local authorities”, which the Select Committee published last week and on which I made a statement in the House last Thursday. I want to thank the staff of the Committee and our special advisers for all the work that they did in helping to put the report together: it was much appreciated. I also want to thank the Local Government Association—I declare my interest as a vice-president—for all that it does for local government throughout the year, and for helping us and advising us on the challenges that local government is facing, not least with regard to finances.
The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), is sitting on the Front Bench. I want to thank him as well, not for providing enough money on this occasion—I would not go as far as that—but for being genuinely helpful and open in his willingness to be approached by Members on both sides of the House and to engage with local councils across the country. He has also been open to discussion and an exchange of views with me, in my capacity as Chair of the Select Committee, so I thank him for the way in which he has approached this matter on a personal basis.
The difficulty for councils is that they are not just dealing with what is happening this year; they are also dealing with the problem of the year upon year of austerity that we have seen since 2010. There is now a funding gap of £4 billion, which £600 million goes nowhere near filling. In fact, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said the other day that the gap was £7 billion, but either way it is a much larger sum than the £600 million that the Minister has made available. I was a little disappointed when the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) —who opened the debate—began referring to reserves again. When local government finance gets into difficulties, Ministers always resort to saying, “Councils have all this money, so why don’t they spend it?” I remember that when Lord Pickles was Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, he was berating councils back then for not spending all their reserves. I think that most of them are quite grateful for not having done so, in view of what has happened subsequently.
Some councils have simply run out of money and have issued section 114 notices, while others are wary of what is coming. They can see things getting worse rather than better because that is what has happened year on year, and, rightly, they are not rushing to spend all their reserves at once. They are being prudent to a degree, but they can see those reserves running out in two or three years’ time, even if they are not facing section 114 notices immediately. We have heard from the LGA that about 20% of councils could be facing them in the next 12 months. It may not be as many as that, and everyone hopes it is not, but it could be a significant number. In the last six years eight councils have issued section 114 notices, effectively declaring bankruptcy, whereas in the previous 18 years, none did so.
It is not only individual councils that are experiencing difficulties. The whole system is now broken. That is the evidence that we were given: the Committee did not pluck the information out of thin air. We heard from councils of every kind—county councils, district councils, metropolitan councils, unitary authorities and London councils—and the problem is now widespread across all of them. Yes, individual councils have made mistakes, some of which have caused them to get into difficulties, but as we look forward, we see that it is not only the councils that make mistakes that will get into difficulties. Many will simply run out of money, and they will have no leeway to deal with any adverse consequences because their reserves will have been run down.
In fact, for the most part, councils have done brilliantly to survive this long. Credit is due to councils and councillors throughout the country who have managed to keep themselves going, and managed to make efficiency savings on a scale of which any central Government Department would be proud. Local government has seen bigger cuts in its budgets than any other part of the public sector. The temptation for Ministers is always to pick on councils, because they can blame them from the Front Bench for the difficult choices that have been made, and do not have to claim responsibility for the cuts.
My own city of Sheffield has experienced a 30% cut in its spending power, and of course it has cut services. Libraries have closed in my constituency, there has been less funding for tendered bus services, the grass is cut less often, and the planning department has fewer resources and wants more because of the number of planning applications being submitted for the redevelopment and regeneration of the city. Those are all consequences of the spending cuts. This is about the two things coming together: the cuts to resources and the pressure from all the things that everyone talks about, including social care.
Adult social care was seen as a developing problem, and it is. Another way of looking at it is as a great benefit, because people are living longer and they are here to need the care, which is absolutely wonderful, but now children in care as a demand is rising faster even than adult social care. The Select Committee looked at children with special needs, their education and the cost of transporting them, and there are things that can be done there that are not just about more money. It is about looking at the provision of care for children and looking at councils collectively providing that. We could get costs down in that way.
This is also about looking again at education, health and care plans. There is a feeling that sometimes the more well-educated, knowledgeable and affluent parents see the benefit of demanding an almost unconstrained amount of money for certain educational provision for their children. The cost of that is going up exponentially, and those plans have to be reviewed. Of course we have to give kids with special needs the education they deserve, but perhaps we ought to look at the system that is causing such a massive increase in the costs that are now occurring.
At the other end of this is the fact that the overall budgets have been constrained as demand has gone up. What about ordinary council tax payers? They are paying 5% extra every year. For the most part, those council tax payers do not receive adult social care, do not have a kid with special needs and do not require homelessness services—another area of increasing demand—yet they are being asked to pay 5% extra. They are also seeing their libraries and bus services disappearing and their streets not being swept as often. They are saying, “But I’m paying more every year and I’m getting less.” The system cannot continue in the way it is. It is a challenge to the basis of democracy, which is that people feel they are paying for something and getting it. Here, they feel they are paying more and getting less. That is not sustainable in the long term, as I think we can all see.
Another problem with the settlement is that it is for only one year. Local government has asked repeatedly for multi-year settlements, and we got there in 2016. Covid interfered with that, but there is no reason they could not have come back since then. We were also promised fair funding in 2016. What has happened to it? This settlement is based on data that goes back to the last century. That cannot be right either, can it? It really cannot be right that we are allocating money based on how many people lived in areas so many years ago that it now makes no sense because of the demographic changes that have taken place since. These are all issues that could have been addressed. They are big challenges but they could have been met.
We have not mentioned the public health grant today. When public health went over to local government, it was pretty well funded because it was linked to NHS settlement increases. Public health is really important because it looks at prevention in our most deprived communities, but there has been a 27% real-terms cut since it went over to local government. We do not use it enough. During covid, we should have used the expertise of the directors of public health for tracking and tracing, instead of the phone banks that were set up at national level at a cost of billions of pounds. The director of public health in Sheffield, Greg Fell, has sent me information about the cuts that he is dealing with. This is a fundamental issue of equality. Public health is about helping the poorest communities disproportionately, and that is now not happening because of those cuts. Yes, there is some welcome extra money for smoking cessation and for dealing with people with alcohol problems, but it does not fill the gap that has been created by the cuts.
Perhaps the Minister could have a word with the Chancellor. He probably cannot offer us any more than the £600 million today, but perhaps he could have a look at the household support fund, which our Select Committee has just written about. In Sheffield, the fund provides 32,000 children who have free school meals during term time with vouchers to compensate in the summer holidays. Have a look at that, as local authorities cannot compensate for it in the current crisis. It would not take a lot simply to keep the fund going from March, when it comes to an end. This is the last school holiday in which kids will get the funding. It is a small issue but, if the Minister adds his voice to those of the Select Committee and many others in this House, we might be able to get a bit of movement in the Chancellor’s upcoming statement.
Things are bad, but they could get worse and probably will. The Minister said it will be for the next Parliament and, yes, it will. The Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities announced more than a year ago that he would ask a Minister to review council tax, and I understand that nothing has happened yet. Council tax has not been touched for 30 years, and we cannot explain to people moving into a new build home how their council tax is calculated. It is based on the value in 1991, before their home had not been built. We can all see that it is nonsense, so we need reform. The Minister suggested the other day, and I agree, that whoever wins the election has to make local government funding, and certainly social care funding, stick for the long term. We had cross-party agreement on pension reform, and it has stuck for the long term, so let us look at both those issues. I hope we can then move on.
Finally, what on earth are the productivity plans? Does local government not have enough work to do without having to produce another set of plans for a purpose that only the Secretary of State seems to understand? I have read that councils apparently have to stop spending on “discredited” equality, diversity and inclusion programmes. Can anyone tell me what a discredited equality, diversity and inclusion programme is? Who is going to decide? Does the Minister have a little list of criteria and tick boxes? Is he going to review all these programmes, or is it just another attempt to say that councils obviously have plenty of money if they are engaged in these sorts of programmes? They have not. In my view, councils are engaged in providing proper, decent and needed services for their communities, and there are not enough of those services because of the spending cuts. I hope that in due course we can move forward to a better time for local government. Our councils deserve it and, even more importantly, our communities deserve it too.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and to the Chancellor for listening to our concerns about significant pressures on local authorities, especially those with responsibilities for child and adult social care. I welcome the recently announced £600 million of extra funding, including £500 million for local authorities with child and adult social care responsibilities. East Sussex County Council has welcomed the extra £5.386 million it will receive.
However, despite this extra funding, East Sussex County Council, a well-run Conservative council, has reported that, due to the significant pressures arising from the current economic situation and changing demography and need, the financial position for the coming year is the most challenging it has seen in recent years. This is in direct contrast to Labour-run Hastings Borough Council, whose independent auditor, Grant Thornton, said:
“We have identified significant weaknesses arising from funding gaps and unidentified savings and the council’s approach to due diligence when undertaking commercial investments which has resulted in a failure to achieve expected financial returns.”
The borough council is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, so the Labour leader and six Labour councillors resigned from the Labour party and set themselves up as the Hastings Independent party. Their change of name will not absolve them of their failures and their refusal to take responsibility for the mess they got the council into.
Although welcome, the additional funding does not bridge East Sussex County Council’s financial gap for 2024-25, and it is for one year only. That means that, despite previous careful budget management, the budget for the coming year will still be supported by a significant withdrawal from limited reserves and there remains considerable uncertainty about funding for future years. That is not a sustainable position, at both a national and local level, because available reserves would be depleted by the end of 2025-26.
In its budget and 2024-25 council plan, East Sussex County Council agreed proposals to spend its £538.1 million net revenue budget on services and activities that will deliver its priority outcomes, including funding to cover a range of significant demand and cost pressures being experienced by services. Those plans are supported by a 2.99% increase in council tax and 2% adult social care levy. That decision was not made lightly, given the current pressures on household budgets, but in the light of the very significant deficit the council faces in the coming year and beyond, it needs to apply those increases in order to safeguard services as far as possible.
East Sussex County Council also agreed an £837.9 million, 10-year capital programme, which includes badly needed investment in local roads and highways structures, in reducing the council’s carbon emissions and in school places, including for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Dealing with our potholes in East Sussex, especially those in Hastings and Rye, desperately needs more funding from national Government, and I must emphasise that with a view to the March Budget. So we must look at how we fund the particular needs and characteristics of East Sussex. There is an urgent requirement for sustainable, long-term funding to meet these needs, and that must be understood by the Government, so that our residents benefit from high-quality services in the future. That means reviewing, developing and implementing a fairer funding formula for local authorities, and for the police, that reflects the actual need, as well as deprivation, geography, demographics and so on. That is especially important for local authorities with coastal communities, which, due to a lack of granular data, are often left behind.
Fairer funding does not necessarily mean more Government funding—as we have heard, it has been focused on more urban areas—but a redistribution or reallocation of existing resources more equitably. It is very encouraging to hear the Minister outline the plan for a fairer funding formula to come soon, in the next Parliament. Coastal communities face unique challenges related to their geography, demographics—often they have older populations—population density and economic activities. A fair funding formula would consider those specific needs, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.
Coastal areas often have diverse populations, including seasonal residents and tourists. These fluctuations have an impact on service demands, infrastructure maintenance and social services. A fair formula would account for population dynamics and deprivation levels in these regions. Coastal communities are often more isolated due to their geographical location, which affects transportation, healthcare, education and access to essential services. A fairer formula would address the challenges of sparsity and ensure adequate support. Coastal areas require investment in flood defences, coastal erosion management and environmental protection. A fair formula would allocate funds to address those critical issues. Coastal economies often rely on tourism, fishing and maritime industries. A fair funding formula would recognise the need for economic resilience and support diversification efforts.
A fairer funding formula is essential to ensure that local authorities, especially those in coastal communities, receive adequate resources to address their unique challenges, focus on actual need and serve their residents effectively.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
In common with many Members of the House, including 40 Members of the Government Benches who signed a County Councils Network letter a couple of weeks ago, I can report that my local council—Shropshire Council—is cutting services because it is chronically underfunded. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
It is disappointing to try to score political points about an issue that is so important and directly affects the lives of so many people. Shropshire Council is run by the Conservatives and, while undoubtedly the Liberal Democrats would make different political choices about how money is spent, there is no getting away from the fact that the issue affects councils of all types, under all parties, because there is a chronic structural funding issue that we need to address. Most people in Shropshire are paying more for less because of our social care costs, which amount to 85% of the budget. No political party will be able to solve that issue without additional help from central Government. There must be recognition of the social care crisis that is overwhelming councils such as mine.
It is worth reflecting on the amount of central Government funding that has been awarded to councils since 2016-17. According to the House of Commons Library, there has been a £5.75 billion decrease in real-terms funding—in Shropshire, that is about £37.3 million—and compared to 2015-16 there is 51.3% less funding per person in Shropshire from central Government. How are we going to stop people paying more for less? I do not have the answer, and I know the leader of Shropshire Council does not have the answer either.
What does that mean for people across the country? Providing fewer services drives inequality of all types. Let us think about the example of swimming pools. The Government have said 276 local authority pools have been closed since 2015, including the Whitchurch swimming pool in my constituency, although we are lucky because that pool is being rebuilt. Many places are not so lucky; people in my constituency may be without a swimming pool for years, but in some places it will be forever. If they cannot get to a neighbouring town, have access to a car or pay to go to a nice private swimming pool, their children will not learn to swim. That fundamental and deep inequality, which we should avoid, is a direct consequence of poor council funding.
Another example in my constituency is that the civic centre in Whitchurch has had to close recently because of issues with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and asbestos. The council cannot afford to either rectify or rebuild that civic centre because of the interest on the money they would have to borrow. The amount to be borrowed would be about £7 million, so the interest would be about £750,000 a year. The council should not be in a situation where it cannot provide cultural enrichment or generate economic benefit by bringing people into the town centre because it cannot afford that relatively small amount of additional borrowing for something so basic.
As I mentioned, Shropshire Council is Conservative-run. I have had some constructive meetings with its leader, who has been very open and said that the social care requirements will overwhelm the whole budget in future years unless something urgent is done. No amount of paperclip savings will get the council to the point where it will be able to afford our social care budget in the future. Not only do we have an ageing population and an elderly demographic, but we are also a very rural area. The cost of delivering social care is much higher in such areas—a point to which other Members have alluded—as carers have to travel long distances between each person they are caring for and so pay high fuel costs. It is much more expensive to deliver that social care.
We need to look urgently at the issue of fair funding, taking into account the cost of service delivery. While the £15 million increase in the rural services delivery grant is welcome, the total budget of £120 million will not touch the sides of the social care issues that councils in rural areas face. We urgently need the Minister to work with his colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care to fundamentally reform how we fund and deliver social care. Until we grasp that nettle, we will not solve the issue of local authority funding with the odd extra bit of money here and there. Someone could end up in crisis just so that fewer councils have to issue section 114 notices.
I wish to touch on children’s social care and special educational needs and disabilities. I had an interesting conversation with a school recently about its budget. I realise that this is not a topic for this Department, but, while the money the school gets to support a child on an education, health and care plan is woefully inadequate—it makes a loss on each child that it is trying to support—the £6,000 cost is crippling the council budget. We need to look at that, but, again I urge the Minister to consider what that means for the lives of individual people. I have a case of a young man who has just turned 16. He has a life-limiting illness and severe disability. The council had to save money and made a policy decision not to fund transport for young people over 16 with special educational needs and disabilities, so his transport funding was cut. Thankfully, we have resolved the situation for that one individual, but there will be thousands of other individuals in the same position across the country, and the impact on the family is devastating. Those young people need to go to a special place during the day for additional care or schooling, and their parents need to go to work. If the transport is not there, it has a fundamental and detrimental impact on the life of that family. We need to acknowledge that and find a way to solve the issue.
The Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee report, which has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), has said that SEND support is an issue that will lead councils to a cliff-edge of section 144 notices, so we need to address that matter properly.
I also wish to touch on the issue of housing, which affects those district and unitary councils that have to deal with the problem of temporary housing. A couple of weeks ago, Eastbourne District Council organised an event in Westminster; they invited council leaders of all parties and from all parts of the country to discuss the issue of temporary housing and its impact on their budgets. It was a well-attended event, with a good deal of cross-party agreement. However, I was a little disappointed not to see a Minister there to talk to those council leaders.
Eastbourne is spending 48% of its budget on temporary housing. That is not sustainable. Even in Shropshire, which cannot be counted as one of the councils with the most critical issue of temporary housing, we have seen the numbers of those in temporary housing double since 2018. It is important that the Government grasp this issue of social housing—housing for social rent—because people are living in temporary accommodation that is often unsuitable, inadequate, and not anywhere that any of us would be satisfied to live in. The problem could be solved by investing in social housing. We have a plan to deliver 150,000 social houses a year by the end of the next Parliament. To put that into context, it would save, according to the House of Commons Library, £11 billion a year in housing benefit, which currently ends up in the hands of private landlords. Therefore, it makes economic sense to solve this problem, and I urge the Minister to consider that.
I am aware that I have repeated some of the points that other Members have made. Rural councils are struggling to meet the needs of an ageing population and the increased costs of delivering those services. They are struggling to plan not only with this single-year settlement, but with the fact that there is no certainty about what happens after next year. Shropshire Council is trying to save £50 million this year. That means £1 million of cuts every week to services that people have paid more for, and the council does not know what it will cut next year. That is the reality. Dipping into reserves, using some of its capital budget for revenue, or selling off some of its assets are one-stop solutions and do not solve the ongoing structural deficit into the years ahead. Therefore, once a council has sold the library and spent that money on adult social care, what does it do the following year? There is no library left to sell. It is so important that we do not plug these gaps with short-term fixes. We must address the structural problem affecting our councils.
In my meeting with the council leader, I was told that even after a 30% increase in council tax in Shropshire to plug the gap, people would still see a cut in services. Clearly, that is unsustainable and unacceptable.
Let me return to this point about the difference between rural and urban councils. The Rural Services Network has said that urban councils get 38% more than rural ones. However, we should not be having an argument about robbing Peter to pay Paul, because those urban councils are in crisis as well. We need to look at the overall cost of delivering services, and find a solution to deal with the fundamental drivers of increased costs.
I know that the Minister has been a councillor, as have many Members. Regardless of their political party, no councillor has got themselves elected and put themselves on the frontline in order to charge their own residents more and deliver less. We should be considerate of individuals in that situation, and address the fundamental drivers of the crisis affecting councils led by all parties and in all parts of the country. To reiterate, the issues are social care, children with special educational needs and disabilities, and housing. I urge the Minister to work with his colleagues in the relevant Departments to come up with long-term fundamental reform in those areas to solve this crisis.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is an old saying that we can tell the state of a civilisation by the condition of its public toilets. It is often one of the services that the wider public and voters associate with local government, alongside potholes. However, as has been well reflected in the debate, local government finance is a huge part of overall Government and public sector expenditure. The vast majority of it—around 75% of the average local authority’s budget—goes not on public toilets, libraries or potholes, but on the care of the most vulnerable people in our society. All of it is hugely influential on the quality of life of our constituents, because it affects everything from education to the built environment, and things such as parks and sports facilities, which are incredibly important in people’s day-to-day lives.
In that context, it is important to start by recognising the positive news in the statement: the recognition by Government that on the core statutory services around adult and children’s care, cost pressures are becoming unsustainable. That has been acknowledged with a significant injection of extra cash. There will be a huge debate about whether that money is sufficient to address the concerns, but it demonstrates that the Government recognise the impact that unsustainable cost pressures are having, and are addressing them. Of course, it continues to create pressure that legislation on the setting of council tax requires local authorities to consult with residents in the autumn, around October, before council tax is set by law the following February. It is quite late in the day for us to be factoring in the additional funding announcements, welcome as they are.
I reiterate the calls from both sides of the Chamber that the earlier we can get any of these announcements into the system, and the more they can be structured into a multi-annual financial settlement, the more efficient the use of those resources and the greater the benefit to our constituents will be. It is always immensely challenging to run around trying to get road contractors to mend some extra potholes at the tail end of the financial year, but if we know that extra money is coming down the tracks we can invest in such things as jet patchers, which have been used in both Hillingdon and Harrow for many years, as a means of proactively getting out there and dealing with pothole repairs before the condition of the roads deteriorates any further.
I will pick up on a couple of issues in a little more detail, some of which have been touched on and some of which I hope will be fresh to the Chamber. The first is the impact that deficits on the dedicated schools grant high-needs block has on the funding announcement that we are debating. For many years, not just before 1991 and the setting of the council tax bands but since the earliest inception of business rates, the funding of education has been based on the business rate take from a given education authority’s area. That carries through today in the form of the dedicated schools grant, and it is why we see such differential funding rates for education from local authority area to area. However, around half of local authorities now have significant deficits on the dedicated schools grant.
While the dedicated schools grant, and the education budget generally, sits with the Department for Education, for the purposes of local government law it has to be covered by the annual balance requirement that is covered when council tax is set by the given local authority each February. If there is a substantial deficit on that budget, which is pretty much entirely under the control of the Department for Education, then significant savings have to be made in the general fund, which today’s statement covers, to make up for it. That has been dealt with in recent years by an annual renewal of a disregard, which essentially says to the accountants and monitoring officers in local authorities, “You simply have to allow the DfE to carry this forward, and don’t allow it directly to impact on your council tax every year.” However, there is no absolute certainty about the long-term position with the impact of the dedicated schools grant.
While the efforts being made by local authorities, borrowing against their own revenue budgets to fund an expansion of capital investment to create more SEND school places—the subject of a Westminster Hall debate by my constituency neighbour, hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell) this afternoon—will begin to have an impact in bringing those costs down, it remains a significant financial risk to local authorities. It would be helpful to hear, from the Minister today if possible, but certainly from the Government before too long, that that will be addressed and there can be some certainty for local authorities on that long-term position, not least because of the impact it has on the balances held by local authorities around the country.
It was great to hear the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) refer to public health, which remains a key responsibility of local authorities. The covid pandemic rather brought that into the light once again, and the capacity of local authority public health team test, track and trace services, which have been there for many years, was critical to the national response to covid. It also highlighted the fact that, as a country, we went into that pandemic with a population that was, on the whole, a bit less healthy than in many comparable countries. Continued investment in that public health function, to ensure that our children in particular are able to enjoy a better degree of general health in the future, will make us much more resilient as a country in the face of future such challenges.
Turning to the local government funding formula, it is important to recognise that, as all hon. Members reflect, one major challenge in its impact on our constituents is the enormous historical inequity in the way the formula operates. That has a number of different manifestations. Many Members have talked about rural versus urban and suburban impact. Having served, alongside several other hon. Members in this Chamber over the years, at the Local Government Association, that was a pretty much annual subject of lobbying to Ministers, and a number of studies were done on the rural/urban/suburban differential.
The reason that many of those studies did not see the light of day is that the conclusion was that there was not, in the end, much difference—that the challenges that arose from high degrees of density, particularly the consequences for the delivery of all kinds of public services, were pretty much in balance with the equivalent challenges that arose from a greater degree of geographical sparsity in rural areas. Those studies tended to look at the costs of a whole variety of public services.
What is also clear, however, is that the move to significant rises in council tax will raise significantly different additional amounts in different parts of the country. I represent a constituency in a relatively prosperous London suburb, covering two local authorities. However, even in London, with 33 local authorities, we see a differential. When the last calculation was done, a 2% rise in council tax would create, for the local authority that generated most of its money from council tax, which at the time was Richmond, an additional 1.8% increase in its revenue budget, or disposable money to spend. In comparison, the City of London, which was largely dependent on Government grants, would see an additional 0.02% increase in its disposable income as a consequence.
Across the country we see that effect magnified. The ability to raise money of a local authority with a large number of band A properties will be much less than that of a local authority with band G and H properties, such as the constituency I represent. While it will help, therefore, it will not be a long-term solution, and we need to find a way to address the differentials for the long term.
I want to express my strong support for Ministers in the Department and for our Prime Minister, who came in for a bit of criticism for saying he wanted to get to grips with the way the funding formula has historically divided up funds. I spent my time as a councillor during all but one year of the last Labour Government and then for most years of the coalition. Every year was challenging, but there was enormous frustration during those years of Labour government. Most additional funding was not placed, as we are debating today, within the core funding settlement; it came in the form of additional grants that were routed to local authorities based on needs that were not reflected in the statutory obligations of the local authority.
A local authority for a seaside town with lots of elderly people to whom it had a statutory obligation to deliver adult social care, or a local authority in an outer London suburb with many children with significant care needs to whom it had a statutory obligation, got no extra funding at all. However, cities in certain parts of the country—although there was perhaps genuine poverty and housing need that had to be address—often had more money than they could possibly spend.
Many local authorities would have spent every single one of those years having to make cuts to statutory services while being given additional grants for things that were less of a priority. It is enormously welcome that the Government are beginning to get to grips with that by saying that the way in which the money flows must first reflect the legal obligations that Parliament has placed on local authorities. If we in this House say that adult and children’s social care must be delivered to a certain standard and driven by certain costs, we must ensure that the money is flowing in that direction.
Let me gently push back on the couple of Members who mentioned equalities. I had the joy of being a peer reviewer for the equalities standard for local government during my time as a councillor. There has been criticism, or perhaps an implication, that councils are wasting money in that area. One reason that councils do things such as equalities impact assessments is to avoid expensive legal challenges of the kind that used to be extremely common, that cost taxpayers huge amounts, and that obstructed reform, particularly of social care services. If officials at the town hall are ensuring that contracts are tendered in a way that reflects the diverse needs of a community and means that they will not be tangled up in years of legal challenges based on the Human Rights Act 1998 or any other element of equality legislation, that increases the efficiency of service delivery by that local authority. We should be cautious about assuming that if it comes with an equalities badge, it must, in some sense, be a waste of money.
Funding reform will be enormously welcome across the country. Let me set out the key things on which I ask the Minister to reflect as he embarks on that process. First, the work that has already started, to ensure that local government funding reflects the cost drivers arising from legislation passed by this House, is critical. If we say, “This must happen and must be done by local government,” we must ensure that the resources are there for the delivery of that thing, otherwise we create an unsustainable and unbridgeable gap between our constituents’ expectations and the available funding.
As the bigger picture of reform is taken forward, I suggest that we look at the role that planning gain will play in how local authorities are funded. Despite economic development being an enormous priority for our Government and our country, most forms of development remain a net cost to local authorities. In Hillingdon, we certainly had that spelled out to us starkly in respect of Heathrow airport, the campaign for expansion and the national debate about whether that was an additional benefit to UK plc. However, it was extremely clear, especially because the business rates all went to central Government, that the expansion of Heathrow airport simply created significant additional cost to the local authority. A recent study estimated that each new citizen moving to a city represented an additional cost of £15,000 per annum to its public services, after all the benefits, including the tax that they pay, were accounted for.
As development proceeds, we must ensure that our constituents see a real benefit, so that local authorities, and Members of Parliament—instead of standing up in this House and saying, “We want more housing and more economic development,” before appearing on leaflets in the constituency opposing it all—can look their voters in the eye and say genuinely, “If we get this new factory, it will be disruptive, but the money from it will mean that we get a new bus service or an improved GP service.”
The Minister will be looking at a lot of detail, but I ask him to reflect in particular on the impact of funding temporary accommodation costs from local authorities’ general fund. The housing revenue account is ringfenced, and we know that that comprises both the rents that are paid by local authority tenants and several other funding streams. However, the fact that it is ringfenced and often significantly in profit has encouraged Governments in the past to look at it as, for example, a source of funding borrowing to invest in housing. The temporary accommodation challenge that we face—especially because of the large numbers of people arriving in the UK over fairly short periods of time, exacerbating some pre-existing challenges—is significant and acute. I urge the Minister to look at whether some additional flexibility around the housing revenue account could begin to relieve some of the pressures on the general fund referred to in the motion.
I finish my remarks by thanking the people who serve in all local authorities, in particular those who serve as councillors in my constituency and lead my two local authorities. The feedback that I receive from constituents, despite all the potential gloom and doom about local government, continues to be extremely positive and is often improving: people see that their streets are becoming cleaner and their environment is being cared for. That is incredibly important to them—often far more important than the issues we are debating in this House—and we owe those councillors a huge debt of thanks as fellow elected politicians.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), and to all hon. Members who have made the case for the real reform we are seeking from the Minister today. I appreciate his listening to the debate.
City of York Council is a small authority, but like so many, it is on its knees. The last Lib Dem-Green administration drained the reserves, and therefore real pressure has been put on the new Labour administration. I am grateful to Councillor Claire Douglas, who has taken up the leadership in York, for her work to try to address the big issues of inequality facing our city by driving through innovation—not least the already-delivered lifting of the blue badge ban, delivering free school meals into schools where there is the greatest deprivation, and reforming services.
However, it is apparent to us all that not only is local authority funding insufficient, but the funding formula itself needs addressing. It is just sad that we have had to wait 14 years to get to this point. We really need that reform to be brought forward, and I agree that if there can be cross-party talks—even at this late hour—we would welcome them, because meeting statutory requirements will clearly be incredibly challenging for all local authorities. While York, unlike other authorities, will scrape through this year and avoid a section 114 notice, we know that the starvation of funds from central Government has meant that the city is under significant stress.
If we do not address the funding formula, we are all going to struggle, and this is not just about local government. The design of the formula and how it operates crosses all areas, and therefore I ask the Minister to consider it with other colleagues. It is not working for health, education, the police, fire, or the broad rental market area, which I will turn to shortly. That puts more and more pressure on local government, as it has to integrate its services more with those of others while addressing all the challenges.
York is by no means the poorest place, but it is by no means the most affluent. We are a post-industrial city in the north and experience many challenges, yet we are the worst-funded upper-tier authority if all the services are added together. That does not ring right—and it is not right, because we have some of the deepest areas of deprivation in the country. We are the eighth lowest upper-tier local authority on a stand-alone basis. In real terms, my local authority is £33 million worse off than in 2010, but accounting for the rise in service demand in adult and children’s social care, we have lost £40 million in much-needed funding since 2010.
If we look at education—I am grateful for what was said about the dedicated schools grant—we have the 17th lowest funding in the country, which again does not meet the area’s needs, and we sit in the bottom third for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities, which causes real stress. We need the Education Secretary to step up and really invest in those children, because we are seeing a significant rise in the number of children with SEND, and in York it is higher than across the country. We need to understand why that is, but also how we can fund it. School transport falls to local authorities, and it is another area under significant stress. Children need EHCPs to get additional services from different agencies, and 98% of appeals are successful, yet the costs to local authorities, parents, children, schools and all the agencies do not add up. We therefore need reform to ensure that those children get the necessary timely support.
We also have an ageing population. Like rural areas, it happens in urban areas too, but the age is rising faster in places such as York, and the pressures falling on social care budgets are significant now. In the spirit of cross-departmental working, we know that the Health Secretary has invested heavily in emergency departments at the front door of hospitals, but it is the back door of hospitals that need the funding, and that is for social care. A quarter of the patients in York Hospital are waiting for discharge. If that can be sorted out, our NHS would be able to function. Again, that spirit of cross-party working is needed in the light of where we are today, and such a plan would take the pressure off elsewhere on the wider piece of Government funding.
The same goes for police and fire funding, and I must highlight—I had a useful conversation with a former Home Secretary about this—that if we do not fund local authorities correctly for youth services, we will be paying for that out of the police budget. All these things are interconnected, which is why I urge the Minister not just to look at local authority funding, but to look at this in the round. Of course, public health is another example, and it moved into local government for a reason, as Professor Sir Michael Marmot would highlight, to address the social determinants of poor health, ensure people can have greater equality and address issues around having longer healthy lives. However, if we are not making the crucial right investments, we will again see the fallout in other services.
I want to understand why we have this real disparity in the funding formulas. We have heard today about the council tax regime, which was introduced in 1991, but business rates are another massive challenge. I am pleased that those on our Front Bench have said they will reform that area, because we need that reform urgently.
The Minister will know that York is a place that floods. I am really grateful for the support we have had to build flood defences, but we now fall below the threshold for triggering the Bellwin scheme. Those businesses that still flood are not getting the support they would otherwise have had, so it seems as though there is almost a perverse incentive. It would be really helpful not only if he looked at that, but also if he would ensure that there is business rate relief for flooded businesses while they are not able to trade. I would be grateful if he will comment on that.
Turning to the broad rental market area, York is an incredibly expensive place to live. Bearing in mind what said about it being a post-industrial city, the costs are driving people out of our area. We do not have the supply of social housing that we need right now. As a result, the local housing allowance is just £650 for a two-bedroom property, yet the cost in the private rented sector is £1,026. The disparity is such because the broad rental market area is just too broad. As a result, people are being pushed out, which is impacting on our economy. It is a comparatively low-wage economy, with the gig economy, the hospitality sector, retail and tourism, and the disparity is putting more pressure on local authorities to find support for housing and, increasingly, to address homelessness issues as well. Again, these things are out of kilter, and we need to bring them together to ensure that the system works for local government.
I look at the inequality between York Outer and my constituency; the centre of York is where the greatest strains are felt. Those strains are clearly being felt by families right now, and I urge the Government to carry forward the household support fund. Perhaps the Minister could have a word with the Chancellor about that ahead of the forthcoming fiscal event; it would really help our city. There was a debate on the subject in Westminster Hall last week. That disparity needs addressing for people in my constituency.
It was disappointing to hear that the fair funding formula will not happen in this Parliament, and that we will have to wait for the next Parliament—my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) also heard that message clearly—because that needs to be brought in across the piece. Look at health, and what happens under the primary health trusts, or the primary care groups, as they were back in the day. My predecessor, Sir Hugh Bayley, made the case that York, which was lowest funded in that arena, lost out, and that put pressures on local government. It is ironic that the Carr-Hill health funding formula was devised in the Centre for Health Economics at the University of York, yet somehow it perversely means a disadvantage for York.
In recent times, real pressure has been put on services, and I wish to highlight what that means to York. There has been a 15.8% increase in the cost of children’s social care. I congratulate our team on the council, which has cut agency spend. I met the director of children’s social care the other day, and he said that the team has two agency staff left, and that the department has cleared out agency staff to cut costs. Where will the additional headroom come from to pay for that? The cost of adult social care has risen by 12.5%. The cost of social protection housing services has risen by 26.1%, yet the minimum wage increase was 9.7% last April and 9.8% this April. It all adds up. The average rise that local authorities get is around 4%. That is squeezing resources more and more, and the disparity is taking its toll. We must protect those most in need, and certainly the voluntary and community sector to ensure that we keep its vitality. Clearly it delivers so much. We need a cushion, not a knife, and the fact that we face the challenge of cuts, rather than getting protection, is extremely worrying.
In his opening remarks, the Minister talked about other sources of revenue that local authorities have had, including levelling-up funding, the towns fund and the high street fund. York has not had any of that money. It seems that whether it is received depends more on political affiliation than need, so we have missed out on that, and additional resources have not been put in place. After 14 years, we need not only more funding in numerical terms, but a funding formula that works. If that is for the next Government to do, we will deliver it; it is so urgent and overdue. My constituents are smart; they know what is happening, and they are concerned. They are feeling the pinch. They are being stretched as far as they can, and we must ensure that they get opportunities. My constituents deserve so much better; my constituents deserve a Labour Government.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, and to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I was delighted when the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my great hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), was appointed to his ministerial role, not just because he is a very good friend of mine—indeed, he was a friend before either of us was elected to the House in 2015—but because ever since he was first elected, he has been a warrior on the Back Benches for rural councils. It is therefore no surprise whatsoever to me that he has engaged with colleagues in recent weeks on the funding settlement for councils, and particularly the allocation for rural councils. He has worked tirelessly to secure additional funding. I place on record my thanks to him for how he has listened to colleagues, and for his work to secure additional funding from the Treasury. That has been hugely welcomed in Cornwall, including by Cornwall Council. The additional almost £6 million that we will receive does not completely fill the gap that we were facing, but it has certainly been a huge help and has gone a long way to address the funding concerns we had, going into the next financial year.
That funding, however, does not remove the long-term challenges we face in Cornwall in delivering public services. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I had an Adjournment debate two weeks ago, in which I clearly laid out the many challenges we face in Cornwall. I will not bore the House by repeating everything that I said on that occasion, but we face a perfect storm of a unique combination of factors in Cornwall. First, we have an ageing population. I believe that 24% of the population is now elderly, which is more than 6% higher than the national average in England, and that is putting pressure on social care. Cornwall Council is due to spend £256 million in the coming year on delivering social care. That is one third of its revenue budget, and that is clearly an unsustainable position for a unitary council.
Secondly, we have the challenges that come with being a rural and coastal county on a long, narrow peninsula, and that poses challenges for delivering services. Although I very much welcome the additional funding being made available through the rural services delivery grant this coming year, the position is not sustainable in the long term. We need a fair funding review to address the needs and challenges that rural councils face in delivering services in the future. We were expecting that in 2021, but for understandable reasons, in the light of the pandemic, we could not do that. However, I would not be being honest with myself if I did not say that I am disappointed that we have not yet delivered it. I urge the Government to come forward with that review as soon as possible.
In Cornwall, we face the ongoing challenge of trying to meet ever-growing demand with the resources we have. That is placing more and more demand on the council tax payer. Council tax in Cornwall is now 39% higher than the English average. It is simply unfair that council tax payers in Cornwall have to pay a far bigger proportion of their income to the council to deliver local services than those in other parts of the country, particularly those in urban areas. I gently say to the shadow Minister that his proposals seemed to suggest that he thinks that funding from Government grant, rather than council tax, is not taxpayers’ money. The news is that they are both taxpayers’ money. The issue is where the balance sits.
Money for local government in the funding settlement is not free money. If we want to increase that funding, clearly we have to pay for it somehow, and I assume that the only way that the Labour party proposes paying for that is by raising taxes, so the taxpayer would pay. I am calling for a fairer distribution of the funding that is available. I am not necessarily talking about hiking the Government’s contribution to local government funding, but there should be a fairer distribution of the funding that the Government make available, to accurately reflect need, demand, and the cost of delivering services in rural areas. I massively welcome the rural services delivery grant and the uplift announced for this coming year, but it is not a long-term solution, and we need to address the fundamental issue of funding for local councils in rural areas.
I will add a final point on temporary accommodation. We face a massive issue in Cornwall. Many people see Cornwall as a wonderful place to come, but every year many people come to Cornwall who require emergency housing, which puts a huge demand on the council. The last time I saw the figures, I think we had about 1,000 people in Cornwall in temporary accommodation; that is unsustainable for the council. The cost of delivering that accommodation in a largely tourist area is astronomical because of how people who need temporary accommodation have to be housed.
We have a particular problem in St Austell; over many years, the council has sought to house a disproportionate number of people in temporary housing and supported accommodation in the town. The sheer numbers placed there by the council has had a huge impact on the community. Local residents regularly tell me that although they are happy to play their part and provide their fair share of accommodation, which is clearly needed, they are unhappy when they are expected to provide a disproportionate amount. The council really needs to look at that. It is disturbing that when I asked the council for accurate figures on how many people are placed in St Austell by various providers, it did not seem able to give an answer; we just know that it is an awful lot. That has an impact on local services, particularly GP services and the police, and the associated antisocial behaviour is getting to a point where local people are saying that they have had enough. We need the matter addressed, so that the number of people that the council places in St Austell is reduced as soon as possible.
I very much welcome the uplift announced in the funding settlement for the coming year; that is hugely important to Cornwall Council. However, I still await the fundamental review of the funding formula, and a fair funding settlement for Cornwall Council, so that, going forward, we do not rely on extra pots of money being announced.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
I was pleased to debate local government finances in Somerset with the hon. Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) at the beginning of the debate, but it would have been better if some of his Somerset colleagues had been here to do that with me.
It is easy to criticise local government and burden it with blame, but let us face it: it is the perfect scapegoat to distract us from the real-terms cuts inflicted by this Tory Government. I am proud to be an active Somerset councillor, and have had the pleasure and honour of serving my local community both on Somerset Council and in this House. I know councillors of all colours are working hard in Somerset to deliver for their residents, but the funding system for local government is simply broken. I am desperately concerned for the future of local government; it needs major reform.
I have spoken on multiple occasions about the issues facing Somerset Council, because of the national problems facing all local government. The council had to declare a financial emergency just last year owing to a £100 million funding gap for 2024-25. The Government have offered a £5 million payment to try to plug the gap, but that is woefully inadequate. While the additional support through the financial settlement is welcome, it is simply not enough. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), for engaging with me and the council; that engagement has been very much appreciated across the county. However, unless the Government can provide substantially greater funds, this will not work.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) has been in the Chamber for about five minutes. I do not expect hon. Members to walk into the Chamber and seek to support colleagues through an intervention.
Sarah Dyke
We need fundamental change to the way we fund local government. Across the country, we have an ageing population; in Somerset specifically, it is forecast that the 75-plus age group will double over the next 25 years. The demands of adult social care are becoming more complex and the costs are rising. We can no longer fund such an important and expensive service through council tax based on house prices from more than 30 years ago.
The issue is particularly difficult in Somerset. Historically low council tax rates and a damaging six-year freeze under the previous Conservative administration have left the band D rates in Somerset almost £260 lower than in its contiguous neighbour, Dorset. The rurality of Somerset also poses specific challenges because it costs more to provide services in rural areas. The council just cannot make enough money locally to fund adult social care. When I spoke recently to the leaders of Somerset Council, they described the situation as grim. They have to explain to residents why they will be paying more in council tax but receiving less, as cuts to discretionary services are being considered.
This is a nationwide issue that requires a nationwide solution. Nine councils have essentially gone bust since 2018, and the recent report by the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee portrayed the critical situation facing local government. I am thankful to the Committee for its report, which recommended urgent reform to the funding of local authorities. I know that many of my colleagues in local government share those concerns. Some think it is now impossible to solve the crisis in local government through local funding.
I want to take this opportunity to highlight what our future could look like if we fail to reform local government, provide both statutory and discretionary services and look after the communities that we hold dear. Our communities will be left with high streets full of boarded-up businesses as the outdated business rates system puts pressure on entrepreneurs without adequately funding councils. Our fields will be littered with household waste from fly-tipping as councils shut down recycling centres, our streets overflowing with rubbish from uncollected bins. Our town centres will be bereft of quality libraries, and our roads full of even more potholes. As councils struggle more year on year to fund adult and children’s social care, SEND and housing, those services will undoubtedly deteriorate. Much of what I have mentioned is already a reality for millions around the country—it is simply terrifying to think how much worse it could get.
Council leaders have told me that we need a long-term solution, but politics is a short-term game. The Government have been reluctant to approach this issue seriously with a long-term plan, as evidenced by their unwillingness to follow the recommendations of the Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee and to publish a 10-year plan to tackle the long-term funding of adult social care.
I conclude by calling for cross-party unity to work together to solve this issue, which we must do for our communities. I know that councillors of all colours want to continue to provide the best level of services for their residents, and that councils of all colours are aware of the specific challenges they face. We must ensure that councils are adequately funded in the long term so that essential reforms are realised.
Chris Loder
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I appreciate the point she makes and agree with much of what she says. I just wanted to briefly say—
Helen Morgan
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I believe my hon. Friend had finished her speech. She was not accepting an intervention.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Are we saying that the hon. Lady had sat down?
Mr Deputy Speaker
In that case, you cannot possibly have an intervention. I call Peter Aldous.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
This settlement is welcome because for many councils it staves off financial armageddon. However, as we have heard, we need a far more strategic approach to the funding of local councils and to how they deliver the crucial services that they provide. Year after year we go through an annual routine of the Government issuing a provisional local government funding settlement in December, which presents many councils with significant challenges. That is followed by an intense period of lobbying by councils, their representative bodies and MPs. The Government then find some more money to solve the short-term challenge. We then agree the settlement, as we will do tonight. Life goes on, and we repeat the whole exercise again the next year. I think there is consensus across the Chamber that we must break out of that cycle.
A county such as Suffolk faces significant challenges, including an ageing population, which means that there is an ever-increasing group of vulnerable people who require care and support. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor increased the national living wage in his autumn statement but it was wrong that, in the first instance, councils such as Suffolk were asked to fund most of the increase themselves from their existing resources. We need to pay properly and support the thousands of workers going out in all weather conditions to care for and assist vulnerable people in their own homes.
Like Cornwall, Somerset and Dorset, Suffolk covers a large geographical area. In such circumstances it is expensive to deliver services, including, as we have heard, home to school transport and SEND provision. Faced with those challenges and an inadequate provisional settlement, Suffolk County Council cut its funding for arts and heritage. The latter in particular leaves the Waveney and Lowestoft area inadequately served and resourced with regard to archives and records. I am sure that I will return to that issue in due course.
My right hon. Friend the Levelling Up Secretary is right to set up an expert panel to advise on financial stability, and to ask local authorities to produce productivity plans, but more is required. As I have said, we need to move away from the current short-term approach to local government funding. To do that, I suggest the following changes should be considered. First, as many Members have said, there should be multi-year financial settlements rather than the annual settlements that we have had for the past six years. Secondly, we must recognise the added cost of delivering services over large rural and coastal areas such as Suffolk. Thirdly, working in conjunction with the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities must provide a sustainable long-term plan for social care, with care workers being fairly paid and provided with proper career paths.
There should also be a review of statutory responsibilities in such areas as home to school transport, to ensure that they are properly funded. Finally, as we have heard, the Government should carry out the relative needs and resources review—the so-called fair funding review. The review should look at not only the opaque and complicated formulas used, but the data used for the assessment of relative needs, which, as we have heard, dates way back—much of it to the last century.
In his summing up, I hope that the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who has taken extremely well to his new role, will be able to herald in the long-term strategic approach that local government so desperately needs.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Let me first declare an interest. Although I am no longer a borough councillor, I was until last May, and I understand that I still have to register that until 12 months have passed.
I want to thank the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Ministers past and present, because the £600 million is a significant increase and is very welcome. I also thank Leicestershire County Council, Charnwood Borough Council, my parish and town councils, and others throughout the county. My colleagues there do wonderful work, as do the officials, and I greatly appreciate what they do.
I will not go into too much detail about the issue of fairer funding, because it has been well rehearsed. Since 2019 and, I understand, before I entered the House, all the Leicestershire MPs have lobbied Ministers continuously, including many a Secretary of State and many a Chancellor. I will say, however, that if we are talking about a fairer funding formula, the operative word is “fairer”, and that standard is not being met at present. If something could be done about this in the very near future, I would be most grateful.
The arguments about rural areas have also been well rehearsed. I thoroughly support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), and it is always worth listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). Many of his points were exactly the points that I was intending to make. I do not like to moan—I prefer to come up with a solution if I possibly can—so I want to suggest something along the lines of what my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) said in the police debate earlier this afternoon. He talked about the use of police resources by other Departments, such as the Department of Health and Social Care, and I think that the same applies to the use of council resources by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) alluded to this, in the context of education, health and care plans. Last Friday evening two of the eight slots in my constituency surgery were about EHCPs, and on the previous Friday three of them were. The county council has a statutory responsibility to deliver EHCPs, but the Department of Health and Social Care can say what it wants about the “H” element without having to deliver the resources. The county council feels that it has to deliver them itself, and that puts additional cost and time pressures on the 20-week window within which it must finalise an EHCP. I should like something to be done about that, so that the Department that asks for something actually pays for it.
Exactly the same happens in my borough council in respect of supported housing benefit. Because some charities in my constituency are not registered social landlords, the council cannot claim the whole of the benefit back from the Department for Work and Pensions, and is therefore out of pocket by about £1.5 million, which is simply unsustainable on a budget of about £16 million a year. Instead of the customers of Departments such as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities—the councils—paying for those things, the Department that wants them to be done should pay.
In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety talked about spending on frontline services. I agree entirely with what he said, but I also believe that if councils spend money on things that they want to do, they should not necessarily be unable to get money back from Departments.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
For 14 years Ministers in this Government have come to the House to lay out their plans for local government finance, and for 14 years there has been a constant theme: sticking plaster policies. Instead of providing the certainty and stability that local government is crying out for, the Government have again set out proposals that have been chopped and changed in admission of their own failure. Councils of all political stripes are left shelling out millions and communities and service users are paying the price, but I do not believe for a moment that Ministers have taken the steps necessary to end this crisis—a crisis compounded by spiralling inflation and a failure to grow our economy, where councils are spending eye-watering amounts on temporary accommodation, and where at any moment the next domino could fall and another council could be on the brink of collapse. This is not sustainable. Local authorities need a Government who will support them with a long-term plan, because we are under no illusions about the scale of the problem.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Given the need for a long-term plan, were Labour to win the election, how much extra would local government get in the first year of a Labour Government?
Liz Twist
As I will come on to say shortly, we will have a review to look at the long-term plans. We understand the problems that local government is facing.
We have heard from hon. Members on this side of the House, including the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who set out a comprehensive summary of the issues facing local authorities and councils generally and thanked councils and councillors for carrying on and doing the work they need to do to run the councils. He also reminded us of the impact of the public health cuts that local authorities have seen. My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) referred to issues in her local authority and to the gap between rising need and available funding. As many other Members also mentioned, SEND funding is an issue, as is the impact of public health cuts.
We all understand that there is no magic wand and no quick fix, but if the Government are prepared to work with councils to build from the ground up and to deliver the services that taxpayers need and deserve, I truly believe that we can bring an end to this crisis. However, over this last decade the Government have abandoned any interest in this kind of co-operation and instead torn down the protections that were meant to prevent a crisis like this. As we have heard, they have ripped away any financial oversight of local council spending, scrapped the Audit Commission and pushed councils to borrow more and more. They have also left councils without a functioning early warning system, meaning that they cannot even sound the alarm when they are struggling.
We cannot go on like this, and that is why a Labour Government would instead prioritise stability and greater certainty, unlocking multi-year funding settlements to give local taxpayers better value for money, fixing our broken audit system to restore genuine oversight and partnership with local government, and prioritising certainty and stability over this Government’s narrow and short-term fixes to problems of their own making.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Simon Hoare)
It is a pleasure to wind up for the Government in this debate. I will just say gently to one of my shadows, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), that if the situation is as bad as she and the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) have painted it, I am surprised that with the exception of those on the Front Bench and the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts)—I know, as a former Select Committee Chairman, that one is obliged to take part in these debates when they relate to one’s Department—we have, against all this horror, had only one Labour Back-Bench contribution. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—at least there is one Labour Member who is concerned about local government and who is not obliged to come and talk about it.
What an exciting prospect we have—the nation sits agog! After 14 years of opposition, a review to look at long-term plans is what the hon. Member for Blaydon tantalisingly holds before the House and the electorate. After 14 years of opposition, one has to ask what on earth they have been doing with the time. A review to look at long-term plans! As always, the Labour party is quick to critique and slow to deliver. What a contrast to the speeches we have heard from Conservative Members.
Mr Betts
I take the Minister back to the beginning of the debate, when the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety talked about doing a long-term review of local government finance in the next Parliament. The difference, of course, is that the Government have been in power for the last 14 years and could have done something about it.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman and I have discussed this on many occasions, and I know he broadly agrees with me on this point. Local council chief executives and leaders would have come at the Department with pitchforks and flaming torches if we had dumped a 200-page consultation document on their desks at a time when they were rallying to support their communities during the covid crisis.
This year, as last year, the Government have rightly set our focus on stability, certainty and security. I believe this local government finance settlement delivers on all three.
Simon Hoare
No. If the hon. Gentleman is not here for the opening, he cannot take part in the summing up. He has tried that trick before, and it did not work then.
As we heard from the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan), for Sheffield South East and for Blaydon, some of these issues came through in the consultation and in the engagement: support for special educational needs; a long-term view of adult social care; and reform to the funding formula, which so many hon. and right hon. Members have referenced. A reformed funding formula would provide stability and security to our local authorities, and the best way to deliver it is through cross-party working. That is what this House owes them.
When I was asked to take on this job, I had no idea of the complexity and time required to arrive at a local government finance settlement. I thank all colleagues who came along to take part in my parliamentary engagement, which was hugely helpful. I pay tribute to my private office and to officials in the Department—long hours, huge work. I pay particular tribute, not least because her note tells me I have to, to Victoria Peace for all her hard work, as well as to Kate, Nico and others. It has truly been a team effort.
I also thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister for listening to the case that the Secretary of State and I took to them on revising the formula. We said that we would listen, we did and we have acted. Those are the hallmarks of prudent, listening, caring, one-nation conservativism, and it is writ large in this local government finance settlement.
I also pay tribute, as so many others have, to the work that councillors and council officers do, day in and day out, to deliver to make the lives of some of the most vulnerable people in our society more bearable and a little better, and to create a sense of place in which people wish to live. We salute all of them. Are all of them brilliant? Of course not, but not all of us are brilliant either. But I know that, day in and day out, they focus on doing their best.
I have been called many things, but the hon. Member for Sheffield South East called me “genuinely helpful”. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) called me “the great rural tsar” and a “knight in shining armour”. And my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) called me a “warrior” for rural councils. I am grateful for those comments, and I look forward to their being carved into my headstone in due course.
Simon Hoare
Not too soon, I hope.
I could bore the House with the figures for the local authorities of each Member who has contributed, but those figures are on the public record. They are all going in a positive direction. I think we have started to make significant inroads into addressing those concerns, by turning our thinking to the common themes that have ranged through this debate. The trajectories on SEND and adult social care show no sign of abating, and we need a long-term solution. The formula does need reforming and the Government are committed to doing just that in the next Parliament.
I say to everyone that the transformation and productivity plans, which we see as a key part of the settlement, are all part of underscoring that “Agenda for Change” is a process, not an event; it has to be iterative and organic, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay mentioned, we have no money and councils have no money save that which we raise through the taxpayer. We have a duty to ensure that we deliver the biggest bang for each and every buck.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) and for West Dorset, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Sarah Dyke), and my hon. Friends the Members for Loughborough (Jane Hunt) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous) all made important points about how the formula review must ensure that we take into account the differentials in the demand of need in delivering services in a rural or coastal area. I do not believe that we would be right in any definition of the term to say that “need” in an urban area outranks that in a rural or coastal area, or vice versa. Need is need and our local authorities want to play their part in making a difference on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough was not the only one, but she was right to mention the need for other Departments, when they create a new burden or duty on local authorities, to take into account the budgetary impacts that those services have, and I certainly take that on board. My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye made that point as well and I agree with all who have made it.
The hon. Member for York Central asked a specific question about the flood recovery framework and business rates. I am delighted to confirm to her that 100% business rate relief is available to business for a minimum of three months where they have been flooded and that that relief can continue to an agreed date until the business is able to be reoccupied for trading. I hope that that gives some comfort to her and to her constituents who have suffered from flooding issues in the recent time.
A lot has been done, services can continue, but the need for reform, cross-party working, blue skies thinking and significant change remains. This settlement is a generous one, with more than half a billion pounds or, I should say, “just” half a billion pounds, available for children’s services and adult social care. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has long advocated for the rural services delivery grant and that is up now to its highest level, at £115 million. I know that rural councils, including that of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, will have welcomed that as a useful means of supporting their services.
We understand, applaud and appreciate the important contribution that councils make across our country, and the difference they deliver for their communities. We understand and are going to work with the sector, sector leaders, council leaders and others to ensure a bright, secure and stable future for local councils. We are providing a £600 million uplift, and, on average, a 6% to 7% increase in core spending power for most councils. This is a fantastic opportunity for councils to continue to deliver and for us to support them. I close with the point that many have made: we will deliver better for our constituents when central and local government work in partnership, matched horses pulling in the same direction, serving our communities and making a vital difference for those who need it. I commend the settlement to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 2024–25 (HC 318), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.
Resolved,
That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2024–25 (HC 319), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.—(Simon Hoare.)
Resolved,
That the Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Alternative Notional Amounts) (England) Report 2024–25 (HC 320), which was laid before this House on 5 February, be approved.—(Simon Hoare.)
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (14) of Standing Order No. 80A (Carry-over of bills), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the names of:
(1) Secretary Michelle Donelan relating to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill: Carry-over extension; and
(2) Secretary Alex Chalk relating to the Victims and Prisoners Bill: Carry-over extension not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Penny Mordaunt.)
Business Without Debate
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Delegated Legislation
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Physician Associates
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a practising NHS consultant psychiatrist.
The UK has a severe shortage of healthcare professionals, amounting to more than 110,000 in England alone, coupled with a growing ageing population with an ever-increasing need for a strong and responsive health service. To address the shortage, the Government in England have introduced the NHS long-term workforce plan, with additional proposals also set out in the devolved nations.
NHS England’s plan sets out a wide range of mostly unfunded workforce measures, including doubling the current number of medical student places to potentially add 60,000 doctors to the workforce by 2036-37. Controversially, it also includes plans to increase the number of physician associates from approximately 3,250 to 10,000, an increase of over 300%, and anaesthesia associates from approximately 180 to 2,000. That is not to say that physician and anaesthesia associates should not have an important role in the future NHS workplace. However, at this time, serious regulatory and safety concerns relating to associates need to be addressed before the NHS seeks to expand their numbers and roles. Furthermore, standardised high-quality training pathways and a properly defined scope of practice are essential.
Physician associates, anaesthesia associates and surgical care practitioners are collectively known as the medical associate professions, and I may use the terms interchangeably. Physician associates and anaesthesia associates currently complete a two year postgraduate course and are employed in a variety of settings in the NHS, including GP surgeries, emergency departments, and medical and surgical settings, and they have also been introduced to mental health settings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. The issue is massive—it is massive for me back home, as well—so I thank him for his reasoned and knowledgeable speech, as well as his contribution to the NHS over the years. Without an increase in the number of GPs and doctors, does he agree that the healthcare crisis we face will become an abyss? In small countries such as Northern Ireland, students cannot get places in our small medical schools and are training, working and living in other countries, which is a real loss to future stability. Does he agree we need to do more to keep our young medical staff rather than let them head to greener grass in far off fields?
Dr Poulter
I completely agree with the hon. Member. He advocates strongly for his constituents, as always, and for the need to better retain our medical workforce in general, our junior doctors in particular. The Government will have heard his comments. I am sure that things can be done to improve the current offer to junior doctors in England. Indeed, things can be looked at in Northern Ireland, too, with the restoration of political arrangements.
An agreement could be put in place that will properly renumerate junior doctors, and also look at the other terms and conditions of employment that are important in respect of retaining the medical and healthcare workforce. These situations are not always about pay; it is also about wider terms and conditions. The Government could certainly look in more detail at student debt, for example, as the Times Health Commission outlined this week, which may incentivise people to stay in medicine for longer.
We have diverged slightly into the broader healthcare challenges, so I will return to physician associates, which was the point of this evening’s debate. There are concerns about the regulation and training of this particular group in the medical workforce. Physician associates and anaesthesia associates are not currently regulated. There have been a number of recent high-profile cases of patient harm as a result of being seen by medical associate professionals, including, sadly, some deaths. We know, for example, of the tragic case of Emily Chesterton from Salford who died of a pulmonary embolism having been seen twice and had her deep vein thrombosis misdiagnosed as a musculoskeletal problem by a physician associate at her local GP practice.
Anybody who watches the TV programme “24 Hours in A&E” may have seen some fairly enlightening scenes in respect of the clinical skills of some medical associate professionals, including physician associates. There are many examples of poor clinical diagnosis and judgment, including, for example, making initial decisions to send patients with compound fractures home without an X-ray when the patient actually required surgery.
In my own clinical practice, I have worked alongside some very competent physician associates, but there is a high degree of variability in their training and skills. Only last year, I was forced to directly intervene to prevent patient harm following a paracetamol overdose by a patient who attended A&E. The physician associate incorrectly informed me that they did not require N-acetylcysteine treatment because their liver function test was normal, in spite of the fact that they were over the treatment line as a result of their paracetamol overdose. Of course, at that time, the patient’s liver function tests were normal, but they would not have been for very long. The consequences of that diagnostic decision by the physician associate could have been fatal. The key issue for me is that many physician associates do not know or have the self-awareness to understand the limits of their knowledge and practice, but this is perhaps understandable in a health system that fails to adequately regulate and indeed define its scope of practice.
There are many other areas of concern that have been highlighted in a recent British Medical Association survey of 18,000 doctors, an overwhelming majority of whom work with physician associates. In November 2023, due to severe concerns around patient safety, the BMA called a halt to the recruitment of medical associate professionals to allow proper time for the extent of patient safety claims to be investigated and the scope of the role to be considered.
When the physician associate role was introduced, it was clearly seen as part of the solution to a shortage of doctors, which currently stands at in excess of 8,500. By freeing up doctors from administrative tasks and minor clinical roles, it allowed them to see more complex patients and get the training required to become excellent consultants or GPs.
Unfortunately, physician associates and anaesthesia assistants have been employed in the NHS in roles that stretch far beyond that original remit, and in many cases that were reported in the recent BMA survey that I mentioned, they appear to be working well beyond their competence. That has raised serious patient safety concerns—I gave some examples earlier—and led to calls to review the role, limit the scope of practice, and protect training for the doctors that the NHS desperately needs. When consultant time is taken by supervising physician associates, that is to the detriment of training and supervising junior doctors. That has not yet been addressed or even considered in the NHS England workforce plan.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for introducing this evening’s debate. I sat on the Committee that considered the Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024. He is drawing out several issues. One is competency; another is patient literacy. A lot of new roles are emerging—technicians, assistants, associates, and advanced practitioners—and to the public this is now becoming a blurred space. People do not understand the competences that individuals possess, their scope of practice, and where they fit into the medical family, or indeed professions allied to health. Does he agree that we need to define those roles clearly, and that associate roles should be around professions allied to health, rather than associated directly with the medical profession?
Dr Poulter
I fully agree with the hon. Lady, and I will expand on that a little later. There is certainly confusion among the public about what a physician associate is. Many members of the public assume them to be doctors or other healthcare professionals. They therefore lack a much greater degree of competence. Given that it is envisaged that the role will be significantly expanded, the public understanding and awareness of it, and people’s expectations when being treated by somebody in that role, are really important. That needs to be better addressed through the current proposals for regulation, which I will come to in a moment.
I will talk briefly about general practice and the additional roles reimbursement scheme. Through the ARRS, the Government have provided funding to GP practices that can be used to pay for physician associates and other clinical staff, but not for hiring additional doctors and nurses. That is quite extraordinary, and results in GP practices having physician associates rather than fully qualified GPs. Currently, most physician associates in general practice are funded through the additional roles reimbursement scheme: an NHS scheme that funds primary care networks to support recruitment across a very limited set of eligible roles. The current rules for ARRS funding are causing inefficiencies as they are not flexible enough to respond to locality needs for healthcare staff. In particular, the rules do not allow practices to hire primary care nurses, practice nurses, or indeed GPs, as I mentioned.
Over the past year, there have been many developments in how the Government and the profession view the roles of physician and anaesthesia associates, but it seems extraordinary that when we are talking about supporting general practice in developing the right skills and competences, and delivering the right service for patients, one of the key funding schemes does not allow for the hiring of the GPs and practice nurses that are needed, and is skewed towards physician associates. I wonder whether the Minister might take that away, look at the scheme, and help to provide additional flexibility, which general practice would like and which seems eminently sensible, to allow recruitment at a local level, in line with patient need.
There are significant concerns connected with the roll-out of the anaesthesia associates project. While the GMC addressed some of those issues in its recent letter to NHS England, a number of concerns remain. In particular, the NHS long-term workforce plan suddenly projected a huge expansion in the number of anaesthesia associates, but no expansion in the number of doctors in anaesthesia—or, as we are talking about position assessments, in the number of doctors in other specialities. To many, that looks like a replacement of doctors with anaesthesia associates, rather than anaesthesia associates being employed to complement the anaesthesia team, which was the idea previously portrayed.
There are many examples of medical associate professionals in the wider sense working in ways that have caused concern, as we have discussed in this debate, particularly with regard to their scope of practice. Anaesthesia provision in the UK must continue to be led and delivered by doctors, who are properly trained and properly regulated. Anaesthesia associates are valuable members of the anaesthesia team in addition to doctors, but they are not a solution to the challenges of low workforce numbers in anaesthesia and growing waiting lists.
The answer is to expand consultant numbers, an expansion in training scheme places for doctors in anaesthesia, and the development of the large number of speciality doctors and locally employed doctors already in post. Creation of speciality and specialist doctors and consultants via the General Medical Council’s new portfolio pathway could result in our having many more independent doctors in anaesthesia and other medical disciplines. It seems extraordinary that we are not looking at that first, given that we have a properly regulated and properly trained profession, rather than at expanding a workforce that is not subject to proper regulation to date, does not have a certified training pathway, and has been associated with a significant number of adverse patient outcomes and incidents.
Regulation ensures consistent standards for training, and for the practice of physician associates and anaesthesia associates. It maintains standards and, critically, contributes to patient safety. As per the recent Anaesthesia Associates and Physician Associates Order 2024 laid before the UK and Scottish Parliaments, those associates will be registered with the General Medical Council. However, there are increasing concerns that that could further blur the distinction between doctors and anaesthesia associates.
In response to those concerns, the GMC has said that physician associates and anaesthesia associates will be issued with a registration number format that distinguishes them from doctors. That is to be welcomed. However, it must go further and present doctors on a separate register from physician associates and anaesthesia associates, whether we are talking about a register online or in print—that aligns with the point that the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) made—so that it is very clear that the different professions are regulated under separate registers. That is important for both accountability and transparency, and it is important that patients understand that.
There should be a clear distinction between the register of doctors and other registers. That is necessary to provide absolute clarity for patients and others who wish to access the registers, and it is essential to protect everyone from accidental or deliberate misrepresentation. With modern information technology systems, there is no legitimate reason why that cannot be done. It would be simple, and it is about transparency, openness and patients better understanding the difference between the responsibilities of doctors, and those of physician associates and anaesthesia associates. I hope the GMC is listening to this debate and will ensure properly separate registers. That does not cost much, but is very important.
Perhaps the crucial point in this debate is the scope of practice. There should be a national scope of practice for physician associates and anaesthesia associates, both on qualification and after any post-qualification extension of practice. Any future changes to scope of practice should be developed in conjunction with the regulator and should be agreed at national level. I understand that currently the GMC will not regulate extended scopes of practice, which is very regrettable. For example, we are aware of whether a doctor is on the GP register or a specialist register, or just has a licence to practise. Those levels of expertise are part of the regulatory framework. It seems extraordinary that although the GMC has been asked to look at regulating physician associates, there is no understanding of the scope of a physician associate’s practice. That needs to be properly mapped out and explored.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points. It is particularly concerning that a prescribing nurse, say, could become a physician associate, but perhaps without the ability to prescribe. That would create even greater confusion. Does he agree that we need clarity and distinctions to be drawn on those kinds of issues?
Dr Poulter
I fully agree; the hon. Lady is absolutely right. I was going to address that very point about prescribers a little later. There is clear agreement on the challenges. Those issues should be thought through before a workforce plan is brought forward, and before there is a significant expansion of the workforce, for reasons of patient safety, particularly as concerns have consistently been raised about the scope of practice and adverse incidents. It is rather putting the cart before the horse to say, “We want to expand the workforce without dealing with the important issues of how that workforce is trained, how it can properly be regulated, and what its scope of practice is.” That is unfortunately a regrettable failing of NHS England’s plan, which I hope it will consider.
If the GMC cannot regulate extended scopes of practice, they should be devised according to a national framework. There needs to be an understanding of what that should be. It is unacceptable for employing organisations in the NHS to devise their own extended scopes of practice without reference to at least some national framework—one that has the confidence of regulators and standard setters—so that we know and understand what good practice looks like.
Doctors should be directly involved in devising any changes to the scope of physician associate and anaesthesia associate practice, whether on qualification or at extended level. There should be no extension of roles beyond the scope of practice on qualification until national guidance is issued. Where organisations are planning such an extension, it should be paused for reasons of patient safety. Where physician associates or anaesthesia associates are already working in an extended role, it should be recorded on the healthcare organisation’s risk register, and the organisation should ensure that it has full confidence in its standards of supervision, access to support, indemnity of the anaesthesia or physician associate and the supervising doctor, and patient information and consent. Anaesthesia associates have a role to play as part of the wider anaesthesia team, but it is important to ensure that it is a complementary role as an addition to the workforce, not as a replacement for doctors and nurses, as the hon. Lady rightly underlined. Expansion in the number of anaesthesia and physician associates should not be at the expense of expansion in the number of doctors in specialist posts.
Let me come briefly to assessment, which is another area that has not been well thought through. It is important that assessment for anaesthesia associate roles is standardised at national level. The Royal College of Physicians does a national exam for physician associates, but a national body needs to be established to undertake the assessment process for anaesthesia associates if we are to ensure confidence in their competencies. It may be possible for that to be delivered locally, if there are stringent controls in place to ensure consistency. However, before the anaesthesia associate workforce is expanded, there needs to be some process for assessing competency.
On indemnity, which was also addressed by the hon. Lady, further information is needed around indemnity cover for both physician associates and anaesthesia associates, as well as for any doctors supervising them. “Good medical practice” expects all doctors to ensure that they are fully indemnified. The same standard should apply to physician associates and anaesthesia associates. Many doctors in anaesthesia, in general practice and in emergency departments are already worried about medicolegal liability when working with physician associates, and clear guidance is urgently needed. Although reference is made to accountability, more information is required in this area, given the challenges that we know have arisen.
The hon. Lady mentioned prescribing rights. Some physician and anaesthesia associates—for example, those with a nursing background—may already have those rights from their parent profession. The Commission on Human Medicines is responsible for deciding which professions are able to prescribe, and it is important that it is clear in its guidance and reasoning in respect of physician and anaesthesia associates before there is a wider roll-out of those roles.
I draw the Minister’s attention to key findings from the British Medical Association’s recent survey, which sought the views of over 18,000 doctors about the role of the medical associate professions. Almost 80% of respondents—that is well in excess of 15,000 doctors—had worked with or trained medical associate professionals, which means that contact with those professionals is widespread throughout the NHS. Medical associate professionals are currently unregulated and have a poorly defined scope of practice. The BMA survey respondents were very concerned about that, as well as about the fact that MAPs have been employed in the NHS in a variety of roles, which go well beyond what was originally envisioned as an assistant role. A staggering 87% of doctors surveyed believed that the way that physician and anaesthesia associates work in the NHS is a risk to patient safety. For the Minister’s benefit, that is the best part of 18,000 doctors who work with this workforce raising concerns about working practice and patient safety.
Rachael Maskell
Once again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. Doctors in training need a very clear career pathway, but because of the rise in anaesthesia associates in particular, but also in physician associates, the pathway to many more senior roles will be blocked. As a result, people will stagnate as doctors in training, as opposed to getting a consultancy. Does he agree that that is highly problematic, and that the career pathway needs working through before there is any increase in the number of physician and anaesthesia associates?
Dr Poulter
That is absolutely essential. At the moment, the prerequisite appears to be a biomedical science degree, which is incredibly variable—depending on whether a person went to Hull, Newcastle or a London university, a biomedical science degree could be very different—and then two years of study. A physician associate would then have to pass an exam set by the Royal College of Physicians, but when a person passes that exam, it does not necessarily mean that they had standardised or good training; potentially, it just means that they prepared well to pass their exam. The difference with doctors in medical school—and indeed the difference with nurses going through nursing school—is that they are consistently assessed, all the way through their undergraduate training. When they graduate at the end of that training, they are consistently assessed as they progress.
None of that exists in the training pathway for physician or anaesthesia associates; in fact, as we have discussed, there is not even an exam for anaesthesia associates at the end of the process. It is absolutely essential that those issues are addressed as a priority, and it is little wonder that patient deaths and adverse incidents are occurring on such a scale. Perhaps when the Minister is suffering from insomnia late at night, he may wish to watch old episodes of “24 Hours in A&E”. He will see the huge variability in the expertise of physician associates. Some are very good, but some are not, and we should not be dealing with variability in the British health system. That is what we are trying to address, so the hon. Member for York Central is absolutely right in everything she has said.
That highlights the last point I am going to draw to the House’s attention from the BMA survey of 18,000 doctors. Some 75% of respondents said that the quality of training among medical associate professions—physician and anaesthesia associates—was woefully inadequate; 84% said that the quality of their supervision when they are at work was inadequate; 91% outlined the fact that they work outside their competence; and 86% of respondents confirmed that the public would confuse them with doctors, as the hon. Lady outlined. This is not just a few hundred doctors; this is 18,000 doctors saying in a survey that they have serious patient safety concerns due to the variability in training of anaesthesia associates. There have been far too many adverse incidents where things have gone wrong, and it is time for the Government to give NHS England some clear direction that this area needs to be looked at, and some proper planning and consideration of the expansion of this workforce put in place.
These are the asks I have of my right hon. Friend the Minister. First, we should ensure there is a standardised and quality assured training programme for physician associates, anaesthesia associates, surgical care practitioners and all other medical associate professionals, and indeed that there is ongoing training and supervision to a nationally standardised level when that group is in the workplace post qualification. Secondly, we should ensure that the General Medical Council sets up a register for the regulation of medical associate professionals, separate from the register for doctors. Thirdly, as is the case with all other healthcare professionals, we should ensure that the scope of practice of physician associates is clearly set out to make sure that we can develop appropriate training pathways and supervisory pathways, but, more importantly, to ensure patient safety. Finally, the Government should support the introduction of a system with greater flexibility to hire GPs and general practice nurses using the ARRS funding. I thank the House, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister for Health and Secondary Care (Andrew Stephenson)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) on securing this debate. He spoke knowledgeably, both as a serving NHS medic and as a former Health Minister.
Let me begin by making a very important point. I addressed it in the Delegated Legislation Committee on 17 January, but it is worth repeating. The role of a physician associate is to work with doctors, not to replace them. Improved patient safety and care is at the heart of the NHS long-term workforce plan, which, backed by significant Government investment, shows our determination to support and grow the workforce. As set out in the plan, roles such as physician associates, who remain supervised by doctors, play an important part in NHS provision, and it is therefore right that we include a range of roles and skills in our multi-disciplinary teams that can offer personalised, responsive care to patients.
It is important to note that the NHS long-term workforce plan commits to doubling medical school degree places to 15,000 a year by 2031-32. That compares with 1,500 physician associate places. In turn, this will mean a major expansion of specialty training, on which we are committed to working with the royal colleges. We have accelerated this expansion by allocating 205 additional medical school places for the 2024-25 academic year, with the process for allocating 350 additional places for the 2025-26 academic year already under way. This demonstrates our commitment to the medical profession, and reaffirms that we absolutely do not see physician associates as replacements for doctors. There are currently 139,200 full-time equivalent doctors working in the NHS in England, which is over 42,100, or 43.4%, more than in 2010. Patient safety remains of the utmost importance, and regulation will help bring further clarity to patients and healthcare professionals on the nature of these roles and their remits.
Physician associates are qualified and trained health professionals. They undergo a three-year undergraduate degree in a health, biomedical science or life sciences subject, followed by two years of postgraduate training, gaining significant clinical experience. Alternatively, some universities now offer an undergraduate degree PA course that includes an integrated master’s degree in physician associate studies. Those courses take four years to complete. Training involves supervised practice with real patients, with at least 1,600 hours of clinical training. It also includes 350 hours in general hospital medicine, and a minimum 90 hours in other settings, including mental health, surgery, and paediatrics. The dedicated medical supervisor is responsible for the supervision and management of a student’s educational process throughout the clinical placement of the course.
Dr Poulter
Earlier, in response to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), I made the point about the variability of biomedical science degrees from different institutions. The GMC would not recognise a biomedical science degree as being adequate for a doctor in training as part of their preclinical studies, because of that variability. Will my right hon. Friend raise that issue directly with NHS England, with regard to putting in place a standardised training pathway for physician assistants?
Andrew Stephenson
My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and that is one reason why regulation is so important. The GMC has assured me that although draft regulations are out there, it will be consulting further on them later this year, so my hon. Friend, the BMA and various others can make strong representations about how the training framework should be provided. With that introductory regulation, the GMC will be responsible for setting, owning and maintaining a shared outcomes framework for physician associates, which will set a combination of professional and clinical outcomes. The outcomes framework will help to establish and maintain consistency, embed flexibility, and establish principles and expectations to support career development and lifelong learning. While at the moment there is significant variability in the system, I hope that the regulations we passed in this House on 17 January will help to provide that clarity and give the GMC the powers it needs to ensure that the training provided to physician associates is of the appropriate quality for the roles we are expecting them to undertake in our NHS.
Physician associates can work autonomously with appropriate support, but always under the supervision of a fully trained and experienced doctor. As with any regulated profession, an individual’s scope of practice is determined by their experience and training, and will normally expand as they spend longer in the role. That must be coupled with appropriate local governance arrangements to ensure that healthcare professionals only carry out tasks that they have received the necessary training to perform. Statutory regulation is an important part of ensuring patient safety, but that is also achieved through robust clinical governance processes within healthcare organisations, which are required to have systems of oversight and supervision for their staff.
NHS England is working with the relevant professional colleges and regulators, to ensure that the use of associate roles is expanded safely and effectively. That includes working with the GMC, royal colleges and other stakeholders to develop appropriate curriculums, core capabilities and career frameworks, standards for continual professional development, assessment and appraisal, and supervision guidance for anaesthetist and physician associates. NHS England will also work with colleges, doctors’ representative organisations, AAs and PAs to identify areas of concern. Specifically, the NHS has committed to working with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and individual professional bodies to develop and implement recommendations as a result.
Regulation will give the GMC responsibility and oversight of AAs and PAs, in addition to doctors, allowing it to take a holistic approach to education, training and standards. That will enable a more coherent and co-ordinated approach to regulation and, by making it easier for employers, patients and the public to understand the relationship between the roles of associates and doctors, help to embed such roles in the workforce. Indeed, regulation addresses many of the concerns that we have heard in the debate last month and today. The GMC will set standards of practice, education and training and operate the fitness to practice procedures, ensuring that PAs meet the right standards and can be held to account if serious concerns are raised. GMC guidance sets out the principles and standards expected of all its registrants, and that will apply to PAs once regulation commences. Those standards will give assurance that PA students have demonstrated the core knowledge, skills and professional and ethical behaviours necessary to work safely and competently in their areas of practice and in a care context as newly qualified practitioners.
Rachael Maskell
On that point, can the Minister clarify where the liability will sit if error does occur? Will it sit with the clinician or the consultant who is supervising them? I am not clear on that particular issue.
Andrew Stephenson
In many ways, it will be the same as with many medical professionals. Once we have the situation clarified in regulation, it will not be any different from the personal liability of a doctor or others working in an organisation. Those are the kind of things that the GMC will be consulting on and discussing with stakeholders in the coming months, and is important that all these points are clarified. The hon. Lady was in the debate we had in January, where the tragic case of Emily Chesterton was raised. In that case, unfortunately we saw a PA move from one practice to work in another, and we need to ensure that there is a proper, robust fitness-to-practice regime so that any medical professional can be held to account in such cases for what has happened and, if necessary, struck off the register and no longer able to practice.
Dr Poulter
The Minister is being generous in giving, and we are taking advantage of the slightly extended time we have for this Adjournment debate, but it is an important issue, because it is about patient safety. On that point, he is putting a lot of faith in the GMC doing things quickly, when we know there are existing patient safety issues. Would it not be more sensible to wait for the GMC to put in place the proper regulatory framework, the proper scope of practice and the other pieces of work that are being done before we commit to an expansion of a workforce when we know there is variability and patient safety concerns?
Andrew Stephenson
I feel that I am being criticised from both angles on this point. Some people are saying we are going too fast, and other people are saying we are going far too slow. A number of years ago, we consulted on regulating these professions. We are now moving forward. Those regulations have passed through the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament. The GMC has had a long time to prepare. In my meetings with the GMC, it has reassured me that it is ready to go. It will want to consult to ensure that any further concerns that people wish to raise are reflected in the regulations. It wants to ensure that it gets the regulations right, but it has known that they have been coming for some time. We consulted on who was best placed to regulate physician associates and anaesthetist associates back in 2019, so the GMC has had some time to lay the groundwork.
Under the long-term workforce plan, there is a much more significant expansion of doctors, as opposed to physician associates or anaesthetist associates. The number of extra doctors we are bringing in to the health service, as compared with physician associates, is of a magnitude of five to one. I hope I can reassure hon. Members that this is not in any way about replacing doctors. Doctors are still absolutely pivotal to patient care and will be heavily involved in overseeing physician associates, who are not doctors and need to be overseen in clinical practice.
The role of physician associates is in no way a replacement for that of any other member of the general practice team. They work in conjunction with and are complementary to an existing team. Physician associates can help to broaden the capacity and skills mix within a practice team by helping to address the needs of patients in response to the growing and ageing population, but let me be clear that the employment of PAs does not mitigate the need for more GPs, nor does it remove the need for other practice staff.
There will be a wide range of clinicians, such as PAs, who are well suited to providing care in general practice as part of a multidisciplinary team, but GPs remain at the heart of general practice and primary care, and that is not going to change. As we develop and progress with changes to the NHS workforce, it is vital that the expansion of physician associates and their role is delivered safely. GMC regulation is a positive step forward in the safe expansion and further integration of AAs’ and PAs’ roles within the NHS.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich for once again bringing the House’s attention to this important issue. I look forward to continuing to work with him and other right hon. and hon. Members to ensure that we get this right.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft East Midlands Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 December 2023 and provide for the imple-mentation of the devolution deal agreed between the Government and Derby City Council, Derbyshire County Council, Nottingham City Council and Nottinghamshire County Council on 30 August 2022. Since then, my officials have been working closely with the councils on implemen-tation, and on 15 December 2023 the four constituent councils consented to the making of the regulations.
The regulations will establish the east midlands combined county authority and the office of a mayor for the area. This will be the first of a new type of local government institution—the mayoral combined county authority—made possible by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The essential feature of a combined county authority is that only upper-tier authorities—that is, county councils and unitary authorities—can be constituent members of the combined authority, with a requirement that there must be at least two constituents. The central feature of the east midlands combined county authority is that there is to be a directly elected mayor for the area. The mayor will provide the single point of accountability that is essential for the powers and budgets that are to be devolved.
The regulations provide for the first mayoral election to take place on 2 May 2024. The elected mayor will then take up office on 7 May, with a four-year term ending after the next mayoral election in May 2028. Thereafter, there will be elections every fourth year on the ordinary day for elections—that is, the first Thursday in May.
The regulations also make provision for the overall governance arrangements of the combined county authority. Each constituent council will appoint two of its members to the combined county authority, making eight constituent members in total, in addition to the mayor. The mayor will be the chair of the east midlands combined county authority and will appoint a deputy mayor from one of the constituent members. The combined county authority may in addition arrange for there to be up to eight non-constituent or associate members. It is the intention of the east midlands authorities that the district councils should nominate four non-constituent members.
The combined county authority will be established on the day after the date on which the regulations are made. Until the elected mayor takes office, it will be for the constituent members to decide how they will conduct business, including the arrangements for chairing any meeting.
The regulations confer significant functions on the combined county authority, as agreed in the devolution deal, and provide that the combined county authority will become the transport authority. As required by the 2023 Act, alongside the regulations we have laid a section 20(6) report, which provides details about the public authority functions being devolved to a combined county authority. Certain functions conferred on the combined county authority are to be exercised only by the mayor.
In addition, the mayor will have powers to issue a precept, if they so choose, to cover the cost of mayoral functions that are not met by other resources available to the combined county authority. These costs must be agreed up front with the constituent council prior to any costs being incurred. The devolution deal provides for the devolution of certain education and skills functions, together with the adult education budget. As agreed with the area, further regulations for those functions will be introduced later this year with the aim, subject to Parliament’s approval, of the combined county authority being responsible for those functions from the academic year 2025-26.
The regulations will be made under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. As provided for by the Act, the councils of Derby, Derbyshire, Nottingham and Nottinghamshire consulted on the proposal to establish the combined county authority based on the east midlands devolution deal. They promoted the consultation by a number of means, including a dedicated website, two online events in which residents and stakeholders could make their views known, and a communications campaign. The councils also undertook stakeholder engagement with businesses, the voluntary sector and key institutions in the east midlands. Responses could be made online or directly by email or paper. The public consultation ran from 14 November 2022 to 9 January 2023, with a total of 4,869 respondents.
In laying the regulations before Parliament, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the statutory tests in the 2023 Act are met. Those tests are that the constituent councils have consented to the establishment of the combined county authority; that no further consultation is necessary; that conferring the proposed powers would be likely to improve the economic, social and environmental wellbeing of some or all of the people who live or work in the area; that conferring the powers would be appropriate, having regard to the need to reflect the identities of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government; and that establishing the combined county authority will achieve the purposes specified in the constituent councils’ consultation.
Most importantly, the making of the regulations opens a way to providing the considerable funding for the area set out in the devolution deal. The combined county authority will have control of an investment funding allocation of £38 million a year over the next 30 years, to be invested by the combined county authority to drive growth and take forward its priorities over the long term. The combined county authority will also have access to £17 million for the building of new homes on brownfield land, which will be available in 2024-25 subject to sufficient eligible projects for funding being identified, and £18 million of capital funding to support the delivery of housing priorities and drive net zero ambitions in the east midlands area. The combined county authority will plan and deliver the east midlands allocation of the UK shared prosperity fund.
I pay tribute to the local leaders and their councils for all they have done and are continuing to do to address local priorities and support businesses, industry and communities across the east midlands. Our mission to level up and boost economic growth throughout the country reaches yet another milestone. We have agreed 10 new devolution deals in the last two years, and now more than 60% of England is covered by a devolution deal. That means more money, more powers and more investment in the hands of local people. The regulations, which are supported locally, are a significant step forward for the east midlands. They are key to the future of economic development and regeneration in the area and will enable local leaders to effectively invest in and address local priorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I confirm that the Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on this statutory instrument.
The regulations establish the east midlands combined authority and are required in advance of the first planned combined authority mayoral elections in May 2024. We consider them to be important for the economic and social development of the region and its population. Indeed, we are excited and hopeful that our candidate, Claire Ward, will be the first east midlands mayor elected and, as mayors do up and down the country, will make a difference to communities.
However, it cannot be ignored that the financial pressures facing local government are profound, particularly in the east midlands region. The combined authority will only be as successful as the component local authorities beneath it. The Government really need to address the financial uncertainty in local government. We look forward to the statement on that matter in the Chamber later. It is a fact that devolution under this Government has been fragmented, piecemeal and has not gone far enough or fast enough. The powers and resources do not touch the sides of what is required for communities to have real control over their areas and their futures. Like much else, it continues the very siloed nature and begging-bowl culture of the Government’s funding allocations.
Labour would push power out of Westminster with a take back control Act that gives communities a direct say in their future. It will start by giving all mayors the powers and flexibility to turbocharge growth in their areas on matters such as planning, housing, transport, net zero and adult education. We will offer all places the right to negotiate with the Government for powers that have been devolved elsewhere. The principle will be this: no area will be left out, but equally no area will be held back. Areas that can move faster will be supported to do so. Only by doing this can we begin to give Britain its future back.
Jacob Young
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton for his support. It should be said that the spending power of the respective constituent councils within the new combined county authority area increases by 7.4% for Derby City Council, 8.3% for Derbyshire County Council, 8% for Nottinghamshire County Council and 7.3% for Nottingham City Council. We are therefore increasing local funding and giving those councils the funding they need to deliver key services. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Nottingham City Council issued a section 114 notice. I assure the Committee that such a notice does not affect the new combined county authority as it is a separate institution.
As I said, the regulations, which are widely welcomed by the people of the east midlands, are a significant step forward for the whole area, which includes two cities, large towns and rural areas. This step makes an important contribution to the Government’s levelling-up agenda.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister makes good points and this is a welcome devolution deal. Will his Department consider the alternative devolution offers that other counties have put forward? At the moment, it is a one-size-fits-all mayoral option only. Conservative, Liberal, Green and Labour councils in Sussex have asked for a devolution deal that would cover three counties—East Sussex, West Sussex and Surrey—but with an assembly rather than a directly elected mayor. It is what we want but the Department has rejected it a number of times. Is it not time for the Department to think about more flexible forms of devolution that work for local areas but still provide all the benefits the Minister espouses?
Jacob Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. He allows me to draw on the example of Devon and Torbay, in the same area as my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes represents. Just two weeks ago, I signed a level 2 devolution deal there, which does not include a mayor. I grant the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown that that deal does not include all the same functions as the one under consideration today, but it devolves power over the adult education budget, creates a new transport authority and puts the future of economic growth in Devon and Torbay in the hands of local leaders. We are keen to promote that throughout the country.
If the hon. Gentleman has examples of where he wants to see devolution in his area, my door is open. I am always happy to discuss the potential for devolution in Sussex and elsewhere.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister mentioned Torbay, south Devon, Devon County Council and the new devolution settlement. I welcome what he says and the bespoke agreement we have. I will also say that any Members who want to come down and see how it is done are welcome—even the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown. Does the Minister agree?
Jacob Young
I commend to my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown the fish from Brixham fish market, which I sampled on my visit to Devon just two weeks ago. It is some of the best fish in the country, but perhaps not as good as in Whitby.
Returning to my previous point, the regulations and the deal they implement will make a significant contribution to the future economic development and regeneration of the east midlands. They will empower local leaders to invest in local priorities. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veterans Relief) Regulations 2024
Draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veterans Relief) Regulations 2024.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2024.
Nigel Huddleston
As always, Sir Charles, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The regulations will be of considerable benefit to our constituents who rely on tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance, and to those who pay national insurance contributions. Regulations are made each year to set national insurance contributions thresholds and uprate tax credit, child benefit and guardian’s allowance.
First, the Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veterans Relief) Regulations 2024 set the national insurance contributions limits and thresholds of a number of national insurance contribution classes for the 2024-25 tax year, with all limits and thresholds remaining fixed at their existing level. The regulations also make provision for a Treasury grant to be paid, if required, into the national insurance fund for the same year—a transfer of wider Government funds to the national insurance fund—and for the veterans employer national insurance contributions relief to be extended for a year until April 2025. The scope of the regulations is limited to the 2024-25 tax year.
National insurance contributions are social security contributions. They allow people to make contributions when they are in work in order to receive contributory benefits when they are not working, such as after they have retired or if they become unemployed. NICs receipts fund contributory benefits, as well as supporting funding to the NHS.
On the details of the NICs for employed and self-employed people, the primary threshold and lower profit limits are the points at which employees and the self-employed start paying employee class 1 and self-employed class 4 national insurance contributions respectively. At the autumn statement 2022, the Government announced their intention to maintain the primary threshold’s alignment with the income tax personal allowance, with both rates being fixed at £12,570 until 2028.
Fixing the primary threshold at £12,570 does not affect an individual’s ability to build up entitlement towards contributory benefits such as the state pension. For employees, this is determined by the lower earnings limit—which will remain at £6,396 per annum, or £123 per week, in 2024-25—and for self-employed people by the small profits threshold, which will remain at £6,725 in 2024-25. Fixing the thresholds will mean that more lower-earning working people will gain entitlement to contributory benefits and build up qualifying years for their state pensions.
The upper earnings limit, which is the point at which the main rate of employee NICs drops to 2%, and the upper profits limit, which is the point at which the main rate of self-employed NICs drops to 2%, are aligned with the higher rate threshold for income tax, at £50,270 per annum. It was announced previously that those thresholds would be fixed until April 2028, as part of the Government’s commitment to supporting the public finances.
At the autumn statement 2023, the Government also announced that from 6 April 2024 self-employed people with profits above £12,570 will no longer be required to pay class 2 NICs, but will continue to accrue and receive access to contributory benefits, including the state pension. Those with profits between £6,725 and £12,570 will continue to get access to contributory benefits, including the state pension, through a national insurance credit, without paying NICs as they do currently. Those with profits under £6,725 who choose to pay class 2 NICs voluntarily to get access to contributory benefits, including the state pension, will continue to be able to do so.
I turn now to employers NICs. The secondary threshold is the point at which employers start paying employer national insurance contributions on their employees’ salaries. At the autumn statement 2022, the Chancellor announced that this threshold will remain at £9,100 in 2023-24 and will be fixed at this level until 2028. That supports the public finances while ensuring that the largest businesses pay the most. The employment allowance, which the Government raised from £4,000 to £5,000 in April 2022, means that the smallest 40% of businesses with employer national insurance contributions liability pay no employer NICs. The regulations also fix the thresholds for employers of employees eligible for NICs reliefs—the reliefs for employers of under-21s, under-25 apprentices, veterans, and new employees in freeports and investment zones—at their 2023-24 levels.
The majority of national insurance contributions are paid into the national insurance fund, which is used to pay the state pension and other contributory benefits. The Treasury has the ability to transfer funds from wider Government revenues into the national insurance fund. The regulations make provision for a transfer of this kind, known as a Treasury grant, so that up to 5% of forecasted annual benefit expenditure can be paid into the national insurance fund, if needed, in 2024-25. A similar provision will be made in respect of the Northern Ireland national insurance fund. The Government Actuary’s Department report laid alongside the regulations forecasts that a Treasury grant will not be required in 2024-25 but the Government consider it prudent, as a precautionary measure, to make a provision for a Treasury grant at this stage, which is consistent with previous years.
The regulations also make provision for the national insurance contributions relief for employers of veterans to be extended for a year until April 2025. This measure means that businesses pay no employer NICs—at a rate of 13.8%—on salaries up to the veterans upper secondary threshold of £50,270 for the first year of a qualifying veteran’s employment in a civilian role. The relief is part of the Government’s commitment to make the UK the best place in the world to be a veteran, and is intended to further incentivise employers to take advantage of the wide range of skills and experience that ex-military personnel offer. It supports those who have already given so much to this country, and helps to unleash the great skills and huge potential of our service leavers.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The veterans relief that the Minister just mentioned is clearly very welcome, in addition to the other uprating of reliefs. Finding a route back into work for those who are rough sleeping or homeless is a particular issue for veterans. Will the Minister explain why the relief applies only to the first year of employment and whether any consideration has been given to assisting veterans on their return to work following their homelessness journey?
Nigel Huddleston
The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs has explained the wide variety of other measures that we have to support veterans. As I said, it is the Government’s ambition to make sure that we treat our veterans with incredible respect and that the UK is the best place in the world to be a veteran, so there are other measures in place. The relief measure was always intended to be temporary. It was announced as such, but we are now extending it. I cannot promise that further extensions will or will not be forthcoming—that would be for other decisions—but I think the whole Committee agrees with my hon. Friend’s wider point about respect for veterans.
I turn now to the draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2024. The Government are committed to delivering a welfare system that is fair for claimants and taxpayers while providing a strong safety net for those who need it the most. The regulations will ensure that the benefits for which His Majesty’s Treasury Ministers are responsible and that HM Revenue and Customs delivers are uprated by inflation in April 2024. Tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance will increase in line with the consumer prices index, which had inflation at 6.7% in the year to September 2023. Uprating by the preceding September CPI is the Government’s typical approach.
To reject the regulations would mean that HMRC-administered benefits do not rise at all next year, making our constituents worse off. As usual, the Department for Work and Pensions led a separate debate in this place on the regulations for uprating other benefits and the state pension, for which the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is responsible, on 31 January 2024. The DWP’s working-age benefits will also rise in line with the 6.7% CPI rate this year.
In summary, the proposed legislation fixes all the limits and thresholds for national insurance contributions at their 2023-24 levels for the 2024-25 tax year; makes provision for a Treasury grant; extends the NICs relief for employers of veterans; and increases the rates of tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance in line with prices. The legislation enacts announcements from the autumn statement and previous fiscal events. Without it, HMRC will be unable to collect NICs receipts, and tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance will be frozen at 2023-24 levels. I therefore hope that colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations.
James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you, Sir Charles. I welcome the opportunity to address, on behalf of the Opposition, the measures laid out in the two statutory instruments.
First, as we heard from the Minister, the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Limits and Thresholds, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veterans Relief) Regulations 2024 give effect to the annual re-rating of national insurance contributions limits and thresholds for the purposes of calculating class 1 NICs liability for the coming tax year. As we also heard, the regulations allow for payments of a Treasury grant not exceeding 5% of the estimated benefit expenditure for 2024-25 to be made into the national insurance fund, while also making provision for Northern Ireland. Finally, the regulations extend the availability of the zero-rate relief on secondary class 1 contributions for employers of veterans for the tax year 2024-25.
Members will recall that at the autumn statement 2022 the Chancellor announced, as the Minister said, that national insurance contribution thresholds that are in line with income tax will be fixed at their 2023-24 levels until 2027-28. As the Office for Budget Responsibility pointed out at the time, the freeze to national insurance thresholds and limits meant that
“all the main personal tax thresholds are now frozen in cash terms across our entire forecast period”
through to 2027-28.
The freezes to allowances, limits and thresholds provide the context for why the Chancellor’s boasting about the cut in the rate of national insurance at the autumn statement 2023 rings so hollow. As Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies said, the changes made at the statement
“won’t be enough to prevent this from being the biggest tax-raising parliament in modern times.”
The truth is that after 25 tax rises in this Parliament alone, the tax burden remains on course to be at its highest since the second world war.
One of the central reasons for that is the freeze to income tax and national insurance thresholds through to 2027-28. That fiscal drag means that, on average, personal taxes will go up by £1,200 per household even after the 2% cut to national insurance in January. The Government are, in effect, giving with one hand while taking with the other. Indeed, after the autumn statement the IFS noted that tax reductions announced in November would give back
“less than £1 of every £4 that is being taken away”.
I have heard the Minister say several times in previous debates that Members should compare our December and January pay slips; frankly, I am more concerned about the post-tax income for low and middle earners than I am for MPs. The truth is that even people in this place on very good salaries will see their tax burden rise as a result of the Government’s freezes to thresholds, but the impact on low and middle earners is stark. Does the Minister agree with consumer finance expert Martin Lewis on this? Mr Lewis recently said that even with the reduction in national insurance, people on incomes of between £12,500 to £26,000 will be worse off, looking at this year in isolation, as a result of threshold freezes and fiscal drag. Does the Minister agree with that or does he think Mr Lewis is mistaken?
On a point of clarification, I understand that last year, through the Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments and National Insurance Funds Payments) Regulations 2023, the Government made provisions for classes 2, 3 and 4 national insurance contributions. Will the Minister explain the procedural reasoning for why such provision has been omitted from this year’s regulations?
Secondly, the draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2024 set the annual rates of working tax credit and child tax credit and the weekly rates of child benefit and guardian’s allowance for the coming financial year. Amid a damaging cost of living crisis, we support the increases, as any help for people who are struggling in the face of persistently high energy, food and housing costs is particularly needed at this time. We know that 8 million households received their final means-tested cost of living payment this week. That support has been critical for millions across this country, including many children. I know from my constituency that many people continue to struggle to provide for themselves and their families. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister could share with us his assessment of the impact of the end of the cost of living payment on levels of child poverty.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank my opposite number, the hon. Member for Ealing North, for his contribution, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover. Perhaps we could at some point have regulations on reducing the length of the names of regulations, because we have all had a bit of a mouthful today.
The hon. Gentleman raised many points not strictly relevant to the scope of the regulations, and many points that we have rehashed often, but I will repeat that the reason why taxes have been higher is because of the significant amounts of support that we gladly handed out during the pandemic out of necessity, and also to support with the cost of living crisis that he mentioned. That was £350 billion-plus on the pandemic and a further £100 billion on cost of living challenges—about £3,700 per household—out of necessity, but we are now in a position where we can start to bring taxes down, which is what we did in the autumn statement. The OBR forecast that taxes as a percentage of GDP would fall by 0.7% as a result of the autumn statement changes, so taxes are clearly coming down now. Each fiscal event needs to be taken on its own, but the direction of travel is quite clear.
On the hon. Gentleman’s points about class 2, 3 and 4 contributions as set out in the relevant legislation, the Treasury has provided a report detailing the decisions not to make changes to class 2 and 3 rates and thresholds, and class 4 thresholds, for national insurance contributions for 2024-25. The decision was announced at the autumn statement and reflects the Government’s commitment to keeping taxes low to support working people to keep more of what they earn, as part of our plan to grow the economy. Class 2 rates will be maintained at 2023-24 levels for individuals to pay voluntarily to gain access to contributory benefits, as set out in the autumn statement.
The regulations ensure that tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance increases are in line with September’s CPI rate, at 6.7%, thereby ensuring that those benefits keep their value in relation to prices. The NICs regulations set the limits and thresholds for the 2024-25 tax year, coming soon after the Government’s decision at the autumn statement to return money to taxpayers with a £9 billion tax cut. They allow for the collection of more than £170 billion of NICs to fund contributory benefits, including the state pension, and contribute to NHS funding. They are therefore vital to the livelihoods of all our constituents. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2024
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Regulations 2024.—(Nigel Huddleston.)
Petition
Grove Station Reopening
Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Bill
Wednesday 7th February 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Act 2024 View all Building Societies Act 1986 (Amendment) Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we start, I have a few preliminary remarks. Please switch all electronic devices to silent. No food or drink is permitted in the sitting except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. The selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled, and we will have a single debate on all clauses of the Bill.
Clause 1
The funding limit: funds to be disregarded
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank all hon. and right hon. Members for considering my Bill and taking the time to come to Committee, especially at this time on a Wednesday morning; it is unusual for a private Member’s Bill to attract this many people. I thank the Building Societies Association, which represents the building society sector and its 42 member building societies and seven credit unions. It has provided excellent support on the detail of the Bill and is why the sector thinks it is so important. I also thank the Co-operative party for its support, and Anne-Marie Griffiths in the Public Bill Office for her wealth of knowledge and for being there for not just me, but all those who were successful in the ballot; she is a font of knowledge and a credit to the Clerks of this House.
I welcome the support of the Government and the Minister for this legislation. It was announced as part of the Edinburgh reforms but fell off the legislative process, so I am proud to take up the Bill as a strong new chapter in the mutual and co-operative banking tradition. I am also grateful for the support of the Minister and his officials at His Majesty’s Treasury, especially Logan Cuthbert and Nicola Brown, for all their work preparing for the drafting of the Bill, and for ensuring that the voices of the building society sector are heard and its needs met in the Bill’s detail.
The purpose of the Bill is to bring the building society sector in line with the Companies Act 2006 in some important, specific respects, which will put the sector on a more level playing field with banks and ensure that it can remain comfortably solvent during times of economic pressure while accessing further sources of funding. I will not go through all the arguments that I made on Second Reading as to why the Bill is so important, but I will run through each clause, consider its effects and comment on issues raised on Second Reading.
I have already said that the Bill is an important development of the Labour and Co-operative tradition of working people supporting each other; in that vein, I am proud to have the support of the Co-operative party on the Bill. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk talked about how it is also an expression of civic conservatism. Although our readings of the Bill might be different, I am grateful to Members across the usual political divides for coming together to support a Bill that is so important for a sector that supports so many people in all our constituencies and can impact so many lives for the better.
We should take a brief look at the numbers. The building society sector has more than 26 million members and holds more than £352 billion of mortgage assets and more than £313 billion of savings from individuals. What is so great about the sector is the support that it gives to first-time buyers. In the first nine months of last year, building societies in the north-east and Cumbria supported 4,000 first-time buyers, and since 2020 they have lent £3.5 billion to first-time buyers alone—that is one of the things that particularly interested me in taking the Bill forward. It is estimated that for every £10 billion of new lending capacity the sector could support 20,000 new first-time buyers, so if we unlock billions with this Bill, as I think there is the potential to do, we can truly help lots of people.
Clause 1 affects those potential numbers more than any other in the Bill. It describes the funds that can be disregarded if the Bill passes, and amends section 7 of the Building Societies Act 1986. Currently, to operate as a building society—there are 42 in the UK—each society must ensure that a minimum of 50% of its funds is sourced from individual members. That minimum 50% wholesale funding limit ensures that the building societies continue to serve the members they were created for. The Bill does not seek to change the 50% limit, but clause 1(2) provides His Majesty’s Treasury the power to specify certain sources of funding to be disregarded from that measurement. The disregarded funding comprises
“amounts drawn by the society from a specified liquidity insurance facility provided by the Bank of England…amounts represented by specified debt instruments issued by the society with a view to maintaining the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities”
and
“sums received by the society under a sale and repurchase agreement entered into by the society with a view to complying with a specified PRA rule.”
It sounds like gobbledegook, but it really will make a big difference!
The specified liquidity insurance facilities are not named because it is incumbent on the Government of the day to name the particular source of funding building societies can access by reference to the detailed descriptions applying from time to time. By not naming one now, we allow future Governments to specify the relevant funds at that time via secondary legislation, meaning that the Government can be much more responsive to the sector’s needs, and adapt and change when necessary.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on everything she has done to bring the Bill to this point. All of us here, and many listening, will be aware of the appalling situation when the Northern Rock building society, a once great pillar of northern building, became something very different. Can she give any assurances that the Bill is designed to support the best of building societies, which are properly rooted in good, connected capital, rather than what we saw then?
Julie Elliott
I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that situation, which affected an awful lot of my constituents, as Northern Rock and the vast majority of its members were based in the north-east. People still tell me on the doorstep today that they lost literally tens of thousands of pounds. The issue of malpractice and bad practice within building societies is separate from what the Bill does. If things are not being run correctly, there are other checks and balances that came in after the Northern Rock crisis to stop that—particularly the protection for deposits up to £85,000. It is a relevant point, but the Bill will not make that possible again; I am quite sure about that.
The specified debt instruments are not named either. Notably, this function is not to introduce risk into the process—it is to help to support building societies to remain comfortably solvent at a time when they need it most. Proposed new subsection 7(3)(e) of the 1986 Act is quite clear about sale and repurchase agreements. Clause 1(3) inserts appropriate new definitions into section 7 of the 1986 Act and gives the Treasury power to make regulations specifying the detail of funds and Prudential Regulation Authority rules. The regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
The approach has been consulted on by His Majesty’s Treasury and was backed by industry. It is what the sector needs, and this clause has the power to unlock billions. The removal of these considerations from the 50% wholesale funding limit means that building societies that want to can run much closer to the 50:50 ratio than the 70:30 or 80:20 ratios they do now. That is where my point about unlocking billions comes from. When we look at how many people are supported already and what a difference giving that freedom to the building societies can make, we see there is huge potential to help many more people access a mortgage for the first time.
Clause 2 amends schedule 2 of the 1986 Act to modernise the building society sector’s relationship with its members in line with company law. It sets out the possibility of holding and conducting building society meetings in a hybrid way so that persons who are not present together in the same place may attend, speak or vote. First, that is important to allow access to meetings for those who are unable to attend in person due to health or geographical issues. For example, the Nationwide Building Society is, as the label says, nationwide, so having hybrid meetings opens up the ability for more people to attend, because a physical meeting can be held in only one part of the country. The situation may well be different for smaller, local building societies, but the change is still important.
The second main argument behind the clause is simply that the change brings the building society sector into line with businesses and retail banks as defined in the Companies Act 2006. Building societies should not be held to different standards. The important mitigation is that it is down to individual building societies to consider what is best for them; if a particular building society wants to make the change, its members will need to vote on it and agree to it. That means that the clause does not enforce anything, but gives building societies the ability to change if their members want it; it gives more flexibility. I hope that helps any Members who might have worries about the clause. It is about putting building societies on a more level playing field with retail banks, and it is what the sector has asked for.
Clause 3 is another modernising clause. In simple terms, it will enable the Treasury to introduce increased flexibility for societies in relation to common seals and the execution of documents, in line with company law. It reserves to the Treasury the right to make provision by regulations in future, upon which further consultation in the sector would be usual.
Finally, clause 4 states the territorial extent of the Bill, which covers all of the UK, and when the Bill will come into force. It also makes it clear that modifications of company law to which assimilation can happen as described in clause 3 cover those made both before and after the Bill comes into force.
The Bill does a lot for a sector that needs it and has asked for it. Building societies support millions of people up and down the country, and are much more adept at supporting first-time buyers than other parts of the sector. The Bill gives them much more flexibility to do exactly that.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Bim Afolami)
It is a pleasure to speak to the Bill and, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central on introducing it and on reaching Committee stage, which is no mean feat in this place for a private Member’s Bill.
It is clear from the hon. Member’s remarks that the Bill has the noble aim of supporting the future growth and success of the building society sector. As she said, it will do a lot for building societies, which have asked for this legislation—and the Government and the Treasury strongly support them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk described, building societies are some of the best in the financial services sector for benefiting local connected communities, and that is the sort of activity we want to encourage.
The Bill will help by modernising legislation so that building societies can have more flexibility around their funding and certain corporate governance requirements. That delivers on the key asks from the sector. As the hon. Member for Sunderland Central said, it is rare that something gobbledegook can have a positive impact on people’s lives, but the technical amendments in the Bill—particularly around capital requirements, which I will explain briefly—will have a positive impact on the ability of building societies to contribute to their local communities in all our constituencies.
As member-owned financial institutions, the 42 building societies in this country work to support the financial resilience of communities throughout the length and breadth of the UK, because they encourage savings and responsible lending, and promote financial literacy and inclusion, which often gets lost. They also play a vital role in supporting their members to buy their own homes, and the hon. Member for Sunderland Central has spoken about the potential for the sector to further support first-time buyers. The Bill achieves all that by making provisions in three areas, which she has already set out, so I will give a shortened version.
First, the Bill amends section 7(3) of the 1986 Act. The year 1986 was a very—
Bim Afolami
Exactly—an auspicious year for me.
The Bill amends section 7(3) of the 1986 Act to exclude three specified sources of funding from the 50% wholesale funding limit for building societies. By excluding these sources of funding from the wholesale funding limit, building societies will be able to raise additional wholesale capital, which strengthens their arms to compete with retail banks while promoting competition within the financial services sector.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk mentioned Northern Rock, which was a bank, not a building society, when it failed. Does the Minister agree that the provisions being brought in will allow greater access to capital so that building societies can flourish, while keeping in place the checks and balances that have made building societies so much better at being able to respond to the financial crisis than we saw with some of the banks?
Bim Afolami
It is worth explaining the dynamic, because it is not straightforward. In essence, the point of the Bill is to level the playing field between building societies and retail banks in this key area. Resilience, in terms of capital, will not be lower for building societies than for any of the retail banks with which we are all very familiar. That is the first point. The controls that are applied to retail banks by sophisticated people with sophisticated mechanisms will have the same capital requirements as building societies—so I agree with my hon. Friend.
Building societies will still be required to hold specified sources of funding for regulatory purposes. That is the key point. The reason we have the capital limits is that, if a shock happens—however rare or unusual that might be—we need to make sure that there is enough of a buffer of capital so that the building society or, indeed, the retail bank does not go bust. Over the last 15 years, we have been through a huge programme of reform to broadly increase the levels of capital by many multiples of what was required in the 2000s, so that that does not happen. Building societies will adhere to that in the same way as our retail banks. Moreover, building societies will still be required to ensure that at least 50% of their funding comes from their members—again, that is a critical way in which buildings societies are different from a typical retail bank—which ensures that the Bill has no impact on building societies’ important and unique ownership model.
Secondly, the Bill amends the 1986 Act to allow the option of real-time virtual member participation at building societies’ meetings, which, as everybody can appreciate, now happens across the corporate sector—it does not happen in Parliament, but that is for another day. This amendment can help to modernise the day-to-day practices of building societies, promoting wider membership engagement by making such meetings more accessible to a greater number of members. That matters particularly for building societies, because they have a membership model; the point is that members find them accessible and know what is going on.
Given that members can do things digitally and more flexibly in other areas of their lives, this small measure can have quite a big and positive impact on participation, but it is worth stressing that the decision on whether to hold hybrid meetings will be up to the members of each individual building society; the Government are not imposing the requirement for endless Zoom calls. If that is what people want, they can have them—they just have to vote in favour of making the relevant changes to the society’s rules by special resolution, which, if I recall my company law properly, requires passing a 75% threshold.
Thirdly and finally, the Bill will provide the Treasury with the powers to further align the constitutional provisions in part 2 of the 1986 Act that concern common seals and the execution of documents with modifications to company law. I do not need to explain to the Committee that common seals have sort of fallen out of general usage—although I have often fancied having one, because I think it would be rather fun to stamp various documents, rather than sign them. But that is now the past and we are bringing building societies into the modern day, which is positive.
Overall, the Bill will help to deliver important amendments to the Building Societies Act 1986 by modernising the legislation so that building societies can compete with retail banks, better serve their members and, to be perfectly frank, better serve the communities they are set up to support. The Government are fully committed to ensuring that all subsequent secondary legislation, which will be subject to parliamentary timetabling, is enacted as soon as possible. I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Julie Elliott
It is a pleasure to follow the Minister on an occasion when we all agree; it is an unusual situation. I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate and Members of all parties, officials and people in the building society sector for their support.
It has been a pleasure to take this Bill forward. If it becomes law, I hope it will make a real difference for all our constituents’ lives and enable more people to get a first foot on the housing ladder, which is so important to us all.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kurdistan Region of Iraq
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the relationship between the UK and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. The relationship between Iraqi Kurdistanis and the UK—people and Governments—goes back many decades but has emerged as a more enduring and vital alliance in the last third of a century, for great mutual benefit. Before that, Kurdistanis, as they prefer to be called, were long demonised in Iraq as second-class citizens. That developed into genocide in the 1980s, which was formally recognised by the House of Commons on the 25th anniversary of the tragic gassing in 1988 by Saddam Hussein’s air force of the town of Halabja, with the instant death of 5,000 people and many maimed for life. Overall, nearly 200,000 people were murdered in a systematic genocide that also razed thousands of villages to the ground and destroyed the backbone of the rural economy.
Many Kurdistanis were exiled here before returning. That drives a great affinity with the UK and the widespread use of English. That living link was boosted when Saddam, defeated in Kuwait in 1991, turned on the Kurdistanis with genocidal intent. They revolted, and about 2 million people fled to the freezing mountains to escape Saddam’s revenge. I am immensely proud that Sir John Major showed fantastic leadership and moral courage by establishing with America and France a no-fly zone. I am delighted that the Kurdistan Regional Government agreed to name a major thoroughfare in Irbil after Sir John, and very much hope that they do the same for Sir Tony Blair.
The creation of the safe haven, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) participated as an RAF officer, averted further genocide and helped to usher in an autonomous region. Kurdistanis elected their first Parliament in 1992 and, despite harsh Iraq and UN sanctions, laid the basis of a new society that bettered Saddam’s Iraq in, for instance, one key area: infant mortality. Sadly, civil war marred that fresh start.
Iraqi Kurdistan won a place at the forefront of our foreign policy, which was a great advantage when Iraq was liberated in 2003. Kurdistani leaders stabilised the new Iraq with peaceful elections and a landmark constitution in 2005, based on federalism and rights for the officially recognised autonomous region. Kurdistan enjoyed a golden decade in which new oil, long denied by Saddam, boosted living standards and infrastructure in “the Other Iraq”. However, there were difficult challenges; most important was Baghdad’s refusal to implement a settlement by 2007 in which the people of Kirkuk and other disputed territories could choose to join Iraq or the autonomous region. That is unfinished business and requires greater attention, and I ask the Minister to comment on it in his remarks.
Worse was to come with the complete and unilateral suspension of budget payments from Baghdad to Irbil in early 2014, the sudden seizure by ISIS of Mosul in June 2014 and its broader attack on Kurdistan. The Kurdistanis took the brunt of the defence of Iraq by saving Kirkuk and, with a refreshed Iraqi army and coalition forces, by helping to liberate Mosul in 2017. I saw the Kurdistani army—the peshmerga, which means “those who defy death”—in action in Kirkuk and Mosul. The peshmerga were valiant allies in fighting a foul fascism, with British help, especially from the RAF. Kurdistani action reduced a serious threat to our own people in the United Kingdom.
It was deeply disappointing that the Iraqi Prime Minister “forgot” to thank the peshmerga at the UN, and that his reaction to a peaceful referendum in 2017 on the principle of independence, which I observed in three cities, was to violently seize Kirkuk, killing peshmerga. Baghdad closed international flights and even tried, unsuccessfully, to invade the autonomous region. All of that was a tragic indictment and demonstration of the very dysfunctional nature of the relationship between Baghdad and the KRG at the time, to say the least.
The all-party group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq returned in 2018 to Kurdistan and for the first time visited Baghdad, where there was a stated desire to seek reconciliation. Sadly, the momentum has stalled due to the undue influence of Iran and its proxy militias and terrorist organisations.
Warfare and lawfare via a supreme court that has not been constitutionally established is destabilising and suffocating Kurdistan, and Shi’a militia attacks have targeted British and American military facilities at the main airport in Irbil.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must not allow those elements, particularly in Iraq and in other locations, to replace what most of us want to see, which is democratic accountability in each of these regions and nations? They try to make it seem as though these are western values, thereby devaluing the independence of regions such as Kurdistan.
Jack Lopresti
I absolutely agree. We have to look only across the broader middle east, where we have seen in recent and historical events the malign influence of Iran, with its wish to diminish and extinguish any country or region that exemplifies the western values of freedom and democracy.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman’s expertise in and knowledge of the area of Kurdistan is always a joy to listen to. He has mentioned Iran and recent attacks. Does he agree that we, as a House, should show full solidarity with the Kurdish people against those attacks from Iran? Does he also agree that we need to start showing solidarity with a people who did more than anything else and had boots on the ground to take on Daesh and roll it back?
Jack Lopresti
Again, I completely agree. As we speak, we are seeing action being taken against Iran and its proxies. I will continue to elaborate on the fact that we must continue to support our Kurdish friends and allies.
Iran has attacked Iranian Kurdish camps and, more recently, the houses of two prominent businessmen on the laughable grounds that they were Mossad bases. In January, Iranian missiles killed Peshraw Dizayee, whose skyscrapers in Irbil symbolise his ambition to emulate Dubai. His baby daughter was killed, and more than two dozen were killed or injured. Iran is the main menace, so let us hope for regime change from below in Iran. I will come back to Iran at the end.
It does not help that the PKK terror group is taking actions to kill peshmerga, scupper good governance in key areas and attract Turkish military action. It would be better—and I think this is crucial—if British, American and other international allies stayed in Iraq with a military footprint of some measure, with Baghdad’s agreement, clearly, which would help to counter and deter ISIS and stabilise the country. We could also further train the peshmerga, as we are doing, and underpin the confidence of external investors. Negotiations on that began last year.
Baghdad is also drip-feeding budget payments to Kurdistan below the amounts stipulated by a clear political agreement. Its vital oil pipeline to Turkey remains closed after nearly a year, with the loss of billions. Teachers, police officers, nurses and the peshmerga are not being paid.
The UK supports a strong KRG within Iraq. Our excellent diplomatic mission has gone from strength to strength, with senior appointments and more staff, which makes it bigger than in many sovereign countries. Our Army and others are seeking to professionalise and unify the peshmerga so that it is completely controlled by the KRG and not by the two main political parties, which is a hangover from the civil war. Government control over the military and security apparatus is essential.
Bilateral relationships depend on people who are active over many years. Kurdistan’s high representatives in London, Bayan Sami Abdul Rahman and now Karwan Jamal Tahir, who is here today, have helped to inform us. Our now-voluntary APPG secretary Gary Kent has been active on this for nearly 20 years, and I pay tribute to his excellent work and fantastic contribution to UK-Kurdistan relations.
The diaspora is an asset, as are Anglo-Kurdistani activities such as those of the Gulan charity on culture. Trade bodies have encouraged investments in areas where our companies can add niche value. The University of London is set to establish a campus in Irbil and join three universities that teach in English, in a testament to the soft power of our language, history and higher education.
The Kurdistan region is only 32 years old and has further to go in overcoming the economic and political pathologies of its past and of the wider middle east. For more than half its existence, we have closely observed the ebbs and flows in Kurdistan’s fortune. It is too small to go it alone and too big to be ignored, but it operates in what its leaders call a tough neighbourhood, and even as a landlocked nation surrounded by sharks. It has previously overcome chauvinism towards it as a square peg in the round hole of Iraq, many of whose leaders do not accept the concept of a binational and federal state but prefer centralisation. For now, the centralisers, buttressed and supported by the malign Iranian regime, have the upper hand, but they need not triumph. That depends on Kurdistani diplomacy, crucial western support and internal reforms so that Kurdistan can be a subject rather than an object of history. However, we should not, and must not, put Kurdistan on an impossible pedestal where vice and virtue do not co-exist; we should be candid friends.
I will start with the pros. First, given its experience of exile and oppression, Kurdistan is open to those who flee from neighbouring areas. In 2014, its population soared by a third to accommodate 2 million displaced people from Mosul as well as Syrian refugees. One million remain in Kurdistan, whose generous care is exemplary. Secondly, Kurdistan upholds peaceful co-existence for people of all faiths, including Muslims, Christians, Yazidis and others. Its state institutions are secular and its religious faith moderate. Thirdly, Kurdistan is in the vanguard of women’s rights in the middle east. Firm action was taken to stamp out female genital mutilation and domestic violence, but it still often looks like a man’s world, which should change faster if Kurdistan is to unleash its fantastic potential. Fourthly, there is its modernised road network and digital highway. A railway from the Gulf to Turkey could one day boost jobs, trade and peacebuilding.
The cons apply across the middle east, where Kurdistan fares better in reality, but these defects are drag anchors on making Kurdistan match fit. First, the youth, as a majority of the population, seem disaffected, judging by falling electoral turnout. They have to be part of a patriotic renewal. Better higher and vocational education can prepare them for jobs that do not currently exist and opportunities that are coming. Secondly, the economy is dangerously dependent, for more than 80% of revenues, on oil and gas reserves and a bloated and unproductive public sector. The energy reserves are of strategic interest to the UK and the west generally, and I hope the Minister will comment on that. Thirdly, reliance on a volatile commodity crowds out a dynamic private sector, which can complement democracy and a thriving civil society. Fourthly, the scourge of corruption, in a region less industrial than the south, must be eliminated. The judicial system and dispute resolution—important for foreign investors—are immature, and there is an authoritarian approach to dissent and the media. That needs to be more professional and reliable. Britain could provide Kurdistan with more judicial, media, policing and commercial training.
The crisis in relations with Baghdad and the material basis of public services are driving more determined reform. The KRG seek to diversify their economy through more agriculture, tourism and light industry. Visitors marvel at the beautiful vast plains, rivers and mountains in the Iraqi breadbasket, plus the vibrant, growing cities. Kurdistanis say that they have “no friends but the mountains”. The APPG has sought to disprove that through 15 delegations with 50 parliamentarians and others. This is about not just solidarity, but a pragmatic calculation of the allies we need and who share our values. Kurdistan could have sided with Iran but has stuck with us in these very difficult and dangerous times.
Reform requires peace and stability, which Kurdistan lacks. I must end with a blunt warning about its current perilous plight. Kurdistan is completely defenceless, with no means of detecting or deterring missile and drone attacks or even of evacuating target areas. Iran and its proxies are victimising and attacking Kurdistan. The UK should help to stand up for and protect our dear friends, so that we have a strong KRG within a peaceful, stable, federal Iraq.
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We are here as friends of Kurdistan, but candid friends of Kurdistan. Over the years, I have worked with the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees—Dashty Jamal, in particular, as we are naming people. In my area, the Kurdish community stems from the 1980s, and particularly a group of Kurdish students who were at Brunel University when Halabja was gassed and we lost thousands of lives. Many remained and settled in the local community, making a major contribution to it. I have to say that, at the time that Halabja occurred, my Conservative predecessor supported Saddam Hussein—a disgrace to this Parliament.
As a candid friend and as a trade unionist, I raise two issues. The first relates to the teachers’ strike that is taking place. The second, because I am the secretary of the NUJ—National Union of Journalists—group in Parliament, is the treatment of journalists. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) was straightforward about the suppression of dissent, the corruption and the lack of adequate judicial enforcement of the law at the moment, and we have to be straight with people.
I will briefly read from the letter that has come out from the Nationwide Council of Protesting Teachers in Kurdistan. The dispute has gone on for months and is causing immense concern and suffering for teachers and their families. The first paragraph is this:
“We, the Nationwide Council of Protesting Teachers, comprised of representatives from the 13 protesting border cities and towns, wish to inform you that after 130 days of civil struggle, boycotts, demonstrations, and the loss of an academic season, the KRG authorities, instead of meeting our basic demands…which include”
the return of fair
“promotion, recruitment of teachers, payment of salaries every 30 days, determining the fate of”
what they describe as “44 stolen” salary months
“are currently engaging in illegal, inhuman, and violent pressure and threats against teachers in general, and members leading protests in particular.”
What is happening in this dispute? It is a straightforward dispute about payment of wages. The teachers have not been paid for four months and, as a result, their families are on the edge of destitution in many instances. All they are asking for is payment of salaries on a monthly basis, resumption of the promotion of teachers and other employees in the education sector, and an end to the casual contracts that many have been forced to take recently.
I also have to comment on the politics—we have to be straight about that, too. The teachers want to stop what they describe as the meddling by the dominant parties in the affairs and work of Government institutions and particularly in the education system. Those are fair demands, which we should support, and I urge the authorities to come to a speedy resolution of the dispute, because it is infecting other areas of civil society and political life.
I raise the second issue on behalf of journalists. I am afraid that, for a long period—over the past five years in particular—there has been an issue with the treatment of journalists who have sought to report accurately and fairly on not only the activities of political institutions within Kurdistan but civil society affairs generally. According to the reports we are getting back, the crackdown has been fairly ruthless since 2020. It intensified about then because protests were taking place and journalists were trying to report those protests. We received reports through the union about arbitrary arrests and the forcible disappearing of a number of journalists.
It was not just the union; Amnesty did a report as well, and I found it deeply worrying. At the time, Amnesty said:
“The authorities in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq have launched a chilling crackdown in their efforts to silence critics over the past year”—
this was 2020. The report went on to say:
“They have rounded up activists and journalists, prosecuting them on trumped-up charges in unfair trials and harassing or intimidating family members who were kept in the dark about the status of their loved ones.”
That was from the then deputy director of Amnesty International for the middle east and north Africa.
These things have gone on. Amnesty investigated the case of 14 people from Badinan who were arbitrarily arrested between March and October 2020 by the KRG security and intelligence and Kurdish Democratic Party intelligence. That case was specifically connected to their reporting of the protests and to criticism from local authorities of their journalistic work. At that point—I am afraid that further evidence has now come to light—there was evidence of torture and ill treatment during detention in cells and of a number of confessions being extracted under duress. In fact, the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders published the world press freedom index on World Press Freedom Day—which is on 3 May each year—and Iraq is ranked 167th for press freedom out of 180 countries. That is worrying in itself, but Iraq also ranks fifth out of those 180 countries for countries where journalists are killed and the killers escape punishment—that was from the renowned and respected report of the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Iraq, including Kurdistan, is still one of the most dangerous areas for journalists to work in. Recently, alarms have been sounded about the renewal of the sentencing of journalists—with some sentences of up to six years in prison—and the renewal of sentences. I want briefly to highlight the cases of a number of individuals. Reporters Without Borders sounded the alarm about increased violations of press freedom and particularly about the renewal of the sentence of Sherwan Sherwani, which was described in the media in this country as being cruel and outrageous punishment. On 1 October 2023, the Irbil court sentenced journalist Gohdar Zibari to another six months in prison. The practice seems to be that six-month sentences are renewed fairly regularly; for him, that was the third time that his sentence had been renewed. Roj News reporter, Sulaiman Ahmad, whose lawyer and relatives are still not allowed to see him, was arrested in late October last year on charges of having links with the Kurdistan Workers Party—the PKK. That case was brought forward without any evidence. The relatives are asking for access and greater transparency about what evidence is being used to justify the arrest.
Arrests of journalists peak when demonstrations are taking place or when there are industrial disputes, such as the teachers’ dispute that is taking place at the moment. The targeting of journalists who are campaigning around those issues has been interpreted, by people locally and within the journalistic community globally, as another regime seeking to silence the voice of the people, as reported by those journalists.
There appears to be a lack of accountability through the judicial system. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke made reference to the improvements that are needed to ensure that there is a fair and independent judicial system. I am afraid that, when it comes to journalists and trade unionists, there is a feeling that the judicial system is not independent or fair and that, in fact, it becomes a tool of politicians aiming to silence critics of their activities.
As has been said, the British Government have a particular relationship with Kurdistan and the Kurdish people because of our history and the activities that have taken place, particularly over recent years, to establish some form of Kurdistan and encourage its development as a democratic state that is accountable to its people. Unfortunately, some of the foundation stones of the democratic state we are hoping for, particularly with regard to the freedom of trade unions and journalists, are being undermined by the current regimes. As a result, I think the UK Government have a responsibility—in fact, I think it behoves us all—to make sure that we voice our concerns to the current Administrations and do all we can to put pressure on them to abide by certain basic democratic standards: the recognition of the freedom of trade unions and of the freedom of journalists to report without hazard, particularly to their physical security.
I urge the Government to make an honest reproach to the Kurdistan Administrations—to express our support for Kurds and for Kurdistan, but also to say very clearly that the standards at the moment are not good enough. One action that could be taken fairly quickly to reassure people that there is faith in the democratic process is the settlement of the teachers’ dispute and the protection of journalists.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Yesterday, Ms Bardell, you and I were side by side in Westminster Hall supporting a cause we both have great interest in—funnily enough, the same Minister is in his place today. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship now, and I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for highlighting the concerns he so rightly holds. It is also a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who always speaks up for journalists and freedom of expression in these debates, for which we commend him.
The discussion about the UK’s relationship with the Kurdistan region of Iraq is of great importance. The importance of our relationship with that region cannot be overstated, either diplomatically or—this will probably not be a surprise to many—in terms of freedom of religion or belief, and I will give some examples of that, because it is the core issue of my speech.
A few years ago, I had the opportunity to visit Iraq with Aid to the Church in Need. I did not go to Kurdistan, but I did go to Irbil and other parts. I have some understanding of what happens there, but I have a fairly big understanding of freedom of religious belief. I very much look forward to the contributions from the Minister, who is always helpful, and from the SNP spokesperson, my good friend the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), who I know is on the same page as me on this subject. I also very much look forward to the shadow Minister’s contribution.
With the current military strikes in the region by both Turkey and Iran-backed groups, UK support grows in importance. The area is unfortunately not new to armed conflicts, but it has also been a safe haven for religious minorities fleeing armed conflict in nearby areas and countries. Christians, Yazidis and Sunni Muslims have arrived in the region for protection from persecution in their previous homelands, but these minorities still lack legal protections and face persecution from authorities and society at large in the region. For instance, the Kurdistan Regional Government failed to substantially carry out the provisions of the 2020 United Nations-brokered Sinjar agreement to help stabilise the area and enable the return of Yazidis displaced by the ISIS genocide—it was genocide, and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute has spoken about that many times through his all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of genocide.
There continue to be territorial and jurisdictional disputes between the Iraqi federal Government and the KRG, which has resulted in the seizure of land and businesses from Christians, but there seems to be no action whatever to address that. Additionally, targeted harassment has deterred many displaced Christians from returning to the area and has increased emigration. My question to the Minister is, how has the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland attempted to broach these displacements of religious minorities in Kurdistan? Over the past few years, Iraqi military forces have targeted religious minorities, displacing some 3,000 Yazidis who had already been displaced by recurrent Turkey airstrikes. Wherever they go, the Yazidis seem to be persecuted or under pressure, and I have to speak up for them today.
Have the United Kingdom Government or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office attempted to broach discussions between Turkey and the KRG? If not, how will the Minister do that? Have the Government had further discussions with the Iraqi federal Government regarding the protection of religious minorities from rising conflicts and territorial disputes? We would all be keen to understand what has taken place and what more could be done.
The KRG has rightfully attempted to promote religious cohesion for more than 2 million members of religious minorities displaced from Iraq and Syria by conflicts with ISIS. However, some Christian groups indigenous to the plains of Nineveh—which I had the pleasure and privilege to visit some years ago—raised concerns over the KRG’s failure to resolve long-standing grievances, such as lack of KRG funding and other support for Assyrian-run schools; discrimination in employment and municipal services; and unresolved KRG-tolerated or initiated misappropriation of Christians’ land, businesses and other property. I say that again because it is important, and my job in this House is to raise these matters, to which I hope our Minister and Government can respond.
This issue must be addressed. Christian residents have cited their lack of security and threats from ISIS, the popular mobilisation forces and the KRG as the main drivers of emigration from the area, bringing their ancient communities almost to the point of extinction. This cannot go on.
What efforts has the UK has made to provide to the KRG aid and other support specifically for religious minorities? If we have not provided such aid, we need to. In August 2023, the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan region, Masrour Barzani, reaffirmed the KRG’s commitment to supporting the rights of the Yazidis and emphasised the importance of the Sinjar agreement, so there is a willingness among some in Iraq and the area, and I encourage more of that. He also stressed that the Iraq federal Government need to meet the Kurdistan region’s financial entitlements. For instance, disputes over oil and gas are one way that religious minorities are suffering. Is aid going to the KRG to help with internally displaced people, and is it equally distributed among religious minorities? If it is not, it needs to be and should be. That is my plea on behalf of those people.
The Israeli-Hamas war has begun to spill over into the Kurdistan region because of Iranian missiles, and the individuals most vulnerable to increased violence and attacks are displaced religious minorities, as many Yazidis remain in internally displaced people’s camps. We have to reach out and help those people. I am proud of our representative Lord Ahmad and what he does around the world. He is a great spokesperson for the United Kingdom Government, because he believes in these things in his heart. On a recent visit, he emphasised the need to protect freedom of religion or belief and the importance of inter-faith dialogue. That is important anywhere in the world, but even more so here. I ask the Minister, how do we accomplish that in reality?
The United Kingdom has supported Kurdistan autonomy, and perhaps that is still the best route to ensuring the protection of religious individuals and the right to FORB. In February 2021, an early-day motion on FORB in the Kurdistan region of Iraq was tabled. It stated that
“religious leaders are frequently consulted by ministers and government officials”
of the KRG, but have those actions continued? I would appreciate the Minister’s response, if not today then in the usual fashion.
The KRG’s Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs focuses on:
“Establishing, managing and supervising mosques and religious sites and meeting their needs…Supervising, monitoring and investing in Waqf properties to grow their revenues…Supervising annual pilgrimages…to Mecca for citizens of the Kurdistan Region… Preparing a new generation of religious scholars with a modern, national education…Supporting and reviving various religious events”.
That is what the Ministry committed to back in 2021, and that is what it needs to re-commit to now. What communications has the UK had with the Ministry of Endowment and Religious Affairs about developing UK policies and relations in the area and protecting the rights of religious minorities? This is my plea on behalf of those who are subjected to persecution because of their beliefs—those with Christian faiths, with other faiths and, indeed, with no faith: they should all have equal opportunities, fair and equitable treatment, and opportunities in the region.
The UK’s close ties with the Kurdistan region place us in a unique position to help religious minorities, and we can and must do more diplomatically and practically. There is a twin goal: we can help them practically and physically with aid, but we need also to help them diplomatically and ensure that there is a core focus on human rights and the right of religious expression. I look to the Minister to outline how we can better engage and support minorities who are most at risk and most in need. I know the Minister is open to the idea of additional support, so I look forward to his response.
In conclusion, we have a responsibility. I believe there is scope for enhancing our success in achieving the aim of providing help and support. Perhaps we can look to the movement today as another step in the journey we are all on together. We might have different opinions, but we are all on the same journey of life. In this world we have a responsibility to speak up for others around the world. We have a great platform as elected representatives, so let us speak up on behalf of all those people. I know the Minister is always accommodating; we all appreciate that. When it comes to moving forward together, we can do good to all men and women across the region.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Bardell. I, too, thank the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for securing the debate and for the way he opened it. I also thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for contributing to what has been a well-informed and thoughtful debate on an important strategic relationship.
Although I reply on behalf of the SNP, I should point out that since 2016 I have been chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Yazidis. Like many others, I have had the privilege of visiting the region. Indeed, it was exactly a year ago that I flew into Irbil and visited Duhok, Shekhan, the holy site of Lalish and several of the Yazidi IDP camps—a subject I will return to later. I put on the record my sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Strangford for raising the plight of Christians, Yazidis and other religious minorities in Kurdistan. As soon as I saw him in his place this morning, I never doubted for a moment that he would.
The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke spoke movingly of the hideous genocide of the 1980s in which tens of thousands died at the hands of Saddam Hussein. He was right to highlight the crucial role played by Sir John Major. Since 1992 the Kurdish people have enjoyed a democratically elected Government of their own, giving freedoms and rights to people that would have been unimaginable under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.
Notwithstanding the very real concerns raised by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington about the current situation in respect of journalistic freedom and the freedom of trade unions, rights and freedoms have been strengthened through the emergence of a raft of civic society organisations, non-governmental organisations and women’s groups, alongside an institutionalised tolerance for religious, ethnic and linguistic minorities. Following the fall of Saddam Hussein, the first independence referendum in 2005 saw 99% support for the creation of an independent Kurdish state.
Chris Stephens
As the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned, it was the actions of the Saddam Hussein regime that allowed a thriving Kurdish community to develop in Scotland—in Glasgow and Edinburgh, for example—and that is best celebrated by the election of Councillor Roza Salih, Scotland’s first refugee councillor and a woman of very proud Kurdish roots, and we are equally as proud of her.
Brendan O’Hara
I thank and agree with my hon. Friend. Councillor Salih is a shining example of a young refugee woman who has recognised that she has a contribution to make. We are very grateful that she has made and continues to make that contribution to Scotland.
Of course, the 2005 referendum did not lead to an independent Kurdistan, because of threats from neighbouring countries, but it did enshrine the autonomy of the Kurdistan region in the new Iraqi constitution, which promised the protections of autonomy and citizenship based on a federal, ethnically diverse and inclusive model with strong minority rights and guarantees against discrimination.
It will come as no surprise to anyone present that, like the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke, the SNP supports Kurds’ right to self-determination and to decide their own constitutional future. We fully understand why, despite having a degree of autonomy, the people of Kurdistan still want their independence. That desire was expressed again in no uncertain terms in 2017, with another referendum, in which 92% backed independence on a turnout of 72%. It would be foolish in the extreme for anyone to assume that that desire has gone away.
To quote the words of the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke ahead of the 2017 referendum, he sympathised with the Kurdish position and understood
“why the Kurds feel that federalism has failed and their belief that it cannot be revived.”
It is therefore essential that, in building a healthy, co-operative, mutually respectful relationship with the Kurdistan region of Iraq, the United Kingdom never loses sight of Kurds’ fierce desire for their own independent nation state. There is no doubt that today the UK Government have a key role in facilitating the development of a good relationship between the Kurdistan region and the rest of Iraq—one that helps to realise the economic potential of both and strengthens security and democratic Governments not just in Iraq but in the region as a whole.
We have seen in recent weeks that these are extremely worrying and volatile times for the whole region. Tension between the KRG and the federal Government in Baghdad has not gone away, and is currently being exacerbated by a fiercely contested dispute over the status of the province of Kirkuk and control of its oil fields. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke was right when he said that against that backdrop, and the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza, there was a missile attack last month by an Iran-affiliated group that claimed to have hit an Israeli spy base near Irbil. It was a blatant and flagrant breach of sovereignty, which was rightly condemned by both the KRG and the federal Government. Of course, Iran has form, having already attacked Kurdistan in 2022 in response to protests following the death of a young Iranian Kurdish women, Mahsa Amini. Those attacks killed 20 people, including civilian women, refugees and children.
The long-running conflict between Turkey and the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party, which has seen tens of thousands killed in the last four decades, has never been resolved. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford again for raising the question of what exactly the UK can do to help to facilitate a deal between the PKK and Turkey. Anything the UK and its partners can do to bring stability, dial down tension, and crucially avoid any escalation would be extremely welcome right now.
Of course, Kurdistan is not just having to cope with external pressures. Internally, it is having to cope with the consequences of the war on Daesh and a mass influx of people fleeing that barbaric onslaught. In the attack on Sinjar and the appalling genocide of the Yazidis that followed, Daesh fighters killed thousands of men and boys, abducted male children to fight as child soldiers, and kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery Yazidi women and girls, 2,700 of whom are still missing today and whose fate we cannot ever allow to be forgotten.
Those who could fled, many to Kurdistan. They never expected to stay and have always yearned to return to their home in Sinjar to rebuild their lives, but that has not happened because of a lack of security and an all too real fear that although Daesh has been defeated militarily, the ideology that fuelled them is still very much alive. That has resulted in a refugee crisis in Kurdistan, with more than 120,000 Yazidis still living in dire poverty and makeshift camps almost a decade after fleeing their homes in Sinjar when Daesh attacked.
Just this time last year, I visited several of the internally displaced people’s camps with the humanitarian NGO Bellwether International, to see the conditions in which the Yazidi people are forced to live. It was a harrowing experience to see thousands of families living in row after row of plastic-sheet tents, and to see children born into those camps who know nothing else but growing up in those conditions—where their parents, and particularly their mothers, still live through the trauma they went through at the hands of Daesh.
The camps are desperate places in which people who want to return home are losing hope. I cannot escape the conclusion that the international community has completely abandoned these poor people and no longer regards their situation as an emergency, leaving it to the Kurdish Regional Government, NGOs and charities to look after them. In addition to all the other issues that have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members, I ask this of the Government: please do not forget or turn your back on the Yazidis stuck in IDP camps, and please be part of the search for a long-term solution that will allow them to return home, to rebuild their lives in security and safety.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Bardell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on securing this debate. He has been to Kurdistan on a number of occasions and is chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Kurdistan region in Iraq. I am one of the vice-chairs of the APPG, and I know that its members have a great deal of knowledge about the region and have visited Kurdistan several times. I hope to go there before too long. As I would expect, the hon. Member gave a truly comprehensive overview of the region, referring to its recent history and the good things that have occurred in Kurdistan, as well as outlining what needs to be addressed in the future.
We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) about the situation for teachers and journalists. I am certain that the Minister will have taken note of his comments and will respond to them.
We have also heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who spoke eloquently about the importance of religious toleration and freedom, and spoke in particular about the situation facing Christians and Yazidis, which was also referred to by the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara).
Although I have not been to Kurdistan, as the Member for a south Wales constituency, I have felt on occasions that I know Kurdistan quite well. I say that not because of its spectacular scenery, including its wonderful mountains, but because I was a good friend of the late Anne Clwyd, the former Member for Cynon Valley, who passed away last year. I knew Anne very well and I know she had a great affection for Kurdistan, and was well respected in the region. Indeed, her memorial service in Aberdare last autumn, which I attended, was also attended by Karwan Jamal Tahir and a senior Minister from the Iraqi Government. It was really important to have such a high representative of Kurdistan as well as a member of the Iraqi Government present at Anne’s memorial service.
The Kurdistan region in Iraq is known as the beloved north, because of its spectacular landscapes and relatively temperate climate. The region has tremendous potential, and the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke correctly highlighted the importance of developing the bilateral relationship between our two countries. Indeed, that was a common theme throughout all the contributions this morning.
There are around 200 British companies currently operating in the Kurdistan region, and I know that the British Government are keen to promote UK investment as best they can. As the hon. Member said in introducing the debate, educational links are also vitally important. The University of London is in the process of establishing a campus in Irbil, the capital of Kurdistan, which will join three other universities that already teach in English.
However, that is not to suggest that Kurdistan does not face significant challenges, because it does. The relationship with Baghdad could be much better. Oil exports from Iraqi Kurdistan to Turkey have been paused since late March 2023, and arbitration on this issue has been taking place. This is a vital issue, as oil accounts for 80% of the region’s income, and it is part of an ongoing dispute about finance. The constitutional position linked to it needs to be clarified as a matter of urgency.
A crucial part of the Irbil-Baghdad argument concerns disputed territories such as Kirkuk. The Kurdish governor of Kirkuk called on Kurdish forces to urgently reinforce their military presence, to save Kirkuk from ISIS in 2014, and then control its oil fields. After the disputed 2017 independence referendum in Kurdistan, those disputed regions and oil fields were retaken by Iraqi Government forces. I understand that there were violent protests in Kirkuk in the autumn of only last year, but the dispute is unresolved.
Another large and important issue is corruption. Corruption in the regional government’s administration and elsewhere in the county is a huge problem, although that must be kept in perspective, because it is suggested that corruption in other parts of Iraq is far more deep-seated. Nevertheless, corruption needs to be addressed and rooted out in a determined way.
As we have heard this morning, security is also an issue. Since the 1980s, Turkey has been engaged in military action against the PKK, formerly the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK. In October last year, Turkey launched a number of attacks, which have continued into this year. Although I appreciate that the Government recognise Turkey’s legitimate security interests in Iraq, I am concerned about regional instability. I ask to Minister to say a few words about the Government’s position on that.
There is also the issue of recent Iranian missile attacks. Only last month, Iran launched a missile attack targeting what it called an “Israeli spy base”. At least four civilians were killed and six injured in the strikes, according to the Kurdistan Government. Among the dead were a multimillionaire Kurdish businessman, members of his family and a senior Kurdish intelligence officer. I would appreciate it if the Minister provided us with an update on that attack and on relations with Iran.
In conclusion, I think we all agree that links between the UK and Kurdistan are strong and positive. We have a large Kurdish diaspora in the United Kingdom that makes a huge and positive contribution to our economy and culture. We also have an important relationship with the autonomous region of Kurdistan, as we have heard this morning. The important thing now is to develop and take forward that relationship, which will certainly be to our mutual benefit. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to develop that relationship further, in line with their stated policy of supporting a strong Kurdistan region in a strong and unified Iraq.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Leo Docherty)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for securing this important debate. All colleagues will pay tribute to his long-standing interest in the Kurdistan region of Iraq and his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. I am here in place of the noble Lord Ahmad, who is the lead Minister, but who, being in the other place, cannot be here this morning, although he will take note of this debate.
I am grateful for the points raised across the House. We are all pleased to have in the Gallery His Excellency Karwan Jamal Tahir, who does such energetic and effective work to foster relations between the Kurdistan region and the UK. My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke rightly paid tribute to the excellent work over two decades of Gary Kent, who also joins us here. He has tirelessly promoted relations between the Kurdistan region and the UK over that time. It is very good to see him here.
Of course, the UK’s connection to the Kurdistan region dates back more than a century. It is of both tremendous historical weight and modern relevance. We continue to work closely together towards our shared aspiration for a secure, stable and thriving Kurdistan region of Iraq within a peaceful and prosperous Iraq. To respond to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke, I must start by extending my deepest condolences to those affected by the outrageous strikes on Irbil on 15 January, including the family of Karam Mikhael, a UK-Iraqi dual national. In the immediate aftermath of the attack, the Foreign Secretary condemned it as callous and reckless. This was a callous and reckless attack by the Iranian regime; we are very clear about that. There is no justification for targeting innocent civilians, and these strikes were an unacceptable violation of Iraq’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Foreign Secretary made this very clear to his Iranian counterpart when they spoke.
The Khor Mor gas field was also attacked on 25 January. The attack undermined efforts to build a more stable and prosperous future for the people of the KRI. As my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke laid out, we have seen an increase in regional attacks in recent months. Iran-aligned militia groups have targeted coalition forces across Iraq and Syria more than 160 times since 7 October. This is a trend that we are very concerned about and focused on. Iran bears responsibility for the actions of groups that it has long supported, and it must use its influence to curb these attacks and de-escalate regional tensions.
As my hon. Friend mentioned, democracy in the Kurdistan region of Iraq has been hard won in the face of adversity, and it should be celebrated and protected. Elections are a vital part of a thriving democratic process, and it is therefore disappointing that they have been delayed. We hope that everyone, including the relevant institutions in Baghdad, will work hard to ensure they can happen as soon as possible—indeed, before the Independent High Electoral Commission mandate expires on 7 July. The KRI’s semi-autonomy has been eroded since the unilateral referendum in 2017 failed to progress the region towards independence. The breakdown in relations between the two main political parties in the KRI, the Kurdistan Democratic party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, has had a negative impact on the region’s prosperity, security and stability. We therefore believe that Iraq is stronger and more stable when the Kurdish parties work together to play a constructive role in broader Iraqi politics.
The points that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made about media freedom are well received. I can confirm to him that the Prime Minister and the Minister for the Middle East have raised our concerns about restrictions on media freedom with the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government. During Lord Ahmad’s visit to the KRI in March, he raised concerns about restrictions on media freedom with senior figures in the KRG. Our ambassador in Baghdad and our consul general in Irbil regularly meet Kurdish journalists, human rights activists and members of civil society to discuss their concerns and continue to underline the UK’s enduring commitment to human rights and freedom of expression. We are aware of the context, and we will continue to advocate for greater media freedom in the KRI in the context of Iraq as a whole.
Let me turn to oil exports—which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) raised—and in particular exports through the Iraq-Turkey pipeline. We hope to see a sustainable and satisfactory resolution. The political and economic implications are grave and significant, and are therefore a source of deep concern to us. We hope to see things improve in the context of an improvement in Turkish-Kurdistan relations, and that is something that we will continue to advocate for in our diplomacy with both sides. We continue to encourage co-operation between Baghdad and Irbil, and to emphasise both to the Federal Government and regional government the importance of a stable constitutional arrangement that preserves the level of autonomy for the KRI that is laid out in the Iraqi constitution. We are clear about the constitutional obligations of the Federal Government.
As a leading member of the global coalition against Daesh, we have continued to support the Iraqi security forces and the Peshmerga, which was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke. We have worked with the Peshmerga to help it to tackle the threat from Daesh and build its institutional capacity. The coalition’s platform in Iraq is vital for its operations against Daesh in Syria as well, and as the threat evolves, it remains committed to ensuring the group’s enduring defeat, with an expanded NATO mission in Iraq and increasingly capable Iraqi security forces conducting effective and independent counter-Daesh operations. That independence is so very important. The UK welcomes the start of the higher military commission process, led by the US and Iraq, and we look forward to contributing meaningfully to it.
Our support for the development of the Iraqi security forces is in addition to the UK’s contribution to the NATO mission in Iraq. The training we provide to more than 110,000 members of the Iraqi security forces, including more than 20,000 members of the peshmerga, is hugely important. We should rightly be proud of that. The UK, alongside the US, Germany and the Netherlands, continues to support and advise the KRI’s Ministry of Peshmerga Affairs on its reform agenda. That agenda and the generation of an apolitical peshmerga are important and visible symbols of Kurdish unity, and it was encouraging that Minister Shoresh returned to office to lead the Ministry in November. We value that relationship.
Daesh atrocities over the past decade have left a grave and lasting legacy right across Iraq and in the KRI. The UK played a leading role in the establishment of the UN investigative team to promote accountability for crimes committed by Daesh, and we are committed to working closely with the Government of Iraq and the UN to support its work. Last year the UK formally recognised that Daesh committed acts of genocide against the Yazidis, an indigenous Kurdish minority mentioned at length by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—that mention was welcome. Following that recognition, we continue to advocate for the full implementation of the Yazidi survivors’ law, which is crucial in securing justice for survivors and helping them to rebuild their lives. We are providing a further £100,000 this year to support the implementation of the law and a total of £300,000 over three years.
The funding will provide survivors with access to mental health and psychological support through local NGOs, so I am pleased to confirm for the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute that HMG have not forgotten about the Yazidis and will continue on that path. That is also important in the context of religious freedom, which I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising. It is important that Christians have the freedom of worship that is their constitutional right, and I am pleased to confirm that I will ask my noble friend Lord Ahmad to write with a full update, because he continues to advance that agenda actively and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, has a deep and sincere interest in the subject.
On aid, the UK has committed more than £400 million to Iraq since 2014, including supporting displaced communities in the KRI. It has provided food for more than 200,000 people and healthcare services for more than 6 million, so it is significant. Our flagship “Women’s Voices First” programme is helping to promote and support the role of women in preventing and resolving conflicts as well as playing more powerful roles in their communities in Iraq. There are terrific examples of female leadership in the political and civic space, particularly in Kurdistan.
The UK will build the capacity of the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change, such as increasing water scarcity. That is of keen interest to the agricultural sector in Kurdistan. Over the past 12 months, high-profile visits by my colleague Lord Ahmad, the Minister of State for the Middle East, by Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh and by my right hon. Friend the Security Minister have helped to strengthen our partnerships and advance that important work.
The UK’s deep connection to the Kurdistan region means that we continue to argue for Kurdish unity and democracy. We call on Iran to use its influence to curb regional attacks and de-escalate tensions that risk further destabilising the KRI. Meanwhile, we continue to encourage co-operation between Baghdad and Irbil. We continue to support efforts to counter terrorism and to hold Daesh accountable for its atrocities, and we continue to build our efforts to advance progress towards a more secure, peaceful and prosperous future for the KRI, including through support for women, for peace and security and for measures to counter climate change, as I mentioned. It is clear from the tone of the debate and my comments we can be proud that the UK is committed to continuing our strong relationship with the KRI to ensure that its people can look forward to a more stable and prosperous future. I am grateful for the contributions to the debate.
Jack Lopresti
I thank all colleagues who made thoughtful, well-informed contributions. I am also grateful to both Front Benchers, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and my hon. Friend the Minister, and for the Government’s continued reiteration of their support for the Kurdish region of Iraq, our bilateral relationship and all the assistance in the fields mentioned by the Minister.
We have been candid friends and we are hugely supportive of and loyal to our Kurdish friends. Somebody once said to me, “Your best friends are not always the people who tell you what you want to hear”—people have said that to me more than once—but, in fairness to the Kurdish Government and the Kurdish people in northern Iraq, they are aware of the issues that they have and of where development and work are needed. We not only point that out, but we help and continue to provide help and support.
Finally, I implore the Government to maintain and enhance our military and security presence in the region. Too often in recent years, we have seen what happens when security and stability are not maintained through the rise of ISIS in 2014 and the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which, I believe, encouraged Putin to attack Ukraine.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the relationship between the UK and the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.
Thames Water: Oxfordshire
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)
I will call Layla Moran to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Thames Water in Oxfordshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank the Minister for being here to listen to my constituents’ concerns.
The River Thames is an integral part of life in Oxfordshire. Whether they are rowing, swimming, punting or walking, Oxfordshire residents love spending time outdoors and around our precious waterways. But our local environment is under threat, thanks in part to the shoddy performance of Thames Water. One constituent described Thames Water as a “disaster of a company”, and I am afraid to say that I completely agree. It dumps sewage in our rivers, fails to unblock drains, fails to fill reservoirs and does not deliver value for money.
It will come as no surprise that I start with the issue of sewage dumping. The statistics speak for themselves: across the network, Thames Water spilled sewage for 6,500 hours in the last nine months of 2023. Right now, sewage is flowing from treatment works at Combe, Church Hanborough, South Leigh, Stanton Harcourt, Standlake, Appleton, Oxford, Kingston Bagpuize, Drayton, Clanfield, Faringdon, Wantage and Didcot. There are 28—I will not go through all of them. It is like this every day. Sewage pollutes our waterways, damages the natural environment, and poses serious health risks to wildlife, pets and humans.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a remarkably important speech and delivering it very well. We know about the issue because of testing, yet the testing in her area and mine is done by the water companies themselves—in my area, the north-west of England, by United Utilities—so there is a lack of confidence in my constituency, and I suspect in hers, about its reliability. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for the water companies to mark their own homework, that instead the water companies should be charged the full cost of that testing, that that money should be given to the Environment Agency, and that testing should be done independently, so that we can rely on it?
Layla Moran
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning on the issue at the national level; my constituents are grateful to him. I could not agree with him more. I will talk about bathing water status in a moment.
Residents set up a huge citizen science group so they could do the testing themselves. They worked with Thames Water at the time, but they wanted the Environment Agency to be properly funded so that it could do the testing and they could have that reassurance. It is not right to ask residents to do that work, and I share my hon. Friend’s scepticism about the water companies sticking to their word and doing the testing 100% correctly, given that it is in their interests to make it look like the issue is getting better.
A mother got in touch with me after her son was admitted to hospital with a water-based bacterial infection on his hand. He is a keen rower, and a blister became infected by dirty river water from the Thames in Abingdon. It is not just about humans: a number of constituents also got in touch to say that they are worried about their pets. Matthew recently contacted me after his much-loved greyhound, Roy, sadly passed away. Matthew is convinced that that happened as a result of Roy going into raw sewage as he was frolicking along on his normal walk, and the vet said that contaminated water cannot be ruled out as the cause of death. There has been a spate of such deaths in Oxfordshire, including in Eynsham and Wolvercote, and I wonder whether there have been any elsewhere in the country. We have tried to interrogate the Department and Thames Water about the issue, but they do not monitor how many animals—that is, pets—are getting ill. Thames Water has biodiversity targets, but to the best of my knowledge the Department does not look at the issue at all. I urge the Minister to do so.
Just beyond Oxfordshire, in the village of Charvil, in Wokingham, a local fisherman described seeing raw sewage float past the end of his fishing rod. It is just disgusting. When we think of frolicking about in boats and the classic English countryside, we do not want that image. Rowers should be worried only about freezing temperatures at this time of year, dog walkers should be worried only about how muddy their pets are when they get home and fishermen should be worried only about their catch. No one should have to endure raw sewage floating past them or risk getting seriously ill by doing an activity that they love. The Government, despite their frequent protestations, are not doing enough.
In Oxford, local campaigners and I fought hard for Wolvercote mill stream at Port Meadow to gain bathing water status. I know the Minister has a keen interest in this, because the River Wharfe in Ilkley, which was the first to gain that status, is in his constituency. We were very proud to follow his constituents and become the second. Indeed, the then Minister with responsibility for water, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), came to wade in it herself when the announcement was made in 2022.
However, at every single data collection point so far, Wolvercote mill stream has been classed as poor. If the water quality does not improve in the next three years, we will lose bathing water status. Despite bathing water status placing a legal duty on water companies to clean up their act, Thames Water continues to discharge sewage from the treatment works at Cassington and Witney, just upstream of Port Meadow. That means that the levels of harmful bacteria, including E. coli, are dangerously high.
The regulations clearly are not working. In April last year, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs promised legally binding targets on sewage dumping, yet nothing has come to fruition. The Government talk about progress in monitoring, but it is not good enough just to monitor the sewage that is flowing into our rivers; we need to stop it altogether. Areas such as Port Meadow simply cannot afford to wait. If it loses bathing water status, the blame will lie squarely with this Government. Has the Minister considered tougher targets for water companies, specifically in areas such as his and mine that have bathing water status? Will he look at introducing a targeted plan for bathing waters that are rated as poor?
This is not the first time that I have raised the issue, or raised it with the Minister. I asked to meet him back in December, after Port Meadow was first rated as poor. I thank his office, and I am sure we will find a time in the near future to discuss it in more detail. However, I am afraid to say that sewage dumping is not the only thing that I would love to chew his ear off about, because it is not the only area in which Thames Water is failing. Almost no part of Oxford West and Abingdon was unaffected by the flooding after Storm Henk in January. It is one thing to see floodwaters lapping at the door, to be scared and to have to decide what to take up to higher levels while trying to get the water out. That is scary enough, but for the residents of Lower Radley, blocked drains meant that they were not looking just at floodwater but at floodwater and sewage in their homes. That was a direct result of Thames Water failing to clear drains that we had been alerting them to for months because they were blocked; in fact, it had been three years since Thames Water had cleaned them. One resident wrote to me:
“This has been going on for some years with zero remedial action from Thames Water…utterly appalling!”
One couple who are suffering are in their nineties. They simply should not have to go through that misery time and time again. Fields, gardens and homes were flooded with water; meanwhile, residents in Farmoor noticed that the levels of the reservoir were low. Thames Water claimed that the level was normal for this time of year, but residents were confused because it seemed that the whole of Oxfordshire was under water except the reservoir. Thames Water said that “dirt and debris” in the rivers prevented abstraction, but one resident described the situation as the water company
“pooing in their own nest”.
Filling reservoirs in periods of heavy rainfall is vital for drought preparedness, but Thames Water’s refusal to invest in infrastructure and fix leaky pipes is putting that at risk. In the south-east, we regularly endure hosepipe bans in the summer; in the summer of 2022, the village of Northend in south Oxfordshire was forced to survive on emergency rations after its water supply stopped entirely. Yet Thames Water loses an estimated 630 million litres of water to leaks every single day—the highest it has been in five years. Thames Water cannot seem to put anything in the right place: there is sewage not in the rivers but in people’s homes, and water is leaking out of pipes while the reservoir’s level drops. It is not just gross; it is gross incompetence across the board.
My constituents are incredibly concerned that, despite that litany of errors, Thames Water is planning to embark on an enormous infrastructure project called the south east strategic reservoir option—known locally as the Abingdon reservoir. It is vast. It will cover an area of 7 sq km and have a volume of 150 million cubic metres. Local campaigners, such as the Group Against Reservoir Development, have raised a number of questions about the water demand projections used to justify this project, the environmental impact of the project and the safety measures that are in place to mitigate any risk of a dam breach. So far, Thames Water has failed to answer those questions. More importantly, however, my constituents simply have no faith that Thames Water has the wherewithal to undertake such a significant infrastructure project. In December, its auditors even warned that the water company would run out of money by April of this year without a serious cash injection from shareholders. Thames Water has been horrifically mismanaged, and there is no sign of that turning around. That is why I am calling for a public inquiry into its super-reservoir plans, to ensure rigorous scrutiny and transparency in their decision making.
It is all the more galling, in the middle of this cost of living crisis, that Thames Water announced late last year that water bills were set to rise by a whopping 60% over the next six years. That increase is to allow water companies to invest in infrastructure, which is something that they should already have been doing, and that they are now asking bill payers to do in their stead. The average household water bill will go up from £456 a year to an expected £735 a year by 2030. The price hikes are going to hit this year: water bills will increase by 6% above inflation in April.
People cannot afford it. They are already struggling; they are on their last 50p, if they even have that. They cannot cope with this. That is why Oxfordshire Liberal Democrats have started a petition calling on Thames Water to scrap this unfair price hike. What conversations has the Minister had with his departmental colleagues and the water company about the fairness of this hike? Is support in place for people who will simply not be able to afford the increase? We are not just talking about people who are on universal credit anymore. We are talking about people who go to work every day. They are in work, but they are in poverty, and this will just make the situation worse.
Do the Government seriously think that it is acceptable for taxpayers to foot the bill for the historical failings of Thames Water? Well, the Liberal Democrats do not. That does not just go for Thames Water; the whole system needs to be fixed. We need radical action. We need to protect our environment and bring down people’s bills. The Liberal Democrats are calling for England’s water companies to be transformed into public benefit companies. That is a new thing for the UK: it is not a social enterprise, as such, and it would mean a complete shake-up of the boards. Public policy benefits would explicitly be considered in the running of the water companies, putting a stop to the prioritisation of profit over our waterways, without the distraction of renationalisation. We want to see environmental experts and local community groups on the boards to ensure proper scrutiny and transparency. The concept is radical and new, and I would like to know whether the Minister has looked into it seriously because, if not, I would urge him to do so. We are also calling for a ban on water executive bonuses until sewage dumping stops, a sewage tax to fund the clean-up of the most polluted lakes, rivers and coastlines, and, ultimately, an end to sewage dumping altogether.
In our view, the Government have acted far too slowly and limply, as our rivers get dirtier and our water bills get higher. Knowing that it is happening is not enough; it is time for radical improvement. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s remarks about what the Government are going to do about it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Robbie Moore)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for bringing this incredibly important debate on the performance of Thames Water before the House.
Let me be clear: Thames Water’s performance is completely unacceptable, and it must take urgent steps to turn this around. Its customers deserve better, and I want to begin by assuring this House that improving the performance of all water companies, including Thames Water, and ensuring that they deliver for customers and the environment, are top priorities for this Government.
As has been raised in this debate, the performance data for Thames Water is stark. According to Ofwat, Thames Water is failing to meet its commitments to customers on eight of the 12 common performance metrics, particularly on ensuring a consistent supply of water and on its pollution instances, as the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon laid out for all to see. The Environment Agency’s findings tell a similar story, with Thames Water’s environmental performance at the worst levels since 2013, with 17 serious pollution instances in 2022.
The Government and regulators do not take underperformance lightly. As a result of failing to meet its performance commitments, Ofwat has directed Thames Water to return over £73 million to customers during the financial year of 2024-25, which is in addition to £51 million returned to customers during 2022-23. There are also ongoing investigations into compliance at sewage treatment works under way by both Ofwat and the Environment Agency. While it would inappropriate for me to comment further on the specifics of those proceedings, as they are currently under way, they are a clear example of robust regulatory action to hold water companies to account by not only Ofwat but the Environment Agency.
Ofwat has directed Thames Water to produce a service commitment plan. That will require Thames Water to publicly commit to a plan for how it will start to turn its performance around. Please be assured that regulators and the Government will scrutinise those plans in detail to ensure that everything possible is being done to get the company back on track with its service delivery, environmental performance, and ensuring that customers rightly get the good supply they deserve.
Layla Moran
I have been meeting with Thames Water on this issue for years now, and every time we meet, it has a plan. Every time we meet, there is a new bit to the plan or the plan has progressed a little bit. I hear now that there is a new plan: what will be different about it? It is everyone’s interest in this House to get this to work. Can the Minister assure us that this plan will actually deliver what people want?
Robbie Moore
I want to reassure not only the hon. Lady but every Member who has customers of Thames Water that the Government will hold the water company to account through the use of the regulators—the Environment Agency and Ofwat. I will shortly meet again with the new chief executive of Thames Water, which follows a meeting that the Secretary of State and I had with the CEOs of Thames Water and other water companies very recently. It also follows on from a meeting that the previous water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), had back in November. We want to take all these concerns seriously and deal with surge discharges, supply interruptions and internal sewer flooding, which was also mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon.
I know that Thames Water is under no illusions as to the scale of the challenge. It has recently published its revised three-year turnaround plan to address some of the concerns raised today, and while we all understand that it will take time to turn performance around, I want to be clear that I expect to see clear and measurable progress being made by the company as swiftly as possible.
Tim Farron
I want to press the Minister on the point I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) a moment ago. The Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), said something encouraging the other week. He said it was not right that the water companies were marking their own homework in assessing the scale of the problem. Does the Minister agree with that? More importantly, will he give us some details on the testing? There are more than a dozen water company assets around Windermere, many of which are failing, but we only know that they are failing when the water companies actually do the testing. Should it not be the case that the water companies pay for the testing but leave the Environment Agency to actually do it, so that we can have confidence that the data is independent?
Robbie Moore
I will come on to that point as part of my speech. I also want to clarify that we only have to turn the clock back to 2010 to see that only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. For a Government and a regulator to hold water companies to account, they need 100% monitoring, which we achieved at the end of December last year. That is 100% monitoring of storm overflow discharges compared with only 7% in 2010.
I want to pick up on some of the specific points made by the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon on bathing water status. I know how important this issue is, having campaigned in my constituency for a bathing water designation on the River Wharfe in Ilkley. The hon. Lady rightly raised the issue of the “poor” classification on her bathing water designation. I know the challenges of that, since my local bathing water designation is still classed as poor. As we both recognise, that is why it is incredibly important to have a specific plan to tackle improving the designations poor, sufficient, or even good, to bring them to an excellent rating.
At Wolvercote, the Environment Agency is currently undertaking a nationally funded joint bathing water investigation, both in Yorkshire and in the Thames region, including enhanced monitoring and DNA sampling. That will help the Environment Agency find the sources of bacterial pollution and develop plans specifically on a local catchment area approach to address them.
Thames Water also has a role to play in fixing the problem. That is why, as part of its business plan from 2025 onwards, it will identify and address additional actions needed to improve the quality of the bathing water site, which the hon. Member referred to. Although those business plans are subject to scrutiny by Ofwat, to ensure value for money for customers, I welcome those positive steps to protect people and the environment.
I want to pick up on some points made about data. We must remember that bathing water quality in England has improved significantly due to robust regulation and strong investment. In 2023, almost 90% of designated bathing waters in England met good or excellent standards. That was up from 76% in 2010, despite stricter standards being introduced in 2015.
To address the point on storm overflows: the frequency and duration of storm overflow discharges in the Thames region is completely unacceptable, though it would be unrealistic to suggest that the issue can be simply turned around overnight. Independent estimates show that eliminating all discharges nationally would cost between £120 billion and £600 billion, increasing water bills between £271 and £817 per annum by 2049.
Our storm overflows discharge reduction plan is the most ambitious plan to address storm overflow discharges in water company history, delivering £60 billion of capital investment by 2050. The Government have also driven water companies to ensure that 100% of storm overflows, of which there are about 15,000, have been monitored. Furthermore, our plan for water, which is delivering more investment, stronger regulation and tougher enforcement to clean up our water, makes a step change in how we will manage our waters, delivering for customer bill payers and for our environment.
I also want to pick up on supply interruptions, which the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon referred to. I know that customers in Oxfordshire and the wider Thames region have experienced multiple supply interruptions, largely as a result of adverse weather, in the past 18 months. I understand how frustrating that can be for customers. Water companies must by law ensure a continuation of water supply throughout an emergency. Plans must cover a range of risks and include the provision of alternative water supplies. Those requirements are set out in the security and emergency measures direction 2022.
I wish to assure hon. Members and the House that, during any incident, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs engages closely with water companies to obtain accurate and timely updates on the scale, impact and response, to ensure incidents are being resolved as swiftly as possible, and that impacted customers—particularly vulnerable customers—have access to alternative sources of water, such as bottled water, when a supply interruption takes place.
I understand how pressing a problem this is for affected customers, particularly in the Thames region. For that reason, this is another issue I will raise directly with the chief executive when I meet him shortly, as we have done in relation to recent supply interruptions in the Reading area.
The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon mentioned storm Henk. Extreme weather can also lead to sewer flooding, such as that experienced during storm Henk in January. I understand how difficult and distressing it can be for the public when sewage gets into their gardens and properties. Indeed, recently I spoke to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris); although her constituency is not in Oxfordshire, she has constituents who are part of the Thames Water region. We specifically talked about Lambourn in her constituency, where again Thames Water’s response to an incident has not been sufficiently robust. I expect the chief executive of Thames Water to update me on what it is doing in Lambourn when it is dealing with surface water flooding.
I want to be very clear that any sewer flooding is unacceptable and that Thames Water has reassured me that it plans to invest £1.12 billion in 250 sewage treatment works between 2025 and 2030, including those in Oxfordshire, to increase capacity to prevent sewer flooding from happening again. Ofwat will also assess internal sewage flooding inside people’s homes as a core performance commitment and where companies fall short of that metric they will be required to return money to customers under Ofwat’s outcome delivery incentives.
The hon. Member mentioned Abingdon reservoir. There is obviously a clear need for the water industry to improve the resilience of water supplies through new water resources infrastructure. Abingdon reservoir is subject to ongoing assessments, which will continue in the future, to develop the design and to understand the impacts of the scheme. Thames Water will need to ensure that any scheme that it builds will not only possess the resilience that we expect within its supply systems but has proper environmental benefits that can be demonstrated to its customers. Of course, any new development of this nature must also provide at least 10% biodiversity net gain, which again must be capable of being demonstrated.
Although the hon. Member did not mention it, I am also aware, from speaking to Members with constituencies that neighbour hers, about Witney sewage treatment works, so I will just use this opportunity, given that time permits, to provide an update on that. I am aware of the discharges from Witney sewage treatment works and the impact they have had on local communities. I share Members’ concerns about that and I want to reassure them that the Government and the regulator will take robust action on pollution incidents.
A criminal investigation into sewage discharges at Witney is currently being conducted by the Environment Agency, regarding significant sewage pollution incidents impacting the Colwell Brook and Emma’s Dyke downstream of Witney sewage treatment works. This was brought to my attention by the Solicitor General, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts). Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment in any detail, because this is an active investigation, there are significant consequences when water companies pollute the environment. For example, in July 2023, following an Environment Agency prosecution Thames Water was fined £3.3 million for discharging sewage that caused significant environmental impacts.
I also wish to assure the House that the Environment Agency is ensuring that treatment capacity at Witney sewage treatment works is increasing, meaning that the site will be able to treat more sewage before using its storm tanks, which will reduce the risk of pollution in the future. That work is due to be completed by 31 March 2025.
Furthermore, the Government are strengthening regulation. The Environment Agency can now use new powers to impose unlimited penalties, raising the previous cap from £250,000. This change came into effect at the end of last year and it will apply to water companies for a wider range of offences, following the Government’s changes to broaden the scope of the existing civil sanctions regime to remove the previous cap on penalties.
We are also increasing funding for the Environment Agency. Its funding was raised by both Members who have spoken today. We are providing £2.2 million per year specifically for water company enforcement activity, so that robust action is taken against illegal breaches of storm overflow permits. Both hon. Members said that the Environment Agency was not being given enough money, but I can reassure both of them and the House that, as I say, an additional £2.2 million per year is being given specifically to the Environment Agency to carry out enforcement action.
I have tried to go through all the points that have been raised, but I want to be as robust as I can. For the reasons that I have set out, it is therefore critical that all water companies, including Thames Water, clean up their act, behave transparently and take urgent action to improve their performance when they fall short. If they do not do these things, the Government will not hesitate to hold them to account.
Question put and agreed to.
Mindfulness in Schools
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered mindfulness in schools.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. Hon. and right hon. Members present today will no doubt be aware of the tragic case of the 16-year-old schoolgirl, Brianna Ghey, who was murdered in my constituency a year ago this coming Sunday. What they may be less aware of, and this is something I hope to remedy today, is the campaign that was set up in the wake of one of Warrington’s darkest days by her mother, Esther Ghey. The Peace in Mind campaign, working with the Warrington Guardian and with the support of our community, has fundraised over £50,000 since September to bring mindfulness into schools in Warrington. Today, our ask is that the Government commit to bringing that into all schools.
That ask sits within the wider national context of a mental health crisis facing our young people, and an NHS ill-equipped to meet the demand. Alongside that, schools are seeing a crisis in recruitment and retention, with a record number of teachers leaving the profession last year, and more than 3 million working days of sick leave taken last year—a rise of more than 50% compared with pre-pandemic levels. Teachers and school staff are struggling, just like their pupils. While I do not claim that mindfulness is a panacea, I think we can clearly demonstrate that, first, it can be part of the solution to these twin crises, and secondly, the necessity of the Government to act.
Mindfulness programmes are becoming increasingly popular in schools and educational settings worldwide, with a growing quantitative evidence base emerging from research studies. Mindfulness in schools is about introducing children to skills as early as possible to support their lifelong wellbeing. It has benefits for educators, too, including stress regulation and reduction, increased self-compassion and teaching efficacy. Professor Jon Kabat-Zinn, who is considered to be the godfather of modern mindfulness, said:
“Mindfulness means intentionally paying attention to present-moment experience, inside ourselves, our minds and bodies, and in our environment, with an attitude of openness, curiosity, kindness and care.”
That has never been more needed. Emma Mills, headteacher at Birchwood Community High School in Warrington North, wrote in the Times Educational Supplement:
“Lockdown has had a profound effect on our young people: significant social and educational milestones missed; an increased reliance on social media and the online world. We had already seen the challenges and negative influences of social media in schools long before Covid, but lockdown has exacerbated these ten-fold.
Attendance in schools is shockingly low, and safeguarding concerns are through the roof, as are mental health concerns. We are seeing a generation of children who lack empathy, lack resilience and for whom mental health problems have become part of everyday life.
Anxiety, self-harm and suicidal ideation have become part of our teenagers’ vocabulary…It is an unforgiving world full of trolls, hate and vitriol. It is a world we cannot remove or escape, so we need to make sure—
our young people—
“are equipped to deal with it.”
The Mindfulness Initiative’s 2021 report, “Implementing Mindfulness in Schools: An Evidence-Based Guide”, draws on earlier research, including the 2015 “Mindful Nation UK” report from the all-party group on mindfulness, and lays out a robust framework for mindfulness-based interventions in education. I am happy to provide a copy of that report to all interested Members and the Minister. It notes:
“Positive outcomes for children and young people include improved psycho-social and physical health and wellbeing, reduced mental health problems (including stress and depression), and improved social and emotional skills, behaviour, cognition and learning and academic performance.”
Mindfulness trains students to understand and direct their attention with greater awareness and skill, which can improve the capacity of children to focus and concentrate, with less distractions, and develop their working memory and ability to plan. It can help them to recognise worry, manage difficulties and cope with stresses like exams. Self-regulation can help to manage impulsivity and reduce conflict and oppositional behaviour. Although it should not be used as a disciplinary tool, it can help to take the heat out of a situation by providing greater space between stimulus and reaction, and helping a student to understand their feelings, behaviours and the choices they are making.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I declare an interest as co-chair of the all-party group on mindfulness, who wrote part of the report, which I am delighted she is reciting. More than 300 parliamentarians have been on mindfulness courses in this place, to great benefit. The hon. Lady is very welcome to come on the one that is starting in a couple of weeks’ time, as indeed are you, Mr Gray—I am sure it will do you a lot of good.
Tim Loughton
On this specific point—and it is good that something constructive is coming out of this whole ghastly episode of Brianna Ghey, with the great work that her mother is doing—does the hon. Lady agree that, in schools, it is important that mindfulness is an all-school approach and that it is not used just for certain young people with problems? It is important that mindfulness in schools is enjoyed entirely as a whole-school approach and that it is non-judgmental. That is what makes it so popular.
Charlotte Nichols
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Indeed, he wrote a fantastic foreword to the report to which I drew the House’s attention. He is right about the whole-school approach, which I will come to later. I am sure that Mr Gray and I, and other hon. Members present, will be pleased to learn more about the sessions that the APPG on mindfulness is running.
Warrington North is only a short drive from the Welsh border. This policy has already been introduced by the Welsh Government as part of the curriculum for wellbeing. Although that is a long-term strategy, early indications from Wales and the schools in Warrington have been positive in the short and medium term.
Beth, a reception teacher trained through Mindfulness for learning, said:
“Mindfulness has become part of the children’s daily routine and we teach children breathing techniques to support their regulation but I was not aware how the course would impact my own well-being. I now have an understanding of the importance of mindfulness and how it allows and teaches me to respond rather than react to different aspects of my day. Now having personally experienced mindfulness as a practice, it has had a positive influence on my teaching.”
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
As the hon. Member’s constituency neighbour, it is great to see Esther in the Public Gallery today, as well as Tom from the Warrington Guardian, when we are discussing this issue in Parliament. When Esther and I met Dr Jain at the Appleton medical centre, we talked about the overall benefits of mindfulness for the general health of the population. Although we are talking about this in schools, there are real benefits beyond schools. Training young people for these skills for the future will benefit many people over many years. Does the hon. Member agree?
Charlotte Nichols
I thank the hon. Member, my next-door constituency neighbour, for that intervention, and I completely agree. That is why this practice should start in primary school. Developing those skills very early on in a person’s life can set them up to have those skills through their life, and I think we will see the benefits of these mindfulness-based interventions throughout people’s lives. This is a long-term plan and strategy. We will not necessarily see many of the benefits right away, but we know we are storing up positive outcomes for the future in a range of areas.
A headteacher from one of my secondary schools told me that embedding a culture of mindfulness was
“changing the way we deal with behaviour incidents, taking away reactivity and helping students and staff to calm down to the point we can better engage about what’s going on. When kids are in isolation, it’s a really useful tool for helping them to reflect and taking the heat out of situations, and guiding them to make better choices”.
Research shows that three features are particularly important to effectiveness and sustainability: the quality and experience of the teacher’s mindfulness practice, how a programme is implemented, and the use of a whole-school approach. Mindfulness is not just about discrete lessons, but should be in the form of a mindfulness thread that runs throughout the day—the way we respond to each other, the way we move around and the way we build relationships, eat food, exercise, and so on.
Sessions on mindfulness in the curriculum are a way to build and develop the skills needed to take it into the rest of the school day and the school’s ethos. It is about giving teachers and school leaders the training and support they need through the postgraduate certificate in education curriculum and in continuing professional development, to be able take it and adapt it to best suit the needs of their school community, which is vital. While we believe the cost implications would be modest, the evidence supports our view that this would pay for itself over time by reducing some of the burden on mental health services, freeing up capacity for more acute cases and providing dividends on the associated costs of unmet mental health need over the long term. This is an investment worth making for the future.
I want to put on the record my thanks to the community in Warrington who, during a cost of living crisis, have dug deep to support this campaign, working with the Mindfulness in Schools Project. I thank the Warrington Guardian and Tom Bedworth in particular; Warrington Wolves; the Warrington Wolves Charitable Foundation, Warrington Borough Council; the business community, including the EngineRooms, Sam Small Ink and Twinkle Time Melts; and all those who have fundraised, including on Wear Pink for Peace Day in November on what would have been Brianna’s 17th birthday. I thank the schools in Warrington, which have gone into this with open minds and hearts, and, in particular, Brianna’s school, Birchwood Community High School.
Above all, I want to thank Esther. Brianna Ghey was sassy, beautiful, kind, courageous and authentically herself. She was loved fiercely, and her death was unspeakably tragic. No parent should ever have to bury their child, but to have gone through what Esther has and to have the drive to seek positive change in the wake of that takes extraordinary courage and compassion. Esther is perhaps the most remarkable person I have ever met. She does not want the sympathy or pity of those here today, but a commitment to stand alongside her and our community in Warrington to deliver a lasting legacy for her daughter. We want to promote empathy, compassion and kindness throughout society, and I hope today’s debate brings us one step closer to achieving that, with a modest, evidence-based ask to put mindfulness on to the national curriculum for the benefit of pupils, staff and our country.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Gray, and a genuine pleasure to follow the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols). I too am deeply moved by the response of Esther Ghey to the outrageous murder of her daughter. Her example of compassion and the determination to see the good in others and to demonstrate forgiveness to others is a sobering rebuke and a deeply moving thing, which will do vast amounts of good—it has certainly affected me.
I want to address the issue before us because the issue of wellbeing among our young people is at crisis levels. In the time I have been in Parliament, I have recognised emerging issues through the volumes of casework I receive on particular issues over time. Undoubtably, the biggest spike in issues raised, casework correspondence and conversations I have with people in my constituency is around young people’s mental health. The word “crisis” is bandied about too freely, but it feels like we have a crisis. We could say with some accuracy that people feel more free to talk about mental health and wellbeing these days, whereas perhaps they were more buttoned up a generation or two ago. That is a good thing, but it is also blindingly obvious that we are in an era where our society and culture breed shockingly bad mental health, for a variety of reasons.
It is easy to point the finger at social media and the internet, but I think it has a lot to do with it. In the 1960s, Andy Warhol famously declared that in the future everybody would be famous for 15 minutes, but he didn’t know the half of it. Every kid is famous all the time now, if they want to be, and scrutinised, and observed, and feeling judged and maybe being judged at every moment. To put it slightly trivially, when I was 15, if I made a prat of myself over a girl, eight people knew about it and I got over it. Now, however, that sense of shame, for something that is perhaps very minor, can end up being multiplied and can even cause people lasting and sometimes fatal damage. So, I am deeply concerned about the situation within our culture today and I want to look for solutions that I think will have an impact and make a difference by building resilience for our young people—not only the young people of tomorrow, but the young people of today—as they grow into adults.
Being a Member of Parliament for a constituency with something like 25 outdoor education centres has given me a real sense of the impact of the outdoors on people’s wellbeing and mental health. Outdoor education can take place in so many different ways, but there is no doubt that being active and being outside, which should be common sense for a happy childhood, is unfortunately missing from many if not most young people’s experiences, especially those living in the more deprived communities in our country. It is integral to physical and mental health, and to happiness and wellbeing—we can call it mindfulness. But however we decide to describe it, access to the outdoors is absolutely crucial.
Two years ago, an NHS report found that fewer than half of our young people in the UK met the Chief Medical Officer’s recommendation that young people should engage in 60 minutes of physical activity each day. So it is perhaps no surprise that over 20% of children between eight and 16 have a probable mental health disorder, so described, and that nearly a quarter of year 6 children are considered to be obese. Our physical and mental wellbeing are hugely impacted by the amount of outdoor activity that we are able to engage in.
Outdoor activity can be delivered through forest schools, or through the decision of a school in an urban or rural setting to make use of outdoor learning opportunities, or it can be in a much more specific, out-of-school residential outdoor experience. Such interventions are greatly significant and the evidence base for their value is huge—so much so that we need to make outdoor activity a priority for children. I will come back to that point in a moment.
It is often said, is it not, that it would be great if we stopped fishing people out of the river and stopped them falling in the water in the first place. If we are able to build young people’s resilience, we will hopefully tackle the number of people who are in crisis.
In our part of the world—south Cumbria—child and adult mental health services are run by wonderful people but far too few of them, so they are in desperate circumstances. I know of young people who suffer from eating disorders who were basically told, “Go away and come back when you’re skinnier, or thinner, or more ill, because we haven’t got the resources to help you at this point.” That would never be said to someone with cancer—“Come back when you’re more sick.” We need to help people at the point that they need us.
A constituent in the know told me just last week that autism assessment in south Cumbria has a waiting list of two years. We have shortages of psychiatrists, psychologists, therapists, specialist nurses and appropriate beds. In south Cumbria, we have no dedicated separate crisis team for young people within CAMHS. We have people who are therapists and who have been drawn into the crisis work, but doing that means they are dropping or reducing the number of people they see on their regular lists.
All these things need to be fixed, but this debate is a reminder that we would put less pressure on CAMHS if we were able to develop people’s resilience and stop them from getting into a mental health crisis in the first place.
I hope that people will forgive me for taking advantage of this debate in this way, but I also hope that what I am saying is relevant to it. By the way, the Minister’s friends are also friends of mine—Sam Rowlands, a Member of the Senedd, who I think I am right in saying represents north Wales, and Liz Smith, a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament. Sam, Liz and I have teamed up to present separately in each of our three Parliaments, Bills that call for outdoor education to be put more front and centre. In particular, my Bill asks that every child, at primary school and at high school, should be given a guaranteed week-long funded residential outdoor experience.
I am not saying that such trips are the answer to everything, but research shows that at the end of five days on an outdoor residential trip with their teacher, a child has built up more rapport with that teacher than they would in an entire 12-month period in the classroom. It is not just about the experience of being away in the lakes or north Wales or wherever it might be; it means that, when that child goes back to school for boring old maths—sorry—on Monday, they are much more likely to listen, learn and be happy at school. They will develop a sense of teamwork, build resilience and learn things about themselves that they did not know. They will gain an understanding of how, when they are in an uncomfortable position, to get themselves out of it, and build skills that will be of lifelong value and give them lifelong comfort with and enjoyment of the outdoors. That will mean that they will choose to spend time in the outdoors throughout their childhood, as they grow older and into adulthood.
It is a relatively inexpensive ask, so I would ask the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), to seriously consider adopting my Bill—it is all his; he can take credit for it. Also, I would ask both Labour and Conservative colleagues present to please have a word with their colleagues in the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament to back Sam and Liz’s Bills in those places, too.
Andy Carter
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Member has said, and I agree with him wholeheartedly. We think of schools as places that will set our children up academically and prepare them for the jobs that they will face in the future, but it is becoming clearer and clearer that schools, along with input from parents, are great places to think about the digital world that young people will live in. Mindfulness and the way that we challenge and think about how young people respond to the pressures that will sit on them should form part of the curriculum.
Andy Carter
I very much agree with the hon. Member about time spent outside, but it is when you are inside the classroom that some of the techniques picked up outside can really be beneficial.
Tim Farron
I do not want to go off topic too much, but I think that that is very important. One issue with youth provision of all kinds is the question of who draws it up and plans it—old people. The problem is, for people from my generation, the internet did not come along until their mid-20s. We are writing plans and looking at a world that we do not experience in quite the same way as young people, so it is crucial that young people are integral in the co-design of such programmes. These are their challenges, and we need them to lead on them.
I want to make a really practical point. If we want more young people spending time outdoors, engaging with outdoor activities, building their resilience and a love of the outdoors—if we want to tackle mental health issues at source—there is a really simple thing we could do. It might sound particularly odd, but this came up when I was at the Institute for Outdoor Learning conference two weeks ago in Ambleside in my constituency, where I had the privilege of speaking and, more importantly, of meeting lots of professionals. One of the key barriers to people making use of outdoor learning is that teachers can drive a 17-seater minibus, under 3.5 tonnes, with a section 19 permit and MiDAS training, but if teachers are required to gain a full D1 licence —this is really crucial; it is a linchpin—the cost and time involved and the pressures of the school environment create a huge barrier. Therefore, people do not take their kids on those trips. If we can tackle some of the barriers that stop people experiencing outdoor education, that would be a big step forward.
I will put one final point to the Minister before I finish. We are having this debate, in part, because of an appalling, unspeakable act of hate. I want us to do things with our young people that instil a sense of understanding difference and loving others, and that will lead them to seek to put themselves in other people’s shoes and genuinely love their neighbours. The Minister will know this because I am in communication with him and am delighted to say that we will soon, I think, meet representatives of the Lakes School and the ’45 Aid Society. For those of you who do not know what I am talking about, the ’45 Aid Society is made up of the families of the holocaust survivors who were brought to Windermere in 1945. Half of the children who escaped the death camps in Europe came to Windermere—to Troutbeck Bridge, to be precise—where they were rehabilitated and began a new life.
I freely admit that my communities are in one of the least diverse bits of Britain, but the fact is that we have the legacy, between Windermere and Ambleside, of those boys who came from such a hideous experience to be rehabilitated, welcomed, loved here and sent off to do good things in the world. The prospect of a school rebuild and a lasting memorial on the site of the Lakes School is now within touching distance, so I hope the Minister would be prepared to meet—I think he said he would be—with myself, the school leaders and the representatives of the ’45 Aid Society so that we can have something at the centre of our community that helps to teach people around the country of the importance of loving people, even if they are not the same as we are.
To finish, I pay tribute to Esther Ghey for what she has said—particularly in recent times—and to the hon. Member for Warrington North for securing this debate. I would encourage us all to think about practical ways to ensure that we prepare our young people for the world ahead of them—building resilience and doing those things that we know in advance will work and make a difference.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) for raising this massively important issue, and for finding what I felt was the right way to deliver a difficult speech to this House that encompassed all the thoughts we have. I commiserate with the Ghey family here today, who I spoke to beforehand. The interview on Sunday was incredibly emotional, and I said to the shadow Minister on the way into this debate that it was compulsive viewing—when it came on TV, I could not let it go. It was hard for me to watch, but it was harder for the family here today. They are very much in our thoughts and our prayers, and I commend them.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) mentioned the Windermere Children. We had some of them come to my constituency in Strangford; they went to McGill’s farm, down the Drumfad Road. Some of those people married and continued to live and express themselves in my area. I know the McGills who own the farm, and I have been there many times. The old stone buildings are still there where those young Jewish children stayed and were given an opportunity to live a new life in Northern Ireland. Many of those children’s families—including probably their parents, grandparents, uncles and aunts—were murdered by the Nazis.
The pressure that children are under today is immense. I have said to my wife, Sandra, many times, “I wouldn’t like to be a young child growing up today.” I say that honestly, because I see pressures that young people have on them today that I know I did not have growing up—and I say that as a father of three sons and a grandfather of six grandchildren. I am conscious that my sons’ generation faced different pressures, and my grandchildren’s generation face even more pressures, which I find incredibly difficult. Exam pressure and social media expectations are two of those pressures. The mental load that is being carried by our children is absolutely incredible, and for some it is unbearable. Therefore, the support available to them must be equally incredible to match that load and help young people get past the problems they are confronted with.
No longer do we deal with bullies in the schoolyard or on the way home, although in some instances that does still happen; now bullies invade the home through social media—from beyond the keyboard. It is little wonder that we find ourselves in the position we are in, with adult burdens lying heavily on children’s shoulders. That is what is happening in many cases.
I look forward to the shadow Minister’s contribution, because I believe the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) is someone who will encapsulate our thoughts. I also look forward to the speech of our very understanding Minister, who I know grasps the depth of the concerns that we have as elected representatives about how we express ourselves. As you know, Mr Gray, I always try to give a Northern Ireland perspective to these debates, because what is happening in Northern Ireland is replicated across the United Kingdom—the problems we have about mindfulness in schools, and some of the things we are doing. I must say, there are some things that we could probably do better back home.
In October 2020, the Health and Social Care Board in Northern Ireland released the results of its youth wellbeing survey into children and young people’s mental health, which found that the rates of mental health disorders in Northern Ireland are broadly in line with the countries in mainland UK, so what we are talking about can be replicated in all our constituencies. It also outlined that the rates for anxiety and mood disorders were slightly higher in Northen Ireland than in the other countries, and I know the Minister and his civil servants will take note of that. For example, one in eight young people met the criteria for a mood or anxiety disorder. Panic disorder was the most common diagnosis, followed by separation anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder. It is hard to find the right words to describe the pressures our young people are under.
One in eight children and young people in Northern Ireland have experienced emotional difficulties. In the five to 10 age group, boys were more likely to have experienced emotional difficulties, whereas in the 16 to 19 age group it was girls. Again, the stats are slightly different, but they show that, regardless of whether somebody is a young boy or a young girl, these pressures are on them.
An adverse childhood experience is a traumatic event that occurs in a child or young person’s life before the age of 18. Incredibly worryingly, the youth wellbeing survey found that close to one in two young people aged 11 to 19—almost 50%—have experienced at least one adverse childhood experience. That could be the experience that affects them most of all. It could be parental separation or parental mental health problems—all these things can contribute. Emotional neglect, domestic violence and parental alcohol or substance abuse problems were the most commonly reported ACEs. It is difficult for me, as an old grandfather, to recognise that one in two children in the United Kingdom has experienced such events. I look at my grandchildren and say to myself, “Well, if those stats are right, three of my six grandchildren will experience that.” That is what we see in the future for our own children and grandchildren.
What can we do to intervene and provide support? In difficult situations I rely heavily on my Christian faith, and in times of near despair I always consider the verses that tell me that I am not alone and that God very clearly has a plan and a purpose for my life. I understand that schools do not feel called to take that role, which is why many have a pastoral team to help with that aspect of development for children who appreciate spiritual help, and they also take a less faith-based approach through mindfulness.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to outdoor centres, and clearly physical exercise lifts the mental pressures. I understand what he is saying. In my constituency, the Scouts, the Girl Guides, the Girls’ Brigade, the Boys’ Brigade and the Campaigners are organisations that can help young people. That does not apply to everyone, but it does to a brave few—there can be that release or support. The hon. Gentleman and I have a similar outlook on life, so we, and others, probably share that opinion.
As an MLA and, in particular, as an MP over the past few years, I have had to deal with people in distressing circumstances. Parents come to me because their daughters —it is always young girls—have bulimia or other eating disorders. I remember a case I dealt with not longer after I was elected in 2010. I spoke with the Health Minister back home, Edwin Poots, about the daughter of two of my constituents who I know very well. He intervened to bring her over here to St Thomas’ Hospital, just across the river. The intervention from my Health Department back home and the Department of Health here saved that young girl’s life. I know that it did, because I know just how difficult it was for that young girl. Now she is married, she has two young children and she is happy. That would never have happened had it not been for the intervention of the Health Minister back home and the Health Minister here, who intervened and helped. I deal with many other such cases, and have dealt with many over the years, and they are always incredibly difficult to understand.
I have come across some parents—I say this very gently, and it is not in any way meant to be critical—for whom mindfulness techniques are sometimes disconnected from their spiritual beliefs. I say that because that is what I find sometimes. For example, schools are increasingly doing a form of yoga to calm classes down. Many parents are happy with that and enjoy it, yet others do not want their children repeating phrases such as “namaste”, which means, “The god in me bows to the god in you.” They ask that their child does not partake in worship poses like the sun god pose. It is essential that parents retain the ability to withdraw children from such classes on the understanding that they can do quiet reading and not expect lessons to be taught at the same time.
Mental health work in schools must always be a partnership with parents, who wish to have some input into how things are presented to their children at school. The latest figures show that we must take that very seriously. We must not ignore parents. Whether we teach our younger children calming breathing, work with older children so that they can deal with what seems to be inevitable social media abuse, or work with social media providers to do a better job of providing a safe online space, work has to be done. In this House, we need to ensure that mental health work in schools is a priority in terms of time and funding. Again, I look to the Minister, and my honest impression is that he has always tried to encapsulate our thoughts and make important changes.
Any child can get lost in emotions at times, and not all children are fortunate enough to have a loving parent who can hold their hand while they try to find their way out. We have to ensure that every child knows there is someone there to help them find their way. That seems a high bar to set, but it is the only acceptable determination, and I am sure that everyone in this Chamber will join me and others in working towards it. If we achieve that, we will have achieved a whole lot.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall and representing her constituents on the issue so powerfully and sincerely. I also recognise the incredible work of Brianna Ghey’s family and, in particular, her mum, Esther, who was in Parliament with us today, for her steadfast campaigning for more mental health and wellbeing support for children and young people, for raising over £50,000 for the Peace in Mind campaign, for being such a dignified and strong advocate for more empathy, compassion and kindness in our society, and for embodying those values in such a visible way in the face of unimaginable grief.
The debate shines a spotlight on a very important issue. We have a huge mental health crisis in our schools, and it is holding children and young people back. It is impacting their learning as well as their health. As we have heard from hon. Members today, children and young people are struggling with stress and anxiety more than ever before. Schools are struggling to meet the needs of young people with mental health challenges. The cost of living crisis is adding to the hardship children are facing. Mindfulness is one tool in the armoury to help people think differently: it helps adults and children feel calmer and kinder and it also helps them cope better with stress and to process difficult thoughts. We recognise the impact in schools of the mindfulness assemblies that Esther has delivered.
We know that many children are struggling in school with a narrow and what has been described to me as a joyless curriculum. That is why Labour has pledged to undertake an expert-led curriculum and assessment review, which will look across the system at our curriculum and the assessment and inspection of schools to ensure that we deliver high, rising standards in our schools without sacrificing the fun things that make children want to come to school and boost their confidence and wellbeing. Part of this review will look at how mental health is taught within schools too.
The importance of mental wellbeing is already on the national curriculum, but we know that teachers are cramming so much into the school day and that subjects such as personal, social, health and economic education often do not get the time and focus that they need. Our review would take expert evidence on how we can improve standards across the board, helping to promote a whole-school approach to mental health, so that teachers, pupils, schools and families all have the tools they need to help young people get the very best start in life.
Beyond the curriculum, the situation is dire. The number of children waiting for support is continuously on the rise, with children waiting on month-long lists to access services that are too often inadequate. In many cases, it is keeping children away from school, causing another problem we see: lack of attendance in classrooms. NHS figures recently analysed by The Independent were damning. Almost half a million children are waiting for treatment for their mental health. Some children in Halton in Cheshire have been waiting four-and-a-half years to be seen by a mental health professional. A child who was referred at the start of secondary school would be about to sit their GCSEs by the time they had their first appointment.
The next Labour Government will prioritise dealing with the mental health crisis. We would put specialist mental health professionals in school, ensuring that every young person can access early support and intervention, aiming to resolve problems before they get worse. We would ensure that every community has an open access mental health hub for children and young people—again, providing that early intervention—in a drop-in format, making it accessible for those who most need it. We also know that child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists are contributing to the problem. We would bring down those lists by recruiting thousands of new staff.
Finally, we recognise that this is not just a problem at school but at home too. It is one that parents are increasingly experiencing as well as children. We would ensure that mental health support is available to parents when they need it to. I want to once again pay tribute to the campaigning work by Esther Ghey, her family and my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North in this really important area. I am pleased that the debate has given us the opportunity to think more about mindfulness in schools and the contribution it can make to improving the wellbeing of our children and young people.
It has been helpful to listen to hon. Members talk about the wider issues of mental health. They have been raised very eloquently by Members right across the House, including the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). We need to do more to support our young people. Labour has set out how it would work to achieve that in Government. I hope to hear more from the Minister on what steps will be taken now by the Government to address this crisis, which we know is causing so much harm to our children and young people today.
The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)
It is good to see you in the Chair for today’s debate, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) on bringing this important subject to Westminster Hall today. I thank and commend everybody who has taken part: my hon. Friends the Members for Warrington South (Andy Carter) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who speaks for the Opposition.
It is very important to discuss these issues, especially in the light of the tragic death of Brianna Ghey, who was a constituent of the hon. Member for Warrington North, and the outcome of the murder trial. It is a truly heartbreaking case, and our thoughts are with Brianna’s family and friends. Obviously, no one should be subject to any violence, let alone have their young life cut short in this most unspeakable and unthinkable way.
Schools and colleges should be respectful and tolerant places where bullying is never tolerated. I want to specifically recognise the work of Brianna’s mother to create positive action following her most terrible loss. Her ambition to promote empathy, compassion and resilience through the Peace in Mind campaign is one that we all commend.
There are few things more critical than the happiness of our children. The Government actively explore approaches that could improve young people’s mental health and wellbeing, such as mindfulness interventions. We are, of course, in Children’s Mental Health Week, and yesterday was—this is not exactly the same subject, but there is a lot of commonality, as has been explored again today—Safer Internet Day.
There is evidence of the benefits of mindfulness, and many schools will feel a positive impact on their students from programmes such as the one provided by the Mindfulness in Schools Project, but we should remember that it might not be right for everyone, every school or every individual in a school. Schools should retain flexibility to choose the interventions that suit their pupils and their local context, supported by high-quality evidence and guidance.
To help schools decide what support to put in place, we are offering all state schools and colleges a grant to train a senior mental health lead by next year. Over 14,400 have claimed such a grant so far, including four fifths of the schools in Warrington. The training supports the leads to assess and implement interventions that are suitable for their setting, which can include mindfulness. Our recently launched targeted support toolkit builds on that, providing senior mental health leads with further guidance on evidence-based interventions, again including mindfulness.
In addition, schools can look to the Education Endowment Foundation and to Foundations, formerly known as the Early Intervention Foundation, to review the evidence on the various approaches to support their students. We are funding a large-scale programme—I believe it is one of the biggest ever programmes—of randomised controlled trials of approaches to improving pupil mental wellbeing, improving our understanding of what works and providing new evidence for schools to use in planning their approaches. More than 300 schools have been involved, and the findings will help us evaluate the impact of a variety of interventions on mental health and on wider measures, including wellbeing, behavioural issues and teacher relationships.
The programme includes the INSPIRE trial, which is testing three approaches to improving mental wellbeing in school: daily five-minute mindfulness-based exercises, daily five-minute relaxation exercises and a new curriculum programme for mental wellbeing. I reminded myself earlier today that it was this week in 2019 that I had the opportunity of visiting Hayes School in Bromley, which was taking part in the programme, and where I had the chance to join a classroom-based mindfulness session. The trials have gone on for quite some time, although covid, as with so many other things, took a chunk out of the middle. However, the trials will conclude this Easter, and I want the results to be out as soon as possible—I hope by the autumn.
Our senior lead training also promotes tackling mental health and wellbeing through the curriculum, both directly in health education and by integrating the issue into the wider curriculum. In September 2020, we made health education, including mental health education, compulsory for all pupils in state-funded schools. That guarantees teaching on how to recognise the early signs of mental wellbeing concerns and where and how to seek support and self-care techniques, which again can include mindfulness.
We should remember that wellbeing-promoting behaviours can be encouraged beyond the classroom, and that has come up a number of times in the debate today. In particular, schools can develop their enrichment offers with an eye to NHS England’s “5 steps to mental wellbeing”, which sets out the steps that we can all take to improve our personal wellbeing. Those are, first, connecting with others; secondly, being active; thirdly, learning new skills; fourthly, giving to others; and, of course, fifthly, paying attention to the present moment—something that colleagues present might recognise as mindfulness.
We have spoken a number of times about the general extracurricular, or co-curricular, set of activities and their importance in developing character and resilience, and I could not agree more with colleagues about the importance of everything outside the classroom. That can be about outdoor learning, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, or about sporting activities, music or voluntary work—all manner of things that help to give us a sense of purpose.
There is also a range of self-regulation and wellbeing techniques, and mindfulness is one. Seeing my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham reminded me of a very good product created by West Sussex CAMHS, which I think is called an A to Z of wellbeing techniques for use with primary school children—of course, issues can sometimes develop from quite an early age.
The hon. Member for Strangford and others are right to talk about the particular pressures that young people today face. In many ways, the world they are growing up into is better, with more opportunities than ever before, but there are also new and different pressures that just did not exist when anybody in this Chamber was young. A lot of that is to do with electronica and social media.
Andy Carter
Could the Minister perhaps say a little more about some of the calls made for social media platforms to do more to prevent under-16-year-olds, in particular, from accessing their services? One of the greatest mental health challenges is the incessant presence of a mobile phone and a screen.
Damian Hinds
Indeed, but I do not want to try our Chair’s patience too much by moving too far beyond mindfulness, which is of course the subject of the debate. I have taken a very active interest in these matters for a long time, in my time at the Department for Education and at the Home Office, and otherwise in Parliament, and I think social media companies can do more.
Of course, we have just legislated in the Online Safety Act 2023. Most social media companies stipulate a minimum age of 13, but it is not uncommon for people to find a way around that minimum age. With the Online Safety Act, those companies will have to say how they are going to enforce that minimum age and then deliver on it. They are also going to have to ensure that they are protecting children from harmful content and removing, in good time, content that is illegal and identified as such. That is the legislation, but we do not need to wait for a law to do some of those things. I would say to everybody working in the technology field or in social media, most of whom have families themselves, that we all have a shared responsibility to think about the mental health, wellbeing and true interests of children and young people growing up.
I was just talking about the range of extracurricular activities, and I want to mention the range of support across Government for those, including the national youth guarantee and the enrichment partnerships pilot. We are also encouraging children to spend time in nature and to take in their surroundings, which I think the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale will welcome. The natural world has so much to offer in terms of grounding us, and we can see the potential of that through our work on the national education nature park, for example.
We have spoken a couple of times, rightly, about wider mental health provision, particularly for children and adolescents. More resourcing has been and is going into CAMHS; the issue is that the demand has also been growing. An investment of up to a further £2.3 billion a year is going into transforming NHS mental health services, including meeting the aim that over 300,000 more children and young people will have been able to access NHS-funded mental health support by March 2024.
A number of things that colleagues have talked about, including mindfulness—the key subject of the debate—and self-regulation techniques, general wellbeing and building up resilience, have an important role in helping to prevent some of that pressure. One wants to make people resilient and resistant to some of the problems that inevitably come our way in life and able, if there are relatively low-level issues, to deal with them before they become bigger. One also wants, as I said, to relieve some of that pressure.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North rightly mentioned counsellors and mental health professionals in schools. Many schools already provide targeted support to pupils through counsellors, pastoral staff, educational psychologists and other roles. No single intervention works for every pupil; again, I think it is important that settings have the freedom to decide what is the best support in their circumstance and for their cohort of children.
Charlotte Nichols
I want to ask a question about the idea of schools having flexibility. Of course, in general terms, I would welcome that, but is there not a worry that we would end up with a postcode lottery of provision in terms of the mental health support woven through schools? Areas such as Warrington would have fantastic things available for our young people, but children in towns in the surrounding area would still have issues that we could really be stepping in to address.
Damian Hinds
The senior mental health lead training that I talked about is a nationwide offer—I am talking about England, because, as hon. Members know, education is devolved. I was just about to talk about mental health support teams, which will similarly be a nationwide offer. It is a gradual roll-out. I think it is possible to combine having a nationwide approach with tailoring to one’s particular circumstances. We are continuing to roll out the mental health support teams to schools, and also to colleges. They will deliver evidence-based interventions for mild to moderate mental health issues and will support the mental health leads with their whole-school approach. As of April last year, the support teams covered a little more than a third of our schools, with a little more than a third of pupils in the country. That number continues to grow; the coverage should extend to at least half of pupils by March 2025.
The hon. Member for Warrington North rightly mentioned the wellbeing of staff, which is an important subject, and the Government take it very seriously. At the start of this year, we announced £1.5 million of new investment to deliver a three-year mental health and wellbeing support package for school and college leaders. That was in addition to the just over £1 million already invested in the current support package.
More broadly, we have worked in partnership with the education sector and with mental health experts to develop the education staff wellbeing charter, which sets out commitments from my Department, Ofsted and schools and colleges on actions to improve staff wellbeing. In January, we published an update showing the significant progress made on our pledges. I would simply echo what the hon. Member for Warrington said, which is that taking part in mindfulness in certain circumstances can also have a benefit for teachers and leaders in schools.
I am enormously grateful to the hon. Lady for raising the potential of mindfulness in schools—Mr Gray, you have been gracious and generous in allowing us to move into some adjacent but clearly related areas that it is important to discuss—and the Government agree with her that mindfulness is one of the tools that can support wellbeing in school. Our approach of building the evidence base, including through the extensive trials I talked about, and supporting schools to make effective decisions on their provision will ensure that such opportunities are acted on.
Charlotte Nichols
I thank all the Members who contributed, with four political parties represented in the debate. I particularly thank the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their thoughtful contributions. The hon. Member for Strangford referred to adult burdens on children’s shoulders—perhaps the most apt way I have heard this issue summed up—in highlighting the need for children to be given greater tools to cope. Dealing with this issue is our responsibility as legislators.
Many of us recall early childhood as a time when we were more fully there and present in mind and body in the moments of our lives. We had heightened senses, we were more open-minded, we were more accepting of new experiences and of others unlike ourselves, and we were more curious and more creative. Sadly, most of us tend to lose that innate capacity as we get older and in the face of growing demands and worries, competing pressures and the daily grind. Introducing mindfulness practice in schools can provide an opportunity to value, preserve, nurture and sustain those life-affirming states of mind in children, while enabling adults to partly reclaim them. I hope we can continue this conversation beyond today and use the example of what we are doing in Warrington to improve mental health for all our young people. I again thank all those who have taken part.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered mindfulness in schools.
SEND Provision: Uxbridge and South Ruislip
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Tuckwell (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered SEND provision in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, in the second Westminster Hall debate that I have secured.
I am incredibly proud to be the Member of Parliament for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, where I was born and where I have lived all my life. As I said in my maiden speech, I am determined to use this privileged position to champion all things Uxbridge and South Ruislip. That includes the good things, indeed the amazing things that make our part of the world one of the best places to live. In my first Westminster Hall debate, I championed our fantastic heritage assets, such as the Battle of Britain Bunker and the Crown and Treaty pub. However, I am more than acutely aware that my position affords me the ability not just to shine a light on what is going well locally but to draw Ministers’ attention to the issues that I believe require greater support or attention, in order to make Uxbridge and South Ruislip an even better place to grow up in and live in.
That is why, when I was elected, I draw up six overarching priorities to guide me and my team throughout my time in this place. The provision of special educational needs and disabilities, or SEND, is one of those six priorities and it is an issue that is incredibly close to my heart. As I said in a debate in the main Chamber, Britain has a proud history of universal education—or so we think. That is because even now, and especially for children with SEND, access to education is not as universal as we would like it to be. Education is the foundation of a person’s life. It gives them not just knowledge but skills that can help them throughout their life. Of course we mean reading, writing and other fundamental skills and lessons, including reasoning, critical thinking, discipline and routine. These are things that many of us take for granted, but they are essential for people to become productive members of society. Without them, it is not just the individual who suffers but the wider community, as the individual struggles to adapt and integrate within it. Indeed, although children make up only 20% of our population, they represent 100% of our future. That is why education is fundamental, as is educational provision for all, including for the 1.4 million pupils across England with a diverse range of special educational needs.
As I am sure I do not need to remind the Minister, multiple Governments have spent a huge amount of time and energy on SEND provision. Needless to say, I will continue to welcome any opportunity to work with the Government on this issue long after this speech is concluded.
On unveiling the SEND review in 2022, the then Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), confirmed that despite previous reforms, including those of 2014, which gave critical support to more families, the wider system was not working. However, since the release of that review and through the review itself, the Government have signalled that they are listening to education providers, to parents and, most importantly, to children and young people. It would be incredibly useful if the Minister updated me on the Department’s work to implement the proposals and aims of the 2022 review.
Unfortunately, for too long the system has neglected the importance of SEND provision and has instead fallen back on a blanket one-size-fits-all system that has failed to be effective. What is encouraging, however, is that the Government now understand that—rightly so for the constituents of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
Figures from the 2021 census showed that the borough’s population grew by 11.7% in the previous decade. The under-18 population increased by 12.9%. Of the 71,000 children and young adults up to the age of 25 roughly 7,000, or 10%, have SEND. These figures confirm what we already know—that the need for SEND provision is becoming more and more pressing.
We know that because we are making huge strides in the early identification of SEND. Last week, I had the pleasure of supporting my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) in proposing new legislation to look at early diagnosis of autism. The greater number of children and young adults with SEND being identified means that there is a greater need for all manner of support for local authorities and national Government.
It is important to ensure, as I have mentioned before, that we do not just retreat to a policy of one size fits all. Every child and young person must have their needs, experiences and situations evaluated as an individual. That holistic approach will take more time and resources in manpower and funds, but it is the right thing to do. Case study after case study shows that the earlier SEND is identified, the better that child or young person advances. That in itself can have positive benefits for that individual as well as the society they are part of. I would welcome the Minister going through some of the ways the Department is looking at replicating that “individual first” approach to SEND policy.
In the meantime, I want to spend a few moments touching on how Hillingdon Council, in its SEND and alternative provision strategy, is setting out its own approach. At the heart of that strategy are several ambitions. They are not lofty aspirations, but concrete practical steps that, when delivered together, present a real chance to make change happen for those children and young people with special educational needs in Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
The first is establishing the right support at the right time. To achieve that, the council is reviewing and refining its early intervention offer. That is being done through steps such as increasing awareness of early help, intervention and inclusion across the borough, developing new collaborative agreements and ways of working with associated bodies, and ensuring pathways are clear and easy to navigate.
Secondly, Hillingdon Council wants to ensure a fully inclusive education for all pupils, especially those with SEND. By increasing the uptake in SEND reviews and peer mentoring, giving educational settings the ability properly to play their part in the system, developing training opportunities for all council staff, that ambition can be realised for all pupils.
It is important that once those first two ambitions have been launched, SEND provision is properly equipped so that it can meet the needs of those with SEND across Uxbridge and South Ruislip. It is incredibly important to ensure that all pupils do not just feel part of their communities but have a tangible control and input into their lives, including their education.
Hillingdon Council’s approach will equip children with the support and interventions to re-enter mainstream education where possible. This set of highly achievable ambitions is important because it ensures that children and young people across my constituency can lead happy and fulfilled lives, in which they are included in the community. That is not just a noble cause but a tangible outcome, which we all want for our children and young people. That is why it is one of my top priorities.
Taken with the ambitions that I have already mentioned, while developing further opportunities for those with special educational needs to take part in clubs and activities and developing opportunities with the council’s preparation for adulthood programmes, the council is consistently working with pupils to gather feedback on what is and is not working. Hillingdon Council is committed to ensuring that young people in the borough can live healthy lives and can have access to the best possible educational opportunities. It is also investing in a multimillion-pound project to build new spaces or expand existing buildings in mainstream and special schools, to ensure more availability of good-quality local school places for children with additional needs.
Special educational needs provision is complex, challenging and far from perfect. That is why I am pleased to have secured this debate today. I am looking forward to working with the Minister and his team, to champion further this vital subject. As I go through my list of asks for the Minister, I will also take the opportunity to ask if he will meet me, Hillingdon Council and some of the amazing hard-working SEND teams that do incredible work. I also thank those who work in special educational settings across Uxbridge and South Ruislip for their amazing and dedicated contribution. That is the thing: some fantastic work is already being done by our local communities. As a councillor, and since my election to this place, I have been lucky enough to see some of the work done by the council, providers, community groups and local charities, including the SeeAbility programme at Moorcroft School in Hillingdon, which I have mentioned in previous speeches. As I am sure the Minister is aware, SeeAbility works to ensure that children with disabilities do not miss out on eye care, and it has played a key part in championing the Government’s national scheme to bring eye care to all special schools.
I have had the pleasure of visiting an amazing special needs school— Hillingdon Manor School. It shared with me how its newly formed pupil parliament ensures that young people are involved in the decisions that shape their educational experience. I have also seen the work done by Wealdstone football club in its SEND sessions, which promote sport and offer respite to parents. In recognition of Wealdstone FC’s SEND support, Anita Kaye and Rob Davies recently received a community award at No. 10 Downing Street for their amazing work, ensuring that young people can feel part of the wider community.
As I am sure the Minister is aware, this work is being done under a great amount of strain. The Government have exciting things planned to revolutionise how local authorities deal with SEND provision. That includes the inclusion dashboards announced in the SEND review, whereby capturing and tracking metrics will allow areas to identify and respond more promptly to emerging needs. Local authorities such as Hillingdon are drawing up innovative, clearly defined plans that will once again put pupils first, treating them as the individuals they are. Success at any and every level requires adequate provision in terms of funding, logistics and other non-monetary support. I stand ready to work with the Government to ensure that everything is done to achieve that.
To those Uxbridge and South Ruislip parents, such as Kelly, who got in touch to share her experiences of navigating the process of accessing SEND provision, but especially the children and young adults watching the debate or reading about it afterwards like her daughter Darcie, I assure them that I hear them. What is more, I will continue to work with, champion and fight for them, their education and their future. I hope the Minister will reaffirm that the Department for Education and, indeed, the Government more widely stands with them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Steve Tuckwell) on securing the debate. The people of Uxbridge and South Ruislip could have no better champion than him. Improving the SEND system across the country is a priority for this Government, and it was great to hear what a priority it is for him, supporting people like Kelly and Darcie, to whom he referred at the end of his speech.
Our ambition for children and young people with SEND is for them to thrive, fulfil their potential and lead happy, healthy and productive lives. That means ensuring that they have access to the right support in the right place at the right time and intervening when a local authority is not providing that. I enjoyed hearing my hon. Friend describe the actions that Hillingdon has been taking in this area to identify children’s needs early enough, which is important in reforming the system.
As my hon. Friend said, last month we published our SEND and alternative provision improvement plan to ensure that children and young people get high-quality early support wherever they live in the country. He asked me to update him on the progress we have made since then, and that is what I will do for most of my speech. Since we published the plan, we have already opened 15 new special free schools and approved a further 40 special free schools, in addition to the 41 special and alternative provision free schools that are in the pipeline. We have launched a £13-million partnership for the inclusion of neurodiversity in schools, which will support up to 1,680 primary schools in better meeting the needs of neurodiverse children. More than 5,000 practitioners have registered for our early years special educational needs co-ordinator training to boost their knowledge and understanding of SEND in the early years so they can promote greater early years identification, which my hon. Friend touched on, and work collaboratively with parents, carers and other professionals.
We have announced a new initial teacher training and early career framework, which includes new and updated content on special educational needs and disabilities, to ensure that teachers have the skills and confidence to support all children. We are also introducing a new national professional qualification for SENCOs from this autumn to ensure that they receive consistent, high-quality and evidence-based training. In addition, we will be investing a further £21 million to train 400 more educational psychologists in the next two academic years. My hon. Friend knows how important access to educational psychologists is, so we are really pleased about that.
A big part of what we are doing with our reform plan is trying to create more places in specialist provision. We announced the allocation of more than £1.5 billion of high-needs provision capital in the past two financial years, including £17.5 million for Hillingdon. That funding will create hundreds of new places in mainstream special schools and other specialist settings, and will improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings.
Local authorities can also commission new schools via the free school presumption route, as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware. Through the Department’s free school programme, Hillingdon has had two special free schools approved: Grand Union Village primary and Pinn River all-through school. More recently, a third special school was approved for opening.
In 2022, Hillingdon reported that 66% of new assessments for education, health and care plans were completed within the 20-week timeframe. That is above the national average of 49.2% and the London average of 54.7%, but clearly 66% is not where we want to be. We want 100% completed within that timeframe, so the Department continues to provide additional support where needed. We are also putting in place a range of measures to help local authorities deliver EHCPs in a timely fashion. Where they fail to deliver consistent outcomes for children and young people with SEND, we use a range of improvement programmes, including SEND advisers and other professionals who can support them in improving that.
The improvement plan to which my hon. Friend referred rightly committed us to delivering a nationally consistent EHCP system. Part of the problem is that there is huge local variation. We have never had a national system for SEND, so we are trying to create one with national standards that families trust in order to improve the quality of their experience.
The measures being tested include multi-agency panels to improve the quality of decision making as EHCPs are made, a single national EHCP template, the earlier resolution of disputes through consistent and timely decision making, and the use of strengthened mediation procedures. My hon. Friend is absolutely right, however, that although we want consistent standards, we do not want a one-size-fits-all policy.
As my hon. Friend doubtless knows, Hillingdon is part of our Safety Valve programme, which helps local authorities to pay down accumulated deficits and reform their SEND systems. It requires local authorities to develop substantial plans for reform to their high-needs systems, with support and challenge from DFE officials. By March 2025, the Department will have allocated nearly £900 million through that programme to support local authorities in eradicating their deficit.
I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to Hillingdon Manor School, Wealdstone football club—especially Anita Kaye and Rob Davies—and SeeAbility for its work at Moorcroft School. Only a few weeks ago, I visited one of SeeAbility’s projects in my constituency—in Didcot, where I live—and I was very impressed with the work it is doing, so I was pleased that my hon. Friend highlighted the importance of its work.
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this incredibly important subject. He asked whether I would meet him, Hillingdon Council and the teams working locally on SEND. I would be delighted to do so, and I will ask my officials to set that up. I echo his thanks to all the people working across education, health and care in the interests of children and young people with SEND in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Hillingdon more broadly and across the country. We need to deliver the very best standards for children and young people with SEND. He and I share that passion.
Question put and agreed to.
Deportation of Foreign National Offenders
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the deportation of foreign national offenders.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. Let me start with a quote:
“Never in the history of the world have there been so many migrants. And almost all of them are migrating from regions where nationality is weak or non-existent to the established nation states of the West. They are not migrating because they have discovered some previously dormant feeling of love or loyalty towards the nations in whose territory they seek a home. On the contrary, few of them identify their loyalties in national terms and almost none of them in terms of the nation where they settle.”
Roger Scruton wrote those words in 2004.
I have often spoken of the generous and welcoming nature of the people of Redditch. My constituents have opened their hearts and their homes and shown love to strangers from Syria, Ukraine and all over the world who are now our neighbours and friends. But as a Conservative, I defend my right to tell the truth to the British people about the abuse of our homes and communities that is facilitated by some in our asylum and immigration systems, and in our courts and tribunals, in the name of kindness and virtue signalling. I am choosing my words very carefully, because I know many will try to discredit my remarks. Note my use of the word “some”—it does not mean all. It might be a small number, but nevertheless the public expect us to take this seriously.
Our critics attack us. They say it is heartless and cruel—or, bizarrely, far right—to believe that the people who have lived all their lives in our country should have a say in how many more people come to it, or to aver that the people who come to our country should respect our laws, traditions and culture and that, if they do not, they should be sent back to where they come from. That is why I secured this debate.
According to the Crown Prosecution Service, the number of foreign national offenders subject to deportation action living in the community has risen year on year for the last decade and has reached nearly 12,000, a 192% increase since 2012. That is 12,000 criminals free to roam our streets while they exploit our legal system at taxpayers’ expense to stay here longer.
As that number has climbed over the last decade, the number of people we return to other countries has fallen: total enforced returns dropped from 15,134 in 2012 to 5,506 in the year ending September 2023. Meanwhile, 10,321 FNOs are on the prison estate. According to Ministry of Justice figures, in 2021-22, the average cost per prisoner per year was £31,000. Add to that the legal fees involved in getting them to prison in the first place, and the figure runs into the hundreds of millions every year.
We must raise our eyes and stop thinking that the United Kingdom is uniquely afflicted by this problem and that our own Government are the only ones battling it. Every country around the world is dealing with spiralling immigration. None has ready solutions. All face the same issues of democratic consent. Take the EU: 2.3 million immigrants entered the bloc from non-EU countries in 2021, an increase of almost 18% compared with 2020. The tiny Italian island of Lampedusa was last year overwhelmed by 7,000 migrants—more than its entire population of 6,000. The EU does not have the answers.
According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, at the end of 2022, 108.4 million people worldwide were displaced. That represents an increase of 19 million people wanting to leave their own country compared with the end of 2021—more than the population of Ecuador, the Netherlands or Somalia. Of course, many of those aspire to come to European nations in the west, including the UK, and we have always done our part in this country. In the UK, net migration has been a major component of population over the past two decades, making up 60% of the growth from 2001 to 2020.
It is a fact of human nature that not everybody is a good person. That is something that Jesus of Nazareth—we will come to him—knew. When numbers of immigrants rise, most—the vast majority—are good people, but proportionately more bad people will be among their number. In this country, we are open hearted, generous and tolerant to those who treat us with respect and are willing to abide by our laws. But we have all seen the examples of people that we have welcomed to our homes who only wish to harm or kill us, our families and our communities. They are people who have no intention of returning the love and support that we have shown them, and they have treated our country as a dormitory, and sometimes as a cash machine, to bring their relatives in by the back door.
Our constituents are not naïve. They know that people of any nationality are capable of sinning, lying and evil, but they do not expect our country to be an offshore prison facility for criminals from all over the world. They elect us to keep people safe in their beds at night and on our streets, and to get foreign criminals out of our country and let their own societies rehabilitate them. Every sovereign nation has the right to control its borders. This is not far-right rhetoric; it is centred on common sense.
Why, despite everything that the Conservative Government have done, are the numbers going the wrong way? I served as a Minister both in the Home Office and in the Ministry of Justice. It is a true pleasure to have my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), with whom it was my privilege to serve in the Home Office, here today. She will know, as I do, just how many obstacles exist to deporting people who should not be here, despite the excellent people who work in the Home Office.
I think most people would be surprised to learn, for example, that foreigners convicted of crimes that attract sentences of less than 12 months can still be granted asylum and stay here. Why? Conservatives have done more than ever before to tackle the concerning rise in illegal migration and criminality, and to clamp down on the merry-go-round of spurious asylum claims, but a thicket of legal instruments, treaties and conventions still exists, which gives foreign national offenders grounds to escape deportation. I know it is difficult, but we must do more.
A new loophole is emerging that is ripe for exploitation, and I am genuinely worried about it. It is the fear of persecution if returned, on the grounds of religious conversion, especially from Islam to Christianity. Every single person in this Chamber, if they are truthful with themselves, can imagine the situation: you are a migrant on the Bibby Stockholm or in a British jail, about to be sent back to Somalia. A nice legal aid lawyer or non-governmental organisation appears in front of you with a script to follow and explains that a miracle can happen. Next thing, the light appears and you are a Christian.
The prime suspect in the Clapham case was given asylum on the second time of asking, despite being charged with sexual assault and indecent exposure in 2018. He claimed that he had converted to Christianity, meaning he would have been at risk of persecution if he returned to Afghanistan. The suicide bomber who attacked Liverpool Women’s Hospital, Emad al-Swealmeen, had, following a failed initial asylum claim, converted from Islam to Christianity. I tried to find figures for how many other FNOs have evaded deportation because of this issue, but I was unable to. I understand that the Home Secretary is looking at this, so I am sure that the Minister can update us.
Jesus understood compassion to foreigners and strangers, as we read in the Bible. The words “refugee” and “asylum seeker” do not appear anywhere in Holy Scripture—and who would argue in all seriousness that the world of the tribes of Israel in Egypt some four millennia ago was anything like the same as it is today? But Jesus was a student of human nature. He understood the temptation to lie. As students of human nature and intelligent people in this place, we should be brave enough to acknowledge this. Only God can look into my heart and my personal Christian faith, with all its flaws, and know whether I believe in him or not. We are asking the impossible of our clergymen. They are not God, and to pretend that they are is the ultimate mass delusion.
Do not gaslight us and say that this is not a situation ripe for abuse. Desperate people do desperate things. We should blame not the people—I emphasise that I do not blame them—but the incentives and the policy structures that allow this to take place. The British people feel, as I do, that we have allowed ourselves to become taken advantage of. We have been quite literally killing ourselves with kindness. If we continue this way, we risk eroding trust in our institutions and structures of government—the very things that we build our nation on.
I do not know about you, Mr Gray, but I was shocked to discover that the BBC has permitted a former employee to give evidence at immigration tribunals supporting 15 convicted Somalian criminals, including rapists. Some of that number have been given leave to remain in the UK after their trials and appeals based on her evidence. Do people pay their licence fee for this? What message does it send to the victims, some of them children, of these evil foreign thugs?
I come now to the most important part of my speech. It is only Conservative values, centred on our belief in a strong nation state, that have any answers to this wicked problem. We are the only ones prepared to stand up and fight for our hard-won peace. We are the only ones who are making progress, difficult though it is, over the longer term to fight to protect our democracy and our safety.
Let us look at what the Labour party is doing as we approach the next election—perhaps they have a plan. What do we see when we look deeper? Members of the current Labour Front Bench—including the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) when campaigning to be the leader of the Labour party—signed a letter calling for the suspension of a flight to deport 50 offenders to Jamaica and the suspension of all future charter flights. One hundred and fifty-one Labour MPs and peers, as well as Liberal Democrats and Members of other Opposition parties, and celebrities, signed the letter calling for the flight to be scrapped. It is hardly surprising, when they are led by someone who once claimed there was a
“racist undercurrent which permeates all immigration law”.
Among those who escaped deportation that day was heroin dealer Akiva Heaven, who had already served four years in prison and went on to be jailed again in May 2021 for dealing cocaine and heroin. If that was not bad enough, one of the criminals Labour Members so generously campaigned on behalf of, Ernesto Elliott, went on to commit murder. How can we ever trust them? These people are only interested in a free ride on the virtue-signalling train with their celebrity mates. They might try to persuade the British public that they have changed, but they are, and they remain, a risk to our national security.
I know exactly what they will say—that it is the easy attack, that it is all our fault, that we have been in government for 14 years. I am afraid that that perfectly demonstrates my point. Their flat denial that this is a global, emergent and unpredictable threat—a new threat in many respects—tells the British people that they have no serious plan to tackle it. Worse, they maintain the fantasy that all can be solved by talking in a nicer way to the EU.
What we need is a cultural change. First, we must protect our homes and our families. Patriotism grows from the soil of trust. People who care about our country as their own, no matter where they have come from, will put their lives on the line to defend it. Scruton speaks of the educated derision that has been directed at our national loyalty by those whose freedom to criticise would have been extinguished years ago had the English not been prepared to die for their country.
We all know who those critics are—the celebrity on a humanitarian crusade to boost their flagging career; some institutions, including some in the Church of England, some of its leaders, some universities and some in the BBC; and that ballooning charity, legal aid and NGO racket. They can burnish their compassion credentials and bottom lines with a few clicks. I say to them: this is on you. You must take your share of responsibility. You are recklessly and dangerously tossing away our national inheritance, which has, as the German poet Goethe said, been laboriously earned by our forefathers from Christianity, imperial government and Roman law. I call on the Minister and the Home Secretary to urgently revisit the legal frameworks underpinning the exemptions on grounds of religion and faith.
I ask the following questions to the excellent Minister, who is to be commended for the vigour and effectiveness he has brought to his brief. Why does he think we have seen a downward trend in the number of FNOs being deported, and what steps are he and the Government taking to address the issue? How many have been granted asylum after being sentenced for a crime? Does he think that the current arrangements, which permit those sentenced for less than 12 months to be granted asylum, are adequate?
I thank everyone who has supported the debate. I finish by reminding us that our generation has a solemn duty to our country. Goethe, again:
“What you have inherited from your forefathers, earn it, that you might own it.”
Earning it, we will own it, and owning it, we will be at peace within our borders.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) for her speech. I have to put this on the record, and forgive me, Mr Gray, for having to do so, but I am a bit perplexed. I am very fond of the hon. Lady, and she knows that. I am a Christian, I have Christian faith, and I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, so I speak up for those of Christian faith, those of other faiths and those with no faith.
I am trying to say this as gently as I can, but I have people in my constituency who have converted to Christianity—or whatever they may do, but I know people who have done that. They were never a threat because they said that they had become Christians. I am sorry to say this, but I have some concern about how the hon. Lady, for whom I have the utmost respect, introduced the debate: it seemed as if every person who has converted to Christianity is potentially a criminal. I have to say this: the ones that I know are not, and I have to put that on the record. That is not what my speech was meant to be about, by the way—I will move on to the substance of it—but I felt a bit concerned.
Those who convert to Christianity, who have done it for the right reasons, because that is what their faith, their beliefs or their God has told them, have that right to do so, and they should not be condemned because they have done it. The hon. Member for Redditch knows I am incredibly fond of her, but I am sorry, I felt really uneasy about that. I have to put that on the record, and I wanted to do it now, before I speak about the content of the debate. I welcome, properly, what the hon. Lady said, which mirrors some of what I want to say. I am not saying that everyone is an angel—no, they are not—but most of those who convert to Christianity do so for genuine reasons and should be respected. I will leave it at that—I do not want to develop it any further; I do not want to be adversarial or to have a different opinion.
Despite conflicting opinions among Members about immigration and asylum seeking, we in the UK pride ourselves on being a compassionate country that provides safety for those in need and is well known for believing that we have a duty to help others. That has always been my gut feeling. All my life I have wanted to help others and all my life in this place I have tried to do that.
For some, aid should take place in the home country, and for others, we should open our doors, but that comes with a huge condition, and that is what I am going to develop in my contribution to the debate: that people should respect the law of the land and understand that if they do not, the door is permanently closed. I am quite clear about that—the hon. Member for Redditch and I will agree on that. That part of the contribution I understand incredibly well. For those who break that trust, it is crucial that justice is served and that they are ultimately removed from our country. It is our country, and for all of us here and all our constituents, the safety of our people is crucial, critical and important.
In June 2023, at least 10,321 foreign nationals were in prison across England and Wales. More locally for myself—I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, although deportation issues lie here with the House, which has the final say—around 10.6% of those in Northern Ireland prisons were foreign nationals as of 2022.
The Home Secretary and Home Office have a duty to this country to issue deportation orders for those who have been convicted of an offence in the UK and sentenced to at least 12 months, unless certain exceptions apply. I cannot stress enough the importance of securing safety and protection for the general public. If that is the thrust of this debate, and I believe it is, then let us focus on that. We hear horror stories every day in our local papers and on the news of all sorts of crimes, including what happened to that poor lady and her two children—my goodness me. They are committed not just by foreign nationals but by our own people, and we are trying to gain control over and manage them.
There is no doubt that our justice system has been fragmented in the past, and there have been many calls from our constituents to get the issues of court hearing delays and lenient prosecutions sorted. I do not see how we can give many more excuses for continuing to house foreign national offenders in UK prisons if they are guilty of the heinous crimes of rape, murder or whatever they may be. Statistics show that our prisons have been severely over-subscribed in certain areas for a number of years, and that has meant prisoners being left in custody for longer than needed or left in county jails.
The Government have stated on a number of occasions that the deportation of foreign national offenders is a long-standing Government priority, but as of 2022 there were still almost 12,000 foreign national offenders subject to deportation action living in the community. We must direct ourselves to that issue. The constituents in the communities we represent have a right to feel safe in the areas they live and work in—not just for themselves, but for their children and grandchildren.
I will conclude, because many people want to contribute. We are a compassionate country: we welcome foreign nationals and the contributions they make to our nation. But there must also be a clear understanding that crime, no matter how petty, is not to be tolerated, and that it has consequences. I look to my Government and my Minister to ensure that our actions meet our words. If this is a priority, let us follow through and ensure that we have the necessary means to deport those who do not follow the laws and guidelines of this country. Perhaps the Minister can respond with his plans to reduce the number down from the thousands to as small a number as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
James Gray (in the Chair)
Order. There is 16 minutes until the wind-ups and four or five people trying to speak. Therefore, it would be helpful if speeches were limited to four or five minutes.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I commend and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on her contribution and on securing the debate. I also commend her outstanding work at the Home Office alongside me when I was Home Secretary. She was a steady hand on a very important piece of legislation, the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which brought in many measures to directly address illegal migration. The Act addresses not just the causes, but how we bring greater efficiency to the illegal migration system and the whole issue of deportation and removals, which is relevant to this debate on foreign national offenders.
As a former Home Secretary, I have been involved in this issue quite a bit. I oversaw the removal of around 12,000 FNOs, despite the travel restrictions caused by the covid pandemic and the relentless and determined efforts of the campaigners, celebrities, do-gooders and everyone else mentioned by my hon. Friend, some in the media or parts of the legal establishment, and Opposition politicians. The removal of those 12,000 foreign national offenders made our streets and communities safer and protected the public from crime. I promoted what was colloquially known at the time as the prison-to-plane approach, which reduced the amount of time that FNOs are in our country after they leave custody. That is important, as the Minister will understand, because we can remove such people only once they have left prison, after which they have to be in a safe and secure detention facility before being removed. That approach is the right one, and it links to the issue of prison places and how we get flow into the system.
As someone who has held the post of Home Secretary, I know that we are bound by statutory duties to deport those who have been sentenced to at least 12 months imprisonment, unless very specific exemptions apply. However, there are other FNOs who can be deported if their presence is not conducive to the public good, in particular if they breach their UK visa or entry requirements, and there will be a whole load of associated issues.
Removing these individuals is absolutely one of the most serious duties that the Home Secretary of the day has. Of course, we know the appalling crimes that they have committed. That is why—as the Minister will know, and as the Home Secretary will be well aware—it is imperative that we remove those who have committed the most heinous crimes, especially those who have been persistent or even serial offenders.
In my personal view, not enough is being done to sentence people to custody for long enough. We already know that there are thousands of criminals who commit serious crimes who are either not sentenced to jail or receive sentences of less than 12 months. I think more needs to be done there.
Between 2007 and 2017, around 13,000 people convicted of sexual assault or rape were not sentenced to immediate custody. That included 900 rapists, and some of those offences were committed against children as young as 13. Half of all sex offenders were not sent to jail by our courts during that period. We know exactly what happened, basically, and those shocking figures demonstrate that some of those offenders, who were responsible for the most appalling crimes, would not meet the 12-month custodial sentence threshold to be removed and deported. That is a sobering point, it really is, and it has an impact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch said, on public confidence, community cohesion and safety in our own communities. It basically means that there are some terrible offenders who should have been deported but were not deported.
I am afraid to say that it is inexcusable that those offenders who are deported, sometimes on those deportation flights, have attracted the support of some organisations that have basically prevented their removal. Those offenders have committed serious offences, and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch has already made the case relating to those individuals. I am afraid to say that the party opposite would use social media, particularly around some of the flights that I was involved with, basically to campaign on behalf of those individuals, and say that they were their constituents and had a right to be in the United Kingdom, despite committing the most heinous and appalling crimes.
The removal of foreign national offenders, or FNOs, is necessary for statutory reasons and public safety reasons. Their removal is in the interests of the victims of crime. I have met too many victims who have been assaulted and abused by foreign national offenders, and we must put their needs first. The needs of the victims must always come first. Our vulnerable people, whose lives have been destroyed and shattered by FNOs, are traumatised—and do you know what? They are even more traumatised, and they relive that trauma all over again, when they see Members of Parliament, celebrities, the media, BBC so-called “expert witnesses”, as exposed by The Mail on Sunday last weekend, campaigners and lawyers backing the rights of criminals over them. The victims should be supported, not these dangerous FNOs.
We have seen the consequences when deportation flights are blocked. I used to have to deal with those consequences, and I had to deal with those deportation flights that were cancelled, because of mutinies by passengers, but also because of the way in which the left in particular would lobby.
To conclude, it is absolutely right that the country knows who is responsible for stopping those flights and stopping the removal of those FNOs. When the Minister responds to the debate, I would particularly like him to speak very clearly about what is being done now to circumvent and stop those mutinous passengers, to stop these lawyers and to stop people in Parliament as well from campaigning to prevent the removal of FNOs, and to ensure effectively that the victims of these crimes are protected and see justice by seeing the removal of these FNOs.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I fully concur with the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) that the first duty of a state is to keep its citizens safe and secure, so those who come here from abroad and perpetrate serious crime must not only be publicly punished, but face deportation if it is appropriate in the circumstances. That is not just the state’s duty; it is also logical. That is why we enter into prisoner transfer agreements, of which we have many.
Somebody who is in prison has to be punished, but the state—whether it is our state or another—also has to remember its obligation to rehabilitate them. The factors that matter are quite clear. Will a home be available on release? Will somebody local be taking an interest, preferably even when the person is still in prison? Will the prisoner be able to do something constructive on release? For somebody who is foreign, that is very difficult. Families are also being punished, because they cannot visit. That is why we have prisoner transfer agreements and why we should be seeking to move people back, even before the end of their sentence, to the countries from which they came.
I make two caveats. The first is that what goes out has to come back in. I recall meeting the parents of a drug-dealing young Scots girl who had been imprisoned in Spain. I made it quite clear to her father that we would bring her home—not to put her feet up and live the life of Riley, but to go to a Scottish prison, Cornton Vale. It was our obligation; she was our citizen; she would serve her sentence here, if that was what she wanted. We would not force her to come back, but we would bring her home. That did indeed work out.
What we cannot have is the situation that some people jumped to demand at the time. They were appalled that we should be seeking to bring her back, yet they were the very same people who say that we have to send foreign prisoners home. We cannot insist on foreign nationals being deported, and then say, “By the way, we’re not keeping the door open for our own citizens to be sent back here.” That is hypocritical as well as absurd.
The second caveat is that we have to take into account—I am glad that the regulations do so—the fact that not every foreign national should necessarily be deported. I well recall making a Christmastime visit to a Christian charity in Leith when I was a Justice Minister. Anyone who has been a Minister, including the Minister in this debate, will have made such visits to worthy charities.
I met an Australian gentleman who was a few years younger than me: he must have been in his late 40s or early 50s. I asked what he was doing. He was homeless. He had been deported from Australia. He admitted that he had committed a serious crime. His life had collapsed about him. He was not a bad person; I was not intimidated. He had to be punished for what he did, but he was no Ned Kelly. Yet he had been sent back to Scotland, because he had never taken out Australian nationality. He had gone to Australia with his parents as a baby or a toddler. He had never been taken out of the country or come back to see any relatives, so he had never required an Australian passport. He had not been required to register for anything; he just had his national insurance card or whatever the Australian equivalent was.
He was Australian, but he was sent back to Scotland, where he knew no one. There may have been a second cousin or an elderly auntie somewhere, but they certainly would not have wanted somebody turning up and saying, “I’m your second cousin twice removed. I’ve just been deported from Australia. Do you remember me? Can you make me a cup of tea?”, so he was homeless here. That was fundamentally cruel. He should not have been sent home. He was not really Scottish or a UK citizen; he had a UK passport, but he had grown up in Australia. He was Australian, and Australia should have retained him.
Young Jamaican kids who have grown up in south London are being deported. The same will no doubt happen to young Somalis in Glasgow, who have become our children irrespective of a passport that might not be their responsibility. Yes, when people come here and perpetrate crimes, let us send them out, but there are others who have lived here who may not happen to have the right of citizenship. We should remember that Australian and remember our obligation to look after them. We must make sure that they are punished, but then we must rehabilitate them.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on securing this extremely important debate.
It is an absolute abomination that we see tens of thousands of illegal migrants choosing to come from safe mainland France and arriving undocumented on the shores of our country. They are predominantly young men: over 70%. In some cases—not all, but some—they will go on to commit heinous crimes or will be using these routes on behalf of gangs or even terrorist organisations, as has been reported by our security services. That is potentially undermining our nation’s very security.
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke simply will not stand for that, but they find themselves up against an institution like the Church of England. Its leader, Archbishop Justin Welby, has created political activists within the clergy to go out of their way to allow people to pretend that they have somehow seemingly converted to Christianity. A document leaked to GB News, seen by Nigel Farage and others, says, “After someone’s application has been granted, don’t be shocked if that person does not subsequently attend the church congregation.” It tells us everything we need to know about the abuse of the system that the BBC, the Church of England, the Labour party, lefty lawyers and do-gooder celebrity types are acting against national interests and are willing to leave our borders wide open without our knowing or understanding who is coming in and endangering our great nation.
I feel real anger at His Majesty’s Opposition, the Labour party. Back in February 2020, more than 150 Labour peers and Members of Parliament went out of their way to sign a letter that sought to stop the deportation of serious offenders, all because they wanted some cheap likes on social media platforms such as X, formerly known as Twitter. These people—people like the shadow Foreign Secretary; the shadow Health Secretary; the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities; the shadow Justice Secretary, who would be in charge of the prison estate if, God forbid, the Labour party were ever to take control of this country; the shadow Attorney General, when she is not busy demeaning the St George’s flag or the white van man, supporting the de-banking of political opponents or enabling murderers and rapists to stay in our country and terrorise our streets; and the shadow Solicitor General, when he is not busy spreading tin-hat, deepfake, fake news images on social media accounts—are signing letters that endanger people on our streets. They are endangering communities in places like Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, where sadly we have seen radicalisation that led to a dreadful terrorist act. Someone from the town of Tunstall went and committed the heinous crime on London bridge.
This is an issue of the utmost importance. When the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), signed the letter, he was busy pandering to his Corbynista friends—or should I say his former friends, whom he has recently ditched in order to pretend that he has somehow rehabilitated himself—to get the extreme loony left that still rages in the Labour party to back him for leader?
The Leader of the Opposition, who has been busy ditching his 10 pledges, is happy to whitewash his history as the Director of Public Prosecutions. Tajay Thompson, who was convicted of battering two women and went on to commit further drug-dealing offences, was prevented from being deported while the right hon. and learned Gentleman was head of the CPS. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also opposed the deportation of Fabian Henry, a foreign rapist who attacked a girl of 17 and abducted and sexually a 15-year-old. That is his record: when it came to putting people allegedly behind bars, he was busy working in the interests of those who very much undermine the safety of the young women and children of our country.
I will not have the Labour party virtue-signalling. I hope that the shadow immigration Minister, uses this debate to apologise on behalf of the Labour party for those who signed the letter, and to say that they will never do such a thing again.
Sir Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) for securing the debate. The recent awful case in Clapham has reminded us of the serious problem that we are addressing: the systematic abuse of articles 3 and 8 of the European convention on human rights to frustrate the legitimate deportation of people who have forfeited their right to be in this country. As we have heard, the latest practice appears to be claiming a conversion to the Christian faith that may or may not be genuine. There is a serious problem with rights groups, which we should all acknowledge across the House. Judicial activism has led to the law being expanded in ways that those who created the post-1945 order would struggle to recognise and certainly would not agree with.
It is deeply problematic that the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Justice Secretary signed letters attempting to block the deportation of foreign national offenders, as we have heard. In some cases, these people have gone on to commit further very serious crimes. It speaks to the fundamental naivety—some would call it madness—that blinds us to the reality of how dangerous some of these people are, and how wrong-headed it is to put their rights ahead of the rights of the victims of crime and of the wider British public.
We do not have a moral responsibility in this country to offer asylum to sex offenders from elsewhere. That is at the heart of this debate, and it is why it is important, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) said, that the Opposition acknowledge that they got that wrong. I say with great affection for the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) that his party needs to change its approach to the question. Otherwise, I am afraid it will give succour to people who do not deserve it.
The post-1945 world order is under strain in all directions. We live in a world that is being transformed, largely by the issues connected with migration. If we do not address cases in which there is a clear imperative to remove people have committed crimes in this country, I am afraid we will completely lose the moral right to make the case for balanced, compassionate and fair immigration to this country. This House should act. I hope that today the Minister will set out a clear path to tackling the problem.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray.
I do not really know where to start in this debate. Uncharacteristically for me, as someone who does not profess to be any kind of person of faith, I might start with a passage from Leviticus:
“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.”
The Bible may not talk about asylum seekers and refugees, as the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) says—I honestly would not know—but there is certainly an awful lot in there about treating other people as you would treat yourself and your own family. There has been very little of that in this afternoon’s debate.
We are here in very febrile times. I completely understand how upset people are about the attack in Clapham. That person should be fully held to account for his actions. He should face the full extent of the law and the justice system, and deportation, if indeed that is what is decided. There is no question about that. There is a process there that should be respected.
Hon. Members have heard me talk many, many times about the issues around asylum, but they probably have not have heard me say that, yes, there are circumstances in which people need to be removed. The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) will remember that when she was Home Secretary I wrote to her plenty of times about many constituents in many complex situations. There is very little that I have not seen in my constituency, given the complexity of casework that I have.
However, I also know that there are circumstances in which people cannot be deported, because to do so would mean their execution. We do not extradite to countries that have the death penalty, for example, so to say that everyone must be deported in all circumstances simply is not the basis on which the law of this country operates. I have had situations like that in my constituency, where people could not be removed and sent back to their countries of origin, because they would almost certainly have been executed on arrival.
The only thing on which I agree with the hon. Member for Redditch is that this situation is, indeed, the fault of the current Government and their predecessors.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Lady said that it is the current Government’s fault. She is quite correct in saying that. The Conservatives have been in control for quite some time now, and they have failed on numerous occasions to deal with the situation.
Stephen Shaw’s review of the issue identified many areas in which the Home Office had failed to deal properly with foreign national offenders. I appreciate that time is limited, but I want particularly to pick up on the excellent point from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) about our responsibilities to people who are more British than foreign. Stephen Shaw reflected on that in his review, saying that
“a significant proportion of those deemed FNOs had grown up in the UK, some having been born here but the majority having arrived in very early childhood. These detainees often had strong UK accents, had been to UK schools, and all of their close family and friends were based in the UK… Many had no command of the language of the country to which they were to be ‘returned’, or any remaining families ties there… The removal of these individuals raises real ethical issues.”
He also said that
“the twelve month sentence criterion for deportation in the UK Borders Act is not a very good guide to criminality”—
we can all think of sentences of 12 months or so that are not the types of sentences that some hon. Members read out earlier. He further said:
“I find the policy of removing individuals brought up here from infancy to be deeply troubling. For low-risk offenders, it seems entirely disproportionate to tear them away from their lives, families and friends in the UK, and send them to countries where they may not speak the language or have any ties.”
If we believe in rehabilitation, that means that if I were to commit a crime, I would go to prison, serve my sentence, and then be considered rehabilitated; I would not be sent to another country. We have a double standard in how we treat these people.
Stephen Shaw’s review also points out the inability of caseworkers to manage the FNOs within the system currently. It makes it clear that they are not being well managed, that casework is not being well managed and that people are not being prepared for return. He feels that all those circumstances lead to a risk that people will be brought back to a life of crime and will not be rehabilitated at all.
The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration has expressed the same concerns, saying:
“This is no way to run a government department.”
There is a lot that the UK Government could be doing better to achieve some of the aims that Government Members would put forward.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on securing this important debate. It was interesting to hear her questions to the Minister about the Government’s dreadful record on removing foreign criminals, and I look forward to his answers.
I also want to echo the comments from the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), on the deep concerns around the Clapham incident. The shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has written to the Home Secretary with a number of questions, trying to probe what has happened and to get to the bottom of that deeply disturbing matter.
It is beyond doubt that the Conservatives have completely lost control of our asylum system; indeed, the Prime Minister has admitted that the system is broken. He has failed to stop the Tory boats chaos, with 30,000 asylum seekers crossing the channel last year, the second highest number on record. We have 56,000 asylum seekers in taxpayer-funded emergency hotel accommodation at a cost of £8 million every day. Just to exacerbate the problem, the number of foreign criminals being removed has collapsed by a staggering 34% since 2010, when the last Labour Government were in office. Arguably even more disturbing is that we know that 8,786 foreign national offenders are not even being detained. They are out there living in communities across Britain for at least 12 months, with almost 4,000 staying for more than five years, having been released by the Conservative Government. It is quite frankly astonishing.
The first duty of any Government is to keep their people safe. The Home Office is responsible for ensuring that rules are fairly and robustly enforced. It must deport dangerous foreign criminals who have no right to be in our country and who should be returned to the country of their citizenship. That is precisely why the last Labour Government introduced stronger laws to that effect. We on the Opposition Benches are committed to building an immigration system that is firm, fair and well managed, so we find it deeply troubling that Ministers are failing to uphold these basic principles and deeply frustrating that they are blaming everybody else for their failings.
It is little wonder that a number of expert reports over recent years have pointed to how Home Office failures have resulted in fewer foreign criminals being deported than should be the case. In 2015, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration stated that one in three failures to deport foreign criminals was due to Home Office dysfunction. If we fast-forward to the present day, the latest immigration figures show that the Home Office is still failing miserably in that regard, so it is no surprise that the ICIBI has intensified his criticism. Last summer, he stated in his report:
“This is no way to run a government department.”
He added that the Home Office is unable
“to track and monitor the progression of cases”
with insufficient focus on processing removals rather than simply managing cases. What an utterly damning account of the Government’s handling of this critical aspect of our national security.
Why have removals collapsed under the Minister’s watch? Why does he think the independent inspector has criticised his Department in such damning terms? He will no doubt point to the large number of appeals. He loves to blame the judges, the French, the Opposition and the civil servants—he will probably even blame the football pundits—but what are he and his Government doing to make sure the cases are brought forward, and that they are watertight and not easily delayed?
Further, what diplomatic work is being done with other Governments to ensure that we can return those who have no right to be in the UK to their countries of origin? What is being done to encourage more voluntary returns? There used to be a much more effective system, whereby an assisted returns programme was run by Refugee Action. Since 2015, under Home Office management, that programme seems to be utterly broken, with voluntary returns plummeting.
Time and again, the Conservatives choose headline-chasing gimmicks rather than doing the hard graft of Government. Thankfully, Labour has a plan to clear up that dreadful mess. We have set out plans to establish a major new returns and enforcement unit in the Home Office, recruiting 1,000 new enforcement officers to speed up the deportations of those with no right to remain in Britain, including the removal of foreign national offenders, which, as I say, has plummeted by a third since 2010. We are also warning that the failing £400 million Rwanda scheme will not solve the problem of foreign national offenders, as the Rwandan Government can refuse anyone with a criminal conviction. The treaty instead says that foreign national offenders in Rwanda can be returned to the UK—you could not make it up.
The Home Office has a responsibility to get its deportation decisions right. The Conservatives have been in power for 14 years. It is their failure, their responsibility. If they cannot get it sorted, let us have a general election so that we can have a Labour Government in place that will fix the dreadful mess that has been made over 14 years.
The Minister for Countering Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I pay tribute to my good friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for the way in which she conducts herself in this place and for the passion and common sense that she brought to this debate. This debate is topical and timely, and I pay tribute to her for her foresight in applying for it—many weeks ago, I am sure, yet the time is right. It is probably one of those debates where more time would be helpful. The British public rightly expect our immigration system to work for them. We serve the public and our constituents, and that includes having a firm approach to those who abuse our generosity.
Let me address some of the points that were made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch. It is right that we as a country have a long and proud tradition of welcoming the stranger, of welcoming those who are in need, to our shores, but it is only fair that we ask for something simple in response, which is that they play by our rules and are law-abiding. I do not hesitate to say that fairness is at the heart of this debate. The Government are absolutely clear that foreign nationals who seek to take advantage of our generosity or abuse our hospitality by committing crimes should be deported.
Let me turn to the legal framework that underpins this, because that might answer one or two of my hon. Friend’s points. Essentially, two systems—two statutes—are used. The first is the UK Borders Act 2007, where a deportation order must be considered when a foreign national has been convicted of an offence and received a custodial sentence of more than 12 months. She mentioned the threshold of 12 months. There is a system under the Immigration Act 1971 whereby, if someone is sentenced to below 12 months, they can also be deported when it is conducive to the public good. We cannot go into the details of that now, but it is interesting to note that there is no definition of that and therefore there is great flexibility, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) knows. Suitable discretion is given to the Home Secretary in those circumstances.
As this debate has shown, however, circumstances arise where people seek to prevent deportation. There are some good reasons for that: for example, an offender might need to stay here to face the consequences of a court case. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend, the former Home Secretary, for majoring on the victims of crime, who are absolutely at the heart of this issue. That is why it is right that some foreign national offenders stay here for the first part of their sentence at least. But it is also right to say that there are legal challenges, late appeals and re-documentation barriers intended to frustrate the deportation process.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Sir Simon Clarke) tempts me to go down the ECHR line and to address that. It is right to say that we have international obligations under not just the ECHR, but the refugee convention, and that because of those obligations, some deportations have not been able to take place. However, the Government are determined to do everything we can to ensure that foreign criminals are deported, making our communities safer. Perhaps there will be another time when we can debate the niceties of articles 8 and 3 in more detail.
Let me come to the statistics, which my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch mentioned. We removed more than 16,500 foreign national offenders between January 2019 and September 2023. There was a dip, and she is right to challenge me on that point. It was not just because of covid but, at about that time, there was a dip. She will be pleased to know—as will you, Mr Gray, and others in the Chamber—that, since then, the returns of FNOs have been increasing. They went up by 19% in the past 12 months. That is a good start, but I am determined to take her point seriously and to take that further.
The hon. Member for Strangford asked me whether this is a priority of the Government. Yes, it is, and he will hopefully be reassured in that regard by the increase of 19% in the past 12 months. He and others may also be reassured to hear what we have done in the past two years. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham will know better than most about the Nationality and Borders Act, although my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch knows it well. Legislation was introduced to increase the relevant period to ensure that we can remove more foreign national offenders, and do so earlier. That is good for the taxpayer and in regard to the space in our prison estate, and it is fairer to society.
It is also right to say that the Nationalities and Borders Act was opposed by Labour. The Labour party so often opposes—every single measure that is brought in to tighten our borders is opposed by Labour. I will come back to that point and others that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) made. The measures under that Act were taken to make it easier and quicker to remove foreign offenders. We have also increased the number of caseworkers. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham will know how important that is to make sure that we can carve through the numbers and prioritise those we need to remove.
Let me come back to the infamous letter of February 2020 that so many right hon. and hon. Members mentioned. When the shadow Minister stood up and attempted to criticise the Government for the robust actions that they have been taking in this regard, in his wide-ranging speech—it ranged far beyond what one might consider to be the strict and narrow confines of this particular debate—he exposed the fact that Labour have voted time and again against every single measure that the Government have introduced to strengthen our borders. And not only that; the Leader of the Opposition signed a letter calling for criminals and foreign offenders not to be deported.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham will also know about another such instance. In December 2020, another charter flight to Jamaica was due to remove murderers and those convicted of attempted rape, burglaries and the supply of class A drugs. Despite lobbying, campaigns and pressure to make sure that the flight did not leave, it did leave safely. It is with some cheek, dare I say it, that the shadow Minister stands up and complains about the Conservative Government’s actions, when the leader of his party is signing letters asking for foreign national offenders to stay in this country.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch for bringing this matter to the Chamber’s attention. I encourage her to repeat her attempt: may we have another debate on this subject, because it is so timely? We perhaps need more time and more opportunities for others to contribute. I will sum up this debate by saying that this is a matter of fairness. Foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality and commit crimes in our country will be caught, they will be punished, and, where appropriate, they will be removed.
James Gray (in the Chair)
If Rachel Maclean wishes to do so, she has one minute to wind up.
Rachel Maclean
Thank you, Mr Gray. I am extremely grateful for every single right hon. and hon. Member who contributed and made excellent points. I do not agree with them all, but they nevertheless reflected their constituents’ concerns. I am very grateful to the Minister for his full response. Although he had only a short period of time, he covered a number of points that were deeply concerning to me, my constituents in Redditch and the constituents of others. I will definitely take him up on the invitation to apply for another debate, because I think we have many more matters to discuss.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the deportation of foreign national offenders.
Written Statements
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Statistics Authority Contingencies Fund Advance
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)
The Minister of State, Baroness Neville-Rolfe DBE CMG, has today made the following statement:
I hereby give notice of the statistics board’s intention to seek an advance from the Contingencies Fund totalling £28,500,000 to enable cash expenditure ahead of the passage of the Supply and Appropriation Act.
The cash advance is required to support additional resource expenditure associated with the future population and migration statistics programme, the public sector productivity review, various budget cover transfers and lease payments recognised as non-cash items at main estimate.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £23,500,000 and additional cash of £5,000,000 will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the statistics board. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £28,500,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
The cash advances will be repaid upon receiving Royal Assent on the Supply and Appropriation Bill.
[HCWS250]
Springfields Nuclear Site
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Andrew Bowie)
I am today laying a new designation direction in respect of the Springfields nuclear site. This amends the existing designation direction. This power has been exercised in accordance with section 5(4) of the Energy Act 2004, with the consent of Springfields Fuels Ltd (SFL).
This amendment enables new uranium conversion capabilities to be developed at Springfields, work on which should be delivered by the end of the decade. This is in line with HMG’s commitment in the nuclear road map and is a key part of reducing international dependence on Russian fuels.
[HCWS248]
JCVI Updated Advice on Covid-19 Vaccination Programme
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Maria Caulfield)
His Majesty’s Government (HMG) led the world in vaccinating our population against covid-19. We remain committed to protecting the most vulnerable as guided by the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI).
The JCVI has published further advice on the covid-19 vaccination programme. The JCVI advice is that a covid-19 vaccine should be offered in spring 2024 to those at greatest risk of serious disease, who are therefore most likely to benefit from vaccination. Those eligible are:
adults aged 75 years and over;
residents in a care home for older adults; and
individuals aged 6 months and over who are immunosuppressed (as defined in tables 3 or 4
in chapter 14a of the UK Health Security Agency’s Green Book).
Throughout the pandemic, older people have been amongst those most likely to experience severe disease if infected by SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes covid-19). Existing data on hospital admissions in the UK are consistent with the clinical risk continuing to be higher in those aged 75 years and above.
The JCVI advice is that this further spring dose should be offered around six months after the last vaccine dose, and after a minimum gap of three months.
HMG has accepted this advice and I am informed that all four parts of the UK intend to follow the JCVI’s advice.
The JCVI has also provided advice on which vaccine products should be used as part of the spring 2024 covid-19 programme. The committee has advised that for spring 2024, the latest covid-19 XBB-variant vaccines are considered preferable; and mRNA Omicron XBB.1.5 covid-19 variant vaccines which have been pre-procured as part of the UK’s pandemic emergency response are considered the most cost-effective vaccines for use under existing circumstances.
Considerations for future covid-19 vaccination programmes
The JCVI will continue to review the optimal timing and frequency of covid-19 vaccination beyond spring 2024. The ongoing increase in population immunity permits the development of a more targeted programme aimed at those at higher risk of developing serious covid-19 disease. As the UK moves towards routine procurement and delivery of covid-19 vaccination, cost-effectiveness will become a major determining factor in future advice pertaining to the covid-19 vaccination programme. The JCVI advice indicates that, based on the most recent cost-effectiveness assessment, any autumn 2024 campaign may be smaller than previous autumn covid-19 campaigns. The JCVI will give further advice on this in due course.
Notification of liabilities
I am now updating the House on the liabilities HMG has taken on in relation to further vaccine deployment via this statement, and accompanying departmental minutes laid before Parliament containing a description of the liability undertaken. The agreement to provide indemnity with deployment of further doses increases the contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme. HMG is already looking to move to vaccine market standard indemnity provisions for the procurement of future covid-19 vaccines.
I will update the House in a similar manner as appropriate, as and when any future decisions impact the contingent liability of the covid-19 vaccination programme.
[HCWS251]
National Crime Agency Remuneration Review Body
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)
I am today announcing the Government’s decision on pay for the National Crime Agency (NCA) for 2023-24, supporting the Government’s manifesto commitment to strengthen the NCA.
The NCA remuneration review body (NCARRB) report on pay for NCA officers at grades lower than deputy director for the NCA will be laid before Parliament today and published on gov.uk.
I would like to thank the chair and members of the review body for their work on gathering evidence from the NCA, the Home Office, HM Treasury and the trade unions, resulting in their detailed, comprehensive report. The Government value the independent expertise and insight of NCARRB and take on board the useful advice and principles set out in response to my remit letter of 15 August 2023.
This Government are committed to supporting the NCA in its fight against serious and organised crime (SOC) and on 13 December 2023 announced their new five-year SOC strategy. The NCA plays a pivotal role in leading the SOC law enforcement system to disrupt and dismantle the most harmful organised crime groups operating in and against the UK. In particular I would like to highlight the key contribution of NCA officers towards disrupting the organised crime groups that facilitate small boat crossings. A strengthened NCA needs to be able to set clear strategic and operational direction and develop shared capabilities to drive efficiencies. A strong pay framework is vital to the NCA being able to deliver this role and maintain its operational performance.
SOC is evolving rapidly in both volume and complexity, and I have been clear that the NCA needs to transform to meet new and evolving threats, and to tackle the highest harm offenders, head on. Part of this transformation includes being able to attract, recruit and retain the right people, particularly those with technological skills.
I have accepted the review body’s recommendations in full. The award for 2023-24 is as follows:
A total consolidated pay award of 7% in remuneration costs (IRC) for all officers grade 1-6. The spot rates for grades 1 to 5 and the minima and maxima of the standard pay ranges for grades 1 to 6 will also be raised by 7%.
A 7% increase to the London and south-east weighting allowance.
Building upon the NCA’s overall pay strategy and exceeding the historically high pay uplift given in 2022-23, this award represents the highest settlement the agency has received in its history.
In reaching this decision, I have given due consideration to a number of factors including: the value NCA officers add to the public by protecting them against the threat of serious and organised crime, the impact of inflation on officer pay, and delivering value for the taxpaying public. The award will be fully funded within the NCA’s existing budget. I am positive that the award for NCA officers will support the agency in its mission to disrupt and dismantle the most harmful organised crime groups operating in and against the UK.
[HCWS249]
Grand Committee
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, which we do not expect, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill
Wednesday 7th February 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 View all Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 12-VI Sixth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (5 Feb 2024)
Lord Lucas
“12 A summary of the charges that the consumer may incur if they use the service during a cooling-off period but then cancel the contract.”Member’s explanatory statement
Alongside another amendment in the name of Lord Lucas, the purpose of this amendment is to focus discussion on how use of a subscription contract during a cooling-off period is charged for if the contract is cancelled within the cooling-off period, and the information that the trader must publish in that regard.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment 191, and in doing so declare my interest as the proprietor of the Good Schools Guide, an organisation that derives substantial income from subscription contracts, although we do not operate any automatic renewal of them.
The problem I am looking at, which certainly applies to us, is that within the cancellation period for a subscription such as ours, the purchaser can, if they so choose, get all the value they are ever going to get from a subscription. They can just go through the online service and print out everything that might possibly interest them, and then cancel. With other subscription services, the value is received more evenly through the contract, but ours can be focused at a particular time. Under those circumstances, a fair arrangement would be that if a consumer cancels and has received substantial value, they can be charged, on a basis set out beforehand, for the value they have actually had. I beg to move.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to the stand part notices in my name on Clauses 262, 263 and 264. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, for adding his name to the stand part notices on Clauses 262 and 264. I will also speak to Amendments 221 and 224, in my name. As these and other amendments in the next group have a special relevance to media businesses, I remind noble Lords of my interest, declared at the start of Committee, as deputy chairman of the Telegraph Media Group, which is a member of the News Media Association.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I make just a few general remarks about the issue of subscriptions, to set my amendments in this group and the next in context. I applaud the aim of tackling the nuisance of subscription traps. It is imperative to make sure, however, that the day-to-day operations of reputable traders are not adversely impacted by the measures designed to achieve this. This is important for businesses in many industries that benefit from a degree of commercial certainty in their operations as a result of subscriptions. In the creative economy, it is especially so for hard-pressed publishers that are painstakingly building sustainable business models through subscriptions at a time of considerable economic challenge. Concern has been expressed across the creative sector and beyond, as demonstrated by the briefing documents I have received, and other noble Lords may have, from the News Media Association, techUK, the Federation of Small Businesses, the Online Dating and Discovery Association, the Professional Publishers Association, the Motion Picture Association, the Association for UK Interactive Entertainment and the Commercial On-Demand and Broadcasting Association.
All noble Lords will know that the impact of digital has brought about the destruction of the old print-based business model that for generations supported our free press at a national and local level. Publishers have had to reinvent themselves, and subscriptions are a key part of that new commercial reality. In a world of infinitely free content, it is remarkable that many publishers have begun to turn the tide on the notion that news provision, which is very expensive to create, should be free at the point of access. A business like the Telegraph, which I work for, now has over 1 million subscribers across print and digital. That is the key to the future, because the business of high-quality journalism is an expensive one. This Bill must help, not hinder.
We all feel passionately about the democratic importance of a thriving press—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke about it movingly in Committee last week—but we have to give publishers the freedom to survive and grow. As it stands, the Bill endangers that because of the unintended consequences of the measures within it, which will introduce onerous and unnecessary new requirements on all types of subscriptions. This will drive up costs, stifle innovation and, paradoxically, reduce consumer choice. The Bill is supposed to be about helping consumers, but it does not achieve that. As I have observed in Committee on other areas, we are willing the ends but not the means.
The issue is that the Bill treats all subscriptions as though they were an endemic problem and unwanted by consumers, but that is not the case. By the Government’s analysis, four out of five adults in the UK have at least one subscription, often many more, providing them with convenience, consistency and choice. Only 5% of subscriptions are unwanted. There is a danger that we are creating a sledgehammer to crack a nut and are doing so in a way that significantly undermines all the good done by the rest of the Bill, in ushering payment for content and more equitable terms by the dominant tech platforms. It is about giving with one hand and taking away with the other.
The Government’s own impact assessment suggests that the package of measures will cost businesses £1.2 billion in the first year alone, with SMEs the hardest hit. The Government are supposed to be committed to reducing regulatory burdens on business, using regulation only as a last resort. Here, it seems to be the first resort and it has not been thought through, with no proper consultation.
The problems with subscriptions fall into four areas. This group covers cooling-off periods and the implementation period for the legislation. We will come to reminder notices and cancellation rights in the next group. The amendments that I have tabled tackle the issues brought about by the Bill’s well-intended but overly prescriptive subscription provisions. I hope that the Government will support them and bring forward their own amendments on Report.
I will deal first with cooling-off periods in Clauses 262 to 264. The Bill as it stands retains the 14-day cooling-off period under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, referred to as the CCRs. It starts once a contract is entered into or the consumer has taken physical possession of goods. However, the Bill amplifies the CCRs by introducing the concept of a renewal cooling-off period, which would apply at the point that a consumer transitions from a free trial or discounted introductory offer period to a contract charged at full price and each time a contract renews on to a term of 12 months or more.
While I have no problem with the existing 14-day cooling-off period under the CCRs, the renewal cooling-off period is a deeply harmful expansion of regulation, based on burdensome, EU-derived consumer law. I thought, perhaps mistakenly, that we were supposed to be making the most of the so-called Brexit freedoms rather than, ironically, gold-plating restrictions that have been manufactured in Brussels.
This is particularly true when viewed alongside the other provisions on subscriptions that the Bill introduces. For example, the new and detailed pre-contract information will ensure awareness of the product costs and renewals. Reminder notices will then reinforce awareness of a consumer’s ongoing contract. Furthermore, when transitioning from a free trial or discount period to a full-price-paid contract, or when renewing a subscription, a sufficient opportunity to establish the nature, characteristics and functioning of the product will already have been made available to the customers, which frankly makes these provisions redundant, creating harm and doing no good.
We should seek to retain the concept of a cooling-off period, as a grace period, applicable where a contract has been taken out erroneously—but not apply it at each and every renewal point. Consumers will be very aware that they have a subscription, given that they will be inundated with reminder notifications and will therefore have plenty of notice to cancel a subscription before it renews. Although they will do nothing to tackle the problem of subscription traps, which are at the heart of this Bill, the terms of this Bill will undermine a legitimate commercial strategy of discounted prices and trial periods, from which consumers can exit, in a way that puts unnecessary and burdensome constraints on businesses to grow and acquire new customers. Those discounted offers are important for consumers, especially at the time of a cost-of-living crisis.
Think what this would mean for a digital broadcaster or video-on-demand provider. Each time a customer entered into a subscription contract, they would receive a cooling-off period. This would allow them, for example, to binge on a specific series—as I am sure we have all done—or watch a sports event, and then withdraw immediately and receive a refund. The Bill does not put any limit on how many times a customer can enter into a contract and then exit using the cooling-off period. In effect, therefore, it will make trial periods redundant because it would make little commercial sense to provide customers with a trial period and a cooling-off period.
The point is that CCRs already tackle this issue by allowing consumers to request immediate access to digital content by acknowledging that the 14-day cooling-off period would no longer apply upon the supply of that content. It seems quite wrong to me that this Bill does not expressly retain this principle. I am sure that the Minister will tell us that the Government have said that they will consult on how the new cooling-off period in this Bill will work in practice, including whether a waiver of the rights should apply to certain types of subscription contracts.
Although that is encouraging and I am grateful for it, it still leaves the additional unnecessary cooling-off provisions on the statute book, meaning huge uncertainty for subscription-based businesses. Also, we have yet to see any detail on the scope of the promised consultation on a potential waiver for this provision, which gives little comfort. Far better to remove these provisions entirely—that is the point of these amendments—especially as their aims are already achieved elsewhere, in Part 4 of the Bill, and enshrined in the existing CCRs. This would still protect customers but would allow digital businesses, which are the future of the creative economy, the opportunity to expand and flourish.
I will speak briefly on Amendments 221 and 224 to Clause 334. The changes proposed in this legislation are very significant, even if the amendments in this group and the next are accepted, and will have many implications for British businesses. However, the Bill currently makes no explicit provision setting out how long businesses will have to implement these changes, which will be very onerous for many traders to implement. The Government will introduce a commencement order in due course, but there is obviously a clear benefit to giving the businesses that will be impacted—particularly SMEs, as the Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out—time to implement the changes effectively.
For legislation that brought in changes of a similar scope, such as that implementing the GDPR requirements, businesses were given more than two years to prepare for substantial change. The Government have delayed the implementation of the Health and Care Act’s advertising restrictions for two and a half years, until October 2025, in order to allow the sector to prepare for them. One business I spoke to estimated that it will take at least 10 months of development work to ready its systems for compliance with the Bill as it stands.
Amendments 221 and 224 would introduce a two-year implementation period after the passage of the Bill and a start date broadly in line with similar precedents. This period would allow businesses sufficient time to adapt their practices and systems in order to comply with the new regulations, reducing the burden of immediate changes and facilitating a smoother transition. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say on these points.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
I will briefly speak to my noble friend’s amendments. I declare an interest as a broadcaster on Times Radio, which is owned by News UK. The point is clear: the Government’s intentions are perfectly honourable. They seek to protect consumers and give them a simpler way to enter into a subscription contract and to cancel one.
However, as I hope my noble friend has made clear in his excellent and detailed speech, things are never quite that simple. From the 2013 consumer contracts regulations, it is clear that, 10 years ago, the Government recognised the changing nature of the services, particularly digital ones, that consumers are now using. It is also clear that the savvy consumer, dare I put it that way, will potentially be intelligent enough to work out that they could take out a contract with a subscription service —it could be a video service through which they want to watch a particular series, or a content service such as the Times if they want to read a particular article—take advantage of the cooling-off period and not pay for that content.
For service contracts such as these, it is important that Parliament support both sides of the equation. We do not take the contribution that content services make to our economy nearly seriously enough, and we still live in a climate where too many people believe that content should be free. As content providers have struggled with how to cope with delivering digital content, moving from free ad-supported models to subscription models, it is important that the Government take into account the pressures they face and reach a reasonable compromise in order to do so.
I fully support the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lord Black. They have been well rehearsed by a coalition of people, ranging from the video games trade body to the technology trade body, the news trade body, the film trade body, the commercial broadcasters’ trade body and even the online dating app trade body, which has got in on the act as well. They are all perfectly reputable organisations whose case deserves to be heard by the Government. It is my understanding that the Government recognise the problem, and we hope that the Minister will come back on Report, as he was so co-operative in our last Committee, with a genuine solution to this conundrum.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, this is the starter before the main course on subscription contracts, but it is important none the less. I can reveal to the Committee that our Amendments 169 and 193 are mere probing amendments designed to test whether the Government have confidence in the Bill’s subscription provisions providing sufficient protection for digital platforms that host copyrighted content, mainly on-demand videos. A number of companies have raised this issue with us, arguing that they will be seriously out of pocket if they have fully to reimburse those who have accessed paid-for content during a cooling-off period. It is our feeling, and a view widely shared, that, although the Bill restates a lot of current consumer law on subscriptions, it does not restate many of the obvious and probably necessary exemptions that the noble Lord, Lord Black, clearly identified. We need to cover those.
At present, if I sign up to a streaming service, it is made apparent that, the moment I consume content, my statutory rights change. The Bill appears to restate some principles but not others, and it creates a lack of certainty for both sides. Some of the companies argue that they will have to pay out refunds in cases where they would not under current law. This runs the risk of creating unrealistic expectations for consumers.
The amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, ask similar questions of the Minister and seek to explore how the subscription contract is paid for if it is used during the cooling-off period and then cancelled. They also seek to understand what information a trader must publish in those circumstances. The noble Lord made a good point about charging.
Turning to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black, he skilfully highlighted for the Committee the problems that will be caused by the way the legislation is phrased. Having heard the noble Lord, I am more on his side than I was at the outset. I am not a regular Daily Telegraph reader, nor a great fan, and this is the second time in a week I have had to plead on its behalf—this is becoming rather strange politically. I am a Guardian person, and I can see the problem replicated across the whole news world. I do not think the onerousness of the burden is justified in this case. It could be an endemic problem.
I want to hear what the Minister has to say because we need some light and dark, some nuanced thinking, about the way subscriptions work. This is not the way to bear down on the subscription trap, which I think we are all keen to deal with. This does not help us at all in that regard.
I was originally going to say of the last two amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black, which seek to create a two-year implementation period, that I was not particularly convinced, but having heard the argument, I have reversed my view. If we do not have a solution, I suspect those two amendments could be very helpful in trying to resolve some of the problems this is creating. There is merit in those amendments.
We need to approach this issue in more forensic detail. I want to hear what the Minister has to say, because I do not want us to further undermine the news market. We live in a time when there is less ability and facility to report than we are used to. Moving from broadsheets to online content is changing the way in which the news world operates. My son works in the news world, and he understands these things far better than I do. We need solutions, and the way the legislation is currently phrased does not provide us with one that protects the value and importance of news in an open democracy such as ours.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been very interesting debate. There is a common theme—that these clauses are a very blunt instrument. At one end of the spectrum, we have the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, which attempt to get to grips with what this is all about and whether these clauses are fit for purpose; and at the other end we have had clear demonstrations that they are not. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black, in particular, for his comprehensive and persuasive introduction. I started off fairly convinced of the case—I did not sign all his amendments, but I signed two clause stand part notices—but, like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, I am now pretty convinced that the clauses are not quite fit for purpose. For the digital economy, we need to be much more wary about how the prescribed cooling- off period works.
I started off thinking that this is an issue that only the subscription and video-on-demand side should be concerned about, but having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Black, I realised that there is a much wider set of interests. The noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Vaizey and Lord Bassam, described a much wider landscape that should be concerned.
I started by considering the disruption to subscription video-on-demand services—the so-called streamers. That is why I signed the notice from the noble Lord, Lord Black, opposing Clause 262 standing part. All the representations I received pointed out that this is really business-critical for UK operators such as Netflix and Disney+. I think the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, used the expression binge-watch; if you can do that and get a refund, why bother keeping your subscription? We need to make sure that those services are safeguarded.
A number of noble Lords pointed out that Ministers in both the Commons and this place have expressed concern, saying that they understand the issue and are going to consult; but in the meantime, there is a huge amount of uncertainty. We potentially have it in black-letter law that the cooling-off periods are as set out in the Bill. We do not know what kind of consultation will take place, what kind of flexibility might be operated, and so on. In the meantime, we have a perfectly workable set of consumer contract regulations, which the parties would be happy to apply. That was very much the case the noble Lord, Lord Black, rightly made.
Important principles are set out in the CCRs, such as that consumers can request that the supply of digital content begins before the end of the 14-day cancellation period. So it is perfectly possible to have a provision that safeguards both the service provider and the consumer in these circumstances, but that principle is not imported into the Bill. I do not know why. On Monday, I asked the Minister what consultation had taken place. I have used the expression “blunt instrument”, but these are really important new provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, was absolutely right: they are based on the best of intentions, but they are so blunt that they will be a real problem for some of our digital services.
I hope the Minister will not regard our proposals as “not invented here”, and that the Government will not motor on with these provisions without taking a long, hard look at them. This is one of those circumstances where we would all be a lot happier if we reverted to a regulation-making power, got rid of some of these clauses and had a proper super-affirmative provision in the Bill, for example, enabling a discussion about all these aspects of subscription contracts. We heard about the absolute unhappiness with the impact on charities and gift aid when discussing the previous group; that demonstrates the total bluntness of these provisions. I do not think anybody will be very happy with them —the charities, the streaming businesses, the subscription media services or the dating services. There is a huge amount of unhappiness, which I hope the Minister will respond to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
I thank noble Lords and noble Baronesses for their amendments and their interesting and informed contributions to the debate on this first group of amendments, on subscription contracts.
I will first address the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas, which relate to the cooling-off period. Amendments 168 and 191 would create an additional requirement for businesses to inform consumers of the charges they may incur if they use a subscription but later cancel their contract during a cooling-off period. I agree that it is important for consumers to know what charges they could incur when they exercise a right to cancel during a cooling-off period. However, I assure my noble friend that the Bill already makes sufficient provision for this. The full pre-contract information listed in Schedule 21 provides information on the consequences of a consumer exercising their right to cancel during a cooling-off period. This includes information on any refund the consumer may be entitled to and any reason why that refund might be diminished. That information must be given or made available to consumers as close in time as is practicable to a consumer entering into the contract. Therefore, although I appreciate the intent behind my noble friend’s amendments, I hope he is reassured that sufficient provision is already made in the Bill.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but it might give the Box a chance to answer the question before the end of his response. Do the current provisions in the Bill contain the principle that I mentioned, which was set out in Regulation 37 of the consumer contracts regulations, where consumers can request that the supply of digital content begins before the end of the 14-day cancellation period, acknowledging that they would then cease to have the right to cancel from that point of supply? If not, why not, as that would be the ultimate protector of these digital services?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I will come to that once I have some input from behind me. This is obviously a key part of the group.
Amendments 169 and 193, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, address the provision of information in relation to the consumption of digital content during the renewal cooling-off period. I understand that the noble Baroness wishes to ensure that the Bill provides sufficient protection for digital streaming platforms if a consumer has accessed digital content and then cancels their contract during the renewal cooling-off period. The Government will consult on the relevant return and refund rules that apply in this situation and other similar circumstances. This will ensure that rules are fair and practical for businesses and consumers. It will also enable consideration of any specific issues for particular industries or circumstances if needed—for example, digital content, perishable goods or bespoke products.
As part of that consultation, we will include a policy proposal of introducing an explicit waiver from refund rules for digital content, recognising the circumstances that the noble Baroness set out. We aim to consult before the end of the year. This is directly to avoid the scenario that these digital steaming firms fear. It is also important that those rules can be reviewed—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I apologise. If the Minister is undertaking this consultation and looking at a provision of that description, can he also describe which power, in the part of the Bill we are dealing with, will give the Secretary of State the ability to do that, as well as the process by which it would be introduced and the timing?
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, partly covered the point that I was going to ask about. I want some more detail about how this waiver will operate. That is where the noble Lord and I are coming from. Perhaps the Minister can flesh that out a bit more, because it is important. I am delighted that the notion of a waiver will be consulted on, but the question of how it works will be important, too.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it could answer the Regulation 37 question.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The point is that we have to consult on this. The matter has been raised by all sides of the Committee and there are specific reasons for it. The consultation is as it says. Rather than trying to go through this line-by-line at the Dispatch Box, I will try to set it out in writing for everyone, so that we can see exactly what we mean by it. If I have any input in the meantime from behind me, I will share it with noble Lords.
I turn now to the clause stand part notices tabled by my noble friend Lord Black—that Clauses 262, 263 and 264 should not stand part of the Bill—and his consequential Amendment 194. The net effect of these changes would be to reverse the cooling-off period in the Bill to the status quo established by the 2013 consumer contracts regulations. In particular, the cooling-off period for consumers after a free trial or year-long subscription automatically renews, introduced by this Bill, would be removed. The Government’s objective is to protect consumers from the specific harms associated with subscription contracts, while also considering the needs of businesses. We believe that the Bill correctly finds that balance. The Government expect that the protections provided through the Bill will have £400 million- worth of consumer benefit per year.
This measure protects consumers who have signed up to a trial period that then rolls into a higher-cost term. It also applies when contracts automatically renew on to a period of 12 months or longer, which usually, by definition, incurs a substantial financial outlay. Indeed, our consultation showed that many people forget to end their subscriptions before they automatically renew, especially after a trial, so we view this as an important provision that must remain in the Bill.
We understand that some businesses, particularly digital streaming services, are concerned about how the cooling-off periods will work in practice. As I mentioned, noble Lords should be assured that we will publicly consult on the cancellation return and refund rules to make sure that we get this right and—to be clear—to avoid refunds being payable to consumers exploiting the cooling-off period. The Bill allows for the Secretary of State to make the necessary regulations by affirmative procedure. That will be done before the subscription rules come into operation, following the consultation. I hope that this reassures the noble Lords on these points.
I turn now to the final amendments in this group, Amendments 221 and 224, also tabled by my noble friend Lord Black. The amendments would mean that the subscription contract provisions in the Bill come into force two years after the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent. The Government fully understand that businesses need clarity about when the new rules will come into effect and that they need sufficient time to make appropriate preparations. I am pleased to assure noble Lords that the subscription regulations will commence no earlier than October 2025. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with stakeholders to understand the impact of implementing the new rules and to ensure that businesses have enough time to adapt their operations accordingly.
The detail on return and refund rules will be set out in secondary legislation and the Government have committed to consult publicly on those rules. Clause 265 gives the Secretary of State the power by regulations to make further provision in connection with the consumer’s cooling-off right. Those regulations are subject to affirmative procedure, which I hope will assure my noble friend. I am grateful for my noble friend’s amendments and I hope that he feels reassured by my remarks.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Did the noble Lord get a response from the Box?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
The Box feels that the point has been covered—but I will write to noble Lords and cover it with them.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his positive reply to my first amendment, where the use of a subscription during the cooling-off period is covered by the powers in the schedule. I was not clear about that on reading it, so it is good to know. As I understand it, nothing in the Bill would prevent a trader from saying to a person, “No, you cancelled a subscription before. I am not going to let you take out a new one.” There is no right of a person continually to enter into subscriptions with the intent to cancel. They can do it once and then they have been rumbled. That is my understanding. If I am wrong, I hope that my noble friend will correct me.
I should also be grateful if he gave me some guidance in relation to Amendment 192 on the meaning of “give” in Clause 264(1), which I do not see defined in any way. When the consumer has to be given a notice, does that imply that the consumer receives it? Email addresses go in and out of use. People change them. There can be blockages of various kinds on them, because some were paid for, or some may be limited by size. One could get into a situation where the trader may think that the person has done something and has sent out the notice but it has never got through, or it can get into someone’s spam trap or, as in this place, it can be blocked by someone else’s spam arrangements of which one would not have cognisance.
My interest in Amendment 192 is whether it would be fairer to do this by making sure that the notice had been received by having some acknowledgement from the subscriber. I cannot see, as an operator of a subscription service, that this is difficult to deal with—one just does not renew until one gets the confirmation, which is a click on the screen. That is not difficult to implement. If we just have “give” as a loose term in the clause, it will allow people to continue saying, “We told you but not in a way in which you are ever likely to notice”—as in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. We should try to avoid that in the Bill, so I should like to see if it is possible to get something firmer by way of making sure that the consumer knows that they are renewing the contract. That said, I look forward to subsequent conversations with my noble friend and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Black of Brentwood
Member’s explanatory statement
See explanatory statement to amendment at Clause 256, page 170, line 28 in the name of Lord Black of Brentwood.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, what a start. I shall also speak to Amendments 175 to 189, and to the stand part notice on Clause 257. I am again grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding his name to Amendments 170 and 185 to 188. The amendments in this group relate to reminder notices and cancellation rights.
Let me deal first with those amendments that relate to Clause 256. I support the Government’s intent to ensure that businesses send more regular reminders to customers. These can play an important role in ensuring that customers are not trapped in unwanted or forgotten subscriptions and, indeed, ensure that they can get the best deals on offer, which is important for consumers facing cost of living pressures. But such measures need to be proportionate and targeted at the practices of bad actors that cause consumers the greatest level of harm, not at the entire sector.
At present, the Bill requires traders to provide six-monthly reminders to all customers with subscriptions and sets out in painstaking detail what the reminders need to include. This is predicated on what I think is an erroneous assumption that the majority of customers do not know to what they are subscribed and are not actively using those services on a daily or weekly basis. It would also prohibit the trader from bundling in potentially useful information as they see fit, such as how much of a service a consumer has used during the period or the benefits of the subscription being missed by the customer, to assist the customer to make informed decisions. The prescription in the measure seems to be a missed opportunity to do something that would be genuinely useful for both businesses and customers. Indeed, these prescribed communications risk becoming a GDPR-style irritant and therefore ignored.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I tabled Amendment 190, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for adding their names to it. I also thank Professor Christian Twigg-Flesner from the University of Warwick for his help in creating this amendment.
Clause 259 sets out the obligations of a trader when a consumer is entitled to cancel or bring a subscription contract to an end. They are limited to providing various types of notice and dealing with potential overpayments by the consumer. Many subscription contracts relate to all digital content. These will involve the provision of both personal and non-personal data under the contract. On ending the contract for a digital service, there needs to be clarity about what should happen to all the subscriber’s data.
The whole point of this amendment is that it lays duties on a trader, on the cancellation or end of a subscription contract, to ensure that the consumer gets all their data back, not just that narrowly defined as personal data. At the moment, only personal data is covered under the UK GDPR. This is defined very narrowly in Article 4. “Personal data” is defined as only
“information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person … an identifiable natural person is one who can be identified, directly or indirectly, in particular by reference to an identifier such as a name, an identification number, location data, an online identifier”.
Under Article 20, which covers the right of portability of data, the user can end a contract, which is tantamount to withdrawing their consent for the continuing processing of personal data. It ensures that the trader cannot use this personal data any more. Article 17 provides the consumer with the right to have the personal data erased after exercising the Article 20 portability right to download their personal data. Personal data, therefore, as narrowly defined, is well protected under the law at the end of a subscription.
However, the consumer might have a lot of other data that is not within the narrow definition of “personal data”. This is non-personal data. There is no provision under UK consumer law that deals with non-personal data following the end of a contract. This would have been covered by the 2019 EU directive on digital content and digital services, in Article 16, but that came into force only on 1 January 2022, long after the UK had left the EU.
Amendment 190 will deal with the absence of protection for non-personal data in English law. It will give the user control over all their data, both personal and non-personal. Proposed new subsection (7) protects all the consumer’s data created under the contract. This covers both personal and non-personal data. Proposed new subsection (8) allows for all this data to be returned to a user within a “reasonable period” after the end of the contract. Proposed new subsection (9) gives a balance to these consumer rights by creating exemptions for the trader to have to return the data, especially if it is part of a bigger dataset that cannot be easily separated out. Proposed new subsection (10) is particularly important, because it prevents the trader continuing to use the consumer’s non-personal data at the end of the contract.
As I have explained, “personal data” is very narrowly defined. This leaves a mass of data created by the consumer during the contract that will need to be protected at the end of the contract. It will be if this amendment is adopted. Surely, the Minister would want the trader to return all the digital data that the consumer created on the platform, and to prevent the trader continuing to exploit it for financial gain.
To give noble Lords an example of the dangers to consumers if this amendment is not adopted, a consumer might want to end their subscription to their account at Flickr, the photo-sharing platform. At the moment, the clause will ensure that all the photos that identify the user will be regarded as personal data and returned to them. However, it might well not cover all the other photos that do not directly identify them. They could be holiday pictures of beaches in Greece, historic buildings or wildlife that they placed on the Flickr platform during their contract.
Once the contract is finished, Flickr can currently keep all the other photographs that the consumer has taken and refuse to return them. Furthermore, it can use them for financial gain. Likewise, a user’s comments placed against somebody else’s photos can be retained on the site by the trader after the end of the contract. On Flickr, the original author’s name is changed to a randomly chosen two-word alternative. However, the comments can be detailed and the consumer might well want to retrieve them, but they currently will not be able to.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
I have not been involved in Part 4 of the Bill and the Communications and Digital Select Committee did not include it in the work that we did to study the Bill last year, so I must say from the outset that I am speaking in a personal capacity.
Like other noble Lords who spoke on the previous group, I have received a lot of correspondence from various media and tech firms that rely on subscriptions as part of their business model. I am concerned on their behalf to guard against overly prescriptive measures which could threaten their sustainability, especially in such a competitive arena, which is why I have sought to familiarise myself with the Bill and have listened to what has been put forward. I should also declare that I am a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Customer Service and take a keen interest in the frustrations people experience at the hands of service providers, especially when they feel that the channels of communication available to them for queries and complaints, or to cancel, are designed for the benefit of businesses, not their fee-paying customers on whom businesses rely for their income and survival.
In his response to the first group, my noble friend the Minister referred as an example to consumers who take out limited-time free or discounted subscriptions online and then get caught in full subscriptions which they cannot cancel unless they telephone a number that they have probably struggled to find online. Then, when they get through, they enter into a battle of wills with a telephone handler who just will not let them go. I have sympathy with that experience, having endured it, but if I do not want to stay, I make sure that I do not continue to subscribe. I also recognise that it is important for consumers to have a place to go to negotiate when they feel that they could get a better deal, as my noble friends Lord Black and Lord Vaizey identified. I will come back to that in a moment.
Having listened and looked at the Bill so far, my conclusion is that, concerned as I am to make sure that we get the right outcomes for consumers, I am not convinced by some of the solutions in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Black’s argument in favour of secondary legislation to address some of these issues has merit, as there appears to be significant and understandable concern from a range of subscription businesses about changes to the cooling-off period. There seem to me to be conflicting shifts in different directions—of both vague and detailed new methods for cancellation at the same time—in the Bill, so I think that more time to get this right could be justified.
I was struggling to follow what my noble friend the Minister said about consultations in response to the last group, but what is proposed does not seem that convincing to me when we are writing things into the Bill before completing the consultations necessary to get it right. What I do not want, as a result of the Bill becoming an Act, is consumers being irritated because of the frequency with which they start receiving computer- generated messages asking if they want to renew a contract or, perhaps worse, because they are no longer able to telephone a firm to threaten to cancel in order to negotiate better terms, if they no longer have that facility because of something else that has been offered to them.
Two basic things seem critical to me. The first is the guaranteed facility that if you subscribe online, you can cancel online. That is one of the most annoying things in what consumers feel at the moment. The second is that phone lines for customer service, whether the issue is a query, a complaint or somebody wanting to cancel something, have numbers that are readily available and that the lines themselves are staffed by people trained and equipped to assist individuals to the customer’s satisfaction—and for their benefit, not the benefit of the firms.
That is what we ought to be trying to achieve through this legislation and, at the moment, I am not convinced that that is where we will end up. I am not a business figure myself, but I know that the best way for any business or public service to succeed is for its customers to get the service they are paying for, to be treated with the respect they deserve and to be satisfied that they have got a fair deal as a result. I just feel that we are losing sight of this.
Perhaps I may finish with one small point about the proposed cooling-off measures. My noble friend Lord Vaizey ran through various examples of when a consumer might take out a subscription and take advantage of that subscription in a cooling-off period, without paying any fee at all. One of the examples he gave was of a consumer taking out a newspaper subscription to read just one article, or a day’s edition, for free. Clearly, that would be wrong. Journalism is expensive and the best of it cannot be done for free, but not everybody who wants to read a newspaper or an article wants to take out a subscription. To many consumers, subscriptions are another bill—and they do not want another bill. I urge all newspaper publishers to put in place, as soon as they can, a mechanism for consumers to buy just one day’s edition or 24 hours of access to the website, without them having to take out a monthly subscription.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Black on his amendments and will respond to the excellent remarks made by my noble friend Lady Stowell. It is interesting how she ended her remarks, because I read in a free email newsletter this morning that, apparently, a lot of newspapers—led in fact by Will Lewis, who was obviously educated when he was at the Telegraph by my noble friend Lord Black —are looking at a mix of models now. Some people are saying that the freemium model, or free with ads, is dead but also that the subscription model may be dead, and that there will be a mix in how people can, effectively, find a way of paying for what is normally excellent content online from reputable brands. Things are developing, so perhaps my noble friend Lady Stowell is wrong to say that she does not have experience of business; clearly, she has an instinct for it. Anyway, I digress.
I must say that I have thoroughly enjoyed being in this Committee. What has emerged from the six days in Committee is that there are clear areas at which the Committee is asking the Government to look again, but not in a hostile way. This is about an element of detail, an element of getting it right and, funnily enough, an element of both the critique and the Government having exactly the same aims. As my noble friend Lady Stowell pointed out, we want to see a world where the consumer has absolutely clear rights and an easy customer experience in taking out a subscription and in cancelling it. At the same time, we do not want to burden businesses with too much bureaucracy, but to give them a chance to develop the flexibility to grow their business models in what remains a fast-changing environment. So, my noble friend Lord Black’s argument seems clear to me.
There is a paradox in my noble friend’s argument: we are asking the Government not to be prescriptive in one area while asking them to be more prescriptive in another. On the non-prescriptive part of the argument, my noble friend’s point is clear: it seems silly to put in primary legislation exactly how often a subscription business should remind a customer that their contract is coming up for renewal. The essence of customer service is for the business to get right its relationship with the customer, so long as it is under an obligation to remind the customer clearly that their contract is coming up for renewal and they are free not to renew it.
To flip the argument, on the cancellation methods, my noble friend is again right to say that the Bill words far too vaguely the way a consumer can cancel. I previously christened an amendment on appeals against decisions of the regulator the “Whac-A-Mole amendment”; I will now christen this amendment the “carrier pigeon amendment”. It is drafted in such a way that, in theory, I could cancel my subscription to the Times—which I would never do, obviously—by sending a carrier pigeon to News UK at London Bridge and say with a straight face that I had done it authentically.
There is, again, a happy medium. It should be very straightforward to cancel a subscription. Nobody wants the situation my noble friend Lady Stowell described, which does exist: having to find a telephone number—which is hidden—and contact a call centre, and then being given the runaround. I said at Second Reading that I had in fact done exactly that. I took out a subscription to a newspaper to read an article, but I could not cancel it. It was just my luck that I happened to know the chief executive of the newspaper, and I had to ring him and ask him to cancel it for me. That is obviously unacceptable. As a Conservative, I hesitate to suggest the creation of a quango, but there must be some way for a regulator to be aware of complaints and concerns about how an organisation is behaving, and to be able to intervene to make it clear that it is not operating within both the letter and the spirit of the law.
My noble friend’s amendments take account of the business needs of subscription businesses. I understand that people will fall on one side or the other of this argument. It is an interesting point that these businesses would like a way to engage with a departing customer, and they should be able to ask, “Why are you leaving? Can we tempt you to stay?” I spend quite a lot of my time unsubscribing from the endless emails and newsletters I have subscribed to, which tend to be free. Even then, particularly if you use a service such as Mailchimp, you are asked to fill in a little questionnaire on why you have decided to unsubscribe. It is not very onerous, and I understand—even though it is a slightly odd argument —why these businesses would want the opportunity to engage with a departing customer to gather information on what was wrong with their service and how they could improve it, or to provide an improved offer to tempt the customer to stay. Certainly, as we all know from having been lobbied, many of these businesses say that, often, the initial desire to cancel a subscription is based on an irritation with the service, which can be addressed once the customer gets in touch with the provider of the subscription service.
It is important to probe the Minister on both these issues in order to get clarity on the Government’s position, while also looking at some amendments that could genuinely improve the Bill.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. We are grappling with some important issues at the heart of Part 4 of the Bill. This group of amendments follows on quite neatly from our earlier debate, and it gives me a chance to put the other side of the problem. I have to say, the noble Lord, Lord Black, seemed to downgrade the scale of the problem we foresee. He also seemed to suggest that most businesses mean well and do well, but there are other things at stake here, such as the issues many consumers experience. I am not talking about the publishing world when I say that.
I have two amendments in this group, Amendments 173 and 174. Both are designed to address the concerns raised by consumer groups, including Which? and Citizens Advice: the problems with automatic contract renewals, such as whether somebody has satisfied the original minimum term of a phone contract, or completed a free trial in signing up to a streaming service. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said, all too often consumers are not given sufficient notice to bring their contracts to an end without incurring additional charges, or find that they face a time-consuming and confusing cancellation process.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, said that the Government’s proposals are predicated on an erroneous assumption that consumers do not know what subscriptions they have. I take issue with that too. In the last year alone, people in the UK spent £500 million on subscriptions that auto-renewed without them realising, while unused or unwanted subscriptions cost people more than £306 million a year. The fact is that contracts are being renewed and prices increased with minimum notice and without clear opt-outs. Of course, this has more of an impact on marginal groups and those on low incomes.
We welcome the Government’s attempts to address these issues in Chapter 2, obviously, but we do not feel that these measures go far enough. Our Amendment 173 would allow the consumer to opt out of their subscription auto-renewing every six months, while Amendment 174 would allow the consumer to opt out of their subscription after a discounted trial. As has been said, the fact is that many people do not realise that they are entering into a long-term auto-renewing contract with a business or service, and it is often not in the interests of the trader to make that clear when the consumer signs up, or to help the consumer make a conscious decision to continue with the subscription once it is active. We need to ensure that the initial rush of enthusiasm for a purchase does not become a long-term financial burden.
In addition, the consumer may discover after a short time that the subscription does not live up to the hype they were sold when the contract was first signed. Again, we need to ensure that they can extract themselves, and their money, from paying for something they no longer want. Our amendments would achieve this, and I hope that noble Lords will consider supporting them.
I now turn to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Black. He made an impassioned speech about the future of the publishing sector, and we have every sympathy with what he had to say. What is clear to me is that we are talking about two different things. I am concerned that the noble Lord is forming some generalised conclusions, when there is no one-size-fits-all answer. Our amendments address the types of subscription that trap consumers—he says he does not agree with that—into paying for something they may no longer want or need. The subscriptions in the publishing world that he described are long-term ones freely given to a magazine or newspaper. They are akin to loyalty or membership subscriptions, which create, if you like, group awareness and consciousness. Of course, the same can be said for charity subscriptions to the National Trust, for example—consumers taking out a subscription for altruistic reasons, a topic we debated when we discussed gift aid on Monday.
We do not want to sabotage those freely given regular payments. However, although we are sympathetic to the general case made by the noble Lord, we do not necessarily agree that the way forward is to remove the provisions from the Bill and give the Secretary of State the power to regulate on this instead. That could mean putting at risk the hard-won protections from subscription traps that are already in the Bill. Similarly, while we are open to further discussion on this point, we are not convinced that a default 12-month period would benefit consumers.
However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Black, in his Amendment 185, that the reference to notifying a business that a subscription should cease
“in a single communication”
is oblique and could cause genuine confusion as to whether and how the communication is received. Therefore, we urge the Minister to address this issue and find a new form of words. There are a number of different models to choose from, but the key consideration will be whether and how we design businesses following good digital design processes to make it clear that people can communicate in a clear way.
As we know, too many traders make cancelling a contract more difficult than it should be, whether by forbidding online cancellations, putting customers on hold for extended periods or having multi-step cancellation processes, where a user is steered towards retaining the services. Whether we end up with a prominent button on a website, a dedicated email address or some other system, we must ensure an appropriate balance to make it easier for consumers to cancel a contract. Traders should have an opportunity to retain customers, perhaps through price reductions, but customers should not be placed under undue pressure or have to go through half a dozen steps to extract themselves from a contract. If the Bill were to say more about some basic design principles, some of these issues might be overcome. We would certainly welcome further discussions on this issue.
Finally, I have added my name to Amendment 190, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I will speak on this only briefly. He makes an important point. We will return to this question of who owns our non-personal data and our right to have it returned once businesses no longer need it in much more detail on the data protection Bill. I hope to have a longer debate with him on that basis, but I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance that the Government are prepared to act on this issue.
In our earlier discussions, we had a huge amount of consensus, but we have gone in opposite directions on this issue. I think that we all want the same thing but are finding different words to deliver it. If we were locked in a room for half a day, we could probably come up with a solution. It might be quicker than writing lots of letters, which the Minister might otherwise have to do. I hope that we can find a way through this. We are not being deliberately awkward, but it is important that we get this right. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I wanted to wait until the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had spoken, because I wanted the chance to agree with her amendment, which raises the same question that I was raising in Amendment 192. Why do you have to be locked into these subs? Why can you not be asked to resubscribe, if that is what you want to do? Why can we not give consumers a right to approach things that way and get to know a product before they know that they want it every year?
I echo what my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston said on newspapers. I would want to get to know the Daily Telegraph well enough to know that I want to pay for it every day. To be able to buy it once a week would be nice, but that is not an offer at the moment. Allowing consumers to get used to a product benefits business. As the noble Baroness demonstrates in her amendment, it also benefits the consumer. It should not just be a year’s subscription or nothing. We should encourage businesses to provide something in between. We certainly should not make renewal the only option that businesses look for. We should make them earn that renewal by providing a good product for a year so that customers do not want to have to be bothered with renewing it every year. That is a situation that one happily gets into with a number of charities. You know that you want to support them. They provide a good service and you just let it tick over. I do not think that anyone should be entitled to that position. They have to earn it; they have to prove it. To have a system where you do not have to tie yourself in at the beginning is estimable.
That said, I have a great deal of sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Black said. I would prefer to see a lot of this in secondary legislation. I understand that when someone cancels a subscription, the business wants a chance to correspond with them and have an argument, although I find it a huge irritant in my relationship with a business when I suddenly discover that it would do business with me on much better terms but only if I threaten to withdraw. I wish it would value me as a continuing customer and offer me good terms, rather than only benefiting discontented customers.
I think that there is a lot of good in all the amendments in this group. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said about the amendment tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. I look forward to seeing that in the next Bill. I just draw his attention to the likes of Ancestry.com. Its business is the accumulation of everything that everyone has added to it. You subscribe to it, but all the time you are adding information that is then available to other people. Businesses should be allowed to retain the information that you have added, if that is appropriate. I can quite see that you might want your photographs returned from Flickr, but something like Ancestry or an app about building up information about history, ecology or whatever else it might be properly retains information that individuals have contributed and it ought to be possible for an app to have that in its terms.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, because having supported a number of amendments in this group I saw harmony rather than discord. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, had it absolutely right: the provisions here are both too vague and too detailed. Where the Bill should be detailed, it is vague; where it is vague, it should be—and so on. That is the essence of it.
Between us, we have a pretty good idea—I hope that it does not involve sitting in a locked room thrashing this out—of what good looks like. That is the important thing. The problem is that in this group we are debating the beginning of a contract, the reminder and the termination in one fell swoop, so it is easy to misunderstand exactly what we are talking about. The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are extremely good, because this is all about having information at the beginning of the contract. What you do not want is too much elaboration. As long as you know up front what to expect and the kind of contract that you going to enter into, that seems to me to a sensible way forward. It is about getting the basics right and I do not think that the Government have got the basics right.
Many people think that the process by which the original consumer regulations were put together was perfectly sensible, so I disagree with the noble Baroness about whether secondary legislation would be appropriate after consultation. I think that that would be a perfectly proper way forward, rather than this rather clunky way of doing it with secondary legislation and schedules setting out so much detail. That seems a rather extraordinary way of going forward. It also seems to clash somewhat with the Government’s reluctance in other areas. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, will speak in the next group about a lack of regulation in certain quarters—which way is a matter of mutual interest. That seems a bit paradoxical. We have to get the basics right.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, made an interesting speech. He was almost suggesting that there needs to be friction at the end of a contract so that there is an excuse to engage. I am not entirely convinced by that. Luckly, he did not put an amendment down, so I do not have to disagree with that at the end of the day.
The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Black, are sensible. There is an issue about how many communications a consumer sees, but the important amendment is the one regarding qualification of “by any means”. Clause 258 is pretty extraordinary. What if a trader gets a Twitter message but they are not on Twitter? How are we expected to accept a notice given “by any means”? The qualification suggested by the noble Lord seems entirely sensible.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, we come to the second group of amendments, on subscription contracts and reminder notices. Again, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and interventions. I appreciate that there is a lot of interest in this area of the Bill and I look forward to continuing this discussion with noble Lords between now and Report.
I will first address the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, for which I am most grateful. Amendments 170 and 175 to 184 relate to reminder notices. The requirement to send reminder notices is one of the targeted duties that we are placing on traders to ensure that consumers pay only for subscription contracts that they want or need. Of course, we recognise that there is a balance to be struck and we have listened to views from a range of stake- holders to ensure that we get this right. Indeed, the Government made changes to the reminder notice provisions in the other place following further consultation with industry. The Bill reflects the Government’s commitment to delivering proportionate regulation, ensuring that consumers are suitably protected from the harms of subscription traps without overburdening businesses.
I wish to reassure my noble friend that for an average monthly subscription contract, a trader will have to send only one reminder notice within a six-month period. We believe that this strikes the right balance between informing consumers about their subscriptions and not overburdening businesses.
Reducing the frequency of reminder notices, as my noble friend’s amendment seeks to do, would increase the risk that consumers end up paying for unwanted subscriptions for longer periods. To be clear, the Bill already allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations to update or modify these provisions in a number of ways, including the frequency, content and timing of reminder notices. This ensures that the Government can adapt the reminder notice requirements in future if evidence about consumer behaviour or operational practice indicates that adjustments are necessary.
Amendment 189 relates to end-of-contract notices, which a trader must send when a consumer has ended or cancelled their contract. In a similar way to my noble friend’s other amendments, Amendment 189 seeks to remove detail from the Bill. However, as with reminder notices, we think that the requirements for end-of-contract notices strike the right balance between informing consumers and not overburdening businesses.
Amendments 185 to 188, which relate to contract cancellations, were also tabled by my noble friend Lord Black. The Government are committed to the principle that consumers should be able to easily exit their subscriptions if they wish and businesses should not place undue barriers to doing so. Consumers should not, for example, be hindered when trying to leave a subscription contract or when stopping its renewal. Those are the principles behind these provisions.
However, I can assure my noble friend that we are continuing to listen to businesses and other stakeholders. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that this legislation gets the balance right between protecting consumers and supporting businesses. We of course appreciate that any communication to end a contract must be clear to a business. That is why, in the event of a dispute, the onus is on a consumer to prove that their method of ending the contract or cancelling it is sufficiently clear to the business for these purposes.
I hope that this lays to rest any concerns that your Lordships might have that a single tweet into the ether or a message via carrier pigeon, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Vaizey, could be an acceptable means of a consumer leaving a contract. We will also provide clarification through guidance for these kinds of scenarios and engage with stakeholders as we develop it. Furthermore, the Government are clear that nothing in the easy-exiting principle should prevent a trader from requesting voluntary feedback from a consumer who wants to end their subscription or from offering to give the consumer information on other products. However, these must not unduly hinder the consumer from ending their contract.
For the reasons that I have set out, including our commitment to continue to get feedback from all stakeholders on these issues, I hope that my noble friend will feel able not to press his amendments and that noble Lords who spoke to the amendments feel suitably reassured.
Amendments 173 and 174 were tabled by noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Amendment 173 would impose a requirement on traders to ask their customers to agree, before entering the contract, that their subscription will renew automatically every six months or, if the period between renewal payments is longer than six months, agree each time payment is due. Amendment 174 would apply equivalent requirements but would also accommodate contracts that renew automatically after a free or low-cost trial.
I agree wholeheartedly that consumers must be protected from getting trapped in unwanted subscriptions. However, as I mentioned, the Government’s position is that the Bill currently strikes the right balance of protecting consumers without overburdening businesses and potentially reducing consumer choice. Requiring opt-ins would burden businesses and consumers with emails requiring them to confirm that the subscription can continue. Consumers who forget could inadvertently see their favourite subscriptions lapse.
I turn now to Amendment 190 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, which would ensure that consumers can have their non-personal data returned to them after they cancel their subscription contract and would stop traders continuing to use this data. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for their contributions on this issue. I assure the noble Viscount that, where data can be used to identify a living individual, this information is already protected by the UK GDPR regime; statutory provisions therefore exist for it to be returned to a consumer. This includes data that is directly identifiable to an individual, or indirectly identifiable from that data in combination with other information.
For information that may be considered non-personal or anonymised, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill will create a test in legislation to help organisations understand whether information is personal or anonymous. This will help bring clarity to businesses as to how to process the type of information the noble Viscount discussed. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for his amendment and hope he feels satisfied with my explanation.
Finally, I turn to the points made by my noble friend Lady Stowell. I assure her that the Government consulted on the principles of the Bill in 2021 and will publicly consult on the details of the return and refund rules. The purpose of consulting on those rules is to take account of a wide range of products, including perishable and bespoke products and services, that have been used during the cooling-off period; that is why we think it appropriate to set out this detail in secondary legislation following the consultation. I am grateful to my noble friend for her remarks and hope she feels satisfied with my explanation.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Can the Minister reassure me that he will write to say how these provisions were consulted on? There is further work to be done, clearly, but it would be good to know what baseline consultation was carried out for all these extremely new, comprehensive, detailed—and sometimes vague—provisions. That is an important part of the knowledge we need to have going forward.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and agree that it would be helpful for all of us if this were written down so we could examine it in more detail.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I get the impression from my noble friend that this is not an area of the Bill that the Government want to move on, but I get the impression from the Committee that we would very much like to see some changes. I hope that, between now and Report, there may be some constructive conversations between me, my noble friends and noble Lords opposite to see whether we can make some consolidated suggestions to the Government that we need not argue about, so we can focus the argument on them.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for what have proved to be good and constructive debates on both groups of amendments.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that I think we pretty much have a consensus. There may be some issues at the margins, but we all agree, partly because, as my noble friend Lord Vaizey said, we are not hostile to any of these intentions. We support the intentions, but we recognise that we need to support business while protecting customers. This is important because, in many ways, it goes to the heart of the creative economy and the media ecosystem. The key point that has come across from many of the excellent contributions today is that this is a rapidly evolving environment and, as my noble friend Lady Stowell said, a highly competitive one.
The whole question about digital subs is that they are a new model for the way businesses are operating. For many, that model is becoming business-critical and should therefore not be dealt with, with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, rightly said is a blunt instrument. We should therefore not write things into the Bill that we will regret in subsequent days. I agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said: of course there are some bad actors in this space. All we are saying is that we should not be putting into regulations things to deal just with those bad actors that would damage the much wider economy.
I hope that the Government will think again about a lot of these things. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for saying that we will continue discussions between now and Report. That is very important, as I think he will have the mood of the Grand Committee: that we will want to return to this area. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that both limbs of the test of whether a trustee is independent of the trader in relation to a trust need to be satisfied.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak to this group of amendments, and I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for their amendments. I will first briefly address the government amendments, and the other amendments in my closing remarks.
Amendment 195 is a minor and technical amendment which aims to clarify independence requirements for trustees overseeing funds in a consumer savings scheme, strengthening safeguards against potential conflicts of interest. Trustees must have no association with the trader or interests in the trader’s assets, ensuring that funds are controlled for the benefit of savers and independently of the trader.
This measure is essential to safeguard consumer funds against insolvency and ensure that they are used for their intended purpose. I hope that noble Lords will accept this amendment. I look forward to addressing in closing any questions or points that they may have about the amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend, if not for the fact that it seems we are going backwards and forwards at the same time, which is always a good state be in. As this is the first time I have spoken on day six in Committee, I restate my technology interests, as set out in the register, as adviser to Boston Ltd.
My two amendments in this group are concerned with artificial intelligence. It is a truism, self-evident and barely in need of stating, that artificial intelligence is already impacting many aspects of our lives—as citizens, as consumers, as businesses and as a country—so it would seem timely to review all the relevant legislation to assess its competence to deal with the challenges, opportunities and risks that AI presents for us in all those roles and capacities. I shall say more on that next month.
Today, within the scope of this Bill, Amendment 199 suggests that all legislation concerned with consumer protection be reviewed to assess its competence to deal with the challenges, opportunities and risks inherent in artificial intelligence. It is clear that a number of the concepts and provisions within consumer protection legislation and regulation will be applicable and competent to deal with AI, but there is a huge gulf between what is currently set out in statute and what we require when it comes to making the best of what we could call this future now. I shall give just one example: if we consider how algorithms are set up simultaneously to push voraciously certain content while holding back other content, it is very difficult to see how consumer protection legislation is set up to deal with that challenge. That is but one specific example.
Amendment 200 goes to the question of consumer protection and the need to label all products and services where AI has been used or is built into that product or service so that the customer can know that and determine whether she or he wishes to avail herself or himself of that product or service. In no sense would this amendment require great burdens to be placed on business in bureaucracy, administration or cost. In many ways, this is yet another example of “set AI to solve an AI problem”, with human in the loop and human oversight always present.
I suggest that these two amendments, taken together, would enable the Bill to speak positively and in a timely manner on the opportunities, risks and threats to all of us, and to try to get the optimal deployment of AI in this context when it comes to consumer protection. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, we move from a very new problem to a very old problem. My Amendment 215B asks that the Government restore to us the protection we used to have from double-glazing salesmen. There used to be a cooling-off period. That got swept away by EU regulations. Now that we have Brexit, we have the opportunity to give consumers back the protection that they once had. At the moment, double-glazing can claim to be made to the consumer’s specification but, actually, it is not. It is a standard product, and you just tweak it a bit. There is plenty of room when you are providing double glazing, fitted kitchens or anything like that to allow consumers proper time to step back and ask themselves whether they want to go in for such an expense and whether it is something they really want to do. We ought to restore that to consumers, there being no good reason not to.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to Amendment 215C and then come to Amendment 202. I am very much indebted to the Fair Standards Alliance for raising the issue of standard-essential patents. I thought I knew a fair bit about intellectual property and the digital world, but I was in a state of relative ignorance when the world of standard-essential patents came to me. I have had quite an extensive briefing from the Fair Standards Alliance, which has revealed the importance of standard-essential patents, particularly in the context of competition and licensing.
These patents are necessary to implement an industry standard, such as for wifi or 5G. As the market is locked into a standard, to prevent abuse of the market power, SEP owners are required to license their SEPs on fair terms. Unfortunately, there is widespread abuse of this monopoly power by SEP holders that often, I am told, do not abide by their voluntary commitments and instead seek to abuse their market dominance to force product manufacturers to sign up to unfair terms. SEP holders are regularly seeking and securing excessive licence fees from technological innovators by leveraging the threat of injunctions, which forces firms in the UK either to accept high licence fees or to exit the market. This is to the detriment of those businesses and to the wider UK economy.
Most prospective licensees cannot afford the cost of litigation or exclusion from the UK market. The recent High Court decisions in InterDigital v Lenovo and Optis v Apple demonstrate how SEP owners exploit SMEs and make excessive royalty demands that only large, well-resourced litigants can afford to challenge. Apparently, the costs of the recent SEP licensing trial in the InterDigital case were over £31 million. That is pretty breathtaking, even to one with my background as a commercial lawyer.
The costs can be ruinous to many businesses. This tactic not only threatens innovation by UK businesses but represents a strategic risk for UK priorities, such as 5G infrastructure, diversification and smart energy network security, by limiting the competing players. The availability of injunctions for SEPs gives foreign SEP holders the ability to prevent others in the UK entering, succeeding and innovating in those markets.
The Government have been considering SEP reform— I noticed the Minister nodding vigorously, earlier—for several years and have received evidence showing the abuse that businesses in the UK face. The Intellectual Property Office’s SME survey suggests that UK businesses face excessive licence fees for SEPs. SMEs are concerned by the threat of market exclusion by court-ordered injunctions and a lack of transparency about the cost of and need for the SEPs being offered.
British companies are predominantly SEP licensees. The majority of SEPs are held by companies from China, the EU and the US, with no major SEP licensors based in the UK. This means that, when SEP holders hold up innovative UK manufacturers during licence negotiations and extract excessive licensing fees, they are taking value that would otherwise be available to fund further innovative developments in the UK and are increasing costs to UK consumers.
The UK’s innovative SMEs are especially affected across all sectors, as they cannot afford expensive legal battles against large, international SEP holders. As I said, the costs were over £31 million in the InterDigital case. The problem is widespread and the Government themselves have already accepted that SEPs are an issue; for instance, in their 5G Supply Chain Diversification Strategy of 2020 and in DSIT’s wireless infrastructure strategy last year. Recent High Court decisions have independently confirmed that position. A court determined that licence rates have been significantly lower than those demanded by the SEP holders. Our judges have concluded that SEP holders are able to exert significant unfair pressure to get the deal they want.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, to pick up the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on his two amendments, I can absolutely see where he is coming from on standard-essential patents. This reflects quite a long-term failure by successive Governments to support British participation in standards setting. If one looks at the history of the telecommunications industry from when I was young, when the British were dominant, to where they are now, which is nowhere, one of the great failures and one reason why things have not located or started in the UK has been that we have not committed sufficiently high-powered, consistent energy into standards setting. We have never quite been abreast of what is happening next or been the place where people want to locate a business. It is enormously important and I made a point on this in the Automated Vehicles Bill. It applies to a lot of technical areas and we must get behind standards setting.
In relation to Amendment 202 of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, how does one know how much is AI-generated? It is rather like asking how much of a Reynolds painting is by Reynolds. Did he just touch in the eyebrow and leave the rest to his servants? Does an AI grammar checker count as AI-generated content? If the AI has made suggestions of things that one might look at, is that AI-generated? I imagine that a lot of journalists now use AI to help fill out the column inches after a hard day’s doing something else. As the noble Lord knows, given his connections with academia, this is becoming common on both sides—the teachers and the taught—so what does finding a way in which to define “AI-generated” mean? Is it AI-supported or no involvement at all? Is it not using any of the tools at hand? This is a difficult concept to go at. Surely, at the end of the day, what matters with a piece of music is how good it is, not where it came from.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. This truly is a miscellaneous group of amendments and I will add to the miscellany of all this, because my Amendment 215A addresses the ambiguity that arises from the current laws on marketing infant formula.
Perhaps I may briefly explain the background as to why this is before us today. The Infant Formula and Follow-on Formula (England) Regulations 2007 were designed to prevent supermarkets promoting infant formula over breastfeeding. They arose because, prior to that, aggressive marketing and advertising techniques had been used by the milk formula industry to mislead parents over the best way in which to feed their babies. The current rules state that infant formula should not be advertised or promoted in a shop. They also say that no coupons, special sales offers, discounts or gifts should be offered to mothers or their families.
Meanwhile, noble Lords will be aware that the cost of infant formula has risen recently and is a huge extra burden on families, who are particularly suffering in the cost of living crisis. It is estimated that the cost increased by 22% in the past year alone. But because of the current regulations, supermarkets still cannot accept vouchers, even those provided by food banks and local authorities to purchase that infant formula. There have therefore been calls for the marketing rules to be reviewed to allow, for example, retailers to accept loyalty points, grocery vouchers and store gift cards, as well as free vouchers, for infant formula.
Our amendment addresses the current ambiguity in the regulations and calls for a review to clarify the marketing rules and their impact on the pricing and affordability of infant formula. This Bill is seen as the best mechanism to get this review under way. I should stress that our aims are to clarify the law and to tackle the unfair pricing currently taking place. However, we want to ensure that parents remain protected from the aggressive advertising that has misled them in the past. I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will see the sense of this amendment.
On a completely different issue, I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about double- glazing. I agree that he made an important point. I did not know that there were still double-glazing salesmen, but he raised them so I am sure there must be. I agree with him that, if they still exist, they should be regulated.
I turn to a completely different issue again. I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Clement-Jones, for their amendments on AI. We look forward to debating the Private Member’s Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on AI regulation in the coming weeks. These Benches take this issue hugely seriously. We recognise that AI has the potential to deliver life-changing benefits for working people, from early cancer diagnosis to relieving traffic congestion, but these benefits must be set firmly in new standards and new regulation to keep people safe and their data protected. The EU and the US are speeding ahead on this while the UK is dragging its heels, so we believe that new regulations on the control of AI are essential.
I listened carefully to the noble Lords. I do not disagree with what they are trying to achieve but I query whether this is the right place to pursue these amendments. The data protection Bill will come before the House shortly; that will give us a much greater opportunity to address the impact of AI on the lives of consumers and citizens. I hope that we will have a really detailed exploration of the protections needed in that Bill at that time. However, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on music labelling just now, I realise that I cannot just pass this issue on to the data protection Bill in the way I wanted to, because he made an important point about the consumer issues arising. Again, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who challenged this and asked, “How can we know? What percentage of music is AI?”
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I entirely agree that it is a question to be asked. Of course, there is the general principle of transparency. If you look at the amendment, you will see that it talks about content “whether assisted or generated” by AI. It could be partly or wholly generated by AI but, in transparency terms, just the knowledge that at least some of the elements were created by AI is important. The consumer can then take it or leave it, basically. If they like the sound of AI music—believe me, some of it is pretty dreadful—that is fine, but it is an acquired taste.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Will we have musicians confessing on stage that the electronics under the stage are adjusting the sound of their voice?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It all depends on how sober the audience is, I suspect.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
Gosh—I cannot help feeling that this is the beginning of a much longer conversation. We may not want to have that conversation now, but this is an important issue; I absolutely understand why the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is raising it. We need to find a way to ensure that consumers are properly informed.
On standard-essential patents, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for explaining the background to his amendment. Again, this is an issue with which I was not familiar, but the noble Lord spoke persuasively. I hope that the Minister will agree to follow up on the Intellectual Property Office’s review and provide some reassurance that the issue is in hand.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that we support his Amendment 195. With that, I look forward to hearing his response to the various issues that we raised in this group.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions on the amendments in this group. I will address each one in turn.
I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for his Amendments 199 and 200, relating to consumers and artificial intelligence. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his remarks on this matter.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Can the Minister do any better than “in due course”? Perhaps he can say “shortly”.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
In a matter of time. Why do we not get the Box to define “in due course”?
I therefore assure the noble Lord that the Government’s position on what interventions may be appropriate in respect of standard-essential patents, including specifically on injunctions, will be set out more clearly in the very near future. As the Government are already addressing this issue and are due to make their policy position public soon and separately, I hope the noble Lord feels able not to move his amendment.
For the reasons set out, I hope noble Lords will not move their amendments.
Lord Leong
“Consultation: CMA powers to address issues relating to ticket sales(1) Within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement summarising— (a) work already undertaken by the CMA in relation to the sale and resale of event tickets, and,(b) proposals for the granting of new powers or duties for—(i) the CMA,(ii) trading standards officers, or(iii) other relevant regulators or actors in this area.(2) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must consult on the detail of the proposals mentioned in subsection (1)(b).(3) In preparing and consulting on the proposals, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) ticket sellers and resellers,(b) artists and performers, or their representatives,(c) consumers and representative organisations, and(d) any other persons the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is to probe what steps (if any) the Government is taking to tackle long-standing issues in the event ticket sales and resales markets. The CMA reported on its work in this field in August 2021, making a number of recommendations to Government.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 196, which was tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his support.
About 10 years ago, I promised my then seven year- old daughter a birthday treat—to take her and her friends to a live gig by a well-known American pop icon. By the time I got around to buying the show tickets, they were all sold out, and I would have had to pay several hundred pounds over the odds to secure any tickets from the secondary markets. Sadly, I had to tell my daughter and her friends that they could not go. I saw the disappointment in their faces. I could not explain or expect them to understand that they had been bitterly let down because ticket touts were exploiting a market in which regulation is broken. It felt very wrong indeed.
My noble friend Lady Jones’s Amendment 196 requires the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the operation of both the primary or original point of sale and the secondary or resale ticketing markets. The UK’s secondary ticketing market was estimated to be worth £1 billion in 2019. The very premise of this industry centres on bulk-buying tickets to live sporting and cultural events and selling them on to consumers at inflated prices. Price-gouging cruelly excludes those who cannot afford these inflated prices. Many are genuine fans and some, like my daughter, are very young. Moreover, it exploits those who can pay these prices, as some are unable to use the tickets because secondary ticketing often breaches the original purchase terms.
In August 2021, the Competition and Markets Authority set out recommendations for additional legislative safeguards and enforcement powers to stop the bulk-buying of tickets and to end the fraudulent practice of speculative selling, which is where touts list seats that they do not have, bank the proceeds upfront and then hope to secure tickets later to fulfil their orders. It will be extremely obvious to all noble Lords how open to abuse such a practice is. Genuine fans risk losing their money completely and being unable to attend, even when they believe they have a ticket. They could find themselves out of pocket or open to further exploitation if they have made plans to attend an event and the ticket purchased by them in good faith is either not valid or not available.
It took the Government almost two years to respond to the CMA’s consultation. Their much-delayed answer, in May 2023, in essence dismisses this reasonable request saying:
“it is too soon to conclude that the only way forward is further legislation focused on this market”.
The Government are leaving it to the industry to self-regulate. This clearly does not work. Their response is inadequate to both the scale of the problem and the requirements of the industry, an industry in which UK talent leads the world, with accompanying contributions to the public purse.
Several high-profile artists, acting through their management companies, have attempted to introduce additional safeguards to ensure that their legitimate fans purchase tickets in the first place and to identify tickets that are sold on for profit so that they can be cancelled. They have sought legal redress to try to force rogue ticket resellers out of business. Despite these efforts by some in the industry, there is clear evidence that market and regulatory failure is leading to significant and persistent consumer harm.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Leong, who gave an excellent introduction to Amendment 196, which I signed and very much support. All the amendments in this group are of a piece; we are very much on the same page. This arises from the fact that, despite a series of very long-running investigations—we had the Waterson report, which ran to 225 pages, back in 2016 and the Secondary Ticketing report, which the noble Lord, Lord Leong, mentioned—it is widely recognised that these platforms continue to benefit from large-scale ticket touts, many of whom acquire tickets through unlawful means.
I have not buried my head in the sand. I have had conversations with some of the secondary ticket sellers, but I am unconvinced by the story they tell. I am very grateful to FanFair Alliance, which has campaigned on this issue for many years, and I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, and Sharon Hodgson MP, who has been a tower of strength in her all-party group on this subject over many years. It is clear, as FanFair Alliance has uncovered, that there is substantial evidence of speculative listings on secondary websites, where sellers list hundreds and even thousands of tickets they do not possess. You have only to look at one or two headlines, such as:
“Viagogo accused of listing non-existent tickets on behalf of seller linked to firm”.
A 2022 report by ITV detailed how the vast majority of UK festival tickets listed on the same site were fraudulently advertised by just three people. We have some egregious behaviour there. These three sellers are still actively trading on that website.
Meanwhile, in March 2023, reporters for BBC Radio 4’s “You and Yours” highlighted how a new generation of touts are exploiting ticket systems with increasingly sophisticated software and bots. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is conscious of all this. It is one of the issues that we have failed to tackle over the years.
As the noble Lord, Lord Leong, mentioned, the CMA published a series of recommendations in August 2021 that aimed to strengthen existing laws around ticket resale in order to protect consumers, including a ban on platforms allowing resellers to sell more tickets for an event than they can legally buy from the primary market and ensuring that platforms are fully responsible for incorrect information about tickets that are listed for sale on their websites. Regrettably, BEIS—actually, in May 2023 it was probably the Department for Business and Trade; it is hard to keep up with these changes in department names—opted to prioritise the
“power of competitive markets to give consumers choice and flexibility”.
That is not the same as consumer protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Leong, said, it is out of tune with public opinion in that respect.
Compounding this decision, it remains a source of immense frustration that Google and YouTube continue to permit ticket touting websites to buy themselves to the top of search results, signposting fans away from official sources of tickets. As a result, FanFair Alliance believes that it is now imperative for the UK to adopt legislation similar to that of many other countries—France, Italy, Belgium, Japan and Australia—outlawing the resale of tickets for profit while ensuring that customers who can no longer attend an event are provided with viable services to resell at the price that they paid or less. We agree.
The prime example of this is on our doorstep. In Ireland, a comprehensive piece of legislation to ban ticket-touting was introduced in 2021. Dublin shows for artists including Taylor Swift, Coldplay and Arctic Monkeys appear to be delisted by US-owned websites such as viagogo and StubHub as a result of this legislation.
A powerful and compelling case is being made for Amendment 196. I hope for this amendment. The third amendment, Amendment 198, ties some of this together. Given the situation that I have outlined and the situation that the Competition and Markets Authority has been in—its recommendations still have not been taken on board—we need a clause that would mandate the Secretary of State to submit an annual report to Parliament on the secondary ticketing market, specifically evaluating the adequacy of consumer protection against exploitative prices and other practices. As well as Amendments 196 and 197, we need to have that information and give the CMA the teeth to do this and report to the Secretary of State, who would then report to Parliament. That would allow Parliament to evaluate the functionality of the market and determine the most effective solutions to address issues related to secondary ticketing.
I very much hope that the Government will agree that they need to make a great deal more progress. Their views were expressed in May 2023, but the abuse continues. We need to do something about it.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 196 and 197 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, whose speech was exemplary in this context, well researched and absolutely right. I declare an interest as co-chair, with Sharon Hodgson MP, of the All-Party Group on Ticket Abuse. I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said on the tireless work that Sharon Hodgson has undertaken over the years on this. She shares my deep disappointment that the Government have failed to act on this.
It is such an obvious and sensible legislative move to stamp out the abuse that takes place in the secondary market, which does not benefit any of the sports men and women who entertain us or any of the artists. It simply puts money in the pockets of those modern-day touts who, particularly in this day and age, use bots. I will move on to explain how they do that to our disadvantage and that of the true fans of sport and music.
Those who were in the House when we last had a major competition and consumers Bill will recall that we made significant changes. There was good all-party support at that point to see significant changes to ticket sales in the secondary market in what became the 2015 Act, but nothing has happened since then, and it is high time that we take action. In fact, since then we have seen a tsunami of rip-offs by the modern-day online ticket touts, at the expense of genuine music and sports fans.
The number of professional ticket touts who have migrated from the dirty mac brigade on street corners to the use of computer bots has moved from some hundreds to 3,000 to 3,500 in the UK at the moment. When Sharon Hodgson and I started work on this, the numbers were, as I say, just in three figures. As she said in another place when speaking to the Bill, professional touts
“are attacking everywhere, from stadium gigs to local venues and, increasingly, football games”.
Touting tickets for professional football fixtures is the one area of sport where that is illegal—yet it carries on. She went on:
“Yet according to Home Office figures, the yearly arrests of football ticket touts have been decreasing, dropping from 107 in 2011-12 to only 28 in the 2019-20 season”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/11/23; col. 122.]
That is despite a rapid rise in the number of touts. There is simply not the resource available to track down these people. Criminalisation in the law is the only way that we are going to tackle this problem.
It is not as if we have not looked at it and said, “This works”. We introduced legislation for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games to ban the use of secondary markets for the sale of tickets. If that was brought before all politicians of all party persuasions and agreed, as an important measure, to make sure that we had a fair ticketing policy at those Games, why is it not appropriate for all sports and arts activities?
These amendments propose the further action that is necessary to restrict secondary ticket sites from listing tickets for sale where the seller has not provided proof that they are able to sell them, which happens quite frequently. There is many an occasion when tickets go on sale before the formal tickets are launched in the market, because the ticket touts are confident that they will be able to get them and then, as preferred buyers, sell them on to the secondary market sites.
These amendments in themselves will be welcome and are very important measures for consumer protection. Think of the family that gets a forged ticket because a preferred buyer cannot get the tickets that he has promised, maybe to viagogo, but who then goes out and has the money to forge those tickets and sell them. The family comes down from the north of England or potentially from abroad and is not let in, because the ticket is fraudulent. The family might eventually get only some of its money back from the credit card company—but after much fighting and difficulty, while trying to rescue something from the sadness and tragedy that are the non-financial aspects of the effects of this secondary market.
These measures would go some way to implementing the recommendations made by the CMA to tighten up the measures focused on restricting abuse in the secondary ticket market—measures that the Government pushed deep into the long grass. The noble Lord, Lord Leong, quoted from the letter of 10 May from the Minister, in response to the CMA. Paragraph after paragraph were just kicking this into the long grass, despite the fact that, as we have heard, Professor Waterson’s independent report was absolutely significant in advising the Government on a whole series of measures to take action against the abuses in this market.
We have the work of Sharon Hodgson, which I have spoken of, and the CMA has called for legislative action in this area. We have heard from UK Music, top sportsmen and music industry leaders—yet it was all too easy to say
“it is too soon to conclude that the only way forward is further legislation focused on this market”.
What will it take? I know that the Minister will be in agreement, because he knows about this economically from his days at Lazard. He knows from his young days, when he was up in Greenock, about the power of sport in that wonderful town—how much people love it and how they hate being fleeced by the secondary market abuses that go on.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Leong, spoke to so eloquently. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his amendment and my noble friend Lord Moynihan for adding his contribution on a subject he speaks about with great passion. I recognise that many noble Lords have a great interest in ticketing an on a personal level, as an avid sports fan, I share a lot of their frustration.
Buying on the secondary market is a matter of consumer choice. So long as consumer rights are complied with, the Government do not wish to prevent consumers having that choice. In recent years, the Government have further strengthened those rights with respect to secondary ticketing. In 2015, we legislated to ensure that consumers received fuller information on tickets they were buying on the secondary market. In 2016, we commissioned an independent study of consumer protection in the secondary ticketing market under an economist, Professor Waterson. He concluded that, providing they were enforced, the measures in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 should be sufficient to protect consumers. He also noted that there was more the primary market could do to help consumers get tickets there.
Since then, enforcement work undertaken by the CMA and trading standards has resulted in better information being provided by platforms, and the successful prosecution and fining of a number of ticket touts. We have also added further clarifications to the CRA and introduced legislation outlawing the use of bots to buy tickets for profit, on which I know my noble friend Lord Moynihan was very influential. I thank him for his work in this area. The current legislative framework is producing successful enforcement action. It will be strengthened further by the provisions in Part 3 of the Bill.
I turn to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on ticket limits. In the last year, the Government have consulted further with the industry on applying limits on ticket purchases in the primary market to sales in the secondary market, in line with the commitments in the response to the CMA recommendations. However, we continue to believe that this will be difficult in practice. The Government’s approach—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. How often do the Government turn down very firm recommendations from a regulator that knows the market, such as those made in the secondary ticketing report? It is quite unusual and rather like they are second-guessing the regulator. The Minister said that it is impractical, but is the regulator not in the best position to decide whether that is the case and whether it can be enforced?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. Yes, the Government absolutely expect the CMA to do its job but in the consultation which comes from that, there are other voices to be heard and other stakeholders to be listened to. As I said, in 2016 we had an independent study on the secondary ticketing market and we went to an economist, Professor Waterson, to give us his opinion on these matters. There is a balance to be struck.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry, but Professor Waterson could not have been clearer in his 225 pages—and that was in 2016, so we have had quite a long time to chew over his recommendations.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. The Government’s approach is definitely always to protect consumers, where necessary, and to ensure that business regulation is proportionate. We do not believe that the evidence to date justifies new and onerous secondary ticketing measures. Indeed, it may drive sellers to try to avoid compliance by selling on social media or platforms beyond the reach of UK enforcers, making buying riskier. Banning resales or resale for profit altogether risks reducing consumer protection. For example, Ireland has banned resales, yet Taylor Swift tickets for Dublin are on offer for similar prices to those at Wembley.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I have listened to my noble friend’s argument, but what does he think the reasons would have been for the Government to ban the secondary ticket market for the Olympic and Paralympic Games?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My noble friend Lord Moynihan, who was intimately involved in them, will know about the specific case arising there. In general, the feeling in the department is that we wish to protect consumers by keeping this activity within a regulated environment. If we ban it outright, we fear that we will drive the secondary market underground. We see evidence of that in everyday activity, including concerts and football matches. We worry about what happens as sales move out of reach of the local regulators and on to the black market.
I appreciate the points made by my noble friend, who speaks passionately about this topic; I know that he cares deeply about it. On his points about football, for example, I point out that ticket resale is banned in the football market in England and Wales for public order reasons. That does not mean that we should extend it to other markets, for the reasons I have set out. I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Clement-Jones, so much for their very kind words. This is really personal; I took a lot of time to look into this. I thank noble Lords and my friend Sharon Hodgson for their relentless and tireless work here and in the other place. I hope that, with this Bill, we can help to move this issue forward.
The days of ticket touts in dirty macs standing outside venues is gone—well, not quite: they have been replaced by bots. We have to address this. There are still examples of bad behaviour, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned. If we do not do anything about it, the bad behaviour will continue. With the deepest respect, I humbly disagree with the Minister: this is not consumer choice; this is consumer exploitation against consumer protection. How many more consumers need to be fleeced before we do something about this?
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member's explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure that when an application to vary an accreditation is made, the Secretary of State can make variations that differ in any way from what is applied for, and not just variations that are less onerous.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to the government amendments in this group. I look forward to hearing from those who have other amendments in the group, which I will address in my closing remarks.
Amendments 203, 204 and 205 are minor and technical amendments to Clauses 295 and 296. They clarify that the Secretary of State has flexibility to impose suitable limitations and conditions on an ADR provider’s accreditation, including to reassess existing conditions, when an ADR provider applies to alter its accreditation or breaches its accreditation requirements.
Amendments 210 and 211 make consequential amendments to other legislation, including updating statutory provisions which extend limitation periods to facilitate ADR, to ensure that ADR does not result in consumers being timed out from taking court proceedings. I hope that noble Lords will accept these minor amendments, and I look forward to a debate today on ADR. I beg to move.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my Amendment 209 in this group. It would require the Secretary of State, within 12 months of the commencement of Chapter 4 of Part 4, to complete a review of the provision of alternative dispute resolution—ADR—in relation to consumer contract disputes in each relevant sector. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the steps the Government intend to take to ensure the provision in each sector of accessible and affordable ADR for the resolution of consumer contract disputes.
Chapter 4 of Part 4 addresses the issue of ADR, subject to the government amendments currently being proposed. Essentially, these provisions are concerned with the terms of accreditation of ADR providers. What is lacking is any provision for making ADR schemes more available and accessible for the resolution of disputes, or even any provision for a review of potential ADR arrangements for inexpensive, speedy and efficient disposal of consumer disputes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has two amendments in this group that would improve the position. One relates to a money award under ADR that is enforceable in the ordinary courts and the other seeks a review of ADR in the aviation sector. I support both those amendments, but my provision is much wider; it calls for a more general review, by the Government, of appropriate arrangements for ADR across the various economic sectors.
Earlier in Committee, I tabled my amendment on the introduction of class actions for consumer disputes, under Chapter 7 of Part 1. The Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, said that the Government opposed anything that would provide complexity of litigation at this stage. ADR is at the other end: it provides a very accessible, simple and straightforward means to resolve consumer disputes that should be relatively inexpensive. Resorting to court proceedings is always expensive and time-consuming. They can also be intimidating for consumers. The current delays in the delivery of civil justice are well known.
It is significant that the Government are well aware of the desirability of ADR in other areas that may, in policy terms, be broadly described as those that concern consumers. In the Renters (Reform) Bill, currently in the other place, there are provisions for landlord redress schemes in the private rental sector. It is likely that all private landlords will be required by regulations to join such schemes, which will, in effect, provide an ombudsman service for tenants in the private rental sector. These schemes will provide a swift, inexpensive and accessible means to resolve disputes and pay compensation to tenants who have suffered from landlords’ wrongful action. Joined-up government policy strongly supports the extension of that kind of redress mechanism to consumer disputes generally.
For those reasons, I suggest that the Bill should provide for a government review of ADR for consumer disputes to make it more readily available as a means of accessible, inclusive, swift and appropriate resolution of consumer disputes that is appropriate for the needs of all consumers, regardless of age, income, educational level and vulnerabilities.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak to this group, partly because, for many years, I was on the board of a very good ombudsman scheme. I suppose I should own up to it being very ably chaired, at the time, by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. But that was some time ago, so I should not have to declare it as a current conflict of interest.
As a result, I have seen how the best models of ADR can work and provide quick, free, independent consumer redress without having to go anywhere near a court, which was exactly the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. But, sadly, not all ADR schemes are so responsive, which is why we have tabled Amendments 208A, 209A and 209B, and why I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 209, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. He provided a very good introduction and analysis of why a review of ADR provision in the UK needs urgently to be carried out. As he rightly pointed out, this is business-friendly; it actually reduces the cost for consumers and businesses, in many ways, so what is not to like about it?
First, I should say that we welcome the measures in the Bill as far as they go. We need an improved verification system for ADR schemes. I hope that this measure will help root out misleading company schemes that masquerade as ombudsmen but, in truth, are a different branch of the same business; they lack independence and have no real incentive either to resolve consumers’ complaints or to provide appropriate redress. They have been giving ombudsman schemes a bad name. We hope that a review will tackle the more fundamental faults in the current landscape. In some sectors, there are multiple ombudsman schemes; in others, the majority of traders refuse to participate in such schemes.
Even knowledgeable consumers find it difficult to navigate the variety of schemes on offer. The information and signposting are often notoriously poor. Why would a trader notify a consumer that they have the right to go to an ombudsman when that trader may incur the cost or inconvenience of a judgment that goes against them? The bad actors—there are many of them—do not have any incentive to provide this important information. Yet the best ombudsman schemes help to improve overall service standards and breed customer loyalty for the longer term by dealing with complaints efficiently and, as I say, free of cost.
Our Amendment 209B is a case in point. The aviation sector has been plagued by stories of poor service and a lack of refunds. There is no compulsion for airlines to be part of an ombudsman scheme. The aviation ADR scheme, which exists, is not recognised by the Ombudsman Association because it did not meet its criteria for independence, fairness and transparency. It provides consumer redress for easyJet and Ryanair, among others. It once took me about 18 months of doggedness and perseverance to get a refund for a cancelled flight from Ryanair; this is not how ombudsman schemes are meant to work.
Our amendment calls for a detailed, time-limited review of ADR in the aviation sector, consulting consumers and passenger organisations in the sector as well as looking at what further regulatory measures are necessary to bring the aviation sector in line with the standards expected in the best ombudsman schemes elsewhere. I hope that noble Lords and the Minister will feel able to support our amendment, which will help bring well-overdue reform to consumer rights in this sector.
Our Amendment 208A addresses another concern around ADR schemes: how do consumers find out about them in the first place? It is crucial that details of an ADR provider are prominently displayed to consumers who have a complaint. It is not clear why the requirement to display a name and website has been taken out of the regulations; I look forward to the Minister’s explanation for this.
Our Amendment 209A addresses the issue of traders refusing to pay money awards made against them by an ADR provider. It is hugely frustrating for consumers who fight and win a case then to find that they have limited powers to enforce the compensation. This amendment would give them greater powers to have a payment enforced by a court, as would have been the case had the judgment been made in a court in the first place. Again, I hope that noble Lords see the sense of this amendment.
All these amendments complement the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that there should be a review. I hope the Minister confirms that the Government are prepared to carry out this long-overdue ADR review; I therefore look forward to his response.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of all the amendments in this group. I say “briefly” because I have a strong interest to declare as chair of the board of the Trust Alliance Group, which runs the energy and telecoms ombudsman schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is entirely right: she was a valued and knowledgeable member of the board of what was then called Ombudsman Services. In everything she says, she speaks with a great deal of experience of the delivery of ombudsman services.
I will be extremely brief because it would not be right for me to extol the virtues of ombudsman services overly. In many ways, they speak for themselves in terms of the alternative dispute resolution process described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. However, they are an extremely effective way for consumers to resolve complaints that they have been unable to address directly with the businesses involved.
In this context, I commend a very good House of Commons Library briefing, Consumer Disputes: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), of May 2022. It describes the pros of ADR, but it also fairly describes the cons and what the dispute resolver is able to do. I regret that the ADR directive, which came into force in 2014 or 2015, was not more comprehensively adopted; otherwise, we would not be in this position. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is entirely right: it needs extension across a much greater variety of sectors.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for their amendments and the discussion. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his remarks.
Amendment 208A from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to enhance the visibility and specificity of ADR information provided by traders. I understand her concerns, and I am glad to hear that she welcomes the provisions currently in the Bill. The Government believe that, for traders in regulated sectors, specific information requirements should be left to sectoral redress schemes. Many already make such requirements. For traders who voluntarily sign up for ADR, requirements as detailed as those suggested by this amendment would not be in keeping with the spirit of that good practice. For many businesses that voluntarily participate in ADR, doing so is a USP to their consumers.
On the proactive duty suggested by noble Baroness’s amendment, we think it important that traders and consumers have the opportunity to resolve differences through the traders’ complaints process before proceeding to ADR. Once concluded, a trader required to participate in ADR must inform the consumer about that. We consider that Clause 306, as it stands, is proportionate. It is designed to ensure the effective and useful provision of information to consumers. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will not move her amendment.
Amendment 209, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, requires the review of ADR in each economic sector within 12 months of commencement of the Bill, followed by the publication of a report. The provisions on ADR information in Clauses 301 to 304 facilitate ongoing monitoring of consumer ADR, including its accessibility and affordability. This includes the monitoring of accredited ADR providers, ensuring that consumers consistently receive fair and effective ADR services. It also facilitates the provision of information by exempt ADR providers and regulators, facilitating the oversight of redress schemes in regulated sectors.
In terms of affordability, Clause 292 ensures accredited ADR providers cannot charge consumers unless their fees are approved by the Secretary of State and are published. Nothing in the Bill prevents future mandates requiring businesses to participate in ADR in specific sectors. Legislation already compels businesses in some sectors to participate in redress schemes. Clause 306 requires traders to draw consumers’ attention to any such scheme when responding to consumer complaints.
I also highlight the July 2023 Ministry of Justice announcement, which demonstrates that ADR continues to be a topic of live government work. The MoJ has introduced integrated mediation for claims valued up to £10,000 in county courts and expects this to come into force later this year. Under this scheme, all such defended small claims would be referred to the small claims mediation service before their claim can progress to a court hearing. For the reasons I have just set out, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel comfortable not moving his amendment.
I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her Amendment 209A. This would provide that a money award resulting from an ADR process should be enforceable as if it were payable under a court order. Many forms of ADR are not binding. Here, the amendment might be counterproductive. Non-binding ADR retains a level of flexibility and informality distinct from the rigidity of court proceedings. This flexibility is crucial, as it encourages participation from businesses that might otherwise be hesitant about entering into ADR. If the consumer is dissatisfied with the outcome of this kind of ADR, they can, of course, take the matter to court. By contrast, where settlements are reached through binding ADR, they are already enforceable, and the amendment is not needed.
More generally, I hope that the noble Baroness will be reassured that Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill will enhance the quality of consumer ADR in consumer markets, in particular by making the accreditation of ADR providers mandatory, subject to appropriate exemptions, which should contribute significantly to the reliability and effectiveness of ADR outcomes for both sides. I hope that the noble Baroness agrees that the Bill provides a balanced approach that maintains the effectiveness and attractiveness of ADR. I therefore hope that she will feel satisfied in not moving her amendment.
Amendment 209B, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks to ensure that the Government conduct a review of ADR provisions in the aviation sector. The Department for Transport conducted a consultation in January 2022—the aviation consumer policy reform consultation—which examined existing ADR provisions within the sector. The consultation sought views on whether ADR membership should be mandatory, the effectiveness of ADR compliance and enforcement mechanisms, and the merits of the current system when compared to alternatives such as a single ombudsman.
The DfT’s June 2023 consultation response included commitments to improve complaint resolution for aviation customers. The DfT will work with the industry, the CAA and complaint-handling bodies to consider best practices so that airlines can best manage their own complaints processes, thereby reducing the necessity for ADR intervention for passengers.
The DfT committed to legislate when parliamentary time allows, to mandate ADR for all airlines operating to, from and within the UK, as well as encouraging more voluntary uptake from airlines and airports. The DfT also committed to explore improvements to ADR processes, including better data collection, training and increased transparency in decision-making. There is an ongoing commitment to review the current ADR model to ensure its continued effectiveness within the aviation sector. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will feel comfortable not moving her amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State can alter or impose conditions whenever an accreditation is varied, and not just in cases where limitations are imposed or altered.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State has power under clause 296(4)(a) to vary or remove existing conditions, in addition to being able to impose new conditions on an accreditation.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would omit subsection (7) of Clause 302, which is superseded by the new Clause in my name on data protection.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would omit subsection (4) of Clause 303, which is superseded by the new Clause in my name on data protection.
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would omit the definition of “data protection legislation” in Clause 304, as my amendment to Clause 328 would define that term for the purposes of the whole Bill.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973
A1 (1) Section 14 of the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 (computation of prescriptive periods) is amended as follows.(2) In the following places, for “relevant consumer dispute” or “relevant dispute” substitute “consumer contract dispute”—(a) subsection (1D);(b) subsection (1F);(c) subsection (1G) (in each place where it occurs).(3) In subsection (1D)—(a) after “this Act is” (in the opening words) insert “, in a case where ADR is carried out in respect of the dispute,”;(b) in paragraph (a)—(i) for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”, and(ii) for “such a procedure” substitute “it”;(c) in each of paragraphs (b) and (c), for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”.(4) In the following places, for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”—(a) subsection (1E); (b) subsection (1G)(b) and (f);(c) subsection (2) (in the definition of “qualifying request”).(5) In subsections (1F) and (1G), for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “ADR”.(6) In subsection (2)—(a) omit the following definitions—“ADR entity”;“ADR procedure”;“consumer”;“non-binding ADR procedure”;“relevant consumer dispute”;“sales contract”;“service contract”;“trader”;(b) before the definition of “holiday” insert the following definitions—““ADR” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;“ADR entity” means a person who carries out ADR in compliance with section 291(1) of that Act (which prohibits persons from carrying out ADR unless exempt, accredited, or acting under special ADR arrangements, in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act);“consumer contract dispute” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act.”Limitation Act 1980
A2 (1) Section 33B of the Limitation Act 1980 (extension of time limits because of alternative dispute resolution) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “cross border or domestic contractual” substitute “consumer contract”.(3) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) In this section—“ADR” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;“ADR entity” means a person who carries out ADR in compliance with section 291(1) of that Act (which prohibits persons from carrying out ADR unless exempt, accredited, or acting under special ADR arrangements, in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act);“consumer contract dispute” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act.”(4) In the following places, for “relevant dispute” substitute “consumer contract dispute”—(a) subsection (2)(a) and (b);(b) subsection (5);(c) subsection (6);(d) subsection (7) (in each place where it occurs);(e) subsection (9).(5) In the following places, for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(b);(b) subsection (6);(c) subsection (9).(6) In the following places, for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(c);(b) subsection (3);(c) subsection (7) (in each place where it occurs); (d) subsection (8);(e) subsection (9).Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984
A3 (1) Section 1B of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 (extension of limitation periods because of alternative dispute resolution) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “cross border or domestic contractual” substitute “consumer contract”.(3) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) In this section—“ADR” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;“ADR entity” means a person who carries out ADR in compliance with section 291(1) of that Act (which prohibits persons from carrying out ADR unless exempt, accredited, or acting under special ADR arrangements, in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act);“consumer contract dispute” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act.”(4) In the following places, for “relevant dispute” substitute “consumer contract dispute”—(a) subsection (2)(a) and (b);(b) subsection (5);(c) subsection (6) (in each place where it occurs);(d) subsection (8).(5) In the following places, for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(b);(b) subsection (5);(c) subsection (8).(6) In the following places, for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(c);(b) subsection (3);(c) subsection (6) (in each place where it occurs);(d) subsection (7);(e) subsection (8).Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/1339 (N.I. 11))
A4 (1) Article 51B of the Limitation (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (extension of time limits: non-binding ADR procedure) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “: Non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “because of alternative dispute resolution in certain consumer contract disputes”.(3) In paragraphs (1)(a) and (3), for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “ADR”.(4) In the following places, for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”—(a) paragraph (1)(b) (in each place where it occurs);(b) paragraph (2);(c) paragraph (4) (in each place where it occurs).(5) In paragraph (1)(b)(i), for “that such a procedure” substitute “on which it”.(6) In the following places, for “relevant dispute” substitute “consumer contract dispute”—(a) paragraph (1)(a);(b) paragraph (3);(c) paragraph (4) (in each place where it occurs).(7) For paragraph (5) substitute—“(5) In this Article— “ADR” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;“ADR entity” means a person who carries out ADR in compliance with section 291(1) of that Act (which prohibits persons from carrying out ADR unless exempt, accredited, or acting under special ADR arrangements, in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act);“consumer contract dispute” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act;“qualifying request” is a request by a party that another (A) confirm to all parties that A is continuing with the ADR.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes consequential amendments in connection with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill (alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes).
“Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008
2A In Schedule 3 to the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, at the appropriate place insert—“Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Chapter 4 of Part 4”.Equality Act 2010
2B (1) Section 140AA of the Equality Act 2010 (extension of time limits because of alternative dispute resolution) is amended as follows.(2) In the heading, for “cross border or domestic contractual” substitute “consumer contract”.(3) For subsection (1) substitute—“(1) In this section—“ADR” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024;“ADR entity” means a person who carries out ADR in compliance with section 291(1) of that Act (which prohibits persons from carrying out ADR unless exempt, accredited, or acting under special ADR arrangements, in accordance with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act);“consumer contract dispute” has the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Part 4 of that Act.”(4) In each of the following places, for “relevant dispute” substitute “consumer contract dispute”—(a) subsection (2)(a) and (b);(b) subsection (5);(c) subsection (6);(d) subsection (7) (in each place where it occurs);(e) subsection (9).(5) In each of the following places, for “a non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(b);(b) subsection (6);(c) subsection (9).(6) In each of the following places, for “the non-binding ADR procedure” substitute “the ADR”—(a) subsection (2)(c);(b) subsection (3);(c) subsection (7) (in each place where it occurs);(d) subsection (8);(e) subsection (9).(7) In subsection (8), for “(6)” substitute “(7)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes consequential amendments in connection with Chapter 4 of Part 4 of the Bill (alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes).
Baroness Wheatcroft
“Consumer information: vote reporting(1) The FCA must make rules requiring relevant FCA-regulated persons to—(a) give consumers information on request in a machine-readable form about the exercise by the persons or on their behalf of all voting rights attached to assets in which the consumers have an interest, including in respect of any specified description of scheme or investment vehicle, within 30 days of that request being received;(b) have regard to guidance in respect of the format of the information provided under subsection (1)(a).(2) The FCA may discharge the duty in subsection (1) in respect of—(a) beneficiaries of occupational pension schemes within the meaning of section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993,(b) beneficiaries of the local government pension scheme,(c) clients of personal pension schemes within the meaning of an order under section 22 of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and(d) clients of stakeholder pension schemes within the meaning of such an order,by making rules requiring relevant FCA-regulated persons to give the information described in subsection (1)(a) to a relevant intermediary, or make it publicly available.(3) In this section—“relevant FCA-regulated persons” means—(a) persons managing investments within the meaning of an order under section 22 of FSMA 2000, including the activity described in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 of that Act, and(b) persons effecting or carrying out a contract of insurance within the meaning of an order under section 22 of FSMA 2000;“relevant intermediary” means—(a) in respect of subsection (2)(a), the trustees of the scheme,(b) in respect of subsection (2)(b), an administering authority of the scheme in which the consumers have an interest, and(c) in respect of subsection (2)(c) and (2)(d), the managers of the scheme.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the FCA to make rules requiring on-request standardised reporting on company voting by investment managers and life insurers, and to provide guidance to firms on the format of that reporting. The FCA could discharge that duty in respect of the members of pension schemes by passing the information to the trustees, administering authorities and managers of the schemes, or to publish it.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register, and I apologise that I could not attend Second Reading. I will speak to the single Amendment 212. Among the Bill’s declared purposes is
“to make provision relating to the protection of consumer rights”.
This amendment is concerned with one specific but important consumer right: having visibility as to how one’s money is being used. I believe that every investor, big or small, should have easy access to see how their shares are being voted, and this amendment would be a big step in that direction.
I gratefully acknowledge the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Altmann, who believe in the principle at stake here. I thank the fintech firm, Tumelo, for its help in drafting the amendment. It has the support of the Association of Member Nominated Trustees, which represents board members of 700 pension schemes, accounting for more than £1 trillion of assets. That is quite some weight.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for tabling this amendment, to which I have added my name, as I did to a similar amendment that she tabled to the Financial Services and Markets Bill. I apologise to the Committee for not being available to speak at Second Reading.
I put my name to this amendment because votes reporting is an important issue of openness and transparency that underpins good stewardship and good governance, without which the road to net zero and our nature goals becomes that much more chaotic. At this point I should declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet.
As things currently stand, at AGMs investment managers vote on behalf of the pension funds they manage on issues that pension savers may have concerns about. Some, if not most, savers would prefer to know what their money is signed up to, and they cannot easily find out what their money is supporting, nor can pension schemes. This is because there is zero meaningful onus on investment managers to report their actions in a full, timely and easily digestible format, and that is important as the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, highlighted. The outcome is that pension schemes do not have the information to inform their savers, and it is for this reason that the amendment has support from the Association of Member Nominated Trustees, which has £1 trillion of assets under management.
In the US, it is mandatory. There, voting at AGMs is a key tool in ensuring good corporate governance, good long-term investor returns and good economic outcomes more broadly. What assessment have the Government made of America’s way of including people in decisions made in their name about their money? Why is it that in a relatively light-touch regime that is doable, but here it is not? Why is it that UK investment managers can comply with US rules when they operate in the US but find it too burdensome to do it here? The Government say that they see the need for action, but we see no action year after year. This amendment would enable pension schemes and ultimately pension savers more effectively to hold their investment managers to account for action on climate and nature, as well as on other matters.
I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, in what she is aiming to do, and I add the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who has put her name to the amendment. She asked me to convey her apologies to the Committee for not being present; she is not feeling well enough to have stayed to the current late hour.
I hope that once we hear from the Labour Party we will be able to say that the amendment has cross-party support.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support this amendment. We are a capitalist society, and capitalism relies on a return on capital being provided to the people who provide the capital. In that sense, our capital has become very concentrated in institutional hands. Decisions are taken by a cadre of fund managers, of whom I used to be one—well-paid people who thoroughly approve of people in industries being well paid, particularly senior managers. More and more of the profits of industry are diverted to the people running them and to the people running the investments in them, and the amount getting through to the individual investor becomes limited.
What is the force in any other direction? What is the motivation for people running a company to do more than please their fund managers? They do not have to have the interest of the individual owners at the end of this. In the end, this results in bad decisions being taken on the allocation of capital and on the flow of money within a corporation. These will not be in the interests of paying the pensions of the people whose money is invested in these companies.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with all his experience as a fund manager, and particularly to hear what he forecast for the future: the ability of AI to deliver information in a new format that is of much greater interest and use to a consumer. I must admit, I had not really thought about that.
It is also a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Sheehan, and in particular to support the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, on her amendment. We are obviously saving the best for last in contributing to our final group in Committee. As a former company secretary, I well remember the noble Baroness as a financial journalist and an absolute champion of corporate governance. This appears to be an absolutely crucial part of it. In a sense, it is the other side of the coin from what you expect of the corporate; it is what you expect of those who invest in the corporate, in terms of exercising their voting rights. The noble Baroness illustrated the sorry history of the voluntary approach put forward by the FCA. I could loosely describe her amendment as trying to put some lead in the FCA’s pencil, which seems wholly needed.
The noble Baroness asked a number of further questions. A really interesting and important question is: how on earth can the US, with its relatively unregulated systems compared to ours and its culture of not regulating on a federal basis, do it on a compulsory basis when we have not? Particularly from what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, it sounds as though it will be eminently possible to do this, as the technology improves, without overly imposing costs on investment managers. Indeed, it is already being done for those operating in the states. There seems absolutely no reason why the Government should not move forward in the way that the noble Baroness suggests.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for tabling Amendment 212, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will be brief.
In 2019, the European Union introduced the second shareholder rights directive, which sets out stipulations regarding the utilisation of specific shareholder privileges linked to voting shares during general meetings of companies that are headquartered in a member state and have their shares traded on a regulated market located or functioning within a member state. It was brought into UK law by secondary legislation, amending the occupational pension schemes regulations of 2005, and it has now been assimilated into UK law. As per the Explanatory Notes to the regulations, they encourage investors to be transparent about how they invest and approach their engagement as shareholders. It was a negative statutory instrument, so no debates were tabled.
The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, carries greater weight than the shareholder rights directive. It would mandate the FCA to establish regulations necessitating investment managers and life insurers to furnish standardised reports concerning company voting activities upon request. Furthermore, it would instruct the FCA to offer guidance to firms on the specific format for such reporting.
We agree in principle with the amendment that it is right for shareholders to be more transparent. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, mentioned being transparent about where investments are made, which we need to know if we are to achieve net zero. This was fully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Fund managers need to be more transparent about informing where their funds are invested.
I ask the Minister: what impact has there been on investor transparency in the four and a half years that the SRD has been in UK law? I look forward to his response.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, for Amendment 212, which would require the Financial Conduct Authority to make rules requiring regulated persons to give consumers certain information regarding voting rights attached to assets in which the consumer has an interest. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Leong, and my noble friend Lord Lucas for their contributions.
I appreciate the strength of feeling on this issue. I suggest that we speak to the Treasury and write to the noble Baroness on a number of her questions, in particular to draw on the comparisons with the US, with which we are so close on so many things, to understand what its experience is and where we are in comparison.
The Government recognise that transparency is crucial to effective stewardship and corporate governance by pension and other investment funds. We also acknowledge the argument that the existing voting disclosure framework is not working as well as it could. That is why, as the noble Baroness mentioned, the FCA set up the independently chaired vote reporting group in November 2022, following recommendations made by the task force on pension scheme voting implementation to develop a standardised and decision-useful framework for voting disclosure.
It is important to take a proportionate approach in implementing changes to vote reporting. Mandatory voting disclosure would be a significant departure from the FCA’s existing rules on voting disclosure. It is important that we have a globally competitive asset management sector. This means designing and implementing regulatory change in a way that considers regulatory costs as well as benefits. That is why the Government support the FCA’s approach to work closely with industry stakeholders and build consensus.
The group has made significant progress and recently consulted on its proposals for a comprehensive and standardised vote reporting framework. The Government believe that it continues to be more appropriate to wait for the group’s final output before requiring the FCA to produce further rules and regulation. I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, that, when reviewing the group’s final proposal, the Government will carefully consider whether its recommendations go far enough to address the existing issues around transparency for consumers that the noble Baroness so eloquently described, as well as what further action may be appropriate. We therefore hope that she will feel comfortable withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
I thank the Minister for what I think was an unusually conciliatory reply. I am quite cheered by what he said. I understand that we will wait to see what the FCA comes up with. I cannot say that I am overly optimistic about the FCA being effective with anything other than mandatory reporting—that will require the Government to act—but I look forward to seeing that action before too long. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“5A In Schedule 14 to EA 2002 (specified functions), at the appropriate place insert—“Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.”5B In Schedule 15 to EA 2002 (enactments conferring functions), at the appropriate place insert—“Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that: (a) information that comes to a public authority in connection with the exercise of its functions under Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Bill is information to which section 237 of the Enterprise Act 2002 applies (which imposes a general restriction on disclosure of certain kinds of information unless permitted under Part 9 of that Act), and (b) that information to which section 237 applies can be disclosed to a public authority for the purposes of enabling that authority to carry out its functions under Chapter 2 of Part 5.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“ScheduleMinor and consequential amendmentsPart 1Amendments to Acts of ParliamentCompetition Act 1980 (c. 21)
1 The Competition Act 1980 is amended as follows.2 In section 11B(1) (references under section 11: powers of investigation and penalties), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force and,”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.3 In section 11C(1) (references under section 11: further supplementary provisions), in the words before paragraph (a)— (a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force,”; and(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.4 In section 11D(7) (interim orders), in paragraph (d), after “penalties)” insert “as it had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force”.Telecommunications Act 1984 (c. 12)
5 In section 101 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (v);(b) after paragraph (w) insert—“(x) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Companies Act 1985 (c. 6)
6 In paragraph 17 of Schedule 15D to the Companies Act 1985 (disclosures), after sub-paragraph (m) insert—“(n) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Airports Act 1986 (c. 31)
7 In section 74 of the Airports Act 1986 (restriction on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (v);(b) after paragraph (y) insert—“(z) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Gas Act 1986 (c. 44)
8 (1) Section 41EB of the Gas Act 1986 (references under section 41E: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In subsection (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After subsection (6) insert— “(7) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Water Act 1989 (c. 15)
9 In section 174 of the Water Act 1989 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (lp);(b) after paragraph (o) insert—“(p) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Electricity Act 1989 (c. 29)
10 (1) Section 56CB of the Electricity Act 1989 (references under section 56C: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In subsection (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)
11 The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.12 (1) Section 14B (references under section 14: powers of investigation) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(6) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”13 (1) Section 16B (CMA’s power of veto following report: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (6), in the words before paragraph (a)— (a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (9)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”14 (1) Section 17M (references under section 17K: powers of investigation) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(6) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”15 (1) Section 17Q (section 17P: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (6), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (9)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”16 In Part 2 of Schedule 15 (enactments etc in respect of which disclosure may be made)—(a) at the end of the list insert—“The following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(a) Part 3;(b) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(c) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”(b) omit the entry for subordinate legislation made for the purpose of securing compliance with Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. Railways Act 1993 (c.43)
17 The Railways Act 1993 is amended as follows.18 (1) Section 13B (references under section 13: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In subsection (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After subsection (6) insert—“(7) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”19 (1) Section 15C (sections 15A and 15B: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (2D), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In subsection (2G)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In subsection (2H)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After subsection (4) insert—“(5) In this section “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”20 In section 145 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (qu);(b) after paragraph (v) insert—“(w) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”21 Schedule 4A (review of access charges by the Office of Rail and Road) is amended as follows.22 (1) Paragraph 10A (references under paragraph 9: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (1), in the words before paragraph (a)— (a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In sub-paragraph (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In sub-paragraph (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After sub-paragraph (6) insert—“(7) In this paragraph “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”23 (1) Paragraph 15 (paragraphs 13 and 14: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (2D), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In sub-paragraph (2G)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In sub-paragraph (2H)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After sub-paragraph (4) insert—“(5) In this paragraph “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Coal Industry Act 1994 (c. 21)
24 In section 59 of the Coal Industry Act 1994 (information to be kept confidential by the Coal Authority), in subsection (4)—(a) omit paragraph (q);(b) after paragraph (t) insert—“(u) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29)
25 In section 235 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (3)—(a) omit paragraph (ru);(b) after paragraph (v) insert—“(w) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.” Utilities Act 2000 (c. 27)
26 In section 105 of the Utilities Act 2000 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (6)—(a) omit paragraph (w);(b) after paragraph (z1) insert—“(z2) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Transport Act 2000 (c. 38)
27 In Schedule 9 to the Transport Act 2000 (air traffic: information), in paragraph 3(3)—(a) after paragraph (rh) insert—“(ri) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”(b) omit paragraph (sa).Communications Act 2003 (c. 21)
28 In section 393 of the Communications Act 2003 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in subsection (5)—(a) omit paragraph (q);(b) after paragraph (s) insert—“(t) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (c. 36)
29 In section 111 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006 (general restrictions), in subsection (6)—(a) omit paragraph (o);(b) after paragraph (p) insert—“(q) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Companies Act 2006 (c. 46)
30 In Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Companies Act 2006 (specified descriptions of disclosures), in section (A) (United Kingdom), in paragraph 25, after paragraph (l) insert—“(m) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Legal Services Act 2007 (c. 29)
31 In section 60(9) of the Legal Services Act 2007 (duties of the CMA), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “apply”, in the first place it occurs, insert “, as they had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force,”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”. Postal Services Act 2011 (c. 5)
32 In section 60(6) of the Postal Services Act 2011 (section 59: supplementary), in paragraph (a), after “CMA),” insert “as they had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force,”.Civil Aviation Act 2012 (c. 19)
33 In Schedule 6 to the Civil Aviation Act 2012 (restrictions on disclosure of information), in paragraph 4—(a) in sub-paragraph (3), in the list of relevant statutory provisions, after the entry for “Water Act 2014” insert—“the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(a) Part 3;(b) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(c) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”(b) in sub-paragraph (4), omit paragraph (b).Part 2Amendments to other legislationEnergy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/419 (N.I. 6))
34 The Energy (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 is amended as follows.35 In Article 63 (general restrictions on disclosure of information), in paragraph (6)—(a) omit sub-paragraph (w);(b) after sub-paragraph (x) insert—“(y) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”36 (1) In Schedule 2 (orders altering licensable activities), paragraph 5 (references under paragraph 3: application of EA 2002) is amended as follows.(2) In sub-paragraph (1), in the words before paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In sub-paragraph (4)—(a) after “shall apply” insert “, as it had effect immediately before the relevant date,”;(b) for “applies” substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(4) In sub-paragraph (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(5) After sub-paragraph (6) insert—“(7) In this paragraph “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/3172)
37 The Water Services etc. (Scotland) Act 2005 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2005 is amended as follows.38 (1) Article 5 (references: powers of investigation) is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph (1), in the words before sub-paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In paragraph (5)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After paragraph (5) insert—“(6) In this article “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”39 (1) Article 10 (Article 9: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (3), in the words before sub-paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In paragraph (7)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After paragraph (7) insert—“(8) In this Article “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 (S.I. 2006/3336 (N.I. 21))
40 The Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 is amended as follows.41 (1) Article 23 (references under Article 21: powers of investigation) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (1), in the words before sub-paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In paragraph (4)—(a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After paragraph (5) insert—“(6) In this Article “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”42 (1) Article 27 (CMA’s power of veto following report: supplementary) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph (6), in the words before sub-paragraph (a)—(a) after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the relevant date and”;(b) for “apply”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “applied immediately before that date”.(3) In paragraph (9)— (a) for “have”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, immediately before the relevant date, had”;(b) at the end insert “as those provisions had effect immediately before that date”.(4) After paragraph (10) insert—“(11) In this Article “the relevant date” means the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force.”43 In Article 265 (restrictions on disclosure of information), in paragraph (5)—(a) omit sub-paragraph (s);(b) after paragraph (t) insert—“(u) the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(i) Part 3;(ii) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(iii) Chapter 2 of Part 5.”Postal Services (Appeals to the Competition Commission) (Investigations and Extension of Time Limits) Order 2011 (S.I. 2011/2749)
44 In Article 3 of the Postal Services (Appeals to the Competition Commission) (Investigations and Extension of Time Limits) Order 2011 (application of sections 109 to 117 of the 2002 Act), in the words before paragraph (a), after “shall apply,” insert “as they had effect immediately before the date on which section 142 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force and”.Postal Services Act 2011 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2012 (S.I. 2012/1128)
45 In Article 4 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (Disclosure of Information) Order 2012, in the list of prescribed enactments—(a) omit the entry for the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008;(b) after the entry relating to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 insert—“the following provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—(a) Part 3;(b) Chapter 1 of Part 4;(c) Chapter 2 of Part 5.””Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment inserting a new Clause after Clause 330.
“Review: tax rates for digital and high street businesses(1) Within the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must undertake a review of the implications for competition of tax rates paid by business which operate—(a) wholly online,(b) wholly through physical premises, and(c) both online and through physical premises.(2) In undertaking the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must—(a) identify the number of high street shop closures in each of the last three years, (b) calculate an indicative average tax rate for each of the business categories mentioned in subsection (1),(c) consider the consequences of any differences in the average tax rates mentioned in paragraph (b) on competition, and(d) if there are significant differences between the average tax rates mentioned in paragraph (b), consider the case for reforming different forms of business taxation to reduce such differences.(3) In undertaking the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may carry out specific sectoral case studies which consider the particular impacts of differences in tax rates on businesses operating in those sectors.(4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must lay its findings before Parliament.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause, which would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the implications for competition of effective tax rates of digital and high street businesses, is designed to probe the Government’s plans for balancing the economic opportunities presented by firms operating in digital markets with the ongoing health of established brick-and-mortar businesses.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment comes at the end of a long debate but is none the less important. It addresses one of the main factors leading to the long and sad decline of many of Britain’s high streets: the huge disparity in costs for businesses having a physical presence in the high street compared to the cost of equivalent businesses trading online. Bricks-and-mortar businesses are now paying disproportionately more than their online competitors, which is hitting small businesses and our high streets hard.
The result is boarded-up shops that landlords have given up trying to let and an increase in anti-social behaviour as the streets become ghost towns. Yet we know that small businesses are crucial to thriving high streets, providing goods and services that are central to people’s everyday lives. More than that, they provide a community focus for people to socialise, eat and relax, helping to tackle loneliness and increasing a sense of well-being.
It is not just small businesses that have been squeezed out. Well-known chain stores such as Debenhams and Wilko, which provided core high street essentials, have failed to survive on the high street. Instead, their naming rights have been bought out by new businesses operating exclusively online.
Vibrant high streets are not just good for communities; they are vital for boosting local economic growth, creating increased demand and jobs in the retail and service sectors. The fact is that the UK’s business rates system is no longer fit for purpose. As our economy has moved more online, our tax system has failed to keep up, so there is an urgent need to rebalance the costs. High street businesses should not face huge business rate charges while their big online marketplace competitors are let off the hook.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
It is unfortunate that this comes at the end of our debate rather than the beginning, as it is a really important aspect of it. We have been talking about the digital world throughout our six sessions, but it is increasingly apparent that the digital world cannot meet all the emotional needs of society. It is not the perfect substitute for everything that we do in person in the physical world—for our social, shopping and other needs. If we try to make it so, it will have considerable impact on mental health.
We must strive to keep a lively, prosperous physical world in front of us on the high street, as the noble Baroness outlined. Much of this talk about taxation is above my pay grade—you always get wrapped on the knuckles by your spokesperson if you start proposing tax reform or whatever it may be—but there is no doubt that my party certainly supports business rates reforms in a variety of different ways. It also believes that the settlement on the digital taxation side through the OECD agreements has been far too modest in its impact on the major digital players. The imbalance between physical and digital traders has been far too great and has advantaged the digital players far too much. I am in total sympathy with what the noble Baroness said.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on that last point. It is really important that we keep at the question of how we tax digital businesses. One can no longer rely on the Irish national statistics because they are so distorted by profit shifting, a lot of it from this country—profit going abroad and being taxed at a very low rate in Ireland when it should be taxed here.
I know that this is an international matter, but we absolutely must keep the pressure up. We are getting more and more digital, so we need to have an international tax system where profits are taxed where they arise and not where Governments wish to shift them to. I know that this is hard, but I am unimpressed by the progress that the world has made in this direction. I really hope that the Government will get behind the continued efforts on this. We suffer a great deal from it.
At the other end of the scale, the Government could also do a lot better. I am sure that my noble friends will remember that HMRC made a horrendous mess of VAT in the Channel Islands in the early 2000s. Whole businesses grew up in the Channel Islands on the idea that you could ship records out to them, then they would come back VAT-free to the person in the UK who bought them because the consignment was under a certain value.
HMRC eventually dealt with that, but now there is monstrous and recurring fraud through the likes of Amazon and eBay, involving “Chinese” sellers—there is no reason to think that they are of that nationality in particular, but they are certainly Far Eastern—who HMRC does not pursue. HMRC does not effectively collect the tax that is due. It says, “Oh, it’s too hard. Oh, it’s in lots of little bits. Oh, these people move around with great velocity”. Yes, they do, but by not collecting it, HMRC not only does not get the tax but damages the UK businesses that should be able to compete on a level playing field with those overseas sellers. It is delinquent; it is an issue at the root of HMCR that we have never managed to deal with effectively, but we really must.
It is so important that HMRC realises that it should focus not only on operational efficiency in terms of how much it costs to do things and whether it gets the money back that it is investing in this, or a sufficient multiplier of it, but on whether it is doing its bit for the structure of the UK economy and the ability of businesses to start and flourish here. I pay great credit to Retailers Against VAT Abuse Schemes, which has been active these last 20 years. I hope that it will eventually be successful, but golly, it could do with more help.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Once again, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this important issue, and for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Lucas.
The Government are wholeheartedly committed to protecting the country’s high streets and town centres, and supporting them as they adapt to changing consumer demands. Indeed, the Government revalued business rates in 2023, with the retail sector being the biggest beneficiary. We have also provided long-term investment in our high streets and small businesses, including £2.35 billion-worth of town deals, the £830 million future high streets fund and the £4.8 billion levelling up fund. New legislation in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 will play an important role in reviving our high streets by introducing high street rental auctions, which will empower places to tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use, and seek to increase co-operation between landlords and local authorities and make town centre tenancies more accessible and affordable for tenants, especially for SMEs, local businesses and community groups.
The Government also launched the new £2.5 million high street accelerators pilot programme, which will empower and incentivise local people to work in partnership to develop ambitious plans to reinvent the high streets so that they are fit for the future. Accelerators will bring residents, businesses and community organisations together with their local authorities to develop a long-term vision for revitalising high streets. The pilot will run in 10 areas across England until March 2025.
We consulted in 2022 on an online sales tax, and after careful consideration we decided not to introduce it. That decision reflected concerns raised on the risk of creating unfair outcomes and complexities in defining the boundaries between online and in-store retail, including click-and-collect orders. The Government therefore do propose to pursue further changes to business rates or sales tax at this time. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel sufficiently reassured to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I realise that it is late in the day and that I am raising a fundamental issue at a late point. Perhaps it is straying a little beyond the main intent of the Bill; nevertheless, it is a fundamental issue, and it is important that we have aired it. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones; as he said, our high streets are far too important to lose. As both he and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the digital world cannot meet all the needs of society, and high streets still have a fundamental role to play. We absolutely need to ensure that the community focus in high streets is revitalised. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that we should look at other models of funding and taxation; it was a point well made.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. It is easy to say that he is wholeheartedly committed to revitalising the high streets; that is great—we all are—and I have no doubt that initiatives such as levelling up and the pilots will have some impact, but none of those addresses the fundamental fact that it is the economic costs for the shops that is at heart here. You can make a high street look lovely, provide better police and tackle anti-social behaviour, but if the shops cannot afford to trade because they are being undercut by their online competitors, they will not stay around. Unless we take more fundamental actions on that basis and face up to what is happening at the moment, sadly, we will face continuing long-term decline.
I hear what the Minister says. I realise that this is a much bigger debate, but I really feel that the Government do not have a grip on this. They have had 14 years to sort it out but there has been a long decline on their watch. I am sorry to end on such a negative note. As I said, I am sure we will have a further chance to debate this, but I really think that our policy on reforming business rates will make a fundamental difference. Nevertheless, I beg move to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Offord of Garvel
““the data protection legislation” has the same meaning as in the Data Protection Act 2018 (see section 3 of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define “the data protection legislation” for the purposes of the whole Bill.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“Data protection(1) This section applies to a duty or power to process information that is imposed or conferred by or under any provision of this Act.(2) A duty or power to which this section applies does not require or authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation (but the duty or power is to be taken into account in determining whether the processing would contravene that legislation).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make it clear that provisions in the Bill imposing or conferring duties or powers to process information do not require or authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation.
Lord Offord of Garvel
“ConsultationA duty to consult under or by virtue of this Act may be satisfied by consultation that took place wholly or partly before the passing of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that consultation required under or by virtue of the Bill may begin before the Bill is passed (so long as it is in compliance with the requirements for consultation as enacted).
Lord Offord of Garvel
“Minor and consequential amendmentsSchedule (Minor and consequential amendments) contains minor and consequential amendments.”Member's explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces a new Schedule that contains minor and consequential amendments relating to the Bill generally (there are other Schedules of consequential amendments relating to particular Parts of the Bill).
Lord Offord of Garvel
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the new Clause and Schedule in my name making minor and consequential amendments come into force in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.
House of Lords
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Death of a Member: Baroness Flather
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, on 6 February. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Baroness’s family and friends.
Post Office Appointments: Ministerial Responsibility
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask His Majesty’s Government what responsibility ministers have for the appointment of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Post Office.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Scotland Office (Lord Offord of Garvel) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. As set out in the Post Office’s articles of association and shareholder relationship framework document, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade appoints the chair and directors of the Post Office and approves the appointment of the chief executive officer. Strong and effective leadership of the Post Office is a necessity and the Government therefore take their role in making the right appointments very seriously.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I believe that the shortcomings of the Post Office board and senior executives were responsible for this unparalleled injustice. Last week, the Minister said that the Government were looking at tightening the governance of the Post Office. Can I suggest that one way of doing this would be for the Ministers making the appointments to also ensure regular appraisals of those they have appointed? After all, who among us in this Chamber has not gone through an appraisal at some time? If such an appraisal scheme already existed, perhaps sub-postmasters across Britain would not be in despair, feeling that they were—I think of the words of Toby Jones, who played Mr Bates in the TV drama—the “skint little people” who are
“fighting a war against an enemy owned by the British Government”.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that. The whole House shares the noble Lord’s sentiments that this is a deeply shameful episode, which went on for over 20 years. It is quite incredible to think back on the scale of the failure here, both of governance and of corporate life. Since the Horizon scandal came to light, the Government have taken quite a lot of steps to strengthen the governance of the Post Office. However, there are a number of ongoing reviews, including one by Simmons & Simmons, to look at exactly how the appraisal system works. Once the Wyn Williams review—a statutory inquiry—has concluded, we will be able to take steps around corporate governance going forward.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, in an arm’s-length organisation, to whom in practice is the chief executive accountable? Is it the department’s Permanent Secretary?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank my noble friend for his question and for all his efforts on behalf of the postmasters. We have to realise that this is a limited company owned entirely by the Government, with one share owned by the Secretary of State. It separated from Royal Mail Group when that went private, but the Post Office is actually classified as a public non-financial corporation. Public corporations include, for example, Ordnance Survey, Royal Mint and British International Investment. They are typically owned by the appropriate Secretary of State in that department, the reason being that they are hybrid: the Post Office has commercial activity, it makes revenue through the post offices, but it also receives public money to support the network. As a result, the governance is such that the chief executive reports to the chair, the chair reports to the Secretary of State, and the chief executive also reports to the Permanent Secretary when it comes to public money.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister answered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot. We agreed that the Post Office needs leadership, and last week the Minister said:
“We will appoint an interim chair as soon as possible”.—[Official Report, 30/1/24; col. 1122.]
Perhaps with another week, the Minister can dwell a little more on the process. When will the details of the process be published? How will the job description of this appointment differ from the job description that was used by Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng when he appointed Henry Staunton as recently as September 2022? What will change in the job description of the chairman from the last appointment?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The corporate answer is that the chief executive reports to the chairman; the job of the chairman is to fire the chief executive on behalf of the shareholder; the shareholder is the Government and, since these matters came to light in 2020, we have had the new shareholder relationship document that outlines all the governance on this. Indeed, the Minister for the Post Office has had monthly meetings, starting with Minister Scully through to the current Minister, Minister Hollinrake, with the chief executive. When the new chair is appointed, that chair will step into the position and continue to run the board on behalf of the Government.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I am sorry, but the Minister has not answered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Order. It is the turn of the Cross Benches.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, as a member of one of the departments is a member of the board of the Post Office, at the relevant time—and the board knew quite early on that Horizon was not working properly—why did that representative not tell the Government, or did he do so?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble and learned Baroness: this is the whole purpose of the inquiry. I cannot answer the specific questions, not having been there myself. The inquiry will look into this. What is clear is that there has been a failure of governance. On the face of it, Post Office Ltd is set up with the right checks and balances in place. There have been non-executive directors, there is the government representative on the board, there is a chairman: on the face of it, it should be subject to the governance that we see in private companies. For some reason, there has been a lack of inquiry and of challenge and we need to understand why and find out who is accountable for that.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, is this not a systemic failure of the whole state? The answer to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is that the Permanent Secretary is the accounting officer for the Post Office, and the department puts a director on the board of a public corporation. This is not just about the failings of Post Office managers; it is about the failings of the whole state, which sacrificed pillars of the community to suffer one of the gravest injustices committed in recent times.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that: no one can disagree with his sentiments. As I said, the machinery was put in place, but there was a lack of scrutiny, inquiry and challenge from the non-executive directors, from, perhaps, the chair, and from, perhaps, the Ministers. The Permanent Secretary role is a key one because, using the public accounting model, they meet with the DBT on a quarterly basis to have that line of communication as well. There was no shortage of lines of communication here.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend has vast experience in private equity and elsewhere in business. Does he not agree that, faced with this kind of disaster, the first thing any private business would do is clear out the entire board, without necessarily attributing any blame, and put in a new team of people who did not have any baggage in order to sort it out. Why do the Government not get on and do that?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
Three new non-executive appointments were made in 2023 and there will be a new senior independent director appointed and a new chair. Two postmaster directors have also been appointed to the board. The current chief executive, who came in in 2019 at the point of the judgment, remains in place. We continue to have faith in him to move this thing forward quickly, with the right amount of oversight. We have confidence in the board as it is reconstituted. But, as has been said, the question is: why did the original failure happen? We need to find that out.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the financial cost of the Horizon scandal is going to be in excess of £1 billion, and that does not take into account the personal cost to the postmasters and postmistresses, some of whom are here with us. Fujitsu has offered to pay a voluntary contribution but, more importantly, should the Post Office wish to sue Fujitsu, is it still in time to do that and when did the Post Office agree a standstill?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. On the specifics, I will write to him on the actual timeline, but the reality is that Fujitsu knows it has a major part to play here. It knows that it is under serious investigation. It has pre-empted that by coming out and saying that it feels a moral responsibility. My colleague, the Minister in the other place, has made it very clear that the cost of this debacle cannot land purely on taxpayers and I am sure there will be a very full investigation and compensation required from Fujitsu.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, when in an earlier Question Time I asked the Minister whether the Post Office brand was not now too toxic for it to continue as currently constituted, the Minister replied that, in his view, the brand image of the Post Office had improved as a consequence of what had happened. Now, while the reputation of the people who run sub- post offices has no doubt been greatly enhanced, to suggest that of the reputation of the organisation which so cruelly and illegally persecuted them cannot possibly be true. So I repeat what I asked then: is it not now time for a wholly new organisation, with new leadership and a new business model incorporating the appropriate ethical principles?
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
I thank the noble and gallant Lord for his question. To clarify my remarks, last time I said that the reputation of the postmasters had been enhanced and most people in the community think of the Post Office as being the postmasters. In the last 12 months, the churn of postmasters—those leaving and those coming in—has gone up. We have a record number of post offices—11,700—in the country; 5,000 of those are in rural areas and one-quarter are the last shop in the village. They form a vital role in the community and, as I said before, the reputation of the postmasters has only been enhanced by this sorry tale.
Ukraine Conflict
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Campbell-Savours
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to resolve the conflict in Ukraine.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we support a just and sustainable peace that restores Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, underpinned by the UN charter. However, Russia’s actions on the battlefield demonstrate that President Putin has no interest in such an outcome. President Zelensky has clearly demonstrated Ukraine’s commitment to peace in his 10-point peace formula, and together with our partners the United Kingdom is providing Ukraine with the support it needs to both protect and defend its sovereignty.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, with some defence chiefs calling for national mobilisation, more equipment and intervention in Ukraine, and the Defence Committee arguing that we do not have the resources, despite the highest tax rates in recent history, and having in mind the sensitive national debate now under way in both Washington and Ukraine, where is the voice of reason that believes it is better for all to sit down and talk through resolution of this conflict? I profoundly disagree with those who say that it is not possible and the Russians will never talk. Is it not cheaper for all? It would save lives—300,000 have been lost to date—protect the international economy and preserve the peace that is now threatened worldwide.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, no one wants peace more than the Ukrainians. Anyone who has visited Ukraine can see that. President Zelensky wants peace; that is why he has put forward a 10-point programme. The noble Lord shakes his head, but perhaps at some point I will be able to convince him. As we mark this anniversary yet again, let us go back two years. Who invaded whom? Who is the aggressor and the responsible actor that created this war? Russia created the war; Mr Putin can stop it and he should do so now.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry for not following convention but I want to intervene at this stage to make clear that the Official Opposition are fully behind the Government’s position on Ukraine. We support their actions, and the fact that this House is united is an important element in ensuring Ukraine’s victory.
In our debate on Ukraine, the Minister said:
“We will squeeze Russia’s war machine”.—[Official Report, 26/1/24; col. 932.]
That will involve sanctions, so can he update the House on the new agency delivering them? How quickly can we bring it in and strengthen our sanctions against the Russian war machine?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we are at one, as the noble Lord knows and as is required at this time. Only last week I met the prosecutor-general of Ukraine, who underlined the strength and courage he finds in the support from not just this House but the British people.
Together with our international partners, we have unleashed probably the largest and most severe package of sanctions. As the noble Lord knows, I often share some of the insights behind them. Cumulatively, between February 2022 and October 2023, £22.7 billion of Russian assets were reported frozen due to UK financial sanctions regulations. The UK has committed £50 million to support the new deterrence initiative, and the new Office of Trade Sanctions Implementation will strengthen this further. As I have said before, we will continue to report on specific progress made.
Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)
My Lords, the cost of this war will pale into insignificance compared with the cost of reconstructing Ukraine. It is at that point that the coalition in support of Ukraine will be truly tested. Can my noble friend give the UK’s current estimate of the cost of reconstruction and say what leadership we as a nation are showing in pulling together a reconstruction fund? Also, if I may correct the record, no service chief has called for national mobilisation.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend, who provides a great deal of insight on this. The debate about Ukraine across our country reflects the very freedoms that the Ukrainians are fighting for—the freedom to debate, challenge and provide insight. I thank my noble friend for providing his own insights.
The UK led on this last summer by hosting a conference on reconstruction. Various figures are being put forward, but the challenge is that there can be no effective assessment of the overall reconstruction plan until Russia pulls back from the areas it has occupied. It has caused damage environmentally, not just in the buildings and lives lost. At the Ukraine Recovery Conference last year, the UK announced £250 million of new capital to de-risk investments in projects to support economic recovery. Once that full assessment has been made—tragically, it will run into billions of pounds—we will need to stand up collectively, and the private sector will play a role. At a time when Ukraine is facing these challenges, it is vital that we stand at one and support its energy renewal, reconstruction and war effort. We stand with Ukraine.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, in a recent speech in Sweden, President Macron said that Europe needed to do whatever was necessary to ensure Ukraine’s success, irrespective of what political decisions were made in America. What discussions are His Majesty’s Government having with France, Germany and other European allies to help turn such rhetoric into reality?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, we always listen carefully to what President Macron says—France is an important ally in every sense, and we are working closely with France and our European partners. We are aware of the discussions going on across the ocean in the United States but, equally, we need the US to be part of this effort, and the reconstruction effort. The debate we had only the other week illustrated this large component. Not only are we making that case to our European partners but we continue to advocate the case for Ukraine in the United States.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord stole part of my question—I was going to ask about relations with our neighbours and what discussions His Majesty’s Government were having. I will rephrase it and ask the Minister what assessment, beyond France and our closest allies, His Majesty’s Government have made about the solidarity in Europe to support Ukraine. There was a wobble during 2023. Do the Government think that Poland, for example, is now firmly back on the right side and giving as much support as possible?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness has noticed that there is a change in the Polish leadership. We have also seen, when it comes to issues of the defence of Europe, the importance of our advocacy within NATO. It is very clear in the discussions we are having, particularly through that organisation, that Europe stands together, and stands with Ukraine.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, will the UK persist with merely doing enough to prevent Ukraine being defeated, rather than any more than that?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises an important point. We need to ensure that Ukraine has what it needs to defend its sovereign territory. Let us go back in time. Since we saw the invasion and annexation of Crimea, the UK’s position has been consistent—indeed, it is a position shared by His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Loyalty is an important word here—loyalty to each other but also to Ukraine. We will stand steadfast in ensuring that the defensive capability that Ukraine needs is fully supported.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, according to both Ukrainian and Russian media, former PM Boris Johnson, in a visit to Kyiv in 2022, persuaded President Zelensky to reject a peace deal with Putin that would have led to the withdrawal of Russian troops in return for an undertaking that Ukraine would not join NATO. Does the Minister agree that this was an opportunity missed and has since cost thousands of lives?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to respond to media speculation. I have had the opportunity, as I am often reminded, to serve under a number of Foreign Secretaries and Prime Ministers—including former Prime Minister Boris Johnson —and, since this war started, it is very clear that the United Kingdom’s position has been consistent. It has been strong and firm, whether led by Boris Johnson or his successors—including our current Prime Minister, who visited Kyiv. The position from the UK is clear: we stand with Ukraine.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, there is a catastrophic food shortage in Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia and other countries in the Sahel. Historically, they have relied on grain exports from Ukraine, and indeed from Russia as well. Since Russia renounced the Black Sea grain initiative in July, those exports from Ukraine have fallen by 34%. Can the Minister give his assessment of the current situation? What more can be done to get more grain exports out of Ukraine to those hard-pressed parts of Africa?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important point. Ukraine supplied to many across Africa—more than 400 million people were the beneficiaries of Ukraine’s grain exports. I can share with my noble friend that Ukraine is now exporting more grain than at any time since the war began. Monthly export figures for January saw in excess of 4.6 million tonnes of grain go through the Black Sea, which is a 32% increase on the peak month of the Black Sea grain initiative. That has become consistent because—although we praise the UN and other parties, such as Turkey, that brokered the deal—since it has been rejected by Russia, we have continued to stand steadfast. We have helped in the Black Sea and, although it is still very much early days, that is why we are beginning to see an increase. Long may that continue.
Buy Now, Pay Later: Regulation
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the publication of draft legislation on ‘Buy Now Pay Later’ arrangements in early 2023, when they intend to fulfil their 2021 commitment to regulate such arrangements.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s consultation on proposed draft legislation to bring buy now, pay later into regulation closed in April 2023. In it, the Government reiterated their position that regulation must be proportionate so that borrowers are appropriately protected without unduly inhibiting access to these useful, interest-free products.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I have to say that I find the Answer from the Minister deeply disappointing. It is three years since the Woolard Review concluded that more needed to be done to ensure a healthy, sustainable market in unsecured credit, including, in particular, buy now, pay later. Since that time, the use of buy now, pay later has more than trebled, with the citizens advice bureau warning that consumers are left without vital consumer protection and reporting from its own experience a huge rise in the number of people needing services to deal with the problems created by this form of credit. Is that not just evidence that this is no longer a serious Government prepared to undertake tasks to protect ordinary rank and file people?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I disagree with the noble Lord. Obviously, we have received a large amount of stakeholder feedback to the consultation on the draft regulations. We are considering that feedback and it is very varied. In many cases, when provided affordably and used responsibly, interest-free credit can be incredibly helpful to people trying to balance certain payments from month to month. The average outstanding balance of buy now, pay later is £236. These are relatively small amounts of money that can be shifted from month to month, and it is proving incredibly useful to a number of people.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, buy now, pay later works for people who can manage their finances, but unfortunately, there are many who struggle with that management. What are the Government doing to make financial education a pillar of the school curriculum?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree with my noble friend that this is at the heart of it. Any credit facility, be it interest-free or not, has to be understood by those who use it. To that end, the national curriculum has included financial education since 2024. In primary schools, children learn about the uses of money. In secondary school, they go on to learn about budgeting and managing risk, which is of course incredibly important in the credit markets. They learn about financial products and services and raising and spending public money. We have put those elements in place.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, a number of the firms that provide buy now, pay later—which are of course unregulated schemes currently—are seeking authorisation from the FCA also to offer regulated credit schemes. As we saw with the mini-bond scandal, this mixing of regulated and unregulated lulled ordinary people into misunderstanding the absence of supervision for unregulated products and led them into serious financial distress. Will the Minister advise the FCA not to authorise any schemes for buy now, pay later firms until buy now, pay later is itself properly regulated?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
While it is fair to say that buy now, pay later itself is not regulated, many elements of getting out to consumers are regulated. The broader consumer protection legislation which exists provides such protections. For example, the FCA has rules and guidance on advertising and financial promotion. Only today, the FCA financial promotions gateway is in force. Buy now, pay later firms must also go through that gateway with all their marketing materials to ensure that they are not misleading, and that is to the benefit of consumers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, a study last year by the Centre for Financial Capability found that a quarter of buy now, pay later users had been hit by late payment fees. That figure rose to 34% for users aged 18 to 34. Those young people are also facing the problems of the weight of student debt: about half of them go to university and, increasingly, they are carrying debt as well for further education. Is this not just one more way of laying a huge weight of debt on our young people?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not believe so, because, as I said, it is not a huge amount of debt. The average balance for younger people aged 25 to 34 is just £185. One experience that I think many users have of buy now, pay later is that they may, once, have a late fee—I know that my children certainly have—and then they learn, and they do not do it again. Those fees are not particularly expensive, but Experian, for example, would say that 99% of agreements were settled on time in January and February. We cannot shut off access to a form of interest-free credit which has saved consumers more than £100 million. It is really important that we get the balance right.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, in February 2021, the Government promised to act swifty to regulate buy now, pay later. Three years later, legislation is nowhere in sight. While the Government have delayed, leaving millions of consumers unprotected, Labour has set out plans for regulating the sector. That includes a requirement for clearer information, while ensuring the same protections for consumers as they get when using a credit card. To move things along, will the Government now adopt Labour’s plan, which has received broad support from all major buy now, pay later providers?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I have to be honest with the noble Lord in saying that I have not read Labour’s plan, but he talked about clarity of information. It is worth pointing out that it is not just the FCA that looks at advertising and financial promotion. We have the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008; we have the Consumer Rights Act, and then we have the UK advertising code. In terms of information, it is clear that consumers have a number of recourses, but I return to what I said at the outset: the consultation closed in April 2023; the Government have reiterated our position that regulation must be proportionate. I am quite surprised that the Labour Party thinks that it has a solution that has been backed by all buy now, pay later firms, because it is a very complex area and we need to achieve a balance.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, buy now, pay later services may offer interest-free periods, but, as has already been said, they charge high interest rates and fees for late payments, which really push up the price of the product. Without regulation, this industry is likely to go the same way as pawnbrokers, who charge interest of up to 160%. Will the Government impose a ceiling for the fees and interest rates that this industry can charge?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am not sure whether the noble Lord has looked at what the late payment fees are for buy now, pay later firms. They are incredibly small, because the business model is very different in that it does not necessarily rely only on such charges; they are paid by the retailers as well. As I said, all sorts of existing and broad consumer protections underpin fair contracts—that would be the Consumer Rights Act. The FCA has already taken action against six buy now, pay later firms, where it felt that the contract terms were either unfair or unclear. The system is working; it is a very complicated area; the Government are looking at the responses to the consultation, and we will publish a response in due course.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that, if we do not do this carefully, we will be removing opportunities from a large number of people for whom this is important? Is not the rush to regulate a very dangerous concept in this case?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I agree with my noble friend.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I do not always. There seems to be a “computer says no” attitude to newfangled things. I absolutely reject that. While noble Lords may or may not use buy now, pay later, I know many young people who do, and they do so very successfully. I would not want to overregulate a product or get it wrong, thereby causing that product to be removed from the market.
Lord Watts (Lab)
The Minister says that there needs to be regulation, that the Government have gone out for consultation and that they are now considering it. To ask the same question I ask of Ministers all the time: where is the timeline for that? When will the Government act rather than talk?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
We will act by publishing the results of the consultation and our response to it in due course.
Tata Steel: Port Talbot
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to safeguard jobs at Tata Steel in Port Talbot, and to encourage alternative forms of employment in the area.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, Tata informed the UK Government last year that it intends to close the steelworks and withdraw from the UK, putting 8,000 jobs at risk. The current plan put forward by Tata, which is subject to consultation, will see the Government investing £500 million to secure the future of steelmaking in Port Talbot, protecting 5,000 steel jobs in the UK and thousands more in the supply chain, while putting UK steelmaking on a more green and sustainable footing.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for her reply. As she will be aware, job losses on this scale—some 2,000 at Port Talbot—will have a totally devastating effect on the community. Lord Tebbit said about the closure of the mines in the 1980s that, however necessary it was, he regretted the destruction of those communities and thought that in retrospect the decisions had been taken too quickly and not enough had been done. We can only hope that the Government do not have similar regrets about what is happening at Tata. First, what pressure are the Government putting on Tata Steel to slow down the phasing out of the blast furnaces? Secondly, would the Government consider setting up a task force, which would work very closely with the Welsh Government, employers’ organisations and members of the local community, to see what alternative forms of employment there might be, given that there are bound to be some job losses?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for that question. It is true we recognise that this is a devastating blow for the community, which is why we have already set up the Tata Steel/Port Talbot Transition Board. It is not called a task force but it will, in effect, act in that way. It is set up to
“protect and grow the economic environment and to support and mitigate the impact on those workers, businesses and communities … directly affected by”
this Tata Steel announcement. The reality is that that board is already up and running. It has support, being not just chaired by the Secretary of State for Wales but having representatives of the Welsh Government on it. It also has on it the local MP and various members from Tata and the local community, and business experts. So it is already set up and has a £100 million fund to do this work, and it will be tasked with making sure that alternative employment is found for all those who need it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is it not insanity to spend half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money on ending the production of virgin steel through blast furnaces in this country, which means that we end up importing steel from China, where the electricity to fire its blast furnaces is made by opening coal-fired power stations? Surely this is the green agenda going too far, and the price that is being paid by that community and the taxpayer is far too high.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I understand my noble friend’s point. However, Tata informs us that it is losing £1.7 million per day in running these blast furnaces and on the coke they need. With regard to carbon emissions, we are following a green agenda and we have targets that we have set. With the advent of the new electric arc furnace, which will provide a modern, efficient and less carbon-intensive method of producing steel, we will be reducing Tata’s footprint in this country by 85%, 22% of Welsh carbon emissions, and more than 1% of the UK’s emissions as a whole.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister must know that the economy of the Swansea Bay City Region is heavily dependent, directly and indirectly, on this giant steelworks, which I can see from my home in Swansea. Has it not been clear for some time that there has been a major threat to it? Why did the Government not earlier set up such a fund as they now have, to steer creatively private industry to the area, or relocate government departments, as the previous Labour Government did so well with the DVLA at Morriston?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I can tell the noble Lord that, more broadly, the UK Government have provided substantial support for the economy of Port Talbot and south Wales, with further projects being developed. This includes the development of the Celtic Freeport in Port Talbot and Milford Haven, backed by up to £26 million of UK government funding, which will focus on low-carbon technologies. It aims to create 16,000 jobs by mid-2030. The Celtic Sea is also the prime location for the floating offshore wind centre that is being planned, which will also bring several thousand jobs. Meanwhile, the Swansea Bay city deal, which covers the Port Talbot area, is in the process of delivering a number of exciting developments across the region.
Lord Fox (LD)
One way to meet the justified need mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, to produce more virgin steel rather than from scrap is to use direct reduced iron technology that can be produced through an electric arc furnace. Last month, Tata Steel’s global chief executive told Parliament’s Welsh Affairs Committee that Tata would invest in DRI technology only if it could be guaranteed a good supply of first methane and then hydrogen. That is why he told that committee that Tata is building that plant in Holland and not in the United Kingdom. Can the Minister investigate how much money Holland is giving Tata to build that plant? Perhaps it could drive a harder bargain because with this technology comes more jobs.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. The Port Talbot transformation project does not prevent further technologies being deployed over time. We are paying careful attention to the international developments, particularly the hydrogen and DRI systems, such as the Tata Steel project in the Netherlands. Ultimately, this technology has not yet reached commercial activity, but when it does reach that maturity, we will look at it closely.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, Tata has multiple interests beyond steel. Are the Government looking at its operation in total and perhaps encouraging a package deal that takes into account all its other interests that impact this country internally?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. Yes, I understand that Tata is being spoken to as a global entity by various government departments, and it announced last year that it was going to invest very heavily in the gigafactory.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, I find myself much in sympathy with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. What part of the package is being invested in upskilling our people? In the last figures I saw, about 80% of people in work in the United States had been back in the classroom upskilling themselves, compared with 56% in Germany and Japan and 30% in the United Kingdom. We have to give our people skills for the jobs that do not exist yet.
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord, and that is why the £100 million has been made available: £80 million of that is from the UK Government, £20 million from Tata, and the majority of it will be spent on upskilling the local population, so that they can fill the advanced manufacturing jobs we are expecting to create in that area.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, electric arc furnaces require huge volumes of electricity to be produced reliably—24 hours a day, seven days a week—and distributed by a reliable transmission system. Are the Minister and her colleagues in the Government satisfied that the necessary investment should be started—there is not much sign of it yet—in expanding the national grid by five times, and in moving from 25 gigawatts of nuclear power, our present low level, up to 50 gigawatts, which is the minimum that will be needed?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord that we need to upgrade all this infrastructure. However, the holistic view of this particular area in Wales is that we will have, I hope, one of the largest offshore floating wind platforms to facilitate plants such as the Tata arc facility, but also any of the new advanced manufacturing that will take place on that site.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister said earlier, and as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, mentioned, Tata Steel secured £500 million of taxpayers’ money in state aid, yet it rejected union proposals for a two-phase plan that would protect more than 2,300 jobs over a decade and that would see no compulsory redundancies at Port Talbot. The loss of these jobs will clearly have a very hard impact on the region and the national economy. Have the Government made any assessment of whether this £500 million in state aid passes their value-for-money test?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I can tell the noble Lord that I believe that the unions have been fully involved in these discussions. The plans have been discussed with the company, but the company informs us that is not viable for it to consider that plan at this point. However, the consultations started only on 2 February. Therefore, it is for the company and the unions, and its employees and staff, to ascertain the possibilities. With respect to what the Government are doing, they are monitoring everything very closely and having long conversations with the companies and the Welsh Government.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, sadly, the community in Teesside experienced almost 10 years ago what the community in south Wales is about to endure, and the development that Ministers speak about at the site at Port Talbot has been happening in Redcar. Sadly, there has had to be an investigation by the department into the way that the deals there have been conducted. Will the Minister make sure that all the correspondence about this deal is released so that confidence in investment can be secured for Teesside?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
I will make sure that the department gets that request.
Medical Devices (In Vitro Diagnostic Devices etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Markham
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 November 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 February.
European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the European Space Agency (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2023
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That the draft Order laid before the House on 18 December 2023 be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 February.
Carer’s Leave Regulations 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Offord of Garvel
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 December 2023 be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 February.
Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2023
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Harlech
That the Rules laid before the House on 18 December 2023 be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 6 February.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Wednesday 7th February 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-IV(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (6 Feb 2024)
Baroness Thornton
“Free independent legal advocates for rape victims(1) The Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give victims of rape access to free, independent legal advocates available in every police force area in England and Wales.(2) For the purposes of this section “independent legal advocate for rape victims” means a person who is a qualified solicitor, with experience working with vulnerable people, who provides appropriate legal advice and representation to individuals who are victims of criminal conduct which constitutes rape.”
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, as well as moving Amendment 78, I shall also speak to Amendment 79 in my name, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I will speak to the other amendments in this group, and I am particularly pleased to be able to support the amendments in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bertin and Lady Morgan. Both are on important issues, which we will discuss this afternoon.
The amendments in my name seek to ensure that there is a scheme to give victims of rape access to free independent legal advocates—available in every police force area in England and Wales—and that the Secretary of State must develop proposals for a scheme to give these victims access to free, independent legal advice. The idea of independent legal advice and representation for victims in these circumstances is not a new one. In 2005, the then Government announced their attention to introduce legally aided representations for victims in homicide, rape and domestic violence cases—though it was not brought in. In March 2014, the Minister of Justice in the current Government again raised the idea of independent legal representation in a review of the treatment of victims in sexual offences cases, but, again, did not implement the policy. Now it is time to make this a reality.
Independent legal advice and representation can provide an important mechanism and layer of accountability, which results in improved police and CPS policies and procedures. Independent legal advice has already been successfully piloted in Northumbria, and exists in many other jurisdictions, including most European countries, Australia, California and Ireland. Evidence clearly indicates that this legal advice and representation can operate well, alongside the rights of defendants to a fair trial. This proposal does not propose changes to the role of victims and survivors in the criminal justice process, or the rights of audience that currently exist—nor does it change the adversarial system that we have in the UK.
In 2017, the sexual violence complainants advocate scheme was piloted in Northumbria by the then PCC, Dame Vera Baird, to engage local solicitors to provide legal advice and support to local adult rape complainants. The support primarily related to complainants’ Article 8 rights to privacy, advising on digital download requests and demands for material in the hands of third parties—such as school reports, medical records and therapy notes.
The pilot scheme took 83 referrals from September 2018 until December 2019, and was evaluated. Case file analysis showed poor practice around victims’ privacy rights—some police officers believed that there was no need to seek consent from the victims. The SCVAs challenged data requests in fewer than 47% of the cases. The evaluation showed that the scheme was overwhelmingly positive. It increased complainants’ confidence in, and understanding of, the justice system—which is likely to reduce attrition. There was consensus that the project changed organisational cultures—significantly decreasing police and CPS requests for indiscriminate evidence. Police and the CPS felt the investigations were more efficient, relevant and proportionate. A judge commended the pilot as encouraging earlier consideration of disclosures and issues—making cases more efficient and proportionate. All the pilot’s participants agreed with the principle of legal support being made available for sexual offence complainants.
The CPS’s victim’s right to review, which allows a challenge to a decision not to prosecute has been broadened by the High Court to offer an opportunity for a victim to make representations. A victim who wants to use this new voice will need publicly funded, independent, legal representation, so that there can be an equality of arms with the reviewing lawyer from the CPS.
In Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, the
“court’s permission must be obtained for access to, service or disclosure of”
the victim’s counselling record—which is why it is linked, in a way, to the amendments I have previously spoken to.
“The court must direct that access should not be granted, or evidence should not be served or disclosed, if the court finds that this would disclose a protected confidence”.
In the Government’s own end-to-end rape review, and in debates around the digital extraction clauses in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, it has been understood that it has become almost routine for victims of rape to be subjected to credibility trawls. This is when victims are asked, sometimes without proper regard to the law, to relinquish their private and personal information for scrutiny by the police and the prosecution.
I am sure the noble Baroness will tell us about the issues this raises in more detail, but in summary: victims and survivors who have reported sexual violence to the criminal justice system are often put in an impossible position, forcing them to choose between seeking justice and accessing therapeutic support. Neither existing legislation nor guidance in this area has effectively addressed the problem of widespread inappropriate requests for this material. The law must change to introduce new higher thresholds for disclosure that is unique to counselling and therapy records to be applied through judicial scrutiny.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Morgan, who is sorry not to be here today, I shall speak to Amendments 101, 102 and 173, and I shall speak to my own Amendment 115. I give praise and thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for outlining a lot of the issues in these amendments.
First, I shall talk about Amendments 101, 102 and 173, which, I might add, have the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, attached to them too. Amendment 102 and the associated necessary Amendments 101 and 173 seek to ensure that victims of crime—but particularly victims of sexual violence, for that is where the issue most frequently arises—are protected from excessive and unreasonable demands for their personal data. As the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has pointed out, that is the reason why attrition rates are as they are.
Third-party material is material about the victim held by third parties. It can include medical, educational and social services records, as well as records of therapy and counselling, which I will come to in more detail later. It has become commonplace for victims to be subjected to scrutiny of their personal lives, and thus their credibility, by way of a trawl through their personal data, and nowhere more so than in rape investigations. This issue has been well examined in both the media and at a policy level. These trawls act as a deterrent to reporting, and can cause a victim who has reported to then withdraw. There are fears about deeply personal information ending up in the hands of the defendant or being aired in court, where friends and family of the victim may hear it. In addition, requesting this information in such a non-discriminatory way can dramatically elongate already considerable investigation times.
I applaud the Government for introducing legislation in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which set out a regime to be used by police when requesting digital data, such as that held on mobile phones. Within this Bill, the Government have tabled clauses which purport to do the same for third-party material, but these clauses differ considerably from those in the PCSC Act. As it stands, there will be two quite different regimes for the police to apply when considering obtaining digital material and third-party material, which, in practice, they frequently do in tandem. This is potentially confusing for the police, but, more importantly, for the victims of crime.
Amendment 102 is quite simple, in that it seeks to apply exactly the same robust regime to third-party material as the Government, having listened thoroughly to campaigners, already laid down in legislation for digital material. I hope Ministers will see the need to follow suit in respect of third-party material. This amendment is backed by my noble friend Lady Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner, so I will allow her to speak to it.
I will speak to my Amendment 115. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. Rape and sexual abuse, as we know in this Committee, are deeply traumatic crimes, the impact of which can be wide-ranging and life changing. Sexual violence and abuse are often a root cause of mental health problems, eating disorders and self-harm, and, tragically, suicide. It is common for the impact of sexual violence and abuse to affect family and personal relationships, a victim’s ability to work, and long-term educational attainment. For many victims and survivors, counselling and therapy are a vital means of working through trauma, supporting them to find routes to regain control of their life. It is therefore imperative that those who choose to do so can seek support without fear that their counselling records will be used to humiliate them in court or, more often, to stop their case progressing in the first place.
The reality is that counselling records contain feelings and not facts. Typically, rape survivors will have feelings of shame and self-blame, and often complex feelings towards the perpetrator. Counsellors and therapists will support survivors to work through these painful feelings and make notes of things that will support their recollection for the next session. They are not collecting evidence for criminal investigations.
Routine access to this material by criminal justice agencies has severe consequences for victims’ mental health and well-being. Some try to stay with the process, while receiving no or limited emotional support, while others drop out altogether because of the intrusion into their private lives. According to recent figures, the proportion of adult rape investigations which ended due to victim attrition was 62%. I think we can all agree that that is far too high. Despite widespread recognition of this problem and the good work carried out by the Government to limit the vast amounts of personal data taken from rape victims, this remains a very big problem.
The Home Office’s own research found that, in case file reviews of rape cases, almost one-third contained a police request for counselling and therapy notes. Where a reason was given for the request, 32% were simply related to establishing a perceived victim reliability or credibility, and did not pertain to the facts of the case.
Rape and sexual abuse are treated with exceptionalism in the criminal investigation process. In no other crime does the victim have their counselling and therapeutic records trawled through and scrutinised with a view to finding any content that may disregard their character. I acknowledge 100% the good work that the Government have taken forward and progressed through Operation Soteria. Stronger legal protections are needed to limit far-reaching requests for these notes which very often contain the most sensitive personal data.
Other jurisdictions have demonstrated that it is possible to do this, while allowing for vital fair trial rights to be duly safeguarded. The state of New South Wales in Australia is a good example. It has an adversarial legal system—very similar to ours—but its notes are afforded far greater protection. This is achieved by ensuring that counselling records are disclosed only when they contain material of substantial probative value and by transferring the decision as to whether this meets the test to a judge. In 20 years, no appeals have been overturned on the basis of counselling and therapy notes.
I propose a similar model because it would strengthen and support the important work led by this Government. It would reinforce the transformative effects undertaken by police and prosecutors through Operation Soteria. It would also save precious police and prosecutor time and resources. They would need to access this material only when they were able to ascertain that there was substantial probative value in it, and not waste time simply trawling through irrelevant records.
We should not miss this opportunity. If the situation does not change, tens of thousands of survivors will have their rights undermined, face further intrusion and be deterred from both therapy and from engaging with criminal investigations. I will leave my noble friend Lady Finn to speak to Amendment 106. I whole- heartedly support Amendment 78. I sincerely hope that the Government will take it on board.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 106 in the name of and on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes. She is sorry not to be here today because of family commitments. This amendment was first debated in the other place. It was proposed by the honourable Stella Creasy based on her own experience as a victim of harassment. This experience is not unique to her. I am grateful—as I know she is too—for the support for this amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, as well as the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton.
In short, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record. Malicious reporting to other organisations—whether social services or an employer as part of a campaign of stalking and harassment—does not carry the same safeguard. As a result, data is retained on individuals who have been targeted maliciously, be it through workplace harassment, stalking or something else. Many victims find that, even if the person targeting them has been convicted, their harassment continues because such records remain. Current data protection rules mean that such records cannot always be deleted. The retention of this data has lasting consequences for all individuals involved.
This proposed new clause seeks to enable the deletion of data where a clear threshold is met to show that the report was the result of malice and that retaining it would continue the harassment. As the testimony of victims has shown, it is not necessary to be an MP to be subject to malicious reporting as part of a deliberate campaign of stalking and harassment. Such reporting, designed to have a serious long-term impact on victims and their families, can occur against anyone doing any kind of public work, in the context of domestic abuse or as anonymous, vexatious harassment.
Public bodies can refuse to delete the data on the grounds that they feel it necessary to retain that data for compliance with a separate legal obligation or for performing a task in the public interest. To overturn this, a person has to demonstrate that the public body’s retention of the malicious data is not necessary for either of these purposes, thereby putting the burden of proof on to the data subject and potentially requiring lengthy court action.
For most people, this is not possible or desirable, leaving them with no legal recourse. This amendment would update the UK general data protection regulation and address these inconsistencies, mirroring the concept of exceptional circumstances under which any deletion would take place. The proposed new clause would give all data controllers guidance on how to manage situations where there are competing obligations—for example, in safeguarding or identifying repeated attacks on an individual via third-party reporting. Unlike the current right to object, this would create an absolute right to request deletion and therefore overrule exemptions that currently apply. This would ensure that public bodies such as local authorities are able to comply with these requests for deletion without risking failing to meet their legal duties. At present, these authorities are very clear that due to existing data protection rules they cannot take this step.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 115 and would certainly have put my name to it had there been any space. I was shocked when I discovered this initially, and remain shocked, that victims are advised to postpone counselling and therapy, which goes against everything that I understand about the importance of counselling and therapy. It is another instance of victims being regarded as a sort of unwarranted hindrance to a prosecution. They are bystanders —somehow they are being too awkward, almost by their existence.
I very much support the amendment. However, I wonder whether the arguments do not extend to some extreme offences other than sexual offences—violence, modern slavery and so on. Since we will not be voting at this stage and, on an amendment like this it would be unusual for the Minister to say, “I agree”, and then sit down, if this amendment comes back at a later stage, perhaps thought could be given to extending it. It could be about not just victims of offences—I am not making the distinction between sexual and other offences—but about victims of acts which, if proved, would be offences. That may be a bit technical at this point.
I also support Amendment 106. There is something very perverse about the data subject being so hampered in the deletion of her or his own data, as if our personality and humanity were somehow lesser than our data presence.
My name is to the first two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which are about independent legal advocates and legal advice. We had a long debate on Monday about the skills that are needed by advocates, and Amendment 78 seems to bring those skills together. An advocate needs a range of skills, which should include legal qualification. I do not know whether it needs to be that of a solicitor— I am a solicitor; a legal executive with experience in this could do it equally well—but it is about the combination of the legal skills and other skills that are needed to work in support of victims. I do not suggest that solicitors would not have those.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to my Amendments 103 and 103A, which the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, has already talked about. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Russell of Liverpool.
These amendments would simply add the Children’s Commissioner as a statutory consultee for the codes of practice alongside the Information Commissioner, the Commissioner for Victims and Witnesses and the domestic abuse commissioner. The Minister might well say that this is covered by the phrase
“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, pointed out proudly earlier in our debates that children are mentioned in the Bill three times; this is an opportunity to add them two more times, making five in all. By simply adding the Children’s Commissioner to the list of names in the Bill, the Government can, with no effort or watering down, show the importance of children as victims. I look forward to the Minister’s answer.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support most of the amendments in this group, which is quite lengthy. One of my key priorities for the Bill is that it delivers greater safeguards to protect the privacy of victims of sexual violence. That is why I am speaking in support of these valuable amendments.
The Government’s rape review was in response to the concern at collapsing charging and prosecution numbers. The review found that most victims did not see a charge or reach court, and one in two victims withdrew from the rape investigations. Privacy concerns led many to withdraw. It had become standard practice for victims who reported to the police to be asked to hand over large quantities of private information. This included digital data from mobile phones, but also what is known as “third-party materials”—personal information about an individual held by organisations.
“Third-party materials” is a seemingly innocuous phrase, but it belies a greater meaning and significance. In reality, it means education records, medical files, social services records or therapy notes. These can all be requested as part of an investigation—an investigation that focuses on the victim, not the accused. I quote one sexual violence survivor:
“I felt anxious, confused and infuriated. I was under far deeper investigation than the rapist (who I have no doubt would have had questionable material had they searched the same). They had refused to take physical evidence—my clothing from the night of the attack—but wanted to investigate my private life. I asked them to justify each request but they could not, so I did not provide it”.
This material often includes documents that the victim may have never seen. These can be introduced at court and used to attack the victim. As one victim told me:
“I had good support for the criminal court. Good preparation. But it made me angry. I was made out to be a liar and it made me feel low. That came as a surprise—it was dreadful. I wasn’t expecting it. Afterwards I was very upset and couldn’t control myself. I started having dreams and flash backs. I was asked about things in my records that I knew nothing about—my past and I didn’t know why”.
In effect, victims are being forced to choose between seeking justice and their right to a private life. That is not a choice; that is an ultimatum. The Government made reassuring noises when they announced an amendment to the Bill over the summer. They promised better protection for rape victims from invasive record requests, but I am concerned that their proposals do not offer the level of protection that we are calling for or that victims need. We need provisions that will offer the protection required. For this reason I am in full support of Amendments 101, 102 and 173, tabled by my noble friend Lady Morgan, which my noble friend Lady Finn eloquently addressed today.
Some noble Lords may recognise these provisions: my predecessor as Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird, secured similar amendments to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. These were designed to protect rape victims from overintrusive and excessive police requests for personal mobile data downloads. This amendment not only provides greater support for victims but provides police with a consistent approach to handling requests for digital material and third-party material. Their job is difficult enough as it is, without lawmakers adding to the complexity of their work by placing two very different processes and criteria side by side.
I am also pleased to support Amendments 78 and 79, which call for free legal representation for victims of rape and sexual assault to ensure that their privacy is also protected. Requests for information are often a clear violation of our human right to privacy—our Article 8 rights, to use the legal jargon. My predecessor argued that there should be a right in law for victims to be given free legal representation where these rights are threatened. I wholeheartedly and absolutely agree. Put simply, a lawyer advises and makes representations on the victims’ behalf, cooling police requests for data and improving victim confidence in proceedings. In their rape review, the Government committed to consider a pilot, and I will push hard to get this up and running.
I also support Amendment 115, which if enacted would enable rape victims to seek therapy to help them cope and recover. I am always concerned when I meet victims of rape who tell me they have declined to seek counselling. They are rightly told that notes from counselling sessions might be disclosed to the court. Worse, they might be disclosed to the defendant: intimate, personal details shared with their abuser. That cannot be right. As a result, many victims will wait until the trial is complete before seeking therapy. This can mean years without support, suffering alone and in torment. Some may take their life. It is no surprise that many withdraw so they can access counselling sooner. That is no good for the victim, no good for justice and no good for society.
Currently, notes are routinely requested and can end up being the subject of cross-examination at court. As one survivor said when appearing on “Newsnight”:
“The defence said ‘Are you truthful?’ and when I said yes, she said—‘Well, you’re not exactly truthful with your husband are you? Would you like me to read your therapy notes out about what you’re currently discussing with your therapist?’ I said no. It was like a physical punch because I wasn’t expecting it. That someone would bring that up in a courtroom, about my current sex life. How, how is that relevant? It was violating—like another trauma”.
That is why I want to see records of therapy and counselling received by victims of sexual violence made subject to a form of privilege that would make them exempt from disclosure. It would not be an absolute privilege: judges could waive it if they considered a substantial value to the notes being disclosed. It is a model that balances the defendant’s right to a fair trial with a victim’s right to access counselling. We know it works. As my noble friend mentioned, it has been in place for many years in Australia, where the criminal justice system is comparable to ours. It is about a fairer model, and that is what the Bill needs to deliver: a level playing field for victims.
I also support Amendment 106. Like many others in this Committee, no doubt, I was appalled to hear that malicious individuals are weaponising legislation designed and put in place to protect vulnerable children. As we have already heard, if an individual makes a malicious complaint about someone to the police, the police can act to remove that record.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support effectively all the amendments in this group, but your Lordships will be relieved to hear that I am not going to speak to all of them. I will speak briefly to Amendments 101 and 102, introduced very ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. The essential point behind these amendments is to try to align this Bill with the clauses in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act that lay down the rules for digital disclosure.
I thought it might be helpful to try to find out what was happening with these new rules and whether they were actually working, so the Victims’ Commissioner’s office put in a request to try and find out. In true and typical form, the Government have not done any evaluation of before and after the Act came into effect specifically in this area.
However, a part of the Project Soteria programme is enacting this new code and some academics are looking at it, so we asked them for their feedback on whether the new code was working in terms of access to private data. They said they had
“seen a move towards better proportionality which they attribute to the Act. They have also seen less threats that investigations will end if the victim does not want to hand over their phone. There is also greater consideration given to alternative means of obtaining digital evidence such as screen shots”,
rather than taking everything off a phone. In conclusion —and this gives kudos to the Government—they said that
“the intentions of parliamentarians to change culture via the legislation do seem to be bearing fruit”,
which is very good news. So, since the evidence shows that it is working, it is not difficult to suggest that what was enacted through that Act should be mirrored exactly in this.
I move to Amendment 106, so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn. This is personal for me. I have known Stella Creasy since before she acquired a family, during the troubles and strife of the years that went by before she was blessed with two children. To have an individual who has never met you decide to use an anonymous profile to make complaints about you on the basis that he does not like some of her views, specifically on misogyny and the behaviour of some men, and say that on that basis you are an unfit mother, is simply staggering. It is also staggering that the police decided to take this seriously; they finally admitted that that was wrong and, in doing so, said that the officer had been spoken to and that it was a time for reflection and some learning. My own view is that he should have been given a complete and utter bollocking and should probably have been asked to leave the service, or at least put on probation. That is wholly unacceptable.
So it is wrong that this can happen in the first place. When it happens, if the police decide to take the complaint seriously, having not investigated it, and pass it on to social services, social services are in a sense obliged to put on your record that an investigation is taking place on the basis of the complaint, regardless of whether it has any merit. Despite the fact that Stella’s persecutor was found to be malicious and sentenced, it remains on the record. Waltham Forest says that it can and will do nothing about getting rid of it. Perversely, it says that it will keep it on the record because she is a safeguarding risk to her children, as people in future might try to cause her harm through them. I fail to understand that logic. I do not know what the barriers to entry are to gain employment in Waltham Forest, but I suggest they might be elevated somewhat if that is the degree of logic applied in a situation such as this.
So I implore the Government to look at this seriously. As the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, said, they should sit down and talk with interested parties to understand how this happened and try to work out how to prevent it in future, or how to develop very clear guidance to enable authorities to which complaints might be made to go through a decision tree, to analyse the veracity and probity of such allegations, thinking very carefully about the implications of actions they might take without having fully thought them through.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will make three brief observations. First, I warmly commend Amendment 115. The law needs to balance very carefully the rights of the defendant and those of the victim. This is an admirable compromise, restricted to professional people, and I hope that it is a good example of the way that Parliament can move the law along to accord with present times.
Secondly, in relation to Amendment 102, consistency is critical. One must remember that the police will have to operate this, and it will be hard work for them as the law is made more and more complicated. Having slight differences between systems makes their life impossible. We need only to look at experience with search warrants and the terrible mess that was made of those to realise why it is essential to have consistency.
The third point relates to Amendment 78. There has been a lot of controversy as to whether victims of rape should have an advocate in court to represent them. As I understand the amendment, it goes nowhere near that; it is merely for advice. It seems to me that an awful lot of the difficulties that occur in rape cases could be solved by the victim having someone who is independent of the prosecution to talk to, because the prosecution cannot go to the extent of the help the victim needs. I am sure that, in the end, this would increase significantly confidence in the criminal justice system. The problem is cost; maybe the Government, with appropriate legislation, should try it in a series of pilots to see how it is best run, rather than rolling out nationwide.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I will make a very brief point, following on from that made by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
There is a group of victims who are particularly vulnerable: those with impairments in mental capacity, who may have difficulty in expressing and explaining what has happened to them and are vulnerable to misinterpretation of anything they say—they are in particular need of advocates who understand their needs.
Many years ago, I was asked by Gwent Police to assist them in a prosecution in relation to people with profound mental incapacity who had been abused and raped. It was very difficult to pull the evidence together, and it was a very steep learning curve to see how difficult it is to let the veracity of what they were trying to tell one be heard and come through. I hope the Government will recognise that there is a group in the population who are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and to sexual abuse by the very nature of having learning difficulties and impairments, and of course that also includes young people with autism—we know how vulnerable they are to influence, and to coercion into a situation that they believe.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, in this group, I will speak only to Amendments 78 and 79, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Hamwee. They call for free independent legal advocates and free independent legal advice for victims of rape, and I support the principle behind them. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that they do not necessarily talk about advocacy in court, although Amendment 78 does talk about free independent legal advocates.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, said that the amendments will not affect our adversarial system; nor will they affect it adversely. However, I hope that they will, if adopted, have an effect by ensuring that the interests and voices of victims are considered and heard throughout the criminal justice system, and—certainly for the purposes of these amendments—more comprehensively in rape cases, and that will be wholly beneficial.
These amendments lie at the heart of what this Bill is all about, which is to bring about a transformation in the way we look after the victims of crime. We have moved, but far too slowly. When I practised in the criminal courts a long time ago now—and this is not intended to be an exercise in reminiscence—as both prosecutor and defender, we were almost encouraged to take pride in the structure of criminal cases as a contest between the state—the Crown—represented by the prosecution’s lawyers, and the defendant, represented by independent barristers and solicitors, generally paid for by the state. The adversarial system was all. The victim, usually called the complainant—or in financial cases, the loser—was universally treated as no more than a witness, liable to be harshly cross-examined almost without restriction, and deserving of no extra consideration on account of the ordeal suffered as a result of the crime.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for so admirably speaking to Amendments 78 and 79—I will not cover them again—and to all noble Lords who have spoken. I want to focus my contribution initially on Amendment 106, which I have also signed. I have talked to Stella Creasy both about her own experience and about mine.
I had two incidents with my stalker-harasser. The first was at the beginning of the 2005 election, when, coming out of a Sky studio, I was told that my local newspaper wanted to speak to me about the fact that I was under investigation by Special Branch for electoral fraud—which was the first I had heard of it. It transpired that the person who was then identified as my stalker had reported me to Special Branch for falsifying my nomination papers and had then issued a press release for the weekly deadline of my local newspaper—which rather left me in a difficult position to discuss it.
A few hours later, my agent and I sat with two officers from Special Branch, who were extremely helpful. They were clearly more senior than the police officer that Stella encountered, because they were very clear that this was malicious. Worse than that, it was an intent to waste police time and money on an investigation that had no cause. They had briefly examined the allegation about why my nomination papers were false and deemed that this was malicious too. As a result, the whole problem went away, other than a severe talking-to to the person who had made the complaint.
Three years on—I think I mentioned this in one of the earlier sessions—one of the letters to the newspapers about me alleged that I was not fulfilling my role as a foster parent correctly by being a candidate. They had also reported me to social services. At that point, it became extremely helpful for the social worker, whom we knew quite well, to be able to ring Special Branch and say, “There is a malicious campaign going on,” and the whole thing just stopped. Is that not what should happen in every single case where it is clearly malicious?
I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about Waltham Forest. It seems to me that they have lost sight of the actual case here. While it is important that both Stella Creasy and her children are appropriately protected, to do so following a malicious complaint in the terms of that complaint seems to me to be completely and utterly wrong.
From these Benches, we support all the other amendments that have been laid, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for introducing amendments on third-party materials and therapy and counselling data. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for her Amendments 78 and 79. As my noble friend Lord Marks outlined, this is absolutely at the heart of giving victims justice during a process and after a process. They are, perhaps, very detailed amendments— I am very aware of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, about the police needing a balance, but there is a way through that. At the moment, the balance is entirely against the rights of the victim, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond in a positive way.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, with this group of amendments we arrive at a particularly sensitive and emotive set of issues, as noble Lords have so movingly described. I shall do my best to provide responses to each of the amendments in as constructive and informative a way as I can.
I start by addressing Amendment 101, in the name of my noble friend Lady Morgan and spoken to by my noble friend Lady Bertin. The amendment seeks to revise the Government’s new Clauses 44A to 44F, which place a duty on authorised persons, including the police, to request victim information only when it is necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a reasonable line of enquiry. It would instead require agreement before the police could request victim information.
To pick up a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, when we were developing this legislation we wanted to consider very carefully the desirability of aligning the provisions around requests for victim information and the extraction of information from digital devices. Where possible, we have ensured consistency between those provisions.
The new victim information clauses in this Bill do not grant new powers to authorised persons; instead, they place safeguards around requests for third-party material. This is unlike the powers governing the extraction of material from devices in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, which give new statutory powers to authorised persons to request a device and extract information from it on the basis of agreement.
My noble friend’s amendment is based on the principle of victim agreement, but there is a key point we need to remember here. Unlike the information contained on a personal device, the victim does not own the material held by a third party, and therefore cannot agree to its disclosure. That does not mean that the victim’s views are immaterial, and I will come on to that, but the decision to release this information instead lies with the third party. The third party, of course, must be able to fulfil their own obligations under the Data Protection Act 2018, which governs the processing of personal data by competent authorities.
When considering digital information, it is likely that information held on a device could be accessible via other sources: that is, messages between a victim and suspect could be accessible from the suspect’s device. That is unlikely to be the case for third-party material. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to mandate that a victim agree to a request before the third party can disclose the material, because that may prevent the police accessing vital information relevant to the case.
Furthermore, a suspect’s right to a fair trial is already enshrined in law as part of the Human Rights Act 1998, which new measures must not contravene. This amendment could prevent authorised persons accessing information they need to support a reasonable line of inquiry, whether it points towards or away from a suspect. Investigators should always work to balance the public interest in obtaining the material against the consequential impact on the victim’s privacy.
Of course we recognise that it is best practice for investigators to work with and consult victims, so that their views and objections can be sought and recorded. That is why we have supported police in doing so in the draft statutory code of practice that we have published alongside the Bill.
Amendment 106 seeks to revise current data protection legislation, so that victims of malicious complaints involving third parties can prevent the processing, and subsequently request the deletion, of personal data gathered during a safeguarding investigation where the complaint was not upheld.
It is of course right that people are able to flag genuinely held concerns about children whom they believe to be vulnerable. It is also right that social services fulfil their duty to treat each safeguarding case seriously and to make inquiries if they believe a child has suffered or is likely to suffer harm. However, equally, malicious reporting and false claims made to children’s social care are completely unacceptable. They not only cause harm and distress to those subject to the false claims but divert crucial time and resources from front-line services and their ability to undertake investigations into cases where there are genuine safe- guarding concerns.
Current data protection legislation sets out that data controllers must respond to any request from a data subject, including requests for erasure, and then must consider the full circumstances of a request—including the context in which the data was provided—before refusing. Where a data subject is dissatisfied with the response to their request, the current rights of appeal allow a data subject to contest a refusal and, ultimately, raise a complaint with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
I assure my noble friend that, as part of its decision-making process, the ICO will take into consideration circumstances where a malicious claim has been made that may or may not amount to criminal conduct. Where a complaint to the ICO is upheld, the ICO can tell the organisation to assist with resolving the complaint, such as providing information or correcting any inaccuracies. The ICO can make recommendations to the organisation about how it can improve its information rights practices, and can take regulatory action in the most serious cases.
I hope that the process I have set out reassures my noble friend, and the Committee, that the current data protection legislation provides adequate protection. Therefore, in our view, additional provision is not needed.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
Can the noble Earl clarify that he is saying that it is up to the victim to take the action?
Earl Howe (Con)
The law is there to enable them to do that. However, where they have an advocate, that person can act on their behalf. I recognise what the noble Baroness is implying in that question. All this is an extremely stressful and traumatic process for the individual involved.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
May I pick up on the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton? The whole problem in this group is about the onus that is continually placed on the victim. It would be really helpful for the victim and those supporting them if there were an ability to short-cut some of that access. It would be enormously helpful if the Minister could go back and perhaps seek advice from the ICO about whether there are exceptional circumstances like that, because it is such a burden.
Earl Howe (Con)
I will be very happy to do that because I fully recognise the seriousness of the issue, and in particular the appalling events that Stella Creasy had to endure.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
The noble Earl has laid out, in his usual exemplary way, the way that the system is meant to work and the way it is designed. I suggest that the acid test would be to go to the officials concerned in Waltham Forest and ask them to describe, without leading the witness, exactly how they see what the noble Earl has just described—how they understand it—and how they therefore see what they can and should do. I suspect the results would be some distance away from what the noble Earl has just described, and therein lies the problem. It is fine to have a system, a process and a code that are meant to work, but if they are not working, which they clearly were not in this case, to put the onus on the individual victim to try to rectify that does not seem like justice, and neither does it seem sensible or proportionate.
Earl Howe
I have heard the strength of feeling on this, and I will be more than happy to take the issues raised back to my colleagues and officials in the department. I will be happy to write to noble Lords about this, and I would also be happy to arrange for my noble friend and interested Peers to meet me, or my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, to discuss the issues that have arisen.
I turn to Amendment 103, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. We recognise the importance of ensuring that the distinct needs and experiences of children are reflected in the code of practice that the noble Lord mentions, and that is why we have included specific guidance in the draft code for handling victim information requests for children. I agree with the noble Lord that it is essential to make sure that the final code reflects best practice in this area, and that is why my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy has instructed officials to review the list of statutory consultees for this code of practice.
I turn next to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, which seek to require the development of proposals for schemes to give victims of rape access to free independent legal advice and representation. I agree that it is extremely important that victims are confident in their rights and are aware of those rights, particularly when preparing for trial and when requests for their personal information are made; I found much that I could agree with much of the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Marks.
We wanted to ensure that our understanding of this issue is as comprehensive as possible and, to that end, the Government asked the Law Commission to consider the merits of independent legal advice for victims as part of its comprehensive review into the use of evidence in sexual offence prosecutions. The consultation closed in September last year, and we expect the final report to be delivered in the autumn of this year. To avoid making changes at this stage that could pre-empt the outcome of the Law Commission’s review, and to ensure that we are considering all the evidence as a whole, we will consider the Law Commission’s report and respond in due course. There is no reason why the tenor of this debate should not form part of the Government’s deliberations once we have the Law Commission’s report in our hands.
Perhaps I could add something around the therapeutic support issue. Victims of rape should not be told that they cannot access the therapeutic support that they need to heal from the trauma that they have endured. The Crown Prosecution Service pre-trial therapy guidance is absolutely clear that therapy should not be delayed for any reason connected with a criminal investigation or prosecution. The guidance sets out clearly that it is for the victim to make decisions about therapy with their therapist and that criminal justice practitioners should play no role in the decision-making process.
In the rape review action plan, we recognised that victims of rape frequently experience intrusive requests for personal information. To improve that situation, we have taken a number of actions, including legislating through the Bill to introduce a statutory code for the police to ensure that requests for victim information are made only when necessary, proportionate and relevant to a reasonable line of inquiry. The police must also provide full information to the victim on what information has been requested, why it has been requested and how it will be used. A draft code of practice has been published. When it is finalised, it will be statutory, and police will have a duty to have regard to the code when making requests. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I ask whether the code will, in fact, introduce what the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, called a privilege against requests made for records of therapeutic interventions. That is one of the problems: therapy is deterred by the fear of a future request for notes to be disclosed. That is a very serious issue.
Earl Howe (Con)
I recognise the seriousness of the issue. I have no advice in my brief on that, but I will be happy to write to the noble Lord on that point.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, it is exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said. He put it so succinctly, more so than I did—I would go on, because I am so passionate about this.
I have admiration for the noble Earl. What worries me in all this legislation is that it is so simple to say, but when it is enacted on a traumatised rape victim, it is not as simple as joining the dots. I am up for having further conversations, but this is for the professionals. While we can stand here and say this, I am still going through the criminal justice system, and believe you me: I could write another book on how it does not do a service to victims—and I am in the position that I am in, as is the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; it does not follow.
For rape victims, it is really hard-hitting when they are going to a SARC centre to be forensically examined, and they are talking to individual people. While we want to have trust and faith in our police officers, the police are so not like what we will have in statutory guidance. Also, what do we class as reasonable? Everybody within our criminal justice system has a different definition. It should not be for the victim to think, “What is reasonable?”, when they just want to do what is best.
I really want this to work, but I wish we could be cautious and understand that the people we are talking about are traumatised. They may have been raped not once or twice: it could have been in their home. Everything is intrusive, and it is down to the victim to have a voice to go forward. I wish we could get that in the guidance and the legislation, because it is their lives that we are speaking about and it is their lives that we need to put back on a level playing field.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I will also come in on this. I have huge respect for the noble Earl, and I have huge respect for the police, but I am afraid I cannot accept the idea that all 43 police forces and all chief constables will look at, understand and know the code of conduct, and that this will somehow be better than a judge saying that something is right or wrong when it comes to releasing therapeutic records. I would certainly like to meet him and others about this, ahead of Report.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am the first to agree that a code of practice takes us only a certain distance. We also need to ensure that there is proper training for police and others. We had a short debate about this earlier in the week, and I hope I gave some useful information to noble Lords on that front. I am, of course, very happy to speak to my noble friends about this—as I am sure my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy will be, once he gets better. It is not a simple matter, and I did not intend to suggest that it is.
On the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Bertin, as I have already said, it is vital that victims of crime can access the justice system and get the support they need without fear that their privacy will be violated. I am aware of concerns that deeply private information about victims, including notes from counselling sessions, have sometimes been used inappropriately to discredit victims—in particular, victims of rape and serious sexual offences—seeking justice through the criminal justice system. This can, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, pointed out a minute ago, prevent victims from accessing the support they need in the first instance. That should not be the case, and I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the topic through the amendment.
My noble friend’s amendment seeks to put in place a judicial barrier for disclosure of counselling records and, with some exceptions, to create a requirement for the court not to grant access to this material where the disclosure was made in confidence by the victim to a person providing support services in a professional capacity.
Through the Bill, we are placing a new statutory duty on the police, as I have said, to request victims’ information from a third party only where necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a reasonable line of inquiry. Police must also provide information to the victim on what information has been requested, why, and how it will be used.
As I have outlined, the Government have asked the Law Commission to examine the trial process in sexual offence prosecutions and consider the law, guidance and practice relating to the use of evidence. This review will include consideration of whether a court direction should be required before accessing third-party material such as counselling records, and consideration of international examples where this system is in place.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving way. I have not spoken in this group so far, because I agreed with everything said by the proposers and did not want to take up the Committee’s time, but, in the light of what I have just heard—in general, but also specifically about counselling notes— I feel moved to. A general obligation on necessity and proportionality is not going to cut it, I am afraid, because counselling and therapeutic notes are special. Just as legal advice is special, and subject to special protection in the courtroom, there is no reason why we cannot act to make such notes special too.
I appreciate that the noble Earl is heroically stepping into another’s brief, no doubt at short notice, but I think that it is for the department to reflect on the quality of thinking so far. Waiting for the Law Commission will take too long. There are already too many women who have not come forward to report their rapes because of the well-publicised problem with counselling notes. They are being counselled by public authorities to choose between counselling or taking their criminal case forward—this is totally unacceptable.
My goodness, the irony of relying on general principles in the Human Rights Act is perhaps the richest I have heard in a long time, given some of the positions that senior members of the Government are taking on that Act and the ECHR. I hope the noble Earl will reflect on these answers or urge others responsible to reflect.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, having tasked the Law Commission, as we have, with preparing a full-scale set of recommendations in this area, it would be unthinkable for us to pre-empt its report. I am afraid I must disagree with the noble Baroness. I realise how emotive and stressful an area this is for anyone who is intimately involved in it day to day, but that is how we have to proceed.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
I want to make a technical point about the Law Commission review, which I have full respect for. As I understand it, the commission will not be looking into pre-charge situations, so the amendment would still stand as that subject is not being tackled by the Law Commission. I reiterate that I just do not buy the idea that police officers all around the country are necessarily going to have the right training to enact the responsibilities that we are putting on them. We really will be pursuing this, I am afraid.
Earl Howe (Con)
I hear what my noble friend has said. I was able to give what I hoped was helpful information in our debate on Monday about police training, but it is by no means an overnight process, as I am the first to acknowledge. Still, work is under way, and it is surely an important ingredient in the mix.
We think that the Law Commission is best placed to conduct a holistic review of the existing system and to make recommendations for improvement where necessary, and the Government are most reluctant to make changes at this stage that could pre-empt the outcome of its review. However, we can all look forward to closely reviewing and responding to its findings and recommendations when they are published later in the year.
Before I turn to Amendment 173, I shall address the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, about victims with limited mental capacity. There are general points in the code about enhanced rights if the victim’s quality of evidence is likely to be affected because of a mental disorder. They may be supported by a registered intermediary if a mental disorder affects their ability to communicate. Some communications under the code might be done with a nominated family spokesperson if the victim’s mental impairment means that they are unable to communicate or lack the capacity to do so.
The Law Commission is looking at the impact of rape myths on people with disabilities or mental health conditions and how the current legislation and practice of the use of intermediaries is working in respect of complainants in sexual offence cases with disabilities and disorders.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for that response to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. I did a report on registered intermediaries. Again, I mean no disrespect to the Minister, because this is a very passionate area that we are speaking about, but we have a shortage of registered intermediaries, and they are the ones who train the police to get the best evidence.
I am concerned about people with autism or special needs, and even victims who have nothing apart from their trauma. My concern is that there is a shortage of registered intermediaries, and the reason is that they were not getting paid to do the job. I ask the Minister to write to me to see where we are on that position. While he has given a copy-and-paste response, in a sense, it does not help to fix the problem for people with special needs.
I have met a couple of victims of rape who were disabled. They thought they were raped because they were disabled, but it has never left me that when they went through the court trial they found that those people were on the web and looking at disabled people. It was not because that victim was disabled. So I am concerned. The Minister does not have to answer now, but I ask him to write to me about where we are on registered intermediaries after that report six or seven years ago.
Earl Howe (Con)
I would be happy to write to my noble friend.
Amendment 173 seeks to extend Clause 24 to the whole of the UK. At the moment these measures apply to England and Wales, on the basis that policing is a devolved matter. This aligns with the territorial extent of the majority of measures within the Bill. We have also taken the decision to limit the scope to England and Wales as, following engagement with the devolved Governments, it is clear that there is no appetite at present for these provisions to extend further.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I assume the noble Earl is asking me to withdraw my amendment.
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. The noble Earl will be able to report with some veracity to his noble friend, who we hope will be back with us next week, that there is a complete degree of unity across the Committee about the need for action on all these amendments.
I thank the noble Earl for the fact that there has been some movement; I think that at least two meetings will flow from this group of amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, in place of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for her introduction and the suggestion that we should meet to discuss Amendment 106 and take that discussion forward together.
On Amendment 106, we have talked about my honourable friend Stella Creasy, who I have known since she was about 16 or 17 years old, but the briefing we got told us of many other examples of people who had been harassed. As one anonymous case said:
“Out of the blue Z received a call from their local police sharing details of a complaint made about the treatment of her children. The anonymously submitted complaint made a series of false claims accusing Z of neglect and abuse ranging from failing to feed or clothe their children correctly or take them to the dentist and GP. Social services were able to confirm that Z’s children attended school, the dentist and were registered with their local GP. Despite a lengthy investigation Z is no further in understanding who made this complaint, and their children’s record remains”.
She feels wretched about that fact. Of course, that carries forward to what happens to those children. Every time that mother has to fill in a form or a job application in public services of some sort, the fact that the report exists on the record is material.
Many noble Lords hold positions. I am a non-executive director of the Whittington Hospital and have had to go through the usual CRB checks to hold that position. If this was me, I would have to have declared that. That is what happened to Stella Creasy and all these other women who have been harassed and about whom vexatious complaints have been made. It is not just that this is unfair and a continuation of harassment; it has a material effect on those people and their children. We need to find a remedy for this issue.
I turn to the other amendments. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for her introduction and for the way in which she talked to her amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, made her usual powerful and informed contribution. The words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, were very wise. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, champions some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, was perfectly correct in saying that the effects of Amendments 78 and 79 in my name would be only beneficial, not just for the victims of rape but for all the authorities and for their conduct in dealing with these victims.
The question is: can we wait another couple of years for the Law Commission to report and for the Government to consider it and take it forward? I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, had to say. This issue may not fall within the scope of what the Law Commission is considering. We all need to know that, so that the discussions we might have with the Minister can be resolved in a spirit of information. I praise the noble Earl who has had to stand in for dealing with all these issues in his normal informed and courteous manner.
Finally, Amendment 115 on not delaying therapy is vital. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti said, the idea that you have to choose between therapy and justice is so abhorrent that we cannot wait another couple of years to be able to sort that out.
I thank the noble Earl. I look forward to the meetings and conversations we will have between now and Report, when I suspect we will return to many of these issues. I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti
“Parental alienation in criminal domestic abuse casesIn section 1 of the Children Act 1989, after subsection (7) insert—“(8) Anyone involved in the case who is also a victim (of criminal conduct) within section 1 of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (meaning of “victim”) cannot be considered by the family court as a potential perpetrator of parental alienation.””Member’s explanatory statement
This clause would seek to ensure that victims under this Bill could not be disadvantaged by considerations of parental alienation in the family court.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I have recovered my calm and my optimism that we may get some more positive noises from the Government in the next group.
This large group could easily have been degrouped because it covers two fairly distinct areas. This is a very long Bill with a lot of amendments, so maybe keeping this as one group was an attempt to assist the business managers. I hope that the Committee will bear with me in separating the two principal issues covered by this long list of amendments.
Amendments 84 to 100 are about what is called Jade’s law. There are other concerns about the family court and the way in which its process has been and is being used abusively against victims within the definition in the current Bill. Amendments 82, 110, 111 and 117 refer to this.
I turn first to Jade’s law. The Committee will remember that last October the Government amended this Bill in the other place to include new Clause 16. This is what is being called Jade’s law. The intention is to ensure that a parent who kills a partner or an ex-partner with whom they have children will automatically have their parental responsibility suspended upon sentencing. The purpose is not to burden family members already in a state of some trauma with having to apply subsequently to the family court of their own volition to ask for the parental rights of the killer to be removed. Parental rights could be suspended as part of the sentencing process to take away that additional procedural burden. It is often bereaved grandparents and close family members who are in that devastating situation.
Jade’s law is named for Jade Ward, who was murdered by her former partner in 2021, with her four children sleeping in another room. Jade’s family campaigned for a change in the law after Jade’s murderer was able to continue to take part in decisions relating to the children. There are other case studies too.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to sign all the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in this group. I will not go through the detail of them, but I want to make a couple of comments about Jade’s law and parental alienation to set in context why all the amendments are necessary. They certainly try to remedy the poor behaviour of ex-partners especially, but not only those, who are offenders through the criminal courts system. As we have heard through the passage of the Bill, we are talking about the most manipulative and vindictive people, who will continue to do everything they can to persecute their ex-partner or, I am afraid, sometimes their current partner.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to the report from the Ministry of Justice’s harm panel published in 2020. It found evidence that through the family court system abusers were exercising
“continued control through repeat litigation and the threat of repeat litigation”.
Its recommendations outline comprehensive changes to the system to stop this happening using a whole series of mechanisms.
Among other things, the panel recommended that the basic design principles for private law children’s proceedings should be set out in the way it described and which I will not go into. Much more importantly, it seems to be safety focused and trauma aware. The problem with the offenders we are talking about is that those children are already traumatised.
Although the report was principally about children, it talks about parents in private law cases as well. One problem faced in family courts is the increasing number of litigants in person. It is not even a counsel representing one of the parents; it is the estranged partner, who may have a criminal record for their behaviour, cross-examining their ex and other witnesses. That is just not appropriate. I know the law has changed on that, but that is the context in which the report was written.
The Minister referred in a previous group to the importance of training, and indeed we have had amendments on that. Recommendation 11.11 by the harm panel echoed amendments that your Lordships’ House has seen in recent years, on training in the family justice system to cover a
“cultural change programme to introduce and embed reforms”.
It then goes through a whole string of items which I will not mention, but it specifically mentions the problems of parental alienation.
Prior to that report, it was very difficult to get the family courts even to accept that there was such a thing as parental alienation—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has nodded at me. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 certainly made some improvements, but unfortunately the reason for these amendments is that there are too many holes in the current system that mean that victims going through private family law proceedings can be inappropriately assessed by experts, with some inappropriately concluding that victims’ allegations, including those made by children, are evidence that the victim parent is “alienating” the other.
The victim parent often cannot get the family court to consider the previous criminal behaviour of their former partner or even a caution—I suppose that technically counts as criminal. The point is that—and we have debated this a lot in your Lordships’ House—the family court rightly prides itself on being a stand-alone court system, but in this instance the behaviour that was found through the criminal system is now replicated in the family court system; it is not everywhere but it happens. Family courts need to recognise that and take it into account.
There is recognition now of what is called the “parental alienation trap” in academic research both here and in America. Basically, it means that victims are accused of alienation. Not only does that compound the trauma from the abuse but that trauma is then used as evidence that the mother or child—and it usually is a mother—is disordered and therefore an alienator. That is a trap that you cannot get out of in a court, because whatever you do is wrong.
A further problem is that some parents who are calling their former partners disordered can now get specialist advisers who believe in parental alienation. One bit of evidence from the Victims’ Commissioner for London was a quote from a victim of the family courts:
“The therapist recommended a 90 day plan for my son to spend time with his Dad with no contact with me. She wrote in her report that there was a need to ‘sever the bond between mother and child’. The ‘experts’ then had free rein granted by the judge to force me and my son through privately paid therapy every week at £150 per hour. The therapists and social worker told me if I didn’t, they wouldn’t give me my son back. They wanted to take him away at the end of 90 days and give full custody to my ex but my ex refused as he said ‘I had learnt my lesson and he had a life and didn’t want my son all the time’. I was one of the lucky ones. I had to fight this case for over 2.5 years and it cost me a total of just under £900,000”.
People who have access to resources are using their money to manipulate the family court system even more.
It is also extraordinary that it is possible for those on bail or awaiting trial for domestic or child sexual abuse offences to have unsupervised contact with their children. Amendment 111 would prevent this. For similar reasons, victims of domestic abuse need protecting from disclosure of their personal and private medical records, as we discussed in the previous group. I will not repeat the arguments, but they are as strong here, particularly where the litigant in person will see those details in all their glory.
While we welcome the Government’s amendment to Clause 16 in the Commons to take account of Jade’s law, it does not go far enough to protect children, particularly children who have been abused by a parent—unbelievably, they retain the right to parental responsibility above the safeguarding of a child. Amendments 84 to 100 on Jade’s law also cover the issue that happened with Jane Clough, who was murdered by her ex-partner. I had the privilege through the stalking law inquiry in 2011-12 to meet Jane’s parents, John and Penny Clough. Ever since their daughter’s murder, they have campaigned tirelessly for legislation to protect victims and their children from their violent and murdering partners and ex-partners.
It is really important that these lacunae in the family court system are closed. We need to make sure that children, whom the family courts stand there to protect, are the absolute priority and that every bit of evidence from the criminal court system or other systems, through repeated litigation through the family courts, is taken into account.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support all these amendments. As Victims’ Commissioner, I have been in contact with many victims who have experienced criminal offending and are going through the family courts. I have raised concerns about how, as I hear from victims of domestic abuse in particular, the family courts can be a highly traumatising environment. Anecdotally, from someone who has worked in family law, I hear that you have only to go into the family courts to see how private they are. You cannot even walk freely. The barristers take over and you go before the judges. It is very clinical at an emotional time.
I was pleased when this was acknowledged by the Government, which resulted in the harms panel report, as has been discussed. I was also pleased that the Government legislated through the Domestic Abuse Act, in which I was heavily involved, to prevent perpetrators of domestic abuse cross-examining their victim in family court proceedings. However, we still have issues within the family courts for victims of abuse. As has been said, parental alienation has been increasingly argued in the family courts and even on social media when you speak out about it. It is interesting that we are talking about it in this Chamber to protect those victims. I am aware of cases where it has been used by an abuser to discredit their victim in child custody hearings. I was also shocked to discover that so-called experts in these cases are not always qualified or regulated to provide such opinions, and yet weight is frequently given to the evidence in court.
As we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, abusers will often try to paint the abused parent as unfit in other ways, sometimes relying on medical records which detail evidence of the mental effects of trauma that they have caused. In fact, I would like to see that put down to coercive control by the abuser, rather than the victim having problems. We have to back up these claims for mental instability. It cannot be right that an abuser can go into a family court and use it as a tool of abuse. Therefore, I am wholly supportive of the measures to reduce the opportunity for an abuser to make false claims about their victim, and which seek to ensure that only qualified experts give evidence which is considered by the family courts making these difficult decisions.
I urge the Government to support Amendments 110 and 117. Although it is relatively rare, thankfully, we know that children die at the hands of an abusive parent during unsupervised contact, where abuse is a factor in the marriage breakdown. Research conducted by Women’s Aid considered the deaths of 19 children in such circumstances in a 10-year period—even one such death is too many and no children should be at risk in this way.
I urge the Government to support Amendment 111, which seeks to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent awaiting trial, or on bail for domestic abuse, sexual violence or child abuse-related offences. The Government first proposed legislating to create Jade’s law after campaigning by the family of Jade Ward, who was killed by her former partner. This law seeks to, in effect, remove the parental rights of someone who kills their child’s other parent—a move I welcome. However, it does raise concerns about what it means for women who kill an abusive partner. Are we really saying that they should automatically lose their parental rights, as well as being imprisoned? I am in favour of measures which seek to mitigate the effect of Jade’s law in such circumstances being included in legislation. I therefore ask the Government to support Amendment 89.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation, but also with an open mind because I want some clarity on one or two of the amendments. In general, the group of amendments we are discussing seem eminently sensible in terms of safe- guarding, but I seek some clarification. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, can give me some help, because her explanation was very well made, detailed and useful, and explained the two different groups.
My concern is specifically with Amendment 82, which says, in effect, that anyone who is a victim of criminal conduct within Section 1
“cannot be considered by the family court as a potential perpetrator of parental alienation”.
It seems an extraordinary thing to put into law. To say that somebody can never be considered by the family court to be a potential perpetrator of anything would seem to go against the spirit of open inquiry; for example, the possibility that even if one is a victim, one might well indulge in something unsavoury.
In the previous group, we heard a huge amount about the damage that can be caused by false allegations. We must always consider the possibility that false allegations are used to alienate one parent against another; this has become known as “parental alienation”. I am rather sympathetic to the concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about medicalisation —I particularly do not like quack medicalisation—and I am glad to hear that many noble Lords are worried about the fact that so many people who call themselves experts are not necessarily experts, which is something I have been arguing for quite some time across a range of issues, so all that is good.
None the less, Amendment 82 uses the term “parental alienation”, and I want to know how this amendment will help, because if anyone is using, for example, falsifications that are aimed at removing one parent from a child’s life, even if that parent was previously guilty of a crime, we have to be careful, do we not?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Yes, I said the other day in speaking to my amendments, I hope everyone accepts, that more women are the victims of domestic violence, but it is also the case that it can work both ways. I would like each allegation to be carefully examined by the courts; that is all. It needs to be that way, because we should have the aspiration that both parents should work to restructure the family in a healthy manner after separation, even after the massive disruption of domestic abuse. In the spirit of saying that I want people who commit certain crimes to become rehabilitated and to become responsible citizens, I do not want something that is so blanket as Amendment 82.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
The argument that the noble Baroness is expanding on now would be a case where a couple had separated and there may have been some domestic abuse or domestic violence. She is saying that they should both have the opportunity to try and get together and work things out together for the sake of the children. I do not believe there is anybody in your Lordships’ House who would disagree with that sentiment, but that is not what this amendment is trying to do. It is saying that, when the charge of parental alienation is used, it is almost demonstrating—simply by using the terminology and everything that goes with it—that the battle by one party still continues against the victim. Therein lies the problem. The noble Baroness’s latter principle is absolutely fine, but that is not the way that the people who bring forward claims of parental alienation behave in the court system.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My only final point is to say that the term “parental alienation” has become problematic on both sides. It seems to me that one side can use the term “parental alienation” in the way that has been described—I have made the point that the term is used in the amendment—and another side can basically say that anyone who uses the term “parental alienation” does not understand the problems of victims of domestic violence, which is usually the accusation, as is that they are on the side of men’s rights campaigners. I am not saying any of that. I want some clarification on one amendment only of this very big group, because it is unhelpful to put it in the law.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I will briefly respond to the noble Baroness. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for her constructive engagement and for everything she has said. I will respond on that specific amendment. I understand where she is coming from.
Perhaps I did not put it very well, but what I was trying to articulate before is that I fully accept, as a fact of life, that marital breakdown will, sadly, sometimes —maybe even often—create a rancour that can be passed on to the children. The children can be caught in the middle, and they may feel that they are pulled in two directions, or perhaps in one direction more than the other; it does not matter. That is a fact of life. It is a matter of evidence and fact that is not, in my view, a matter for medical experts, but a matter for the judge to deal with and cope with—I think the noble Baroness is slightly sympathetic to that point.
In many cases, it will be about encouraging the parties, whatever their pain, to reflect on their actions in the interests of the child. However, it does not require the kinds of sums of money and the sorts of diagnoses that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was talking about. It has to be said again that we are often talking about some very wealthy men; it need not be, but it is usually men. These are some very wealthy individuals who pay some very expensive, slightly dodgy—and if the noble Lord, Lord Russell, can use the “B” word, I can use “dodgy”—experts, whose expertise I would query, but whose greed I would not.
I can always reflect on drafting; that is what Committee is about. Here, when we talk about being
“considered … as a potential perpetrator of parental alienation”—
as opposed to simply saying bad things to their kids about the other party—we are talking about this syndrome. That is what I was trying to reflect. As for the fact that they should not be diagnosed or considered for diagnosis for 90 days for this syndrome, frankly, if they are a victim of abuse, it is almost inevitable that they are going to have some rancour or anger towards the other partner, unless they are a saint. Judges are well capable of considering that and working out what to do on the facts.
It is really about attempting to separate facts from expert evidence. These are hard facts that judges can deal with, with other court reports. This so-called “alienation expertise”, that some of us believe has become a bit of a racket, is being weaponised against victims. If there is something in the clarity of the drafting that can be improved, that is the great benefit of Committee, but I am trying to respond with the intention behind my amendment. I am very grateful for the opportunity to do that, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, having started to grow old in the family courts, I feel that I ought to address some of these amendments, some of which I would like to support and some of which I would like to qualify.
I begin by clearing up one particular point, which was possibly a slip by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. There is no question now of unrepresented litigants being allowed to cross-examine mothers, particularly in contested cases involving domestic abuse allegations. It simply is not tolerated. No judge would tolerate it and we all know how to deal with it when it arises.
Turning to the individual amendments, as quickly as I can, and dealing first with Amendment 82 relating to parental alienation, I am worried by the proposal to restrict the family court’s approach to cases involving allegations of so-called parental alienation by what would amount to a statutory exclusion of evidence. There are two main grounds for concern that I suggest. First, the amendment would restrict the scope of what the court might want or need to consider. Secondly, and ironically, it might tend to elevate the significance of the concept of parental alienation. Allegations of alienation, whether justified or not, have become part of the weaponry of high-conflict parental disputes. The concept of parental alienation is controversial, and, indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, the idea that there is a syndrome is largely discredited. That in itself may be one reason why it should not find its way, in any way, into a statute.
I was not going to refer to what was recently said by the President of the Family Division, but in view of what I have heard, I will say that in an important recent decision, in 2023, the President of the Family Division said:
“Family judges have, for some time, regarded the label of ‘parental alienation’, and the suggestion that there may be a diagnosable syndrome of that name, as being unhelpful. What is important, as with domestic abuse, is the particular behaviour that is found to have taken place within the individual family before the court, and the impact that that behaviour may have had on the relationship of a child with either or both of his/her parents. In this regard, the identification of ‘alienating behaviour’ should be the court's focus, rather than any quest to determine whether the label ‘parental alienation’ can be applied”.
It is often said that the family court has to take a holistic view of the child’s welfare. It has to look not only at what happened in the past but at what might be possible in the future. Cases of this type have a particular complexity. The signs of parental alienation are, frankly, not difficult to identify. In my experience, Cafcass is well equipped to do that. The causes are more difficult to understand. Cases in which one parent tries to turn the child against the other parent, consciously or unconsciously seeking to punish the other parent, present differing degrees of alienation and varying motivations.
These cases are not easy to resolve. They require an understanding of the family dynamics, and an assessment of the impact of what has happened and of the harm to the child concerned. The evidential picture is not always clear-cut. Indeed, there are some cases in which there may quite well have been some level of domestic abuse by one parent, but the alleged parental alienation is wholly unrelated to it; or the persistent hostility revealed is quite out of proportion to the type of abuse that has been experienced. The Children Act and the practice direction governing cases in which abuse has been established fundamentally require the court’s assessment of harm, or risk of harm, from all sources. Those are the vital considerations.
Amendment 82 would insert the label “parental alienation” into primary legislation. It could artificially restrict—and, indeed, distort—the proper analysis of parental behaviour and attitudes in their context, and could restrict the careful handling that such cases sometimes require. I doubt that would be helpful. Indeed, it could well be unhelpful.
I turn now to Amendment 84 and others that wish to introduce the use of Section 91(14) orders. For the uninitiated, Section 91(14) orders restrict further applications to the court without leave of the court. It is a valuable power. Although Section 91(14) orders are not strictly speaking barring orders, as sometimes described, they provide a necessary protective filter to ensure that inappropriate applications will not be allowed to proceed.
In reality, a Section 91(14) order may or may not be necessary in any individual case of this type—that is to say, a case involving the application of Jade’s law. However, in these extreme cases, if there is any possibility of an inappropriate application by the convicted offender, such an order would be justified. Indeed, under current guidance there does not always have to be a risk of repeated applications, but rather the risk of any application without merit.
In the situation covered by the Bill, when, unfortunately, one parent has killed the other and the victim’s family or foster carers have stepped in to care for the child or children, they should be shielded from the prospect and distress of further court proceedings. However, in that context, and slightly tangentially, I will just qualify one observation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, when she referred to parental rights. One of the great improvements brought about by the Children Act 1989 was to remove the concept of parental rights. What is being restricted here is the exercise of parental responsibility.
My only reservation about the Section 91(14) amendments relates to the question of who should be responsible for making such orders and when they should be made. From experience, I emphasise that the orders require careful, case-specific drafting. It is therefore always necessary, when making such an order, to specify its duration, which is not dealt with by Section 91 itself. That may require consideration of the age and circumstances of the child and, in these situations, the position of the surviving adults. I rather assume that those proposing these amendments would wish the order usually to run until the youngest child reaches 18 years of age, but I suggest that should be made clear, either in the statute or in the order.
However, I add that these are not orders of which most Crown Courts will have had any experience. At the sentencing stage in the Crown Court, there might not be the material on which to craft an appropriate order. Accordingly, while I do not in any way wish to oppose the principle of the amendments relating to the use of Section 91(14), I suggest that under the existing scheme of the Bill it would be better to leave any mandatory imposition of a Section 91 order to the required review hearing in the family court, for which the Bill provides in new Section 10B.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, Amendment 82, the first in this group, is designed to prevent a parental alienation argument, usually relating to contact but sometimes to residence as well, being used by perpetrators of domestic violence or child sexual abuse to harass their victims through repeated applications to the family court.
The Government need no reminding of the background, because it was the Government who commissioned the panel on the risk of harm in 2020, to which my noble friend Lady Brinton referred. That was responsible for a significant change of thinking in this area. The assumption that ensuring that children should always continue contact with both parents unless the circumstances were exceptional had dominated courts’ thinking for many years and was given some statutory force, though not in absolute terms, by Section 1(2A) of the Children Act 1989. However, the panel found that there was a pervasive culture of disbelieving victims of domestic abuse, compounded by a pattern of abusive ex-partners abusing the courts’ processes by applications to the court, and effectively of the courts ordering contact, in particular in favour of abusive parents, against the wishes of the victim—the other parent.
Allegations of parental alienation—I accept that the term became something of a term of art, perhaps unjustifiably—are frequently made by abusive parents, and they still are, generally seeking contact but also residence. My noble friend Lady Brinton has given a detailed account of why the parental alienation issue has represented a significant failure of the family courts in recent years. The process involves the abusive parent claiming that the resident parent is opposing contact in an effort to alienate the child from the non-resident parent; essentially, it is the bad-mouthing allegation taken to extremes, in a way that is wholly unjustifiable. I will not repeat the persuasive account of the issue that my noble friend Lady Brinton has given. However, in these cases with which we are concerned, the victim’s allegations are generally true. We need to remember that the children may be put at risk by unwanted contact with their parent’s abuser.
Summarising the position in 2020, the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, wrote in the ministerial foreword to the panel’s report:
“The Panel found that too often, adversarial court proceedings retraumatised victims. Allegations of domestic abuse were too readily disbelieved or dismissed, alongside poor risk assessments and siloed working. The report also identified a view amongst many respondents that courts often placed an undue emphasis on ensuring children had contact with both parents”.
In its recommendations, the panel recommended a series of principles, which included:
“The court and those working within the system will be alert to those seeking to use … processes in an abusive or controlling way. Such behaviour will be actively identified and stopped”.
However, the issue persists.
Amendment 82 is directed at preventing victims being treated as responsible for parental alienation if they oppose applications made by perpetrators of violence against them to the courts. The amendment, as framed, would prevent a victim of domestic violence being considered as responsible for parental alienation.
The Committee may accept that the amendment as it stands is too absolute. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, pointed out, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the amendment as drawn purports to prevent a court reaching a conclusion of fact, which it ought to be entitled to reach in a case where the evidence supports that finding. Nevertheless, I suggest that, in the view of the evidence that the panel and many other experts have considered, the direction of travel of the amendment is right. The interventions of my noble friend Lady Brinton and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in response to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, made it clear what the point and intention of this amendment are. If it needs redrafting, that could be dealt with between now and Report. The aim is to prevent perpetrators of domestic abuse continuing that abuse by transferring it to the court, abusing the court process with unwarranted accusations against their victims of turning the abusive parent against the victim.
Amendment 111 would reflect in the Bill a principle implicit in the findings of the panel: that in domestic abuse cases the court should disapply the Section 1(2A) presumption that parental involvement of both parents is generally in the interests of a child or furthers a child’s welfare. Furthermore, by the amendment, unsupervised contact should not be ordered in a case where the parent concerned is a defendant or a potential defendant in a case of domestic abuse, child abuse or a sexual offence. The level of supervision specified involves the presence of an approved third party at all times during contact, to ensure the physical safety and emotional well-being of the child, but the court would be left to determine the precise nature and location of the supervised contact permitted. I suggest that that represents a relatively minimal level of safeguarding. I accept entirely the caution expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, as to the difficulty sometimes of arranging supervised contact. However, that difficulty needs to be weighed against the danger of exposing children to unnecessary risk, and I suggest that the amendment provides a reasonable balance.
Amendment 110 would ensure that anyone carrying out psychological assessment of a person as a victim for family proceedings would be suitably qualified by being regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council. I accept again the point that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made, that often the perpetrator needs psychological assessment as well. Whether the qualification for making psychological assessments should be as is suggested—that is, regulation by the Health and Care Professions Council—is a matter for discussion. However, suitable qualification is always important.
Amendment 117 would protect victims from orders to disclose medical records to proven or alleged perpetrators of domestic abuse against them, unless the circumstances were exceptional. We have been through much of the detail of that and the principles behind it in relation to group one, and I suggest that the amendment is important in just the same way as the amendment in group one.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I open by agreeing with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that the overall path of this group of amendments is consistent with the harm panel’s recommendations.
In debating the group, I can see that there may be drafting improvements to be done. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for the points he made regarding the drafting of particular amendments.
I remind noble Lords that I sit as a family magistrate in London, and have been one for about 10 years. About 80% of the work that we deal with in our practice is private law, and so very much the types of cases that we are considering in this group of amendments.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for the way she divided this group into two—Jade’s law and then the amendments that focus on using the family court to perpetrate or perpetuate abuse, which is almost always abuse of the woman.
I will not go through the amendments individually, because they have been fairly widely debated, but I will make some particular points, the first of which is on Amendment 82, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, questioned and spoke to. The point she made was about the medicalisation of parental alienation, and I think she argued that the courts should decide.
Some noble Lords in the Committee will have taken part, about three years ago, in the Second Reading of the Domestic Abuse Bill, as it was then, when the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, spoke passionately about parental alienation. She absolutely believes that parental alienation is real, and that she experienced it with her own sons. In my experience of when domestic abuse allegations are made, which is fairly frequent, it is not an unusual scenario where the woman is making accusations of domestic abuse against the man and the man is applying for a child arrangements order to restart contact with his children, and he is making allegations of parental alienation. When that happens at magistrates’ level, we kick it upstairs.
We know it is a complex area, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, there has been recent advice from the president on this matter, and we know that, particularly when there are wealthy individuals involved, there will be any number of experts who are brought into the court to try to resolve cases. We see these allegations a lot at my level, and we try, if possible, to resolve them there, but if they are persisted with, we will put them up to district judge or circuit judge level.
I want to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said about the Crown Courts putting in place protection orders to prohibit repeated applications and that this should be a decision for the family court. It is something that is routinely done in the family court, when you see persistent applicants who are abusing the process, and I argue that it is usually evident when we see it and they are orders that are regularly put in place.
The other point that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made, was on Amendment 89, which I support. He questioned the degree of drafting in the amendment. The point I would make is that while there may well be shortcomings in the drafting, the direction of travel is clear and consistent with the rest of the amendments in the group. That may well be something that this side of the House would want to persist with at later stages of the Bill, depending on how the Minister replies to this debate.
In summary, family courts present some of the most difficult cases that I deal with. You see more tears in a family court than in any other court structure. I had a meeting this morning with a group representing fathers. This is an unusual group: you do not see them that much, and not much lobbying material has been sent to me regarding this or the Bill as a whole. The group that came to see me this morning was called Dads Unlimited, and its particular interest is in male suicide and male self-harm. The point that it was making to me—I must admit that it had some pretty persuasive data—was that, when men are involved in the family court system and making applications to court, they hide their mental vulnerabilities. They do not go to see their GP, and they do not want to talk about it, because they believe that it will be used against them when they are making their applications to court to restart contact with their children.
This is a difficult issue, and I think everybody understands that. Nevertheless, these amendments are trying to codify and build in protections to reduce abuse within family courts as far as possible, and I support them.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for tabling this group of amendments, which take us deep into the heart of the family court and its proceedings. The noble Baroness speaks compellingly and with great passion on these matters. I think she would agree with me that family court proceedings involve some of the most sensitive and difficult decisions that any court has to make, resulting as they do in often profound consequences for parents, children and whole families.
All the amendments in this group have noble aims. They seek to protect vulnerable children and victims of domestic abuse, and that is an agenda that I and the Government strongly support. I shall address each in turn, but I need to start by airing what I see as a difficulty running through these amendments: in one way or another, a number of them seek to curtail the family court’s discretion to take individual decisions on a case-specific basis on what is in the best interests of the children involved. With enormous respect to the noble Baroness, whose experience is much wider than mine, we need to be a bit careful here. The paramountcy principle, enshrined originally in the Children Act, provides the bedrock of all family court decisions. It is a principle that I firmly believe we must protect and uphold.
I start with Amendment 89. As the noble Baroness explained, it seeks to exempt from the provisions of Clause 16 victims of domestic abuse who then kill their abuser; this is Jade’s law, as she mentioned. None of us can have anything but the deepest sympathy for people who find themselves dealing with these extremely difficult and challenging situations. That is why my response on this amendment is that the Bill already allows for this protection. Clause 16 gives a clear route to protect victims of domestic abuse who have killed their abuser. It allows the Crown Court not to suspend parental responsibility in cases of voluntary manslaughter where it would not be in the interests of justice to do so. Our intention in including this exemption is that it could be used in situations where a victim of domestic abuse kills their abuser after a campaign of abuse. I hope the noble Baroness will find that assurance helpful.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt, and I understand the drift of what the noble Earl is saying, but all I was suggesting was that, although I fully understand the desirability in many cases of having Section 91(14) orders—and suggest that in these extreme cases they should be the norm—it should not be done in the Crown Court but should be part of the mandatory requirements at the review hearing that will follow shortly afterwards in the family court. It should, at the very least, be something in the statute that the reviewing family court should be required to consider.
Earl Howe (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for those comments and will ensure that they are fed back to my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, and the department as a whole.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I take the opportunity of this conversation to request that, when the noble Earl feeds back to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, he emphasises that the concern here was not the Crown Court versus the family court and disrespect for any court’s expertise; it was for families being dragged into another process, possibly without legal aid, and going through the trauma of that procedure when they have just lost a loved one to murder by the spouse or partner. If, somehow or other, the Government could consider—the noble Earl dropped some breadcrumbs when he spoke of the duties of local authorities—a way to relieve the burden on the families who have to spend money and go through further trauma, that would be very welcome.
Earl Howe
I take the point about burdens placed on families at exactly the point they should not be, and I will feed that in.
Amendments 85 and 96 seek the automatic suspension of parental responsibility in cases where a parent has been convicted of sexual offences
“against the child, or a child in the family”.
I understand the motivations behind the amendments, but there are good reasons for limiting Clause 16 to instances of murder and manslaughter. Where one parent has killed the other, the children involved will, in many cases, have no one left to exercise parental responsibility apart from the perpetrator. It is absolutely right that, in those circumstances, those caring for the children are spared the burden of commencing family proceedings to restrict the offender’s parental responsibility.
Where a parent has committed another serious offence, the situation is very different. The other parent will, in most cases, be able to exercise their own parental responsibility and, if required, apply to the family court to restrict the offender’s parental responsibility. Legal aid is available for these applications.
There is a further point here. There may, and almost certainly will, be many cases in which an offender is not seeking to abuse anyone, or even to exercise their parental responsibility, and the children and family involved therefore have no interest in going through court proceedings to see their parental responsibility formally restricted. In those scenarios, it is unlikely to be in the best interests of the child and their family to be drawn into court proceedings that would inevitably be triggered by the automatic suspension, and the further distress that this will cause. Again, these amendments have a worthy aim but there is already a clear legal route for these restrictions to be put in place, and I hope that provides some reassurance.
Amendment 110 seeks to ensure that only experts regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council can undertake psychological assessments in family court cases. As the noble Baroness knows, the instruction of an expert within the framework of Section 13 is a matter for judicial discretion. There are, however, clear rules governing the use of experts in the family court. Practice direction 25B covers the role of experts in the family court, and an annexe outlines the 11 standards that experts must comply with. Where an expert’s profession is not regulated, it details the alternate obligations to ensure compliance with the appropriate professional standards.
I have already mentioned the Family Justice Council’s draft guidance on responding to allegations of alienating behaviour. The guidance notes that only experts regulated by the HCPC should give evidence in cases where alienating behaviours are alleged. Despite the measures already in place, and the upcoming guidance, it is clear that concerns exist. Officials are considering what else can be done in this area. I am mindful that we are dealing with an existing system of judicial discretion, so I am keen that any additional action does not disrupt the safeguards already in place but addresses the legitimate concerns that have been raised.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said on this topic. I hope she is reassured that we are taking seriously the issue of unregulated experts and seeking to resolve this matter through the appropriate route.
Amendment 111 seeks to remove the presumption of parental involvement in domestic abuse cases and to prohibit unsupervised contact between any person and a child where they are awaiting trial, are under police investigation, are on bail, or are going through criminal proceedings for domestic abuse, sexual violence or a child abuse-related offence. I recognise how important the issue of parental involvement is. However, the existing legislation, namely the Children Act 1989, provides sufficient safeguards to address these concerns. Section 1(6) of that Act, first, requires courts to consider whether a parent can be involved in the child’s life in a way that does not put the child at risk of suffering harm. The presumption of parental involvement applies only if that test is met. The presumption, where it does apply, is also rebuttable where there is evidence that the involvement will not further a child’s welfare. The court must treat the child’s welfare as its paramount concern.
In addition, practice direction 12J clearly sets out the factors that the court should consider when deciding whether to make an order for a parent to have involvement with a child. The court must be satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent can be secured before, during and after any contact.
I appreciate the aims of this amendment, and the noble Baroness will be aware that the Government are currently reviewing how the courts apply the review of the presumption of parental involvement, which will be published in due course. However, as there is already a clear legislative route for the court to determine if parental involvement should be prevented to protect the child. I therefore believe the proposed amendment is unnecessary.
Next, I will address Amendment 117, which seeks to prevent the family court from ordering a victim of domestic abuse to disclose their medical records to their abuser, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The Family Procedure Rules give the court the power to control the disclosure of evidence. Rule 22 provides that the court may give directions about the type and nature of the evidence it can order, alongside outlining the nature of the evidence required to reach a decision. The court will also decide how any evidence should be placed before the court. Rule 4.1(3)(b) gives the court the power to make an order for disclosure and inspection, including the disclosure of documents, as it thinks fit.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am so grateful to the Committee for the time we have spent on this lengthy but, I hope everyone will agree, important group of amendments.
I will not thank everyone or summarise their contributions because that would not assist the Committee at this late hour, given the groups that need to follow today, but I reserve particular thanks for the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the Minister. In Committee we benefit the most from detailed scrutiny of Bills and amendments, and their comments, particularly about drafting issues and the need to refine some of the ideas and amendments, were very helpful; they will allow me and those I am working with to reflect and improve amendments in areas where it is thought they should still be pursued.
I was particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, with his lifetime of expertise in the family courts, for the generous humility that he brought to the debate, given that I am not at all an expert while he is a very distinguished expert in the field. On the issue of psychological assessments of suspects, defendants and offenders being just as important as those of victims, I completely agree—but one was limited, as one always is, by the scope of the Bill.
I listened with great care to the points on Amendment 82 from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I think the Committee understands our concern, and there may be something we can do to address that concern without naming the syndrome that we know has been discredited. I am thinking about how people are treated rather than trying to interfere with any court’s finding of fact, so I was grateful for that. I am still concerned about unsupervised contact with children by the kind of offenders we are talking about. We will have to return to that, along with some of the other concerns here. I made the point that respecting the expertise of the family court is without question, but we have to protect victims in particularly dire circumstances from being dragged from one court to another if that can at all be avoided.
It is always a pleasure to face the Minister across the Chamber. He is drafted in like a Marvel superhero by the Government because he is one of their finest advocates. It is a particular delight to be charged with attempted breaches of Article 6 or any other article of the convention, and to be reminded of the importance of not ousting the jurisdiction of the courts. If only the noble Earl could have a word with the Home Office about those values, I would be incredibly grateful. With that, I thank the Committee again and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
NHS Dentistry: Recovery and Reform
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest that my wife, who is present today, is a dentist—although she is not currently practising. With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The Statement is as follows:
“With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on our plan to recover and reform NHS dentistry. First, on behalf of the entire House and my department, I send our very best wishes to His Majesty the King. His decision to share his diagnosis will be welcomed by anyone whose life has been touched by cancer. I know that we are all very much looking forward to seeing him make a speedy recovery and resume his public duties.
Turning now to dentistry, thanks to a once-in-a-generation pandemic between 2020 and 2022, 7 million patients across England did not come forward for appointments with NHS dentists. Since then, we have taken decisive action to recover services. We have made reforms to the dental contract, so that practices are paid more fairly for caring for NHS patients with more complex needs. We have made sure that dentists update the NHS website regularly so that the public know that they are taking on new patients. This has delivered results, with 1 million more people seeing an NHS dentist last year than in the year before. However, we know that too many, particularly those living in rural or coastal communities, are still struggling to find appointments. This recovery plan will put that right by making NHS dental care faster, simpler and fairer for patients and staff. It is built on three key pillars, which I will address in turn.
First, we will help anyone who needs to see an NHS dentist to do so, wherever they live and whatever their background. To do this, we must incentivise dentists across the country to care for more NHS patients. That is why I am delighted to tell the House that for the coming year, we are offering dentists two new payments on top of their usual payments for care— £15 for every check-up they perform on NHS patients who have not been seen over the past two years, and £50 for every new NHS patient they treat who has not been seen over the same period—because we know that patients who do not have a relationship with a dentist find it harder to get care. That is not a long-term ambition: our new patient premium will be available from next month.
We are also increasing the minimum payment that dentists receive for delivering NHS treatments. This will support practices with the lowest unit of dental activity rates, or UDA, to provide more NHS care. However, we know that in many of our rural, remote and isolated communities, dentists themselves are in short supply. That is why, starting this year, up to 240 dentists will receive golden hello payments worth up to £20,000 when they commit themselves to working in one of those areas for at least three years. These dentists will give patients the care they need faster, make dental provision fairer and tackle health inequalities.
We are also delivering dentistry to our most remote regions without delay. This year, we will deploy dental vans to more isolated, rural and coastal areas. Staffed by NHS dentists, they will offer check-ups and simple treatments such as fillings. This model has been tried and tested successfully across many regions. For example, last year in Cornwall, a mobile van visited five harbours, treating more than 100 fishermen and their families. We will be rolling out up to 15 vans across Devon, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Norfolk, Suffolk, Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Dorset, Cornwall, North Yorkshire and Northamptonshire. This move has been welcomed by Healthwatch, the Nuffield Trust and the College of General Dentistry. We will let patients know when vans will be in their area, so they can get the care they need faster.
These reforms will empower NHS dentists to treat more than 1 million more people and deliver 2.5 million more appointments. As the chief executive of National Voices, a group of major health and care charities, said:
‘This extra money … should help thousands of people who have been unable to see a dentist in the last two years to get the care they need’.
These reforms are just the beginning. This recovery plan will also drive forward reforms to make NHS dentistry sustainable for our children and our grandchildren.
That brings me to the second pillar: growing and upskilling our workforce for the long term. Our long-term workforce plan, the first in NHS history, gives us strong foundations on which to build. By 2031, training places for dentists will increase by 40% and places for dental hygienists and therapists, who can perform simple tasks such as fillings, will also rise by 40%. More dentists and more dental therapists will mean more care for NHS patients.
I am delighted to tell the House today that we are going further in three key ways. First, we will consult on a tie-in to NHS work for dentistry graduates, because right now too many are choosing to deliver private work over valuable NHS care. More than 35,000 dentists in England are registered with the General Dental Council, but last year almost one-third worked exclusively in the private sector. Training those dentists is a significant investment for taxpayers, and they rightly expect it to result in the strongest possible NHS care. That is why, this spring, we will launch a consultation on a tie-in for graduate dentists and how this could deliver more NHS care and better value for taxpayers.
Secondly, we will take full advantage of our dental professionals’ skills. Today, even though they have the right training, without written direction from a dentist, dental therapists cannot do things such as administer antibiotics. This year, we will change this, making life simpler for dentists and making care faster for patients. As the president of the College of General Dentistry has said, the
‘use of the full range of skills of all team members will enable the delivery of more care and make NHS dentistry more attractive to dental professionals’.
Thirdly, we will recruit more international dentists to the NHS. We have a plan to do this by working with the General Dental Council to get more international dentists taking exams and to get them on to the register sooner, and to explore the creation of a new provisional registration status so that, under the supervision of a dentist who is already on the register, highly skilled international dentists can start treating patients sooner, rather than working as hygienists while they are waiting to join the register.
I turn now to our plan’s third pillar, which is prioritising prevention and giving children a healthy smile for life. This begins by supporting parents to give their children the best possible start. That is why family hubs up and down the country will offer parents-to-be expert advice on looking after their baby’s teeth and gums. As those babies grow up, we will support parents and nurseries in making sure that, before every child starts primary school, brushing their teeth is part of their routine.
The evidence is clear: the earlier good habits are built, the longer they will last. Seeing a dentist regularly is vital for children’s health, but, since the pandemic, too many have been unable to do that. That is why this year we are taking care directly to children. We will deploy mobile dental teams to schools in areas with a shortage of NHS dentists. They will apply a preventive fluoride varnish to more than 165,000 reception-age children’s teeth, strengthening them early and preventing decay. Our Smile for Life programme has already been endorsed by the College of General Dentistry.
Six million people in England already benefit from water fluoridation. In order to go further in protecting children’s teeth, we will consult on strengthening more of our country’s water with fluoride. Again, the evidence is clear: in some of the most deprived parts of England, enhancing fluoride levels could reduce the number of teeth that are extracted because of decay by up to 56%. That is why, through the Health and Care Act, we made it simpler to add fluoride to more of our water supply. As a first step, this year we will launch a consultation on expanding water fluoridation across the north-east—an expansion that would give 1.6 million more people access to water that strengthens their teeth, preventing tooth decay and tackling inequality.
This is our Government’s plan to recover and reform dental care: dental training places up by 40%; 2.5 million more appointments; dental vans treating more patients; more dentists in remote areas; more dentists taking on NHS patients; better support for families and better care for children; patient access up and inequity coming down. It will make life simpler and treatment faster and fairer for patients and staff. We have taken the difficult decisions, and we have now delivered a long-term plan to make dental care faster, simpler, and fairer for people across the country”.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the thoughts and prayers expressed for His Majesty the King. We wish him a full and speedy recovery.
I thank the Minister for this Statement at a time when NHS dentistry is at the most perilous point in its 75-year history. I found yesterday’s scenes in Bristol quite shocking, where the police were called to manage hundreds of people lined up outside a dentist. They had flocked to a newly opened practice, absolutely desperate to secure an NHS appointment. It is a raw illustration of the state of dentistry where more than eight in 10 dental surgeries are refusing to accept adult patients seeking NHS care and where more than seven out of 10 are not accepting under-18s. Tooth decay is the main reason for children between the ages of six and 10 being admitted to hospital.
It is noted that there is some proposed new investment in this plan, although previous funding has not kept pace with inflation. Good practice is to be deployed to improve access to dental care for those who have not seen a dentist for years, through the use of mobile clinics and some preventive measures. But this long-awaited plan which the British Dental Association has described as “sticking plaster” will not address the systemic problems that have led to today’s state of near terminal decline.
In addition to targeting recruitment of dentists to areas most in need and the preventive toothbrushing scheme for three to five year-olds, we have committed to 700,000 extra urgent and emergency appointments. There does not seem to be anything in the plan to address this latter need. This is key, because surveys have shown that 82% of dentists have treated patients who have had to take matters into their own hands since lockdown, by carrying out DIY dentistry. In 2022-23, across England, 52,000 patients were seen in A&E with a dental abscess caused by tooth decay, as well as 15,000 with dental caries. How will this plan work without the provision of more emergency and urgent appointments?
We know that immediate reform of the dental contract is needed. If in government, we will sit down with the British Dental Association in our first week. The Government’s 2010 manifesto made a promise to reform the NHS dental contract. Yet, this Statement confirms that reform will not be on the cards until 2025. Why was progress not made when it could have been? What assessment has been made of the impact of continued delay on dental health?
I turn to some specific points. Dentists are covering costs out of their own pockets, particularly for treatments that require lab work, such as dentures and crowns. This needs to be addressed. What assessment has been made of this situation and what impact does the Minister expect the plan to have in resolving it?
To what extent do the Government expect the new patient premium to make a dent in the scale of the problem of improving access for new patients? As the plan for around a million new patients is time-limited, there are concerns that this risks disincentivising the long-term treatment of the new patients being brought into the NHS. What reassurance can the Government give that this will not happen? The Government state that the plan will deliver care to 2.5 million, but their own data show that 12 million people in England have an unmet need for NHS dentistry. What about the rest?
The plan also includes “golden hellos” to around 240 dentists to work in underserved areas for up to three years. I hope this will help. Across the UK, 90% of dentists are not taking on new, adult NHS patients. In huge parts of the country, new patients are not being taken on at all, while, in others, dentists are refusing to see a child unless a parent is signed up as a private patient. What sort of a dent will 240 dentists make in this? How will these payments be distributed and in what areas? Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether the payments are for new dentists or are they to be used to get existing, qualified ones to move?
The absence of essential NHS dentistry is to the detriment of the health of the nation. As the Nuffield Trust says, this plan appears to be,
“a much-needed scale and polish when what NHS dentistry needs is root canal treatment”.
I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I also echo our best wishes to His Majesty the King. We hope that he makes a speedy recovery.
In responding to this Statement, I also reach for that familiar phrase of it being a sticking plaster, before heading in the direction of dental metaphors. Rather than a scale and polish, it seems to me that this is something of a temporary filling when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, says, NHS dentistry needs serious root canal work.
I feel for the Minister because I know he cares about dentistry and understands the scale of the problem. He has to sell the temporary filling hard in the hope that we will trust the Government to deliver on the more comprehensive course of treatment that is in the consulting on and exploring part of the document.
There are three elements in that long-term part of the plan on which I hope the Minister can comment further today or later in writing. First, we are told that the Government will ring-fence the £3 billion of NHS dentistry budgets from 2024-25 which have been underspent because of the lack of dentists willing to work at NHS rates. We cannot see this changing overnight, even with what is announced today. How will this ring-fencing work if an integrated care board has still not been able to get the take-up of the contracts that it wants? What kinds of things could they use these underspends for? Will these include additional local financial incentives on top of the ones we are discussing at a national level today?
Secondly, it is important to realise the benefits of people with dental qualifications moving to the UK. I know that the Minister would wholeheartedly agree. The policy document promotes the idea of a provisional registration of overseas qualified dentists while they are waiting for their full GDC registration. The phrasing in the Statement and in the document is quite hesitant. It talks about the Government working towards introducing legislation. Can the Minister give us more information about the complexity of the legislative changes that will be required and their likely timescale?
Thirdly, failures in emergency care both cause severe patient distress and additional work for NHS hospitals. The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, has already pointed out that many children are referred to hospital for emergency treatment. I looked at the description on the Smile Together website—a good service in Cornwall cited in the plan. It says that:
“Smile Together is commissioned by NHS England to provide urgent and emergency dental care to patients who would otherwise be unable to access treatment. Demand for this service is very high and the criteria set by our commissioners is very strict. We therefore offer emergency appointments that are independent of our NHS service”,
and people who call in who are unable to get an NHS appointment and do not wish to wait and try again the next day can basically go private. I am not sure we want to be in a situation where people needing emergency care are left hanging on the phone day in, day out, or face having to go for the private option. I hope the Minister can explain what the Government intend to do around emergency care. I hope he will agree that making sure people can get NHS emergency care will be better for both the patient and the NHS.
A temporary filling is designed to last a few weeks—or months at most—or perhaps until an election. We are grateful for the temporary relief it provides, but we know that more work is needed, and this has to be done urgently if we are to fix NHS for the long term.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their comments. First, the thing that brings us together is the desire on all sides to expand capacity. That is something that we are all behind. I hope that I can bring out the themes in this regard—the plans that we are talking about are designed to do exactly that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, asked how the golden hellos will work. The idea is that it will be in the 12 most needy areas, and the ICBs will have the flexibility in how they attract people there. It might be existing dentists who they want to take from another area, or it might be private sector dentists or dentists who are just graduating. It is about making sure that they have the ability to bring those people into the areas of most need.
The mobile vans have proved quite successful already in areas such as Cornwall, where they have already been. They are designed to hit exactly those areas where it is hard to seed new dental practices, because there is a dental desert there, for want of a better word. Each of those vans alone should be able to do about 10,000 appointments a year, which is quite a sizeable number. Of course, what that does is put it in the areas of most need. The beauty of it—if beauty is the right word—is that, when you are talking about emergency-type situations, you will be able to tell exactly where they are.
The other thing that is important, with regard to all the payment mechanisms and how that will work, is that the dentists working in these vans are salaried. The idea is that we know that in those instances it is absolutely going to work in terms of the incentives. While we think that the patient premium absolutely will help in terms of access, and we know that the hardest one is getting them to see patients for the first time and that is what the additional £50 is all about, by bringing in these salaried people we can absolutely guarantee that those new people will be seen in those situations.
What I note from all this is that these are very concrete plans to create 2.5 million new treatments. I noticed that the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned the Labour plan of 700,000 extra, so I shall let noble Lords draw their own conclusions as to which one is more extensive. But to try to answer the question around ring-fencing, what this is all designed to do is to make sure that the contracted number of UDAs that we want to happen is delivered. Noble Lords will have heard me say before that the problem often is that it is not delivered because the dentists then go and try to sell to the private sector instead. So this is all designed to underpin that: first, by making it more attractive for those dentists to offer it to patients, in terms of the patient premium of £50, and the increase in the UDA price; and, secondly, by supplementing that with salaried staff, so you can absolutely make sure that it is being delivered in those circumstances. That is what we are trying to do—because we know that the UDAs are there in terms of the expansion, and we did see a large expansion last year. We increased the number of treatments from 26 million to 33 million, a 23% increase—so we have managed to do it. But we are talking here about wanting to do more of it, of course.
As for whether this is a temporary filling or a long-term fix, of course the long-term workforce plan is all about a long-term fix, making sure that we have the supply in place so we can supply the NHS services needed on a long-term basis. That is where we are talking about the 40% increase, and about making it easier to bring people in from overseas, to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Allan. As noble Lords know, I have a personal interest. I would not have a wife—or this particular wife—if she had not managed to become a dentist from overseas. But what I saw from all of that was that it is a two-stage process. It was one thing for her to be allowed to become a private dentist. I had to fill in the forms myself, and it was pretty hard. But it was an altogether new process then to become an NHS dentist. To be honest, the conclusion after all that was, “Why would I bother to do this? If I can already be a private sector dentist, why would I jump through a load more hoops to then become an NHS dentist?” It is designed to try to iron out those differences and not act as a disincentive in those situations.
To answer the question, those mobile vans, in terms of SMILE4LIFE, are there to make sure that they get people off on the right foot. The family hubs are for training would-be mothers about looking after gums and teeth. But also, crucially, it is about using those mobile services in the areas where they are most needed, putting in the fluoride varnish for 165,000 reception-age kids—so aged from four to five. That means really starting to get the right start to life in all this.
I hope that what we are seeing here is a comprehensive set of plans, expanding supply in terms of the golden hellos, mobile vans and increasing treatments, as well as the long-term workforce plan for increasing staffing. We are making it more attractive for dentists to provide NHS dental services in terms of the patient premiums. These will all start very quickly—in March, for instance. It is also about increasing the UDAs and making sure that our children get the right start to life, in terms of SMILE4LIFE, and making sure that their teeth are clean from a very young age.
There is a lot to do—I perfectly accept that—but I believe that what we have here is taking the right steps to achieve it.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I felt that today’s Statement deserved a slightly warmer welcome than it has received so far, particularly from the noble Baroness. At a time of enormous pressure on public expenditure, more resources have been found to target the people in the areas who need dental treatment.
I shall raise an issue that has not been raised in exchanges so far. The single most effective public health measure that the Government could take to reduce tooth decay, particularly among children, is to add fluoride to the water supply in those parts of the country where it does not occur naturally. The Health and Care Act 2022 transferred the responsibility from local authorities to my noble friend’s department. Since then, until today, nothing has happened. I welcome the announcement that there will be consultation on extending fluoride to the areas in the north-east where tooth decay happens to be at its highest. Can my noble friend give some idea of the timescale of that consultation and whether there are any plans to extend fluoride to other parts of the country where it is urgently needed as a public health measure?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank my noble friend. He is absolutely correct that the benefits of water fluoridation are well proven. The consultation for the north-east of England, which will bring in 1.6 million people to this, is starting very shortly. The idea behind that is that we can really try to get moving quite quickly on that. I was surprised to learn that the level of water fluoridation in England today is only at about 6 million people. I know that a lot of people think that their water supply has fluoridation, but there is obviously a long way to go on that. The 1.6 million in the north-east is a good extension to that, but there is a lot more that we plan to do in this space.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of the General Dental Council. I welcome the fact that this plan has now arrived—it has been a very long time coming. Of course, the council’s role is to maintain a register of dentists and ensure that all the dentists on that list are of an appropriate standard and fit to practise in this country. I am not going to comment on the level of investment, but I make the point that increasing the number of dentists on the register does not in itself increase the number of people who practise in the NHS. I think that the British Dental Association uses an analogy about a bucket with a hole in it. The point is that, if the situation is one in which dentists, whether they qualified here or abroad, feel that the rewards that they get from being an NHS dentist are insufficient, we will continue to see that drift away from NHS dentistry.
My specific point is about the question of overseas registration. The Statement highlighted the fact that 30% of those on the register are qualified from overseas. I should say that nearly 50% of those who joined the register in 2022 are from overseas, so that gives some idea of the direction of travel. To facilitate that, the GDC has trebled the number of places for people taking their ORE part 1 examinations. On the specific proposal about provisional registration, which the General Dental Council will welcome, I hope it is recognised that, if somebody is provisionally registered, they must be supervised. This will require a structure within both the NHS and private practice to make sure that there are adequate levels of supervision available and an adequate number of dentists to do that. Can the Minister tell us how that will happen?
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, particularly for his great knowledge and work with the GDC. I absolutely accept the basic point about the leaky bucket, for want of a better phrase; we are losing a lot of dentists to private. At the end of the day it is about the economics, and clearly we need to make sure that doing NHS work pays. In part that is what the patient premium is designed to do, as is increasing the value of UDAs to £28. There is also an acceptance that we need to look at some of the more long-term measures to make sure that it is economic to do that. The salaried staff I mentioned earlier will help with that as well.
The noble Lord is absolutely correct—again, I have some personal experience of all this—about having that mentoring scheme. Even if a dentist has been operating overseas for a number of years, learning a lot of the techniques and methods here is very beneficial. It is absolutely recognised that such mentoring is required. On the detail of how that is being planned, I will set out in my letter to everyone how exactly that will be achieved.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I have been very reassured by the Minister’s Statement and by my noble friend speaking on behalf of my party. It is very good to hear that dentistry is at last being given much greater attention at National Health Service level. I welcome the type of detail that has been brought out in this short debate; for example, bringing more fluoride into our water supplies and the elementary thing of getting a child to clean his or her teeth with proper toothpaste as a morning act before going out to school or elsewhere.
Many years ago my wife, who is a qualified consultant, was in Pakistan with a team of English doctors and surgeons to demonstrate heart surgery. I, in a kind of parliamentary capacity, was asked to make a visit to a certain place, Murree. This involved going through a number of villages in Pakistan. Of all the infirmities among the villagers, and there were a lot, the most conspicuous were infirmities of the teeth. It was a nightmare to look at.
This is some reassurance. We are absolutely right to pay proper attention to dentistry, and I most welcome the Minister’s Statement and the words of my noble friend speaking on behalf of my party.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I agree that we all too often see such circumstances. As many as half the children in A&E come in for reasons of problems with their teeth. That absolutely illustrates, in a similar way to the noble Lord’s experience in Pakistan, that it really is vital to get on top of these problems. The hope, and the plan, is very much that these are the first steps in making sure that we achieve that.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Young, about money being found for dentistry in straitened circumstances. However, in the past 14 years, a whole generation of younger children who are now around six to 10 years old have had almost no access to dental treatment, resulting in the poor health and dental health that we heard about from my noble friend Lady Merron and the noble Lord, Lord Allan. What efforts will the Government make to ensure that the backlog of dental treatment that those children need will be assessed properly, with the appropriate treatment given as quickly as possible? Otherwise, we will have further health problems in future as those children go into their teenage years.
Lord Markham (Con)
On the targeting and how we are using those mobile vans, the thinking is that they will be rolled out quite quickly—in about six months or so. We are absolutely looking to target those areas with backlogs, such as where we know that the distance to an NHS dentist is further than normal, where there is low access according to GP patient surveys or where there is a low number of dentists per patients. This is exactly set up to try to make sure that we are going into those areas where there is the biggest backlog. Turning up in those locations and allowing people to queue up and receive a service on that day allows access very quickly to the people who really need it. At the same time, when they are calling up because they might need dental services, we can tell them, “A mobile van will be in your areas in two weeks; we can book you an appointment now”. That is designed to really hit those backlog areas. I suspect—this is just me speculating—that such will be the success of these that this will a model that we will look to roll out more widely in future.
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, with apologies to the House, I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Young, was not in his place at the start of the Statement and, with the greatest apologies, it is the custom of the House that a noble Lord should be here for the start of the Statement before they ask a question.
Victims and Prisoners Bill
Wednesday 7th February 2024
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 View all Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-IV(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Fourth Marshalled List) - (6 Feb 2024)
Lord Garnier
“Compensation for victims of fraud and other economic crimes(1) The Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a review of victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences.(2) The purpose of the review under subsection (1) is to identify how victims of such economic crimes could be better compensated without such victims needing to pursue civil action.(3) The Secretary of State must provide for a public consultation on the review.(4) In this section “victims of economic crime” includes United Kingdom and overseas victims of complex corruption cases where the harm caused by the offending is not easily quantifiable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, this amendment is grouped with an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and is supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. Unfortunately, she cannot be here, so noble Lords will have to deal with me, and I hope I will not detain the Committee very long. I should declare an interest in that I am a barrister in private practice and some of the work that I do involves fraud, bribery and money laundering offences; at least, some of the clients I represent sometimes become involved in that sort of thing. Sometimes, I act for the Serious Fraud Office in prosecuting and dealing with those accused or thought to have been guilty of such things.
The new clause set out in Amendment 112 is designed to require a review to explore how domestic and overseas victims of fraud, bribery and money laundering offences could be better compensated without the need for civil proceedings to recover their losses or compensation. The terms of the new clause are set out on the amendment paper, so I shall not read it out: it is there for those interested to see.
Just before Christmas last year, in December 2023, a company called Entain entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Crown Prosecution Service in response to allegations, which it admitted, that part of Entain had failed to prevent bribery in, most often, Turkey, over a seven-year period. The deferred prosecution agreement that Entain, formerly Ladbrokes, agreed to contained terms which included that it should pay a penalty and a disgorgement of profits of £585 million, plus a charitable donation of £20 million. Prior to that, in the decade or so before the Entain case, multinational companies were fined more than £1.5 billion after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad, but only 1.4% of those fines, about £20 million, was used to compensate victim countries, according to research by the law firm Reynolds Porter Chamberlain and, in particular, due to the hard work of Mr Sam Tate, a partner of that firm, who, with others in the firm, has made a particular study of this pattern. It seems to me that companies that are convicted in this country of offences which have an effect overseas should be required to compensate their victims overseas—we need to change that.
Much of the corruption involved in these cases has occurred in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship from food and energy crises and from inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption. Our own Government have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption, but the action taken to compensate them tells a different story and, if I may say so, leaves us open to charges of hypocrisy.
Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. Therefore, this country is stepping in as the world’s policeman and prosecuting crimes that take place in other countries but keeping all the fines for the Treasury here in the United Kingdom. That is important because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor and the not so poor, particularly in emerging markets. The United Nations has said that it impedes international trade and investment, undermines sustainable development, threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public resources. The African Union estimated that in 2015, 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should, I suggest, be ordered to compensate the communities they have harmed; that would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities by, for example, building and resourcing more schools or hospitals.
At first glance, English law encourages compensation. It is required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions—so far, so good—but as with many noble ambitions, problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually of High Court or senior Crown Court level—that is to say, judges who deal with complex issues every day. Let me give the Committee a couple of examples.
In October 2022, Glencore, the international mining and minerals extraction company, pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states. I interpose here to say that in that case, now long over, I represented the applicant state seeking compensation. Glencore pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay £281 million in penalties and further orders, but not a single penny has been ordered to go back to the communities where the corruption happened, because it was held that compensation would be too complicated to quantify and the overseas state applying for compensation had no legal standing in the case. You could say that I was very lucky to be allowed to speak at all during the proceedings, because the statute says that the people who have the legal standing to make an application to deal with compensation are the prosecutor and the defendant company, and I was not representing either of them. None the less, the judge was kind enough and polite enough to let me advance my submissions to him. He rejected them because the statute prevented his acceding to my application.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. I have the second amendment in this group, Amendment 116. The amendments are connected by the word “compensation”, but they are actually about very different issues. Mine is a probing amendment to discuss how the current court-ordered compensation scheme could be improved. I thank the London Victims’ Commissioner and Victim Support for their very helpful briefings.
We know that crime can have a significant emotional and financial impact on victims, and research shows that many victims value compensation as a tangible form of redress. Court-ordered compensation is financial compensation that a judge or a magistrate orders must be paid to a victim by a convicted offender, and the money owed is retrieved by the Courts Service on behalf of the victim. The worries are that the system of payment and enforcement of court-ordered compensation is causing unnecessary distress and frustration, because too often the compensation is paid in very small instalments, over a long period, or, even worse, not at all.
The Ministry of Justice’s paper, Punishment and Reform: Effective Community Sentences, which was published in 2012, sets out that:
“Compensation orders are an essential mechanism for offenders to put right at least some of the harm they have caused. They require offenders to make financial reparation directly to their victims, to compensate for the loss, damage or injury they have caused”.
The problem is the slow payments and poor enforcement. The system of payment and enforcement is adding unnecessary distress and frustration to victims’ experience of the criminal justice system. The piecemeal nature of payments also acts as a constant reminder to the victim of the crime. This point was recognised by the Ministry of Justice, in a 2014 publication, which stated that
“the current scheme of receiving compensation can be distressing for victims because it prolongs their relationship with the offender and can prevent them from moving on from the experience”.
HMCTS has a number of powers at its disposal to collect payments from offenders, including taking money directly from their earnings or benefits, issuing warrants to seize and sell goods belonging to an offender, or, ultimately, bringing an offender back before the courts. Despite this range of powers, collection rates remained low for a number of years. In reality, many compensation orders are never paid, with victims asked by the court to write off the debt owed by the offender.
To put that in context, in quarter 1 2023, the total value of financial impositions outstanding in courts in England and Wales was £1.47 billion, up 3% on the previous quarter and 4% on the previous year. The amount of outstanding financial impositions has more than doubled since quarter 1 2015. However, we recognise that a change in policy regarding the collection of financial impositions is partially behind the cumulative increase, as unpaid accounts are no longer routinely closed, and therefore more outstanding impositions are carried over. The latest available data shows that, 18 months after being imposed, only 53% of victim compensation was paid to victims. Slightly more recent data shows that, after 12 months, only 40% has been paid, with only a quarter of compensation paid to victims within three months.
I move on to an example of good practice in the Netherlands. In 2011, the Government of the Netherlands introduced the advanced compensation scheme as part of the Act for the Improvement of Victims in Criminal Procedure. Under the scheme, the state pays the victim the full amount—up to a maximum of €5,000—of compensation awarded by the court if the offender fails to pay within eight months. The state subsequently recovers the amount due from the offender. Originally, the scheme covered only victims of violent and sexual offences, but in 2016 it was extended to cover the victims of any crime.
Victim Support’s research has shown that many victims are very distressed. One victim of crime said:
“I still have not received any compensation after a year and a half”.
Another said that
“you have to keep going and be persistent with any claims for compensation that you feel you deserve. Why should you be a victim twice?”
My amendment sets out a possible mechanism to replicate the Netherlands scheme, because we need to find some balance. The whole point of this entire Bill is to smooth the journey for victims. This final part—compensation awarded by the court, recognising that they have been a victim and providing them with some redress—is not working for our victims. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister. Any suggestions he may have, even if he does not think this is right, would be gratefully welcomed.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 112. My noble and learned friend’s proposal is an excellent one and I urge the Government to address it promptly and seriously.
Companies and persons convicted of matters affecting those overseas, particularly overseas companies and the countries themselves, should be liable to compensation. It is important that it does not just feed more corruption, but the concept is plainly right. It will put this country in a good place in the world and show leadership on a really important topic, because there is far too much corruption around the world and too many countries turn a blind eye to it.
I urge the Government to take this amendment very seriously. I hope they will have come up with a concrete proposal to endorse it by Report. I commend it to the Committee.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support the probing amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which is an opportunity for the Government to look at court order compensation.
The compensation for victims when they leave a court is not the amount they receive and it takes many years. I will not repeat what the noble Baroness has said—it is on my sheet as well—but, for the victims I meet, compensation causes further problems and trauma. It gets worse if victims apply for criminal injuries compensation, because the court order compensation is deducted from any award that is made. This is fine where the court order compensation is paid, but, if not, the victim is left worse off as a result. I agree that we should look at how the Netherlands pays up front.
I know that there is no money tree but, to make it smooth for victims, instead of being for the offender to hide once again and use as a tool in financial cases for coercive control, I hope the Government will review this court order compensation scheme. I know from speaking to judges that they know that, when they award this, the offender will pay it in dribs and drabs. Now is the time for a good review of this.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly address both amendments.
On the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, I completely agree with the need for a review and the points made by the noble and learned Lord. His speech dealt largely with corruption, but the amendment deals with bribery and money laundering, which gives rise to significant hardship in countries where it can bite. The weakness of our system is that there is no real provision for proper compensation or properly assessing compensation—even in domestic cases, let alone international ones—where there is a conviction but the degree of loss has not been properly investigated. Noble Lords will no doubt have a great deal of sympathy with the noble and learned Lord, who was allowed to address the judge out of consideration and kindness but had his submissions rejected because there was no legal standing.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for educating me on these two matters. I was not familiar with the issue in our civil courts. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made a succinct moral point; I thank him and the noble and learned Lord for educating me. If UK plc wants to maintain its position as a leading centre for resolving international disputes between countries and companies, there is a strong moral case for at least reviewing the way in which compensation may be awarded. As the noble and learned Lord said, his amendment is probing and we support it in the sense in which it was moved.
In relation to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, supported by the noble Baroness Newlove, again I was not aware of the scheme in the Netherlands. However, as a magistrate, I am required to consider compensation for every case I hear, and compensation will take priority over other impositions of the court, such as fines, victim surcharge or costs, or anything like that. When I do so, I am of course extremely aware that I am often dealing with offenders who are on benefits, and even if they are not on benefits, they are often not particularly well paid. It is a fact, which I am not surprised about, that the compensation comes over a long period and often not at all. I take the point that the noble Baroness made about this being a constant reminder to the victim of the offence, and I am aware that sometimes victims are asked to write off the outstanding money which is just not arriving.
The way in which the Netherlands is proceeding is interesting; I do not know whether there has been an estimate about how much money that would cost. It is an interesting idea and I do not know how fully the Minister, when he comes to respond, will be able to talk about the money side of things. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about reminding victims of the original offence—and we are here talking about the victims Bill and trying to ameliorate their concerns—was well made and deserves a full answer.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for raising this issue in Amendment 112. Fraud and other economic crimes have a profound impact on their victims, which is why this Government have been very clear about their commitment to tackle such crimes and to support victims.
The measures in the Bill are designed to improve the experiences of all victims of crime, including economic crimes. One way it seeks to do so is by improving the oversight of service providers’ delivery of all victims’ code entitlements. For victims of fraud in particular, under the victims’ code, all victims who have suffered harm, including economic harm, as a direct result of a crime are entitled to information about compensation and, where eligible, to be told how to claim it. The Government take the compensation of victims of economic crime very seriously, as it is crucial for limiting the harms of these soulless crimes. We are taking active steps to improve reimbursement and compensation routes for victims to ensure that, whenever possible, funds are taken from criminals and returned to victims.
Victims’ interests continue to be a priority issue for the UK. New powers introduced by Part 4 of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act allow applications for stolen crypto assets or funds to be released to victims at any stage of civil forfeiture proceedings. Work is ongoing to implement these reforms in order to ameliorate the negative impacts of criminal conduct, including economic crime.
In cases where there are overseas victims, as the noble and learned Lord mentioned, the Serious Fraud Office, the Crown Prosecution Service and National Crime Agency compensation principles have committed law enforcement bodies to ensuring that compensation for overseas victims of economic crime is considered in every relevant case, and that the available legal mechanisms are used whenever appropriate to secure it. His Majesty’s Government are also fully committed to identifying potential victims and utilising suitable means to return money and/or compensate victims in line with international provisions, per the Government’s transparent framework for asset returns.
As a signatory to the UN’s Convention against Corruption, the UK places great importance on the recovery and return of the proceeds of corruption to those affected by bribery, embezzlement of public funds, money laundering, trading in influence and other abuses of official functions. The UK is obligated to return funds where the conditions for mandatory return are met. However, it also exercises its discretion to return funds in appropriate cases when it is not otherwise mandated to do so.
On the point raised about UK courts being able to award compensation, this requires a co-ordinated, multilateral approach on how to find resolutions for victims. The fraud strategy sets out ambitions to drive global action on tackling fraud. We are developing stronger partnerships with our allies to raise the profile of this transnational threat, improve our understanding of how it manifests globally, share best practice and lead a co-ordinated, multinational response. This engagement will build towards a global fraud summit in early 2024, where key partners will come together to spearhead a co-ordinated diplomatic and law enforcement approach to tackling global fraud.
Measures in the Criminal Justice Bill, which is progressing through the other place, also considers victims’ interests. Further changes are being made to the confiscation regime, under the Proceeds of Crime Act, to enable swifter resolution of proceedings and improve enforcement planning, allowing victims to be compensated earlier and more fully. I am aware that this does not fully address many of the excellent ideas raised by the noble and learned Lord, which were supported by my noble friend, Lord Sandhurst, and I would suggest a meeting to investigate them further, if that was acceptable.
As I have set out, extensive work is already being undertaken to strengthen the rights of victims through legislative vehicles which are still undergoing implementation. I therefore do not believe it is appropriate for a legislatively required review to be introduced at this time.
On Amendment 116, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the Government are clear that it is extremely important that victims are aware of their rights, particularly when interacting with criminal proceedings. The current victims’ code sets out in plain language entitlements for victims of crime, including being provided with information about compensation. I hope it is helpful if I provide some information about criminal compensation orders. Criminal courts in England and Wales are, by law, required to consider compensation in all cases involving personal injury, loss or damage resulting from the offence. Where the court chooses not to impose such an order, it must provide reasons. In determining whether to make a compensation order, and the amount to be paid under such an order, the court must consider the financial circumstances of the offender—as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby—to strike a balance between seeking reparation and not imposing debts that are unrealistic or unenforceable. In line with the sentencing guidelines issued by the independent Sentencing Council, if the victim does not want compensation, this should be made known to the court and respected. However, it is right that the decision whether to award compensation and the amount of any award is a matter for the court. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and his point about the victim’s right to have a court hear their view on compensation, I think that is an interesting idea to investigate, and it would be good to have a meeting.
In addition to compensation orders, the statutory Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme 2012 exists to compensate victims who suffer a serious physical or mental injury as the direct result of a violent crime, including physical and sexual assault and domestic violence. Payments under the government-funded scheme can never fully compensate for the injuries suffered but are a recognition of public sympathy.
On expenses and property, victims already have an entitlement under the current victims’ code right 10 to be paid expenses. Victims can claim expenses from the Crown Prosecution Service if they have to attend court to give evidence, including, for example, for travel, childcare and loss of earnings. Right 10 in the current code also sets out that the police should return any property taken as evidence as soon as it is no longer required. The Government do not currently have plans for victims to be paid compensation from central funds. That is because compensation orders are paid directly from the offender, requiring them to make reparation to the victim for any loss, personal injury or damage caused by the offence. The decision whether to make a compensation order in a particular case is a matter for the court, and it has a range of powers for the recovery and enforcement of financial impositions. With the permission of the noble Baroness, I would like to write to give further detail on what actions the Government are taking to improve the enforcement of such compensation orders.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, of course I will beg leave in a moment or two to withdraw my amendment. I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his ability, at very short notice, to deal very elegantly with what I would describe as a long hop. The short point is one I made earlier on—that only 1.4% of the value of fines raised in this country has found its way back, under the mechanisms that he refers to, to victims’ estates. That is not enough. That said, I thank him for his offer of a meeting, which I would certainly like to take up, if I may. I thank my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for his support. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his very thorough response to my suggestions in Amendment 112, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his kind remarks.
The reason why I metaphorically doffed my hat at the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, a moment ago, when the noble Lord, Lord Marks, accused me of being the pioneer of deferred prosecution agreements, is because, yes, as a matter of policy, as a Government Minister at the time, I suppose I was responsible for it. I take some pride in it. However, I could not have achieved it without the co-operation of the senior judiciary. From memory, the noble and learned Lord was president of the Queen’s Bench at the time when the late, much-lamented Lord Judge was the Lord Chief Justice. The two of them, with other members of the senior judiciary, dealt with it impeccably as a matter of legal process. They were not in the least bit interested in the politics—neither was I, actually. We were all interested in trying to make the DPA system work. Thanks to cross-party support in the other place and throughout government, and support from the senior judiciary, the deferred prosecution agreement system came in through statute. I am very grateful to all those who helped with that.
I am in danger of going to the church by way of the moon. This is quite an important subject. It needs thought and proper development. Some ideas need to be tested to destruction, but some need to be given a chance—perhaps through a meeting with my noble friend on the Front Bench and others at the Ministry of Justice—to see which parts of this idea are worth germinating. In the light of all that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sandhurst
“Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing schemeAfter section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, insert—“36A Duty to inform victims and families of the unduly lenient sentencing scheme(1) The Secretary of State must nominate a government department to inform victims and their families of their rights set out in section 36 (reviews of sentencing).(2) The information provided under subsection (1) must include the type of sentence and the time limit for application, and advise that applications must be made to the Attorney General.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that victims are aware of the Unduly Lenient Sentencing scheme which presently has a strict 28-day timeframe in which to apply, there being no power to extend the time.
Lord Sandhurst
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 113 and 114. Amendment 113 seeks to impose a duty to inform victims and families of the right to refer an unduly lenient sentence. Amendment 114 seeks to extend the time, in exceptional circumstances, for such a reference. I begin by declaring my interest as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee.
Currently, the position is that victims have a strict 28-day time limit from the day of passing sentence to make an application under the scheme. The right is simply to have the case considered by the law officers within the Attorney-General’s Office. It is that office which decides whether to take it to the Court of Appeal as an unduly lenient sentence.
The victim, or family, if they are to make use of this, must know in good time of: first, the right to refer; secondly, the time limit for doing so; thirdly, the date when the sentence will be passed, which they have to know in advance; and, fourthly, the sentence itself, if the victim was not present, for whatever reason. At this point, I refer to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who signed this amendment, and who had hoped to be here but has had to leave. As she said very succinctly to me, there is no point in having an unduly lenient sentence regime if victims do not know about it. That is where we are.
Importantly in this context, the 28-day limit is not open to extension, even in special or exceptional circumstances. That is the point of my second amendment. I am informed by Claire Waxman, the Victims’ Commissioner for London, that victims do not always attend sentencing, and often do not receive communication of the fact that they can refer a matter as an unduly lenient sentence or that they have to do so promptly. Of course, offenders can appeal their sentence outside the 28-day time limit, which is on paper there, if they show good cause. There is a statutory exception for them.
However, the revised victims’ code now includes an obligation for witness care units to highlight the scheme to victims, at the same time as informing them of the sentence in their case. That might be a good thing, but it does not go far enough, because witness care units engage only with victims who are witnesses in the court case. This will not apply to a proportion of victims, including bereaved family members. There is no organisation which currently has the responsibility for informing those victims.
In the debate on earlier amendments about training and so on, when I addressed this Committee the other day, I showed that many victims are unaware of the code, unaware of its contents and not kept abreast of their rights. Someone has got to grip this point as well, and make victims aware of their right to refer to the Attorney-General their dissatisfaction with a sentence. They especially have to be informed of the 28-day time limit. They have to know when sentence will be passed and, if not present, what was said.
Let me give a rather stark example of an unfairness that has happened. Alex Belfield received a five and a half-year prison sentence for a campaign of stalking various employees of the BBC. Claire Waxman personally referred that sentence to the Attorney-General’s Office. She considered it to be unduly lenient. A response was received several weeks later that explained that the case had been referred back to the CPS, which had requested the matter to be relisted in the Crown Court under the slip rule. The judge had looked at it again; he agreed that he had erred in his approach to sentencing, but he declined to change it; so that sentence stood. The CPS explained that the time limit for referral to the Court of Appeal had, however, now passed. So the Attorney-General’s Office could not refer this case under the ULS scheme, despite the initial reference having been made in time. It had been made in time to the CPS, but it had not referred it on because the CPS had taken the slip rule route. A possibly—and I do not say it was—lenient sentence, therefore, which might have been referred, stood.
The witness care unit, as I said, does not address non-witnesses. Others also might have reasons for being late. The information for victims given on the CPS website does make reference to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, but it is in there among a lot of other information. It still requires a victim to be proactive, to know that there might be something worth looking for, to think about it, and then to know where to look. That is not really a very satisfactory state of affairs. Something must be done. Making reference to a scheme in materials is very different to actually informing a victim. The witness care unit does not reach all victims, as I have explained. More must be done.
As for the power to extend time, it should be only in exceptional circumstances. I do not ask for anything different, so it is not going to create an open-ended time limit for appeal. The Attorney-General’s Office is the office that decides whether to take it to the Court of Appeal, so it acts as a filter. It will filter out at once all silly and unreasonable applications. If the amendment is granted, the discretion to consider reasons for lateness—whether they are exceptional and so on—remains with the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General is not going to start wading through large numbers of late references. The statutory guidance produced alongside such legislation could provide guidance on what circumstances might be treated as exceptional. Properly managed, therefore, there will not be unfair uncertainty for convicted prisoners who think they got a sentence of a particular length and suddenly are caught by surprise five years later.
Currently, offenders have 28 days to appeal their own sentence, but they have a right to apply to extend that time limit, which in the right circumstances may be granted, in order to appeal. This amendment, therefore, seeks to give some level of parity between the rights of the victim and the rights of the convicted defendant. I commend these amendments; information of rights is essential and power to extend time is only fair. There should be a measure of parity between victims and convicted defendants. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I signed this amendment, and it is a rerun for me, as I had similar amendments in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Most of the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has put forward responded to what the Minister said from the Dispatch Box during the passage of that Bill. These two amendments have been tightened to focus on the real areas of concern. One is not just to inform victims, but also their families; the second is to ensure that the time limit in exceptional circumstances could be extended.
Prior to laying previous amendments, I met Tracey Hanson, whose son Josh Hanson was murdered in 2015. After her son’s killer was sentenced in 2019, no agency made her aware that she was able to appeal the sentence under the ULS scheme. It was only when she approached Claire Waxman, the London Victims’ Commissioner, on the 28th day following the sentencing, that she was made aware of the scheme. Nobody in the system connected with the case contacted her. She was family, obviously not the victim. She submitted her application to the Attorney-General’s Office on the 28th day—that same day—at 8.40 pm. However, this was rejected because it was outside of court hours. At the time, there was no mention of office hours or court hours within the victims’ code or on the Government’s website. Tracey has campaigned for reforms to the unduly lenient sentence scheme, asking for the 28-day time limit to be given flexibility in certain circumstances, such as when the victim or their family is not informed of the scheme. She asked that the scheme be referenced in the judge’s sentencing remarks.
It is worth noting, though, that this still requires statutory responsibility for an agency to communicate those remarks to the victim. Can the Minister respond again—it was not him before; it was his predecessor—to see how we can smooth the journey for victims and families as they go through the judicial process? This particular case is really egregious in having an inflexible time limit for victims and families and yet a flexible one for convicted offenders.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to take much time. I understand, and indeed sympathise with, the thrust of the remarks of my noble friend and the intention behind his amendment. I am sure it is a good idea for people to know about the unduly lenient sentence scheme, particularly if they are victims. In my experience as a law officer who had to deal with these when I was in office, there did not seem to be any lack of knowledge among the people affected by what they thought were unduly lenient sentences, and we had plenty of applications to us in the law officers’ department to consider them. I say in brackets that, as often as not, not every crime or offence qualifies to come within the scheme. A degree of education needs to be made available in order that the public should realise that not every offence that they read about in the newspapers comes within the unduly lenient sentence scheme.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Part of the object of the amendments is to ensure that the scheme is published and explained. That is one of the reasons why there is a reference to making sure that, in the judge’s sentencing, he or she refers to the scheme, and then victims and families can be provided with information as they leave the court, or it can be sent to them if they are not there.
Lord Garnier (Con)
I cannot quite see the wording that the noble Baroness refers to, but I am not sure I think it a good idea for a judge, having promulgated a sentence, then to say, “If anyone doesn’t think I’ve given them enough, perhaps you’d like to complain”. The judge must make his or her own mind up, based on the information in front of them, and do justice in that particular case. If the prosecutor, a witness, the victim or a member of the public wishes to say that that is unduly lenient, they can write to the law officers and see what their consideration of the matter is.
I agree with publicity and with educating everybody about what the system is about. However, I do not agree with encouraging everybody to run to their Member of Parliament, the newspapers or the law officers because they wish the sentence had been different. That way leads to disappointment, quite apart from a bureaucratic mess in the law officers’ department—which is a very small department.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I raise an issue with regard to the time limit. It is not from the wording of the amendment, which I support, but the wording in the victims’ code. At the moment it says that, first:
“The Attorney General must consider the matter as soon as possible”.
What does that mean? Secondly, it says that they must do so
“no later than the 28th calendar day after the sentence was imposed … in business hours and”—
I emphasise this—
“with sufficient time for consideration”.
How can the victim know how long the Attorney-General needs before the 28 days runs out? It is a hard cut-off, but with something rather woolly leading up to it. The victims’ code could do with a little revision to make it quite clear, in addition to the points that my noble friend has made and the very tough example that she gave, just how this would operate. I would not know, to meet that condition, how long before the end of the 28 days I should get a note through the Attorney-General’s door.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I support the principle put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, that there should be proper information provided to victims. This should be proper in the widest sense, so that they fully understand; we do not want disappointment and secondary victimisation. The whole question of time limits and extending them is not a suitable matter for debate at this hour of the night. What is important is the principle.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I have noticed the time as well, and the points that I was going to raise have already been made. I will talk about how it feels, as a victim in a murder trial, to hear, after sentencing, all these professionals say that the offenders, who have been found guilty and sentenced, will now appeal their convictions and sentences. But nothing goes in, and the clock is ticking.
When we are looking at extending times and providing information, we are talking about an area that we all know about to a degree, but the victim does not understand unduly lenient sentencing. It is actually the media that leads the way. I think we need to look at this again. We now have flexible working hours, so who is going to pick up the inbox if nobody is in until the next day? We need to be more creative in how we do this. To tell the victim, such as Tracey Hanson, that they are out of time is not a fair and level playing field. If the offender has a legal advocate to do all the paperwork, and does not have to lift a finger, maybe we need a legal advocate to help the victim understand. We can say that people should go on the website and read this, that and the other, but they are traumatised and still trying to get their heads around what they have just listened to in court.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for the previous explosion from my phone—I was just making sure that you are all paying attention.
This is one of those groups—we have already had a couple of such occasions during this Committee—where you look at it and think, goodness me, why is that not happening already? Why is that not being done, when it is so obvious that it should happen? Like in many of the other cases, it comes down to the question of whose responsibility it is to make sure that the victim is properly informed, and their family properly supported, to know what is going on. It would be great if the Minister could tell us what the answer to that question is, as it is kind of at the heart of everything we have been discussing so far. I look forward to hearing the answer.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sandhurst for Amendment 113, in relation to the unduly lenient sentence scheme. It seeks to ensure victims and their families are given the necessary information about the scheme and, where this does not happen, provide for an extension of the relevant deadline. I understand the distress that victims may feel if they believe that the sentence given to an offender is not sufficient. The unduly lenient sentence scheme provides a way to ensure that victims, their families and members of the public can request for sentences for certain serious crimes to be challenged, by asking the Attorney-General to consider making an application to the Court of Appeal for a sentence to be reviewed.
Amendment 114 seeks to allow extension of the time limits for applications under the scheme, which must currently be made within 28 days of sentencing. However, the scheme has a fixed time limit to reflect the importance of finality in sentencing for both the victim and the offender. Although we will keep this this limit under consideration, there are no current plans to remove the certainty of this absolute time limit. The 28-day time limit reflects similar constraints on defendants appealing against conviction or sentence; it is important for both victims and offenders that we avoid ongoing uncertainty about the sentence to be served.
Amendment 113 puts forward a duty to inform victims and families of the scheme. It might reassure my noble friend to know that the current victims’ code is already clear that victims should be informed about the scheme by the police’s witness care units at the same time as they are told about the sentence; this is expected to be done within six days of sentencing. It may also help if I explain that “witness care unit” is the generic name for a police-led function that provides information and support to victims, as well as witnesses, in cases progressing through the criminal justice system. Under the victims’ code, the witness care unit is responsible for providing services to victims who are not witnesses in the trial, as well as those who are.
For example, under right 9 in the code, all victims are entitled to be told at the end of the case the outcome, including a brief summary of reasons for the decision where available. This also includes telling victims about the ULS scheme when they are told the sentence in the case, which is in paragraph 9.6 of the code. It is heartening to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, that the scheme is well used, despite examples of where it has not worked being given by others in this short debate.
In answer to the noble Lady Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Thornton, as part of the CPS’s bereaved family scheme, the CPS and the trial advocate will meet the family at the court following the sentence to explain it and answer any questions. The scheme will be highlighted in appropriate cases as part of this.
My noble friend Lord Sandhurst raised an unfortunate case in which consideration under the slip rule means that 28 days had elapsed. In general, the law officers and the Attorney-General’s Office endeavour to review any sentence referred to them, the only exception being those where there is insufficient time to do so; for example, if it is received late in the day, the statutory time limit runs out. In those cases where the slip rule applies, CPS guidance instructs prosecutors to apply for the sentence to be corrected under the slip rule quickly and within the 28-day period for the ULS scheme. This means that, if the application is unsuccessful, the Attorney-General is not time-barred from being able to make an application under the ULS scheme within the 28-day period.
Where there seems to be broad consensus in this debate is on the need to do better on informing victims and their families about their rights under the scheme. This has been brought up by the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton, Lady Hamwee and Lady Newlove. I am open to discussing further with noble Lords how best to ensure that victims are better informed of the scheme and its deadline, but I respectfully ask that my noble friend withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, would it be possible for the Minister to find out whether the police keep records of the notification of the witness unit and, if the records are kept, what the statistics reveal? This is really an argument about whether we have the right mechanism, rather than the principle. Obviously, the Minister cannot do that this evening, but if the Ministry of Justice or the Home Office could find out, that would alleviate the problem.
Lord Roborough (Con)
The noble and learned Lord makes a very sensible request, and I will do my best to write to him.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to various noble Lords for their support, the points that they have made, and, if I may say so, the very sensible suggestion from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about collecting data.
If I may comment on my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s observations, they show that good information is necessary. It is absolutely essential. He says that these are simple and reasonable obligations; in which case, they must be explained to everybody. The guidance should set it out, and it should say simple things such as: “The Attorney-General has only 28 days in which to lodge a reference. If you are minded to complain about the sentence, you must do so straight away so that the Attorney-General has time to consider it properly; otherwise, I am afraid that there is no prospect of a reference being made”—something to that effect.
As for the extension of time, I hear what is said. It will be only in exceptional cases, and it will be the Attorney-General who decides. I just do not see what the problem is. If it is there and remains because the Government do not change it, it is really important that proper information is given.
I am grateful for the answers given by my noble friend Lord Roborough, standing in on short notice and dealing with these rather tricky little points. In the circumstances, having heard what has been said, I will withdraw my amendment. But I really do hope that something can be done, administratively at the very least; that we can receive proper assurances that victims and particularly those who are not witnesses, such as the bereaved and so on, really are told properly; and that a log is kept showing that they have been told—when and where and in what terms. I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Wills
“(a) occurs or occurred in England and Wales,”
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, Amendments 119A to 119C in my name have been drafted to allow the independent public advocate to act for the victims of incidents, or series of events, that might have occurred before the passage of the Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill does not permit this.
Underpinning my original conception of the independent public advocate in my two Private Members’ Bills that were the genesis of this part of the Bill was the belief in the need for greater support and agency for those who had been failed by the state—which is meant to serve them—in what the Bill describes as “major incidents”. This is particularly the case when the full extent of such an incident may be revealed only over a period of time. In these circumstances, it is perverse to exclude from such support, which is outlined in the Bill the sub-postmasters whose lives were wrecked by the Horizon scandal, for example, or those whose lives were devastated by contaminated blood transfusions in the 1970s and 1980s, or by nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s. These are all catastrophic events that have, in some cases, become apparent only over quite a long period of time.
The victims need the support of the independent public advocate as they continue to search for justice and to right the wrongs that were done to them. These amendments will rectify this problem with the Bill’s current drafting. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I have a very short amendment—wholly unrelated to what has just been put forward—and I thank those in the Whips’ Office for suggesting that it remain in this group, and not, as I had proposed, move to a later group, which would be reached much later this evening. It does not really matter which group it is in, because it does not really affect anything else. It is a simple, short point in relation to the co-operation between Governments within the union and, therefore, has to do with devolution.
Clause 33 sets out the functions of the advocate who is to be appointed in respect of a major incident. None of the functions in this clause is a reserved matter, so under the Government of Wales Act, the Senedd has the powers to appoint. Therefore, in any particular incident, the Senedd could make provision so that it could appoint its own advocates. I do not believe a different view is taken by the Government in London.
It may also be the case that Welsh Ministers can appoint a non-statutory inquiry following a major incident in Wales, but that is not the kind of point to go into at this hour. The only power that the Senedd could not make provision for is for an advocate appointed under the Act to automatically secure interested person status in a statutory inquiry—those powers are reserved as they are part of the justice powers. Of course, a public advocate appointed by the Welsh Ministers would be free to apply for interested person status, and would probably get it—so I do not think it makes any practical difference. As I understand it, this point has caused the Senedd’s consent to the legislative consent memorandum to be qualified and reserved until this matter is resolved.
There are four short points to make. First, it seems sensible that the Welsh Government are involved as part of the scheme if there is a major incident in Wales. That would avoid any possibility of duplication. Secondly, it is important that the Welsh Government have a say in the person appointed. The advocate must have knowledge of Wales as well as the necessary ability to do everything in Welsh as well as English, since in Wales, English and Welsh have equal status.
Thirdly, significantly, it would be a further step in underpinning by statute co-operation between the Governments as part of the normal exercise of shared functions within a union. Fourthly, the Minister provided the greatest possible help in achieving something similar in relation to mission statements in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act, as provided for now in Section 2 of that Act. This seems to be yet another step that can be taken to put in place a strong statutory framework for co-operation to ensure that there is no duplication and there is good working co-operation.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendments 119A to 119C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills.
I suggest that the usual basis for avoiding retrospective legislation does not apply in this case. Generally speaking, we take the view that it is wrong for new legislation to have retrospective effect. That is because, if an individual behaves in accordance with the law as it is at a given time, it is regarded as wrong for the law subsequently to be changed—I believe this is a correct analysis—in such a way as to change the legal framework in which that person legitimately operated at the time when they acted as they did. However, that principle cannot be relevant in the treatment of victims of major incidents and the provision of advocacy services to such victims. It is not as if there is anything in the Bill that could affect the behaviour of victims or indeed the behaviour of others in respect of major incidents, regardless of whether or not those others may have been culpable in some way for the occurrence of the incident.
There is a safeguard in the Bill against stale incidents becoming the subject of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, simply because they are past and could be a long way past, but the meaning of a “major incident” includes the definition in Clause 28(2)(c), which says that a
“‘major incident’ means an incident that … is declared in writing by the Secretary of State to be a major incident for the purposes of this Part”.
For that reason, the Secretary of State could take the view that, if an incident were so stale that it ought not to be the subject of a major incident determination, he or she simply would not make one.
The other point I wish to make is that the noble Lord’s Amendment 119C shows the importance of the possibility of making the legislation retrospective. It talks about a single event or a series of linked events over time. In the case of a series of linked events, it may be the last event that gives rise to the need to call it a major incident but all previous events need to be taken into account as well. Therefore, the amendment shows how important the Wills amendments could be—if I can put it in that way.
I will speak briefly to Amendment 120 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which he has not addressed because no doubt he is going to wind up. I will not be winding up on behalf of these Benches as a result. His amendment concerns the possibility of declaring a major incident when only a small number of individuals are killed, injured or suffer major harm. To us, it is important that that amendment is permitted.
I take as an example—it is one that I simply thought of—the terrorist attack on Fishmongers’ Hall by Usman Khan in November 2019, when two people were killed and three more injured. In the words of the BBC a little while later, that incident
“touched the lives of so many”.
One knows that the incident must have touched the lives in a very serious way of those who intervened, those who witnessed the offences on London Bridge, and those who attended the Fishmongers’ Hall rehabilitation conference which led to such disastrous consequences. All were, in a sense, victims of the attack. All may have suffered, if not serious harm, at least some psychological harm. All may have needed some support. That need could be helped by the provision of advocacy services, advice or representation of some sort. The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Ponsonby, taken together, would secure that that would be possible, even in the case of past events.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, on the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in some of the issues he raised—infected blood or sodium valproate—people raised the alarm and were not listened to over decades; it can take a long time for the enormity and scale of a tragedy to come to light. That is a defining theme for many of the issues that could potentially be looked at by the IPA. I fully support those amendments.
On Amendment 120, a concern about the way the IPA has been set up is the point about major incidents. It will kick in when there is a major incident, such as Hillsborough or Grenfell. In such an instance, there is a very good chance there will be a public inquiry; I think the public would demand it. There has always been a concern about incidents that perhaps do not meet that bar: there will not be a public inquiry but something appalling has happened and, as in the nature of this amendment, it reveals a systemic failure and it may be repeated. It would need the support of the IPA. Looking at the make-up of this role, I think we should be very careful not to overlook those incidents in our desire to talk only about major incidents.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for moving his Amendment 119A and speaking to his other two amendments, and for the various examples he gave of the reason for the independent public advocate. Of course, there will be more substantial groups on this later, which we will not get to tonight. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, explained very clearly why the issue of retrospectivity should not apply in the types of cases we are talking about.
I thank the noble Lord for doing that. However, I do not thank him for speaking to Amendment 120 because he chose my example. I have not been able to think of another one while I have been sitting here. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, reiterated, there are occasionally incidents where there is a huge amount of public interest and concern. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, made the point that many lives are touched by incidents such as Fishmongers Hall even though fewer people were killed. It is about giving discretion so that the Secretary of State “may” declare that an independent public advocate would be suitable for this case.
We will have much wider debates about the roles of the IPA. I pay tribute to my noble friend for the many years of work he has done on this. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for bringing forward the amendments in this group. All but one relate to the important issue of the definition of a major incident and its scope. I will address them in turn.
First, I will respond to Amendments 119A, 119B and 119C from the noble Lord, Lord Wills. These amendments seek to expand the scope of the independent public advocate scheme to include an event or series of linked events which have occurred prior to this section coming into force. In practical terms, as he has made clear, they would introduce a retrospective element to the scheme, allowing the Secretary of State to declare historic events as major incidents and to appoint an advocate accordingly. The noble Lord has brought this important issue to the Government’s attention. It is right that we should debate it.
At the outset, I need to state the Government’s position. Incidents which occur wholly—I emphasise “wholly”—before this part is commenced are not in the scope of this scheme. I recognise that the tragic events of the past and the experiences of those impacted by them have clearly highlighted the need for the independent public advocate. I do not mean to suggest otherwise. However, the IPA is designed as a forward-looking initiative to assist victims in the immediate aftermath of a major incident when there are investigations, inquests and inquiries into what happened. The scheme is intended as a way of providing support at an early stage. Given this, the Government believe that there would be limited additional benefit in appointing an advocate to support victims of incidents where the official processes are at an advanced stage or may have already concluded.
As the Bill stands, I can confirm that the definition of a major incident already covers either a single-time incident, or a series of linked incidents. It does not allow for the advocate to support the families of those who died or individuals who were seriously harmed by any linked incidents which occurred prior to the Bill’s commencement. Having said that, I recognise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that recent events have shown that it can take time for events and their circumstances to become clear. There may be instances where these events do not occur during the same time period. I was grateful for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on that theme.
I understand the importance of getting right the definition of a major incident. I have therefore asked my officials to consider it further. If it would be helpful, I would be happy to continue engaging with the noble Lord about this so that we can return to it on Report.
I turn to Amendment 120 from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, which seeks to expand the definition of a major incident and therefore the IPA scheme. The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to declare a major incident in circumstances that do not meet the threshold of a significant number of deaths or those suffering serious harm but attract a significant public interest.
It is important for me to make it clear that the impetus for establishing a public advocate has been the experience of victims following past disasters that were exceptional, presented unique challenges and involved multiple organs of the state, which victims found difficult to navigate or have their voices heard by. The Government believe that it is important that the scope of this scheme is controlled and is clearly focused on assisting victims of major incidents which are, by their nature, rare. This amendment would set a possible expectation that the IPA might be appointed to support victims who have been involved in smaller-scale incidents, especially those where there are very few injuries or fatalities, which is not the policy intention.
There is a further and possibly helpful point that I can make. Arguably, the Secretary of State already has a broad discretion in the Bill to declare a major incident and to interpret the term “significant”. For those reasons, the Government, at this time, do not believe that this change is necessary. The public interest will also be one of the considerations that the Secretary of State will have in mind when making their decision, and more detail on this will be included in the policy statement.
Lastly, proposed new subsection (2B)(a) of this amendment seems to imply that blame or liability must have been found prior to this power being exercised. If the Secretary of State were to act quickly, they may risk prejudicing any subsequent investigation, which would not serve the interests of victims.
I am afraid that the amendment runs counter to the Government’s policy intention, but I hope that it is helpful that I have pointed out that potential element of discretion that is built into the wording in the Bill, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will understand why we cannot support the amendment.
Lastly, I turn to Amendment 126 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, which would require the Secretary of State to obtain the concurrence, or in other words the agreement, of Welsh Ministers before appointing an advocate in respect of a major incident occurring in Wales. The purpose of the independent public advocate scheme is to support victims of major incidents. This Government agree that these functions fall within the devolved competence of the Welsh Senedd, with the exception of the amendments to the Coroners and Justice Act, which Clause 34 provides for.
The Ministry of Justice has engaged with officials in the Welsh Government during the development of this policy. It is clear that there is great benefit to having a single scheme that covers England and Wales to provide consistency of service. Our discussions with the Welsh Government are ongoing, as we seek a legislative consent Motion for these measures. Ministers in the UK Government will write to Welsh Ministers shortly, setting out a proposal for their role with regard to declaring a major incident which occurs wholly in Wales, and the subsequent appointment of an advocate in respect of that major incident.
I hope that that reassures the noble and learned Lord that this is a live issue that is very much on the radar of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. He is very much aware of the devolution implications, and we are actively working to find a solution. The Government will bring forward any necessary amendments on Report, and I am happy to return to this topic at that time.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to everyone who has spoken in this short discussion and to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for his remarks, and particularly for his cogent justifications for these amendments in terms of retrospection, which were an extremely valuable contribution to the debate. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, for their support too.
I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for his open mind on this issue, if I may take it that far—or at least a willingness to continue discussion on what is quite a crucial question. I am very happy to do that, and I shall withdraw the amendment shortly.
I just want to say a few words about the Minister’s comments. He stressed the word “wholly”—major incidents that happened wholly in the past. That is a very important word, because it means when the incident no longer has any impact on the victim. In most cases—to think of the bereaved or those who suffered, not necessarily directly but indirectly, as in the examples from both the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lord Ponsonby—such incidents are by definition not wholly in the past. The postmasters’ suffering is not wholly in past, even though the damage was done in the past. Similarly, for the victims of blood transfusions and their relatives, and the victims of nuclear tests in the 1950s and 1960s, these are ongoing traumas. They are the people who need the support of the independent public advocate.
I am, as I say, very happy to carry on this discussion in the hope that we can find some sort of resolution. A large number of people are still grievously affected by these major incidents, and I hope that this rare legislative opportunity to help them can be seized. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Thornton
“Victims of major incidents: registration of deathThe Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for a relative to provide information in the connection with the registration of the death of a person who was a victim of a major incident, even if an investigation is conducted under Part 1 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.”Member's explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment concerning the need for a qualified informant such as a relative of the deceased to be permitted to provide information to register the death after a major incident.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, in many ways, my Amendment 121 continues the discussion about the victims of major incidents; in fact, I think we have a suite of amendments that talk about the issues that surround those who have been involved in major incidents, whether they were quite some time ago, as my noble friend Lord Wills said, or more recently.
I refer to the work of my honourable friend Emma Lewell-Buck, as she raised this issue in the Commons. This is a probing amendment, because it is important that we start this discussion, and I think that everybody is aware that the issues of registering deaths are not uncomplicated. When she raised this in the Commons, the Government said that they
“intend to launch a full public consultation on the role of the bereaved in death registration following an inquest, including those impacted by a major disaster”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; col. 138.]
In the Commons, the Minister told my honourable friend that it was no longer possible to accept her amendment
“due to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which will digitalise death registration”.
I report that, because my honourable friend said that her amendment would
“give the Secretary of State the power to modify any provisions, which would enable the clause to be shifted to a digital state in future”,—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; col. 122.]
and the Minister at the time said that the Government were incredibly sympathetic to the purpose.
I will relate the reason why this is important. My honourable friend has been campaigning for this change for some time on behalf of her former constituents Chloe Ann Rutherford and Liam Thomas Allen-Curry, who were murdered in the 2017 Manchester Arena attack. She explained in her speech, which is on record, that in 2022, after sitting through the public inquiry and listening to every agonising detail of what their children went through, Chloe and Liam’s parents were told that they would be denied that right to register their children’s deaths due to outdated legislation that states that, where deaths require an inquest or an inquiry, death registration is to be done solely by the registrar. All that those devoted parents wanted was to be part of the final official act for their precious children, but they were denied that.
After meeting the Minister, they were given assurances that he would look urgently at whether and how those changes could be made. Emma Lewell-Buck said:
“With each change of Minister”—
of course, that has been a feature of some ministries in this Government—
“the promises continued, yet nothing has changed”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/23; col. 122.]
In February 2023, the bereaved families attended yet another meeting with Ministers, at which they felt they were treated with contempt, patronised and insulted, and that it was clear that they been misled by the Government for nearly a year, because despite it being entirely possible to change the law, the Government simply did not seem to want to do so.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment. The Manchester Arena terror atrocity in 2017 chilled every parent in the country. When you watch your children head off to a concert or a party, excited and happy, you are never at ease until they are safely home. I have met many victims from this concert, and I have to say that it saddens me every time I hear about it. What happened that night is every parent’s worst nightmare and our hearts go out to them. We can only imagine their grief, which is still there today, and it is a loss from which they will never recover.
All of us in this Committee will want to be sure that these parents have all the support they need—this is what the Bill is all about. It is therefore deeply upsetting to hear that, after these parents sat through what must have been a harrowing public inquiry, they were then told that the registration of their children’s deaths would be done not by them but by a local authority official. This is bureaucracy at its most cold. The treatment of bereaved families by the state will always have a profound impact on their recovery. For those parents, being able to register their children’s death was, for them, an important step in their grieving process and it should be their right, as the parents, to have that facility.
It would appear that under the Home Office’s Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and the Ministry of Justice’s Coroners and Justice Act 2009, it is standard practice for a registrar to register deaths involving an inquest or inquiry. I understand that, if a person dies in usual circumstances, such as due to a health condition, a close relative can personally register their death. I did that in September for my mother, so I know that it is important. However, I am told that if they die in a major incident, it falls to the registrar. I also acknowledge that not all relatives want to register the death of a loved one, as in most cases, an interim death certificate is given soon after the incident for funeral arrangements —something I know about personally as well—but I want to see families being given a choice.
Having been to see so many Ministers is an insult: not just that they have been told “Yes, yes, yes” and then something else has been done, but every time they speak to a different Minister, it drains them. That they are having to explain, as parents who have lost children in the most horrendous way, beggars belief. What I am asking the Government and the Minister—all that is being asked for in this amendment—is that they be given that choice: that an extra space be found in the toolbar for the certificate, so that when a close family member wishes to be noted on the certificate, this can be achieved, without interfering with the coroner’s findings.
I understand that, sadly, it is too late for the victims of the Manchester Arena bombing, but I feel sure it will bring some solace to them that they have achieved something for future victims and can actually say “Goodnight” to the children they have lost.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I wish briefly to add my support to this amendment. It seems to me that there is no good reason why the amendment should not be passed. We have heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Newlove and Lady Thornton, about the emotional effect of suffering deaths of relatives in major incidents. It is quite clear that the emotional impact is severe. It is also quite clear that some alleviation, some relief, may be found in the process of registering the death. Why on earth should a relative not be able to register the death if they so choose? For that reason, I can see no reason to resist this amendment.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 121, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, is intended to establish a regulation-making power to allow a qualified informant, typically a relative or close friend, to provide information to register a death where the death is the result of a major incident. I thank the noble Baroness for this intervention on such an important and complex issue. I also pay tribute to the Member for South Shields and the right honourable Member for Garston and Halewood for their commitment and determination in championing this cause on behalf of the families bereaved by the Manchester Arena attacks. I also extend my deepest condolences to the families who lost loved ones in that terrible incident.
The Government are committed to ensuring that bereaved people remain at the heart of the inquest process and are able fully to participate in it. Bereavement is never easy, but it is inconceivably difficult to lose a loved one in circumstances which, by definition, are unexpected and traumatic, so we fully understand the importance for bereaved families of having a role in the registration of their loved one’s death following an inquest. For them, as for all who are bereaved, this could be a vital part of the grieving process. In this regard, I agree with many of the comments from my noble friend Lady Newlove.
However, it is also our responsibility to uphold the integrity of the inquest process. While all deaths must be registered, not all deaths will be investigated by a coroner. Deaths which are subject to a coronial investigation and include an inquest cannot be registered until the inquest has concluded. That is because in such cases the inquest is where all the facts including the personal details of the deceased and the cause of death are established. The legislation requires the registrar to register the death following the receipt of a certificate from the coroner. The registrar has the sole responsibility to register all deaths.
The amendment does not disapply the registrar’s statutory duties in this regard and would exist alongside those requirements. So, while I fully understand and sympathise with the intent behind it, it is unclear what the statutory purpose of the relative’s provision of information and the status of that information would be.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I believe that there are a number of good reasons why we will not accept this amendment. We must be mindful that an amendment of this kind could inadvertently undermine the integrity of the inquest process, in particular where the bereaved family is not in agreement with the coroner’s conclusion at the inquest. Furthermore, the amendment is limited to those bereaved by a major incident. The distress of losing a loved one in this way is unimaginably difficult. However, I do not believe that it is right that we legislate for this now, knowing that there would be many who would not be able to utilise the new provision.
While I am sympathetic to the purpose behind the noble Baroness’s amendment, the Government cannot support it for the reasons I have given. That said, we are very aware of the sensitivities surrounding this issue and it is important that we identify the most appropriate way forward. In doing so, we must also take into account the practical implications of other legislation, such as the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill—referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton—also currently before this House, which will enable implementation of remote delivery of registration processes in the near future.
For these reasons, I can confirm that—as my ministerial colleague the Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probation announced in the other place—the Government will undertake a full public consultation, as soon as practicable, on the role of the bereaved in death registration following an inquest. This will enable us to gather a wide range of views on potential ways forward. I hope that the noble Baroness will welcome my reiteration of this commitment, even if it goes no further as she has asked, and that, together with the Members who continue to champion this issue in the other place, she will work with the Government as we seek a solution to this sensitive and complex issue.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that answer. If I understood him correctly, his key point was that there is concern that the registration process might be compromised, but he did not say how. I do not understand how that could be. There is no question that the death must be registered, and bereaved families know that that cannot happen until the inquest has been completed, even if it takes years, as it sometimes does. I do not understand how that process would be compromised under these circumstances. I would be reassured if I thought that the consultation the Government are initiating will ask that question and work out how to solve that problem.
Lord Roborough (Con)
It might help the noble Baroness if I wrote with a fuller explanation of how it could compromise that process.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
That would be useful to the Committee, because then the legal eagles behind me and on other Benches could look at it and see whether it holds water. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove—whom I thank for her support—and I are not convinced. However, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.