House of Commons
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(8 years, 11 months 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
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
1. What recent discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on economic development.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
Last week, the Secretary of State and I met the Executive parties to review the implementation of the Stormont House and fresh start agreements, and the economic pact. Commitments include devolving corporation tax and rate-setting powers, if sustainable Executive finances are secured. This has the potential to have a truly transformational impact on the local economy.
Jake Berry
I congratulate the ministerial team and the Department on their success in the creation of the economic pact, which has such a direct impact on Northern Ireland. What further steps can be taken to ensure that the Executive remain focused on how they can deliver those objectives?
Mr Wallace
The best thing we can do is to celebrate the fact that, under the recent spending review, the Chancellor put in place measures to see a 12% rise in real-terms funding for capital projects by 2021. That will mean over £600 million more will be available than if we had frozen funding at 2015-16 levels. That is good news for Northern Ireland infrastructure. Hopefully, it will mean the A5 and the A6 will start to progress and we can open up Northern Ireland for more foreign investment.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
9. Does the Minister agree with the CBI and the trade union movement that the UK’s exit from the European Union would be damaging to economic development in Northern Ireland? Will he encourage his colleague the Secretary of State to argue for a yes vote?
Mr Wallace
There is a temptation in front of me. What I would say is that to date membership of the European Union has been good for Northern Ireland. I support the Prime Minister’s efforts to achieve reform. A reformed EU is where the United Kingdom wants to be: an EU that works for the benefit of everyone in the United Kingdom. If we can achieve that, we can take advantage of being neighbours of Ireland, one of Northern Ireland’s biggest economic partners, to make sure that the economy goes from strength to strength.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Later this week I will have the pleasure of visiting Royal Portrush golf course in Northern Ireland, which has been awarded the 2019 Open golf championship for the first time since 1951. Does the Minister agree that this is a tremendous achievement and opportunity for Northern Ireland? Will he work closely with the Executive and the golf club to ensure that it is a success similar to that in Scotland last year, which brought £140 million into the economy?
Mr Wallace
I am struck by how much effort Northern Ireland has made in trying to secure becoming the new home of golf. The marketing and promotion of golf courses in Northern Ireland is a real strength. [Interruption.] I know Scottish nationalists are so insecure about everything that they may take issue with that, but what is good for Northern Ireland and golf is also good for golf in Scotland. It will go from strength to strength. Major sporting events, whether horse-racing or golf, bring in real money in today’s economy.
Mr Speaker
The Chair of the Select Committee wishes to undertake a practical inspection of the course.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I am sure we all look forward to visiting the Open in 2019.
Further to the Minister’s answer on infrastructure, will he undertake to speak to the National Infrastructure Commission and Treasury colleagues about transport links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK? This is an important issue. Infrastructure spending is vital for the development of Northern Ireland’s economy. This would be a very good way to ensure that more investment came to Northern Ireland.
Mr Wallace
I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are determined to maintain air links. For example, when British Airways purchased Aer Lingus, we both had conversations with it over the past few months to ensure there was no degrading of the service provided to people at both main airports in Northern Ireland. We will work very hard, in partnership with the Executive, to maintain it. We should also point out that today’s economic figures for Northern Ireland are tremendously successful. It is the eighth successive month of growth, according to the Ulster bank purchase managers’ index. Over the year, the claimant count is down by 11,000 in Northern Ireland, a fall of 22.1%, outstripping the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr Dodds
I join the Minister in welcoming that news, and I certainly pay tribute to colleagues on the Northern Ireland Executive for their excellent work on the economy and the new First Minister’s commitment to making economic growth her first priority.
At the last Northern Ireland questions, the Secretary of State undertook to speak to the Chancellor about linking Northern Ireland to the northern powerhouse. This is a very important initiative, and I would welcome any news of progress on that front. Will the Minister update the House?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken to the Chancellor, who I think is considering the matter as we speak. I fully support the initiative. As a Lancashire MP, I certainly know the importance of our links with the west, including the Isle of Man and Belfast, via the ferry at Heysham, for example. I think we can both work to our mutual advantage on the northern powerhouse.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Further to the question from the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) about EU membership, would the Minister care to comment on a study by an Irish think-tank last year that said:
“Estimates…suggest that a Brexit could reduce bilateral trade flows between Ireland and the UK by 20 per cent.”
and that
“the expected impact of Brexit is likely to be more significant for Northern Irish exporters to Ireland”?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady asks if I would like to comment. The answer is no.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
The Minister will know that there is very real concern in Northern Ireland about the impact of withdrawal from the EU on trade, investment and funding for various projects, as other Members have already mentioned. An Economic and Social Research Institute report at the end of 2015 said that a Brexit would have “very serious consequences” for the Northern Ireland economy. Has he discussed this matter with the Northern Ireland Executive?
Mr Wallace
Obviously I have regular discussions with Ministers in the Executive and the south of Ireland. Of course, an economic free zone in the EU, which we are part of, is important to our trade, not only for England but in Northern Ireland. The ability of the 34,000 businesses in Northern Ireland to trade without barriers across the border to the south is very important to its economy. That is why the Prime Minister wants Britain to remain in a reformed EU. The first thing we can do is wait to see what those reforms are.
Vernon Coaker
Notwithstanding that, the Minister will know there are very serious concerns in Northern Ireland about a possible Brexit, particularly because it is the only part of the UK with a land border with another EU country. Will he reassure the Executive and the people of Northern Ireland on this matter, in view of the mixed messages on Brexit emanating from the ministerial team? In particular, I am talking about his views, as opposed to the Secretary of State’s.
Mr Wallace
There is no mixed message. Both I and my right hon. Friend are keen for the EU to produce some reforms, as is the Prime Minister in his strategy. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows—perhaps he has a special hotline—what reforms the EU will agree. When those reforms are presented to the House, we will be able to make a decision. For my part, I believe that in the past membership of the EU has been good for Northern Ireland.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
2. What steps the Government are taking to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The cross-party talks in 2014 and 2015 have brought us closer than ever to a consensus on the best way to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past. I will work with the Northern Ireland parties, representatives of victims and survivors and the Irish Government to try to build the support needed to enable legislation to be brought forward to establish the bodies envisaged in the Stormont House agreement.
Caroline Ansell
Former Eastbourne MP Ian Gow, who was murdered by the Provisional IRA, was remembered last year at a public speaking competition organised in my constituency to remember and celebrate his life and legacy, his courage and his conviction. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking with schools in Northern Ireland to deal with the legacy of the past and bring about change in community relations?
Mrs Villiers
My hon. Friend’s predecessor was a great parliamentarian, and I am sure the whole House will join her in thinking sadly of the atrocity that led to his death. The UK Government strongly support the programmes in Northern Ireland designed to build a shared society, many of which impact on schools and colleges. As a way of addressing the remaining difficulties, it is vital that we do all we can to break down past divisions so that sectarianism becomes entirely a thing of the past in Northern Ireland.
Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware that, sadly, there was no agreement on how to move the legacy issue forward, but money has been set aside, particularly for the proposed historical investigations unit. We have 3,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland. Will the Secretary of State at least make some of that extra resource available to the PSNI’s legacy unit to enable it to re-examine some of the pressing cases? People are getting older and they deserve justice.
Mrs Villiers
As the right hon. Gentleman points out, the UK Government have committed significant sums to support dealing with the legacy of the past as we have in relation to shared society projects, to which I referred earlier. Our starting point is that the £150 million for bodies to deal with the past is intended for new bodies such as the historical investigations unit or the Independent Commission on Information Retrieval, but we remain open to a dialogue with the Executive on whether it would be possible to use any of those moneys in advance of those new bodies being set up. It is vital that they are set up.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update us on what is happening to Soldier J and other former soldiers who were involved in the events in Londonderry on 30 January 1972, and tell us whether they continue to face prosecution? Let me impress it on my right hon. Friend that this is not simply a matter for the judicial authorities; it is a matter for her, and it is a matter of public policy for it is contrary to the interests of natural justice that men who have served their country should still, 44 years on, be facing possible prosecution.
Mrs Villiers
I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s grave concerns about this case. He will appreciate, however, that matters relating to police investigations and prosecutions are taken independently of Government and independently of politicians. My understanding is that that investigation continues.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
Referring to the Secretary of State’s earlier answer, I have to say that it is all very well—I do not for a minute doubt her good intentions; nor would any other Member—but when will we actually hear some dates and some details? When will the legislation she mentions be brought to the Floor of the House, particularly in respect of those aspects of fresh start where there is agreement? How long must the victims continue to wait?
Mrs Villiers
We hope to bring forward legislation fairly soon on those aspects of the fresh start and Stormont House agreements that have been agreed. The timing is less certain in respect of the legacy bodies because we were not able to build the consensus necessary for legislation. We did, however, close the gap on many issues. A key issue still to resolve is how the veto relating to national security will operate. I am determined to work with all sides to find a way forward. We have to protect our national security interests, but we will do all we can to ensure that that veto is exercised fairly in all circumstances.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
As well as asking the Secretary of State to recalibrate her fixation on the national security issues, may I also ask her to consider using the current delay at least to allow for qualitative pre-legislative scrutiny of what will be sensitive legislation when it comes forward?
Mrs Villiers
It is important to use this period constructively to engage with victims groups in particular. I had very useful discussions with the Victims’ Commissioner and with the Victims and Survivors Forum. We will consider in due course whether publication of documentation is appropriate. It is vital that we press ahead and build consensus to get these bodies set up and running.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
3. What progress has been made on implementation of the proposed reduction in corporation tax in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The fresh start agreement reaffirmed the Government’s support for devolution of corporation tax powers, so long as the Executive are able to demonstrate that their finances are on a long-term sustainable footing.
Seema Kennedy
Does my right hon. Friend agree that when tens of thousands of additional jobs and increased productivity and economic output over the medium and long term are at stake, we must not squander that opportunity?
Mrs Villiers
I fully agree that the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland provides huge opportunities to attract new business and inward investment and to boost the economy. My hon. Friend is right, however, that it needs to be accompanied by broader economic reform, such as a focus on skills, universities and infrastructure.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
While the devolution of corporation tax will be important in growing the Northern Ireland economy, does the Secretary of State agree that a vote to leave the EU would help the Northern Ireland economy insofar as it would release £18 billion every year for expenditure on public services, enable us to enter a trade agreement with growing parts of the world and release us from the stifling bureaucracies of Europe?
Mrs Villiers
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is tempting me to engage in arguments which will rightly be a matter for everyone in the country when they have an opportunity to vote in the referendum. We promised a referendum in our manifesto, and that is what we are going to deliver.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that existing cuts in university funding, followed by further cuts, and a consequent significant reduction in the number of graduates who are suitably qualified to become employees of the inward investment companies that we are trying to attract, will frustrate much of the benefit that is expected from the reduction in corporation tax?
Mrs Villiers
There is no doubt that the Northern Ireland Executive face difficult decisions, as do all Governments at a time when budgets are constrained. I believe it is important to focus on crucial economic areas such as skills, university and infrastructure. Perhaps there is a debate to be had about the way in which higher education is funded in Northern Ireland, but that, of course, is a devolved matter for devolved representatives.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
4. What steps the Government are taking to reduce cross-border crime in Northern Ireland.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
5. What steps the Government are taking to reduce cross-border crime in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
Along with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, the United Kingdom Government recently announced the creation of a joint agency taskforce to tackle cross-jurisdictional organised crime. It will enhance law enforcement co-operation in relation to, for instance, crime linked to paramilitaries.
Oliver Colvile
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement about the taskforce, but will she confirm that the fresh start agreement provides for additional funds from the United Kingdom Government to help to tackle continuing paramilitary activity?
Mrs Villiers
It does. The fresh start agreement allocates £25 million for tackling paramilitary-related crime and £3 million for a new monitoring body, but it provides substantial additional funds for more widely based shared society initiatives, which are also crucial to ending the influence of paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland once and for all.
Simon Hoare
We all know that, unfortunately, many organised crime groups on the island take advantage of the land border and commit the classic cross-border crimes of smuggling and excise evasion. The proceeds of those activities often go towards funding dissident groups. What efforts are my right hon. Friend and her ministerial team making to introduce preventive measures to eradicate such activities?
Mrs Villiers
In Northern Ireland, huge efforts are being made by the PSNI to prevent the border from being exploited by criminals, and those efforts will be enhanced by the new joint agency taskforce, building on the excellent work already done by the police services both north and south of the border in recent years.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
How concerned is the Secretary of State about the lack of convictions for fuel smuggling and, in particular, fuel laundering in Northern Ireland and the border regions?
Mrs Villiers
Obviously, everyone would like to see more convictions. A crucial aspect of the fresh start agreement is the Executive’s commitment to measures that will reduce the time that it takes to bring people to trial, because convictions are more likely to be secured if trials take place in a timely manner. I am sure the Executive will take the implementation of that crucial part of the agreement very seriously.
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very serious discussion of cross-border crime in Northern Ireland. We must hear Lady Hermon.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State will know that the Treasury has already announced the closure of a number of HMRC offices throughout Northern Ireland. Given that HMRC does a very valiant job in tackling cross-border crime, what guarantees can the Secretary of State give the people of Northern Ireland that those efforts will not be reduced if the offices are closed?
Mrs Villiers
I am entirely confident that the changes relating to HMRC offices will not affect HMRC’s ability to tackle cross-border crime. Indeed, we will see an enhanced effort, not least because, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), the proceeds of that kind of crime can end up in the hands of terrorists.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
6. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential effect of a reduction in rate of VAT on the tourism and hospitality sector in Northern Ireland.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Treasury Ministers, including the Chancellor. The Government have concluded that a VAT cut for the tourism and hospitality sectors could not produce sufficient economic growth to outweigh the revenue shortfall. It would need to be funded either by additional borrowing or by the raising of other taxes, both of which are likely to have a negative effect on the economy.
David Simpson
The case was successfully made for corporation tax, and rightly so, to attract investment into Northern Ireland. Surely a case could be made, for tourism and hospitality in Northern Ireland, to reduce VAT, especially in respect of the golf clubs, where there is an anomaly across the board?
Mr Wallace
I do not think there are many Members who would not like to see a reduction of the tax burden. Because of our long-term economic plan and the lifting of burdens on businesses elsewhere—the small business rate relief that is also available in Northern Ireland, the corporation tax cut, the freezing of national insurance contributions and employer contributions—we hope that, at least for tourism businesses and the hospitality sector, the cost of employing people and the other burdens can be lifted. That would help businesses to make their prices more competitive to encourage more people to take up the great offering of tourism in Northern Ireland.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I would also—[Interruption.]. I would also like to ask about VAT. Will he perhaps look at the thresholds—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I wanted to hear Mr Foster’s thoughts on VAT on tourism and hospitality, and it is very difficult to hear them. I hope the Minister heard; if not, blurt it out again man.
Kevin Foster
We will try again, Mr Speaker; thank you. I have heard what the Minister said about the rate of VAT. Does he agree that it might be worth having discussions about the thresholds, which may help smaller businesses in the hospitality and tourism sector in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the UK?
Mr Wallace
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I will write to the Chancellor and make his points clear to him.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
7. What recent discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the adequacy of women’s access to sexual health and family planning services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
Northern Ireland Office Ministers have had no discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive on the adequacy of women’s access to sexual health and family planning services. However, Department of Health officials discuss sexual health matters with their counterparts in the Northern Ireland Departments as appropriate. Sexual health advice and services in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter.
Cat Smith
The Minister will be aware that women in Northern Ireland can, and do, travel to England for abortions on the NHS. However, they cannot access NHS abortions; they have to pay to go privately. Does he agree that this is an inequality issue between women in Northern Ireland and women who live in, say, England?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Lady points out an interesting anomaly, and in advance of today I have asked my officials to provide clarity. I do know that there is a court case pending—or before the courts—in Northern Ireland on that very issue. It is important that we get to the bottom of the differences between living in one part of the UK and another and what NHS services are available.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the 11 years since 2004 Northern Ireland has seen a 47% increase in new cases of HIV while on the mainland it has fallen by 20%. The same situation applies to other sexually transmitted diseases. What discussions has the Minister had—or what discussions will he have—with Health Ministers here on the mainland and in Northern Ireland to ensure that there is an overall regional strategy to address this?
Mr Wallace
I am very happy to have discussions with UK Ministers on that subject and certainly will write to my counterpart in the Executive to make sure that both we and the Executive are doing our fair share to make sure that we prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
8. What recent discussions she has had with the Northern Ireland Executive on increasing exports.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)
The Government continue to work with the Executive towards rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy, including through collaboration on increasing exports and trade co-operation. Northern Ireland exports were valued at £1.62 billion in the third quarter of 2015, the highest quarterly value since 2008.
Mrs Villiers
We will certainly do that. Our long-term economic plan is working to boost trade within and outside the UK, as illustrated by the fact that the claimant count is down again in Northern Ireland in figures announced today. In total, since February 2013 there has been a fall of 40.2% in the claimant count in Northern Ireland.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
This morning the Enterprise, Trade and Investment Minister in Northern Ireland announced over 50 jobs in my constituency, which is a start in an area of high unemployment. Will the Secretary of State use her influence in the Cabinet to ensure that, when there are overseas development and trade visits, Northern Ireland companies are included, to bring inward investment to Northern Ireland?
Mrs Villiers
I can certainly do that. It is vital that UK Trade & Investment, in its work overseas to bring investment to the UK, champions the benefits of investing in Northern Ireland. It is a great place in which to invest, it has a tremendous record on inward investment and the UK Government are determined to see that continue.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
10. How the Government plan to commemorate in Northern Ireland the centenary of the battle of the Somme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr Ben Wallace)
The Government’s events to mark the centenary of the battle of the Somme will be held in Thiepval, France and in Manchester on 1 July 2016. Other regional events, including in Northern Ireland, are a matter for the local authorities and local communities. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We are discussing an important centenary of the battle of the Somme. The question from the hon. Lady must be heard and so must the answer.
Mrs Drummond
Thank you, Mr Speaker. In 1916, men from the 36th (Ulster) Division and the 16th (Irish) Division displayed great courage at the Somme, despite suffering huge casualties, with almost 2,000 men killed in the first hours of 1 July. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to liaise with the Government of the Republic of Ireland to commemorate the sacrifice made by those from both sides of the border?
Mr Wallace
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is committed, along with the Taoiseach, to commemorating our past with mutual respect and understanding. The Secretary of State and I are working with Ministers in the Irish Government to mark the events of this decade. I have discussed these issues with a number of officials, and I regularly meet the culture Minister, Heather Humphreys; we often attend events together, as representatives of both Governments, in remembrance of those people who died. I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has visited the Somme to remember what happened there, and it is important to note that both the south and the north had a shared experience and a shared history in the first world war, with both suffering while fighting for the cause of defeating the Kaiser.
Mr Speaker
The Minister has treated the matter very comprehensively, and we are most grateful to him.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As we reflect on the Somme and move towards the centenary of the conclusion of the first world war, will the Secretary of State or the Minister engage across government with the Prime Minister to think of a suitable national memorial restoration fund to allow us fittingly to bring our cenotaphs and memorials across this country up to standard for the centenary?
Mr Wallace
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and collectively the whole of the Government have heard his suggestion. It is important to remember the end as well as the beginning of the tragedy that was the first world war.
Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 January.
The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Thomas
If you have worked hard for a company and helped it succeed, surely you should be allowed to benefit a little from the profits that the company makes. Does the Prime Minister therefore think it is now time for companies such as Sports Direct to follow the example of the best British businesses and allow people to benefit from a small percentage of the profits?
The Prime Minister
We have encouraged companies to have profit-sharing arrangements, and we took action in previous Budgets to do that. But we are going further than that, of course, by making sure that there is, for the first time in our country, a national living wage, which will come in in April of this year. That means the lowest-paid people in our country—people on the minimum wage—will have a 7.5% pay rise coming this April, under a Conservative Government.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
Q3. With mounting global economic uncertainty, it was comforting to see this morning’s figures showing record UK employment. In this new age of kinder, consensual politics, does my right hon. Friend agree that every Member of this House should welcome the news that from North Yorkshire to north London, Britain is back in work?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; over the past year, we have seen more people in work in every region in our country, and that is welcome. This morning’s unemployment figures, which the House might not have had time to see, are very welcome. The unemployment rate is now the lowest in nearly a decade, at 5.1%; the unemployment rate is now lower than it was at the start of the recession; the latest figures show unemployment falling by another 99,000; and we have today in our country the record number of people in work ever in our history and a record number of women in work. Since I became Prime Minister we have 2.3 million more people in work, and I am sure that is something the whole House can welcome.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
It is nice to get such a warm welcome. [Interruption.] If Members will allow me for one moment, let me ask the Prime Minister this question. Where in his election manifesto did he put his plan to abolish maintenance grants for all students?
The Prime Minister
First of all, people will recognise that there is no welcome for the thousands of people who have found work in our country. What a depressing spectacle. In our manifesto, we said that we would cut the deficit and uncap student numbers, and we have done both.
Jeremy Corbyn
There is not such joy in Port Talbot and other places that have lost steel jobs. They want a Government who are prepared to support their industries. The Prime Minister has form when it comes to student maintenance grants because, in the Conservative manifesto, there was no mention—[Interruption.] Are you done?
Mr Speaker
I gently say to the Prime Minister’s dedicated Parliamentary Private Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson)—[Interruption.] Calm yourself, man. Auditioning to be a statesman does not include chuntering from a sedentary position.
Jeremy Corbyn
As I was saying, the Prime Minister has form here, because there was no mention of tax credit cuts in the manifesto either. This proposal will affect half a million students, which is not mentioned anywhere in his manifesto. I have a question from a student by the name of Liam, who says:
“I’m training to be a mathematics teacher, and will now come out at the end of my course to debts in excess of £50,000, which is roughly twice as much as what my annual income would be”.
Why is Liam being put into such debt?
The Prime Minister
What I say to Liam is that he is now in a country with a university system that has more people going to university than ever before, and more people from low income backgrounds going to university than ever before. In addition, I say to Liam—and I wish him well—that he will not pay back a penny of his loan until he is earning £21,000. He will not start paying back in full until he is earning £35,000. Our policy will put more money in the hands of students such as him, which is why we are implementing it. By contrast, the Labour policy, which is to scrap the loans and the fees, would cost £10 billion and mean going back to a situation where people went out and worked hard and paid their taxes for an elite to go to university. We are uncapping aspiration; the Leader of the Opposition wants to put a cap on it.
Jeremy Corbyn
I am pleased to say that Liam is trying to be a maths teacher, and that might help the Prime Minister as Liam did say that he was earning £25,000, which is more than £21,000—if that is a help. In 2010, the Prime Minister’s Government trebled tuition fees to £9,000, and defended it by saying that they would increase maintenance grants for students from less well-off backgrounds. They are now scrapping those very same grants that they used to boast about increasing. Where is the sense in doing that? Why are they abolishing those maintenance grants?
The Prime Minister
The sense in doing that is that we want to uncap university places, so that as many young people in our country who want to go to university can go to university. That is what we are doing. Before we have too much shouting from the Opposition, let me say that when they were in government, they introduced the fees and loans system. Given that this is the week that we are meant to be learning the lessons of the past election, let me read a lesson from somebody whom I rather miss. In the Times Higher Education, Mr Ed Balls wrote that
“we clearly didn’t find a sustainable way forward for the financing of higher education… If they”—
the electorate—
“think you’ve got the answers for the future, they’ll support you.”
In all honesty I say to the Labour party that, when it was in government, it supported fees and loans. When we were in opposition, we made the mistake that they did. If we want to be on the side of aspiration and of more university students, and if we want to help people make the most of their lives, the system that we have is working and the numbers prove it.
Jeremy Corbyn
That is from the very same Prime Minister who is taking away the grants that are designed to help the poorest in our society to access higher education. I want to ask him about one particular group who are now being targeted by this Government: student nurses. They were not mentioned in the Government’s manifesto. The repayments that student nurses will now have to make when qualified amount to an effective pay cut of £900 for each nurse. Why is he punishing those nurses when we need them in our NHS?
The Prime Minister
First of all, there are now 6,700 more nurses than there were when I became Prime Minister. I know that the Labour party does not want to face up to difficult decisions, but let me just give the right hon. Gentleman one statistic. Two out of three people today who want to become a nurse cannot do so because of the bursary system. By introducing the loans, nurses will get more money and we will train more nurses and bring in fewer from overseas. It is good for nurses, good for the NHS and good for our country, and it is only a Labour party that is so short-sighted and anti-aspiration that cannot see it.
Jeremy Corbyn
The Prime Minister and I would probably agree that we need to spend more and direct more resources towards dealing with the mental health crisis in this country. I have a question from somebody who wants to help us get through that crisis by becoming a mental health nurse. Vicky from York has a very real problem. She says:
“I would not have been able, or chosen, to study to be a mental health nurse without the bursary for the following reasons… I am a single mum and need support for childcare costs. I have debts from a previous degree. I am a mature student at 33. I would not take on further debts which would be impossible to pay back, and would not be fair on my daughter”.
She is somebody we need as a mental health nurse in our NHS. We are losing her skills, her dedication and her aspiration to help the entire community.
The Prime Minister
But two out of three Vickys who turn up wanting to be nurses are sent away by our current system, which means we are bringing in people from Bulgaria, Romania and the other side of the world to do nursing jobs for which we should be training British people. The British people want to train as nurses, the NHS wants more nurses, and this Government will fund those nurses, so let us help them train and improve our health service.
Jeremy Corbyn
The problem is that the Prime Minister is expecting Vicky and others like her to fund themselves by paying back a debt or paying back from their wages in the future. I do not think that she will have been very reassured by his answers today; they will have been unconvincing to her. He was not very good at convincing the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), a nurse herself, who said:
“I would struggle to undertake my nurse training given the proposed changes to the bursary scheme.”—[Official Report, 5 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 15.]
The Prime Minister will be aware that nine out of 10 hospitals currently have a shortage of nurses. Is not what he is proposing for the nurse bursary scheme going to exacerbate the crisis, make it worse for everybody and make our NHS less effective? What is his answer to that point?
The Prime Minister
I will give the right hon. Gentleman a very direct answer: we are going to see 10,000 extra nurse degree places as a result of this policy, because we are effectively uncapping the number of people who can go into nursing. I have to say that this week has all been of a piece, with a retreat by the Labour party into the past. We have seen it with the idea of bringing back secondary picketing and flying pickets, with the idea of stopping businesses paying dividends, and with the absurd idea that nuclear submarines should go to sea without their missiles. Anyone watching this Labour party—and it is not just the leader, but the whole party now—will see that it is a risk to our national security, a risk to our economic security, a risk to our health service and a risk to the security of every family in our country.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
Q5. Leicestershire and the east midlands continue to be a powerhouse of jobs and growth, attracting investment from the UK and beyond, and we are rightly proud of the success of our local businesses in Charnwood. Does my right hon. Friend believe that their continued ability to attract external and foreign investment would be helped or hindered were secondary picketing to be reintroduced?
The Prime Minister
First of all, let me say that the east midlands is a powerhouse of our economy, and in the last year we have seen employment in the east midlands go up by 17,000. I think that when businesses look at whether to invest in Britain, whether they are overseas businesses or indeed British businesses, they want to know that we are going to have good labour relations and not a return to the 1970s of secondary strikes and flying pickets. It is extraordinary that a party that spent so long trying to cast off the image of being in favour of these appalling industrial practices has now elected a leader and is backing a leader who would take us right back to the 1970s.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
World attention on the conflict in the middle east is focused on Syria and Iraq, and much less so on the catastrophe in Yemen, which has caused thousands of people to lose their lives and millions of people to flee their homes. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the UK Government are doing to support peace in Yemen?
The Prime Minister
We are doing everything we can with all the people taking part in this conflict to encourage them to get round a negotiating table, as they have done recently, in order to bring about what is necessary in Yemen, which is a Government who can represent all of the people. We have got to make sure that both Sunni and Shi’a are properly represented in that country. That is the only way that we will meet our key national interest, which is to back a Government in Yemen who will drive the terrorists, including al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula—AQAP—out of Yemen, because they have been, and are, a direct threat to the citizens of Britain.
Angus Robertson
Thousands of civilians have been killed in Yemen, including a large number by the Saudi air force, who have done that using British-built planes with pilots who are trained by British instructors, and who are dropping British-made bombs and are co-ordinated by the Saudis in the presence of British military advisers. Is it not time for the Prime Minister to admit that Britain is effectively taking part in a war in Yemen that is costing thousands of civilian lives, and that he has not sought parliamentary approval to do that?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman started in a serious place but then seriously wandered off. It is in our interest that we back the legitimate Government of Yemen, and it is right to do that. We have some of the most stringent arms control measures of any country anywhere in the world. Just to be absolutely clear about our role, we are not a member of a Saudi-led coalition. British military personnel are not directly involved in the Saudi-led coalition’s operations. Personnel are not involved in carrying out strikes, directing or conducting operations in Yemen, or selecting targets; and we are not involved in the Saudi targeting decision-making process; but do we provide training and advice and help in order to make sure that countries actually obey the norms of humanitarian law? Yes, we do.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Q7. The recent floods in the north of England have caused untold misery to people, to householders, to farmers, and to livestock. What we need is a long-term strategy for floods. I know that the Prime Minister has done a lot of work in Somerset and across the country. Some rivers need to be dredged and some need to be slowed down, and we need to manage our floodwaters in a better way. Along with our long-term economic plan, can we have a long-term plan on floods?
The Prime Minister
We absolutely can and we do. That is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is doing. We have got an unprecedented six-year commitment of £2.3 billion, but as important as the money is making sure that we have an absolutely joined-up approach, as my hon. Friend says, to dredging in some places, to building flood barriers in others, and to managing the water in our landscape, including through farming practices, in a holistic way so that we are using all the resources we have to reduce the likelihood of floods.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
Q2. There is concern on all sides about the recent rather patchwork approach to constitutional reform. We need a new Act of Union that sets out the rules and responsibilities so that the process of devolution by consent will be both fairer and more comprehensible. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet me and other members of the Constitution Reform Group to discuss a new Act of Union? We come from all the major political parties and include experts such as Lord Lisvane, better known to this House as the former Clerk, Robert Rogers.
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to meet the right hon. Lady, who has great expertise in this area. I think there is a common interest in it. What we are trying to do as a Government is to find a devolution settlement that works for all of the devolved nations of the United Kingdom, including, importantly, for England as well. We have made some very good progress with the further devolution measures in Scotland and Wales and with the maintenance of the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland. If there are further measures we can take, I am very happy to see them, but I do not necessarily believe that simply writing things down in one place will solve the problem. I am, however, happy to meet the right hon. Lady.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Q8. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our nuclear deterrent works against our nation’s enemies only if our nuclear submarines are actually equipped with nuclear missiles, and that the defence policy of those who do not believe that, such as the Leader of the Opposition, is inspired by the Beatles’ “Yellow Submarine”, which shows that, while Labour Members may twist and shout, their current leader certainly needs help?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenious question. There is a comic element to sending submarines to sea without missiles, but this is in fact an absolutely serious issue, because the deterrent has been, on a cross-party basis, an absolutely key part of our defence and making sure that we have the ultimate insurance policy, which we on this side of the House support and which we should vote on. All I can say when it comes to Beatles’ songs is that I suspect that the Leader of the Opposition prefers “Back in the USSR”.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Just under two weeks ago, a 16-year-old boy was murdered in a knife attack in my constituency. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest condolences to Charlie’s friends and family. Given that knife crime in London rose last year and that the number of teenage deaths as a result of it peaked at its highest level in seven years, what action will the Government take to make sure that we do not return to the days when knife crime in London affecting young people in particular was merely a fact of life?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman speaks for the whole House, which I am sure will want in spirit to be with the family and friends of Charlie Kutyauripo, who lost his life in that attack. There is nothing anyone here can say that will give them the comfort they seek. What I will say is that we have toughened the law on knife crime offences and the custodial sentences people are getting for those crimes. The police have done a huge amount to crack down on knife crime, which is why overall it has fallen by something like 17% since 2010, but there is still more to do in educating children and young people about the dangers of carrying a knife. In so many of these cases, the carrier of the knife ends up the victim of the knife attack so, as well as tough penalties and strong policing, we also need better education.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Q11. Does the Prime Minister agree that encouraging people in this country to learn the English language has a unifying effect? It aids integration and helps to create national identity and social cohesion, and should therefore be promoted.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The most important thing in our country is that we make sure that everybody can take advantage of the opportunities to work, get training and go to university. This is an opportunity country, but there is no opportunity for people if you do not speak the language. That is why we are going to target money at those people—they are very often women—who have been stuck at home, sometimes by the men in the house, and make sure that they can get the English language skills they need.
Let me make one other additional point, because this is so important. When I was sat in a mosque in Leeds this week, one of the young people there said how important it is that imams speak English, because if some young people can speak English but not Urdu or Arabic they need someone to guide them away from ISIL and its poisonous rhetoric. Speaking English is important for all, imams included.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Q6. Over the past few months, young people in Southampton have seen themselves frozen out of the living wage and housing benefit, and faced the downgrading or closure of the further education and sixth-form colleges from which many of them get their qualifications. We now see the ending of maintenance grants for those young people who want to go to university. What has the Prime Minister got against young people trying to make their way in life?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the hon. Gentleman what we are doing for young people: record numbers going to university; record numbers who are taking on apprenticeships; and record numbers in work. Actually, today, the unemployment figures show a record low in the unemployment rate among those people who have left school. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that one of the reasons why a Labour MP in the south of England is as rare as hen’s teeth is that they talk down our country and talk down opportunity in it.
Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)
Q12. I thank the Prime Minister for launching the apprenticeship delivery board on Monday evening at No. 10. These men and women, who are expert in their sectors, are coming together to deliver 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. Does the Prime Minister agree that it will be a great thing if, when students across our country log on to the UCAS website, they are informed about the opportunities for degree apprenticeships, as well as about more traditional degrees?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point for two reasons. One is that if you become an apprentice, that does not lock out the chance of doing a degree later in your career. Indeed, the opportunities for earning and learning are getting greater in our country. The second reason it is so important is that, in our schools, all our teachers are of course very well equipped to tell people about degree opportunities, because that is the route that they have taken—A-levels, the UCAS form and such like—but we need to improve the information in our schools so that people can see the opportunities for apprenticeships, in some cases then leading on to degrees.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Q9. My 24-year-old constituent Lara is in urgent need of a stem cell donor. Her family’s campaign, Match4Lara, is attracting global support. On Saturday, the O2 Centre in my constituency will run a spit drive to get as many people as possible on to the bone marrow register. Will the Prime Minister join me at that event on Saturday, and will he send a message of support to those working to keep Lara alive?
The Prime Minister
I certainly will join the hon. Lady in supporting Lara’s campaign. I have had meetings with bone marrow organisations in No. 10 Downing Street to support their matching campaign. I am sure that, by her raising it at Question Time in this way, many others will want to come to this event on Saturday and support Lara in the way she suggests.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Q13. The Prime Minister is aware that a number of colleagues and I await his response to our request, made in November, for a meeting regarding his EU renegotiations to discuss the importance of this Parliament—by itself, if necessary—being able to stop any unwanted taxes, regulations or directives, which goes to the core of issues such as control of our borders, business regulation and so on. Will he now meet us prior to the next EU meeting?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend can imagine, I am having a range of meetings with colleagues about the European issue. I am sure that I will be covering as many in our parliamentary party as possible. I have always felt, with my hon. Friend, that he has slightly made up his mind already and wants to leave the EU whatever the results, and I do not want to take up any more of his time than is necessary.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Q10. The UK Government are a cheerleader for China to be awarded World Trade Organisation market economy status, because they want the City of London to become a major trading centre for the Chinese currency. MES for China would make it nigh on impossible to impose tariffs on Chinese steel, despite its dumping strategy. Is this not a classic case of the Westminster Government once again putting the bankers of London before manufacturing workers in Wales and the rest of the UK?
The Prime Minister
I have to say that the hon. Gentleman is wrong both on content and on approach. The two issues are separate. There are market economies that Europe still puts dumping tariffs on—we actually did that recently with America, and we have done it in the past with Russia—so I think we should take these two issues separately. We should continue to pursue robust action against China, which is exactly what we are doing, based on the merits. In terms of a closer relationship with China—a trading relationship—I want to help those Welsh businesses, including companies such as Airbus, break into Chinese markets and to make sure we get the best for British jobs, British manufacturing and British exports. That is what we want in our relationship with China.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
Q14. Speaking of Airbus, the Mersey-Dee region, which straddles the England-Wales border, is one of the most dynamic industrial areas of the country. Does my right hon. Friend welcome the establishment of the all-party Mersey-Dee group, which has been formed to promote the economic success of the region? Will he urge his ministerial colleagues and the Welsh Government to co-operate with the group in its work?
The Prime Minister
First, let me join my right hon. Friend in welcoming the new group. It is important, when we look at the development of the Welsh economy, to think about how north Wales can benefit from growth in the north-west of our country and about the links between the north-west and Wales, which the group will examine. Clearly, HS2 and what happens at Crewe will be a vital part of that process. I am very happy to talk further with him.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Will the Prime Minister reiterate, not just on behalf of the Government, but speaking for the whole House I believe, the unconditional and unequivocal support of the British people for the people of the Falkland Islands and their right—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—their inalienable and British-held right to self-determination? Will he confirm that that will not be undermined in any way by some kind of accommodation or negotiation in which the people of the Falkland Islands may have an enormous say, but have no veto? They should have a right to determine their own future.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman has put it better than I ever could. The people of the Falkland Islands spoke as clearly as they possibly could in the referendum. They want to maintain the status quo. As long as they want that, they will have it guaranteed from me. I find it quite extraordinary that the Labour party wants to look at changing the status and giving away something people absolutely consider to be their right. That will never happen as long as I am in Downing Street.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Q15. As a former cub scout leader and Queen’s scout, I am pleased to say that scouting is thriving in Harrow. This year marks the centenary of the formation and founding of cub scouting across the UK. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the 150,000 young people who participate in cub scouting every week in the UK, congratulate and thank the leaders who give up their time voluntarily to enable young people to gain a sense of adventure in a safe environment, and call on more people to volunteer as leaders as part of the big society movement?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The scouts are a great part of the big society. We have provided them and other uniformed youth groups with more than £10 million of funding since I became Prime Minister to help them do their excellent work. I had a letter recently from Bear Grylls, the chief scout himself, looking at what we could do to welcome the centenary and give this fantastic organisation a big centenary boost.
Harry Harpham (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
The Prime Minister may be aware, and should be aware, that Sheffield Forgemasters announced this morning the loss of 100 jobs in this crisis-hit industry, many of which will be in my constituency. We have had lots of warm words and hand-wringing and some crocodile tears from the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Chamber about the tsunami of job losses across the steel industry. Can he tell me when he will actually do something to support world-class companies such as Sheffield Forgemasters?
The Prime Minister
We have taken action, including action on energy bills that will save these industries £400 million in this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman chose to inject a bit of politics into this, so let me inject some back. When the Labour party was in power, what happened to employment in the steel industry? It was cut by 35,000—cut in half. Where were the carve-outs from the energy bills then? Where were the special arrangements for taking votes in Europe that we have put in place? Where were the rules to make sure that we buy British steel when it comes to public procurement, as we will for HS2 and the carrier programme? If he is interested in Sheffield Forgemasters, he might want to have a little word with his leader about something called a Trident submarine.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
We do not yet know who will headline at Glastonbury this summer but we do know that, as things stand, they will not have anywhere to do their banking, as this world-famous town is to lose all three of its remaining banks within 12 weeks of each other. Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging those banks to think again and to ensure that they meet their responsibilities under the banking protocols?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly make sure that that happens, and I will arrange for my hon. Friend to have a meeting with a Treasury Minister to discuss this issue. We are seeing huge challenges, partly because of the growth of internet banking, but it is important that in market towns such as the ones that he and I represent, banks continue to have a physical presence on the high street.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The Prime Minister might be aware of the tragic case of Julie Pearson, a young Scottish woman who died in Israel in November and who was allegedly beaten and raped before her death. I met her family recently, and I hope that the whole House will join me in offering their condolences to them. They are struggling to get answers from the Israeli Government and authorities; in particular, they are struggling to get her autopsy report. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss putting pressure on the Israeli Government and authorities to look into Julie’s death, so that her family can get the answers that they want and ultimately get justice for Julie?
The Prime Minister
I am not directly aware of this case, but I will certainly take it up with the Israeli authorities on the hon. Lady’s behalf, because it is important that her constituents get answers on this matter. Perhaps I could arrange for her to have a meeting with Foreign Office Ministers so that they can discuss this. We have good relations with Israel, and we should use those good relations to make sure that when people need answers, they get them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We have a number of urgent questions—two, to be precise—after which we will deal with points of order. I look forward with eager anticipation to hearing from the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) at that point.
Petition
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
This petition is about the BBC licence fee. It declares that the petitioners are dissatisfied with the BBC licence fee of £145.50, and notes that 50 MPs recently demanded an urgent Government review of BBC funding. For almost 20 years, the Magistrates Association has been calling for the decriminalisation of TV licence evasion, and it is concerned that evaders are punished disproportionately.
In 2014, 52.8 million letters were sent out to suspected evaders, which were followed up by 3.8 million visits by TV licensing enforcement officers. That resulted in 204,018 prosecutions or out of court disposals, of which 24,025 were ultimately unsuccessful. Further to that, there were 40 imprisonments for an average of 20 days, for non-payment of associated fines. It should be noted by the House that the licence fee represents a much higher proportion of income for poorer households, and it gives an unfair advantage to one broadcaster and distorts the marketplace.
In conclusion, the petitioners find the BBC’s content outdated and biased, and therefore do not wish to fund it. Further to that, an online petition on this matter was signed by 176,079 individuals as of 9 am today. Interestingly, that is approximately the same number of people who are currently—
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the petitioners are dissatisfied with the BBC licence fee; further that up to 50 MPs recently demanded an urgent Government review of the BBC funding; further that the Magistrates Association has been calling for the decriminalisation of TV licence evasion for nearly 20 years, concerned that evaders are punished disproportionately; further that 52.8 million letters were sent in 2014 to suspected evaders which were followed up by 3.8 million visits by TV licence officers, 204,018 prosecutions (or out of court disposals), of which 24,025 were unsuccessful, and 40 imprisonments, for an average of 20 days; further that the licence fee represents a much higher proportion of income for poor households; further that it gives an unfair advantage to one broadcaster; further that the UK is now perceived less favourably internationally by countries that have never enforced TV licence fees or have abolished their TV licence due to its public broadcaster funding model; further that the petitioners find the BBC's content outdated and biased and therefore do not wish to fund it; and further that an online petition on the matter was signed by 170,000 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to end the BBC licence fee.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001669]
Mr Speaker
We are grateful. The hon. Gentleman has given us the thrust of his petition. I have been rather generous. It is, to be blunt, over-long. The hon. Gentleman has had his say. We are deeply obliged to him for what he has said, but his oration is now over. What he needs to do is read the prayer and present the petition.
Poppi Worthington
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the failures set out by Mr Justice Jackson yesterday following the death of 13-month-old Poppi Worthington from Barrow in my constituency in December 2012?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)
The death of Poppi Worthington is deeply distressing and disturbing. Like other Members, I am sure, I have found reading the press reports incredibly difficult and moving. The House will understand, however, that I cannot comment on the case in detail. The judge made a ruling yesterday in the family court, but any further debate could be prejudicial to a second inquest into Poppi’s death, which is due to take place later this year. There are allegations of police failings in the original investigation into her death in 2012, which have been investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. The IPCC report has been completed but cannot be released yet, so as not to prejudice the second inquest.
Child sexual abuse is an horrendous crime, and there is nothing more important than keeping children safe. That is why we have given child sexual abuse the status of a national threat in the strategic policing requirement, which sets a clear expectation on police forces to collaborate across force boundaries, to safeguard children and to share intelligence and best practice. As we have made clear, we will not hesitate to take tough action when councils or the police are failing in their statutory duty to protect children. Since 2014, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has been inspecting forces in England and Wales on their response to child protection, including child sexual abuse. Forces that fall short of expectations are being re-inspected to make sure that they have dealt quickly with any failures.
The Home Office is committed to strengthening the law enforcement response and we are working with police forces and the National Crime Agency to ensure that more resources and improved technology are available to investigate abuse properly. It is critical that the police have the appropriate expertise and tools to identify, pursue, investigate and prosecute offenders. We have introduced new sexual risk orders and sexual harm prevention orders, which the police can now use to manage an individual who presents a risk of sexual harm to a child. We have introduced powers for the police to close an establishment that might be used for sexual activity with a child.
It is vital that police identify child sexual abuse and respond appropriately. The importance of this cannot be overestimated. In March last year, as part of the “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” report that the Prime Minister launched, the College of Policing and the national policing lead for child protection and abuse investigations set a requirement on all forces to train all new and existing police staff to respond to child sexual abuse and exploitation. That includes call handlers, police community support officers, detectives and specialist investigators. The College of Policing has developed and will keep under review a comprehensive training programme to raise the standard of the police response to child sexual abuse.
This Government are committed to tackling child sexual abuse, but I know that is little consolation to the family of Poppi Worthington. I commend this statement to the House.
John Woodcock
I thank the Minister for her reply. On 11 December 2012 Poppi Worthington was taken to bed by her mother a perfectly healthy child. As Judge Jackson set out yesterday, she was brought downstairs eight hours later by her father, Paul Worthington, in a lifeless state, with troubling injuries, most obviously significant bleeding from her anus. Mr Justice Jackson was clear in his judgment yesterday that Paul Worthington raped that child and she died soon afterwards, yet it was a full eight months later that the parents were first questioned by the police, despite a pathologist raising concerns at the time that her death was caused by a “penetrative sexual assault”. By this time crucial evidence had been lost by the police, such as the nappy she had been wearing at the time and her bedding.
In October 2014 the then coroner took just six minutes to record Poppi’s death as “unexplained”. The Crown Prosecution Service has said that there is currently no prospect of a case being made against the father. Despite the clear pointers available, Cumbria social services chose to allow Poppi’s siblings to return to the family. Although the failures happened after the child’s death, not before, the combined failure of several agencies is every bit as serious as those that contributed to the deaths of Victoria Climbié and baby Peter in Haringey.
Will the Government make it clear that they value Poppi’s life as greatly by ordering now a similarly thorough independent investigation into how the failings happened? Will they, as the second inquest is continuing, order a separate force to come in and take over the investigation into Poppi Worthington’s death to try to salvage some prospect of justice for her life? Will they renew their focus on improving social services in Cumbria, which have been troubled, as we know, for many months? What will the Government do to ensure the safety of the Worthington children and all the children in Barrow, given that Paul Worthington is still walking free?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman sets out the case clearly and passionately. He is working for his constituents, as he always does. He will know that in 2015 an Ofsted investigation found Cumbria social services to be inadequate. The Department for Education is in the process of an intervention into Cumbria social services to ensure that child social services work properly in Cumbria and that all children in Cumbria have the support and protection they rightly need.
We need to learn lessons from this case, but we need to wait for the second inquest. The Attorney General has granted the second inquest, and until it is completed we will not have the full facts. The hon. Gentleman will know that new evidence will have to come to light for the case to be reopened. That may or may not be the case, depending on the IPCC inquiry and the second inquest, but this is an operational matter in which I, as the Minister, would not be able to intervene.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
This sounds like a depressingly familiar catalogue of failure and cover-up. At the time of this tragic death, a report would routinely have been given to the children’s Minister, and the Home Office pathologist, Dr Alison Armour, presumably also reported her suspicions to the Home Office. What action was jointly taken by Ministers in the Home Office and the Department for Education, particularly given the ongoing danger to siblings involved? What has happened to the serious case review that, since 2010, has been routinely published to reveal where failures have been made and to enable lessons to be learned, which is so crucial in this case?
Karen Bradley
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He did an incredible amount of work as children’s Minister to deal with the failures in the system that we have seen here and he raises some very important points, many of which I, too, have raised with officials today. If he will forgive me, I will write to him on the specific points. May I also—I failed to do this earlier—offer to meet the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), because I think that there are many things that it is important we discuss face to face?
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is clear that there were multiple failings in this tragic case. I appreciate that the Minister has said that she does not want to jeopardise any further investigation, but it is terribly troubling that His Honour Judge Jackson remarked that “the police investigation was clearly deficient and that the police failed to launch a real investigation until nine months after Poppi’s death” and that the case is “more than usually troubling”. Will the Minister support the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for a separate police investigation by a separate police force? Will she also support the publication of the IPCC’s draft report on this case?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman asks about the failings in the police, and that is what the IPCC report will contain. We will know more when we see that report, but it cannot be published, even in draft, before the second inquest. I am sure that he understands that it is very important that that inquest can take place in a fair and open manner so that we get to the facts of the case and understand what happened. He will know more than anybody that Judge Jackson was looking at the balance of probabilities, whereas a criminal case would need to be beyond reasonable doubt—different levels of proof and of evidence are required. The hon. Gentleman understands that. I want to get to the bottom of this. I want to have the full inquest and understand exactly what happened, at which point we can determine the appropriate action to be taken.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for his measured and reasonable putting of this important question. The whole nation will have been touched by the terrible tragedy that befell this little baby girl. Is it not troubling, however, that public agencies used public money to try to stifle debate and hide transparency and openness, using the family courts? Is it not time we reviewed the interface between the family courts and public agencies, because openness and transparency are the best disinfectant for and solution to such issues, ensuring that something this terrible and awful never happens again?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. If he will allow me to do so, I will discuss the point with the Lord Chancellor, as this will be a matter for the Ministry of Justice, and return to him with further thoughts when I have had that discussion.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to pursue these matters until all lessons can be learned, but does she agree that the crucial relationship is that between the police and social services? The crucial process is that information is passed on immediately. If that is done, these terrible acts can be discovered even more efficiently.
Karen Bradley
The right hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. If agencies are not working together and talking to each other, we will not find and protect those children who so desperately need our protection. I have been impressed and pleased with the work in multiagency safeguarding hubs, and in the many that I have visited it is truly refreshing to see police, social services, probation services and other agencies that have a role in protecting the most vulnerable people in society—particularly children—sitting together, co-located, working together, sharing information, and taking action immediately. We need more of that, and I know that Chief Constable Simon Bailey, who leads on child sexual abuse for the National Police Chiefs’ Council, is keen to ensure more multi-agency working so that we get that protection.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I support what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) has said, and as a father of three young daughters my blood runs cold at this case. The Minister has rightly pointed out the growing need for integration of services outside Whitehall. There are many departmental responsibilities in government, including her Department, the Law Officers, the Lord Chancellor’s Department and—crucially—the Department for Communities and Local Government, which deals with funding for county councils to ensure robust, fit-for-purpose social service departments. Will she ensure that there is also full integration at Whitehall level?
Karen Bradley
Astonishingly, my hon. Friend managed to forget the Department for Education. The Education Secretary chairs the child protection implementation taskforce, of which I and other Ministers are members. That cross-department team considers how we implement what we have learned from other examples of child abuse, and what we have learned from this case will give us more information and help us to develop better ways to protect children.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This is clearly a disturbing case, and I understand the Minister’s reticence in not wanting to do anything that could prejudice justice. She will also have had only limited time in which to pursue it. May I urge her to keep pursuing this case, and not to be deterred by the process that is taking place? Will she clarify the situation regarding the police investigation? Surely we do not need to wait for the inquest for a police investigation to continue. As I understand it, the IPCC is verifying whether the police did the right job previously, and we need a police investigation now into this individual case. Could that be done by an alternative police force?
Karen Bradley
I know that the right hon. Lady has campaigned on these matters for many years, and I assure her that I personally will take this case and ensure that we get to the bottom of it. We must learn all the lessons from it, and understand what happened and what went wrong. We owe that to Poppi Worthington and to all other children in that situation. Specifically on the police investigation, she will be aware that we need new evidence before a new investigation can be held, so perhaps I may write to her and provide more information about the case as I receive it.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
As a councillor I experienced the horrors of the cases of Jasmine Beckford, Victoria Climbié and baby P. I understand that the Minister cannot give a firm commitment today, but it is clear that those who are in charge of these investigations are not learning the lessons of the past. If the evidence points that way, will the Minister commit to ordering a proper judicial inquiry, so that further reviews can be undertaken and people can understand the lessons that have been learned and implement any changes, as proposed by the Communities and Local Government Committee last year?
Karen Bradley
We need to know exactly what happened, and understand the IPCC report and the findings of the second inquest. We also have the victim’s right to review, and once we have completed the legal processes the family wish to use that. I want to wait until all the facts are on the table and we know what happened before making any commitment.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
As a fellow Cumbrian MP I am deeply shocked and concerned about this case, and I support my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) in his call for an independent investigation. I appreciate what the Minister is saying about the second inquest. The IPCC report appears to have been leaked to the press, which is of great concern. Poppi’s death was in December 2012 and it has taken a long time to get to where we are. The case has only gone through the family courts. No one has been charged, and I am concerned about that and would welcome the Minister’s comments.
Karen Bradley
I am not aware that the IPCC report has been leaked, but I will look into that. Perhaps when I meet the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness we could discuss that issue once we have more information about what has happened. If the report has been leaked that is shocking and should not have happened.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) for bringing this issue to the House, and the Minister for her response. None of us can fail to be moved by the picture of the 14-month-old innocent Poppi Worthington. Although there has been some conflicting opinion, given the amount of press coverage and the opinion of Mr Justice Jackson and Dr Alison Armour, surely the case must be reopened. We should be able to stand proud of our British justice system, but in this case justice has not been done for Poppi Worthington or any other child that might be in danger. If the IPCC should find that the Cumbrian police did not act as they should have, will that be a reason for reopening the case?
Karen Bradley
I assure the hon. Gentleman that when we know what happened, where the failings were, and what—if anything—could have been done differently, I and my fellow Ministers will ensure that proper steps are taken and that we do all we can to get to the bottom of this issue and get the justice that Poppi Worthington rightly deserves.
Asylum Seekers: Middlesbrough
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the revelation today about discriminatory treatment of asylum seekers in Middlesbrough.
The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking this urgent question and allowing me the opportunity to set out the Government’s response to the issues raised in The Times today.
From the outset, I underline that the United Kingdom has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need it, and we are committed to providing safe and secure accommodation while asylum cases are considered. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 introduced the policy of national dispersal, which was designed to share the impact of asylum seekers across the whole United Kingdom. Under that arrangement, asylum seekers are housed across the UK under voluntary agreements between national Governments and local authorities. Those arrangements have been in place since 2000. Under current arrangements—the commercial and operating managers procuring asylum support services, or COMPASS, contracts—three companies provide asylum seeker accommodation, transport and related services. In Middlesbrough those services are provided by G4S.
As right hon. and hon. Members will have seen from my response published in The Times this morning, I am deeply concerned about the issues raised and the painting of doors of asylum seeker accommodation in a single colour. Anything that identifies asylum seeker accommodation to those who may wish to harm those accommodated in the properties must be avoided. I spoke to the chief executive officer of G4S this morning, and he assured me that neither G4S nor its subcontractor in Middlesbrough, Jomast, has a policy that states that asylum seeker properties should be identified in such a way. However, Jomast does accept that the company uses red paint across its portfolio of properties.
I have asked Home Office officials to look into this issue as a matter of urgency, and to report to me and the permanent secretary. G4S has advised that doors in the area will be repainted so that there is no predominant colour. As part of the audit that we have commissioned, I have asked it to ensure that COMPASS contracts have been appropriately implemented in Middlesbrough, and I have considered the Home Office’s arrangements for monitoring contract compliance in that area and more generally.
The Home Office works with COMPASS providers and local authorities to ensure that the impact of dispersal on local communities and services is taken into account when allocating accommodation. It is the responsibility of the suppliers to ensure that all accommodation used meets required contractual standards, and complies with the decent home standards—specifically, that accommodation is safe, habitable and fit for purpose. Each property used is subject to a housing officer visit every 28 days. In addition, Home Office contract compliance teams inspect a third of all properties using an intelligence-led, risk-based approach to monitor standards and ensure maintenance faults are rectified within the prescribed timescales.
Let me be clear to the House that I expect the highest standards from our contractors. If we have evidence of discrimination against asylum seekers, it will be dealt with immediately.
Andy McDonald
I am very grateful to the Minister for his very thoughtful and considered response. I share with him Middlesbrough’s proud record of welcoming people fleeing persecution and torture. We are rightly proud of the excellent arrangements we have with our churches and charities. I am proud of those people and the welcome they offer.
As the Minister rightly says, the background is that the contract for housing asylum seekers in the north-east is held by G4S and subcontracted to Jomast. The excellent article by Andrew Norfolk published in The Times explains that Jomast has 168 properties in two wards. Some 155 of them have their front doors to the street painted red. This marks out the properties and their inhabitants for those with prejudicial motivations and evil intent. There are accounts of asylum seekers being abused in their homes as a direct result of being so readily identifiable. Their doors have been smeared with dog excrement and daubed with graffiti showing the National Front logo. Eggs and stones have been thrown at their properties and they have been subjected to verbal abuse.
Such a policy may not be deliberate, but Jomast have to think it through. There is clearly a risk of undermining social cohesion and the safety of those seeking sanctuary. I am aghast that G4S claims no knowledge of that. Jomast has undertaken to remedy the position, but it is imperative that the Government insist that remedial action be taken as a matter of supreme urgency, and that the contractor and subcontractor are held to account. The Minister talks about the way the contract is managed. I ask him to stick to the theory he outlined in such great detail, because I am aware that the practice is far from the theory. Many people can be confined to one bedroom. That, simply, is not dignified. It is not a humanitarian response to put people in those conditions.
The public policy implications for contracting out the arrangements are devastating. People should not derive public profit from these matters; they are a matter for central Government and local government. Local government is the best organisation to look at the wider implications of welcoming people into our communities in this way. I therefore ask the Minister to review and reconsider that matter.
When did the Minister first become aware of this concern? When did G4S become aware of it and what action did it take? What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the readily identifiable red doors are corrected and on what timescale? At the moment, Jomast says it acknowledges the issue and will address it over three to six months. I suggest to the Minister that that is simply not acceptable. This must be done as a matter of supreme urgency: I have in mind a timescale of three to six weeks, rather than three to six months. I would like him to address that. If the Minister concludes that what has happened is discriminatory, what action will he take? In short, will he outline what penalties he has available to him to make sure that G4S, which has, frankly, suffered a great deal of reputational damage in recent times, and Jomast are held to account?
James Brokenshire
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he raises his concerns. Like him, I pay tribute to the work and the approach that Middlesbrough, as an authority, has taken for many years in seeking to accommodate asylum seekers. He will be aware that a number of discussions have taken place between my officials, Home Office officials and Middlesbrough Council on the concentration of asylum seekers, as Middlesbrough is the only place in the country where our threshold of one in 200 is exceeded. I have asked my officials to look at that closely and at a plan to bring it back within the appropriate standards we have set.
On the report in The Times today and on the experiences of some people being accommodated in housing in Middlesbrough, I condemn absolutely any crimes of hate, any actions that sow divisions within communities and any actions that seek to intimidate or mark out asylum seekers in any way. We have been in contact with the local police this morning to underline any issues of community reassurance. They are actively considering appropriate steps. Complaints about hate crime should be made to the police, so they can be followed up and appropriate action taken.
The hon. Gentleman asks me about the urgency of response. As soon as I heard about the matter, which was late last week when The Times first contacted us, I instructed officials to look into it urgently because of my very serious concerns about what I was hearing. I expect the audit to be concluded on the Home Office side quickly, and completed at the latest by the end of this month.
On G4S, we have an ongoing regime of inspection of the maintenance and condition of properties. G4S has met standards where maintenance issues have been identified as requiring remedial action. It has followed through on them, but the audit will look at that closely. The chief executive officer of G4S underlined to me, in a conversation this morning, the seriousness and urgency of the issue. He underlined the sense of urgency that he and G4S attach to repainting doors to make sure there is no predominant colour. I said that I expected that to be done quickly. That was the message I got back from G4S.
This is a matter of utmost concern. The Home Office is working on it closely. We will look at it carefully and rigorously. It is not simply a question of looking at the contract. If there are issues that need to be brought to the attention of the police, and criminal action taken thereafter, that will be a matter for the police. I urge those with evidence to come forward and ensure it is reported appropriately.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I echo the plea for urgent action on the ground. Throughout the past 15 years, when the number of asylum seekers has been a hugely controversial and sensitive public issue, one of the best things has been that on the ground in communities there has been very little tension and very little violence. At a human level, the policy has been handled very well. It would be tragic if that were to end with some of the actions in Middlesbrough we have heard described. Obviously, the Minister will have to take a number of actions that will take some time, but on the immediate, on-the-ground action, if what is required in the short term is to repaint 150 front doors, then frankly this should not be taking three months or three weeks. The painters should be out now and it should be done by the weekend. I hope the Minister can assure the House that that kind of urgency will be shown.
James Brokenshire
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. He has understanding and experience as a previous holder of the office I now hold as Immigration Minister. I can assure him of the urgency I have impressed on G4S in respect of resolving the issue quickly. The chief executive officer underlined that he recognised and understood that clearly. We will be monitoring the situation closely. I have asked officials to go to Middlesbrough tomorrow to assess the situation on the ground and to start work on the audit. I hope that that reassures my right hon. Friend of the urgency that I, my officials, and, from what we are hearing, G4S attach to this matter.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Today’s report in The Times is obviously deeply concerning, and I recognise the Minister’s concern and the steps he has taken to get to the bottom of it. It is concerning that such a thing has happened. It is early days but it seems right—it does not seem that the facts are disputed—that the doors were painted red. It is also concerning because of the underpinning arrangements. How did this come about, and how did nobody think it inappropriate for the doors to be so painted, particularly given that, as the Minister has outlined, there is a Home Office inspection regime and a local authority assurance scheme? How did nobody, under those arrangements, think there was anything wrong? There is also concern about the consequences. Hate crime is increasing—it increased by 18% last year—and the consequence has been hate crime in Middlesbrough. That is concerning in its own right. I echo the view that the sooner something is done to rectify the situation, the better. There is also concern that this matter is before the House only because of the careful work of Andrew Norfolk at The Times, not because some internal inspection or auditing scheme flagged it up as a matter of concern.
The Minister has told us when he first knew, and I appreciate he has put steps in place to make further welcome inquiries, but how did this escape whatever inspection or assurance regime was in place? Were the properties inspected or assured by the Home Office or anybody else? If not, what can be done to improve the regime? What conversations has the Minister had with the contractors in Middlesbrough? Is this an isolated example? Is it something that has happened just in Middlesbrough, or are there examples in other parts of the country? Have inquiries been made into that? If so, what have they shown so far? If not, can such inquiries be made? What further conversations can be had with all private providers of accommodation to ensure that this does not occur again anywhere and that, if it has occurred anywhere else, it is rectified as soon as possible?
James Brokenshire
As I highlighted, I spoke to the chief executive of G4S this morning and asked that work be done to assess whether this is an isolated issue. I have asked how we can talk to all the providers under the COMPASS contract and how inquiries can be made with their subcontractors as well. From initial investigations, it seems that some providers of social housing might, for maintenance purposes, paint in a particular colour. We are investigating that further. Jomast made the point that about 20% of its property portfolio is asylum accommodation. We will focus on this issue as part of the audit work I have commissioned, and we will see whether lessons can be learned about the ongoing maintenance assessment. Inspections are undertaken to identify whether accommodation remains suitable or whether steps need to be taken by our contractors. I have tasked out that work as part of the examination. I underline again that we take hate crime very seriously and will remain focused on it in our forthcoming work.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about inspections. We will look at the processes and procedures to establish why the significance of this issue was not identified earlier. I have noted reports in the press and elsewhere of the issue having been highlighted to G4S and potentially to others. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for bringing this issue to the Floor of the House. The provision of accommodation to asylum seekers deserves significant scrutiny, so I welcome the Minister’s announcement of an urgent audit of asylum-seeker accommodation in the north-east. SNP Members and others across the House share his concerns and will have been appalled by the revelation of what seems to have been, at best, an eye-wateringly negligent red-door policy.
We question, however, whether an audit goes far enough. The story of the red doors is troubling, but the delivery of contracts for the provision of asylum accommodation across the country is a broader issue and raises similar serious concerns. Will the Government listen to those concerns? When I speak to the Scottish Refugee Council, I hear about problems of poor-quality accommodation; poor treatment of asylum seekers by staff, sometimes because of a lack of training, sometimes because of inexcusable abuse and mistreatment; inappropriate sharing of accommodation; and about not so much a lack of integration of the services referred to by the Minister but their complete and utter fragmentation. Will he broaden the inquiry into the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers to reflect those concerns? We need an inquiry that speaks to asylum seekers living in accommodation provided by Government contractors and to organisations such as the Scottish Refugee Council, which could have so much input. Finally, when will a decision need to be made into the extension of these contracts and what opportunities will there be for parliamentarians to scrutinise and input into that decision?
James Brokenshire
Property standards are monitored under the COMPASS arrangements by three key performance indicators, to ensure that accommodation is safe, habitable and fit for purpose. Accommodation is inspected frequently by G4S, the local authority and the Home Office, and, as I have indicated, housing officers visit a third of all properties every 28 days, on an intelligence-led basis, under our overall compliance approach.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about complaints. Provisions in the contract ensure that complaints should be escalated and taken seriously. Again, that is something I want the audit to understand in terms of the situation in the north-east. The matter will be pursued in that way. He also asks for a broadening of the arrangements. I do not judge that to be appropriate. I will see what the audit tells us and then consider whether further action is needed.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is extraordinary that, with all these inspections, it took a journalist as distinguished as Andrew Norfolk to expose the problems. I accept what the Minister has said—he has acted with great speed in trying to put measures in place—but the Home Affairs Committee has written to Ministers in the past with concerns about the COMPASS contract. Over the years, Ministers have given these contracts to big companies, such as G4S and Serco, that are once removed from the real providers. As the House knows, G4S is a serial offender in respect of these breaches. With the greatest will in the world and despite his commitment to making sure something is done, I do not believe that an audit will be sufficient. If it is accepted that the doors were painted in a certain colour, that is appalling, and it should have been discussed and discovered earlier. When the audit is complete, will he undertake either to make a statement to the House or come to the Select Committee with its findings?
James Brokenshire
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I appear before his Committee frequently to update it and, by extension, the House on matters relating to the immigration system. I believe I might be appearing before it in the near term, which might provide an opportunity for me to update him and his Committee and, by extension, other right hon. and hon. Members, about the work being done. I can certainly give him that assurance.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted the question of whether it was accepted or known that doors were painted a particular colour. As I have already told the House, there is a practice among some social housing providers to paint in a particular colour for maintenance purposes, but it is precisely those factors that I will want to understand as part of the audit of not simply the practice in the north-east but the inspection regimes and processes we have in place to identify whether issues, standards and complaints are dealt with appropriately.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
It is a good job that we have journalists such as Andrew Norfolk, who also helped, of course, to expose the Rotherham abuse scandal. Is it not a matter of concern that whenever some abuse is known about and comes into the public arena, the Minister makes a statement and somehow or other G4S seems to be involved? I would have thought that that would be a source of some concern to the Home Secretary and her Ministers. I do not question for a moment the Minister’s objections, just like those of the rest of us, to any form of discrimination, but should not those responsible for what occurred—the painting of doors in red where asylum seekers are concerned—be told in the clearest possible language that certain aspects of 1936 Berlin are not to be repeated in Britain in 2016?
James Brokenshire
We need to look at this issue very closely and carefully, which is precisely what we have committed to do. As to G4S and the properties it provides in the north-east, we examined about 84 properties where inspections were successfully completed. Where defects were identified, action was taken. According to our assessment, there were no key performance indicator failures in respect of Middlesbrough. That is precisely what the audit will examine further, taking into account the state and condition of the properties. This House has telegraphed its message very clearly today, in standing against hate crime and discrimination and ensuring that those who are here and who have sought lawfully to claim asylum are given a fair and appropriate welcome by this country, as we would all expect.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is my understanding that concerns about this practice of painting doors red were first raised in 2012 by my Liberal Democrat colleague and then Middlesbrough councillor, Suzanne Fletcher. She has pursued the issue doggedly ever since, and it is largely due to her efforts that the matter has now come to light today. She was told by G4S that it had received no complaints, so there was no need to take any action. That could manifestly not be the case, and does it not raise in the Minister’s mind at least a suspicion that an audit is somewhat less than what is required? Yet again G4S has come to public attention for all the wrong reasons, and yet again it has been found wanting.
James Brokenshire
I discussed with the chief executive this morning the issue of complaints and when the matter was first made known to G4S. It is a matter that he has committed to examine further to get to the bottom of how G4S handled the issue for its own satisfaction. It is a question of doing the audit I have commissioned urgently to see the situation on the ground and understand how the inspection and audit regime has been conducted thus far. I will obviously want to reflect on what that tells me.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Jomast has a major base in my constituency, and this is not the first time that it has come under national media scrutiny for the wrong reasons. I have visited some of the hovels that have apparently passed the test as “decent homes”, driving huge profits directly from Government contracts. While the Minister inquires further into this latest scandal, will he also order a further review in real detail of the standards of Teesside accommodation, including houses of multiple occupation in my Stockton North constituency, and get a better deal and better value for money for both tenants and the Government?
James Brokenshire
As I have already indicated, a key part of the work we undertake is to see that accommodation is safe, habitable and fit for purpose. That is what the inspection regime looks at. To date, on the basis of the advice I have seen, those standards have been met. Clearly, however, we can focus on that element as part of the audit and see what that information tells us.
bill presented
House of Commons Members’ Fund Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Mr Christopher Chope presented a Bill to consolidate and amend provisions about the House of Commons Members’ Fund; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 January, and to be printed (Bill 121).
Transport of Nuclear Weapons
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about controls on the transportation of nuclear weapons.
I would like to take this opportunity to call on the Government immediately to clarify what safety measures they have put in place and, ultimately, to put a stop to these convoys travelling through our towns and cities. It is my hope that greater awareness in this House of these convoys will strengthen calls across the country to rid us of nuclear weapons once and for all.
On several occasions since my election last May, nuclear convoys have passed through my Midlothian constituency along busy routes with commuters and families. These convoys pass with no regard to the danger they pose to the people of Midlothian. My constituents are horrified—and understandably so. As some Members will know, Midlothian is a semi-rural constituency, immediately south of Edinburgh, sitting at the foot of the Pentland hills. Penicuik is one of Midlothian’s largest towns, where we find the Glencorse barracks with Beeslack High School and Mauricewood Primary School in close proximity. Perhaps we can imagine the scene around lunchtime on a bright May afternoon, with the children from Mauricewood primary playing in the school fields and the pupils at Beeslack High School out enjoying their lunch, while just over the fence sit half a dozen weapons of mass destruction.
Since then, there have been countless reported incidents where convoys have continued to travel across the UK, regardless of severe weather warnings, with the most recent instance only last weekend in Stirling. A number of areas of the country are suffering from flooding while others are under snow, and emergency services are pushed. Roads and rail infrastructure are challenged almost to breaking point—yet still these convoys make their trek up and down our countries.
Following the public outcry in Midlothian on 22 May, I wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence to ask a number of safety questions, including what assessment had been made of the proposed route. I have to say that the answer provided to me was woefully inadequate. In his response, the Minister for the Armed Forces claimed that there had been an unbroken safety record for 50 years. That response could have been written by Frank Drebben and the Police Squad, saying “Nothing to see here, move along”. In actual fact, more than 70 individual safety incidents involving convoys were recorded by the Ministry of Defence over the period between July 2007 to December 2012. Those figures were provided to me by Nukewatch, an organisation that helps to monitor the convoys’ movement, and they had been provided to it by the MOD.
Alarmingly, the movement of convoys has changed. In 2005, MOD rules restricting travel by night were lifted, but moving convoys by night increases the risk of accidents and collisions, and makes security much more difficult. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has pointed out that drivers are far more likely to fall asleep at the wheel at night. These long journeys now take less than 20 hours, adding pressure to crews and critical safety equipment while families sleep in their beds. At a time when we have a daily reminder in this House that the UK threat level remains “severe”, these convoys are dangerous, highly visible and not only a risk through the level of accidents, but a moving target for terrorists.
Some might claim this is being alarmist, but it has been said that
“such an attack has the potential to lead to the damage or destruction of a nuclear weapon within the UK and the consequences of such an incident are likely to be considerable loss of life and severe disruption to the British people’s way of life and to the UK’s ability to function effectively as a sovereign state”.
These are not my words—they are from the MOD in response to a freedom of information request by Nukewatch in 2005. We should just think about that— “considerable loss of life” and inability to function “as a sovereign state”. If anyone still thinks it is a good idea to have these convoys passing through our communities when the potential consequences have been acknowledged, they can feel free to do so. I have to say that I certainly do not. Given the enormity of these words, we must ask ourselves whether nuclear convoys are more of a risk to the British people and their way of life than terrorism. If that is the case, we have a moral, ethical and valid compelling mandate to remove that risk from our towns, our cities and our nations.
We need look only at the effects of social media to understand how powerful the risk is. When convoys travelled through Midlothian, I was alerted to the fact through Facebook and Twitter. Ordinary members of the public were drawing attention to the grim scene of nuclear materials passing their front doors. It is delusional to think that a convoy of 20 large vehicles can ever go unnoticed in this day and age. The existence of the convoys is already well documented, and if members of the public can do that, it seems logical to assume that others with darker motivations could do so as well.
I am sure that we are all far too well aware of the appalling damage and loss of life that a terrorist attack can bring about, but running convoys of nuclear weapons through the country does nothing to deter that. In the event of such an incident, or a fire or major explosion, local authorities might not be fully prepared to deal with the immediate aftermath. Although the police are informed of an approaching convoy, they are not obliged to inform any other services, including the fire and rescue services.
In a scenario of that kind, with lethal plutonium billowing around my constituency, local people would be at the mercy of a response team that is based in Bath. While I am sure that the members of that team are highly skilled and have considerable expertise, they are nevertheless based 380 miles from my constituency. At worst, if there were a fire or a major explosion, my constituency and neighbouring areas would be flattened.
This issue has been discussed in this House before. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) raised many of the same points during a debate back in July. However, the issue has not been raised solely by SNP Members, and I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) for conveying her support for the Bill. As well as passing through 21 local authority areas in Scotland, the convoys pass through, or fly over, 13 in Wales and 91 in England, so this is not just an issue for Scotland.
As the House anticipates a potential vote on the overhauling and upgrading of the system through the Mk4A refurbishment programme, the Government should also be clear about the impact that the programme will have on the frequency of convoys. If every single warhead is to be replaced, and every single one is to be sent down to Berkshire and back again, I can only imagine the scene: you are standing on a street corner, observing the passing of military vehicles, some guarding and some carrying nuclear weapons, but you are not in North Korea. You are on the A702 in Penicuik.
Finally, let me raise a matter of great importance, and praise the hard work of the men and women who are employed on our submarines or as part of the logistical operation. They do an incredible job. It must not be forgotten that, regardless of our views on nuclear weapons, the men and women who work with them are doing a phenomenal job.
I believe that most of the people of Scotland, and, indeed, most people in my constituency, remain opposed to the UK Government’s policy of maintaining and upgrading the Trident system. However, I hope that the debate will persuade other Members, even if they agree with the pro-Trident policy, to show their concern and agree that real risks are involved in nuclear convoys. The transport of nuclear weapons should not be based on an argument for convenience at the expense of safety. The policy as it stands lacks transparency, it is counterproductive in that it does not protect us from terrorist attacks, and it shows a blatant disregard and lack of judgment in relation to our own citizens. While my ultimate hope is that the Government will see sense and think again about their policy of renewing Trident, they should at the very least respond to Members’ calls for an end to the absurd policy of driving nuclear weapon material near our schools, nurseries and front doors.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
People in my constituency periodically receive warning notices telling them what to do in the event of a nuclear incident—I receive such notices in my own house—and iodine tablets are given out lest such an incident should occur. The difference—I was going to refer to the difference between the people of Barrow and Furness and the constituents of the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) in Scotland, but that would not be correct. The difference between the people of Barrow and Furness and SNP Members is that the former have a mature understanding of the fact that the regulatory governance structure is internationally overseen, and is designed to keep everyone safe.
Not only are live nuclear reactors maintained on submarines in Barrow and Furness, a few hundred yards from my house, without incident and without any of the paranoid scaremongering that has been deliberately whipped up by the hon. Gentleman, but nuclear material is taken by rail along the south and west coasts of Cumbria, and is taken entirely safely. The hon. Gentleman is trying to frighten schoolchildren and nursery children, and I really think he ought to know better. If he has done any research, he must surely know that the idea that there could be a sudden derailment, the whole of Scotland could immediately be filled with a cloud of plutonium, and everyone would put on gas masks and then die is a complete fantasy—and a fantasy designed not to achieve a greater level of safety for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, but merely to add fuel to the fire of the SNP’s absurd argument.
In case you have forgotten that argument, Madam Deputy Speaker, it goes like this. “We believe in nuclear weapons, and we want Scotland to be protected by nuclear weapons under the NATO umbrella, but we also think that those nuclear weapons are immoral and abhorrent, and they must come nowhere near Scotland. They can be 50 or 100 miles down the road in Barrow and Furness if you like, and keep us all safe, but we do not want any of them on our shores.”
The hon. Gentleman was patting submarine workers on the head. He was saying to those who maintain and build the submarines that he and his party had the utmost respect for them. What absolute rubbish! His Bill would cause thousands of them to lose their jobs, never to return to Scottish soil. [Interruption.]
Let me end by saying—if I am able to do so above the hubbub of the Scottish Members who are trying to distract me—that the Bill has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with prosecuting the SNP’s absurd argument, which is certainly not supported by the people of Scotland. Every opinion poll, bar the one carried out by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—I will give SNP Members that: they have CND with them—has made it clear that the Scottish people, like those in the rest of the United Kingdom, are in favour of maintaining an independent nuclear deterrent while other countries possess them.
The Bill will not get anywhere, so I will not trouble the House by pressing it to a Division. We need to proceed with important business concerning psychoactive substances. I just want people to know, for the record, that the Bill is utter poppycock, and that no regard should be paid to it.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Owen Thompson, Brendan O’Hara, Douglas Chapman, Kirsten Oswald, Carol Monaghan, Martin John Docherty, Mike Weir, Steven Paterson, Drew Hendry, Alex Salmond, Pete Wishart and Margaret Ferrier present the Bill.
Owen Thompson accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 March and to be printed (Bill 122).
Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 241 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 306 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 47 / Noes: 307 - Question accordingly negatived.
17:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 228 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 3—Control of cannabis—
‘(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State shall consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs pursuant to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 with regard to the use of her powers to make regulations under sections 7, 10, 22 and 31 of that Act to—
(a) delete from Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 the substances listed in subsection (2), and
(b) add those substances to Schedule 2 to the 2001 Regulations.
(2) The substances referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) cannabis, and
(b) cannabis resin.”
The intention of this amendment is to re-schedule Cannabis from a Schedule 1 drug to a Schedule 2 drug for the purposes of promoting research into its medical use.
New clause 4—Referral to Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—
‘(1) The Ministers shall refer to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) any substance which is, or may be, a psychoactive substance.
(2) The ACMD shall advise the Ministers whether the substance is, or appears to the ACMD likely to be, misused and of which the misuse is having, or appears to the ACMD to be capable of having, harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “the Ministers” has the same meaning as in section 1(4) of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs).”
New clause 5—Review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall commission an independent evidence-based review of—
(a) the effectiveness of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in reducing the harm caused by the misuse of drugs, including social problems connected with their misuse, and
(b) the implementation of the Act.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay a copy of a report of the review before both Houses of Parliament within one year of the passing of this Act.”
New clause 6—Possession of controlled drugs—
‘(1) The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit section 5(1) and (2).
(3) After section 5 insert—
“5A Measures in respect of possession of controlled drugs for personal use
(1) Where a person is detained on suspicion of having committed an arrestable offence and is found to be in possession of a controlled drug, falling within Schedule 2 (Class A drugs) in circumstances which do not constitute an offence under section 3 (restriction of importation and exportation of controlled drugs) or section 4 (restriction of production and supply of controlled drugs), a senior officer or a local authority may require the person to attend a drug treatment programme or drug awareness programme.
(2) The Secretary of State shall by regulations define “drug treatment programme” and “drug awareness programme” for the purposes of this Act.
(3) Regulations made under this section must be made by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.””
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “about” insert “reviewing the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and”
Amendment 24, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
‘(6A) Section [Control of Cannabis] provides for legal possession and supply of cannabis prescribed by a doctor.”
Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 1, line 14, after “any” insert “novel”
Amendment 19, page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
“(a) in the opinion of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is capable of producing a psychoactive effect in a person who consumes it, and
(aa) is, or appears to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs likely to be, misused and of which the misuse is having, or appears to them capable of having, harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem, and”
Amendment 12, page 1, line 16, leave out “and” and insert—
“(aa) is not prohibited by the United Nations Drug Conventions of 1961 and 1971, or by the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but which may pose a public health threat comparable to that posed by substances listed in these conventions, and”
This amendment to the definition includes part of the alternative definition of psychoactive substances proposed to the Home Affairs Select Committee by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.
Amendment 20, in clause 3, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
‘(2A) The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs shall propose to the Secretary of State the amendment of Schedule 1 for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) if they consider that a substance does not have, or is not capable of having, harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem.”
Amendment 21, in clause 5, page 3, line 9, at end insert—
‘(2A) It shall be a defence that the person did not supply the substance for gain (whether direct or indirect).”
Amendment 13, page 3, line 15, at end insert—
‘(5) It is not an offence under this section for a person (“A”) to supply a psychoactive substance to person (“B”), where A and B are known to each other and such supply is part of an agreement to obtain psychoactive substances for either A’s, B’s or both’s own consumption and the supply does not profit person A.”
This amendment avoids one person being criminalised when, as part of a group, he is responsible for obtaining psychoactive substances for the group where, in effect, each person in the group is purchasing for their own consumption.
Amendment 14, in clause 8, page 4, line 38, leave out paragraph (i)
This amendment seeks to exclude from criminalisation those who order psychoactive substances over the internet for personal consumption.
Amendment 22, page 5, line 19, at end insert—
‘(5A) It shall be a defence that the person imported the substance for his own consumption.”
Amendment 15, in clause 10, page 6, line 22, at end insert—
‘(3) In sentencing, the court shall take account of the relative harm associated with the psychoactive substance that was the subject of the offence.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that sentencing is commensurate with the potential harm done by the substance involved.
Amendment 4, in clause 58, page 36, line 25, at end insert—
‘(2A) The report must inform Parliament on progress made in improving education and awareness about new psychoactive substances.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to include a section on progress in NPS education in their statutory review.
Amendment 25, in schedule 1, page 40, line 5, at end insert
“except to the extent necessary to give effect to section (Possession of controlled drugs).”
Amendment 1, page 41, line 12, at end insert—
“Racetams
8 Pramiracetam
9 Oxiracetam
10 N-phenylacetyl-L-prolylglycine ethyl ester
11 Phenylpiracetam
12 Nefiracetam
Cholinergics
13 L-Alpha glycerylphosphorylcholine
14 Citicoline
15 Meclofenoxate
Miscellaneous
16 L-Theanine
17 Oxitriptan
18 Tongkat Ali
19 Resveratol
20 Trans-resveratol
21 Sulbutiamine”
This amendment exempts a number of substances from scope of the regulation regime introduced in the Psychoactive Substances Bill. The substances in this amendment are commonly used to improve individuals’ cognitive performance and have been found to have positive effects in a number of academic studies.
Amendment 5, page 41, line 12, at end insert—
“Miscellaneous
8 Alkyl nitrites”
This would exempt “poppers” from the Bill, as recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee.
Government amendment 10.
Lyn Brown
Both amendment 4 and new clause 1 deal with the key issue of drugs education and awareness. This Bill contains provisions to disrupt the supply of new psychoactive substances, but they will not be effective without action to reduce demand. What we need is a coherent and comprehensive education and awareness strategy to go alongside this Bill.
Amendment 4 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to update Parliament on the progress made by the Government in improving education and awareness of new psychoactive substances. The Bill requires the Secretary of State to bring a progress review before Parliament. Our amendment prescribes that this review should contain information about education and awareness, too.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
At the end of last year I visited St Alban’s RC high school in my constituency, my old school, and saw there at first hand the kind of educational work that was being done on so-called legal highs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is precisely the kind of approach we need?
Lyn Brown
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Wales has a very impressive education programme, and I will come to that later in my contribution.
New clause 1 seeks to amend the Education Act 2002 to make personal, social, health and economic education include a focus on drugs and new psychoactive substances. It should be a foundation subject in any national curriculum. The Government’s drug education strategy contains some warm words about providing good quality education and advice so that young people and their parents are provided with credible information on actively resisting substance misuse, but these warm words are not, and were not, acted upon. The coalition Government reversed Labour’s plans to make PSHE a statutory requirement, despite that being recommended in the review carried out by Sir Alasdair Macdonald. They closed the drugs education forum, a source of expertise on drugs education in England which disseminated information to teachers across the country. The forum was closed as part of a drastic cut in drugs education spending. According to the Department of Health, drugs education spending was reduced from £3.9 million in 2009-10 to around £500,000 in 2010-11.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the need for PSHE to include these measures. Given that Five Year Forward view set out by Simon Stevens for the national health service assumes £5 billion-worth of savings coming from prevention, is this not exactly the kind of prevention we should be promoting in our schools?
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I remember my facts rightly, the Government estimated that having a comprehensive drugs education would cost approximately £500 for every pupil in England and Wales. If we offset that against the average of nearly £1 million that would be spent on a person misusing substances over the course of their lifetime, we can see it can be cost-effective to provide decent, comprehensive drugs education and so stop us spending at the other end, on people misusing and abusing substances.
Statistics provided by Mentor UK, the drug and alcohol charity, demonstrate that this was a disastrous set of decisions by the Government. Some 60% of schools now teach drugs education for one hour or less per year, and 59% of pupils say they cannot remember having a drugs education lesson in the last year. Paul Tuohy, former chief executive of Mentor, has told a national newspaper:
“We are probably in the worst situation for drug education for decades.”
Where there is drugs education in our schools, the quality is questioned. Ofsted found that 40% of PSHE teaching was not good and needed to improve. A 2013 survey of teachers by the PSHE Association reported that 81% of respondents would like more classroom resources for drugs and alcohol education.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Can my hon. Friend give an example of any anti-drug use education programme here or anywhere else in the world in this century or the last century that has resulted in a reduction in drug use?
Lyn Brown
I am going to come to that later in my speech when I talk about Wales. Although there has not yet been a proper examination of the findings from the drugs programme that Wales has put into action, the initial findings appear to show that it has had some impact. If my hon. Friend will allow, I will continue with my—[Interruption.] Thank you: I will continue with my oration.
The evidence, including from the Government’s own inspectors, suggests that the Government’s approach to PSHE simply is not working. This failure has occurred at a time when the growth of the new psychoactive substances industry has started radically to alter the drugs situation in our country.
Moreover, parents want these changes. A National Union of Teachers survey suggests that around 88% of parents want PSHE to be compulsory. A 2011 survey conducted by Mumsnet showed that 98% of parents were happy for their children to attend PSHE lessons.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
While this legislation will go some towards addressing legal highs, there is still the issue of the purchase of legal highs online. Does the hon. Lady agree there is still much to do in relation to that?
Lyn Brown
I agree that there is much we can do to prevent the supply of, and demand for, these substances. This set of amendments is dealing with demand, and I feel that, unless we get across the message that these so-called legal highs are neither legal nor safe, the demand on the internet will become even greater. We need to get across the core message that the Government are sending through this Bill: these drugs are not legal and not safe. The demand on the internet needs to be curbed as well, which is why we need to make sure that we have proper education and information out there.
Teachers, parents and the Government’s own inspectors think we should have more and better drugs education, but it appears that the Government do not agree. In Wales, a Labour Government show us how successful an alternative approach can be. A £2 million investment in the all-Wales school liaison programme has made substance misuse education a core subject in 98% of Welsh primary and secondary schools. Almost all Welsh schoolchildren receive accurate, consistent and credible information about the potential harms of drugs, rather than having to rely on friends, myths, the internet and guesswork. The school programme is complemented by the Welsh emerging drugs and novel substance project, a new psychoactive substances information and harm reduction programme, as well as measures to educate parents. These are all part of a £50 million investment in reducing drugs harms.
There are signs that the Welsh approach is working. Drug deaths in Wales are down by 30% since 2010. By contrast, drug-related deaths have been creeping up in England. There was a 17% increase in the last year, and the Office for National Statistics states that they are now at the highest level since records began in 1993.
Too much of the drugs education in our schools is focused on providing information. Evidence suggests that to get drugs education right, it has to be taught alongside a focus on the life skills which empower young people to resist peer pressure and make informed decisions.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
It is good to hear from the hon. Lady again; I enjoyed listening to her in Committee. I agree with a lot of what she is saying, and nobody is suggesting the situation is perfect, but we have Mentor UK, the “Rise above” programme and the FRANK campaign, and I feel sure she will come on to say that while of course there is a role for the state and for education and health, there is also a role for parents. I am a parent of two young children, and I intend to educate them as well as I possibly can with the information I have about the dangers of psychoactive substances. Does the hon. Lady agree that that has got to be a key part of this?
Lyn Brown
I do so agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. Unfortunately, I have not been lucky enough to become a parent, but I have nieces and I know that what their parents tell them and the information available to their parents is crucial in their making the right decisions.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
There are a lot of very responsible parents out there who will of course talk to their children about legal highs, and about building resilience and self-confidence so that they make the right decisions in their lives. We have to accept, however, that unfortunately many children do not have the advantages we would like them to have, so it is incumbent on us all to recognise that education within the school setting is another way of getting important messages across.
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend is right indeed about that.
These life skills can be taught only by helping children think about the challenges and dangers they face. They need to understand that bullying is often a tool of the drug pusher, and that a consequence for people taking drugs from pushers is often that they will get into debt or be open to exploitation. When these messages are introduced in the classroom, they can result in conversations between young people and a real learning process rather than it all being a bit hit and miss, as my hon. Friend says, if this occurs out of school. We need information, values and context in order to deliver a quality drugs education. That is why drugs education belongs in the sort of comprehensive personal and social education that can be provided by PSHE, and not solely, as is happening so often, in science lessons. Unfortunately, the Government have consistently opposed making PSHE a foundation subject whenever the issue has been raised in this House.
There is reason to believe that education about new psychoactive substances is particularly bad. Research by the Royal Society for Public Health found that a quarter of young people aged between 16 and 24 believed that so-called “legal highs” were safer than illegal drugs. As we all know, that is a dangerous misunderstanding because some new psychoactive substances have been classified as class A drugs. It is little wonder that young people, and indeed older people, are confused when they are being bombarded with marketing tricks from drug pushers who tell them that these are safe and legal alternatives. Given the ingrained and damaging myths around new psychoactive substances, I find it astonishing that as of 2 June just £180,556 has been spent over three years on education programmes about these drugs.
New psychoactive substances education and awareness is not just about schools. That is why I have tabled amendment 4, which would place a statutory duty on the Home Secretary to include an update on progress in improving new psychoactive substances education and awareness in her statutory review. The amendment would focus minds at the Home Office and compel it to put in place the most effective and comprehensive awareness campaign possible.
The Welsh Assembly found that 57% of new psychoactive substances users used the media as their main source of information about these substances. Public relations and advertising campaigns therefore have a key role to play, particularly among adult groups where the Government cannot act as a direct provider of education as they do in schools. The Government’s own public awareness campaigns are limited to the FRANK website, which, regrettably, has almost no social media presence. In the absence of any Government action, the Angelus Foundation has been forced to run its own advertising campaigns, using fundraising and corporate donations in kind. I want to praise its work again, but I am sure it would acknowledge that these campaigns should be nationwide and comprehensive, and it simply cannot afford to do this itself. The job it is doing is the job that Government should be doing.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I, too, very much commend the Angelus Foundation, which gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and has been very important in establishing the case for more education. Is it not strange that the “FRANK” website and the information it provides are wholly separate from, and without any connection or link to, other great work being done, such as the films that are pushed through social media about awareness of new psychoactive substances? There is no collaboration; surely we need the Government to take a lead on that.
Lyn Brown
I say give the hon. Gentleman a job in the Home Office, because we would become much more effective if we put into practice what he has just suggested. In Committee, the Minister seemed to agree—I do not want to put words into his mouth—that FRANK was inadequate. He said:
“I put my hands up: ‘Talk to Frank’ is not perfect. We will work with everybody to try to ensure that “Talk to Frank” improves...the way in which it is feeding information is perhaps not as open or as direct as possible. Let us sort that now.”––[Official Report, Psychoactive Substances Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2015; c. 84.]
I encourage the Minister, in responding to the points I have raised, to respond to the point the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) has just made and to give us some understanding of the progress that has been made in sorting it.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
The hon. Lady may not be aware that a very prominent anti-drugs campaigner in my constituency, Mary Brett, has always had a lot of problems with the FRANK website, particularly because of its emphasis on harm reduction. The feeling is that the website fails to really point out the dangers in a direct way that youngsters can understand. I therefore rise to support the hon. Lady in hoping that the Minister will re-examine this issue, because many very good campaigners with honestly held views think that FRANK is not good enough.
Lyn Brown
I thank the right hon. Lady for making that point. I know very little about drugs, apart from what I have learned hard over the past few months. I did not even know what poppers were when I first took on my brief—I had never heard of them; I thought they were the little things with the string that we had at parties. When I looked at the FRANK website it did not enlighten me that much. I needed something a bit more basic that would help to enlighten and educate me, and I therefore agree with the point she has made.
I urge the Minister to accept my amendment 4 and pledge to report to Parliament on the progress made in delivering the Government’s education strategy. It really is not a big ask and if the Government are serious about drugs education—I genuinely believe that the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice is—they ought to be committed to monitoring this rigorously, at the very least. He claimed in his letter to the Bill Committee that the statutory review should focus on the operation of the legislation. I agree, but the operation of this legislation will not happen in a vacuum. He has repeatedly said that it must be complemented by a communication and awareness strategy. It therefore seems appropriate to me that a look at the “operation” of this legislation would include a substantive section on education and awareness, just to make sure that we are getting the messages out there and reducing demand.
I am sure the Minister will agree that we should be keen to review and evaluate the impact this legislation will have, and I am pleased there is provision in the Bill to ensure that that will happen. However, will he provide assurances that in the regular and annual collection of statistics about arrests, prosecutions, sentencing, offender management and treatment, information collected about substances covered by this legislation will not be subsumed into the similar data collected for drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? Similarly, will he confirm that surveys carried out by the Government on crime and public health will separate out the consideration of information about the Misuse of Drugs Act controlled drugs and of information about psychoactive substances? I raise that matter because it will be too easy simply to obscure the impact this legislation will have if the information is collapsed into the existing systems for collecting data about action taken on drugs controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
I would also like the Minister to accept new clause 1—a girl can dream! The Government’s approach to PSHE simply is not working and we cannot stand by and let that happen when new psychoactive substances are bringing new dangers into our communities.
While I am on my feet, I will also speak to amendment 5, which, if passed, will add poppers to the list of exemptions to the ban on psychoactive substances. Poppers would then be treated like nicotine, alcohol and caffeine—substances that we know to be psychoactive, but do not feel it judicious to ban. We support the Bill because legislation is necessary to safeguard against the serious harms created by new psychoactive substances. Our concern to safeguard against harm is exactly why we believe that poppers should be exempt from the ban on psychoactive substances. In our judgment, fewer harms are likely to occur if poppers are added to the exemption list.
The Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice (Mike Penning)
I am conscious that this is an intervention and not a speech. Later on, when I have a chance to respond to the debate in the tone that has been used throughout the passage of this Bill, the shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that the ACMD will start the process. That is something that I have initiated in the past couple of days.
Crispin Blunt
On that point, whatever process the Government go through, it seems to be bordering on crazy to then ban these substances with a view to unbanning them in two or three months’ time. Does the hon. Lady agree, as I do, with the view of the Home Affairs Committee? I intend to support amendment 5.
Lyn Brown
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and, yes, I do agree with him. Despite this seemingly welcome movement by the Home Secretary, I am still minded to vote this afternoon to place poppers on the exempt list. I will do so, because I am fearful that placing a ban on such substances will push their use underground and away from the regulatory controls that currently exist. In short, we may do more harm by that action. If, after a review and further evidence, it is proven that poppers are harmful and that, on balance, a ban would be appropriate, Labour Members will willingly review and test the evidence and, if the case is proven, support a ban on these substances.
Andrew Gwynne
I agree with my hon. Friend’s approach to this matter, as it makes a lot of sense. The Government’s approach could create uncertainty and send out mixed messages not just to the gay community, but to the population at large.
Lyn Brown
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us look at the context and the evidence. Poppers have been used recreationally in Britain for more than 30 years, and, in all that time, no Government—not one—have sought to ban them. The word “poppers” is used to describe a group of different chemical compounds, some of which carry more potential harms than others. They are a popular substance in some sections of the gay community because, I am told, they enhance sexual experience. The National AIDS Trust argues that amyl nitrite and butyl nitrite are relatively rare in Britain because they are regulated by the Medicines Act 1968 and by EU law. As a result of that regulatory regime, the most common compound of poppers in the UK is isopropyl nitrite, which is weaker and does not pose a significant health risk.
Steve Brine
I am glad that the hon. Lady has mentioned the National AIDS Trust. I have read its briefing on this matter today. Poppers have been around for a long time, but they are not controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act. That is not because they are not harmless, but because they do not meet the very high threshold of that Act. We are debating this Bill now on the Floor of the House of Commons. If we are to bring in a blanket ban, which we have a successful manifesto commitment to do, we should understand that this is a psychoactive substance. Surely the Minister’s response to the Home Affairs Committee report suggests that he will do the research. As she knows, there is provision in clause 3 to enable something to be added to a schedule. Surely, therefore, we are doing this the right way round.
Lyn Brown
I do not think that we should be doing this the other way round. I will explain why as I go along. My feeling is that this Bill should be about harms. Poppers have not been controlled by any Government. They have been around for decades—I think they were created in the late 19th century. I understand that they were used by some Ministers to keep them going at the Dispatch Box, and that they were prescribed at the time by their doctors. The reality is that if we ban poppers now and then unban them in four months’ time, it would create confusion. It would be better to allow the current situation to continue. If the test of significant harm is proved, then we should ban them and take them off the exempt list. We will not have created any underground laboratories that make synthetic poppers and then sell them in nightclubs. We will not be causing the harm that we would if we did not put them on the exempt list today.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I wish to express a view that is opposite to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine). The simple truth is that if we ban something and then take it back again later, we bring the law into disrepute. There is nobody in this House who is fiercer than I am in terms of banning inappropriate substances, but this is the wrong way round. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) that we should keep poppers off the banned list until we know the facts.
Lyn Brown
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman.
In giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, head clinician for the Club Drug Clinic, stated that
“as far as I can speak as a clinician, I do not think I have ever seen anybody come through”—
our clinic
“with harms related to poppers.”
Professor Iversen of the Advisory Council for the Misuse of Drugs said that he had not seen sufficient scientific evidence of harm in the case of poppers to justify a recommendation under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and that he was not aware of any growth in the use of poppers in the UK.
Mr Burrowes
Just to be fair-minded, while I also share concerns about poppers not being on the exempt list, I wish to make the point that Dr Owen Bowden-Jones also went on to say that there are associated harms. For example, we are now getting a link between poppers and eye damage. Again, this is very unpredictable. Perhaps the Government could respond to that.
Lyn Brown
Genuinely, if the evidence changes and we can see that there are significant harms, we should ban poppers. This is a bit like alcohol: when it is used excessively, it causes massive harm. As I understand it, the way that poppers are generally used, they do not create the kinds of harms that would require us to ban them. We genuinely believe that to ban them would cause more harm than it would solve.
Paul Flynn
Will my hon. Friend challenge the popular myth that, by banning a drug, we reduce its use? That has virtually never happened, and almost every time a previously legal substance is banned, its use increases. That happened with mephedrone and its use increased 300%. It is a complete myth to say that banning a drug will have such effect. What it is likely to do is replace a legal market with a criminal market, which is infinitely more harmful.
Andrew Gwynne
The situation is worse than that set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). What is likely to happen if we make poppers illegal is that a gay man who uses poppers to enhance sexual pleasure may well be tempted to go on the black market and use a Class A or Class B drug, which would increase the risk of unprotected sex and, as a consequence, sexually transmitted infections.
Mr David Davis
I apologise to the hon. Lady for intervening a second time, but I just want to ensure that we get the reference point for harm clear. I know almost as little about poppers as she does—I spent this morning reading about them on the web. They can sometimes cause fainting and minor cases of blood damage. Paracetamol can cause damage; it can be used for suicide. Aspirin can cause damage; one can die from duodenal bleeding as a result. Let us be clear about what damage means. On the face of it, poppers do not appear to be harmful drugs.
Lyn Brown
Again, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. The Home Affairs Committee concluded that poppers ought to be exempt from the ban. I hope that the Committee’s Chair, who has been in his place for most of the debate, will inform the House of his views on the Home Secretary’s response to his Committee’s recommendations, because I will be listening with great interest.
Poppers are not a new drug that has recently appeared on the market and that we know nothing about. As I have said, they were first created in the 19th century, so they are not a new chemical compound that has been synthetically produced to mimic the effects of already banned substances. There is a good argument to be made that poppers are not only relatively harmless, but are not the sort of “new” psychoactive substance that the Bill is intended to deal with.
We feel that a ban on poppers, even for a short period, would in fact bring about harms; it would take the sale of poppers out of this successful regulatory regime and users might end up being pushed underground, where unscrupulous and unregulated sellers, who are in it for the profit, are more likely to provide harmful compounds and possibly drive users towards harder and more harmful drugs. If it is likely that the review will take between four and six months—it might be even longer—that means four to six months of confusion, potential prosecutions and a real danger of under-the-counter sales of poppers that will not be subject to the same regulation. Even a temporary ban would create a real danger of harm. Will the Minister therefore consider a temporary exemption for poppers until the MHRA and the ACMD report back?
I understand that the Government have told the National AIDS Trust that the fear that I have outlined is unfounded, as a similar ban in Ireland has not led to an increase in popper-related harms. However, the National AIDS Trust has been informed by the gay men’s health service in Ireland’s Health Service Executive that poppers are still openly sold in Ireland’s sex shops and saunas, effectively placing poppers on the exemption list. If that is the case, we would not expect to see any harms associated with pushing popper use underground in Ireland, because the poppers market is still, in effect, out in the open. It therefore cannot be inferred from the situation in Ireland that there would be no health harms as a result of a ban on poppers here in the UK.
Additionally, I fear that including poppers in the ban might undermine the Bill and make it far more difficult to get across the vital message that psychoactive substances can be, and often are, very dangerous. There is a risk that the Bill will become synonymous with a ban on poppers, a substance that is thought to be relatively harmless, and that as a result the public will come to believe that all the substances banned by the Bill are relatively harmless. That would be an absolute disaster, and it would completely undermine the important work that the Bill is seeking to do.
Finally, given that poppers are widely used but relatively harmless, we fear that enforcing a ban would waste scarce police resources. Enforcing this legislation will be difficult enough without disproportionate police time being spent on enforcing a ban on a relatively harmless drug. If in future any evidence to the contrary is produced, then poppers should be removed from the exempted list or controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.
The Minister said in Committee that it would be sensible for the Government to take stock of the evidence presented about poppers so that the House could decide on Report. I urge him to place poppers on the exempt list until the MHRA and the ACMD have considered the evidence and reported back. I will be listening intently to what he has to say.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before calling the next Member to speak, I point out that we have about two hours remaining, which means another hour and a half on this group of amendments, with a large number of Members wishing to speak. I would be grateful if Members kept their remarks as short as possible so that we can get everyone in.
Mrs Gillan
Amendment 1, which stands in my name, is a probing amendment, as I wish to ascertain the Government’s position on a number of products marketed by a constituent of mine through an online marketing company called Focus Supplements. Several weeks ago he came into my constituency surgery. He was very concerned that the products he sells, quite legally—they are effectively health supplements used for various reasons, which I will talk about later—might fall within the ambit of the Bill.
I want to ensure that the Minister and the Department know that there are substances out there that are being marketed by perfectly honest, decent and legal companies, such as Holland & Barrett, and indeed on eBay, that might fall within the ambit of the Bill. It might criminalise substances that are perfectly innocuous, and indeed that are in some demand. I have no personal experience of those products, and I am very supportive of this Bill, so I would not have tabled the amendment or asked for clarification from the Minister if I thought that the substances I have listed would lead to any harm. The purpose of my amendment is to see whether those substances might fall foul of the Bill, and indeed whether clause 3, which has already been discussed, can be fleshed out at this stage, as that would help people listening to the debate.
Many of these products are used by people to combat anxiety, to aid sleep, to enhance memory and learning and to improve focus, and as such they are used as dietary supplements. Cholinergics increase choline in the brain and contain a substance that is found naturally in many foods—foods rich in choline include smoked salmon, fried eggs, chicken livers and Brussels sprouts. Indeed, there are recommendations in some health regimes around the world that people should take a certain level of choline every day in their diet.
Racetams—I hope I am pronouncing these correctly—are sometimes called nootropics. They can in some cases improve one or more functions of the brain. They can improve working memory, motivation or even attention—perhaps Members of this House should take such supplements to improve their attention in some debates. Various products are listed in the amendment as miscellaneous. Oxitriptan, a precursor for serotonin, is sold in health shops such as Holland & Barrett. L-Theanine is found in green tea and is available from companies such as Nature’s Best. Tongkat Ali is available from various health shops. Resveratol, I am reliably informed, is an excellent substance that is found in red wine. Sulbutiamine is two thiamine—vitamin B1—molecules.
When my constituent, Jack Baldwin, met the MHRA, it indicated it was perfectly legal for him to sell those products, but it stressed it was important that no medicinal claims was made for them. Indeed, in many other countries, including the USA, none of the substances listed in amendment 1 are controlled substances and it is perfectly legal to use, own and sell all of them. One of the problems with a lot of these products is that they are relatively young—only 10 years old in some cases. Although many have been subject to studies at academic level, they have not gone through the rigorous testing that medicinal drugs would necessarily go through. Nevertheless, they do not seem to be the sort of products that this Government or this Minister are seeking to ban.
Mr David Davis
My right hon. Friend is exactly right, for two reasons. First, many fitness supplements and other supplements work through the brain. There is no doubt about that—growth hormone-related ones do, and benign things like sage oil do. The other problem she faces is in the definition in the explanatory notes, which says that a psychoactive substance is a substance that causes
“a range of effects including, but not limited to hallucinations; changes in alertness, perception of time and space, mood or empathy with others; and drowsiness.”
All of those could apply to everything from antihistamines to, as I say, something as benign as sage oil. The problem is that if we are not careful we will end up with bad law that will undermine the status of people such as her constituent.
Mrs Gillan
I could not put it better myself. That is what concerns me about the Bill. The point was made that if this is seen to be a blanket ban—and a stupid ban because it bans perfectly innocuous substances—that will undermine the very purpose for which the law is being passed.
Paul Flynn
Does not the right hon. Lady think that if we treat these nootropic drugs differently from all the other new psychoactive drugs, there is a danger that we give them some credibility or approval? There has been some research into their harm, or otherwise. The trials have been poorly designed, and they have not found any great dangers in them, but they would not be accepted as being right for a medicinal drug. I understand her constituent’s commercial interest, but would it not be dangerous to treat this group the same as any other and thereby give the public the impression that they are harmless, because we do not know that?
Mrs Gillan
I do not think that putting them on the exempted list means that anybody should draw the conclusion that they are harmless. They obviously have an effect of some sort on individuals; otherwise, my constituent would not have, as he reports to me, 32% repeat orders for many of these substances. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. However, in relation to cholinergics, the National Academy of Sciences has said that choline is a dietary requirement, as I mentioned, and the Food and Drug Administration has recommended 425 milligrams of choline intake a day. With regard to racetams, oxiracetam, for example, has been shown to improve step-down, retention and acquisition performance in research carried out on rats, I believe, and was supported in a paper in “Behavioural Brain Research” in 1996. I have various other references citing good research carried out into these drugs; some, I admit, have not had so much research into them.
The purpose of amendment 1 is to make sure that the law of unintended consequences does not apply to this Bill. The Minister needs to reassure my constituent, and the many organisations such as online companies and health food shops that sell these substances, that either they do not fall within the ambit of this Bill, and that therefore they need not concern themselves about falling foul of it, or, if he thinks that these substances need more research, to tell us what needs to be done. I expect, at the bare minimum, that he will undertake to review the products that I have listed in the amendment and to let us know, after discussions with the ACMD, what he intends to do. I hope that he will be able either to add these products to the exempted list or to let us know that the Bill does not apply to them. If it does not, he needs to reassure my constituent by letting me know the timescales within which he will investigate these products and perhaps others that might be brought to his attention.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who is one of the most distinguished and respected Members of this House, and makes her case very powerfully. I owe her an apology. Because of the speed with which the Home Affairs Committee had to look at the Bill, owing to the timetable that the Government gave us, we did not have the opportunity to explore properly the points she has made or to take evidence from her constituent and others who might have felt that they were going to be affected by it. If we had had more time, we certainly would have had them before us. I am sure that, as is our policy, when we come to review this Bill in a few months’ time we will have the opportunity to consider exactly what its effect has been. I thank her for tabling the amendment and for reminding the House of the importance of all the other products that might be caught by the Bill.
I want to commend the Minister, who is rapidly becoming one of my favourite Home Office Ministers, partly because he agreed to be Father Christmas at the Westminster kids club party, and did it so well, but also because he is prepared to listen to the House. He said he would look at the work of the Select Committee and try to reflect some of it in the amendments he tabled in Committee, and he did so in the case of many of our recommendations. Yesterday he sent me—I thank him for giving me plenty of time to read it for today’s debate—the Government’s response to the Bill’s Committee stage and to our recommendations.
I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for last year pushing the Select Committee to hold an inquiry before the House had to consider the Bill on Second Reading. Again, we were caught out by the Government’s timetable being moved forward, as a result of which we did not have all the time in the world to consider these things. However, I thank him for doing it. I thank members of the Bill Committee, some of whom are here today, for the work they did at very short notice to ensure that that happened. The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) attended many of the Committee’s sittings despite the fact that she was serving on two other Committees at the same time.
The Government have moved on several of the points that we have made. They were right to legislate—there is no question about that. This has been in the in-tray of successive Home Office Ministers for a number of years. The previous Labour Government were committed to doing something about it—it was in our manifesto, as our excellent shadow Home Office Minister said—and I am sure that if the votes had fallen in the opposite direction, we would have a Labour Minister introducing a similar Bill. I therefore say well done to the Minister for doing this and for incorporating most of what we have suggested.
I particularly want to talk about amendments 1 and 5. It is very important that we give support to voluntary organisations such as the Angelus Foundation, which invariably know more than Government, because they draw on the experience of real, live people, and they are prepared to come together voluntarily to try to warn the public and Parliament about the risks of these substances. I am glad that we are not using the term “legal highs” any more, because, as the report clearly says, that encourages people to want to try them.
I agree very much with the shadow Minister’s comments about education, which I am sure the Minister will echo. We cannot do too much to persuade young people that they should not be taking these substances. My children are 20 and 18, and they are away at university. It is every parent’s nightmare that one of their children, on a night out after studying and doing their work, will be offered a substance that is perfectly legal, take it, and then be ill and, in some cases, die. The Home Affairs Committee therefore absolutely support the Government’s tough approach.
Paul Flynn
My right hon. Friend says that the name “legal highs” attracts people to the drugs. Does he not think that if we change their name to “illegal highs”, they will become even more attractive to adolescents?
Keith Vaz
They may well do, but we are not going to call them “illegal highs”. The Bill does not seek to change their name. The effect of the Bill is to ban the substances that cause death. It is not about relabelling. I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who was a distinguished member of the Home Affairs Committee. I know that his position is to liberalise the law on drugs, but that is not my position and nor is it that of the Committee. Although we miss him, and I know he would have forced most of our reports to a vote, we do not miss him that much.
Crispin Blunt
If I get called, I will speak in support of the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent Committee’s report. It is every parent’s nightmare that their child should die of drugs. Whether they are legal or not is neither here nor there. If we legislate in a way that makes the use of illegal drugs more likely, which is what will happen if amendment 5 is not carried, we will not be serving our children and others.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and he brings me on to the issue of alkyl nitrites. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), has said—this was a bit of shock for me after 28 years in this House—that Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box having had poppers. I think that is what she said and it was a great surprise to the House. She obviously knows more than I do about such issues, even though she claims that she knew nothing about drugs until she became the shadow Minister with responsibility for drugs.
Andrew Gwynne
Having served on the Bill Committee alongside my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), my recollection is that Ernest Bevin of the post-war Labour Government had a bit of a heart murmur and was prescribed amyl nitrate by his doctor. It is alleged that he sniffed poppers around the Cabinet table.
Keith Vaz
I thank my hon. Friend for that information. I wonder whether they are still in use around the Cabinet table.
The Minister has moved some way since the Home Affairs Committee report’s recommendation 45:
“We accept the evidence given by Professor Iversen, the National Aids Trust, and the Gay Men’s Health Collective on alkyl nitrites”.
Professor Iversen said that they were
“not seen to be capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a societal problem”,
and therefore we recommended, unanimously, that they should not be banned. We said that if the Government were to present evidence that changed that position and our view, they should, of course, be added to the list of banned substances. Indeed, the report states:
“If in the future there is any evidence produced to the contrary, then ‘poppers’ should be removed from the exempted list or controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act.”
As a result of the immensely able work of the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), the Minister wrote to me last night proposing that a review should begin. He felt that there should still be a case for putting poppers on the banned list, but that if the evidence changed he would come back to the House, or by some other order, and put them on the exempted list. I think that that approach is the wrong way around.
The shadow Minister has asked me for my view and I have listened to the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who I know also has constituents who are very concerned about drugs issues. The Committee, which also addressed the banning of laughing gas, does not believe that this particular case has been made. This is my personal view and other Committee members can, of course, say what they want, but when we considered the issue and voted unanimously on it, we did not consider poppers to be harmful.
The Minister wrote back to us and told us that poppers are beneficial, as if in some cases they may well be mandatory. He wrote that
“the Government recognises that representations have been made to the effect that ‘poppers’ have a beneficial health and relationship effect in enabling anal sex for some men who have sex with men, amid concern about the impact of the ban on these men. In consultation with the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the Home Office will now consider whether there is evidence to support these claims and, if so, whether it is sufficient to justify exempting the alkyl nitrites group (or individual substances in the group).”
Although I welcome that approach—it is a really positive step forward—it is actually the wrong way around. A better course of action would be to put alkyl nitrites on the exempted list, conduct the review and then come back to the House or by order and change the position. It is what we like to call evidence-based decision making. That is what we have said consistently over the eight years I have chaired the Home Affairs Committee.
There is a lot of emotion out there about drugs, and a lot of people have great concerns. Some, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), are passionately in favour of liberalisation, while others have a different position, but why take a position of banning and then unbanning? That affects the huge authority that the Government have in respect of this very important Bill. The Minister has the whole House with him on it. I doubt we are going to divide on many issues, which is pretty rare for Home Office Bills. I am trying to think of another Bill where that has happened. There is always a division of some kind, but why divide the House on this issue when there is no reason to do so?
I call on the Minister to accept amendment 5, or to not oppose it, and to let us move forward constructively. He could have his review, come back and then everyone in this House will accept what the experts say. Without equivocation, I give him a guarantee that if the review decides that poppers are harmful, I will be the first in the Division Lobby with him, supporting that view. But to ban and then unban sends a powerful message to a section of our community that they are not being listened to, and to experts who have given evidence to us that they are wrong.
I urge the Minister, even at this late stage—as I have said, he is a Minister who listens to the House, the Home Affairs Committee and individual views—to look at the issue again and ensure that alkyl nitrites are put on the exempted list until his review is concluded.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Quite a large number of Members still want to speak. At this rate, if Members go over 10 minutes we will not manage to get everybody in. I cannot impose a time limit, but if Members are brief we can get everyone in.
Crispin Blunt
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I agree with nearly every part of his argument and I certainly agree with the conclusions of the Committee’s report. I commend every Member who took part in its deliberations. I want to leave enough time for my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) to speak, because he has been fighting a battle behind the scenes to ensure that this Bill does not do anything really daft.
Sometimes a measure is proposed that becomes personal to oneself and one realises that the Government are about to do something fantastically stupid. In such circumstances, one has a duty to speak up. I use poppers—I out myself as a popper user—and would be directly affected by the Bill. I am astonished by the proposal to ban them, as are very many other gay men. It simply serves to bring the whole law into disrepute. If this drug—which I use and which has, as the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), said in her extremely good speech, been used for decades—is banned, respect for the law will fly out of the window.
All the effects warned about in paragraph 43 of the Home Affairs Committee’s report—in particular, the Gay Men’s Health Collective warns that a ban would result in increased class A and B drug use and increased transmission of sexually transmitted infections—will obviously happen. Driving the supply underground will simply put the trade in the hands of criminals.
Mr Burrowes
It is right to focus on supply, which is the focus of the Bill. It is important to give the clear message that the Bill will not ban use, but supply: it will not ban the continued personal use of poppers, but it will ban their supply.
The issues are complicated. There are controls on alkyl nitrites in that the sale of poppers to under-18s is caught by the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985. There is a wider debate about whether that is a proportionate response for under-18s. However, there are already controls on supplying under-18s. We need to be aware that this is a complicated area of law, beyond the issues relating to psychoactive substances.
Crispin Blunt
I know that my hon. Friend has done a significant amount of work on this and that he, too, has been trying to use his influence in the right direction. He kindly sent me a message saying that he has been working to make sure that we do not do something really daft on this issue. He is, of course, loyal to Conservative Front Benchers, as am I—or I try to be—but we may differ on how to influence them. I will not be party to something that I know is, frankly, really foolish by voting for such a piece of public policy.
The issue is about supply. The policy might put someone like me into the hands of criminals if he wanted to get a supply of something that he used to think was perfectly okay. Under legislation that I think is absurd, someone like me—obviously not me, because I will, of course, respect the law of the land—might be so minded, and would then find himself in the hands of those who supply everything with which they might conceivably tempt people.
It is manifestly stupid to go down the path we are going down. Let us get the evidence; if the Government then come forward with a case that convinces the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee and his colleagues, we can then discuss the issue in due course. Please let us not have a ban.
Mr David Davis
Supply does seem to me to be a very grey area. I understand that the policy is not intended to victimise current users, but it puts them in a position—dealing with a criminal—in which they might be susceptible to blackmail if they are a public figure. It seems to me that it will criminalise people whom it does not intend to criminalise.
Crispin Blunt
Indeed. I suppose I have advertised the fact that I may be vulnerable to that. I therefore plead with the House to make sure that I do not find myself caught in this particular situation. Given that the issue relates to my personal experience, as well as to my experience as a Justice Minister with responsibility for offenders and offender management, I implore my colleagues at the very least, if they do not want to be seen voting against the Government, not to be associated with putting the Bill on the statute book. It is a real mistake, and it would be sensible to do anything possible to ensure that amendment 5 is accepted, with our looking at and considering the matter again in due course.
Jim Shannon
I am not alone in having a constituency that has been blighted by the use of legal highs. I do not like the term “legal highs” because, unfortunately, the very words attract young people to them. I have been concerned about that for a long time.
I commend the Government on introducing very strong legislation for us to consider in the House. The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), referred to the Minister as his “favourite” Home Office Minister. When he brings such legislation before the House, the Minister is the favourite of many Members. My constituents will be grateful to him for the proposed changes. I am not at all in favour of liberalising drug use, so it is quite clear where I am coming from. I think the Government have the same stance, which I welcome.
I welcome that stance because, just last year in my constituency, we saw an example of the heartbreak, illness and trauma that results from legal highs. A young man, Adam Owens, a constituent of mine—I know his father and stepmother quite well—was found dead in the town of Newtownards in my constituency of Strangford as a result of his addiction to legal highs. The case shocked not just my constituency, but the whole Province. It left the family devastated, and they told me the very nature of their concerns. Adam’s step-mum Dawn said:
“Legal highs are a major problem around here and something has to be done about it.”
I welcome the fact that the Government are now doing something about it.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Ireland, after the introduction of legislation very similar to the Bill, not only did every one of the 102 head shops close, but no Irish domain websites now sell such substances? We obviously hope that there will be the same effect in England and Wales.
Jim Shannon
I mentioned the closure of the head shops, which is really good news—good stuff. I also referred to the detective sergeant in the Drugs and Organised Crime Bureau. He outlined an issue that the Irish are now trying to address. It is good to be able to refer to other examples of hard and fast legislative change to address such issues. In the Republic of Ireland, they have been partially successful in relation to online sales—they are almost there—but we must also do that.
I commend the Minister and the Government on what they have introduced. This is the sort of legislation that I and my constituents, as well as people from across the whole of Northern Ireland, want. I look forward to supporting the Minister when it comes to a vote—if it comes to a vote.
Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)
I thank the shadow Minister for a balanced speech that contained some well-judged comments. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his courtesy when I took a delegation to him from the National AIDS Trust, Stonewall, Millivres Prowler and Boyz magazine to discuss this topic.
It is clear not just from this debate, but from the debate that has been raging in the gay press over the past few months, that there is considerable concern over the need to ban poppers. What has come to the fore over the past few months while I have been working on the topic is the complete lack of empirical data one way or the other. I appreciate that the Home Office believes—I have no reason to think that this belief is not genuine—that deaths have occurred from the use of poppers. However, that evidence has never been forthcoming.
I therefore decided to do a bit of research of my own. I would like to draw attention to some American research, particularly that of Dr Thomas Hall of the University of California in Los Angeles, who gave evidence to the Gay Times for a report on the effects of isopropyl nitrite. I will not quote the whole document, you will be pleased to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, but he said:
“There is very little specific research on the health effects of alkyl nitrites other than amyl nitrite.”
He went on to say:
“My summary statement would be that in the grand scheme of drugs of abuse, the risks from nitrite poppers are fairly benign… Isopropyl nitrite and other nitrite poppers appear to be far less harmful to the body in general than chronic alcohol consumption.”
I then looked at The New England Journal of Medicine, which stated in 2010:
“To our knowledge, over the past 10 years, there have been only two case reports of visual loss after inhalation of poppers, and the anatomical basis of this injury remains elusive.”
Finally on medical research, I turned to the US Department of Health and Human Services report of January 2014. It stated:
“To date, use of alkyl nitrites as a psychoactive substance among MSM”—
men who have sex with men—
“has received little attention in addiction textbooks, where they are subsumed among other inhalants.”
We have heard about that today. The report continues:
“This is unfortunate, because lumping these disparate agents together based on mode of administration”—
that is, inhalation—
“obscures substantial differences in both mechanism and typical risk between alkyl nitrites, which act on a specific…pathway, and inhaled solvents and propellants”
that have other effects. That is about the sum of the medical evidence that I could find.
In the absence of medical evidence or hard facts in the UK, I wrote to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. The chairman could not have been more blunt. He said that poppers were
“not seen to be capable of having harmful effects”.
There has been talk of a medicinal benefit to poppers, which I thought was an interesting turn of phrase until I received an email. I have to bow to the knowledge of our SNP colleagues, because it was from a gentleman from Croy in Inverness. He said: “Alkyl nitrites are carried, used and, when the need arises, shared by many people who work in the countryside as the first line of treatment if one is bitten by an adder.”
I confess that adders are not common in Finchley and Golders Green. Mr Joyce of Croy went on to say:
“A substantial number of people are bitten each year in Britain and the bite is rarely fatal, but whether that is because the venom is not particularly powerful against modern healthy humans or because treatment, with Alkyl nitrite or one of the eight known anti-venoms, is almost always administered very quickly is a question that is open to debate.”
That email shows that there is a conflict between the views that are held and what limited information and fact are out there in the public domain.
I support the view that there is a need to provide up-to-date empirical evidence. There also needs to be proportionality. Everything that we do carries a risk, whether it is smoking or anything else. If one drinks bleach, one will be harmed, but we are not proposing to ban bleach. When we seek to control, regulate or ban anything, we must deal with it in the round and consider the proportionality of doing so.
I welcome the response to the Home Affairs Committee report, because it states that an investigation will be under way shortly into the impact of the ban on the relationships of gay men and women. I am told that this issue affects not just gay men, but gay women. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, whom I would like to call my right hon. Friend, talked about anal sex. That is quite a crude way of saying that poppers can facilitate sex, through the relaxation of muscles. However, this is not just about the physical side of a relationship. If people want their relationship to be as intimate as possible and poppers facilitate that, they are an important element in the emotional wellbeing of that couple. Therefore, if we are talking about the medicinal benefits, we have to include the emotional and mental health benefits that the use of poppers in a relationship can bring.
When we are talking about risks—I have mentioned proportionality—it is important that we do not start banning things on the basis of one or two incidents. There has to be a significant risk of significant harm to a significant number of people, otherwise we would be banning cigarettes and alcohol tomorrow.
I say to the Minister that the investigation and report must be as open and transparent as possible. I ask him to give an assurance when he responds that evidence will be taken not just from organisations such as Public Health England, elements of the NHS and the ACMD, but organisations such as the National AIDS Trust, the Terrence Higgins Trust and Stonewall. It should also be taken from organisations such as Millivres Prowler, which I believe is the largest retailer of poppers in the UK, because it has a strong, relevant and up-to-date evidence bank of how poppers are used and how they are sold. Because it is a reputable retailer, it also has an enormous amount of data on the illegal import of the more dangerous poppers that are coming in through the internet. I hope that the Minister will also say that evidence will be taken from the international bodies, a few of which I mentioned earlier, that have done medical research into the benefits or disbenefits of the use of poppers.
Finally, if the Home Office decides that there is a risk that needs to be mitigated, but that an outright ban is not necessary, I urge it to consider licensing poppers for sale through sex shops. That would allow some level of control, regulation and protection, without the need for an outright ban, which might lead people to be exposed to all sorts of underground drugs.
There is a lot of work to be done. I welcome the swift action of the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Members might think that my conclusion will be that I will support Opposition amendment 5, and I have to say that the Opposition have spoken a lot of sense. However, I will support the Government because I want an exemption based on empirical evidence. If poppers are exempted by the summer recess, as outlined in the response to the Home Affairs Committee report, that exemption could not be easily overturned on the whim of a future Home Office Minister, because it would be based on empirical evidence, whatever it says. On that basis, I will support the Government on this issue.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I think that I have to beg to move the amendments that stand in my name. If I have not to beg, I have to do something else, I am sure.
Anne McLaughlin
Oh, I am speaking to them and not begging at all. I wish to speak to the amendments that stand in my name, amendments 12, 13, 14, 15 and—along with Labour colleagues—amendment 5.
We support the aims of the Bill to protect public health and to go after the big guys—the ones who are making a profit out of other people’s endangerment—rather than going after the individuals who decide to try these substances for whatever reason. In that respect, however, I do not think that we are quite there yet, which is why we have tabled our amendments.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the situation she has just described in which youths place an order with a dealer and then distribute the substance among their friends is entirely consistent with the law as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The message is that if you buy the drug and then distribute it, you are a supplier in the eyes of the law. I would be interested to know why she thinks there should be a distinction between these substances and the more serious drugs that are dealt with under the 1971 Act. Surely we are still trying to achieve the same aim: to stop the supply of harmful substances.
Anne McLaughlin
My understanding was that we were trying not to mirror the Misuse of Drugs Act. We have moved on, and this Bill is not about criminalising individuals for possession, as they can be under the Act. The Bill does not have to mirror the Act exactly. The key issue is the effect that criminalising a young person for a foolish mistake can have on their life chances. Drugs blight enough lives already—that is certainly the case in my constituency—and we do not need to penalise someone who is acting on behalf of his or her peer group, a small group of friends, without any financial motive. These young people are not drug suppliers. Obviously, we might question the sense of their decision to buy drugs, but it should not be a criminal offence. A young person could be pressurised by their peer group to purchase these substances, and they might do so in order to gain the recognition of their peers, but if they were caught they could end up with a substantial criminal conviction.
Victoria Atkins
Surely the point is to introduce clarity to the young people that the hon. Lady is describing. Ecstasy is a class A drug, and if a young person buys it, they risk going to prison for a very long time if they are prosecuted and convicted. If a young person buys one of these new psychoactive substances that is minimally different from MDMA, and the dealers get round the problem by saying that it is just a little bit different from ecstasy and therefore does not fall under the 1971 Act, that young person could be placed in a very difficult position. They would have to be a scientist to know the difference between the two substances. My question is: should we not be encouraging clarity to differentiate between those drugs, to enable young people to know that they should not be buying those substances and distributing them?
Anne McLaughlin
I am not arguing that we should not be discouraging young people in that way. I am arguing that if someone buys these substances for themselves and a couple of friends, we should not criminalise them as though they were drug dealers when they clearly are not. I worry that, further down the line, Members of this House will be contacted by the parents of someone who has foolishly purchased such a substance on behalf of himself and one or two friends and has been convicted of supplying drugs. That young person’s life chances would be greatly diminished. Of course we hope they will be discouraged by our telling them what will happen to them if they make these purchases, but I certainly do not think we should punish them and label them as a drug dealer for stupidly buying stuff for their friends. On the whole, people pass a strong moral judgment on anyone with any kind of a conviction relating to drugs, but an even stronger judgment is passed on anyone convicted of supplying drugs. We are talking about a young person getting these substances for himself and his friends, not a young person who has become a drug dealer, yet that is what the conviction would be for.
Paul Flynn
Following the arguments being put forward from the other side, does the hon. Lady agree that the two most deadly drugs, which are taken by millions of people in this country and which cause addiction and a huge number of deaths, are tobacco and alcohol? Has she contemplated the effects that banning those two drugs would have throughout the world?
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to disagree about the considerable harm that tobacco and alcohol can cause, but today we are talking about new psychoactive substances. I take his point, but it is important to carry on discussing what we have come here to discuss.
Any Member in the Chamber today who has children could face a situation in which their child was silly enough, along with some friends, to experiment with some currently legal highs. They might be fortunate enough not to be damaged physically or mentally by their experience, but they could still be convicted of a drug dealing offence just for stupidly experimenting.
Amendment 14 deals with the question of internet purchases. It seeks to highlight the fact that the Government are criminalising the use of drugs for personal consumption that have been purchased over the internet and that are then shipped into the UK for use by an individual. The Government suggest that they are moving forward and that they are not seeking to criminalise individuals unnecessarily. Indeed, the Bill indicates that those who purchase in other ways will not be committing a criminal offence. However, this part of the Bill will still unnecessarily criminalise people.
I would strongly prefer law enforcement agencies to use their time and effort to prevent the large-scale importation of psychoactive substances for distribution in the UK, rather than concerning themselves with the purchase of these substances for personal use by one individual. In a previous debate on the Bill, the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice stated:
“The spirit of the Bill is that we do not want to criminalise individuals for possession, but we are going to criminalise the sale and purchase of these substances.”
We asked for further clarification, and he said:
“I apologise: I kind of misled the House unintentionally on individual possession. I was talking about intent to supply, not intent to use. Making a purchase from a foreign website would be caught, but the purchase on its own from a website or foreign website would not, and I apologise if I misled the House on that point.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mike Weir) pressed the Minister and pointed out that clause 8 stated that a person commits an offence if
“the person intentionally imports a substance,”
and
“the person…intends to consume the psychoactive substance for its psychoactive effects”.
He went on to say:
“It seems to me that if someone imports and possesses even a small amount of the substance over the internet he is criminalised, but if he bought it in a head shop, for example—
in this case the head shops would be gone, so if bought in the street—
“he would not be criminalised, which seems to be a strange provision.”
The Minister’s response was:
“That is not the Bill’s intention. As we go through the Bill in Committee we will endeavour to iron out those concerns.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 737-9.]
I was unable to be on the Committee as I was serving on another Bill Committee but I can read Hansard, I have hon. Friends who served on that Committee and I know that in Committee the Minister voluntarily offered this statement:
“Possession in a club would not be an offence; indeed, possession is not an offence under any part of the legislation, unless in a secure facility. It is important to send that message out.”––[Official Report, Psychoactive Substances Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2015; c. 37.]
I would like some clarity from the Minister on that.
How much longer have I got, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
There are no time limits in this debate but many Members want to speak and the list is getting longer and longer, so the longer the hon. Lady speaks, the less others will have a chance to do so.
Anne McLaughlin
I will move on, then. I will take out all my killer arguments and bring them up when the Minister is summing up.
I shall make one more point, which is about purchasing online. If we are saying that it is not a criminal offence to purchase down a dark alley, which is where people would have to purchase if they intended to purchase these psychoactive substances, but it is a criminal offence to do so over the internet, we will end up with a situation where two people, brother and sister, could try to do exactly the same thing, and one of them would be a criminal but the other would not. Which of them, the boy or the girl, is most likely to be gung-ho enough to meet a criminal drug dealer down a back alley? It is far more likely that women are going to be criminalised because they are less likely to want to go and meet the drug dealer in person.
Amendment 15 proposes sentencing commensurate with the potential harm done by the substance involved. In Committee the Minister said that he supported the principle behind the amendment, so we should like to hear where he stands on it today.
On poppers, I am proud that the SNP championed this from the start. It was great to hear so many passionate speeches of support from both sides of the House, so I shall say nothing further and let someone else speak.
Dr Daniel Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I shall speak to new clause 3. First, though, I welcome the constructive approach taken by my right hon. Friend the Minister to engaging with Members on all sides of the House during the passage of the Bill—a constructive engagement which, I believe, has enhanced the positive aspects of the Bill. I am pleased that the broad consensus across the House is that this is an important piece of legislation about public protection.
What we have heard clearly today is a call for evidence-based policy making. That has been echoed in a number of contributions on different amendments and new clauses, and we should all sign up to that. In that spirit, I tabled the new clause primarily as a probing amendment to examine and draw out the Minister’s comments on an increasingly confused law in respect of the medicinal use of cannabis. The existing law is an impediment to research into the effects of cannabis on mental health and general research on the medicinal benefits of cannabis and cannabis derivatives.
Steve Brine
I support my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the momentum is with his case? The all-party group on drug policy reform hopes to conduct an inquiry shortly into the medicinal use of cannabis. Its results will be interesting in the context of that evidence base.
Dr Poulter
My hon. Friend is right.
I shall speak, first, about the barriers to mental health research—we know that the use of cannabis has links with mental illness, particularly psychosis—and also about the broader research into the potential medicinal benefits of the many products contained in the cannabis plant. That has been investigated in the United States, where more than 20 states have relaxed their laws to allow the medicinal use of cannabis and cannabis derivatives. I am pleased to hear that the all-party group is to look into that because it is important that we examine the evidence that is out there and, if necessary, consider using that evidence to change the law. The law should be for public protection but also for public benefit, and if there is a legitimate medicinal use of cannabis, we should support and encourage it because that is good for patients.
Before I proceed, I want to touch on the very brave speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). It is rare that we discuss our personal experiences in the Chamber, but it brings into focus the importance of making sure that the laws that we pass impact positively on the real world and the day-to-day lives of our constituents. He spoke bravely about his own use of poppers, which helped to bring the debate alive and crystallised the importance of that evidence-based policy making. I know the Minister will respond to that later.
On the rescheduling of cannabis from a schedule 1 to a schedule 2 drug, as we are aware, the scheduling of drugs was laid down in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. The reason that cannabis was considered a schedule 1 drug was that it did not have any medicinal benefit. That is now a matter of considerable contention in the light of the evidence I am about to present. It is important to highlight some of the inconsistencies in legislation.
Under the Schengen agreement, it is legal for somebody in a Schengen country to bring into the UK cannabis for medicinal use, if they have been prescribed it by a doctor on their own country, for up to 30 days, yet it is not legal in this country for a doctor to prescribe cannabis for medicinal purposes unless it happens to be for the purpose of treating multiple sclerosis. That is the one licensed drug currently available. If we recognise that cannabis can be licensed for the treatment of MS, currently under very elaborate licensing law by the Home Office, surely we recognise that there is a medicinal benefit. Quod erat demonstrandum: schedule 1 is the wrong place for cannabis because we accept that it has a medicinal benefit. The Home Office accepts for its licensing programme that there is a medicinal benefit to cannabis, so we need to consider rescheduling the drug.
I have touched on the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) by reference to the growing evidence from the United States that there are other potential medicinal benefits of cannabis for the treatment of patients. The relaxing of laws in over 20 states on the basis of that evidence is something that we clearly need to look at in this country. In particular, the potential benefits of cannabis products in palliative care merit greater scrutiny. There is inconsistency in the classification of cannabis, which is why I tabled the amendment.
I want to speak about some of the barriers to research. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice for meeting Professor Sir Robin Murray—he is an eminent professor—and Dr Marta Di Forti, who work in mental health, particularly in psychosis, to examine the issue and learn at first hand about some of the difficulties they experience in conducting research into mental ill health. We know that there are links between psychosis and cannabis use, and it is particularly important that we understand the basis on which the plant works on neurotransmitters and that we support researchers in conducting their research. At the moment, those researchers could potentially be criminalised for carrying out research that would be legitimate in many other fields of medical research. I am sure that that is not an intended consequence. It also makes it very difficult to carry out research effectively in the field of mental health and the links with cannabis. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to that and I look forward to hearing how we can find a workable solution to the problem. We want to improve our treatment of patients with mental ill health, but to do that we need properly to support the researchers in carrying out their work, and I hope that the whole House can sign up to that.
This is not an easy matter and it is not part of a broader discussion on the merits or demerits of legalising cannabis. I specifically wanted to table the amendment for discussion today to highlight the difficulties faced by researchers carrying out their jobs and to highlight some of the clear inconsistencies in drug laws in relation to cannabis and, more importantly, drugs that we would consider much more potentially harmful if used by the public. Heroin, or diamorphine, is a schedule 2 drug, whereas cannabis, the use of which is shown by a growing body of evidence to have a medicinal benefit, is a schedule 1 drug. I believe that the Government need to look into the inconsistency in current drug laws, but in particular I would be very grateful for my right hon. Friend the Minister’s comments on how we can facilitate and ease the process of legitimate research without criminalising researchers.
Mrs Gillan
Does my hon. Friend also agree that there is a real anomaly when a drug such as DNP, which has caused the death of so many young people and is taken as a drug for body building or to improve people’s perception of their body image, is so classified and falls between so many stools that it is impossible to get it banned, despite the deaths and damage it has caused?
Dr Poulter
My right hon. Friend speaks wisely. On that subject, looking at the scheduling, steroids come under schedule 4 to the misuse of drugs regulations. They are often a drug misused by body builders and other athletes whereas, in the example I just gave, diamorphine, or heroin, is a schedule 2 drug. There is now a clear and compelling case, because of the growing medical evidence and the barriers to research, to consider the scheduling of cannabis. More broadly, before we even get to that point, I know that there is more we can do to make it easier to research the links between cannabis and mental health and to support that very important research so that, hopefully, we can move towards a better position through this Bill, not just in protecting the public from psychoactive substances but in improving the care of a number of the most vulnerable patients looked after by our health service.
I intend the amendment as a probing amendment and do not wish to press it to a vote, but I look forward to hearing my right hon. Friend the Minister’s response.
Diana Johnson
I rise in support of new clause 1 and amendment 4. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who sits on the Front Bench, on the excellent way she set out why new clause 1 and amendment 4 need to be incorporated in the Bill.
It has been six years since we seriously started to discuss in Parliament why personal, social, health and economic education should be made compulsory. I greatly regret that we did not manage to do it when we were in power. At the very end of the 2010 Labour Government, PSHE was going to be made a statutory part of the national curriculum. There was a very good case made for that, based on building life skills, confidence and resilience in young people, which we all accept needs to happen. To me, the challenges that young people face in the modern world include how to deal with drugs and these new psychoactive substances. It was a great regret that in the wash-up, during those final months leading up to the 2010 election, we were not able to secure the support of the Conservatives to get that change to the law.
The UK Drug Policy Commission spent six years researching what our drugs policies should be, and found that the best drugs education is delivered in an evidence-based life skills programme. That is why making PSHE compulsory is important. Why does it need to be statutory? The Select Committee on Education, in its report last year, said:
“There is a lack of clarity on the status of the subject. This must change, and we accept the argument that statutory status is needed for PSHE”.
We know that it varies all around the country. In some schools, it is taught very well, but in many schools it is not taught well at all, and that is because it is not statutory. It is not measured and we know that headteachers will always have an eye on ensuring that their schools and pupils do best in what is measured. That is the compelling argument for me: we should ensure that we have a level playing field across all schools, so we have to provide statutory PSHE. Another important reason to make it statutory is that schools have to ensure that teachers are properly trained. One of the big problems with how PSHE is delivered in this country is that the teacher with a little more time in their timetable—perhaps the PE teacher—takes responsibility, not a teacher with the level and depth of training required to teach the subject properly.
We know, as my hon. Friend said from the Front Bench, that many students say that they have only one hour of drugs education in school. At the moment we are relying on good will, charities and other organisations to provide information to our young people. I think that that is wrong. However, I want to pay tribute to the Angelus Foundation for the work it has done. It was set up in very sad circumstances by Maryon Stewart, who lost her daughter, Hester, who took GBL without knowing what it was and sadly died. Maryon has fought hard for this legislation to be put on the statute book, but I am sure she would be the first to say that we need to ensure that our young people are educated. It is not just about changing the law, but about making sure that young people make good decisions for themselves.
I also want to refer to an organisation in my constituency called REAL— Recovery Enabling Abstinent Lifestyle—run by Mike Tong and Su Baker, who are also trying to get information out to young people in Hull to explain about legal highs. We have already debated how we should describe legal highs, and I think it right to refer to them as new psychoactive substances, rather than legal highs. Those provisions all rely on good will and charity, which is why it is vital that the amendments are accepted today.
Before the Minister responds, I wish to mention the FRANK campaign—I think my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham also mentioned that. “Talk to Frank” is not good enough, and if the Government are serious about ensuring that young people have information to make good choices in their lives, FRANK is not the delivery mechanism for that.
We know that young people have called for PSHE to be made statutory, and the Youth Parliament supported and ran with that campaign a few years ago. Parents support PSHE and want it brought into schools, as does the cross-party Education Committee. We need to equip our young people with life skills to make good decisions, and to equip the police with the powers that they need to enforce the law against those who exploit, harm and damage people, particularly young people. The Minister is a sensible man who often relies on his good common sense, and I hope he will think hard about whether rejecting these amendments is in the long-term interests of this country and the young people whom we in this House wish to ensure are protected and able to make good and healthy decisions about their lives.
Mr Burrowes
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). Much of the debate on this important Bill has shown consensus across the House. Along with many others, I have campaigned for this Bill for many years, and for a blanket ban on certain substances, and I recognise the efforts made by the Minister to bring the issue to the table. Unusually, that has been done at some pace, and the Home Affairs Committee—on which I and other hon. Members present in the Chamber sit—sought to keep up with the Bill and to ensure that we added our penny’s worth to the debate. Hopefully that has helped, and it was a pleasure to sit on the Bill Committee and see those long-standing interests come to fruition.
I will speak later about poppers, but in some ways, if one wishes to deal with this issue with a blanket ban, the Bill could be seen as a blunt tool in tackling the evil of NPSs. If one wishes such a ban, there are some anomalies or concerns in the Bill. Amendments have been tabled about other seemingly harmless substances that may be tied into a blanket ban. I am willing to give the Government as much rope as possible to hang not themselves but the target of this Bill, which is those evil pliers of the trade—the “big fish” that were mentioned—and the new substances that are coming on to the market. That is what the target should be, and although there has been a natural concern about poppers—I raised that issue in Committee—and we obviously do not want to criminalise the personal use of them, we must also deal with those other substances. However, poppers are not the target of the Bill.
Mr Burrowes
I want to make some progress.
Let me focus on education, because it is important to ensure that there is enough communication to deal with this issue and to have a profound effect, not just through legislation and enforcement, but through education. We must make the most of the opportunity to educate everyone out there about the harms caused by NPSs.
I have been involved in drugs policy for some time, and I had the pleasure and privilege for a number of years of sitting as an honorary member on the inter-ministerial group on drugs. To me it is not surprising—I say this frankly and openly—that no representative from the Department for Education is currently sitting on the Treasury Bench. Although that IMG was well attended—it is one of the best attended cross-departmental groups, and it led to the 2010 drugs strategy in which I played my part—the Department for Education was the most difficult Department to get to the table.
I say that openly and publicly because it is relevant when assisting the Minister to ensure that communication gets out there, and that education is prioritised. I do not believe that the Department for Education has yet been as forthcoming as it should be, not least given the commitment understood by the Committee, which was that meetings between the Home Office and the DFE would run parallel to parliamentary business, so that we could see that the DFE is serious about wanting to educate young people about the harms of NPSs.
My concern is great—I say this in relation to new clause 1. I do not suggest that we need such a prescribed PSHE route, but we urge the Government to include education in the review and to say that 30 months down the line they will look at how well we have done on education, and how well the word has been spread about the harm of NPSs. The Government told the Home Affairs Committee that the strategic communication plan has been set out, but a question tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) revealed that no specific funds have been set aside for its implementation.
Mike Penning
In case I forget this point in my later comments, perhaps this is an opportune moment to say from the Dispatch Box that that issue will be part of the review into how well we have done in educating young people. I will respond in a moment to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) about the financial point. Perhaps I will not be—I nearly said “doing drugs”, but that is probably a bad thing to say in the Chamber. I may not have this responsibility in the near future, so it is good that I put on the record, categorically, that that issue will be part of the review.
Mr Burrowes
That speaks directly to amendment 4, which was also tabled in Committee. That is in effect what the Minister has committed to and that is very welcome.
I have seen my way, when I was on the inter-ministerial group, through four Home Office Ministers. I recognise my right hon. Friend the Minister’s commitment to tackling drugs and, although there has been a revolving door of individual Ministers involved in tackling drugs, Department for Education Ministers need to show that same commitment.
Paul Flynn
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what attention the Committee gave to the fact that the only two countries in the world that have passed similar legislation have seen large increases in the use of these drugs? In Ireland, there was an increase from 16% to 22%, and in Poland there was a level increase of 3%, the biggest in its history. Is the Bill not going to have the same bad effect?
Mr Burrowes
I am not convinced by the hon. Gentleman’s premise. We consistently disagree on drugs policy. The evidence from Ireland is clear. Its blanket ban has been a success, with the closure of head shops and less accessibility to new psychoactive substances.
Everyone agrees that this is the most significant change in drugs legislation since 1971. This is a huge step-change and represents progress in tackling the new drugs on the market. It is not matched, however, with the same commitment to provide funding for education and information. The Department for Transport spent £1.952 million on developing, delivering and evaluating its communications campaign to ensure people became aware of enhanced police powers in relation to drug-driving—I know the Minister was very much in favour of putting that in the statute book—and in particular driving under the influence of cannabis. We do not see that same matched funding commitment to such a significant Bill. We need to see where that will come from to ensure that the good words expressed in the strategic communication plan have a real effect. We need the public to be informed. We need a strategy that covers social media. We need to involve the Angelus Foundation. For the foundation not to be linked to FRANK is frankly ridiculous. That needs to change. FRANK needs to talk better with Angelus and learn from it, in particular from its film awareness campaign. It is so important to have the common goal of alerting young people to the harms presented by NPSs. I look forward to hearing some reassurance on that from the Minister.
I would like to touch very briefly on two other aspects of the Bill. There are amendments on cannabis. I want to link them to new clause 6, which seeks to suggest that arrests and detention for class A drugs should trigger assessment and treatment. I want to highlight the fact that the big issue for young people, along with NPSs, is their use and misuse of cannabis. Cannabis is having a profound effect on them. I visited Highbury Corner magistrates court with the Justice Secretary, the Lord Chancellor. He heard that cannabis has an impact on many young people, but only Islington has a drug treatment facility or the ability to deal with that treatment. Justices have at least one hand tied behind their back when it comes to getting young people the treatment they need. We need to tackle that, along with treatment facilities for NPSs. We need to get up to speed with where the market is going. It is going away from substitute treatment for addiction to the old opiate substances and towards needing an holistic approach to treatment and education. We must get up to speed and the review needs to convince us it is doing that.
Finally, I come to poppers. In Committee I raised concerns about the ban on behalf of many people, including the gay community. I am very pleased that the Government have, belatedly, reached a point where they are going to look seriously at the evidence and at exempting alkyl nitrate. I agree with the Government that there are some complications, however. I raised in an intervention the fact there are already controls around the supply of alkyl nitrates. Under-18s are caught by the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985. All of these areas need to be looked at, because there is commonality. The problem with poppers-alkyl nitrates is that they can be tweaked and abused so that the substance becomes harmful. Historically, that has been the case.
The reference to the Home Office about this is somewhat historical. It is not new, and it should not have led to an 11th-hour conversion to consider putting it on the exemption list. The Bill has been around for months—this issue was raised in the other place—so it is encouraging, if also disappointing, that we are still, at this late stage, considering exemptions. I am willing to go with the evidence, however, because it is complicated and we do not want the blanket ban diluted. We need to ensure that this is done properly, with evidence, so that, as the Home Affairs Committee said, there is eventually an exemption.
There are many other issues to talk about, but I want to give others the opportunity to speak. I broadly welcome the fact that, at long last, we will have a blanket ban on the statute book. It will be a force for good, particularly in protecting young people.
Andrew Gwynne
I support the Bill and its aims. Indeed, I wound up the Second Reading debate in the Chamber because Labour felt it was important to view it not just as a Home Office Bill—although that is where it is placed—but in terms of its public health aspects. As Labour’s shadow public health Minister, therefore, I have been keen to promote some of the public health issues. I also commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who led the Opposition in Committee and in the House today in an exemplary fashion.
I support the Bill and want to make it as good as it can be. There are several areas where it is not as strong as it ought to be, and that is why I am proud to support my hon. Friend in tabling several amendments. In particular, I want to talk about new clause 1, on PSHE, and amendment 5, on poppers, because both have an important public health aspect to them.
On new clause 1, I mentioned in an intervention that Simon Stevens, in his Five Year Forward View for the NHS, had identified £5 billion of savings that could be reinvested into the NHS as a consequence of prevention. The Government were unwise to cut £200 million from the public health budget, because that is the very kind of prevention that will not now bear fruit in year five of the Five Year Forward View, but they could redeem themselves by adopting the new clause. I have always viewed it as a weakness that we do not have statutory PSHE in this country. Many schools do it, but it is a “something else” added on to the curriculum; it is not given the focus it ought to be given.
If we are serious about tackling the whole range of health inequalities, we could start providing statutory PSHE for children from a very young age. If we are to talk about the dangers of tobacco, alcohol and drugs, and about sex and relationships, we must do it in the context of a statutory framework in all our schools. There are huge public health benefits to doing so. When the Minister comes to consider the views expressed today, he could do nothing better than read in Hansard—I know he was listening—the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), because she got it spot on. The real benefits of having statutory PSHE in schools are clear. It would really strengthen the Bill’s aims and ambitions.
Our amendment 5 relates to poppers. In the short time I have been Labour’s shadow public health Minister, I have met lots of charities and organisations in the public health world, and many of them, including drug abuse charities, have raised many issues with me. Not one has raised poppers as an issue.
I will tell the Minister who has raised the issue of poppers with me, and that is a large number of LGBT charities and organisations. There is a public health role here. The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made some very important points, not just on the health and wellbeing of gay and lesbian people, but on some of the mental health and relationship issues surrounding what we are discussing today.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me slightly earlier than I expected.
I speak in support of my amendments. Taken together, they are designed to challenge the Government’s approach to this Bill. I suspect all Members share the same objective in that we are all ultimately concerned about harm and want to reduce for our loved ones and across society the risk that drugs, both legal and illegal, pose.
Speaking as a father, I happen to be rather hostile to drugs. I am hostile to the excessive use of legal drugs because of the damage they do to society, but I challenge the approach taken in this Bill. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) spoke of the risk of making bad law, and I think that, seductive though the Government’s approach may be, we face the risk of legislating for bad law in this instance. As I have said, our objective should be harm reduction, and we should surely base legislation on evidence of what works.
According to the Home Office’s own 2014 report entitled “Drugs: International Comparators”,
“there is no apparent correlation between the ‘toughness’ of a country’s approach and the prevalence of adult drug use.”
As the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) pointed out, the great risk is that Members on both sides of the House will assume that adopting the Bill’s approach will reduce the use of what are, in some cases, dangerous substances, although the evidence points in precisely the opposite direction.
Like others, the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), who made a fantastic speech and spoke very openly and candidly, made the point that the Bill—in respect of poppers, but, in fact, across the board—would drive users into the hands of criminals. What criminal has people’s interests at heart? None of them, of course. I urge Members to think before they vote for the Bill, because that is precisely what we shall be doing. Moreover, we shall be massively increasing the profits of criminals and criminal networks. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime has said that there is a clear link between the profits made from illicit drugs and the funding of terrorism, pointing out that, in Afghanistan, money raised from the sale of cocaine has been fed into the hands of the Taliban.
Norman Lamb
I will not, because I am conscious that time is very tight, and I do not want to get into trouble with the Chair.
We should think before we act. New clause 5 calls for a review of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 so that we can determine policy on the basis of evidence rather than prejudice. New clause 6 calls for a decriminalisation of the use of drugs, given that evidence from Portugal has shown a reduction in harm as a result of the adoption of that policy. In new clause 3, I happily join my former colleague in the Department of Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), in arguing for the facilitation of research on the potential medicinal value of cannabis. Amendment 24 proposes the legalisation of possession of cannabis for medicinal use. Surely we should not be criminalising people who use cannabis to relieve pain, yet that is what we do in this country. It is madness.
New clause 4 argues that we should ban substances under the Bill only after they have been referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, so that an objective judgment can be made about whether they cause social harm. That, of course, is in line with amendment 5. We are about to commit an act of total madness, banning poppers and then removing the ban just a few months down the track. That makes absolutely no sense, and, as we heard from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), it brings the law into disrepute.
The Bill’s approach is seductive, and it is understandable, because people are fearful of the effects of these products. Ultimately, however, it is bad law, and it will have precisely the wrong effect.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I rise to express my broad support for what the Government are trying to do. This is a major issue in Plymouth. At the beginning of this week the local paper ran a story about an individual who had drowned in a local harbour in October 2014. A toxicology report showed that among a number of other drugs a legal high was present in his system. Sadly, I need only look back a further five days in the same paper to find another story about these chemicals, which have now become a haunting menace to society.
Over Christmas I did what many of my hon. colleagues will have done, and went and served Christmas lunch to the homeless at the hostels, and they are being plagued outside these hostels by people selling these illegal highs. This is a real problem in Plymouth.
I also go out with the emergency services at least once a month. When doing so, I see the challenge presented to our law enforcement by these substances. I fully support the Minister in his efforts to identify the new psychoactive substances and react more quickly to them.
I ran a campaign briefly prior to Christmas attempting to raise awareness of these substances, and I strongly support other councils on this. I would like Plymouth to lead the way in getting these substances banned locally before this Bill is enacted.
Ultimately, for me this comes down to one key thing. We often talk in this House of how we support those who challenge the most challenging parts of society, such as police officers and prison officers. They strongly support what we are doing here. It is not good enough simply to stand up in the House of Commons and say, “We fully support the police” and “We fully support prison officers” and then not give them the tools to do their job, which is what I think is being done here. That is why I support the Government’s position.
Paul Flynn
Before I start, may I point out one major error? A picture of me has been widely retweeted by Members of the House. It was taken from American television, where tens of millions of people were informed in the caption that I was leader of the Labour party. I just want to point out that this information is a tad premature.
It is generous to describe this Bill as a landmark in legislative futility, because it is in fact worse than that: this Bill will do harm, as all the other prohibition Bills in the 28 years in which I have been here have—they have all done harm. The Home Affairs Committee does not seem to have considered what has happened in the two countries that have passed legislation very similar to this Bill. In Ireland what happened was that, certainly the head shops closed down—of course they did; they were illegal—and the sites closed down, but they were replaced by other illegal head shops; they were replaced by a market that is criminal and irresponsible. Furthermore, in Ireland the market among young people for using these drugs increased from 16% of the population to 22%. Those are figures from the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Meanwhile in Poland there was a 3% increase. So now the countries that have passed similar Bills to this one have the greatest use of psychoactive drugs in the world.
This Bill will be counterproductive. In 1971 we passed the Misuse of Drugs Act. At that time we had 1,000 cocaine and heroin addicts in Britain. We have now got 300,000. I wish Members would consider the possibility, in respect of what they are doing and the ideas they have, that the conventional wisdom is the conventional stupidity. It would be madness to ban poppers, as everyone says.
This Bill should be considered on the evidence alone. Should we support the attempt to move cannabis into an area where scientists can work on it? That is an approach that is based not on superstition, rumour or prejudice, but on science, and it should be supported.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I shall be brief.
I wish to emphasise that although so many elements of the Bill are important, it is essential that it is strengthened in the field of education. New clause 1 addresses that and does answer what was set out in paragraph 76 of the Home Affairs Committee report, which says:
“Successive governments’ spending on education on the dangers of NPS has been shockingly inadequate to date. Action must be taken now, to educate young people”.
Therefore, we are dealing with a plea and a recognition that there has been an absence of education. This is not about politics; it is about evidence-based practice, which is why I am hopeful that the Government will support new clause 1.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
I, too, will be brief.
First, I wish to thank the other members of the Bill Committee. This was my first Bill Committee experience. It was clear that the Minister, shadow Minister and all the other members of the Committee were pointing in one direction and that although we might have slight disagreements about the measures to take along the way, we ultimately want to get to the same point.
I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) in support of her amendments. I also very much wish to echo the comments made by a number of colleagues in Committee; I raised the point about poppers there and the case was again made, “We want a blanket ban. How can we possibly have exemptions?” We already have a schedule of exemptions in the Bill, so there is a precedent. Giving an exemption now and having the study to continue the work being done, rather than banning poppers and having to undo that and unpick a mess that we might create for ourselves, is a far more sensible approach to take. I hope that the number of voices from around this Chamber today to that end will be heard by the Minister and he will tell us that he has now come to that conclusion and that that is the position we are going to take. I am aware of the pressures and the keenness to get on to the second group of amendments, so, with that, I shall conclude.
Mike Penning
It has been said several times that perhaps this Bill should have been introduced a lot earlier—many years ago. One reason why it was not is that it was so difficult to do. I say to my Liberal Democrat friend, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), that when Lynne Featherstone was in my job she was 100% in support of this Bill. I know it has been a difficult time for the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps she was right in many of the things she said and which we brought forward. I am not going to comment any further on that, because the right hon. Gentleman and I disagree profoundly. We will, of course, oppose his amendments; he is not going to be surprised by that.
I, too, want to get on to the second group, so it is important that we make some progress. Many important speeches have been made this afternoon, in completely the right tone and adopting completely the right attitude towards what we are trying to do, which is protect people. Throughout the Committee stage, I was trying to ensure that we kept why we are trying to do this at the forefront of things. We may disagree about specific parts, as we have heard in the Chamber today, and we may slightly disagree on the methodology on certain parts, but I have a responsibility as the Minister, standing at this Dispatch Box with my colleagues from other Departments. They have worked closely with me, and I want some of them to work even more closely with me as we go forward with the Bill and with the review which we have committed to all the way through.
With that in mind, I will try to deal with new clause 1, then take up some of the issues raised in connection with other amendments and then deal with amendment 5, which relates to poppers. That has taken up most of our time in the Chamber today and, as was alluded to by the Chairman of the Select Committee, it is probably one of the areas where we slightly disagree—and then it is only on how we do it, rather than what we are going to do.
As I said early on, this Bill is not a golden bullet; it is not the be-all and end-all. It is about providing a blanket ban; it is a brand new type of legislation. We have not seen it before in this House, and it needs to be worked through with two or three other Departments. Obviously, the Ministry of Justice must be involved because we are creating a criminal offence—fortunately, I also sit in that Department, which is quite helpful. The Department for Health is also important. During the course of the debate, I was very conscious of the implications for public health. I am also talking about the prevention of diseases, but I will come back to that later. Lastly, as new clause 1 indicates, the involvement of the Department for Education is also important.
I met Ministers, scientists and police in the Republic of Ireland to find out how their Bill, which is close but not identical to ours, worked. One of the biggest things they said was that we need to get the message out there. We should target young people, but not exclusively young people, as we discovered today; I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) when I say that. The matter runs across the age profile. I do apologise if I refer to young people too often.
Mike Penning
I will give way, but I will not do it too much, because we want to get on to the next group of amendments.
Gerald Jones
What lessons does the Minister think we can learn from the Welsh schools liaison programme, which sees drug education awareness being delivered in 97% of primary and secondary schools in Wales?
Mike Penning
With devolution, different Governments in different parts of this great nation are delivering programmes. I fully respect that it is very early days. Part of the review that I committed to early on is that we will look very carefully at how we and other parts of the country have done things. Interestingly, we will have better evidence from the Republic of Ireland as well.
When we discussed this matter in Committee, I was aware that the shadow Minister was at times on a very steep learning curve, as indeed was I with regard to part of the Bill. I do think that we can resolve some issues without the statutory requirement in the legislation. The shadow Minister referred to the cost of interventions and education. The latest figure that we have on tackling drug misuse is £341 million, which was, believe it or not, in 2011-12.
Right at the start, I accepted that FRANK is not perfect and that it needs to be improved, but I do not want scrap it and bring in something else with a different name. The scheme very much needs to work with the Angelus Foundation and others, because the third sector—the voluntary sector—often knows much better than the Government, which is why the previous Administration and this Administration have used it extensively.
Mike Penning
Let me make some progress. If I have time, I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman.
I know from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) that there were concerns that non-psychoactive substances will be pulled in. This Bill is specifically about psychoactive substances. My full understanding is that we will not be including the sort of products to which she has alluded, but we will keep a close eye. Under clause 3, we have the ability to take things out. I must say, though, that that clause is not designed to bring in things, which caused slight confusion during the debate this afternoon. When I come on to poppers, I will explain myself a little better.
Mike Penning
No, I want to make some progress if I can, but I will come back if I have some time.
Last night, I had the honour of meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), along with a professor from King’s, to discuss research. We need research not only in matters of health, but in the law to ensure that we are evidence based. I was conscious last night that we needed to ensure that we are not preventing research. The Bill actually makes a provision for it, but the probing amendments of my hon. Friend were looking at the problems around cannabis and how we need to learn about its harms and benefits. I will ask my officials to continue that important dialogue after we leave the Chamber this afternoon.
I had a really interesting time in Committee with the Scottish National party’s Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). We have had a very good dialogue with Scottish Ministers, particularly on an important provision that makes possession a criminal offence in secure facilities. That was not originally in the Bill, but it was added at the request of the Ministry of Justice and, interestingly, prison officers and some prison groups, because these substances are a menace in our prisons and young offenders institutions. I am quite amazed at some of the hon. Lady’s amendments today, because during our discussions both the Minister and the Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government were content for possession in custodial suites to be an offence. I make no comment on communications within the Scottish Administration, but we worked really hard to ensure that everybody was on board with that, so I cannot support those amendments.
The key to the Bill is protecting people. I do not want to criminalise every young person in the country who has been using these substances legally, but dangerously, for a considerable time. However, it is absolutely crucial that we do not get into a situation in which the defence in our courts is, “I bought it for a couple of friends and sold it on to them, so what’s the danger?” It is a danger.
Mrs Gillan
In that case, will the Minister ensure that he writes to me about the substances listed in my amendment so that I can reassure my constituents that they will not be breaking the law by continuing to offer them online?
Mike Penning
I am more than happy to write to my right hon. Friend with those assurances, so long as we know exactly what those substances are. We need to communicate about that outside the Chamber.
Mike Penning
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, but then I will curtail my comments so that the House can make its decisions and we can move on to the next group of amendments.
Norman Lamb
I am grateful to the Minister. On the question of not wanting to criminalise young people, and in reference to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), is it the case that the Bill will criminalise someone who buys online from overseas but will not criminalise someone who buys in an alleyway from a criminal?
Mike Penning
We need to stop these products from being available to young people, middle-aged people and old people like me. It is absolutely crucial that we do that. One of the ways that people can get these products, as we have heard today, is online. We need to ensure that the criminal offence of selling one of these substances will have the penalties it deserves, because there is no point having a blanket ban if we do not actually enforce it.
Mike Penning
I will not give way again.
Let me now touch on what is an important, and understandably emotive, provision in the Bill. This relates to amendment 5, tabled by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). I desperately have no intention of making life difficult for any individual group; my sole role as a Minister at this Dispatch Box is to protect. When I first looked at the proposals in the Bill, one of the things I asked straight away was, “Okay, tell me about poppers and alkyl nitrites”—I knew very little about them.
Bearing in mind that my role is to protect people and to make sure that this legislation does its job, one of the first things that was put in front of me is the fact that since 1993 these nitrates have been mentioned 20 times on death certificates. Then after that—quite late on, to be fair—I started to listen to other groups, because it was the first time they had asked me to do so. The Bill had gone through the Lords and started its Committee stage when, in Committee, I offered to meet, as I always do, any group that wanted to come and see me. Groups that were going to be affected by the poppers ban came to see me and started to give evidence that these substances were not as dangerous as I had said—and have probably just said again.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause 6, page 3, line 19, leave out “or C” and insert “, C, D or E”.
Amendment 3, page 4, line 7, at end insert—
‘(9A) Condition D is that the offence was committed on or within 100 metres of a children’s home.
(9B) For the purposes of section (9A) “children’s home” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Care Standards Act 2000.
(9C) Condition E is that the offender supplied a psychoactive substance to any persons who were under the age 18 when the offence was committed.’
Amendment 16, page 5, line 20, leave out clause 9.
This amendment would remove the specific offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in a custodial institution, while leaving in place the provisions that other offences—including possession with intent to supply—are aggravated if taking place in such institutions.
Amendment 17, in clause 10, page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment seeks to remove the sentencing provisions associated with the offence in clause 9.
Government amendments 6 to 9 and 11.
Lyn Brown
In speaking to new clause 2, I praise the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and the Local Government Association.
The powers in new clause 2 are comparable to the closure powers for premises that serve alcohol under the Licensing Act 2003. The new clause will provide a helpful interim power for local authorities when premises notices have been ignored. I do not see why we should treat outlets that are suspected of ignoring warnings to stop selling psychoactive substances any more gently than those that are believed to be selling alcohol illegally.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 2 and 3, which stand in my name. They deal with one small anomaly in the Bill and one more fundamental issue.
It is accepted in the Bill that the selling of psychoactive substances to children is a heinous crime that should attract an aggravated sentence. The Bill contains the aggravating factor of selling psychoactive substances outside a school, which will attract a stiffer sentence. However, there is a group of children who are more vulnerable than those who go to school and that is those who live in children’s homes. I am therefore seeking to make it an offence to sell these substances outside a children’s home.
I understand that the Government are keen to rely on sentencing guidelines to bring in these measures. However, that raises the question of whether we should have any aggravating factors at all. These provisions mirror exactly those in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. As far as I can see, that is the only reason why children’s homes are excluded from the Bill. I ask the Minister to consider the logic of including selling these substances outside a children’s home alongside selling them outside a school.
The second issue is more fundamental. I am seeking to make it an aggravated offence to sell these substances to anybody under 18. The law for the protection of children in this country is patchy, old and confused. In particular, it does not privilege children as a group against whom committing a crime is particularly serious. We privilege lots of other groups, including those with a religious faith, those of particular ethnicities and those of a particular sexuality. If a crime is committed against those people because of who they are, it is more serious in sentencing terms. Children are not among that group.
My amendments therefore seek to make the sale of psychoactive substances to anybody under 18 a more serious offence in the eyes of a judge and one that attracts a stiffer sentence. I am doing this in the hope that when any future criminal justice or sentencing Bill appears, the House will do what it did in 2012, when it made the transgender community an aggravated feature, as it is called, which means that any offence that is committed against them because of their particular characteristics attracts a similar sentence. I hope that we will do the same for children in future legislation.
It is about time that we focused on some of the very old children’s legislation and brought it up to date. The first step in doing so is to send a signal to the courts and the public in general that we see children as a group that is worthy of special protection.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for any confusion, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thought that this debate would come later. I will speak very briefly. I am grateful to you for allocating time for this matter.
I want to impress on the Government that they ought to consider adopting the extra protection in the new clause. The blanket ban is a good step forward for which many of us on both sides of the House have called for some time. However, the potential still exists for a significant gap between the police or a local authority seeing the substances being traded and their being granted a court order. The new clause would allow an interim ban to be put in place while the application for the court order was being heard. If the application turned out to be misplaced, compensation of some kind could be made, but the provision would give communities the extra protection they need and deserve in these circumstances.
Mike Penning
I apologise to the House that my comments will have to be short because of the limited time available. In respect of new clause 2, I fully understand where Labour Members are coming from, but judicial oversight is very important. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) mentioned the possibility of compensation if we got it wrong, but I do not want to get it wrong. I believe that we can get these matters into the courts very quickly; we do so with other court business and we can get judges to make these decisions.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) spoke to amendments 2 and 3, and I fully understand his argument. The logic behind the specific designation of schools in the Bill goes back to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. I absolutely agree that we should bring our legislation up to date quickly, and I believe that the Sentencing Council is the place for that in a modern democracy. However, under section 125(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, courts are under exactly the same obligation to consider aggravating factors when sentencing an offender, whether those factors are in this Bill or in the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council. So, sadly, although I fully understand both sets of arguments that have been put forward, I believe that we need to go with the Bill as it has been drafted.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mike Penning
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This has been an experience. I fully understand why previous Ministers and Governments looked long and hard at the Bill, and why, although it was desperately needed and there was a lot of talk, it did not go very far.
I commend the work done by two Liberal Democrat Ministers in the last Administration, Norman Baker and Lynne Featherstone, who were very much in the driving seat in in the preparation of the Bill. For a number of reasons I wish that it had been introduced in the last Parliament, not least because I would not have been at the Dispatch Box having to deal with so many difficult issues.
This is an enormously important Bill. It is not perfect, but it is an awful lot better than what we had before we started. There were some minor amendments that needed to be addressed in the other House, but in 2014 there were 129 deaths in Great Britain in which psychoactive substances were implicated. On the day I announced this Bill was going to be introduced, I took a call from a journalist from Falkirk in Scotland who wanted a comment from me on why I was doing this. He told me about a gentleman and a lady in his area who had been to a head shop a couple of days before and bought what they thought were safe, legal products, and within hours he was dead and she was seriously injured. I passionately hope she has made a full recovery.
I am conscious that we should never again talk about a legal high that is safe or legal. If someone takes a substance, they have to realise the dangers involved in that. I know the shadow Minister wants us to be strong on the education part of the Bill, and we will work together to make sure that it is strong.
I also want to express thanks for the tone and the way in which we have conducted proceedings on the Bill. The Chair of the Select Committee alluded to the fact that it has been done quite speedily. There was speedy work done by the Select Committee and by the Public Bill Committee. I thank all members of the Bill Committee. Some of them, particularly the Scottish National party members, had never participated in a Bill Committee before, and I pay tribute to the attitude and the way in which that was done. I also pay tribute to the devolved Administrations, because this Bill covers the whole of the UK; it is a very important Bill.
I pay tribute in particular to my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer). There was never any intention in this Bill of making things difficult for any individual or groups. What we wanted to do—I was passionate about this—is make us safe in this country. We wanted to get away from the concept that people might have thought something was fun and would be safe, when it could take their life or the life of their loved one.
My team, led by an excellent Bill manager, has done excellent work as well. That is perhaps partly a tribute to the work done before I was the Minister—the background information that gave us an understanding of how this Bill could work.
It is absolutely right that the Bill is similar, but not identical, to the one introduced a couple of years ago in the Republic of Ireland. We have learned from some of the mistakes made there. To be fair, they are looking very closely at us now.
It should also be said that we are not alone in having our communities blighted by these products. Other countries around the world are trying desperately to address this issue. Next week a Minister from far, far away is coming to talk to me and to ask, “How have you done this? How are we going to do it? Can you help us by monitoring it as you go forward so we can introduce similar things?”
There is one major amendment that I particularly hope works, and does so very fast and that is the Government amendment on possession within custodial premises—prisons and the other closed estate. That was requested not by me, but by the prisons Minister. He requested it because he had the governors around the country, the Prison Officers Association, and others, including the prisoners, saying, “This is out of hand in our prisons. We need help.” Many people said that there was legislation that could have been used, but this Bill makes it very clear that possession in prison or other custodial premises is a criminal offence. Nobody in this House wanted to criminalise everybody in possession, but within these institutions that is very important. I hope that that works quickly, along with the body-worn cameras which are being trialled in our prisons at the moment to prevent assaults on staff.
I am conscious that others want to speak, but let me say that I am enormously proud to have brought this Bill through, as it will save lives. As a father, I can only imagine what others have gone through when they have had their loved ones taken away from them or seen them badly damaged. I, too, panicked like hell when my daughters went to university. They are really sensible kids who understood everything, but they could easily have been dragged into thinking that these things were safe—they were not safe and we have made sure that everybody knows that now.
Lyn Brown
Labour’s 2015 manifesto included a commitment to ban the sale and distribution of dangerous psychoactive substances. We believe that a blanket ban, with listed exemptions, is the most effective means of beginning to tackle the serious public health problem these drugs have brought about. That is why Labour supports this Bill. We have not agreed with the Government on every detail of it, but we have been united in wanting the most effective legislation possible to tackle the scourge of these disruptive substances and to curb the criminal fraternity who are pushing them on our young people.
I am greatly disappointed that the Government have chosen not to place poppers on the exemptions list, as I believe that will undermine the Bill and place poppers users, particularly men who have sex with men, at greater risk of greater harm. Despite our support for the general approach of the Bill, I have made it clear that we do not think that this legislation alone will tackle the issue. Maryon Stewart, an amazing woman, said in May:
“No law can offer the perfect solution to protect people from drugs; it is equally vital we all concentrate our efforts on making the public, young people in particular, more aware of the harms of these substances in schools, at university and during festivals.”'
I could not agree more. Sadly, the Government do not seem to agree that a comprehensive education and awareness strategy needs to go alongside the measures contained in this Bill. That is truly the only way in which we will effectively reduce demand, and thereby make measures controlling supply easier and more effective.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) for working closely with me on this Bill. His insights into the public health aspects of the legislation have been invaluable and it has been a pleasure to work with him. I also thank the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) for the spirit of co-operation he has shown throughout the passing of the Bill and for his humour. I also thank the Scottish National party Members, who have been great to work with. This has been the first Bill I have led on, and it has been good to have them alongside.
This legislation was introduced in the other place, and I want to pay tribute to the excellent work done by my Labour colleagues there, particularly Lord Rosser, who led on the Bill for Labour. My colleagues in the other place were instrumental in improving the Bill by securing more comprehensive exceptions for academic and medical research. I am convinced that the input from the Labour Members has made a real difference to this Bill.
In conclusion, if the House is divided tonight, we will be voting for the Bill. Expert advice and experience from Ireland suggests that a blanket ban is the most effective means of beginning to tackle the pernicious industry in new psychoactive substances. We committed to banning new psychoactive substances in our manifesto, and I sincerely believe this Bill is a good first step in our battle to protect the public and our children from the serious health risks and harms that these dangerous drugs present. However, the fight against the harms brought about by new psychoactive substances is only just beginning, and I will continue to work for better drug education and awareness in this country as that fight continues.
Steve Brine
May I echo the words of both Front Benchers about what a pleasure it has been to work on this Bill and to work with Members from the three main parties? During this process there had been complete consensus and we had no Divisions even in the Public Bill Committee; I served on the Health and Social Care Bill Committee in the last Parliament and I am not used to such Bill Committees. It therefore came as a bit of a rude shock when, at the end of this process and like the No. 10 bus, we had three Divisions in a row—
Steve Brine
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not give way, because two of my colleagues wish to speak and we are going to finish on time. I want to say just three things. Although I do not wish to downplay the importance of the subject, it is unfortunate that we have spent so much time discussing amendment 5 on poppers. All I will say is that it is a hugely important issue, and we need to get it resolved and to move quickly on from it. I really appreciated it when the Minister said “immediately” and “by the summer”. I wrote those phrases down, and, as his former PPS, he knows that I will hold him to his word.
I have been in the House since 2010, and have found that the interest in this subject has been huge. Debates in Westminster Hall and questions to the Prime Minister in the previous Parliament led to the matter being included in manifestos at the general election. Here we are today, and we are almost done with it. To explain why it is important I wish to return to the story of an 18-year-old from my constituency who died at a music festival. She had everything to live for—she was an Army cadet, and a Duke of Edinburgh gold award winner—but for £40 her life was gone. Her dad said at the inquest:
“I always imagined if any harm came to Ellie it would be on a bungee jump, canoeing down a fierce river, or in an accident on a mountain—but nothing like this. She was so sensible. It is an absolute tragedy for our family. It was one act of stupidity that has destroyed a family.”
That says it all about why we are here.
Let us remember that new psychoactive substances are notoriously difficult to identify. Currently, they have to be regulated on a substance-by-substance, or even group-by-group, basis because of the diversity and the speed with which they are developed to replace drugs that are controlled under the 1971 Act. The cruellest danger of the so-called legal highs is that I have seen them sold as “harmless fun” at so many festivals that I happily attend with my friends and, this summer, with my family, and they are of course anything but that.
Do I think that the Bill addresses the problem? I believe so, because it is the blanket ban that we were promised. It is a Bill that we have been crying out for and campaigning for over many years. The current response in Hampshire, which I represent, is built around reducing demand, restricting supply and the use of Trading Standards. Hampshire Trading Standards has tried everything, but it has been unable successfully to secure a prosecution using existing legislation for the sale of NPS by head shops in the county. Instead it has focused on supporting the police using current antisocial behaviour legislation where that can be associated with a problem retailer. It does not take a genius to work out that that is merely fiddling while Rome burns. It is all good work, but, without this legislation, we have been tying our hands behind our backs, and we are now nearly there.
I mentioned head shops. There was one on Stockbridge Road in my constituency and it was still there on Second Reading. I am glad to say that it was closed down last month under antisocial behaviour legislation. My hope is that this legislation will lead to the end of many, many more head shops, as happened in Ireland.
Have we improved the Bill as it has gone through the House? As I said, I sat on the Bill Committee where we introduced, under clause 1, the new offence of possession of a psychoactive substance in the secure estate. That is absolutely crucial, and like the Minister, I share a great deal of hope that that will make a big difference. There is a huge problem in the secure estate right now, and we have a responsibility to tackle it.
In conclusion, this is a very good Bill. It has been a long time coming, and it has been a pleasure to play even a small part in it. It was a manifesto commitment, and we are getting on with delivering it. We are here to do no harm, and to do as much good as we possibly can. As the Minister has said, although the Bill is not perfect, it is a giant leap forward.
Anne McLaughlin
I shall be very brief. I wish to congratulate all those involved in bringing forward this Bill, including the Government; the Minister who has been very willing to engage in open and robust debates; the Scottish Government who have supported the ethos behind the Bill; the Committees; and our colleagues on the Labour Benches. This is the second Bill with which I have been closely involved, and it has been a pleasure to work alongside Labour colleagues on a number of issues.
It is clear that new psychoactive substances are dangerous, and we are putting that message out there now. They are also unpredictable: there is no way of knowing what is in them or of predicting the impact on the individual. In a previous debate in this House, I talked about someone I know who made one foolish mistake at the age of 17. She was a talented young medical student, and a beautiful girl, and she has spent the rest of her life on a locked psychiatric ward. It is impossible to predict what impact drugs will have.
I have some remaining concerns, as the Minister will be aware, particularly on poppers. I look forward to the review. I remain concerned about distinguishing between people buying online and people buying down a dark alley from a drug dealer. I understand that the Minister has said that that is not the intention behind the Bill, and I accept that. I just want to quote him:
“The spirit of the Bill is that we do not want to criminalise individuals for possession”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2015; Vol. 600, c. 737.]
He also said:
“Possession in a club would not be an offence; indeed, possession is not an offence under any part of the legislation”,
and:
“Purchase and possession would be legal… so there would be no illegality on the part of the individual.”––[Official Report, Psychoactive Substances Public Bill Committee, 27 October 2015; c. 37-63.]
Mike Penning
In the spirit with which we have taken the Bill through, I just wanted to say that the Bill does make possession illegal in secure institutions.
Anne McLaughlin
I understand that—as the Minister knows, I am against it—but I was referring specifically to buying substances on the internet. We were unable to have those words included in the Bill today, but we do have the Minister’s words on the record, and lawyers will be able to use them if they have to.
My intention in all this is to protect people on two fronts: to protect their health by supporting the Bill in the first place, and to protect them from being criminalised for making a foolish mistake on one occasion. I commend the Bill as it stands, and, if it turns out that we are right about some aspects, I hope that it will be amended at a later stage.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
I know that time is limited so I shall be very quick. I am absolutely delighted with this Bill. I have worked for a long time, before being elected to this place, with a number of families who have suffered terribly from the effects of these dangerous chemicals. I have heard at first hand their stories at meetings of organisations such as Rebound, ANA and other charities I have worked with.
I was extremely grateful for the support of the previous Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who came down to Portsmouth to meet the victims. He was horrified to be taken around the five head shops there. I took him to one where drugs are sold over the counter. Mr Speaker, you will be horrified to know that there is a head shop selling these chemicals just over the road from a primary school in Portsmouth, and there is another one opposite a secondary school. I am pleased that my local paper, The News, has been backing this campaign. Hampshire police have had their own initiative against “lethal highs,” as they accurately call them. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) will join me in applauding the excellent work they have done in this field.
Whatever we call these new psychoactive drugs—legal highs, club drugs or a number of innocent-sounding brand names for specific compounds—the sellers and producers deliberately hide the dangers they pose from the people who consume them. The drugs look glitzy, as if they belong in a sweet shop, but they are extremely dangerous. Some of the compounds often mixed in legal highs are already controlled substances, such as ketamine and mephedrone, but there is also a wide range of uncontrolled chemicals. I am really pleased that they will now all be brought under control as a result of this Bill. I urge all local authorities, including my own in Portsmouth, to start planning now for how they will deal with head shops and tackle this menace generally.
As always, we have to balance punishment and criminalisation against rehabilitation and support. Many of the people who take these substances are vulnerable and need support as well as deterrence, and that includes many people in the criminal justice system. Many of those who dabble in these substances are children, and they are especially vulnerable, as the substances hide behind deceptively childish names and presentation. Having seen at first hand the effect on families, I believe that we need to take action now. I am absolutely thrilled that the Bill is going to be passed through this House tonight.
Jim Shannon
Mr Speaker, may I ask what time will be left for the hon. Members who will follow me?
Mr Speaker
It is very good of the hon. Gentleman to pursue a bit of information. The answer is that the debate must conclude at 5.39 pm, which fits neatly with the hon. Gentleman’s legendary succinctness.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to be fair, which is why I asked that question.
I am very pleased that we are having this legislation agreed on the Floor of the House. I am pleased that the Minister, whom we have great affection for, has delivered what he said he would, and in the time he set out, and that the Government have done that as well. I also want to thank the civil servants who are here—they do not often get thanks; they should get more—for all the hard work they have done. They have helped the Government formulate the legislation and bring it forward.
My party, the Democratic Unionist party, was committed to this—we wanted to see legislative change. I have been approached by the Forum for Action on Substance Abuse, a group that helps those with addictions. It wanted this legislative change, as did my constituents, and we now have it in place as the law of the land. That is good news on behalf of Adam Owens’ family—his father and step-mum—and his friends, who wanted this to happen. We had a rally in Newtownards town, in the middle of my constituency, for all his family and friends. I gave them a commitment that I would work with Government within this House to make it happen, and we have delivered it. With that in mind, I want to say on behalf of my constituents in Strangford, and those across the whole of Northern Ireland, a very special thanks to Government for doing what they said they would do.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
For too long, we have seen shops such as Skunkworks proliferate on our high streets, with their number reaching 250 in 2014. They were not just selling new psychoactive substances badged up in attractive packages with names such as GoCaine, Herbal Haze and the like—they were selling, legally and openly, various paraphernalia involved in wider drug use, involving bongs, seeds, pipes, and hydroponic growing and lighting systems. In advance of this Bill, many of these shops have now, thankfully, closed. We had one such shop in Margate that was raided by Kent police, who found 269 banned items and confiscated 52 varieties of what one might call legal highs and herbal tobacco substitutes. Of course, the internet will remain, and will grow, as a source of such products and a source of prescription-only drugs such as steroids.
The number of deaths involving NPSs is low compared with the number involving heroin, morphine and other opiates, and cocaine, but it is substantial enough, with too many young lives being wasted. I therefore welcome the Government’s attempt to clamp down on these substances. My only marginal concern about the Bill is that the definition is very broad—
Mr Speaker
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is going to leave time for the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to speak as well, and so is bringing his remarks to a close.
Craig Mackinlay
Yes, I am, Mr Speaker.
By its very intent, the blanket ban must be so, or else we will just continue the game of cat and mouse that has characterised control of these substances to date.
We have heard a lot about Ireland, and I hope that the experience in the UK will be broadly as positive. We did not mention New Zealand, which has also tackled this problem head on.
As I said, I support the Government’s ambition to take action. I remain a libertarian—I am not a killjoy—but these lethal highs have killed too many, damaged others, and are an evil of the kind that this place is here to act on. I hope that the Bill will have its intended consequences, and I support it.
Paul Flynn
Evidence-free and prejudice-rich, this Bill will do harm. It is evidence-free because the House has ignored the evidence of the countries that have taken this step before and have increased drug use. We banned mephedrone, and the result was that its use increased again. By banning a drug, we make it more attractive, drive it underground, increase the prices, and have more irresponsible people selling it.
I have been in this House for every cannabis debate—every drugs debate—for the past 28 years. It is the shared foolishness of the House to believe that prohibition works. It does not: it makes things worse. Drugs will not be controlled by this Bill just as they are not controlled in our prisons, where there is illegal drug use in every single one. This is a foolish Bill based on prejudice and not on evidence.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Proceeds of Crime
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)
I beg to move,
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 17 December 2015, be approved.
Mr Speaker
With this, we shall consider:
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 16 December 2015, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (England and Wales) (No. 2) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 16 December 2015, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) (Northern Ireland) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 16 December 2015, be approved.
That the draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigations: Code of Practice) (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2016, which was laid before this House on 16 December 2015, be approved.
Mr Hayes
I am grateful, as ever, Mr Speaker, for your stewardship and indulgence.
The important matters before us are technical and, I anticipate, relatively uncontroversial; they are certainly not partisan. Nevertheless, it is important that we scrutinise them with the diligence for which this House is rightly famed, and I will be happy to deal with any amount of detail with which the House wishes me to engage.
Isaiah Berlin once said:
“Freedom for the wolves has often meant death to the sheep.”
As someone who believes in standing fierce in defence of the gentle, I know exactly what he meant. It may be of some assurance and comfort to the House that the matters under debate relate to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and were largely commenced in England and Wales on 1 June 2015. In order to extend that commencement, as is necessary, to Scotland and Northern Ireland, we are required to make codes of practice that encompass those jurisdictions and bodies using the powers there. So, the codes will largely replicate those that were considered and approved by this House, which is why I described them as technical and largely uncontroversial.
The codes are a safeguard to ensure effective and consistent use of the powers. Once commenced, the new powers will give officers important new tools for the recovery of criminally obtained assets. That is a key pledge of our serious and organised crime strategy and the Government’s commitment to tackling all levels of crime.
The codes build on previous codes. They closely follow those issued more widely to police officers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The codes provide an important safeguard and ensure that the powers are used in a targeted, consistent and effective way, thus providing vital reassurance to the public that the powers in the 2002 Act are being used appropriately and proportionately.
The orders bring into force a number of codes of practice that provide guidance on the use of various powers under the 2002 Act. Four current codes need updating and a new code is required as a consequence of amendments made to the 2002 Act by primary legislation already passed by this House. I draw Members’ attention to the Policing and Crime Act 2009, the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and the Serious Crime Act 2015.
We plan to commence those powers relating to the 2002 Act throughout the UK on 1 March, in so far as they are not already in force. To achieve that, we need to issue the codes of practice that will provide guidance on the use of the powers throughout the UK. The Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly will consider codes that fall within their competence due to devolution.
Some might think that it would be enough for me just to put those technical matters on the record, but knowing this House as you and I do, Mr Speaker, I know that it will want me to say a little more about the amendments to the 2002 Act, which require the codes of practice providing guidance—
Mr Speaker
Order. As the Minister of State has already prayed in aid Isaiah Berlin, I had supposed that it would be only a matter of time before he would refer, in an orderly way, of course, to “Four Essays on Liberty”, but perhaps I am being impatient and that will be reached in the course of the right hon. Gentleman’s peroration. We wait to see.
Mr Hayes
Mr Speaker, you are encouraging me to stray from the subject at hand, but I will just say this: in a frail and fallen world, liberty has to be handled with great caution, and I have neither the time nor the expertise to delve into those matters at sufficient depth to satisfy you, Sir, or the House as a whole.
I will therefore restrict my remarks to the matters before us and deal briefly with the areas to which the codes of practice relate, namely the power to allow search of vehicles for criminal cash; search and seizure powers to prevent the dissipation of property that may subsequently be used to satisfy a confiscation order; expanded confiscation investigation powers to allow the tracing and identification of assets following a confiscation order; expanded civil recovery investigation powers; and change of court jurisdiction so that the Crown Court rather than the High Court will make investigation orders in relation to cash forfeiture cases.
As you will understand, Mr Speaker, we are not debating the powers themselves, because they have already been approved by the House, as I have described. Importantly, however, we are considering the codes that provide guidance on the use of the powers. This is essentially about the consideration of appropriate safeguards. Such safeguards are required under the 2002 Act in investigations by law enforcement officers. There is a final further code that relates to the use of the investigation powers by prosecutors, and owing to amendments made to the powers new codes are needed to address the new provisions.
The orders will bring all the relevant codes of practice into effect, ensuring that effective safeguards and up-to-date guidance are in place, and enabling full commencement of the amendments to the 2002 Act, which I have described. For the powers that are not yet in force, we are working towards a common commencement date of 1 March. The use of the powers will be rightly guided by the revised codes of practice. I make no apology for repeating that the codes are an important safeguard to ensure the targeted, proportionate and effective use of the powers in the Act, balanced against the entitlements—my brief says “rights”, a word I always hesitate to use, but I mean the lawful entitlements that we often call rights—of individuals and communities. I therefore ask the House to approve the orders to give effect to the codes of practice.
In order not to disappoint you of all people, Mr Speaker, I conclude by quoting my favourite poet—not T. S. Eliot, but W. B. Yeats:
“Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking.”
The Government, with appropriate alacrity and determination, and with the moderation associated with putting in place such safeguards, are indeed striking to make the iron hot. In that spirit, I hope the whole House will agree that the orders are an appropriate way forward, with appropriate checks and balances in the exercise of these vital powers.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
I have to say that our determination to support the measures has been reinforced by the Minister quoting my favourite poet. As someone whose dad came from County Cork in Ireland and whose mother came from Tipperary, and as someone who grew up on “A terrible beauty is born”, I fully support the Minister’s choice of poet.
The Minister was right both to paint the context of the measures and to stress that they are non-controversial, as indeed they are. The origins of the proceeds of crime legislation was a determination, across the House, that crime should not pay, and, indeed, that the proceeds of crime should help to pay for the prevention of crime and for support for victims—hence the 2002 Act, a bold step that was widely welcomed at the time.
To be frank, the 2002 Act was not as strong as it might have been, and as experience unfolded that certainly pointed to the need for the legislation to be further strengthened. That was dramatically evidenced in the two National Audit Office reports, which respectively showed that only 26p and 35p was recovered for every £100 of the proceeds of crime.
There were some very famous cases. On the one hand, there was the aptly named Adams family, who ultimately did not succeed in avoiding the full force of the law. On the other hand, Julian de Vere Whiteway-Wilkinson was ordered to repay £2.1 million, but only £262,000 was recovered, and Nasir Khan was ordered to repay £14 million, but nothing was recovered. Classically, smaller confiscation orders tended to have a high rate of success in recovering the moneys concerned, but the Mr Bigs of this world continued to get away with it.
We acknowledged that our legislation was not as strong as it needed to be, and during the last Parliament we argued for the law to be strengthened. The Minister mentioned the successive Acts, which culminated in the 2015 Act. There is no question but that welcome progress has been made on key issues, including the freezing of assets, default sentences, strengthening the leadership of the National Crime Agency, a stronger ministerial focus and, crucially, effective information and communications technology and data sharing. Real progress has been made.
What is before us today is the latest necessary step in the process of not just strengthening the law, but, crucially, seeing the law enforced. It does so in a way that strikes the balance between the liberty of the individual and our utter determination not to allow people to get away with swinging the lead, particularly when an order is made.
We are content to support all five of the measures. I will not go through them all in detail. The Minister was right that that is not necessary. I will highlight just one: the search, seizure and detention of property code of practice for England and Wales. Allowing seizures in reasonable anticipation of confiscation orders is right, as is the determination of the appropriate officer to authorise and oversee seizure.
In conclusion, we welcome the steps that are being taken. They are necessary steps. I will ask but one question of the Minister. There is a shared determination to ensure that those who commit crimes do not get away with the benefits of them and, therefore, to recover the proceeds of crime. Crucially, as the experience under successive Governments tells us, there must be effective enforcement. Therefore, will the Minister say how we can be confident that there will be effective enforcement and to what extent the orders will help? We almost need case studies that bring alive the progress that the Government intend to make. We certainly believe that this is progress and we are content to support it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
The person on my list is not here, but the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) is here. Mr Malthouse, if you wish to give us your views, we wish to hear them.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I just want to speak briefly, Mr Speaker.
I support the measures completely, but I want to plant a small seed in the Minister’s fertile mind. When I was deputy mayor for policing, we were very keen to use the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to an enormous extent. We thought that it held enormous potential for recovering money in London and elsewhere. However, it involved a significant investment of police resources, which had to be diverted from elsewhere.
We therefore attempted to cut a deal with the Home Office that would have allowed the Metropolitan police to retain some, if not all, of the money that was recovered. The Home Office denied us that ability and, as a result, we did not invest anywhere near the resources that we could, and perhaps should, have invested in using the Act in the devastating way it can be used, particularly against organised criminal networks.
I ask the Minister to consider allowing police forces to retain a proportion of the money they recover, first to cover their costs in pursuing the money and, secondly, so that it can be reinvested in local services. There is nothing in the current climate that would motivate a chief constable to use these powers more than the idea that it might be a profit centre for his or her force. If the measures are to be as effective as I know the Minister wants them to be, allowing such entrepreneurialism, shall we say, among police forces would be extremely welcome. Other than that, I completely support the measures.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.
The Minister has, indeed, been incredibly persuasive, so he will find no opposition from the SNP Benches. To put it mildly, all Members are enthusiastic about ensuring that the proceeds of crime are confiscated wherever possible and put to good use. In Scotland, the CashBack for Communities scheme has proved enormously successful and popular. It ploughs money recovered from criminals into free community initiatives for young people around the country.
Today, we are concerned with the safeguards that are in place for the powers that are designed to help recover certain proceeds of crime. The powers to detain, search and seize are clearly very invasive, so it is imperative to have appropriate safeguards. I will be helpfully brief, Mr Speaker, and will confine myself to the order on the cash searches code of practice, which is the only one that relates to Scotland.
The code of practice order relates to search powers, which can represent a significant interference with privacy rights. The code of practice must therefore ensure that the use of the powers is fully justified and that consideration is given to whether results could be achieved by less intrusive means. The code of practice must explain clearly what the reasonable suspicion amounts to, as well as making clear the necessity to seek judicial authority, or at the very least the authority of a senior officer, wherever practical. It must also outline how to conduct a proper search. The code appears to do all those things and it is, as the Minister says, essentially a reworking of previous drafts. For those reasons, we have no opposition to the order or the code.
I want to flag up one concern, however. On the one hand, it was a surprise to see a reference on page 4 of the code to the use of the powers by immigration officers. That possibility was not present in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. However, a footnote in the draft order explains that the UK Borders Act 2007 provides that part 5 of the 2002 Act should apply to immigration officers as it applies in relation to a constable. On the other hand, having been involved in the scrutiny of the Immigration Bill, I know that it is not a new experience to see police powers being handed out almost like sweeties. Successive Governments seem to have been tempted down that path. I am not saying that customs officers or immigration officers do not, on occasion, require similar powers to those of the police. However, whenever police-like powers are going to be handed to people who are not police officers, we need to be extra-vigilant and to demand a clear operational case and appropriate safeguards.
I would like to highlight the inspection of immigration officers’ powers to enter business premises without a search warrant that was conducted by the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency between October and November 2013. He reported that 59% of the cases he examined did not have the required justification for the use of the power, and that a further 12% had insufficient information for him to form an opinion. He found widespread non-compliance with the guidance, and ineffective processes for ensuring that staff were complying with the legislation and guidance. I could go on, but I believe that those findings cast a light on the need to be very careful when handing police-like powers to officials who are, quite simply, not police officers. We also need to be extra-vigilant when scrutinising the codes that guide the use of those powers, and to question whether the safeguards are sufficient to make up for the fact that they are being used by non-police officers.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
It is a pleasure to make a short speech in this short debate. The Minister for Security, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), gave us a Yeatsian introduction to what is actually a fairly prosaic set of statutory instruments, and I would not want to provoke him any further in that direction. I just want to use this opportunity to make a couple of points clear. We support these measures, which will properly even out a number of anomalies and inconsistencies. We need to ensure that we have proper codes of practice and guidance on the use of these powers, and that is what the statutory instruments will provide.
In Northern Ireland, there has at times been sensitivity when the Home Office has introduced legislation here. An example would be the introduction of the National Crime Agency, when not enough attention was paid in advance to the Patten architecture or to ensuring that any additional policing systems and powers were consistent with the Patten principles. It took time to get that right, but it has now been got right. The statutory instruments before us tonight to build on that work that has already been done. They do not transgress the principles and they will not trigger any of the Patten tripwires in any way.
Most people in Northern Ireland will welcome the fact that there is to be full, even and consistent pursuit of the proceeds of crime. During the last set of negotiations at Stormont House, paramilitarism was a vexed issue among the parties. There was an impression abroad that not all the proceeds of crime were being fully pursued, and that some of those in possession of assets that were deemed to derive from years of paramilitary activity were being allowed to enjoy a life of ease and economic largesse that would otherwise have been discomfited by the relevant authorities. It was also thought that some of those assets were treated as personal rather than organisational, because some of those persons were deemed to be friends of the peace process. Both Governments, north and south, tried to reassure parties that that was not the case, and they undertook to ensure that in all legal measures and in all future practice, there would be a clear working assurance that no bye ball was given, no blind eyes were turned and there was no acceptable level of criminal enterprise, current or historic.
In so far as these statutory instruments add to that suite of reassurance to everyone and are compatible with the very important architecture derived from Patten in relation to the policing environment in Northern Ireland, my party is happy to endorse these statutory instruments.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Like other Members who have spoken, I want to put on the record that my party supports the statutory instruments. We need them even more today, perhaps, than in the past. Statistics given to me beforehand show that since the end of the troubles, the number of organised crime gangs in Northern Ireland has risen from 60 to 170. It is important that we have legislation in place, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to the search, seizure and detention of property or in relation to the code of practice for investigations. People look to the law of the land for support.
Some 600,000 litres of illegal fuel were seized in the past year and 27 laundering plants have been dismantled. It is clear to me that there are crime lords out there and those 170 groups are involved in systematic criminal activities. The laundering plants generate money, but when they are washed out the pollution goes into the rivers and waterways. In some places around the border in Northern Ireland and the Republic, there are no fish and no life left in the waters because of what is happening. The effects of that are clear. There were three times as many deaths due to heroin in 2013 than there were in 2009 as a result of the criminal gangs and crime lords in Northern Ireland.
There has been some success and it is good to have that—14 organised crime gangs were dismantled in 2015 as a result of the Organised Crime Task Force, so good work has been done. We want it to continue, and these measures can stop those involved in criminal activities and those who live off their ill-gotten gains. Seize their goods and the proceeds of their crime, take those crime lords out of action, dismantle their empires and give freedom to the estates and the people of Northern Ireland by stopping those who live off them. My party and I fully support the proceeds of crime measures, congratulate the Government on moving forward in a positive fashion, and look forward to supporting the Government in all aspects of these measures.
Mr Hayes
I shall answer one or two points on the first of the codes, then, with your permission and indulgence, Mr Speaker, I shall move the subsequent ones formally.
The points that have been made are all in the spirit of wanting the measure to work. I am grateful to the House for that. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), made the telling point that this has long been a consideration of this House and of successive Governments. He referenced in particular the 2002 Act and he will know that subsequent legislation to which I referred earlier builds on that Act and brings it up to date, because as crime changes, the proceeds of crime and our ability to recover them change too. Very much in that spirit, I welcome what he said.
I note the hon. Gentleman’s point about the way the measure is explained. Although with typical courtesy he did not draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact, I am aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee felt that the explanatory memorandum that accompanied these orders was not sufficient. I agree that the policy background in the memorandum was insufficient and did not set out that the powers will operate in the way I want them to, as he said. To that end, I am delighted to be able to tell him that this very morning I asked my officials to redraw the explanatory memorandum in exactly the form that he requested, with worked examples of how these things might work in practice. These are complex matters, but none the less it seems to me that they need to be articulated in a way that makes it absolutely clear how the codes will introduce the kind of safeguards that we all favour.
To that end, I can assure the House that my officials are well aware that the explanatory memorandum must do just that. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has said that were that to be done with the speed and in the fashion that I have described, it would be satisfied. The hon. Gentleman has done a service to this House and it is not his fault that I have anticipated his point by doing what I have described this morning. Indeed, it shows that we are on the same page.
My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), who has moved—he is in his place, but his place has changed—made the interesting suggestion that the police might be incentivised, if I might put it in those terms, to go still further if they were to recover some of the costs of their inquiries. That is an interesting suggestion. It would be above my pay grade and outside my remit to agree it on the Floor of the House at this very moment, but I shall certainly take it back to the Department to discuss with the policing Minister and others.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned that the explanatory memorandum could go into a little more detail, and I welcome that suggestion. Paragraph 4.9 of the explanatory memorandum suggests not only that there have been new additions but that:
“The code has been slightly restructured to make it easier to read and understand.”
Would it be possible to set out what is a clarification and what is a new provision, so that when that is considered in due course it will be clear that some points are just clarifications rather than new provisions?
Mr Hayes
With the eye for detail that my hon. Friend’s scrutiny increasingly shows, and for which she is building a substantial reputation, she draws attention to precisely one of the matters that I discussed with my officials in the conversation I had with them this morning, to which I referred in relation to the comments made by the shadow Minister. It is right that we should clarify that point. She is also right that we need to consider the whole of the explanatory memorandum in a similar spirit, and that is precisely what we intend to do. I am grateful to her for allowing me to illustrate that not only she has an eye for detail, but the Minister has too.
The points made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) seemed to me to be absolutely on the button. It is important that these things are dealt with consistently and that we take them seriously. I make no comments on his remarks about the previous history in the Province, but I can assure him that we are determined that the powers shall apply across our kingdom and that they will be pursued with appropriate vehemence. There can be no greater mission than to ensure that criminals do not profit from what they do. That is precisely what we intend to achieve. I am grateful for his support and for the comments he made about that.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) spoke about immigration officers’ powers. I take his point; they have been generally expanded so that they are now mainstream law enforcement officers, like the police, the NCA and others. There is appropriate training—he is right that it is very important that that takes place—and appropriate safeguards and oversight, as there always should be in such matters. This is in relation to the 2002 Act, as I said, and I will pass concerns on to the Minister for Immigration so that the people for whom he is responsible are equipped with the information and skills they need. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), it is important that we behave consistently, and I am grateful for his contribution to the debate.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about effective enforcement, and not only is it important that these codes are clear, established, transparent and comprehensible, but the powers that they effect or give appropriate safeguards to must be used. As he said, it is right that there has been a determination in this House, but we must ensure that that is seen through to the point of impact. It is all very well having intent, a legislative vehicle and safeguards, but there must also be a determination that this is seen as an important priority in the Province and across the United Kingdom.
This has been a useful debate, and I am grateful for the spirit in which the House has considered these matters. It is perhaps best to end not with Yeats—although I could, and I am tempted to—but with C. S. Lewis, who said in “The Weight of Glory” that
“the art of life consists in tackling each immediate evil as well as we can”.
The proceeds of crime are an evil that this Government are entirely determined to tackle, and these codes will help us to do so. In that spirit, I commend the motion to the House.
Mr Speaker
With the indulgence of both the Chair and the House, the Minister has served up both a starter and a pudding, for which I am sure the House is deeply grateful. The main course has, of course, been provided by other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and whom the Minister has graciously accommodated.
Question put and agreed to.
Proceeds of Crime
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
BBC licence fee
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
This petition is about the BBC licence fee. It declares that the petitioners are dissatisfied with the BBC licence fee of £145.50, and notes that 50 MPs recently demanded an urgent Government review of BBC funding. For almost 20 years, the Magistrates Association has been calling for the decriminalisation of TV licence evasion, and it is concerned that evaders are punished disproportionately.
In 2014, 52.8 million letters were sent out to suspected evaders, which were followed up by 3.8 million visits by TV licensing enforcement officers. That resulted in 204,018 prosecutions or out of court disposals, of which 24,025 were ultimately unsuccessful. Further to that, there were 40 imprisonments for an average of 20 days, for non-payment of associated fines. It should be noted by the House that the licence fee represents a much higher proportion of income for poorer households, and it gives an unfair advantage to one broadcaster and distorts the marketplace.
In conclusion, the petitioners find the BBC’s content outdated and biased, and therefore do not wish to fund it. Further to that, an online petition on this matter was signed by 176,079 individuals as of 9 am today. Interestingly, that is approximately the same number of people who are currently—
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the petitioners are dissatisfied with the BBC licence fee; further that up to 50 MPs recently demanded an urgent Government review of the BBC funding; further that the Magistrates Association has been calling for the decriminalisation of TV licence evasion for nearly 20 years, concerned that evaders are punished disproportionately; further that 52.8 million letters were sent in 2014 to suspected evaders which were followed up by 3.8 million visits by TV licence officers, 204,018 prosecutions (or out of court disposals), of which 24,025 were unsuccessful, and 40 imprisonments, for an average of 20 days; further that the licence fee represents a much higher proportion of income for poor households; further that it gives an unfair advantage to one broadcaster; further that the UK is now perceived less favourably internationally by countries that have never enforced TV licence fees or have abolished their TV licence due to its public broadcaster funding model; further that the petitioners find the BBC's content outdated and biased and therefore do not wish to fund it; and further that an online petition on the matter was signed by 170,000 individuals.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to end the BBC licence fee.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P001669]
Mr Speaker
We are grateful. The hon. Gentleman has given us the thrust of his petition. I have been rather generous. It is, to be blunt, over-long. The hon. Gentleman has had his say. We are deeply obliged to him for what he has said, but his oration is now over. What he needs to do is read the prayer and present the petition.
Domestic Politically Exposed Persons: Money Laundering Rules
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
It is a great honour and privilege to have secured tonight’s debate. I note that it follows on from the proceeds of crime debate, so it is both appropriate and timely.
It is a truism that international money laundering is a serious crime, and the UK Government are right to want to both persecute and prosecute those responsible. The legislation contained in both the third money laundering directive and the soon-to-be-introduced fourth directive is wide in its scope and is being aggressively applied by the banks. Although my debate deals specifically with politically exposed persons, my concerns can be more widely read across to the many law-abiding professional people in this country who are experiencing difficulties with their bank or in opening a new bank account.
In setting out the scene for tonight’s debate, I thought it would be helpful if I defined what a politically exposed person is in relation to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007. The regulations transpose the third money laundering directive into UK law. I will quote from the 2005 report of Joint Money Laundering Steering Group. This is a direct quote from its guidance:
“Senior political figure is a senior figure in the executive, legislative, administrative, military or judicial branches of a government (elected or non-elected), a senior figure of a major political party, or a senior executive of a government-owned corporation. It includes any corporate entity, partnership or trust relationship that has been established by, or for the benefit of, a senior political figure.
Immediate family typically includes the person’s parents, siblings, spouse, children, in-laws, grandparents and grandchildren where this can be ascertained.
Close associate typically includes a person who is widely and publicly known to maintain a close relationship with the senior political figure and includes a person who is in a position to conduct substantial domestic and international financial transactions on his or her behalf.”
Those definitions are reflected in the Money Laundering Regulations 2007, which were introduced pursuant to the third money laundering directive 2005. Importantly, however, although banks are choosing to apply the legislation to holders of domestic UK office, these people are specifically excluded from its scope.
Schedule 2 to the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 defines a PEP as being an individual, including their immediate family members or associates
“who is or has, at any time in the preceding year, been entrusted with a prominent public function by:
(i) a state other than the United Kingdom;
(ii) a Community institution; or (iii) an international body.”
It therefore specifically excludes Members of Parliament serving in the United Kingdom Parliament. In addition, the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group guidance for the UK financial sector states that the definition of a PEP used by banks
“only applies to those holding…a position in a state outside the UK”.
However, UK banks have consciously chosen to adopt a broader definition of a PEP, which also includes customers who hold political office within the UK. Banks argue that this is desirable in advance of the introduction of the fourth money laundering directive, due to come into force in 2017, which, unless amended, will apply to domestic politically exposed persons.
The rules around money laundering are a mess. I know this; the Government know this; the Chair of the Treasury Select Committee knows this; and the principals of many small and medium-sized businesses in my constituency and in others know this. The position of the UK banking sector, in its aggressive application of money laundering rules to domestic politicians, to their extended families and—I now fear—more widely to many of our law-abiding constituents, is known, in banking parlance, as de-risking.
What are the practical consequences of de-risking? In regards to the teenage children of MPs, it amounts to intrusive demands for information. One 18-year-old was recently contacted by her bank demanding that she produce personal information or face losing her banking facilities. This demand included information about her occupation, her employer’s name and address, details of any residential addresses she used and how much time she had spent at each address and information about regular sources of funds, such as income, student loans and funds from her parents.
A Back-Bench colleague, who agreed to be interviewed by his bank, was required to answer questions about his account dating back 25 years. This colleague is yet to turn 50.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The regulations have affected me, as a Back-Bench Opposition MP. I have been involved in family charitable trusts where my fellow trustees have said, “Please Fiona, you can’t play a role in this philanthropic enterprise. Setting it up would be too complicated because you’re a politically exposed person.”
Mr Walker
The right hon. Lady’s timing is prescient, because I was about to say that some colleagues had been denied places as charity trustees or board members, simply because the charity could not deal with the financial compliance required to make the offer of the voluntary position worth while. These colleagues want to give their time and experience for free.
Another example of heavy-handedness concerns colleagues who retain a link with their professional practices. De-risking by banks means colleagues are struggling to open company bank accounts, often despite being required to do this by their own professional regulator, in order to look after and protect client moneys. In another case, a colleague’s 81-year-old father was summoned for an interview by his bank to verify his details and sources of wealth, despite his having been with the bank for more than 50 years.
Other colleagues have been asked to provide details of their parents’ financial assets, such as property, share and cash holdings. A son-in-law of a Back-Bench MP who owns his own business was recently informed that he had been identified as a politically exposed person and was required to provide details of his business’s transactions, as well as information about his personal account. In a similar vein, a Back-Bench MP’s son was required to provide information about his wife and details about her parents—his in-laws.
The actions of banks are, at best, highly intrusive and, at worst, in danger of restricting the ability of honest people, such as sons, daughters, brothers and sisters, to raise the money required to invest in and grow their business.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
We were recently contacted by a bank that we have been with for more than 40 years asking for proof of our address. It beggared belief, as it had managed to send us statements for the whole of those 40-odd years. I said, “Well, don’t you know where we live?” It said, “You’ve never proved it.” This is taking it to the most stupid nth degree, and it has to stop.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend’s intervention brings me nicely on to the next part of my speech. The aggressive application of de-risking by the banks comes despite assurances from Lord Deighton, the then Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, to his colleagues in the other place, on 14 October 2014, when he said—I quote again I am afraid—that
“while UK parliamentarians are not currently considered to be “politically exposed persons”—or PEPs—domestically, revised global standards to which the UK is fully committed will require that they are treated as such. These global standards require enhanced due diligence and ongoing monitoring only when the business relationship is assessed as high risk. The UK will make representations when negotiating the fourth money laundering directive to ensure that it reflects these standards.”
Lord Deighton went on to say:
“The key here is in the approach of the banks in doing their due diligence appropriately. The main feature of these arrangements is that domestic PEPs should be assessed in terms of their level of risk, and in the main UK parliamentarians should be assessed as low risk and, frankly, treated in precisely the same way as any other customer. The problem is when banks do not apply the right kind of risk-based assessment and instead revert to inappropriate box-ticking approaches.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 October 2014; Vol. 756, c. 114.]
What is now obvious is that the banks have not paid the blindest bit of regard to the entreaties of Lord Deighton. In advance of the fourth money laundering directive, they have decided to apply the rules with no regard to any assessment of risk. This should come as no great surprise. The financial crisis that the banks sprung on us in 2008 clearly demonstrated that they have no, or at best a limited, understanding of risk.
Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
I apologise for being detained at the very beginning of this debate.
Would my hon. Friend be as surprised as I was to be phoned up by a bank that I had banked with for over 30 years to be told that I was high risk, that the bank would not deal with me any more and that it was closing my account? That was a phone call I received in my parliamentary office. Subsequently, a second bank has written to tell me that it is closing my bank account—with no explanation whatever.
Mr Walker
That is an outrageous act by banks. The banks would argue that they are not public utilities, but my response would be that they are, because it is taxpayers and us who have bailed them out. They have a responsibility to behave responsibly, whether it be to Members of Parliament, small businesses or our constituents.
We are now faced with the somewhat laughable situation that not only Members of Parliament are being assessed as high risk in regards to money laundering, but their extended families are, too. On the basis of this Chamber alone, that puts nearly 10,000 people in the frame.
In common with all parts of the population, Members of Parliament can, of course, do bad and stupid things. That has always been the case and always will be the case. When it comes to our elected politicians, however, it is impossible to imagine a more scrutinised group. Not only do we have to register details of our commercial activities with the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—under pain, in extremis, of being dismissed from this place if we fail to do so—but we have the likes of The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Mail and Channel 4’s “Dispatches” breathing down our necks in the hope of catching the slightest whiff of wrongdoing.
Indeed, it often comes as a great disappointment to our pursuers that so few of us cavort with international despots and criminal masterminds. The much less glamorous truth is that most Back Benchers indulge in far more mundane but worthy pursuits, such as trying to sort out our constituents’ housing and street-lighting problems. Indeed, the tiny fraction of Back-Bench colleagues who lead altogether more politically racy lifestyles are well known to the media, with their activities well reported. It must be remarked, “Oh, what a friend the banks’ compliance departments have in Fleet Street and the House of Commons Press Lobby.”
That, of course, leaves Ministers, but again the Executive discretion Ministers have in relation to contracts is minimal. The tendering process is conducted by civil servants, with the Minister passed a single name to sign off on or, if they are lucky, perhaps the option of two names, with the chance to exercise a smidgeon of discretion given only under the careful watch of the permanent secretary.
In concluding my comments, I say this to the Minister and the banks: regulation needs to be proportionate to the risk.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I would like to put my experience on the record. The 81-year-old mentioned in my hon. Friend’s speech a few moments ago was indeed my father. He has been with the same bank for over 50 years. He was asked into the bank to answer detailed probing questions about his banking and other activities. Understandably, my father told the bank that he was not going to do so. As for my own experience, I had a two-hour interview with a banking institution that required information about everything about every bank account I have owned for the last two years. This is simply over-gold plating, and we are seeing it too often in the money laundering regulations.
Mr Walker
I thank my hon. Friend for his useful intervention. In response, I would say that regulation needs to be proportionate to the risk, with the highest-risk bank customers attracting the most scrutiny from their compliance departments and the Financial Conduct Authority.
It may well be the case that intelligence suggests that an individual MP is up to no good, and, of course, that MP should be investigated thoroughly, but the banks and the FCA seem to be eschewing an intelligence-led approach in favour of an unfocused tick-box exercise.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Can he tell us whether every bank and every Back Bencher has been affected? I ask because, at present, one party seems to be, shall we say, over-represented in the Chamber.
Mr Walker
Colleagues are naturally reluctant to talk about the issue, but I can tell my hon. Friend that this applies to every bank, although some are worse offenders than others. The banks that I have come across are HSBC, Lloyds, the Halifax and Barclays, but there will be others.
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend has given another example.
If the banks’ tick-box approach is replicated throughout their wider compliance operations, it suggests that they do not have a clue what they are doing, or where the risk actually lies within their customer base. Of course, a less charitable interpretation of their conduct would be the suggestion that they have a very good idea of where the money laundering threat lies in their business, but the cost in lost fees of addressing that threat, and the consequential deterring of high-net-worth individuals as clients, is greater than the cost incurred through the occasional regulatory fine. Far better for the balance sheet to make a great deal of noise—noise that both dazzles and impresses the regulator and makes the lives of law-abiding minnows difficult—than to actually engage in the hard and costly yards of nailing the serious bad guys.
The money laundering regulations need to be revisited. Their purpose is to target despots and dictators, not law-abiding citizens. They are being disproportionately applied. Today I am discussing politically exposed persons, but tomorrow I could just as easily be discussing the aggressive application of these requirements in relation to my constituents, their businesses and their families. The Government must act now to end this nonsense across the piece.
Let me leave Members with this thought: if everyone is under suspicion, no one is a suspect.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)
I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on securing the debate. His speech featured both the clarity and the oratory that regularly win him awards as a parliamentarian.
My hon. Friend has raised an issue that I know has caused a great deal of frustration and anger with our banks, particularly when not just we but our families, by association, experience the same difficulties. I am grateful to him for putting a range of examples on the record, because I regularly inform my officials and the bank representatives whom I meet that my ears are bent every time I go into the Tea Room or the Lobbies, and now they will know that I am not exaggerating. I hear Members’ frustration loud and clear, and I assure them that, along with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, who is present, I am keen to enhance the action that we are already taking to deal with this example of red tape. I shall return to that subject shortly, but let me begin by setting out the broader context of our anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing regime, of which the issue of domestic politically exposed persons is just one part.
This year will see the most comprehensive review ever of our regime to deal with illicit finance. At a global level we are taking action to improve our response to the threats of organised crime, international corruption and new and evolving forms of terrorism. As the Prime Minister set out in Singapore last year, that is exactly why he will be hosting a major anti-corruption summit in the UK this May.
The Government are also committed to securing the hard-won growth in our economy. In order to maintain this momentum, we need to create a business environment that fosters innovation and investment and that is supported, not hindered, by regulation. That is why it is so important to get the regulatory regime right, and why we are carrying out a red tape review of our current anti money laundering regime, seeking views from the private sector on areas of the regime that it finds unnecessarily burdensome. The aim of this is to help us to fine-tune our legislation so that we have an effective regime that works for our country. That review will report in the coming months, and I look forward to working with my colleague the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise and to receiving the analysis.
I turn now to the specific issue of domestic PEPs. I recognise that this is the key concern of the debate, and that it is a concern not only of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne but of many others in this House and the other place. As he states, the current global rules on anti-money laundering require that, in cases of high risk, banks and regulated businesses carry out enhanced due diligence on all PEPs—that is, those individuals entrusted with a prominent public function, be it politicians, high-ranking members of the military, senior members of the judiciary or others. Indeed, I myself got caught by this when I held an account with an American firm. There is solid reasoning behind this when it comes to PEPs outside the European Union, because political corruption is something we have seen time and again across the world on a truly astonishing scale.
Let me give three examples. The first is the James Ibori case. He was a state governor in Nigeria from 1999 to 2007. In that time he stole tens of millions of pounds of public money. With an official salary of £10,000 he was somehow able to buy a £2.2 million house in Hampstead, one in Regent’s Park, a house in Dorset and a flat in St John’s Wood, and it was not just Ibori himself who was ultimately convicted and imprisoned: so was his sister, as well as other associates including his UK solicitor. That is because they conspired with Ibori to conceal the origins of his wealth through a complex web of transactions and shell companies.
Another striking example is that of the former Secretary for Transport and Public Works of Macau. He was convicted of 40 counts of corruption and 13 counts of money laundering and sentenced to 27 years’ imprisonment. Since then the UK alone has recovered over £28 million of his corrupt assets and returned them to Macau.
Another example is that of the late Frederick Chiluba. He was Zambian President between 1991 and 2001. On 4 May 2007 he was found guilty of stealing $46 million of assets in a civil case in the Royal Courts of Justice, and used UK-based solicitors to launder money. In 2008 it was reported that about $60 million had been recovered by the Zambian authorities.
There is therefore a reason that we treat foreign PEPs differently under the existing regulations, and that is why families and close associates are also looked at in more detail.
Fiona Mactaggart
All the examples the Minister has cited are of people who had some Executive power. How can Opposition legislators be regarded as having Executive power? I certainly do not feel as though I have any.
Harriett Baldwin
The right hon. Lady is right to highlight that, and I will be coming on to it. Clearly the degree of risk in terms of political engagement will vary not only by country, which is one factor that needs to be taken into account, but also with reference to the role of the individual.
We have heard how the regime works currently, but we have also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne that the regime will be changing in the coming year. The overarching framework is set at a global level by the Financial Action Task Force, which is a collection of 36 countries, including the US and Australia. It includes both domestic and foreign politically exposed persons in its standards. The motivation for these global standards is that in many countries domestic PEPs actually present a higher risk than foreign PEPs, and so one person’s domestic PEP is another person’s foreign PEP. The level of risk is not the same for all countries or all individuals, as has been pointed out, which is why the risk-based approach set out in the standards is crucial.
Of course the UK supports a risk-based approach across the EU to identify and deal with PEPs, especially domestic ones. That is why we were supportive of the fourth anti-money laundering directive, which enacts these global standards. We are now faced with transposing the EU directive into UK law by June 2017, and it will extend the regime so that domestic PEPs will also be subject to enhanced due diligence across the board. Despite the fact that the new regime does not come into effect until next year, I know that some banks—we have heard some examples and some names today—particularly international ones, have already chosen to implement these changes. They are very much applying a one-size-fits-all process, as we have seen in the examples we have heard this evening. I know that for some individuals affected this has caused enormous frustration.
Let me be clear: this change should not prevent any Member of this House, or any other individual in this category, from gaining or maintaining a UK bank account. We are looking at exactly how we can encourage the banks to implement these measures domestically in the most risk-based manner possible. My officials discuss this issue with their international partners on a regular basis, and we are seeking views on this as part of our public consultation on the updated money laundering regulations and how we transpose the fourth anti-money laundering directive into UK law. I am already regularly raising this issue with not only the banks but the regulator.
I have already mentioned the red tape review of our current anti-money laundering regime, and today’s debate is helpful in that context. I know this is an issue of significant concern in this House, as we have heard clearly this evening, so I will report back to hon. Members as this work develops over the coming months. My goal is to have a banking system that is hostile to illicit finance and to terrorists, but which allows ordinary law-abiding and law-making citizens to move easily from one bank to another for better rates and better service. This debate has been very valuable for getting on the record the heavy-handed way in which banks are already applying these new rules. I would like to reassure my hon. Friend, and all other colleagues, that I am on his side, and I am grateful to him for bringing this issue to the House’s attention.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Humanitarian situation in Yemen
Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
I have a few preliminary announcements to make: please switch IT devices to silent; tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings; and hon. Members may remove their jackets if they wish.
No amendments have been tabled to this private Member’s Bill, and nor, obviously, is there a programme motion, so we will start with clause 1 stand part. When that has been dealt with, we will move to clause 2 stand part, and finally to the Question on reporting the Bill to the House. There is no set finish time, so proceedings will be concluded when we finish our consideration of the Bill, or if the Committee agrees to adjourn, should progress not be made.
Clause 1
Extension of powers to obtain documents and other material
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and an honour to present the Bill to the Committee. We heard excellent speeches on Second Reading from several of my hon. Friends and the shadow Minister. I thank them heartily for their interventions, which were succinct and apposite—I could not have thought of better ones if I had tried.
I shall outline briefly the Bill’s purpose. In essence, it will redress a legislative oversight from 1995, when the Criminal Cases Review Commission was established. After some delay, it will give the commission much-needed powers to request evidence from private sources The CCRC is the non-executive body charged with investigating alleged miscarriages of justice, which involves it seeking a range of evidence and information, often going back years. Its skilled investigators, caseworkers and commissioners do this important work.
In the course of its work, the CCRC will look at information and evidence from a range of sources, including the police, the prison and probation services, the NHS, local authorities and other public sector sources. The power to request that information, subject to judicial safeguarding, is set out in section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995. However, sometimes the CCRC will also be interested in looking at information and evidence held by private sources, be they individual witnesses, solicitors, private security firms, private medical practitioners, or, increasingly, establishments that were once in the public sector, such as the Forensic Science Service. Until now, the CCRC has relied on co-operation and voluntary disclosure because it has no formal power to require evidence to be disclosed. The Bill therefore will amend the 1995 Act to allow the commission to subpoena evidence from private sources. Critically, as set out in clause 1(1), that power will be subject to the safeguards of judicial oversight and a Crown court order, so the CCRC could compel a private individual or organisation to provide material only by order of the court. Privacy is further protected under subsection (3).
The CCRC agrees that such a process will be appropriate. As with its current practice when preserving public body material under section 17 of the 1995 Act, the commission will not seek to exercise its functions unreasonably or disproportionately. Furthermore, the commission and the Ministry of Justice believe that having the power on the statue book will be enough to persuade many private bodies to co-operate with the CCRC voluntarily.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Main. The Opposition wholeheartedly welcome and fully support the amendments to the 1995 Act proposed in the Bill. Perhaps it would help our proceedings if I put my questions collectively at the end and allow the clauses to be taken formally. Is that possible?
The Chair
Yes, if that is acceptable. We can move on to clause 2, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to put his questions before he agrees to clause 1.
Wayne David
My suggestion was that I put all my questions collectively at the end of the presentation of the clauses so that we can have a general debate, rather than specific debates on each clause.
The Chair
I shall therefore put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Extent, commencement and short title
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
William Wragg
The clause sets out the territorial extent of the Bill, which is the same as the jurisdiction of the Criminal Cases Review Commission which, as Members will see, is England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland is excluded because the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission was established in 1997 with the powers that the Bill will introduce for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, meaning that the Bill fixes a reasonless discrepancy between the two legal systems. We therefore already have a working example of such a measure in Scotland, where the process has worked well, with no evidence of abuse.
The CCRC has a historic significance to Northern Ireland. Indeed, it was set up in the wake of notorious mishandled cases such as the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six. I hope that the fact that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland is interesting and welcome.
The Chair
I suggest that Mr David makes all his points now because this is the final opportunity for debate on the Bill.
Wayne David
The broad range of support for the Bill is impressive. Indeed, the measure not only is supported by the Government and the Opposition, but has a ringing endorsement from the Justice Committee, while the Criminal Cases Review Commission also supports it. Dare I say there that is almost an unholy alliance supporting the Bill? We are certainly not going to demur from that support.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, this modest but important Bill is needed to deal with a clear anomaly in the original 1995 Act. The explanatory notes to the Bill clearly state:
“Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 gives the CCRC the power to require public bodies to disclose and provide the documents or other material which may assist them in discharging their functions”,
but does not provide for the CCRC to require
“private organisations and individuals to do so.”
That is what this important piece of legislation is all about.
The explanatory notes also refer to the Forensic Science Service, as did the hon. Gentleman, and it is interesting that emphasis is placed on that body. Of course, it was a public body before it was privatised, but I wonder whether slightly undue emphasis is placed on it, because the Bill will apply to private individuals and organisations right across the board.
Some have suggested that the Bill might place an onerous responsibility, and indeed considerable cost, on private organisations and individuals. Private solicitors have said that it will place an enormous burden on them at a time when they are under great strain due to changes to the legal system, cuts in legal aid and so on. Has the hon. Gentleman quantified the increased burden that the new responsibility will put on solicitors in particular, and individuals and organisations in the private sector generally?
On costs and burdens, I wonder if something could be said about the Criminal Cases Review Commission itself. I understand that the body is funded by grant in aid from the Ministry of Justice. In 2014-15, the funding was £5.67 million, which is not a huge amount, given the importance of the CCRC’s work. In the past decade, however, its budget has reduced by some 30%, yet there has been a 70% increase in its workload. I presume that the CCRC’s new power will lead to greater responsibility and seriousness, with perhaps more cases coming forward, and therefore an increased workload. Has any estimate been made of the extent to which the Bill will increase the commission’s workload? Have the Government considered increasing the commission’s funding as a consequence of the Bill? Obviously, the hon. Gentleman does not speak on behalf of the Government, but I wonder if the thorny issue of money has been discussed with the appropriate Minister in the Department during the detailed negotiations and consultations about the Bill.
Our inclination is to support the Bill. We think that it is important and that it deals with an anomaly, but we would like clarification on my specific points.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I am reading section 17 of the 1995 Act and wondering about the penalties for non-disclosure. That is not covered in the Bill, and given that it extends the CCRC’s powers to the private sector, I am genuinely interested in what will happen if the private sector refuses a request.
Wayne David
I would be interested to know that as well. At the moment, the public sector has a legal responsibility to provide the information. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove said on Second Reading that it is not uncommon for the private sector to co-operate, but that is a very vague statement. We want precision and obligation. Private sector organisations and individuals will have a responsibility to comply, and I will be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about possible sanctions or penalties if their co-operation is not forthcoming.
William Wragg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He referred at the outset of his remarks to the Bill’s broad support and an “unholy alliance”, although I have no idea what the unholy aspect of that alliance is, given the nature of the individuals, including his party’s leader, who were kind enough to be supporters of the Bill. I thank him for indicating the Opposition’s broad welcome to the Bill, which he made clear on Second Reading.
The hon. Gentleman asked why such emphasis has been placed on the Forensic Science Service. I suspect, from my limited knowledge of the matter, that that is because in cases of a miscarriage of justice when existing evidence is held by the service, it would probably be the first port of call in order to overturn or quash a conviction, if something was awry.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the burden that could be placed on solicitors, and although I do not have the information to hand, the costs would be limited. Indeed, there is existing co-operation, as he said, so it could be argued that the Bill simply rectifies a drafting error in the 1995 Act, especially when one considers that the equivalent commission for Scotland was given the powers in the Bill a couple of years later. Statistical evidence showing the cost of the commission in Scotland may provide him with useful examples.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the grant to the CCRC, which is currently £5.67 million, and referred to a reduction in its budget over the past 10 years. To my knowledge, the CCRC’s budget is again being increased this year—it has been protected—in anticipation of the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Delyn asked about penalties for non-disclosure. I am not able to speak on behalf of the Ministry of Justice, but he is right that the Bill does not make particular reference to that.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
The Bill provides recourse to the courts to seek an order if a private sector body or individual refuses to give disclosure voluntarily. If an order has to be sought but is breached, meaning that disclosure is not given, the penalty would be no different from the existing penalty for non-disclosure in criminal or civil proceedings. Such a procedure is well used.
William Wragg
As ever, I am grateful to my hon. Friend—indeed, my hon. and learned Friend. I am most obliged to have a barrister in criminal law defending me in this Committee. I hope that that intervention satisfies the right hon. Member for Delyn.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
William Wragg
May I express my thanks to you, Mrs Main, for chairing the Committee?
William Wragg
Not at all, Mrs Main.
I thank the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice for his help and support—he is helping and supporting in the Chamber at the moment, which is why he cannot be here—and Ministry of Justice officials for their advice and guidance. I also thank the commissioners and staff of the CCRC for their support and kind welcome in Birmingham and, of course, all members of the Committee who are here.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Westminster Hall
(8 years, 11 months 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
Out-of-school Education Settings
(8 years, 11 months 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
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the proposed regulation of out-of-school education settings.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to welcome such an excellent Minister, dedicated to school standards, and an even more excellent Opposition spokesman—I say that in the hope that they might be nice when they sum up.
How have we come to a situation in which a Conservative Government are proposing that a parish church must register with Ofsted before it can teach children the Bible for more than a few hours? The Department for Education’s consultation—I emphasise that it is a consultation—on its plans for out-of-school settings is well intentioned enough. Nobody denies that. When Sir Michael Wilshaw goes on the radio to defend them, he tells us about children
“at risk of abuse and at risk of radicalisation.”
We all have those concerns, but why does tackling abuse and radicalisation in a very tiny number of madrassahs mean that every voluntary group in England that instructs children for six or more hours a week has to register with the state? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education told Radio 4 that she thought the number of problem institutions could be numbered in the tens. Why, then, are we requiring tens of thousands of totally innocent groups to register with the state?
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend remember that when we were in opposition, we opposed the then Labour Government’s ContactPoint database precisely because it sought to capture information on every child in the country? We said, “No, it should be proportionate. We should capture the information on children at risk, not every child.” Why does he think that that principle is not being applied in this case?
Sir Edward Leigh
My hon. Friend makes his point very well, and I agree entirely that the Government should capture information only on the very small number of children who are at risk.
Mrs Gillan
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate. This issue has caused great concern among my constituents, particularly Rev. Simon Cansdale, who leads our churches in Chesham. He makes the point that surely we should be the Government who are responsible for wiping away red tape and disincentives for voluntary organisations to carry out this sort of work, but we appear to be putting more red tape in the way and creating more disincentives for them. As far as I am concerned, the proposals could even apply to, for example, teaching children music for recitals or outdoor skills, or to any sort of activity such as singing songs or reading out stories to young children. Surely it is verging on the ridiculous and should be swept away.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
Yes, your intervention was too long, as you say.
Sir Edward Leigh
It may have been too long, but it was very good, Mr Turner. Of course it is ridiculous. It is an attack on the big society. These voluntary groups are precisely what the Prime Minister was trying to create. There is no point regulating them.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Just seven months ago he proudly stood on a Conservative manifesto, which, on page 61, stated that the Conservative party would
“reject any suggestions of sweeping, authoritarian measures that would threaten our hard-won freedoms.”
Does he believe that the proposals fit in with that promise?
Sir Edward Leigh
Exactly. How proudly I stood on that manifesto. [Laughter.]
Returning to my speech, if the number of problem institutions could be numbered in the tens, why should all these voluntary groups be subject to inspection by Ofsted? Why does that mean that churches could have inspectors deciding whether their doctrine meets the “British values” test? Why should totally moderate, mainstream mosques and madrassahs have to register on a list of potential extremists?
The DFE says that an out-of-school education setting is
“any institution providing tuition, training or instruction to children aged under 19 in England”.
Exceptions are schools, colleges, and registered childcare providers. The Government talk about “intensive education”. That sounds bad—like it has a controlling influence on children—but the document says it is
“anything which entails an individual child attending a setting for more than between 6 to 8 hours a week”.
It says that that could be an hour or so every day after school.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I speak as somebody who even this coming weekend will be engaged in working with young people in a Sunday school. Does my hon. Friend think that, even if we normally do one or two hours a week, the proposals will apply if we take the children away for a weekend, which will be far more than six hours?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is a very good question and is precisely what the Minister needs to respond to, because the proposals could apply and we want to know the answer.
Huge numbers of groups have the kind of contact with young people that we are discussing. They will all have to register as part of a scheme designed for spotting a few Islamic extremists. It sounds a bit excessive, doesn’t it? The DFE is clear that it has in mind
“activities and education for children in many subjects including arts, language, music, sport and religion”.
This scheme for spotting jihadists is therefore going to impose state regulation on groups teaching arts, music and sport, activities in which jihadists are not particularly known to engage. Stalin used to persecute innocent groups of philatelists or Esperanto learners; is this a very British kind of Stalinism? Members will be thinking of the many scout troops, sports teams, youth groups, churches, conservation groups and after-school clubs in their constituencies. They will all have to register, even though we can say with a high degree of certainty that none of them—none of them—are poisoning young minds with extremism.
The Scout Association has contacted me to say that the
“proposed threshold is neither helpful, nor workable”
and that “sufficient scrutiny already exists”. Of course, that is right. One does feel sorry for the association. It is hard enough nowadays to get volunteers to give up their free time to run scout groups, without more over-regulation.
Mrs Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Like, I am sure, many others present, I have had to go through the process of a Criminal Records Bureau check, which is now a Disclosure and Barring Service check. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is an important but onerous process? Sometimes, one has to be checked more than once, because it does not transfer to another activity that one might undertake with children if one is foolish enough to do a full weekend with the Sunday school. It is a very rigorous process, and if it was applied to the people who teach children Islam in all teaching environments, it would be a very good tool to deal with any excess problem that there might be.
Sir Edward Leigh
I agree with my right hon. Friend. We should be using DBS checks if, for instance, people are trying to teach extremism, jihadism or whatever in an out-of-school setting or at home. We should use intelligence and existing powers to deal with the problem, not try to take a great sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. My constituents are concerned about the additional burden not only on volunteers, who do incredible work up and down the country, but on Ofsted. They are concerned about whether Ofsted has the capacity and the resources to implement the proposals, and about what the costs might be.
Sir Edward Leigh
I believe that Ofsted has neither the capacity nor the resources. It should concentrate on its job of ensuring good educational standards.
The DFE consultation document also mentions settings that are used during school holidays. Clearly, summer camps were in view. The Department now says that “one off residential activities” will not be covered. Fair enough. The body charged with registration is the local authority, but I am afraid we have seen enough local authorities banning Christmas and pulling funding from church groups to know that there will be places where relationships between local churches and the council are not friendly.
Apparently, out-of-school settings will be
“eligible for investigation, and if appropriate, intervention where concerns were reported”.
Investigation? Intervention? This is pretty intrusive stuff. The Government say that all this has
“the broad aim of keeping children safe generally from the risk of harm, including emotional harm”.
Seema Kennedy (South Ribble) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I speak as somebody who, like other Members, has run residential courses like those that have been mentioned. Does he agree that we might end up with all the good, diligent organisations registering, while the ones we are trying to crack down on will not bother registering at all?
Sir Edward Leigh
That is precisely the point, and I will come to it in a moment. Extremists will not register and will not talk about cutting off people’s heads when the Ofsted inspector is around.
Emotional harm is a vague concept. Atheists such as Richard Dawkins say it is “mental abuse” to teach children that the Bible is true. Does the Department agree? I am sure not. Do some Ofsted inspectors agree? I hope not.
The system includes a requirement to “register”, a power for Ofsted to inspect and a power to impose sanctions, including barring people from working with children and closing premises. Although the consultation process was, I believe, inadequate, the Department received thousands of responses, because people, especially Christian groups, are really worried. They are terrified because, for the first time, Ofsted will decide whether to bar someone or close down their youth work by assessing whether their teaching is
“compatible with, and does not undermine, fundamental British values.”
The Department says that prohibited activities will include:
“Undesirable teaching, for example teaching which undermines or is incompatible with fundamental British values.”
Does the Department really have a right to decide what is desirable and undesirable teaching in churches? Many groups focus on hobbies, sports, music, the outdoors —things that have no relevance whatever to British values. The truth is that those thousands of hobby groups are being forced to register only so the system looks even-handed. That is the point: the Government are terrified of not looking even-handed, and therefore they are bringing in all those other harmless groups.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on making a characteristically forthright speech that is based on common sense. Does he agree that the state has tools to address such issues in a risk-based way? We do it all the time with immigration and policing. Clearly, if there are risks, we should have a risk-based, proportionate approach based on common sense.
Sir Edward Leigh
That sums it up very well. All the tools are there, and I will list them in a moment. They are based on risk.
The DFE’s real target, as we all know, is religious teaching; let us be honest about that. The major problem is that many religious groups do not have confidence in Ofsted. I led a debate last year on the treatment of certain Church and Jewish schools. I will not repeat all I said on that occasion. I mentioned the particular problems that Orthodox Jewish schools are having; I read out letters from pupils at a Christian school; I mentioned St Benedict’s Catholic School in leafy Bury St Edmunds, which was accused of not doing enough to tackle radicalisation; I mentioned Middle Rasen School in my constituency, which, according to Ofsted, is not British enough. I will not repeat those points, but they are on the record.
The Catholic Education Service does not oppose the plans, but it has a number of concerns, including the risk of
“Vexatious complaints and the use of the system as a means of pursuing critical objectives”.
Ofsted told Trinity Christian School in Reading to invite leaders of other faiths to lead collective worship and actively to promote other faiths. Ofsted denies it, but why would the school make it up? I am afraid that Ofsted has a reputation for being unfair to some Christian and Jewish schools. When inspectors went into the Birmingham non-faith schools that were part of the Trojan horse Islamist plot, they first rated them as “outstanding”. One of the key figures in the scandal was an Ofsted inspector, so it hardly has a stellar record of spotting extremism. Yesterday, I talked to Sir Michael Wilshaw, who is a very reasonable, able man and is clearly doing his best. I have no doubt that he has worked hard in the past year with his resources to root out radical jihadism, but because he has to look even-handed, he has to take part in this activity of controlling thousands of other group.
Are British values the answer? One only has to say the phrase now and people roll their eyes. The consultation paper says that British values include
“democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”
That is too vague to provide a basis for state inspection of churches and scout groups. It is also sloppy. We cannot show respect and tolerance for all beliefs. Jihadism is a belief, and we certainly do not respect that.
The Government admit that their out-of-school plans will create a new burden on providers—the understatement of the year—but I do not think they have any idea of how big the bureaucratic monster they are creating is. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations—hardly an extremist group—says that there are more than 160,000 voluntary organisations in the UK. Many of them work with children and young people. For 37,000 of them, it is their core work. The NCVO counts only registered charities, but a vast amount of voluntary work is done without the formality of setting up a charity, so there are many thousands more groups not included in the NCVO figures.
I have several questions that I hope the Minister will reply to. How will those tens of thousands of bodies be notified of the new obligation to register, given that some of them do not even have a permanent address? Whose responsibly will it be in the setting, especially if the group is informal and has no structure? What about venues with different groups operating on the same premises? How will ad hoc groups calculate whether they breach the six-hour threshold? How many will be forced to register just in case? How will they know what Ofsted is looking for if they ever get a visit? How will they prepare for a visit? Can football be played in a non-British values compliant way? Can a conservation club be intolerant? Should martial arts clubs be worried?
The whole thing is a ridiculous mess that will severely damage the big society—our big idea. Some groups will cut their provision to less than six hours to avoid having to register, and some will close down altogether. Groups that rely on teachers as volunteers will be especially vulnerable because teachers will not want to risk their career by being involved in an amateur outfit that might slip up with Ofsted. It is the children who will suffer, not us, Ofsted or the Government. There will be less provision, which means that in future there will be fewer footballers, swimmers, linguists, artists and other high-flyers, all because of this bizarre, unfocused, ill-thought-out, politically correct imposition on our freedom.
Mrs Gillan
I am also greatly worried about the cost and burden that the scheme will place on our already squeezed local authorities and on the Government. More taxpayers’ money will be spent on the scheme, and I think it would be unreasonable to expect local government to meet the cost.
Sir Edward Leigh
From talking to our local councillors, we know that the last thing we should do is impose more burdens on them.
To top it all, the scheme will not make children any safer from extremism; it will just tie up thousands of non-jihadi groups in red tape. The idea that jihadists will take the time to register is incredibly naive. Islamist extremists regard our laws as a total irrelevance. If they have no conscience about teaching children that Jews and Christians are worse than dogs, does anyone seriously think they will have a conscience about registering with the local authority? Are they really going to put themselves on the radar for an inspection? If they beat up children for not memorising the Koran, do we really think they are going to put their hands up and say, “Here we are—come and inspect us”? If Ofsted turns up to assess them, does anybody think that they would use the occasion to show their ghastly videos?
If we want to find extremists groups that put children at risk, we have to use good old-fashioned intelligence. We spend a huge amount of money on the intelligence services. We have to rely on intelligence, surveillance, common sense and the bravery of members of the public who blow the whistle on such groups, including the many good Muslims who are fed up with this, frankly, and the good Muslim mothers who do not want their children to go to such places.
We should use existing laws, of which there are plenty. If these groups urge children to do things that break the law, we should prosecute them for encouraging the commission of a criminal offence under section 44 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. If the children are at risk of significant harm, we should get a prohibited steps order or a supervision order under the Children Act 1989. If the premises are dangerous, we should invoke health and safety law to close them down. If it is really an unregistered school, we should use the Education and Skills Act 2008 to close it down, as the DFE did last week to a school in Stamford Hill. We have the powers, and we should use them to deal with the genuine cases.
This out-of-school setting scheme is a total and utter distraction. We will end up with a list of tens of thousands of law-abiding, non-extremist groups, and Ofsted inspectors will try to justify their existence by picking on the occasional conservative religious group and brand them non-compliant with British values. It is a typical case of politicians and civil servants wanting to look as if they are doing something, rather than actually doing something. If they actually want to do something, they need to knock together the heads of the police, social services departments, Ofsted and all those with existing powers to make them use those powers properly.
This scheme is fundamentally illiberal. It is big government at its worst. It would do little or no discernible good, and an awful lot of harm, leading to false allegations. Ofsted knows that false allegations against teachers are a massive problem in the profession. A system based on “British values” and “undesirable” teaching is ripe for subjective, exaggerated and politically-motivated complaints, especially against religious groups. This will generate false flags and waste time. Finding extremists is already like finding a needle in a haystack. This system will just make the haystack much bigger.
Sir Michael Wilshaw tried to justify the new plans on LBC Radio last week by citing cases of unregistered schools where children were
“living in appalling conditions in a filthy environment where there was homophobic literature, anti-Semitic literature and misogynistic literature”.
That summarises the difficulty. On the one hand, it identifies real problems such as educating children in filthy conditions, but talks about those problems as if we cannot tackle them without a new law. That is not true. We do not need a new scheme to do that. On the other hand, Sir Michael Wilshaw raises issues that involve highly subjective judgments, such as what constitutes “homophobia” and “misogyny”. People routinely use words such as homophobic and misogynistic to describe the contents of holy books of all religions. One can bet there are Ofsted inspectors who take that approach. I half wonder whether the homophobic, misogynistic and anti-Semitic literature found at unregistered schools was just some religion’s holy book. There is some pretty blood-curdling stuff in the holy books of all religions.
I absolutely accept that no religious person has the right to impose any violent language on anybody else, but we are talking about religious people. It does not matter whether they are Hindu, Sikh, Muslim or Christian —they believe their holy book. I am not saying that anyone has the right to enforce their holy book on others, but they do have a right to say that they believe that their religion is right and that others are wrong. That is why they are religious. That is real diversity and pluralism—not this ridiculous situation in which we all have to pretend that we believe the same thing.
The Minister may tell us that the Government have no intention of registering Sunday schools, chiefly because they do not like the sound of the headline, but Sir Michael Wilshaw told the LBC Radio audience last week that Sunday schools would have to register. He is right because Sunday school provision is just one aspect of a church’s work with young people. If a child spends two hours at Sunday school, another two hours at a youth group on Wednesday, and another two hours in choir practice on Friday, they have spent six hours receiving tuition and training from the church. It may have involved three different groups with three different sets of volunteers but it is all in one setting, so that church will have to register. Its Sunday school workers, youth group leaders and choir masters are all liable to British values inspections.
In 1787, it was estimated that a quarter of a million children were enrolled in Sunday schools. They were mainly non-conformist. Frightened by the French revolution, the then Archbishop of Canterbury denounced Sunday schools as “nurseries of fanaticism”. Prime Minister William Pitt almost introduced a Bill prohibiting the dangerous innovation—plus ça change. In conclusion, the Department must think again before it unleashes a whirlwind of destructive over-regulation on the voluntary sector.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing the debate. I agree with a great deal of what he said, and I think there will be widespread agreement that the prospect of Government officials inspecting and supervising religious activity is not an attractive one.
We all understand—the hon. Gentleman set this out clearly—why the Government want to introduce the measure, but the way in which they go about doing so is very important. The Christian organisation CARE, in its briefing for the debate, rightly asks the question that he raised: what became of the big society? The approach being taken here is very different. It is the big state approach, which, as we have been reminded, the Conservative party’s election manifesto explicitly repudiated.
I am particularly uncomfortable about the idea that religious instruction should be placed under the authority of some vaguely defined British values administered by Government officials. Surely, in reality, it is the other way around. Admirable British values have been formed as a result of the practice of religious faith over hundreds of years. We need the practice of faith to renew and reinvigorate those values, and there is a good deal of that around the country at the moment—for example, in the extraordinary network of food banks that has developed over the past few years, a great majority of which are faith-based. That is where good values come from. Making religious instruction subject to a state-controlled version of values is deeply problematic.
There is a recurring theme in the Government’s efforts to address extremism. Of course, it is right that the Government address the problem, but that is a very difficult thing to do. Sometimes, one gets the feeling that the Government are coming up with ideas in order to be seen to be doing something. There is a worry that a view is emerging that a person who is deeply religious should be regarded in consequence as suspect. In reality, there is no correlation between those two things; it is not true for Christians, Muslims or others. Islamist extremists, on the whole, are people who are outside of regular mosque attendance because mosque attendance involves socialisation, which helps to protect against extremism. Therefore, in reality, the connection is mistaken.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman is touching on the nub of the problem. In society, there are groups of people who are deeply religious and hold devout religious views. Does he agree that any Government initiative or change in legislation must not assume that those groups are in some way suspect and treat them in a blanket way to isolate and deal with the very small number of people who use devout religious views as a means and mechanism to achieve a more devious and illegal aim?
Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I very much agree with the way he has expressed that danger, which we are heading into at the moment. If the Government are determined to make some changes in this area, I wonder whether there might be a less problematic way of doing so than the one proposed in the recent consultation. As was mentioned earlier, there is not a good fit between the task proposed and the institution—Ofsted—proposed to undertake it. I am an admirer of Ofsted and, in particular, of its current chief inspector. I admired him when, years ago, he was a headteacher in the borough that I represent in the House of Commons. However, inspecting and holding to account publicly funded schools is a very different task from monitoring occasional problems in wholly voluntary settings. As one commentator has observed, the measure would, in effect, make Ofsted the state regulator of religion. It is quite surprising to see this idea from a Conservative Government. Ministers have rightly called for religious freedom overseas. We need to be vigilant that we do not undermine it at home.
There are pragmatic considerations as well. Sensitivity and tact are not the hallmarks of Ofsted. Its job, on our behalf, includes a lot of heavy lifting. The task that the Government envisage here is a very different kind of task. I cannot see that it would be right to ask Ofsted to undertake it. Instead, what if the task of inspection— if it must be done—were given to one of a number of inspecting bodies, which could perhaps be set up for the purpose? Each setting could then choose the body by which it was inspected. They might be set up by the Roman Catholic Church, the Evangelical Alliance or the Muslim Council of Britain. The bodies would be rigorously supervised and audited by Ofsted, but it would be their staff who did the inspecting, rather than Government inspectors.
Of course, there would need to be a limit on the number of bodies, and there would be a case on the ground of openness for an inspector from a different body to accompany an inspecting team on its visits. Sunday schools or after-school Koranic classes do not object to outside visitors. The problem is with the idea that they are answerable to Government officials for the religious instruction that they deliver.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend’s suggestion sounds interesting, but does it not fly in the face of what this Government have said for many a year, which is that they do not want to see state bodies and apparatus put in place? Whether they used the original proposals or my right hon. Friend’s interesting ideas, all of it suggests further layers of bureaucracy, which they keep saying that they do not want.
Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was attempting to propose a different way of doing things that might get around at least some of the serious difficulties in the Government’s proposals.
In conclusion, several of us received this morning an email from a man who writes:
“I’m a British born Muslim living in East London. I have a beard and pray five times a day and I can no longer walk down my street without being looked at strangely as a threat.”
In addressing the problem—a real problem, albeit one affecting only a tiny number of people—there is a danger of accidentally severely undermining the values that we are setting out to protect.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
We have quite a job to do fitting everyone in. We are going to start the wind-ups at 10.30 am, which allows the Front-Bench spokespeople only nine minutes each to allow Sir Edward to conclude.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I will be brief, because the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has made most of what I was going to say unnecessary. The proposals are disproportionate and likely to be ineffective, and pose a real threat to freedom of speech, conscience and belief. They are also quite probably illegal, a point to which I will return in a moment.
Whatever reassurances the Minister may give us today that the proposals will not affect the salt of the earth organisations of which my hon. Friend spoke, we cannot be sure. The problem is that office holders change. Politicians change. Civil servants change. Once such regulations are in place, what guarantee do we have that they will not be interpreted differently in the future?
It will not do to say that we are being alarmist. We need only remember the plight of the Plymouth Brethren, which you will remember well, Mr Turner. They were threatened with the removal of their charitable status some three years ago over a difference of interpretation of the words “public benefit”. That came after reassurance had been given in the House during debates on the Charities Act 2006 that traditional religious charities need not fear the legislation. If I am correct, you were the shadow Minister at the time, Mr Turner, and you expressed grave disappointment in this very Chamber that, years after the passing of 2006 Act, an established charity with some 300 churches across the country was having its charitable status challenged following a different interpretation of the legislation. The reassurances that had been given were swept aside. The challenge cost the charity hundreds of thousands of pounds and was only averted after dozens of MPs stood up in this place and called for the outrageous attack to be stopped. That is why we are speaking out against the proposals today.
I now turn to the probable illegality of the proposals and the human rights issues. I thank Professor Julian Rivers, professor of jurisprudence at the University of Bristol and an expert on law and organised religion, for his advice. He describes the proposals as “astonishing”. He says that such a registration requirement, as it would apply to religious groups, would
“be straightforwardly in breach of the UK’s international human rights obligations.”
Let us have a look at articles 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 18 of the European convention on human rights. Hon. and right Hon. Members will be relieved that I will not quote them all. The Human Rights Act 1998, which refers to the convention, states that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and expression, to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority. Requiring religious groups to register would breach that. Indeed, just last year, the European Court of Human Rights said that the European convention on human rights
“excludes any discretion on the part of the State to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate.”
It is therefore quite likely that, were Ofsted to identify and sanction undesirable teaching in a church youth group in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough described, it would be in breach of the ECHR.
Much as I would like to, I will not go on. There is a great deal more I would like to say, but I will say in closing that the consultation has been rushed through and is of particular concern to faith organisations. At some 42 days, it was very short and the shortest of the Department for Education’s current consultations. I stood up in the House before Christmas and asked for an extension, bearing in mind that the consultation took place over Advent and Christmas, but it was refused. I pointed out later that one of the email addresses on the consultation’s website was wrong, so some of the consultees’ responses were never received. There was then confusion over the time of day on the final date when the consultation finished. Many consultees who put their responses in after around 5.30 pm found that they had missed the deadline. There needs to be a clearer understanding of what the deadline is.
Robert Flello
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s speech, but my one concern is that she is almost suggesting that the Government should rerun the consultation. May I suggest that she makes it clear in her closing remarks that the best thing that the Government could do is to bury the consultation once and for all?
Fiona Bruce
I absolutely agree. There is no other way that the proposals can be addressed other than to completely abandon them. That is what we are calling for today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
Order. Members have about two minutes each.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Two minutes? My goodness, how can I say everything that I want to say in two minutes? What a pleasure it is to stand alongside the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and support him in what he put forward. I thank him for all he has done.
I am not alone in having serious concerns raised with me by traditional faith groups and faith schools with no history of extremism whatsoever about the prospect of counter-extremism strategies potentially affecting them. That is what this is all about. Let me be clear. A framework needs to be put in place with safeguards to prevent the strategy from becoming a draconian measure. There needs to be intelligence-gathering and reasonable suspicion before any investigations or the specific targeting of a school. We cannot end up in a situation in which a Sunday school is declared a radical theatre or religious studies at a local primary school becomes a matter of national security. Such things are incredible.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is sad that we could be looking at state-controlled faith in this United Kingdom in a few years?
Jim Shannon
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that point. I am on the record as saying that freedom of expression and of religion are essential to any free, modern and healthy democracy. I fully support that and think that other right hon. and hon. Members here support that. I want to ensure that that is how we consider the matter.
The Evangelical Alliance, an umbrella group representing some 2 million practising Christians in the UK, said that the proposals risk the
“wholesale nationalisation of youth work and the indirect state regulation of private religious practice”.
Can you believe it! What a prospect!
Colin Hart of the Christian Institute described any enforcement of the so-called British values—incidentally, I am British and a British passport holder, British by birth and British by choice, but these values are not my values—on any faith group with any reasonable cause for concern as
“an unprecedented attack on freedom of religion in this country”.
He warned that Ofsted inspectors not only could be sent into Sunday schools, but could end up investigating scout troops—this year it is the 100th anniversary of the Cub Scouts—and even bell-ringing clubs. My goodness, there will be people sitting on every corner with their black shirts on ready to do the business!
If this is the sort of Britain that we are on the road to, we are not on the road to a very good place. A serious re-evaluation is needed of whether it is worth eroding such civil and religious liberties in the name of those so-called British values. I hope that today gives the Government a chance to change that. This serious issue is important throughout the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I urge the Minister to say clearly in his response, “It is not happening.”
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)
I endorse everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said. It is important to understand why we are in the Chamber today. We are here because Sir Michael Wilshaw found that the Trojan horse experience in Birmingham had exposed the most dangerous corruption of our children imaginable. Indeed, the people of this country cannot imagine what was being done to our children, and Sir Michael has expressed his horror about what he found.
That exposed a problem in our country and, I am afraid to say, the problem is confined to one religion only: Islam and what is done in its name. Christians do not threaten our national security, and nor do Buddhists or Sikhs. The threat to our national security is clear and defined, and we can see it in Syria: British young people, brought up in British schools and taught British values, are now perpetrating the most barbaric medieval practices imaginable.
It is therefore right for the Government to address the problem, although we are not doing so correctly by introducing such sweeping proposals, which have been drawn up only to counter Islamic extremism, which threatens our national security. The Government, however, are pretending that there are extremists in other quarters in this country, such as in far-right groups. Yes, there are undesirable, revolting groups in this country, but they do not threaten our national security as it is being threatened by one group.
Gavin Robinson
That is an important point. The Government recently published a counter-extremism strategy. When I asked why Northern Ireland, which has a fair number of extremists, was not included in the strategy, I was told, “Don’t push the issue too far. It is really a counter-Islamic strategy.”
Sir Gerald Howarth
Indeed. Everything is being done so that the Government can pretend that they are being even-handed. We cannot be even-handed between those who do not threaten our national security and those who do. We have to be specific.
There is of course complete confusion about how the Government are approaching the issue. On 14 January Sir Michael Wilshaw said in an interview on LBC:
“We have got to deal with this in an even-handed way…all we’re saying is that if church groups or religious groups want to run out-of-school classes then they need to register so that the country and the Department of Education know they exist and that they’re being run properly.”
That is what he said.
Fortunately, on 15 January the Prime Minister wrote a letter to me, which I received yesterday. He said:
“I want to be clear: the Government is not proposing to regulate institutions teaching children for a short period every week, such as Sunday schools or the Scouts. Nor will it apply to one-off residential activities, such as a week long summer camp. We are looking specifically at places where children receive intensive education outside school, where children could be spending more than six to eight hours a week.”
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I am grateful that my hon. Friend read that out. I run, or help to run—I do not want to overstate the case—a Christian youth camp that runs for longer than a week. It runs over two weekends, so for more than a week. Will he join me in calling on the Minister to clarify that such camps that run for 10 days or two weeks will also not be included in the proposals?
Sir Gerald Howarth
My hon. Friend’s illustration exposes the complete absurdity of the whole regulatory process that the Government are seeking to introduce. I thank him for his helpful intervention.
We risk passing massive powers to Ofsted to define extremism and what constitutes British values. In conclusion, therefore, the scheme is hopelessly broad, covering vast swathes of activity with children and young people in respect of which there is not a shred of evidence of anything remotely resembling extremism. Any scheme must be evidence-based, intelligence-led and tailored to the problem that it is designed to solve, which is that of Islamic fundamentalism poisoning the minds of young people in this country. This scheme represents none of those things.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The previous time I spoke in this Chamber, we discussed the Donald. Since then I have had scores of emails from lively Americans who have described Members of our honourable House as jihadist-supporting and Christian-hating fundamentalists. Today I hope that faithfulness and truth shine out of this House and that the Government take on board the strong message that we are getting throughout the Chamber that the proposals we are discussing are far too wide and far too shallow, when really they need to be narrow and deep.
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in addition, the proposals are rushed, reactionary and very badly thought through?
Gavin Robinson
As well as completely unlawful and completely unworkable.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) indicated how bizarre the proposals would be for those they are really meant to affect. Which jihadist or fundamentalist would abide by the letter of the law? Even if they are radicalised or militarised, are they not capable of stopping their radicalisation lessons at five hours and 59 minutes per week? Are they not cute enough not to register or draw themselves to the attention of the grey bureaucrats in Ofsted? Of course they are. They will avoid all the good intentions that might lie behind the proposals.
We would be left in a bizarre situation. Section 48 of the Education Act 2005 allows faith schools to select their own assessors; the denomination selects the assessors. But churches, those single entities that house so much good work for so many organisations—the cumulative effect of the Scouts, the church groups, the Sunday schools and other lessons, and the Alpha courses for children—once they reach six hours, they will come a cropper under the proposals.
The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) fairly and helpfully illustrated the legal difficulties. I know that there is not an awful lot of love for the Human Rights Act but, underneath all the rhetoric about it, there has always been the confirmed principle that the European convention on human rights would be upheld, including the enshrined freedoms of religion and association. Moreover, the right to freely associate is protected from arbitrary state interference. There are scores of cases involving, for example, Moldova, Hungary and Russia—there was a case involving the Church of Scientology in Moscow and the Russian state. These proposals would fall foul of the European convention on human rights. In fact, we would be associating ourselves with such champions of freedom as Belarus or Turkmenistan, which the UN’s special rapporteur criticised for seeking unfairly to hinder the freedom to teach and educate on the basis of faith principles.
I recognise, Mr Turner, that I have gone well beyond the time you suggested and I will sit down shortly, but I want to highlight the promise made to the people of this country in the Conservative manifesto last year. On page 61, it states that a Conservative Government will
“reject any suggestions of sweeping, authoritarian measures that would threaten our hard-won freedoms.”
Live up to that promise, Minister, and having considered the possibility of the proposals, set them aside.
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Mrs Caroline Spelman)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing the debate. Fortunately, we are discussing a consultation. Although it is closed, I urge the Minister to consider the contributions to the debate as part of that consultation.
I speak as the Second Church Estates Commissioner and I want to place on the record the position of the Church of England, which provides 500,000 children with out-of-school educational activities, involving 80,000 volunteers. The Church’s objections to the proposals should not be interpreted as a rejection of the Government’s aim of protecting children from harm. Of course not. It is simply that, if the Government do proceed, the Church wishes that the measures will be much more proportionate and avoid the unintended consequences.
If even-handedness is the concern of the Government, they should use existing laws that protect children and that the Church of England, its volunteers and its professionals are required to abide by. Everyone who works with children in such settings has to have CRB checks, which are now called disclosure and barring service checks—sometimes people have them again and again—but every church is also required to appoint a child protection officer, even if they do not have a Sunday school but aspire to teach some children in the setting. If the Minister wishes such things to be done in an even-handed way, that should also apply to other educational out-of-school settings.
One of the Church’s main concerns, which has been articulated by hon. Members, is the singling out of religious activity for new laws, which implies that religious activity is inherently problematic. That is likely to inhibit the religious freedom that the consultation aimed to ensure we protect.
Muslim mothers came to see me in my constituency before Christmas, beseeching me to ask the Government to do something about the teaching of their children in private madrassahs. They are fully aware that the Church and other religious groups are required to abide by this country’s laws, but they are also aware that that is not happening in private madrassahs. Laws already exist—for example, on the application of CRB checks and the childminding registration laws for domestic settings, which hon. Members know are quite onerous for childminders. I urge the Government to use the tools they have even-handedly so that all groups required to abide by this country’s laws actually do so.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing the debate. Just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister stood up in the Chamber and declared that he believed we were a Christian nation and that, in fact, it was our Christian heritage and values that have made us the great nation that we are. I believe that those words were broadly welcomed, so, if that is true, what are we afraid of? We should be promoting the teaching of the Bible to our children, not seeking to restrict it, because the results of that produce an awful lot of good.
The Government are in danger of making a bad decision based on very bad evidence. Where is the evidence of any British citizen attending the local Methodist Sunday school and being incited to carry out acts of terrorism? Where are the Sunday school teachers who seek to inspire and incite young people to join terrorist organisations? I suggest there is no evidence whatever to impose such restrictions on Sunday schools and other church groups.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is right. There also seems to be little evidence that the inculcation of ideas in madrassahs leads to extremism. We have had little from the Government to show an evidential link—it seems to be lonely teenagers looking on the internet rather than being taught in schools, officially registered or otherwise.
Steve Double
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wholeheartedly agree with him. We need to recognise that the vast majority of people of all faiths in this nation are decent, honest, law-abiding citizens who want only the best not only for their own children, but for our nation. We are in danger of applying onerous restrictions on the many to address the actions of a few. That is the wrong thing to do.
In this country, we have already sacrificed too much of our liberty in the name of equality. I fully appreciate that the Government are trying to walk a tightrope on this issue to appear even-handed, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) pointed out, we need to be clear about where the source of the threat comes from and target the Government’s response to address the source and not tie up tens of thousands of volunteers with unwarranted bureaucracy when they already have a hard enough job to do.
When young people attend Sunday school or other Christian events throughout the year, they often find not just faith but a mission in life to go and serve humanity. Thousands of young people attend Christian camps every summer and, as a result of the teaching they receive, they are inspired to travel the world, serving humanitarian causes. That is something we should be promoting, celebrating and encouraging, not restricting.
I implore the Minister and the Government to think again. There is clearly a degree of confusion over this issue, but there is no smoke without fire, so there is certainly something going on. I ask the Minister once and for all to quash the proposal to put onerous restrictions on faith groups, and churches and Sunday schools in particular. Let us celebrate our Christian heritage and not seek to restrict it any further.
Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)
I call Caroline Ansell, who has one and a half minutes.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Turner. I will confine my comments because the hour draws near. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing the debate. The strength of feeling expressed in the debate speaks loudly to the Government about the concern of our constituents.
As a former teacher, I think this has all the hallmarks of parents’ evening: it is only those parents who we really need to see who will not come. That point was made ably earlier. Just this morning there has been news about teacher recruitment, with issues about schools seeking to fill vacancies. Classes have cover and supply teachers because we are struggling to recruit the numbers we need. Many are the pressures in teaching, but Ofsted represents one of the most significant pressures for teachers. I know I speak for my colleagues in that. If we bring Ofsted into this setting, we will decimate the number of volunteers who give hour upon hour and add tremendous value to the young people they engage with.
I am deeply concerned about the proposal. It strikes me as statist. I am brought back to what the Prime Minister said:
“Whether it’s tackling crime and anti-social behaviour or debt and drug addiction; whether it’s dealing with welfare dependency or improving education outcomes—whatever the social issue”—
I have the temerity to add extremism—
“the answer should always begin with family.”
These families choose the settings to which they send and entrust their children. The parents are often in that setting alongside the leaders. They are engaged, so parents are our best allies, not Ofsted inspectors. Should we go down the path of these sweeping authoritarian measures—that is how they appear to me—we will be letting terrorists win by sacrificing precious, hard-won freedoms.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I am struck by the parallel with the registration proposals of the previous Labour Government for home education. The thought was, “There could be a problem. We don’t have enough data. We don’t know what’s going on. There could be issues—children could be being abused in their homes. So we must register every single parent,” even though the long-standing settlement was to respect that parents have the duty to educate their children, not the state. This is creeping statism.
I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) not to add me to the list, but I am someone of no faith and there are lots of people in the Chamber with faith. This proposal seems to me a gross infringement of so many rights, including the rights of Muslims, and in a free society we need to respect families of whatever denomination and recognise where the line should be drawn by the Government, notwithstanding the risks.
If we go back, we think of the reds under the bed. It was not that there was not a clear and present danger from communism; it was the fact that a disproportionate, illiberal and un-American response was inappropriate. We can think back to when the leader of the Catholic Church—Islam has no such leader—was clearly opposed to the society and Government of this country, yet we recognised that Catholics were predominantly law-abiding and needed to be respected.
Graham Stuart
Nearly exclusively. It is exactly the same issue.
I make one final point. If we go ahead with this, it will have the opposite effect on safety to what is intended. Forget all the other points my colleagues have made about how it will break down volunteering and all the rest of what is good—what about targeting Islamic extremism? If we take an organisation such as Ofsted, whose budget has been falling consistently over time—local authorities are in the same position—and ask it to register everyone, it will spend its entire time trying to do that and it will fail to get to the real problem.
With the Labour proposals on home education, we knew that the people who were really troublesome would never register and would evade the authorities with ease. Everyone else—every law-abiding, committed family—would be put through the hoops and subjected to a state imposition that was clearly and utterly inappropriate. That is what we risk here.
I have changed my mind on this proposal. At first, I thought it could be proportionate and reasonable, but I do not think it can be, so let us not do it. ContactPoint was wrong, and so is this—let us put a stop to it.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing the debate. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with almost everything he said.
Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell), I am a former teacher. I know the difficulties teachers have in recruiting people to help with out-of-school clubs and activities, and adding a further layer of bureaucracy will simply close those down, with all the benefits to our young people being lost in one foul blow.
As has been mentioned, anyone working with children already needs to undergo disclosure checks. Although those can take time and be problematic for people who want to get started, they are an important tool, and they are already in place.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned an atheist who said that teaching children the Bible was akin to child abuse. We must be careful about how we perceive teachers and what they do. People often think that teachers in particular settings are taking part in indoctrination or putting forward one view. Teachers in Catholic or other Christian schools do not simply teach one view—they teach different views.
Let me give an example from my experience. I was a science teacher. When we looked at the energy debate, we would give pupils the facts about renewables and nuclear and let them make their own decisions—we would teach them how to argue and how to think. The point here is that we are forgetting the professionalism that teachers show, whatever setting they are in. Teachers are not brainwashing pupils; they want to give them the knowledge to make their own decisions.
While we are talking about brainwashing and indoctrination, I should add that I am far more concerned about children who spend six-plus hours in front of the television, being fed soap operas and “The X Factor”, with all the lessons that those teach.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The hon. Lady makes a great point. The proposed regulation could mean that more people in the communities where many churches operate—some of the most deprived communities in the country—are sitting indoors, doing less activity, which links to the debate we will have tomorrow about having a strategy to deal with the obesity that these things are resulting in.
Carol Monaghan
Absolutely. We need to look at the huge benefits that children—our future citizens—gain from these additional activities.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) talked about the need to tackle the threats to national security. We all share the responsibility to tackle extremism, but in doing that we must be careful not to throw the net too wide. Tarring every Muslim in Britain with the same brush because of the actions of those who carry out atrocities such as the recent Paris attacks or the 7/7 bombings is like tarring every Irish person with the same brush because of the Warrington bombing. We must be careful about the language we use so that we do not play into the hands of extremists. If we approach the Muslim community aggressively, we will simply cause anger and upset, and we will not get to the nub of the issue—the handful of extremists feeding poison to people.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the proposal risks being very heavy-handed? At its heart, it fails to take into account the fact that children and young people access so many out-of-school services and clubs and that those are at the heart of many communities across our country.
Carol Monaghan
Absolutely, and the same is true in the Muslim community. My local mosque, in Glasgow’s West End—the Ahmadiyya welcome centre—has children visiting every day after school to learn the Koran. It also opens its doors to the community and says, “Come and see what we do with these children. Come and see how they are benefiting. Come and find out about the values that are being taught here.” When we go in, we find happy children and a group of people who want to share what they are doing, and that is the experience in most mosques across these isles, so we need to be careful about these issues.
When an attack takes place, it is nothing to do with Islam, which is a faith of peace, or with our Muslim brothers and sisters, who contribute so fully, but it is everything to do with poisonous individuals and their individual agendas. We must continue to ensure that the Muslim community plays a full part in the wider community and that it does not find itself cut off or feel that it must cut itself off.
Many Members have talked about British values. Let me finish by saying that the values I hold dear are freedom of speech and freedom of expression, as long as people exercise them respectfully. Our values should include respect for people of all faiths and for those of none at all.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The fact that more than 20 right hon. and hon. Members have contributed to the debate shows how big the concern is about the issues that have been raised. I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), whose constituency neighbours mine, on securing the debate and on raising so many pertinent questions.
The first thing to be clear about is what problem the Government are trying to sort out. The main spur for their desire to review the registration system for out-of-school education settings seems to be the serious problems discovered in a number of unregistered schools in Birmingham. In July 2015, Ofsted warned the Department for Education that high numbers of pupils were dropping off the radar and potentially ending up in unregistered schools, where they could be exposed to harm, exploitation or the influence of extremist ideologies.
In early November, Ofsted identified and inspected several unregistered schools in Birmingham, finding a “narrow Islamic-focused curriculum” and the use of
“misogynistic, homophobic and anti-Semitic material”,
along with “serious fire hazards”, “unhygienic and filthy conditions” and staff who had not undergone suitable checks or who did not have clearance to work with children. It immediately informed officials at the Department. Yet, when it returned on 30 November, four weeks after the initial inspections, it found that all the unregistered schools were still operating.
Rather than immediately stopping the unregistered schools operating, the Department for Education seems to have advised the proprietors that they could register their provision. That suggests that the Department perceived what was taking place as acceptable practice. Ofsted expressed serious concerns that that could encourage others to open such schools. The illegal schools were closed down only after Ofsted inspectors remained at the premises until they were satisfied that the schools had ceased operating and that alternative arrangements had been made in registered schools for all the children, with the support of local authority officers. Ofsted says that that was achieved despite “confusing and unhelpful” advice from the Department.
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) referred earlier to the ultra-Orthodox Jewish Charedi Talmud Torah Tashbar school in Stamford Hill, which apparently operated illegally for 40 years. The Department for Education, Ofsted, local authorities and others need to enforce the existing law before they are capable of extending it elsewhere. Let us enforce the existing law first and then consider extending it, once we can do what we are already supposed to properly.
Nic Dakin
Absolutely. Ofsted remains concerned that the number of children being educated in unregistered schools in parts of the country is far higher than is currently known by the Government.
When confronted with the real issue, the Government were slow to act, allowing children to remain exposed to a narrow and negative curriculum in unsafe premises, in the care of staff who had not been cleared to work with children. Every day that children remain in such a setting is a day too long. The Government have a basic responsibility to ensure that children are kept safe, yet despite warning after warning, they failed to act swiftly and deal with the issue.
The prohibited list of activities in paragraph 3.19 of the consultation document seems highly appropriate. I agree that action should take place immediately to investigate genuine concerns and evidence of out-of-school settings engaging in prohibited activities. That seems common sense, but as many Members have pointed out, there are lots of ways in which it can be done already under current legislation.
The question remains: does the direction of travel in the consultation document deal with the actual problem? As I said earlier, it seems that the main spur for the Government to review the registration scheme for out-of-school education settings is the serious problems discovered in a number of unregistered schools. I am sure the Minister will take time today to explain why the Department failed to act as swiftly and effectively back in November as we all would have wished it to.
When Ofsted investigated those unregistered schools, it found timetables suggesting that teaching was taking place in institutions for at least 20 hours a week, despite the fact that anywhere offering more than 20 hours of teaching a week is legally obliged to be registered as a school. The reality is that those institutions should therefore have already been registered under current legislation and subject to inspections and safeguarding requirements that ensure children receive high quality education and are well looked after.
Before we even begin to examine the appropriate threshold for registering schools, the most important question to answer, in my mind, is: why were those institutions, which should have already been registered, allowed to go under the radar? Without explaining that and what is going wrong in the Department for Education, the Government are wholly unable to justify the changes they propose as being the robust action needed to tackle the real problem.
As the situation in Birmingham demonstrates, the Department for Education is evidently unable to monitor and ensure that all provision that breaches the threshold set is actually registered in the first place. That issue goes to the heart of what is wrong with the Government’s approach to our schools today. There is an obsession with school structures, at the expense of driving improvement in education for all children, which has created such a fragmented system of oversight for schools that some children are dropping off the radar and ending up in harm’s way.
The report published today by the Select Committee on Education supports that. It finds that oversight of our schools is not being carried out by Whitehall effectively. The model of eight regional schools commissioners, each responsible for thousands of schools across very large areas, is not working well to identify problems and to challenge and support schools to improve, let alone to spot the provision going under the radar, which is at the heart of the problem.
At the same time, local authorities are not empowered with the responsibility and capacity to act when inappropriate things are happening and children are potentially at risk. They do not have the resources to ensure they have strong intelligence about what is happening on the ground and that appropriate action is taken when things go wrong. Further cuts to local authority budgets, as promised by the current Government, will only weaken that situation even more.
The truth is that the Department for Education is currently failing on all its route 1, basic duties. Are we recruiting enough teachers? As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) pointed out, there are chronic shortages of teachers up and down the country. Are we providing enough school places? Instead, some families applying last week will go straight on to a waiting list with no offer of a school place, and soaring numbers of children are being crammed into ever expanding classes.
Nic Dakin
It is the point. It is important that we concentrate on the key issues, and at the heart of this is a failure of oversight. Are we ensuring that all children are safe and out of harm’s way when they are in school or out of school?
As we have seen time and time again since 2010, this Government are not delivering on the big issues. There is real concern in the wider community that the Government are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, tying up many voluntary organisations and faith groups in more red tape that makes it look as if the Government are doing something. They already have the powers to act, but they have a track record of being slow to use them.
I fear that this is all about activity, rather than action. As the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, what is being proposed is wide and shallow, when what we need is something narrow and deep. That is very pertinent to the debate. It is rather like a teacher keeping the whole class in at break to teach them a lesson, when just one pupil had been misbehaving. It is better to use our energies and finite capacity to deal with the actual problem in a focused way.
Will the increase in red tape make it more likely that people running unregistered provision get it registered—which is part of the problem—or will it end up putting an administrative burden on various voluntary and charitable organisations running youth activities, including Sunday schools? If so, for what purpose? I would be grateful if the Minister—who is a very good Minister, I have to say—focused on the following questions when he responds. How many registered out-of-school settings are there under the current system? What is the Government’s estimate of the number of unregistered settings that should be registered under current legislation? What steps are they taking to register those settings? What is the Government’s estimate of the number of out-of-school settings that would need to be registered if the proposals in the consultation were where we ended up?
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for his kind comments. I was going to criticise him for his wider criticism of the Government’s education policy on school places, to point out that we have increased school places by 445,000 since 2010, in stark contrast with the 200,000 primary school places cut by the Labour Government when the birth rate was increasing. I also would have pointed out that we have had to tackle the grade inflation we inherited from his party’s Government, that we have had to improve the curriculum, which was deeply damaged by his party’s Government, that there are 1.4 million more pupils in good and outstanding schools today than there were in 2010, that 120,000 more six-year-olds are reading better today than they were in 2010, and that there are 13,000 more teachers in our schools today than there were in 2010.
Mr Gibb
Those impact assessments will be done as we come to produce firm proposals. We, of course, assess the cost of all proposals as we develop policy.
May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) on securing this debate on the proposals for regulating out-of-school education settings? I welcome the constructive debate we have had and the thoughtful and passionate speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), for Eastbourne (Caroline Ansell) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman). We also heard very good speeches from the hon. Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).
All of the speeches made today will be taken into account as we consider the responses to the consultation, which closed on 11 January after six and a half weeks and to which we received more than 10,000 responses. Notwithstanding the valid points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, the consultation has been widely heard and responded to, and we will now consider all responses as we develop the policy in more detail.
Ensuring that parents have the freedom to decide how best to educate their children is a fundamental principle of our society and our education system. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred to the long history of the churches’ role in education which, of course, predates that of the state.
Parents have always valued the education provided by religious organisations. They choose faith schools for their high academic standards and ethos and they appreciate the religious faith of those schools, which gives them confidence that their children will be taught to understand and respect the traditions and values of their faith. Responding to that demand, we have opened more than 300 free schools since 2010, of which 76 have a religious designation or ethos.
Out-of-school settings can also be of immense value. As my hon. Friend pointed out, many of those are run by religious groups and provide a distinctive education or activities that supplement and enhance that provided in mainstream schools. Such settings, including Sunday schools, can enrich children’s education and deepen their understanding of their own culture and heritage.
My hon. Friend made a powerful argument that the providers of this broader education, which is often staffed by dedicated volunteers, should be supported by the Government and not stifled by excessive regulation. I can assure him that we share that objective. The Government do, however, need to balance the need to protect and encourage high-quality out-of-school education with the need to keep children safe from any harm. That includes not only extremism, but the risk of physical punishment, unsuitable individuals working in some out-of-school settings and children being educated in unsafe or insanitary conditions.
A clear regulatory framework exists to protect children from those risks in childcare settings, and in state and independent schools. The call for evidence on out-of-school education, which closed last week, invited submissions on how to ensure that we are similarly able to safeguard children attending such settings—supplementary education —while avoiding disproportionate regulation. It reflects a commitment made in the Prevent strategy, published in June 2011, to reduce the risks of radicalisation occurring in out-of-school settings. It is the latest step in implementing the Prime Minister’s announcement in October last year that, if an institution is teaching children intensively, we will, as with any other school, make it register so that it can be inspected. He was also clear that, in addressing the risks that we have identified, we will uphold parents’ right to educate their children about their faith.
The call for evidence highlighted the fact that many settings already have robust measures in place to ensure safety. They may work under umbrella organisations that set high standards, be part of voluntary accreditation schemes or receive support from the local authority. However, that is not universal. We are therefore considering how best to address failures in the minority of settings that fail to meet their obligations while preserving everything that has made the vast majority of supplementary education so successful.
The responses to the call for evidence included many from Christian, Muslim and Jewish groups, and we will continue to discuss our developing proposals with those groups and others to ensure that they are proportionate and effective. Any final proposals will, of course, be subject to further discussions with interested parties.
At this stage, I hope I can provide assurances on some of the specific concerns raised by my hon. Friend and others.
Graham Stuart
Will the Minister deal with one of the practical points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? Those who wish to teach in this extremist way will effortlessly elude any regulation system that we set up. We will therefore have an expensive and burdensome system that captures so many organisations, but does not capture the very organisations that we need to capture. Is that not the central point? To me, it seems to be a rocket that explodes this whole policy and should cause the Minister to think again.
Mr Gibb
Well, no, because by not registering, such organisations are liable under strict liability to an offence, and we can then take much swifter action when we are made aware of those settings through our usual intelligence routes. That is why this has a double edge: we register the settings and only inspect settings where risks are identified; and we have very real powers to tackle the settings that do not register.
Let me go through some of the specific concerns that have been raised.
Mr Gibb
If I may, I will continue for a little while, then give way to the hon. Gentleman.
First, I can confirm that the Government are not proposing to regulate settings teaching children for a short period every week, such as Sunday schools or the scouts, nor will it apply to one-off residential activities, such as a week-long summer camp. We are looking specifically at places where children receive intensive education outside schools, where they could typically be spending more than six to eight hours a week.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Gibb
I will give way in a moment, but I want to go through these four specific points in the time available.
Secondly, providers wishing to set up and run out-of-school education settings will not need to seek the Government’s approval to do so. Although our proposals envisage that such settings operating intensively should register, the aim of that is simply to improve the visibility of such settings. There would not be an application process and registration would be automatic. We have no intention of tying up voluntary and private sector organisations in red tape.
Thirdly, we are not proposing that settings eligible to register should be routinely inspected. This would be wholly disproportionate and an inefficient use of resources. We think that an inspection should only happen when there is evidence that certain prohibited activities might be taking place within a particular setting. Settings that provide a safe environment for children to learn in could legitimately expect never to be inspected.
Fourthly, we have no intention of seeking to regulate religion or to interfere in parents’ right to teach children about their faith and heritage. Protecting religious liberty is a fundamental principle. Out-of-school settings will not have the same obligations as schools actively to promote fundamental British values. Although out-of-school settings of all types can, and do, impart positive values to children, they are not the main providers of children’s education, and it is certainly not the state’s role to prescribe what they should teach, just as we are not seeking to prescribe other aspects of how they operate. I can therefore confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and other hon. Members that Sunday schools will not be under any requirement to teach any other religions.
Gavin Robinson
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I am glad that he has indicated he will consider the contributions as part of the consultation. He has reiterated the Prime Minister’s point that Sunday schools will not be included, but will he consider the cumulative effect of all the activities taking place under one church roof? That includes Sunday schools, youth clubs, the scouts, worship, choirs and whatever else people may be engaged in. It will all add up to more than six hours.
Mr Gibb
The plans are for the threshold to be hit when a child attends a setting for more than six hours a week and that activities run by one setting would be aggregated but, following the call for evidence, we are considering a range of issues and how to take forward the proposals. We will look at whether it is appropriate to disaggregate particular activities or indeed, exempt particular activities altogether. That question was in the call for evidence.
Fiona Bruce
The Minister says that the Government do not wish to inhibit religious freedom, but is he aware that the very existence of such regulations could have a serious impact? The proposals carry the risk of a so-called chilling effect on free speech, and they could shut down debate because of the fear, on the part of, say, youth workers teaching young people, of speaking on issues that might not be mainstream. They may fear that someone is listening who, perhaps out of mischief or with a particular agenda, may report them as undesirable—as not being in line with British values—and in itself, that would shut down free speech and debate.
Mr Gibb
That is not the intention of the regulations. They are not a way of regulating religion. We are not infringing on people’s freedom to follow particular faiths or hold particular beliefs. In fact, the mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs is one of our core British values, alongside democracy, rule of law and individual liberty, and nothing in the proposals infringes on that.
In view of time, I will finish by saying that we welcome the suggestions that a number of faith organisations have made about how to ensure that any system of regulation is targeted, proportionate and focused on those settings that are failing to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. We wish to continue that dialogue and, once again, I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions today.
Sir Edward Leigh
In conclusion, I thank the perhaps up to 20 people—friends and colleagues from all parties—who have turned up this morning. It is not often that we have a debate such as this in Westminster Hall, and we have heard some very powerful speeches and very powerful points.
I will sum it all up: we have sacrificed too much of our liberty in the name of equality, so I beg the Minister to bear in mind the places that are under the radar, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) mentioned. Bear in mind the cumulative hours. Bear in mind that there is very little extremism—indeed none at all—ever practised in Methodist Sunday schools. This is the point we are making, and we are doing so powerfully and strongly. We are not a party that intends to further state regulation and control; we are a party of liberty, freedom and religious tolerance. I will leave it there.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Concessionary Fares: Blackpool North and Cleveleys
(8 years, 11 months 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
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered concessionary fares in Blackpool North and Cleveleys.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am disappointed to see so many colleagues leaving and not staying for my debate. I simply cannot understand it, but I thank the Minister for his time.
Blackpool tramway needs no introduction from me. I am sure many of the hon. Members who are leaving have also left Blackpool after a party conference. The tramway has been there for well over 100 years, connecting Fleetwood in the north to Squires Gate in the south and linking the pleasure beach, the tower, Cleveleys, Fleetwood and many of our tourist attractions, which 10 million people visit every year. The tramway is a major reason for visiting Blackpool.
It is worth pointing out to the Minister that the tram is not just about tourism. It is particularly beneficial for my constituents who live near the Fylde coast. It is a major means for people to get to and from work in central Blackpool, where parking may be limited and more expensive than the cost of using the tram. It is particularly important for many of my elderly constituents who use it to go into the town centre and to go shopping. They may have chosen to live in this part of the world because of access to the tramway.
The usefulness and value of the tramway is coming under threat for two reasons that I want to cover today, both of which relate to the concessionary fare schemes. We were grateful that the previous Labour Government, before 2010, agreed to invest in upgrading the tramway to meet modern standards. As much as we all loved and cherished the antique, heritage trams—many of them still trundle up and down to this day at weekends and during the holiday season—they were fast becoming not fit for purpose. There were serious issues with meeting modern accessibility standards, and it was right to invest in and improve them to bring them up to date.
In 2012, it was a great day for the Fylde coast when the new tramway was launched and I travelled on the first new tram. Blackpool Council took a brave and visionary decision to ensure that, notwithstanding national legislation on concessionary fares, anyone coming to Blackpool in possession of a concessionary card could use it on the trams and travel anywhere on the network free of charge. That certainly helped ridership levels as the tramway came back into use. The ridership levels built up again, but things are now changing.
There has been an alteration in local government financing—we have to recognise that. Blackpool Council has decided that it can no longer afford to make that generous offer to all UK residents. That has had a major impact in my constituency, where residents of Cleveleys—which is in Wyre Borough Council’s area and immediately adjacent to the tracks, surrounded by houses on both sides—must now pay full fare to travel on the tramway as it passes through Wyre, even though they may have a concessionary card. That has had a direct impact on the transport choices they have to make about where they go, what they do and how they live. That is a concern.
[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]
I entirely understand the perfectly rational argument that a transport authority should fund concessionary fares only for those who live within their area. I do not expect Blackpool Council to fund a national tram concession for everyone. It would be great if it did, but I entirely understand that it must work within its own budgetary limits, and its residents would criticise it if it chose to be more generous. However, it is worth pointing out that under the previous scheme Lancashire County Council, which is the transport authority for the northern part of my constituency, was paying £36,000 a year towards some of the concessionary travel for Lancashire residents on the tramway.
Removing that money was the trigger for the overall deconstruction of what had been a perfectly simple and straightforward scheme that everyone understood. If someone had a concessionary fare card—it is called a NoWcard in our part of the world—they could go anywhere on the tram. Everyone understood it and no one was caught out, but its removal was pernicious to my constituents and illogical. For example, a resident of Blackpool can travel on the tram free of charge between Cleveleys and Fleetwood, without entering Blackpool territory and remaining wholly within Lancashire County Council territory. They travel free of charge. However, a resident of Cleveleys wanting to go into Blackpool to spend money in the local Blackpool economy would have to pay full fare on the tram. That is simply illogical, and angers and frustrates many of my local residents. We have to think about what we can do to ameliorate the situation.
It is worth explaining the local geography. People may think that because I represent Blackpool North and Cleveleys, they are two separate and distinct geographic areas with a green belt separating the two communities. Far from it. It is one solid, cohesive urban block. I have read somewhere that it is the most densely populated constituency outside central London. There is very little green space, apart from one or two golf courses and one farm. The boundary between Blackpool and Wyre is but a line on a map and divides bedrooms, living rooms, greenhouses and back gardens. It goes through people’s houses, creating the ultimate postcode lottery. On many roads, residents on one side still have full and unfettered access to the whole tram network, while those on the other side have been hit by the changes. There is a fundamental illogicality.
An even greater concern is the impact on disabled passengers. A major reason for upgrading the trams at around the turn of the decade was to improve disabled access. Every station platform was raised, the new trams had level access and new flexi-trams were commissioned to ensure that wheelchair users had no problem getting on them. Blackpool has a valued reputation among disabled tourists for being somewhere they can get around easily because of the tram network.
A consequence of Lancashire Council’s decision to remove what limited concessionary fares it provided is that disabled passengers cannot now access the tram other than by paying full fare. Moreover, there is no guarantee that any parallel bus service will be accessible. Although Blackpool Transport is updating its fleet as fast as it can, no one could stand at the bus stop and be confident that the next bus would be able to accommodate a wheelchair. Will the Minister look at how the network is constructed and funded, and whether that complies with disability access rules?
The solution is relatively simple: Blackpool Council should fund concessionary travel for Blackpool residents and Lancashire Council should fund concessionary travel for Wyre residents. The estimated cost would be around £170,000. I have been unable to obtain a precise figure, much as I would like to, but that is what I have been told is a rough, ballpark figure. In the context of Lancashire’s multimillion pound budget, that is not a significant amount, although it is to many of us.
That is a simple solution. It should not be difficult to agree to it—it is certainly not difficult to understand—yet I can think of no issue that has been more controversial or provoked more partisan arguments in recent years than how we deal with it in our constituency. It was a major defining issue at the last election. Today I am trying to remove the partisanship from the debate—I am not referring to the political control of the individual councils involved.
Numerous arguments are deployed against what I think is the correct solution. Many rightly point out, for example, that there is a parallel bus route to the tram network—the No. 1 bus, which goes, just like the tram, all the way from Fleetwood down to Squires Gate. Of course, there is an element of common sense in that. If someone has to pay full fare on the tram but can use their concessionary card on the bus, why do they not take the bus? However, there is a reason why the bus and tram coexist in the first place: the level of demand. There has been no increase in bus provision on the route. As I discussed earlier, there has been no change in the buses serving the No. 1 route.
More important is the seasonal demand on the route. Numerous hotels line the promenade, as anyone who has been to Blackpool will have seen for themselves. When the No. 1 bus stops at the 480-bed Norbreck Castle hotel, half way between Cleveleys and Blackpool, a large number of the guests want to get on. Indeed, the queue can be dozens long, so that when the bus gets nearer to Blackpool there is no room on it, even if it is accessible to wheelchairs. Further down into the town centre there are more hotels, on what is known as the cliff stretch of the promenade. Once again, bus queues develop rapidly there, both for buses going north into Cleveleys and those going south into Blackpool. People can have only quite limited confidence in their likelihood of getting a bus service at peak hours. The expansion of the bus service would naturally require greater investment by both transport authorities. It is surely far better to restore the concessionary travel scheme on to the trams, where there is currently excess capacity. That would make far more sense.
Another argument is often put, which may sound plausible on first hearing. Why, it is asked, if I want concessionary travel fares for Wyre residents, does not Wyre Council, the borough council, pay for them? Superficially that sounds eminently plausible, but of course Wyre is not the transport authority. It is a small borough council, one of about 16, I think, in Lancashire. I have been told that providing funding of £172,000 for the concessionary fares scheme would increase Wyre’s council tax by roughly 3%—a considerable increase for every council taxpayer in the borough. Because Wyre is not the transport authority, I believe it does not have an obligation to meet that funding request.
There are many things that Lancashire is trying to offload on to the boroughs at the moment. For example, it is seeking to stop the ferry from Fleetwood to Knott End—it expects someone else to pay for it. It is keen to get Wyre to part-fund lollipop ladies. Wyre already part-funds police community support officers. It would set a dangerous precedent for Wyre to keep agreeing to fund everything that the council decided it no longer wanted to fund, despite having an obligation to do so. Therefore, I am not convinced by that argument. Wyre council tax payers pay the bulk of their council tax to Lancashire County Council, the transport authority, which has an obligation to provide public transport and should meet that.
The whole argument is at risk of being overshadowed, because Lancashire is going beyond concessionary fare restrictions. It argues that it will stop paying for the maintenance of the tramway altogether. That would make this debate almost pointless. There will be no trams to Cleveleys or Fleetwood. They will turn around at the Little Bispham turning loop and not enter Wyre or Lancashire territory at all. That would be devastating for towns such as Cleveleys and Fleetwood. Fleetwood in particular went through hell during the tram upgrade. The central road of Fleetwood, Lord Street, was basically shut down during the work, with a major impact on local businesses. To have gone through all that and had the tramway open for a couple of years, it would make no sense now to have the tramway cease operating.
I continue to be deeply concerned about what is going on with our tramways on the Fylde coast. I have held rallies in Cleveleys, launched petitions and made protests. I have had extensive talks with the Department, and it would make my day if I could force the Government’s hand in some way and encourage them to extend the national regulations to include trams. I make no apologies for asking once again for the Minister to do just that. I live in hope; I always do. Will the Government at least look again at my ten-minute rule Bill from a number of years ago, on extending the concessionary fare scheme to community transport, which can take up some of the slack created within the tram network—particularly for those disabled passengers who cannot always gain access to bus travel?
I would also welcome the Minister’s views on how the Government can help Lancashire to meet its public transport obligations. What assessment has he made of the human rights implications of Lancashire’s various decisions, particularly on disabled access? Would he be prepared to encourage Lancashire County Council to discuss further how devolution might allow it to find a way out of the problem it has created for itself? We have Transport for Lancashire—no one is quite sure what it does, least of all Transport for Lancashire itself, I fear. We have the new Transport for the North, which I heartily welcome. The direction of devolution is towards giving greater control to local areas to craft their own solutions on public transport. What help can the Department give to the various bodies in Lancashire, as they journey at varying rates towards a combined authority, to enable them to find a solution with a single common travel area of Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn? An arbitrary divide and a postcode lottery make no sense, as I have said.
What advice can the Minister offer the many thousands of my constituents in Cleveleys who have been left marooned because they cannot use trams without paying full fare and may not be able to afford it? Does he agree that it is perverse for the county council to spend £150,000—almost the amount of one year’s worth of concessionary fare travel—on looking at whether the tramway should be extended to Lytham St Annes, at the same time as it is trying to restrict concessionary fare travel? I have no objection to the tramway going to St Annes—it is a lovely destination—but what does that say about the priorities of the county council at the moment?
What assessment has the Minister made of the implications of the decisions and proposals for the Government’s generous agreement to help to fund the £16 million upgrade to extend the tramway in Blackpool town centre up to Blackpool North station? There will inevitably be fewer people riding on the trams if everything I have outlined comes to pass. Does that mean that we have to re-examine the business case for the proposal and does it call it into question? I would be highly concerned if that were so, and I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister.
In the interest of time, so that the Minister has a chance to reply, as I know he is keen to do, I will just stress once more that, although in the bulk of constituencies tramways might seem to be a peripheral issue, they are literally at the heart of my constituency. They are at the heart of our daily life. I would find it hard to conceive of the Fylde coast without them. At a time when the county council is sitting on reserves of £400 million, for which it cannot identify a specific use, is it really prudent financial management for it to say it cannot afford £172,000 just to keep the concessionary fares going each year? That is artificially dividing my community, and has a detrimental economic impact on the towns of Cleveleys and Fleetwood. It is causing continued anger in my constituency. Can I look to the Minister for some positive words and some hope for the future that the accurate direction he is going in on transport devolution will lead to the conundrum being solved as soon as possible?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) on securing the debate. He made his case with his customary passion, and I was particularly struck by how important the issue is for both visitors and residents. I have some knowledge of the area, having visited his constituency on a number of occasions; in a former life I took company conferences to the Norbreck Castle hotel—and very successful and enjoyable they have always been.
My hon. Friend raised several issues, and I will begin my response by talking about concessionary travel. The Government know how important affordable, accessible transport is. It is the bread and butter of the way communities function and move around. That is especially true for older and disabled passengers—a point that he made clearly and powerfully. That is, of course, why the Government have committed to protecting the national bus travel concession in England, and why they spend some £950 million a year on doing so.[Official Report, 21 January 2016, Vol. 604, c. 5-6MC.] The concession provides much-needed help for some of the most vulnerable people in our society by giving them greater freedom, independence and a lifeline to their community. It enables some 10 million older people and disabled people to access facilities in their local area. It helps them to keep in touch with family and friends, and it brings wider benefits to the economy.
The national concession sets a minimum standard available to any eligible person anywhere in England. That does not come cheap, which is why, given the current economic situation, we do not have plans to extend the remit of the basic concession any further. My hon. Friend asked whether we could extend it to tramways. I will do some costing, but we do not have tramways just in his constituency; they are a growing feature of urban transport in our country. They are successful, and they are being extended in Nottingham, Manchester and other areas. They are popular and well used, so extending the concessionary fare scheme into our tramways nationally would be an extremely expensive undertaking.
Local authorities have the power to enhance the national offer with discretionary concessions according to local need and funding priorities; I will come back to funding priorities at the end. That may include extending the times of the concession to include peak-time travel, offering a companion pass for people who need assistance to travel, or offering concessions on different modes of transport, such as trams. As we have heard, it can also include concessionary arrangements between neighbouring local authorities, such as the arrangement between Blackpool Borough Council and Lancashire County Council to accept NoWcards from other Lancashire residents on the Blackpool tramway. I am aware of the changes to the administration of that enhancement. Although I fully understand my hon. Friend’s disappointment and that of his constituents, the provision of such discretionary concessions is a matter on which local authorities must work together to try to solve such problems, based on those authorities’ assessment of local need and funding priorities.
Trams and light rail are a convenient, regular and reliable way for people to get to work or school, or to travel around their area with ease. Well planned systems in the right location can enhance the reputation and ambience of an area. However, I do not think it is for the Government to dictate what extensions should be made to particular schemes, because such decisions should be taken locally to reflect the individual needs and circumstances of an area. That is entirely in the grain of Government thinking about devolution, about people taking responsibility and ownership of their areas and about ensuring that decisions are made as close as possible to where a service is delivered. As a consequence, such services will be better tailored to local need and, therefore, better services.
On the joint funding arrangements between Blackpool Borough Council and Lancashire County Council for tramway maintenance, I understand that discussions may already be taking place, and I do not wish to pre-empt any outcome. It is, however, my sincere hope that a speedy and satisfactory resolution can be reached, with the best interests of the community at heart.
It is worth taking a moment to consider funding for rural services, because we have had many requests for further support for transport in rural areas. Calls have been made for Government to provide a dedicated fund to maintain and improve bus services in rural areas. I assure the House that we fully recognise the extra pressure placed on local authorities to provide services in more isolated areas. If communities are disconnected from transport, they may wither and die, so transport is fundamental to community health. That is why we have introduced the rural services delivery grant, which is a non-ring-fenced grant paid to the most rural councils. Last year, the Government added £2 million of additional funding to the £9.5 million of rural services delivery grant already provided, and I am sure we all welcome the recent announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government that he intends to increase the support for the most sparsely populated rural areas by quadrupling the rural services delivery grant from £15.5 million to £65 million in 2019-20.
Transport in rural areas is not just about the levels of public funding; it is about how and where that funding is used. Where commercial operations are not feasible, local authorities have a vital role in supporting rural bus services. Indeed, around one fifth of bus mileage in predominantly rural areas is operated under contract to the local authority. We believe that local authorities are best placed to decide what support to provide in response to local need. That is why we devolved £40 million of the £250 million paid in the bus service operators grant subsidy to councils outside London last year to support bus services in England, so that they can decide for themselves how it is spent. It is vital that those local authorities maximise the return on every penny of the funding that they provide.
Paul Maynard
Does the Minister recognise that many urban bus services in the centre of Blackpool originate in rural areas? The proposals for Lancashire County Council to reduce rural bus subsidies will also reduce the frequency of bus services in central Blackpool. It is not just about rural or urban, because many rural bus services also support urban areas.
Andrew Jones
My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, and I entirely agree with it. The distinctions are very blurred, and both things clearly have a knock-on effect on each other.
I want to highlight an initiative called Total Transport. At present, some £2 billion of public funding for transport services every year is provided by a number of different agencies. For example, I have mentioned the bus service operators grant of £250 million. DCLG provides support for local bus services of £317 million, and home-to-school transport funding of £1 billion. Non-emergency patient transport worth £150 million is provided by the NHS to local clinical commissioning groups. All that funding is provided from different sources. That is why last year we launched the £7.6 million Total Transport pilot scheme across England to explore how different authorities working together can potentially deliver a much better transport solution. It is about working collectively and pooling services where there is common interest. We seek to avoid the duplication of commissioned services, to allow networks to be designed to complement each other, to reduce administrative costs and to focus on how a more comprehensive offer can be delivered by working together.
My hon. Friend mentioned community transport, which is fundamental in many parts of our country, both urban and rural. I hope that he is aware of our strong support for it. We have supported it with a recent community minibus fund of £25 million, which will help elderly residents by providing, I think, 310 new minibuses to groups up and down our country. So far, £1.3 million of grant has been paid to organisations to buy their vehicles, and the procurement of the remaining vehicles is well under way. That will make a difference to the whole sector.
On the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised, I will certainly write to the councils concerned, because the point is partnership solutions to deliver a result for residents. I will highlight to the councils the strength of feeling that has been shown in the debate and urge them to work together. The solution has to lie in councils working in a non-partisan way. In my letter to Lancashire County Council, I will ask it to consider the impact of changes on disabled people, in particular. That is an area of personal interest to my hon. Friend and of significant personal interest to me. I do not want disability access to our public transport to be compromised in any area. I want it to be improved, not the opposite.
I hope that the message that goes from here to the councils is that we want to see a solution that will continue to offer tramway access and support Blackpool’s trams. They are an iconic part of Blackpool, and they are one of the reasons why visitors go to Blackpool, particularly at certain times of the year. That is something I have experienced, as a visitor to Blackpool. They must be understood to be a driver of the local economy, so there is an economic and a social reason why a swift resolution would be helpful. That is the message that I will send to the councils, and when I hear back from them, I will report back to my hon. Friend. They will, I am sure, be acutely aware of the strong case he has made and continues to make.
Question put and agreed to.
Safety in Youth Custody
(8 years, 11 months 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
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered safety in youth custody.
Thank you, Mr Wilson, for allowing time for this most important of debates. I am most grateful. The safety of our children and young people is of great and continuing interest to many Members of this House, and has been for many years. The question of safety has been discussed in numerous debates here and in the other place. In addition, it has been explored in numerous Select Committee inquiries—most recently by the Select Committee on Justice in 2013—and has been the subject of a tide of media attention, often following shocking revelations arising from the dedicated work of journalists. It is worth reflecting for a moment and asking ourselves why so many Members, people in our society, charities and third-sector bodies, and those in the media, are so tireless in their determination to protect the safety of our children and young people.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way so early in her speech, which I am listening to very carefully. Has she considered the situation of young adults? The Justice Committee is doing an inquiry about that at the moment, and we have learned that the development of the brain means that many young adults are still effectively children when they are sent into prison.
Judith Cummins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that interesting point, which I hope to cover later.
My belief is that, no matter what someone’s upbringing is, and whatever their political affiliation and perspective on law and order, there is a shared and enduring view that the safety of children and young people is of paramount concern. Each and every one of us believes that we must ensure that each and every child and young person is able to feel safe, wherever in the country they live. As we all know instinctively, each child and young person deserves to grow up in a nurturing, encouraging and, most importantly, safe environment. That is true in all settings—in the home, in schools or, as we are debating today, in our custodial institutions. The setting does not matter because whatever the circumstances, and whatever children and young people may have done in their short lives, regardless of whether they have been found to have acted criminally, they remain children.
We have always quite rightly held children and young people to be different from adults. Children and young people with their whole lives ahead of them are still finding their way in life and learning what it is to make their way in the world. As we sorely know, too many children and young people, especially those who find themselves in custody and in the care system, far too often find their way in life in the most desperate of circumstances. Too many live in unsafe homes or go hungry. Too many see horrific things that no person, never mind a child, should ever see. Too many suffer from mental illness that is often unrecognised and untreated, or have not received the help and support that might, in better circumstances, have lifted them away from criminal behaviour and supported them into becoming successful, loving and humane children and young people.
At this point, I pause and acknowledge that we could very easily spend all day debating the desperate circumstances that so many children find themselves in, but that is not the topic today. Today, I wish to discuss just one very important element of the safety of, without doubt, our most vulnerable children—those who are held in our custodial institutions. In leading the debate, we cannot ignore the scandalous revelations of the past weeks, broken by BBC’s “Panorama”, concerning Medway secure training centre, an institution managed by G4S. I am sure we all recoiled with revulsion at the scenes that played out on our screens during the programme: young people subjected to the most horrific maltreatment and children struggling to breathe as they were restrained by apparent professionals. Such scenes in a documentary about prisons in developing nations would have sent a shiver up our backs, but those scenes took place in a UK establishment that exists to care for children while they are held in custody.
I do not propose to discuss the “Panorama” allegations in any great deal as they are subject to an ongoing police investigation but, as we debate this important matter, the scenes that we saw on our television screens should remain vividly in our minds because they confirm one thing: complacency is never an option. The safety of our most vulnerable children—those held in custody in establishments throughout the country—is forever fragile and under threat. We must be forever vigilant. Further incidents are only a hair’s breadth of complacency away.
With those thoughts clear in our mind, it is worth reminding ourselves of what this House passed into law in 1998. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 did two important things. First, it stated that the youth justice system’s principal aim was to prevent reoffending by our children and young people. Secondly, it established the Youth Justice Board, which was given the job of making that noble aim a reality. The Youth Justice Board, in setting its strategic objectives for 2014 to 2017, recognised that an undeniable cornerstone of successfully helping children back into society is
“to promote the safety and welfare of children and young people in the criminal justice system”.
In recognising that safety and wellbeing is a fundamental cornerstone of the successful rehabilitation of children and young people, the Youth Justice Board acknowledged in clear and unambiguous terms what we all know instinctively as parents, as brothers and sisters, as aunties and uncles and as other family members: where children and young people feel unsafe, insecure, intimidated and under threat of violence, everything else becomes background noise. Efforts to help children to socialise, learn and become confident in themselves stop and begin to regress, as do efforts to teach children the values and principles of choosing to live respectfully, humanely and in a law-abiding manner in society and communities.
If the principal aim of the Youth Justice Board is to prevent reoffending, safety in custodial institutions is not only key, but imperative. Without it, helping children and young people to become respectful, humane and law-abiding adults is an empty hope. Everything else is simply background noise. The question is: what success is our youth justice system having in ensuring that children and young people are being held in a safe environment while they are custody? Sadly, from the statistics provided by the House of Commons Library, the picture is depressing and worrying. That remains the case for the use of restrictive physical intervention—in layman’s terms, when staff restrain children—incidents of self-harm by children, assault on children and young people in custody or, most damningly and depressingly, deaths in custody.
Thankfully, the number of children who have been committed to custody in recent years has steadily fallen. All hon. Members would surely welcome this improving position but, although the number of each type of incident has dropped over recent years, the number of each type of incident per hundred children and young people in custody—the most accurate measure—has steadily increased. Whichever way we look at it, those in custody are becoming proportionately more likely to find themselves in an unsafe environment. With the “Panorama” revelations of the past weeks in mind and the erosion of safety in our custodial establishment only serving to bring the issue into sharper focus, it prompts the question: what are this Conservative Government doing to improve the safety of children and young people, and to help them to re-enter society, equipping them to become law-abiding, respectful and humane members of our communities?
In recent years, there have been a number of expert reports that have explored the safety of children and young people in custody. Inquest, alongside the Prison Reform Trust, released a report in 2012 raising important questions about the number of self-inflicted deaths in our custodial institutions. More recently, in 2015, Inquest released another report raising unsettling questions about deaths in our institutions. The Howard League for Penal Reform released a report in 2011 exploring the questions of restraint in our institutions—that work has become especially resonant following the “Panorama” revelations of the last week. I pay tribute to each of those organisations alongside so many others that I have not been able to mention which, through their continuing and valiant efforts, are successfully keeping the question of safety so firmly on both the parliamentary and public agendas.
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that probation and pre-sentence reports should consider the impact of maturity on a young person’s ability to cope with prison? There should be up-to-date information on local alternatives to prison, which should also be considered. We should consider transforming sentencing policies; radically restructuring the training of the judiciary; and introducing far-reaching and well-resourced alternatives that are well staffed by individuals who are properly trained to address the complex issues that confront many young people. We should develop a criminal justice system in which prisons for young people are used as a last resort, as the Harris review said. Does she agree?
Judith Cummins
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, to its credit, has remained committed, as it has under previous Governments, to continuing scrutiny of the safety of children and young people in custody. Today, I will focus on one element of the Government’s responsibilities —their responsibility to ensure that restraint in our institutions is limited to an absolute minimum and is used solely when all other avenues fail. As I said earlier, although it is only one element of the Government’s responsibilities, restraint is arguably one of the most important. When children and young people are unnecessarily restrained, they will inevitably feel unsafe, threatened and intimidated. In such circumstances, everything else is background noise, progress ceases and children regress.
In 2012, the previous coalition Government set up the independent restraint advisory panel, which, among other things, was responsible for rolling out across all custodial institutions a new restraint system called “Managing and Minimising Physical Restraint.” That was the coalition Government’s commitment to improving the unsafe environment of all those in custody. By setting in train that cultural shift in which unnecessary restraint would become unacceptable, they displayed laudable ambition, for which I commend them.
As seems to be the case with many initiatives under this Government, despite laudable ambitions and promises of much-needed cultural shifts, the ambition and promises have not been borne out in reality. As has recently become clear, the much-needed change on the ground has been, and continues to be, painfully and unacceptably slow. In November 2015, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons published a report on behaviour management and restraint of children in custody, which objectively measured the Government’s progress in rolling out their new restraint system. Depressingly, Nick Hardwick, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons, offered a damning indictment of progress under this Government:
“The implementation…is taking place against a backdrop of a substantial fall in the number of children in custody, the decommissioning of beds…and staffing shortages… This has caused significant delay in the roll out”.
It is not only Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons that has challenged the Government on their complacency in driving improved safety in our custodial institutions. The Joint Committee on Human Rights recently conducted an inquiry into the UK’s compliance with the UN convention on the rights of the child. Children in custody was one area that the Joint Committee rightly considered to be deserving of scrutiny. Although the Joint Committee welcomed the Conservative Government’s progress in recognising children’s rights in law and policy, it said in no uncertain terms that there is no room for complacency and that much more needs to be done. On child custody, the Joint Committee said:
“We remain very concerned about the use of force on children in custody and believe that the recent provisions with regard to secure colleges in the Criminal Justice and Courts Act cannot be considered compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”
Worryingly, despite those critical remarks not only from the Government’s own independent inspectorate but from a cross-parliamentary Committee, the Government continue to act with disturbing complacency. In response to an urgent question granted by Mr Speaker following the “Panorama” revelations, the Justice Secretary offered nothing more than cursory assurances about the safety of our children and young people in custody. There were no firm guarantees and no commitment to action. One line of his response underlines that the Government’s commitment to laudable ambition is backed up by little to no substance:
“my Department and the Youth Justice Board—under the determined leadership of my right hon. and noble Friend Lord McNally—will do everything we can to assist the police and the local council.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 573.]
Why do I say little to no substance? Well, the Justice Secretary failed to mention the financial backdrop—a 5%, or £13.5 million, in-year budget cut to the Youth Justice Board, the very institution that he believes will be front and centre in helping the local council to respond to the scandalous revelations of the past week. He also did not mention that £9 million of the £13.5 million cut, the lion’s share, is to be found by cutting the youth justice grant, the very grant that is used by local councils to fund their local youth justice teams.
The Justice Secretary recently announced the Taylor review of youth justice. The stated purpose of that review, due to report in summer 2016, is to explore whether the youth justice system remains fit for purpose in these modern times. Following today’s debate, it will be clear to the Government that, despite their ambitions and the Justice Secretary’s warm words, many believe that there is a distinct lack of substance and that there is wide-ranging evidence of complacency. That serves no one, particularly not our children and young people, who so very much need our help and support, especially to ensure that they are safe while held in our custodial institutions. I urge the Justice Secretary and the Minister to reflect on today’s debate and on the recommendations of the Taylor review later this year.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), and I am glad that she has secured this debate. As I mentioned in my intervention, the Select Committee on Justice, including the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer), has been investigating the experience of young adults in custody. A key point raised in that inquiry is that the distinction we make between young adults and youths is meaningless. The development of the brain is such that, at times, there are many people who are much more mature for their age and many people who are less mature for their age. Although those people will be treated as young adults in the prison system, they should be treated as if they were much younger. That is an important point that the hon. Member for Bradford South needs to take into account.
Yesterday we held an important informal seminar that was attended by a number of parents of people who were under 18 when they first committed their offences, some of whom have died in custody. It was very sad and moving to listen to their testimony. There were also young people who had been in custody, and it was clear that some of them should really have been treated as youths during that period.
One of the key points to come out was the issue of mental illness. I do not think that the prison system understands mental illness in its complexities or recognises it in individuals when they present with it. We even heard examples of where people had presented with some form of mental illness to start with and their records had been flagged up, but where nobody had had the time to check what the flag meant. If someone had checked that, they would have seen that there was some mental illness attached to that person and would have taken different action while they were in custody.
As I am sure the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston would agree, it was a very moving experience to listen to those testimonies from individuals and to hear the real experience of people who had been through the loss of a son or a daughter—in many cases they were sons rather than daughters—and the reasons for that. The point the hon. Lady made about mental health is a very good one, and it is one that we need our prison system to be more flexible in identifying, picking up and dealing with.
With that, I will leave my remarks there.
Jo Stevens
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me in at the last minute. I am glad that he has raised the issue of the mental health of prisoners, because the prison ombudsman’s report, which I think came out today or yesterday, has highlighted that very issue—in relation, obviously, not only to children in prison, but to adults as well—and the lack of mental health services for prisoners. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should be a priority for the current Government to address what are clearly failings in the current system?
John Howell
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I do not want to make this a party political piece; it is a duty of all Governments to identify the need for mental health services and to take that issue forward. She makes a valid point.
We also met some people who were dealing with this issue—for example, an organisation called A Band of Brothers—by taking young people in, giving them a role in life and helping them to overcome some of the difficulties they had experienced, including some of the mental health difficulties. I am therefore not saying that it is a forlorn hope that mental health will be dealt with: there are many different ways of dealing with it, and we saw some of those yesterday. I hope that the report we produce will be able to address some of them in the future.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I would like first to thank the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) for securing this debate in Westminster Hall today. As hon. Members will know, the Medway Secure Training Centre is in my constituency, and for me it was heart-breaking and horrifying to witness the “Panorama” programme and watch the activity that was taking place. We knew this programme was going to be broadcast, but what I saw was not what I had expected to see. I say that because, on an individual level and prior to becoming an MP, I did a lot of work with looked-after children, particularly children with foster carers or in children’s homes, so I understand not only some of the challenges that some of our young people face when they are looked after, but the upbringing that some of them have had prior to arriving in a place such as the Medway Secure Training Centre.
I know that we will not go into detail, because the investigation is ongoing and there are still questions that need to be answered, but one of the concerns for me is about how we can support the workers in these particular institutions to enable them to carry out their role in a safe manner, to make sure that the young people under their control are looked after and safe. Having worked with some very challenging young people and experienced what I would call situations that have not always been pleasant or easy to manage, I know that the people working in the service and dealing with young people are in an incredibly pressurised environment. It is extremely intense, and sometimes we do not quite know how we will deal with a particular situation.
I absolutely accept that that is not an acceptable excuse for how some young people are treated when they are in our care. However, as an outcome of this process I would like to consider how we support the officers who work with these young people to do that job effectively, including from a mental health perspective, because obviously some of the things they might be subjected to and the backgrounds of some of the young people they deal with might be awful for them to understand.
In Medway, we have three secure units up at the Medway Secure Training Centre site. One of the challenges I have seen, both as a constituency MP and as a local councillor for the ward where the unit is, is that we have struggled to recruit people into the youth justice element of the secure centres—because, fundamentally, working there is very different from working in an adult prison and the pressures are much more strenuous. I would welcome it if the Government looked at ways to support those officers far more effectively—that would probably have national implications—and also to encourage people to come into the service and work. As we know, however, we are struggling to recruit social workers and other such workers.
Marie Rimmer
Does the hon. Lady agree that if prison is to be justified as a last resort, it must operate in a small, rehabilitative and therapeutic environment, rather than having big prisons? What we need is a well structured induction programme, adapted to suit each individual—many children do not see anyone in the first 24 hours after they go in—with thorough background checks carried out; risk assessments; well attended safeguarding and daily morning meetings, allowing for effective and robust measures to be applied; strong monitoring of bullying and support for prisoners who are victimised—
Phil Wilson (in the Chair)
Order. I remind the hon. Member that she is making an intervention and not a speech.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; she makes a valid point. My concern is about the support given to those particular officers. Unless someone has been in that environment and worked with some of these young people, it is very difficult to understand some of the pressures—it might be something as simple as shift lengths—and how intense the environment is.
I was contacted by a number of people who work within the service after those revelations, who are concerned that the public view will now be that people who work in the youth justice system are all like that, which we know is completely untrue. In fact, they include some marvellous people, whom I have had the privilege to meet.
Jo Stevens
I am sure we can reach cross-party agreement on this, but I wonder whether professionalising the work of these staff—who, as the hon. Lady has outlined, work in very challenging conditions—and trying to recruit people who want to go into the profession would raise public perceptions and help to raise standards.
Kelly Tolhurst
Absolutely. We must value the work that people in these centres do; in fact, it can be one of the most rewarding things that anyone can do.
As someone who had worked in commerce, my experience of working with young people who had such terrible backgrounds and were facing such severe challenges was one of the best things I have ever done. The staff do go through a training programme, but again there are things that perhaps cannot be learned quickly, and things come up along the way. Every single child—young person, I should say—is different. Every single young person has a completely different set of circumstances that has led to their being in the system. I absolutely agree that this should all be about outcomes.
John Howell
Does my hon. Friend have a view on whether institutions for young people are a valid option or whether greater integration of young and adult institutions is a better option?
Kelly Tolhurst
Speaking from experience, I absolutely believe that institutions are the right place for some young people. For example, it may not necessarily be easy for them to be in a family. It is absolutely right that we have institutions where adults can be mentors, there to look after those young people on a daily basis and to work with them to rehabilitate them. My personal view is that young people should not be integrated with the adult prison service. They have different requirements, and sometimes the offences are different for particular reasons.
My biggest concern is that all these young people will eventually become adults. Whether they are looked-after children who have had a difficult background in different institutions, or whether they are unfortunate enough—maybe through fault of their own—to end up in a secure training centre, for me there is nothing more important than ensuring that we are doing all we can to ensure that the outcomes for those young people as adults are improved. The Government’s aim is to achieve that. I welcome Charlie Taylor’s review of the system. I would like to see a review in particular of the Medway centre and some of the safeguarding. I point out that I definitely have not seen all the footage and I have not been privy to the information that “Panorama” picked up during recording, but the centre is broken up into different units, and I believe that we are only looking at one element. I would like to hear some of the better stories that have come out of that centre, which I am sure exist.
Fundamentally, I welcome the debate and the review that is taking place. From a local council perspective, I was impressed as a local Member of Parliament by the immediate response that my local authority made to deal with the allegations. The local authority is carrying out due diligence in following through on the investigations in the local authority-designated officer review and in co-operating completely with the police.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
What the hon. Lady is saying from her experience and her contact with the Medway centre is very important. In general terms, does she agree that it is partly about the ethos and professionalism of the members of staff, but also partly about the ratios between the young people and the members of staff? Generally speaking, the more staff who can devote time and attention to young people, the better things are.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Personally, I still think it is a matter of the individual young person’s needs. There is no system that fits all. I am not so sure that the issue is ratios; it is about the particular care plans around those particular children or young people, the reasons why they are in the centre and the individual support they need. That is obviously just my view, but staff build up relationships with young people who may have been exposed to some desperate situations and who may have seen and witnessed things that have affected their development. Some of the challenges affecting the young people—whether those are mental or in terms of decision making—are not always evident when the staff start working with them. It is harder for young people, because adults can articulate things more easily. Sometimes it is a big challenge for young people to articulate some of the things that have happened to them and some of their thought processes.
My honest belief is that there is not an easy solution. I am pleased that this issue is on our radar, but I wish that it had not had to be brought forward by BBC “Panorama”. I am desperately sad that young people have been affected by what has been shown to have happened there, but we have an opportunity to move forward and do what we can. As an MP who has three secure units in my constituency, I will be taking an interest in the issue, not just because of my interest in looked-after children and wanting the very best outcomes for our young people, but because I want a constituency where my constituents are happy that what is going on in our patch is right. I welcome the debate and I welcome the information that will be released in the coming months by the review.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing this important debate. Today’s debate was anticipated by the exposure by “Panorama” of the Medway secure training centre earlier this month. The prison abuses it broadcast, which we have discussed today, are shocking and to be condemned, and I thank Members for their valuable and knowledgeable contributions.
It is important to acknowledge that youth justice is a devolved policy area, and the Ministry of Justice is responsible for justice policy in England and Wales only. My brief contribution to this debate will therefore acknowledge the importance of promoting the safety of children and young people in the criminal justice system more generally, and I will refer to how youth justice is administrated in Scotland to provide some experience of an alternative strategy that the UK Government may wish to consider.
If we are to prevent young people from going down the wrong path in life, we must be proactive in making timely, appropriate and effective interventions to address offending behaviour at the outset. That will keep our communities and children safe from crime, including protecting young people when they are detained. We must ensure that action is taken by all agencies so that adequate safeguards and structures are put in place to prevent abuse.
The hon. Member for Bradford South rightly questioned the safety of young people in these institutions. It is only fair to acknowledge that children and young people facing the desperate circumstances that she referred to rightly deserve the safety and wellbeing that can and should be provided by these institutions. As she said, that is key to their rehabilitation. We must ensure that young people are at the heart of that. This could be a moment in time in their lives, and they could move on to much greater things with the right support. I hope that all Members in the room acknowledge that.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) rightly emphasised that young people are in many ways still children. He took the time to emphasise the impact that mental health can have on young people’s experiences in the institutions, and that point should be highlighted.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) spoke of her personal experience, as the Medway centre is in her constituency. She spoke of the heart-breaking and horrifying experience she had learning of these things. I am sure that no Member in this room takes any pleasure in or would choose to politicise such an important and truly atrocious example of bad practice. I am sure there are many more examples of good practice across the country, but we must in this instance take stock of bad practice and look at what we can do across the country to make the experience better and to ensure that these young people go on to better and positive destinations.
The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) said that safeguarding young people and children should be at the heart of the work we do. She also made the constructive and important point that bullying should be monitored. These children and young people experience the day-to-day issues other young people face, and institutions must ensure that their experiences are not damaged by bad practice or bad management in those institutions.
As I mentioned, youth justice is a devolved matter in Scotland. The youth justice strategy for Scotland from 2015 to 2020 focuses on taking a whole-system approach, improving life chances and developing the capacity for improvement. An holistic approach to youth offending and rehabilitation allows us to reverse negative trends and curb the statistics, to prevent offending from happening again. Indeed, in Scotland, there has been a substantial reduction in offence referrals to the Children’s Reporter, as well as in the number of young people committing crimes and the number of 16 and 17-year-olds in custody. Partnership working has been crucial to that, and it will remain integral to the delivery of the strategy, with consideration of course given to the role of alternative measures.
The Scottish Government’s vision is to promote Scotland as the best place for children to grow up. That was outlined in 2008 in “Preventing Offending by Young People—Framework for Action”, marking a significant shift towards prevention and early intervention, combined with procedures to manage high risk and build community confidence. In particular, the children’s hearings system is a unique feature of the Scottish youth justice system, providing special protective measures for children and dealing with offending alongside the child’s needs and best interests. Fundamentally, the hearings recognise that children and young people who offend and who require care and protection are equally deserving of being considered as children in need.
In conclusion, all children and young people have the right to be cared for and to be protected from harm, and we cannot forget that. They must be allowed to grow up in a safe environment, and the duty of child protection is shared among all of us in society, not just core professionals. In the case of the Medway secure training centre, that duty was completely breached, and I hope the Minister will take my points on board and ensure that further action is taken. I thank all Members for their contributions.
Christina Rees (Neath) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on securing a timely and much-needed debate on this subject, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
It is agreed that the safety of children in custody is paramount. The investigation by the BBC broadcast on 11 January, which uncovered serious and shocking incidents at Medway secure training centre, must be my starting point. Those incidents have once again highlighted the need for urgent action specifically at that centre, but they are also indicative of failures across secure training centres and the prison estate as a whole.
For those hon. Members who have not viewed the programme, I should say that it makes for extremely disturbing viewing. There are allegations of guards unnecessarily using restraint techniques, hitting a teenager, pressing heavily on young people’s necks, using intimidating language and taking concerted action to conceal their behaviour by avoiding CCTV cameras and misreporting incidents. That is simply unacceptable. Since the broadcast, four G4S staff members have been dismissed and four other staff members have been suspended, including one person employed by the healthcare provider.
As hon. Members may be aware, the Labour party called on the Secretary of State to take immediate action to put all G4S-run prisons, secure training centres and detention centres into special measures and to prevent G4S from being considered for bidding for other Government contracts. He responded that the allegations must be treated with the “utmost seriousness”, and police and child protection teams are investigating. However, we should not believe that that is the end of the matter. Running a centre such as Medway requires staff who are well trained and properly motivated and who have a full appreciation of their role in the youth justice system, as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) mentioned.
Just last September, G4S was stripped of its contract for managing a separate STC—Rainsbrook, in Northamptonshire—following an inspection revealing that there had been a doubling in the number of assaults since the last inspection; that 15 young people had required medical attention following assaults, with one requiring hospital treatment; and that the number of assaults on staff was higher than at the previous inspection, averaging nine per month. Let us not forget that G4S is still the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.
Such incidents raise serious questions as to whether G4S is a fit and proper organisation to run youth facilities. However, the debate is about not only what happened at Medway, but youth custody generally. Unfortunately, the problems underlying recent incidents are echoed across the prison estate. Ministry of Justice figures show that deaths, incidents of self-harm and assaults in prison are at their highest level in a decade, with assaults up 13% in a year, serious assaults on prison staff up 42% in a year, self-harm up 21% from last year and seven prison murders in the last 12 months—the highest number recorded since 1978.
In 2012, the Prison Reform Trust and INQUEST jointly published a report entitled “Fatally flawed: Has the state learned lessons from the deaths of children and young people in prison?” The report considered the deaths of 143 children and young adults between 2003 and 2010. It concluded that many young people whose deaths were self-inflicted shared common traits and that successive Governments had not learned the lessons from those deaths.
A further INQUEST report in March 2015 studied the deaths of 65 young people and children between 2011 and 2014. It concluded that institutions had not learned the lessons from previous deaths, stating:
“The vulnerabilities of young prisoners have been well documented, yet they continue to be sent to unsafe environments, with scarce resources and staff untrained to deal with, and respond humanely to, their particular and complex needs.”
The report concluded that
“too many deaths occur because the same mistakes are made time and again.”
Last July, the Harris review published its report “Changing Prisons, Saving Lives: Report of the Independent Review into Self-inflicted Deaths in Custody of 18-24 year olds”. Soon after the report was published, another report, from the Children's Commissioner for England, revealed that a third of young offenders experience isolation and segregation for up to 22 hours a day, particularly in larger institutions. The report found that the children who are isolated are nearly 50% more at risk of suicide. It called for an end to solitary confinement and urged that large secure units for children be replaced by smaller units.
Overcrowding and a widespread lack of staff resources across the Prison Service is leading, not surprisingly, to widespread problems. Temporary staff are used to fill quotas, but they often do not have the requisite experience to carry out such a challenging yet important role. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) said, prison officers simply lack the time to do anything more than carry out the most straightforward security functions, with no time to talk to inmates or to assist in their rehabilitation. There is no time to spot mental ill health, or drug issues. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) has already mentioned how concerned he is that prison staff do not have time to follow through in flagging up issues that may affect a young individual. There is insufficient time to escort inmates to and from the classes and programmes on offer.
Instead, long periods of lock-up and inactivity lead to increasing frustration, making violence more likely. The Government proclaim that they recognise the importance of rehabilitation. If what I have been saying sounds familiar, it is because Labour has long said that prisons should be measured by their success on rehabilitation, and our manifesto at the general election stressed the importance of increasing the amount of time prisoners spend learning and working. Nowhere is that more important than in youth justice, where young lives can be turned around, with the right intervention.
Kelly Tolhurst
Does the hon. Lady agree that some of the young people who arrive at these institutions are there only for short periods, depending on the challenges that they have had before arriving at the centre, and that we should perhaps consider what happened to them before they arrived at the centre or the unit? In some cases, the young people are there for just a short period, and finding the opportunity to complete a really good rehabilitation is sometimes a challenge.
Christina Rees
I agree. I think a partnership approach is needed. The hon. Lady spoke about the local authority in her constituency and its important role in youth rehabilitation and the care of children. The whole approach must be one of across-the-board partnership. I agree that sometimes a short time in prison does not allow for any beneficial turnaround.
Jo Stevens
On that point, taking preventive measures was one of the recommendations in the Harris report about how to stop young people going into custody in the first place. Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask the Minister how many of the Harris recommendations have been implemented.
Christina Rees
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.
The Government must understand that a fundamentally different approach to youth justice and custody is needed. Young people and children need to be supported and helped. The idea that young offenders should be punished, locked away and forgotten about or, worse, mistreated, is morally reprehensible and entirely counter-productive. However, just months ago, the Chancellor announced cuts of £9 million to the Youth Justice Board, despite warnings from the Local Government Association, the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services that that would lead to an increase in the number of young people in custody. Coincidentally, the £9 million that is being taken away almost exactly matches the amount that the Government have wasted on a failed procurement process to outsource fine collection—a clear case of misplaced priorities and ideology taking precedence over sound, evidence-based policy making.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states that the principle aim of the youth justice system is the prevention of reoffending. However, currently two thirds of offenders under the age of 18 reoffend within a year of release. Behind every one of those figures is a victim, or victims, of crime. How can young people be rehabilitated when there are so many failings within the youth justice system —when it is not even a safe environment for them?
The media reports of what happened at Medway clearly demonstrate a deeper crisis in our youth custody system. Government cuts and a refusal to address the issues properly are creating a perfect storm of overcrowding, understaffing and poor resources. First and foremost, we urge immediate action to put all G4S-run prisons, secure training centres and detention centres into special measures so that the safety and competence of each facility can be urgently assessed.
The Government have the power, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, to intervene in contracted-out STCs. Therefore, as we outlined in our recent letter to the Secretary of State, we urge the Minister to put in management teams alongside existing staff at those facilities—teams with experience of working with vulnerable children. The reforms to youth justice made by a Labour Government, requiring agencies to collaborate in preventing youth offending, reduced both youth crime and the numbers of young people in prison. We would further extend that model by piloting a new approach for 18 to 20-year-old offenders. That would incentivise local authorities, the police and the probation services to work together, to identify those at risk of engaging in criminal activity and to divert them on to a more constructive path.
I want to pose the following questions to the Minister: how many children are currently in Medway STC; and have any been sent there since 30 December? What action did the Ministry of Justice take between 30 December and 8 January? Since 2010, how many times have contract breaches occurred at secure training centres run by G4S under contract with his Department? What was the budget of the Youth Justice Board in 2009-10 and 2014-15; and what is the estimated budget for that body in 2015-16? Has the Minister considered writing to the local safeguarding children board to see whether it will order a serious case review of the allegations regarding abuse at Medway secure training centre? I also remind him of the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) in her intervention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Wilson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) on bringing this important debate before the House. She said that complacency is never an option in such matters, and she is absolutely right. I assure her that that is exactly the attitude we have in the Ministry of Justice. We also made the broader point that, if we want people to behave well in custody, we should treat them well. She is absolutely right as far as that is concerned.
The hon. Lady spent quite a lot of her speech talking about “Managing and Minimising Physical Restraint”—understandably, following the shocking revelations we saw in the “Panorama” programme. Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons described “Managing and Minimising Physical Restraint” as a significant step forward; but of course we acknowledge that more needs to be done. However, I can tell the hon. Lady that detailed action plans are being agreed with individual sites on its implementation, and additional training and support are being provided. We want to get things to a really high standard, and of course it is not good enough just to have good training; we must ensure that the officers on the ground actually implement what they have been trained to do.
The hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees), who spoke for the official Opposition, mentioned the Youth Justice Board budget. The YJB has, as part of general Government savings—as, unfortunately, the country continues to live beyond its means—reduced its administrative expenditure by restructuring to become more efficient; but in doing that, it has been able to focus more resources on monitoring in the youth estate, despite falling numbers of people in youth custody. It is important that that should be on the record.
Jo Stevens
The Minister said there was more monitoring of secure children’s centres in youth custody services. If that is the case, why and how did what we saw at Medway on the “Panorama” programme happen?
Andrew Selous
The hon. Lady asks the central question of the whole debate. I can tell her that I have thought long and hard about it since the “Panorama” revelations. I do not know whether she was in the House for the urgent question when my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice set out in some detail the considerable monitoring arrangements we have. Yet the fact is that they did not detect mistreatment and prevent it from happening. As the Minister responsible for youth justice, I have absolutely fully taken that on board and can assure her we will continue to review seriously how we monitor to ensure we do not find out that terrible things are happening from an investigatory television programme. I will elaborate further during the course of my speech.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), who is a valued member of the Justice Committee, rightly drew attention to the issue of mental health. I can tell him and other Members who properly drew attention to that issue that a comprehensive health assessment is completed for every young person on arrival in custody. This includes an immediate assessment of needs during the first day or night, followed by a more comprehensive assessment as part of their induction programme. If an alternative placement is deemed appropriate, this will be referred back to the youth justice board placement team for consideration in consultation with healthcare professionals.
I can also tell the House that each site has healthcare teams and in-reach teams that provide appropriate treatment for young people with mental health issues. I get the seriousness and importance of this issue and will continue to work with colleagues in the Department of Health to ensure we keep a relentless focus on mental health.
John Howell
When he gets back to the office, will the Minister look at the transfer of people and how often the transfer of the information about their mental health does not actually follow them on time?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend raises an important and serious point. Yes, of course I will look into that matter. We have to have a joined-up system as far as health needs are concerned. He makes a valuable point.
My hon. Friend also made points about young adult provision. I know the Select Committee is looking at that at the moment, but I can tell him that a Government consultation on the management of young adults was paused while the Harris review was completed. This is now being reconsidered as part of our wider prison reform strategy work and alongside the youth justice review, about which I will say more in a few moments.
The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer), who is also an extremely diligent and engaged member of the Justice Committee, asked a general point about the threshold for custody for children. The threshold is high and the courts must state in open court why a youth community sentence with high-intensity supervision and surveillance is not appropriate. I will point out, as have others during this debate, that the under-18 youth custody population has halved in the past five years.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) for her contribution to the debate. She is not only the local Member of Parliament who represents Medway, but a ward councillor in that area, so she has detailed local knowledge that we all respect. I have had frequent dealings with her since the revelations came to light. I also thank her for praising the vast majority of decent staff who work very hard in a challenging environment. She was right to put that on the record, and I do so as the Minister as well. We will be relentless in dealing with staff who fall below the very high standards that we rightly expect of them and will continue to demand.
I thank the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for her contribution. She pointed out that my domain as the Minister extends to England and Wales, and not to Scotland, but generally we take a serious interest in what happens in criminal justice matters and in the youth estate north of our border with Scotland. I have spent time with Scottish academics and others trying to learn what we can from the Scottish prison system, so I thank her for her contribution this afternoon.
The hon. Member for Neath, who speaks for the official Opposition, asked me a large number of questions, which I will do my best to answer this afternoon. I will write to her if I do not answer them all—she posed her questions just before my own contribution, so I will not manage to answer all of them. In general, I repeat what the Secretary of State for Justice said during the urgent question:
“the care and supervision of young offenders in custody is not good enough.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 573.]
We recognise that. That is why the Secretary of State has commissioned the youth justice review. There will be an interim report in due course and a final report in the summer. It is the right thing to do.
The hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) asked her hon. Friend the Member for Neath to ask me how many of Lord Harris’s recommendations had been implemented. The answer is more than half, but I would ask the hon. Member for Cardiff Central to look at our wider prison reform strategy, more of which will be unveiled over the coming months. She and others will see much in that that speaks to the important points that she and others have raised this afternoon.
The allegations made by the BBC in the “Panorama” programme on 11 January were profoundly disturbing and have quite rightly generated concern about the safety of young people detained at Medway. Let me put on the record, as the Justice Secretary did, my thanks to the BBC for the work it has undertaken to bring the serious allegations to light, although it should not have taken an investigatory television programme to do so.
We take all allegations about mistreatment of children in custody extremely seriously and make sure that they are swiftly referred to the local area designated child protection officer for immediate action. Although it would be inappropriate for me to comment on specific allegations while the investigation by Kent police and Medway Council is under way, I can assure Members that we place the highest priority on the safety of the children and young people committed to our care in custody.
It may be helpful for me to outline in further detail the action taken since the contents of the “Panorama” investigation were first reported. First, G4S suspended all seven staff members named by the BBC on 30 December 2015 and referred the allegations to Medway Council’s local authority designated officer, who is responsible for overseeing safeguarding concerns about children across the local authority, and to Kent police. G4S has subsequently dismissed five staff members, and three more are suspended.
Kent police and Medway Council’s child protection team have launched an investigation that will determine whether there is any evidence to justify criminal proceedings against anyone involved. Five members of staff have been arrested and bailed while police inquiries continue. It is important that the police are now able to complete a full and thorough investigation into each incident and to pursue all necessary lines of inquiry. I can assure Members that the Ministry of Justice and the Youth Justice Board will support and co-operate with their inquiries to the fullest possible extent.
Our immediate priority has been the safety of the young people in custody at Medway. As the Secretary of State indicated in his statement to the House on 11 January, we are meeting Lin Hinnigan, the chief executive of the Youth Justice Board, regularly to make sure that all necessary action to ensure the wellbeing of young people at Medway is being taken. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons and Ofsted also visited Medway on 11 January to meet representatives of G4S, Medway Council and the Youth Justice Board, as well as the children detained there. The findings of HMIP’s report are being considered carefully by the Secretary of State and me.
The YJB, which is responsible for commissioning the youth secure estate, has also taken immediate steps to safeguard the children and young people placed in Medway. It might be helpful for me to outline those steps to the House. The YJB has, with immediate effect, ceased new placements of young people to Medway until further notice—that addresses one of the shadow Minister’s questions. The YJB sought urgent assurance from the G4S director of Medway that the centre had safe staffing levels following the suspension and dismissal of staff. That assurance was received on 31 December and is being kept under review. The YJB has increased both its monitoring activity at the centre and the presence of other of its staff members, including senior managers.
I am concerned that the allegations were not readily identified by the checks and systems that we already have in place. It is clear that my Department and the YJB need to work together to make sure that monitoring in the youth secure estate is more effective and robust. We expect the highest standards from all the providers who operate the youth secure estate. We expect staff to want to work with children, to have the skills and training to engage with children positively, and to act with professionalism and integrity throughout. We expect our providers’ management teams to rigorously supervise their staff and drive a positive culture throughout their organisations.
Jo Stevens
There will be children in Medway and other secure training centres who are repeat offenders, but it seems to me that the real culprit here is G4S, which is a persistent offender in failing to deliver Government contracts to the required standards. I am concerned about whether G4S should be awarded any further contracts, or should even be bidding, until all the outstanding issues with the company—the Serious Fraud Office inquiry and the investigation into Medway—are resolved. Will the Minister please address that specific point?
Andrew Selous
I hear what the hon. Lady says and, given what has happened, I understand the strength of feeling on this issue. Nevertheless, I repeat what I said earlier: it is important that we allow Medway Council and Kent police to investigate fully what are, at the moment, allegations, albeit extremely serious ones. We should wait for the results before we do anything else.
The YJB has increased the availability of the independent advocacy service provided by Barnardo’s. It will now be available on site six days a week, compared with three days a week previously. All youth offending teams that are responsible for those currently held at Medway secure training centre have been contacted and asked whether they have any concerns about individual children or young people. The YJB will consider, on a case-by-case basis, any specific action that needs to be taken to meet the particular needs of each individual child or young person, including, where appropriate, reviewing their placement at the centre. The YJB has also contacted the families of each child and young person at all three secure training centres to explain the actions we have taken and to give them a contact point at the YJB.
I shall outline the key safeguarding and monitoring arrangements that already exist in secure training centres, which we have now reinforced at Medway in the light of the recent allegations. First, YJB monitors are appointed at all STCs to monitor and report on the performance of the establishment. Monitors will investigate and report on allegations made against custody officers and, where necessary, suspend and revoke custody officers’ certificates to work. Barnardo’s staff are also in place at all STCs to provide independent support and advice to young people through its independent advocacy service. Young people can raise any issues or concerns through either the YJB monitors or the advocacy service provided independently by Barnardo’s. There are clear processes in place that enable staff to raise concerns.
The YJB’s service specifications and commissioning arrangements for the secure estate make it clear to providers that there is an expectation that children’s welfare and safety is paramount when they are in custody. That expectation has been strengthened and reinforced in the specifications for new STC contracts and as part of the provision in young offender institutions. All persons in charge of secure establishments have a statutory duty to ensure that their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. They must also participate as a member of their relevant local safeguarding children’s board. In line with statutory safeguarding guidance, each secure establishment must have an annually reviewed safeguarding policy and a member of the senior management team with responsibility for implementation of the policy. The policy should promote safeguarding and wellbeing by covering issues such as child protection, risk of harm, restraint, separation, staff recruitment and information sharing.
Each local authority has a designated officer to whom concerns about children’s safety that arise from the behaviour of adults must be referred. That is in addition to the requirement for those working with children to report to the local authority any concerns about a child they believe to have been harmed or at risk of harm. All safeguarding managers in young offender institutions are expected to attend the Working With Young People in Custody training programme, which includes modules on child protection and safeguarding. The head of safeguarding will be supported by an establishment-based qualified social worker from the local authority.
As many Members know, there is now a higher concentration of violent and high-risk offenders in the youth secure estate who present complex risks and needs. The level of violent incidents remains a concern, and one to which there is no single, simple solution. For that reason, we have in place a wide range of measures to manage safety and stability. That begins with the placement of young people. The YJB actively manages where young people are placed to support custodial providers, who in turn manage their regimes locally to keep children safe. In young offender institutions in particular, we are working to use more mental health support and psychological services to better manage and support those detained. We are also implementing a range of tools for staff to manage conflict more positively and deal with challenging and complex children. All the while, we have a zero-tolerance approach to violence and are seeking to increase children’s engagement in education to give them a greater opportunity of making progress during custody and on release. For example, in young offender institutes we now require 30 hours of education a week, which is a significant increase.
Wayne David
I welcome many of the positive proposals that the Minister is making, but will he give us a commitment that, if it is clearly demonstrated that certain organisations that run STCs are in breach of their duty of care to young children, they will be formally excluded from future bidding processes?
Andrew Selous
As I said earlier, for now, we should wait for the result of the investigation by the local authority and the police. I have already said that we have the power to strike off someone from being a custody officer. We have statutory powers and we are not afraid to use them in pursuit of our serious duties regarding the care of these young people.
The managing and minimising physical restraint policy that I mentioned earlier sets out that robust local governance arrangements should be in place to enable those running secure establishments to identify any poor practice. A weekly use-of-force meeting takes place in all establishments using the MMPR policy, and it is regularly attended by a YJB performance manager. During the meeting, which is attended by senior managers in the establishment, along with the YJB, CCTV footage of all incidents is reviewed, anything that happened in the lead-up to an incident is discussed, and any training that might be required to handle incidents better in future can be identified. Those arrangements were already in place at Medway. If there is an incident that warrants referral, we would expect an establishment to refer it to the local area designated officer at the local authority. If that is not done by an establishment, the YJB’s performance managers can make referrals themselves.
As the Secretary of State made clear in his statement on 11 January, it is a matter of record that there have been earlier examples of where G4S has let down the Ministry of Justice and those in our care. But there are also examples of innovative and high-quality institutions run by G4S. I recognise in particular that unacceptable incidents and practices were identified in Ofsted’s inspection of Rainsbrook last year. In that case, the monitoring arrangements in place were effective. The YJB monitor was aware of each of the incidents as they occurred, took the appropriate action and highlighted them to the inspection team. The YJB immediately required G4S to address the issues swiftly and effectively. G4S put in place new leadership, and the YJB agreed an action plan to improve recruitment and training.
I am pleased to tell colleagues that Ofsted’s latest inspection of Rainsbrook shows significant improvement, with improved findings for both safety and care of young people. Although the report identified two serious incidents of staff misconduct since the previous inspection, in both cases, G4S took action and dismissed the members of staff involved before the latest inspection took place.
Jo Stevens
Although the problems at Rainsbrook have been identified and welcome steps have been taken, the Government allowed G4S to renew its contract at Medway. Will the Minister explain why it was allowed to renew that contract when it has a history of problems running a secure training unit at Rainsbrook?
Andrew Selous
There was a competitive bid to run the contract. Ministry of Justice officials, who are wholly independent from Ministers, scrutinised all the bids using set criteria. They demanded higher standards than we currently have in the STCs. We are satisfied that there was a robust, proper, independent and legal process.
Following the re-tendering of the Rainsbrook STC last year, we selected a new provider, MTCnovo, to take over the running of the centre from May 2016. The YJB put in place an enhanced monitoring plan that aims to support G4S to continue to make the required improvements, as well as supporting MTCnovo as it takes over delivery. We are clear that standards must continue to rise before MTCnovo takes over the contract.
Although youth offending has fallen, reoffending rates have remained high, particularly for those leaving youth custody. We acknowledge that violence in custody has risen and that we are dealing with an increasingly challenging cohort of young people in our custody. As I said earlier, there are no simple solutions to that, which is why the Secretary of State and I agree that the youth justice system requires reform.
As Members will be aware, we asked Charlie Taylor, the former chief executive of the National College for Teaching and Leadership, to conduct a review of youth justice. He is looking at the evidence and current practice in preventing youth crime and rehabilitating young offenders; how the youth justice system can most effectively interact with wider services for children and young people; and whether the current arrangements are fit for purpose. The review will publish an interim report shortly and conclude this summer.
I recognise and share Members’ concern about the allegations featured in the “Panorama” programme, but hope I have reassured colleagues that young people’s safety and wellbeing will remain central to how we look after young people in custody. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood said, the vast majority of those working in the youth justice system display high levels of professionalism and dedication in working with young people from particularly complex and challenging backgrounds. They are committed to the rehabilitation and support of the young people in their care.
Marie Rimmer
Will the Minister please consider introducing a duty of candour for custodial institutions, as has been introduced in the health service?
Andrew Selous
I am aware that a duty of candour has been introduced in the NHS to good effect, I believe. I commit to look carefully at the lessons learned from its introduction in the NHS to see whether one could be applicable to the youth justice system.
I am clear that the provision of safe, decent and secure environments is an essential foundation for achieving our objectives to protect the public and reduce reoffending. We will continue to challenge the youth justice system to provide the best possible support and the highest levels of care for young people in youth custody.
Judith Cummins
I thank all Members who spoke in this debate. Their contributions reflect the seriousness and importance of the issue of ensuring the safety of children in custodial institutions. We all acknowledge the need for high professional standards when looking after our children and young people in custodial institutions. I ask the Minister to take very seriously the concerns that were raised about the continuation of G4S’s contract.
When looking at the issue of child safety in our custodial institutions, the concerns about children with complex needs or mental health problems must be looked at in detail and treated appropriately, particularly those pertaining to the issue of restraint in our custodial institutions. It is important that the Minister addresses our concerns about the cuts to the budgets of the Youth Justice Board and local authorities. Thank you, Mr Wilson, for treating me kindly today. I thank all Members present.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered safety in youth custody.
IVF: Welfare of Women
(8 years, 11 months 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
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the welfare of women undergoing IVF treatment.
I want to draw attention to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which is also known as the HFE Act. It contains worrying failures that are endangering women’s lives and long-term health. As a result of the failures, it is time for Parliament to take action to protect the welfare of women undergoing IVF treatment. IVF is a huge industry, estimated to be worth some £500 million, with most treatment taking place in the private sector.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority code of practice, which follows from the 26-year-old HFE Act, rightly requires clinics to take into account the welfare of the child before providing IVF treatment, but the HFEA’s narrow interpretation means that women’s welfare is not considered. IVF treatment works by stimulating the ovaries of a woman to grow multiple follicles through the use of a drug identical to the natural stimulating hormone called follicle stimulating hormone or FSH. In turn, the growth of such follicles causes a rise in oestrogen in a woman’s bloodstream.
However, if levels become too high, there can be a profound and adverse effect on a woman’s health. Indeed, extensive research has shown that the high stimulation given to women during IVF can significantly compromise their health. The most common adverse effect following the use of such hormones during IVF is ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or OHSS, which can be mild, moderate or severe. Mild OHSS can occur in up to 33% of IVF cycles, while 3% to 8% of IVF cycles are complicated by moderate to severe OHSS. Women with severe OHSS are hospitalised, some in intensive care, needing intravenous infusions and drugs to save their lives. In its most severe form, OHSS can be fatal and women have died in the UK as a result of the complication.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
Given the serious health risks that can arise from women being treated with too much hormone medication during IVF, does my hon. Friend agree that the HFEA must collect and publish information on the type and amount of drugs given to women so that they can make a more informed choice about the treatment they may receive?
Siobhain McDonagh
I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend and hope to expand on that point in my speech.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I thought I would get an intervention in while the hon. Lady was in the mood for taking them. I appreciate that she is talking about women who are going through IVF, but has she considered the health effects on women who want IVF but are prevented from doing so due to their age?
Siobhain McDonagh
I have no comments in my speech that address the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about age and effectiveness. I mostly want to ask the Minister, and through her the Department of Health, to consider how figures are recorded, what the practice is and how we can improve on what is now a 26-year-old Act.
It goes without saying that OHSS has a huge emotional cost to women and a huge financial cost to the NHS, but it is preventable. It is widely known that there are modern OHSS-free protocols that can entirely prevent the syndrome from manifesting, but they are underused. In a 2011 article in The BMJ, authors Bewley and Braude reported on women’s deaths as a result of the complications around IVF treatment. The article states:
“The last Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Death recorded four deaths directly related to IVF via ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and three deaths related to multiple pregnancy after IVF. Thus, more deaths were related to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome than to abortion…despite many fewer procedures (for example, 48,829 IVF cycles v 198,500 abortions were performed in the UK in 2007). IVF associated maternal deaths may be underestimates, because record linkage is not allowed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act”.
The article worryingly concludes that:
“infertility treatment now poses a higher risk for maternal death.”
Despite the potentially fatal risks to the health of women going through IVF, there is little accurate or complete information regarding the incidence of OHSS. Instead, the HFEA records it only via a flawed self-reporting system. In practice, that means that clinics must indicate when a patient has been admitted to hospital with severe OHSS when it is entirely induced by their IVF treatment, but that system of self-reporting is inadequate, for obvious reasons. The HFEA’s own data suggest that there is gross under-reporting of the condition.
We know that the number of eggs collected is a predictor of OHSS. The collection of more than fifteen eggs significantly increases the risk of OHSS, without improving the live birth rate. Bearing that in mind, over the first half of 2013, there were over 1,700 IVF cycles in which more than 20 eggs were collected—cycles that therefore posed an increased risk of OHSS. Yet, that same year, only 46 cases of severe OHSS were reported. Between 2010 and 2012, only 60 cases of severe OHSS and 150 cases of moderate OHSS were reported. During the same period, however, there were more than 3,000 IVF cycles in which more than 20 eggs were collected per cycle. Those examples demonstrate the worrying, and dangerous, trend of under-reporting. We also know that the stimulation dose given in IVF is negatively correlated to live birth. In other words, the higher the stimulation, the lower the rate of live births. Research has also shown that a high number of eggs collected increases rates of prematurity and low birth weight in babies. The risks are clear when considering how many cycles feature high stimulation and high numbers of eggs collected.
The HFEA database demonstrates that, between 2008 and 2013, more than 20 eggs were collected per egg collection procedure in more than 18,000 IVF cycles, more than 30 eggs were collected in 2,285 IVF cycles, and more than 40 eggs were collected in 313 IVF cycles. It cannot be stressed enough that those figures show a very worrying trend in IVF treatment in the UK, potentially placing women in real, and avoidable, danger. The evidence also demonstrates the pressing need for a change in legislation and for reliable data to be collected by an empowered regulator.
Furthermore, research from last year has observed an increased risk of ovarian cancer among women undergoing IVF in the UK compared with national averages. That was based on the HFEA database of more than a quarter of a million women who have received IVF treatment between 1991 and 2010. Similarly, a large Dutch study from 2011 of 20,000 women who had received IVF treatment concluded that ovarian stimulation for IVF may increase the risk of ovarian malignancies, especially borderline tumours. The link between ovarian cancer and IVF treatment, as well as the many health risks I have outlined, so obviously justifies the collection of reliable data by the HFEA.
As if the risks were not enough, several clinics are using a cocktail of drugs off-label in a manner for which they were not intended. It is most common in the use of drugs and intravenous infusions during IVF treatment and pregnancy that affect a woman’s immune system. However, they are often used without any supporting scientific evidence, posing significant risks to women. Both the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the US Food and Drug Administration have issued warnings about the use of drugs off-label. The HFEA, while stating on its website that there is no evidence to support such practice, has admitted that it has no powers to stop it from happening despite being aware of the considerable potential harm posed to women. That clearly needs to change.
Despite the potential threat to women’s safety, the HFEA states that it does not have the statutory authority to take action in the so-called areas of clinical judgment and drug administration. Indeed, in relation to the HFEA’s limited response on the incidence of OHSS, the Minister stated the following:
“They have no express powers concerning the administration of drugs, which is a matter of clinical judgment. Although the HFEA does not collect data about the overall incidence of OHSS, clinics are asked to report when a cycle has been abandoned because of risk of OHSS. Severe OHSS is treated as an incident and depending on the nature of incident and the patient outcome, the HFEA will either expect an incident report or conduct an incident review itself”.
Given the severity of the risk to women that I have outlined, however, that response is clearly inadequate.
Considering the evidence, the absence of comprehensive data collection seems to be the result of a bizarre regulatory remit. That limited remit seems to see the safety of women as secondary. The McCracken review into the HFEA, the recommendations of which were entirely accepted by the Government, argued that the balance of HFEA activities was unacceptable. Recommendation 10 stated:
“The HFEA should conduct a review of the balance of its regulatory focus to ensure that it reflects the relative risks of the different activities that it oversees. Its approach should reflect the relative maturity of the sector it regulates…the need to ensure appropriate oversight of technical developments in the field of ART”—
assisted reproductive technology—
“the need to ensure that appropriate standards of practice are implemented consistently throughout the sector, and the continuing need for a high degree of public assurance regarding the sensitive activities that it oversees. This should not lead to any overall increase in regulatory activity or cost, but a rebalancing of activity.”
Further, as part of the preface to the recommendation, McCracken stated:
“Similarly where there are well known side effects of ART techniques, such as…OHSS…the HFEA should make sure that appropriate standards in managing them are being adopted across the sector...It is worth noting here that the work that the HFEA led in reducing multiple births, the ‘One at a Time’ project, is universally praised and may provide a model for addressing some of these other topics.”
To reiterate, the report states that reviewing the HFEA remit should not lead to an increase in regulatory activity or cost, but simply a rebalancing of its activity. However, the HFEA has not taken any specific action on OHSS or on the other interventions so desperately needed. That is why we need Parliament to act.
What can be done? I have a number of recommendations that I hope the Minister will be able to implement to address the risk to women’s health. First, an explicit commitment to the protection of the welfare of women urgently needs to be added to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 in order to give powers to the HFEA to regulate and monitor drug administration to safeguard the short and long-term health and welfare of women undergoing IVF.
Secondly, the HFEA must immediately start collecting information about all drugs, dosages—whether daily or cumulative—and off-label drugs administered to women during IVF treatment and pregnancy. The HFEA already collects extensive data about embryos, including the use of consumables or culture medium. In other words, what is administered to eggs, sperm and embryos is regarded as of primary importance, but what is administered to women is deemed to be of limited importance. We urgently need to redress that imbalance. Adequate information is desperately needed to gauge the adverse effects of the drugs on gametes and embryos, and to assess their threat to women’s health. Those data are already collected in the USA, Australia and across Europe. It is about time the UK followed suit.
Thirdly, the HFEA should introduce a campaign and licence condition expressly focused on reducing the incidence of OHSS, which can be fatal. That could be modelled on the HFEA’s successful multiple births minimisation strategy.
Finally, the HFE Act should be amended to link the HFEA registry with the hospital, cancer and death registries. That would allow accurate recording and publication of the links between IVF treatment and incidence of severe OHSS, cancer and mortality among women. The HFE Act has typically used patient confidentiality as a reason to have a hands-off approach to collecting important information. Links between IVF treatment and such incidences, however, have already been established in other developed nations by using such data. I am sure the Minister will agree that the more we understand such links, the more we can do to prevent unnecessary harm to women.
We urgently need a regulatory body that has the powers to monitor drug administration during IVF treatment, and to take action where needed to protect the welfare of women. We need to have adequate information to assess the safety of fertility treatments. Indeed, it seems absurd to have a regulator that is dedicated to licensing and monitoring clinics that carry out IVF, but that is unable to take action because it lacks statutory authority.
According to the McCracken report, such changes can be cost-neutral, and the HFEA has already achieved success in other areas. By including the welfare-of-women protection in the HFE Act, alongside the “welfare of any child”, we can finally act on the issue. By doing so, Government can oversee the collection of information about drugs administered to women during IVF treatment and pregnancy. What I am calling for is not unusual elsewhere in the world, and such systems of data collection are prevalent in so many developed countries. Changing the Act will also enable the HFEA to implement fully the recommendations of the McCracken report, in particular that
“appropriate standards in managing…are…adopted across the sector.”
That should include the use of modern OHSS-free protocols that prevent the incidence of potentially fatal OHSS.
Patients undergoing IVF treatment are often vulnerable, forced into paying for treatment themselves, and they desperately need someone to protect them. As more and more people use IVF treatment, the issue is no longer one for only a minority. It is time to give the safety of women the recognition that it desperately deserves in the Act. Let us not sit back and allow another woman to suffer or die unnecessarily during IVF treatment.
In the HFEA, we have a body dedicated to regulating IVF. Let us give it the tools to fulfil its duty. Twenty-six years since its creation, it is time to maintain what is good about the HFE Act and to reform what is inadequate. I hope the Minister will recognise the opportunity for the Government to pioneer a new chapter in the young history of IVF treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for raising this important subject for debate. I will take the opportunity to offer, I hope, some assurance to interested Members about what is being done to safeguard women’s health in the area.
IVF has been an amazing gift for millions of people throughout the world, bringing the joy of a child to those who would otherwise not have been able to have one. The treatment was a groundbreaking one that we can be proud to say was invented and developed in the United Kingdom.
Recognising the special ethical approach needed for the creation of human life, the Government introduced the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in 1990 to bring a strong legislative framework to the provision of fertility treatments, establishing the HFEA as the specialist regulator. That legislation was supplemented by a review and amendments in 2008, providing a legislative settlement agreed by Parliament, and it has served the United Kingdom well since then.
The hon. Lady eloquently outlined the effects of OHSS, which is a well recognised side effect of the use of ovarian stimulatory drugs. In its most severe form, it can be fatal for the patient if not treated, although thankfully that is rare. There are more than 60,000 cycles of IVF each year, with between 150 and 200 instances of what would be regarded as more serious incidents, known as grade A and grade B. That represents about 0.33% of all cycles.
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
The debate may continue until 4.42 pm but could conclude before then if circumstances permit.
Jane Ellison
If the debate has to conclude early, which would be a great shame, I shall certainly undertake to write in detail to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, to respond to the various points she made in her speech.
As I was saying, thankfully, very severe incidents for women undergoing IVF are very rare. There are more than 60,000 cycles of IVF each year, and around 150 to 200 instances of what would be regarded as more serious incidents. That represents 0.33% of all cycles. To put that in context, in 2013-14, there were four grade A incidents that involved a serious threat to health, while in 2012-13 there were none. It is helpful to explain that.
It would also be helpful for me to put on the record that ovarian stimulatory drugs are generally self-administered after being prescribed, and each patient is given instruction from the clinic with appropriate warnings about side effect symptoms to be aware of. Patients are monitored at the clinic through regular ultrasound scans and blood tests to check how the ovarian stimulation is progressing and to look out for any signs of OHSS.
I note the suggestion from the hon. Lady about amending the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to require the UK regulator to collect data on the dosage of drugs prescribed to women during fertility treatment and birth rates and information on any adverse outcomes for the patient. That proposal would also place a duty on all fertility clinics to consider the welfare of women proposing to undergo these treatments. It is important to put on the record that drug dosage levels do not determine the risk to individual women of OHSS. Patients react differently and individually to the same dosage levels, so it is not possible to identify those who may be at the highest risk of an adverse reaction.
In response to the suggestions made, I want to stress that all clinicians have a general duty to consider the welfare of patients when deciding whether it is appropriate to offer any treatment service. The 1990 Act also requires that same assessment to be made of any child born as a result of fertility treatment and any existing children who might be affected by it.
The prescription of stimulatory drugs is not an activity regulated by the HFE Act 1990, as amended, or by the HFEA. Prescribing is a matter for clinical judgment, taking account of professional guidance, of which there is a considerable amount, and the individual circumstances of the patient. All patients who undergo ovarian stimulation as part of their IVF treatment are given information on the symptoms to look out for and are advised to contact clinics immediately if they suspect they may be developing the condition. That includes being given contact details for out-of-hours arrangements, so that they can report immediately. In addition, it is a requirement under the 1990 Act that a woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless she has been provided with information relevant to the treatment, including the potential side effects, and a suitable opportunity to receive counselling about the implications.
Although the HFEA does not collect data about the overall incidence of OHSS, clinics are asked to report treatment cycles to the HFEA where a cycle has been abandoned due to there being a risk of the patient developing OHSS. All severe cases of OHSS must be reported to the HFEA as a serious adverse incident. Depending on the nature of the incident and the patient outcome, the HFEA will either expect an incident report from the clinic or will conduct an incident review itself. The HFEA publishes a detailed annual analysis of the data it receives, and information is also available on the HFEA’s website on outcome rates for each clinic, including information on live birth rates as a percentage of embryo transfers.
I reiterate that the administration of drugs is a matter for clinical judgment. The HFEA’s code of practice advises licensed fertility clinics to provide women seeking treatment with information on the likely outcomes of the proposed treatment and the nature and potential risks of that treatment. That includes the risk of children conceived having, for example, developmental defects, as well as the potential side effects and risks for the woman, including OHSS. That requirement is examined as part of the HFEA inspection regime. The HFEA also asks to see a clinic’s OHSS management protocols before a licensed renewal inspection, so it is part of the regulatory process for each clinic.
In its fertility guidelines, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advises clinics that they should inform patients about any potential long-term safety implications associated with IVF. That includes specific reference to limiting the use of ovulation induction or ovarian stimulation agents to the lowest effective dose and duration of use. In addition, the HFEA code of practice sets out the expectation that clinics should follow relevant and appropriate professional guidance in the care of patients, which obviously includes NICE guidance. Clinicians must have the clinical discretion to make decisions about the care of individual patients, taking account of their individual circumstances.
I want to give the hon. Lady assurance about some of the work the HFEA has in the pipeline. In its business plan, the HFEA sets out an intention to increase focus on learning from incidents and adverse events through, for example, publication of a report on clinical incidents between 2010 and 2012; dialogue with the sector about how best to learn from incidents and adverse events; and exploring, with professional groups, whether more data need to be collected better to understand factors contributing to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, in order to reduce its incidence. That is in the HFEA’s business plan, which is publicly available.
I would like again to thank the hon. Lady for raising this important and complex subject. I understand and appreciate the concerns she rightly has about the possible impact on women’s health of a reaction to stimulatory drugs during the process of fertility treatment and the consequences. However, I believe that the existing UK regulatory system is second to none in its approach to safeguarding women’s health. I am assured that, within its statutory and regulatory remit, the HFEA is taking proportionate action.
I know that the debate must end here, Sir Alan, so I will write to the hon. Lady with responses to additional points made in her speech.
Question put and agreed to.
Storm Eva: Local Authority Support
(8 years, 11 months 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
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered support for local authorities after Storm Eva.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan, even if it is later than scheduled. The first challenge of debating the flooding that devastated parts of Cumbria, Lancashire and Yorkshire over the Christmas period is that just one Department can respond. In considering what support local authorities will require as they seek to emerge from these difficult times, nothing short of co-operation from almost every single Department will be sufficient. In calling on the Department for Communities and Local Government to hear the challenges that we face, I hope the Minister will be working with his colleagues across Government to respond as comprehensively as possible.
For the purpose of today’s debate, I am representing Calderdale Council, which includes both my constituency of Halifax and the neighbouring Calder Valley constituency. Areas around the Dean Clough Mills complex in Halifax town centre, and particularly Sowerby Bridge and Copley in my patch, were devastated by the floods on Boxing day in weather that had not been seen in living memory. However, the devastation further down the valley in Mytholmroyd and Hebden Bridge, with further damage in Elland, Todmorden and Brighouse, has put Calderdale Council under unprecedented pressure of a primarily financial nature.
I attended a transport working group meeting at Halifax town hall on Friday with my friend, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). The chief officer for highways and engineering, John Lamb, who is doing a fantastic job, described the River Calder as having become “weaponised” over Boxing day, picking up everything in its path and using it to smash its way through the valley, taking on the bridges, roads, homes and businesses in its path.
To give Members a quick overview and to demonstrate the breadth of the range of problems, 2,781 residential properties and 1,635 businesses have been affected by Storm Eva in Calderdale. Nine electrical substations were flooded, resulting in widespread power outages, with some properties without electricity for four days. Eight schools across the district were damaged, and at least two of them will be closed for a prolonged period. The police station in Sowerby Bridge and the fire station in Mytholmroyd were flooded, and general practitioners’ surgeries, Sowerby Bridge leisure centre, libraries and Sure Start centres along the river all sustained damage.
With that in mind, I hope the Chair and the hon. Member for Calder Valley will grant me the freedom to speak about the needs of the local authority as a whole, taking into account the challenges facing our constituents, who will traverse both constituencies on an almost daily basis. I start by thanking the Government for their announcement earlier this week that £5.5 million will be made available for the rebuilding of Elland bridge. Having to rewrite this speech in the wake of that good news was a welcome inconvenience. The floods envoy, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), hit the nail on the head when he said during the announcement:
“A good local transport system is the lifeblood of the region, and key to a thriving economy.”
As the Minister may already know, the communications network that crosses Elland bridge is essential to businesses in the area, so discussion now moves from funding to the speed with which we can get it back up and running. Partly due to the bridge’s status as a grade II listed building, it is estimated that a replacement bridge will not be in place until December 2016.
Elland bridge will not be the only damaged structure with listed building status. Although, as a history graduate, I appreciate the significance of listed buildings in principle, where a listed structure is no longer fit for its intended purpose and, conversely, presents a danger to the public, what power do the Government have to work with Historic England to consider lifting that status, thereby giving local authorities, or in this instance, the Canal and River Trust, the greatest range of options for reconnecting communities as quickly as possible? I hope the Minister will consider looking into that.
Although the £5.5 million for Elland bridge is extremely welcome, new problems resulting from the flooding are arising on an almost daily basis, which is increasingly worrying. New landslips are compounding the existing damage. The combined cost of damage to infrastructure as a result of that weaponised river and the broader impact of Storm Eva—just to be clear, this excludes the money allocated for Elland bridge—is now in the region of £18.5 million. I am not saying that for impact or effect, and I am not rounding up. That is what we are facing in the cost of highways alone, and it is financially terrifying. I hope the Minister recognises that Calderdale Council will need support to cope with the scale of damage to infrastructure and that constructive dialogue on how to do that will follow today’s debate.
On where some of that money might come from, like many of my colleagues and constituents, I am confused as to why the Government have not yet applied to the EU solidarity fund for financial support. The Prime Minister said that he had looked carefully at the question of EU funding but decided that it was “quicker and better” to give the people the help they need from our own resources. Although it is a relief that we must have the resources to meet the financial challenges that I have just outlined, I ask the Government to think again and apply for the solidarity fund. There may be strings attached to that funding, but the Government have failed so far to give a credible answer as to why they have sent that opportunity begging. Will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to think again for the benefit of all those who stand to gain from tapping into that fund?
I visited several businesses in Sowerby Bridge immediately after the floods. Some are big employers in my constituency that have never flooded before, but the cost and devastation caused by flooding just once means that they are thinking long and hard about whether they want to rebuild in the same premises or to leave the valley altogether. I met small and medium-sized enterprises that had struggled to find affordable insurance due to their proximity to the river. At least one of the bigger businesses that I visited had business interruption insurance, but it is anxious about whether that same protection would still be available at an affordable price if it were to rebuild in the same location.
I mentioned in the recent floods debate in the main Chamber that Pulman Steel, a business in Sowerby Bridge that was visited by the Chancellor twice in the run-up to the 2010 and 2015 general elections, is faced with completely refitting its factory, and it is battling to be up and trading at full strength as soon as possible. I have written to the Chancellor inviting him on a return visit to Pulman Steel. He will be aware that Pulman Steel is a supplier to a number of key northern powerhouse infrastructure projects, so it is of strategic importance to the north and beyond that it is up and running. I ask the Chancellor to put his high-vis and his hard hat back on and to come and discuss with Pulman Steel how its situation has changed and what his team could be doing to support it as a key player in our local economy.
A shot-blasting company at Lee Bridge in Halifax and its neighbours were flooded three times in four weeks over the Christmas period due to a complicated culvert system that runs underneath the small industrial estate. Calderdale Council has identified that 800 businesses, which employ 4,588 people, will need financial support following the floods. The grants of £2,500 from Government funding are going out to businesses and are making a difference, but businesses such as the ones I have mentioned need specialist business support—they need not only cash but expertise. They face dilemmas around how to hold on to customers while they deal with the impact of the floods, or around how to remain competitive when they are faced with increased insurance bills, or quite simply around how to keep trading when the back wall of their premises and half their stock have ended up in the River Calder, as was sadly the case at some of the businesses that I saw at Tenterfields business park.
The local authority can provide some of that support, but I am here to echo Calderdale Council’s request to the Government that staff from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills get out to flood-affected areas and work with the local enterprise partnerships to bolster the specialist business support that could make such a big difference. I hope the Minister is in a position to give us assurances today that he will work with his colleagues in DBIS to send those delegations out from our central offices and to get experts’ boots on the ground, where they are most needed.
Everyone in this room will also appreciate that we cannot talk about business support without pressing for affordable insurance. The Federation of Small Businesses has carried out research that suggests that 75,000 smaller businesses at risk of flooding had found it difficult to find flood insurance, and that 50,000 had been refused cover.
Later this year, Flood Re is set to provide access to affordable insurance for around 350,000 households. Whether it is through an extension of Flood Re or through an alternative scheme, we must look long and hard at how we can offer the same protections to businesses that we have been able to offer to residents. The Association of British Insurers does not believe that extending Flood Re to businesses would be the answer. However we do it, we must find a way of delivering affordable protection, and I hope the Minister might be able to update hon. Members about any progress that has been made in that regard.
I appreciate that the issue of flood defences has one foot firmly in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but in this instance I believe that the other foot is firmly in the Department for Communities and Local Government. In an article written by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that was published in the Yorkshire Post on 30 December, she suggested that £280 million in Government funds will allow flood prevention schemes to go ahead in a number of areas, including Calderdale. Calderdale Council and the Environment Agency have worked closely together to identify which schemes would be required and where. Under the current funding formula, however, once the maximum Government contribution has met the maximum possible funds available from the local authority and any other funding streams, there is still a £15 million shortfall in delivering those projects.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
Of course, the flood defence formula that we are dealing with is the one that was changed just before 2010, and it causes particular problems for many people in our area across Yorkshire and the Humber, and particularly for a number of houses. I make that point not to be political—both Governments have operated under it. Does she agree that we need a root-and-branch review of the whole formula because it does not work in the way that people hoped it would, and are now ending up with situations in which schemes will not be funded because they do not have match funding?
Holly Lynch
The hon. Gentleman might be right. Actually, what we have got to look at is those schemes that were in place and how much they were going to cost. Will they work? Will they be effective in the light of the new models and the damage that we have seen this time? What would the cost of those schemes be, and how do we consider meeting that cost from Government and local authority funding?
I know that at least one scheme in particular would benefit the shot-blasting business that I mentioned, which sits directly above the culvert at Lee Bridge, and so I plead with the Minister to speak to his colleagues at DEFRA to seek clarity on behalf of the local authority, so that work can begin on those schemes—where they are now appropriate—without delay.
On a very pragmatic note, a proposal that I do not believe would cost a great deal at all is a national floods conference. It would be a meeting for all the affected local authorities to come together to discuss their experiences with the Government, but more importantly with one another. They could share best practice, and examine what worked and what did not work in terms of both flood defences and the emergency response to the flooding.
I genuinely believe that Calderdale Council responded as quickly and efficiently as was possible, but I hear from other hon. Members that they did not necessarily have the same experience with their local authorities. Further down the valley from Halifax in Hebden Bridge, there is a volunteer flood warden scheme, for example. Flood wardens have not been necessary in my constituency before now, but I am keen to explore this possibility, which may also be useful to other areas. What training have those wardens in Hebden Bridge had and how did the local authority mobilise them over the Christmas period? Would Calderdale benefit from more emergency planning? Do other local authorities, in Cumbria for example, already have emergency plans in place?
If there are examples of best practice that can be shared and lessons that can be learned following Storm Eva—and following Storms Desmond and Frank, for that matter—will DCLG consider organising such a national conference sooner rather than later, so that we can all learn from these recent experiences as we start to plan for the future?
Andrew Percy
I thank the hon. Member for giving way again, precisely because my area floods so consistently. Does she agree that one thing we should consider is organising from the bottom up rather than from the top down, through local parish councils where they exist? In my area, many of the parish councils now have emergency plans—they have been provided with funding from the local authorities to develop those plans. Actually, it was the people on those councils who, after every flooding incident we had, were the people out there on the ground. They have the connections into the local authority and the Environment Agency. That model exists already and we need to spread it across the country. That bottom-up approach, through parish councils, emergency plans and emergency committees, can be really effective.
Holly Lynch
I completely appreciate that intervention and those local schemes are very effective. For example, in my constituency—I am not aware of what the hon. Gentleman is doing in his constituency—such schemes might be effective, and that is why some oversight and some co-ordination might be helpful to get them off the ground. That is all I will say on that.
Finally, I return to the issue of volunteers and the at-times heroic efforts of local council officers and the emergency services. It was overwhelming to see the number of volunteers who came out to help following the worst of the rains on Boxing day. Ordinary people—most of them from the local area, but some from much further afield—came to play their part in the clean-up. The staggering generosity and compassion of those volunteers, who gave up time over the Christmas period that would otherwise have been spent with family and friends, allowed us to make a great deal of progress in the hours and days immediately after the floods. Volunteers took the lead on cleaning up the streets, and on helping homeowners and businesses with the removal of ruined and contaminated goods and furniture, which freed up council officers to deal with the most serious incidents. The depth of the community spirit that got us through the worst was staggering.
There were also acts of outstanding bravery from our emergency services, who worked around the clock to remove people from harm’s way. A local authority cabinet member told me this week that she had taken car keys from a council officer who had worked for almost four days straight with barely any sleep and called him a taxi, because she was worried that he was too exhausted to drive himself home. That is not an exceptional case. Council officers and staff came in to work over the Christmas period without a moment’s hesitation.
Will the Minister consider recognising outstanding contributions where local authority staff went over and above and served with distinction? Will he ask his colleagues at the Home Office to extend the same recognition to the emergency services and the volunteers who gave so much to their communities in what were desperate times? I appreciate that more could be done locally to recognise key individuals and key contributions.
I could go on, but I am aware that several hon. Members want to put their “asks” to the Minister. I will leave it there and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and the Minister’s response.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Order. Before we proceed, I advise Members that we will have Back-Bench Members’ contributions until about 5.48 pm. We can continue to 6.12 pm because of the delays that preceded this debate, and I intend to call the Front-Benchers to make their winding-up speeches from about 5.48 pm. You can all do the mathematics in that, and could you please try to be succinct to give proper leeway to the mover of the motion at the end of the debate, so that she can have a minute just to speak about how the debate has gone?
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Thank you, Sir Alan, for calling me to speak. As always it is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship.
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for securing the debate on a subject that has affected both of our constituencies on a horrendous scale. In total, 2,700 homes and 1,635 businesses were flooded; three bridges are down; four schools were affected; there was a landslide that affected 17 homes, and a school was closed as a result; and there was major damage to vital roads and other infrastructure all over Calder Valley and indeed all over Calderdale. So far, the bill for the infrastructure damage alone is in excess of £20 million, which is massive, and that is not to mention the pain and misery suffered by many of our constituents.
The Government response to date has been rapid and welcome: a £12 million package for households and businesses to help with initial costs; Bellwin at 100%; and, as has already been mentioned, £5.5 million for Elland bridge, which is in Calder Valley. We have also had £2 million in match funding, which I know has been welcomed by a lot of people locally.
As my neighbour, the hon. Member for Halifax, has already said, we need further help, but I will not go over the ground that has already been covered. Instead, I will raise two main points on relieving pressure on local authorities. First, insurance is a problem for most people in businesses. We know Flood Re takes effect from April. Sadly, it will not help homes that could not get insurance this time before the floods, but it will in future. The major issue is that Flood Re does not include businesses. So many of my well established businesses, despite paying for flood insurance, in some cases for decades, are now finding that they have not been covered for flooding. The results are catastrophic for many. It will mean many businesses in Calder Valley will not reopen, and many jobs and much expertise will be lost.
In reply to a question a couple of weeks ago during Question Time, the Prime Minister said that the insurance industry says all businesses will be offered insurance. That may be the case in some instances, but it is not the case for many.
Those that were offered insurance saw phenomenal premiums with equally high excesses. A local sandwich shop was offered insurance for £10,000 with a £10,000 excess. A local factory owner was offered insurance, but with a £30,000 excess for flooding. A world-renowned British furniture manufacturer in Mytholmroyd was insured for stock but not equipment, and lost more than £600,000. Christmas orders were massive, but there were no facilities to fulfil those orders.
A destination retailer lost £650,000. A fireplace manufacturer and retailer, offered no option of insurance, is facing ruin. A major supplier of coir mats to supermarkets and hardware stores all over Europe lost all its stock. It had no insurance; no stock to supply ongoing; penalty charges for non-delivery; and it is tied into its current lease for three years. If those businesses manage to get up and running again, they face no prospect of being able to get insurance and no prospect of getting out of leases to relocate. If they do relocate, our local valley bottom towns will die: places such as Todmorden, Hebden Bridge, Mytholmroyd and Elland. We need our businesses to stay to feed our local economies and keep the skill set that has grown up with these businesses over decades and generations.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. He is absolutely right to focus on business insurance and the problems that local businesses face. However, is it not also true that many businesses have not been flooded, but are hugely affected because the wider regional economy is affected? Is it not right that we send out a clear message that Yorkshire is open for business? My area and that of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) are certainly open for business, and I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency is definitely open for business.
Craig Whittaker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I had a call only this morning from a local farm business—Porcus—that supplies pork sausages far and wide, not only in Calder Valley but in many of the flood areas as well. The business is down 75%, even though it has not been hit by the floods.
We are supporting private homes with Flood Re, but to not support businesses with insurance is criminal. Will the Minister consider urgent talks with the insurance industry and look again at Flood Re—if not Flood Re, something else—to include businesses as well? If no urgent progress can be made, will he look at introducing secondary legislation to force insurers to insure companies for floods at a level that is affordable and fair to all?
As I have said, the pain and suffering of Calder Valley residents over Christmas has been horrendous. To have the possibility of losing their jobs as well as their homes and businesses is a bridge too far—if you can find a bridge in Calder Valley still standing. The situation is dire, and the Government could help in a way that would help far more than a simple cash injection. On behalf of Calder Valley business owners, please, please, please can we sort out their plight with insurance? That would also alleviate many pressures that the local authority is currently picking up on.
My second point—I will be brief—concerns planning and co-ordination. The floods happening on Boxing day meant that many people were at home, and help among communities and neighbours was humbling and incredible to see in action. A multitude of agencies and Government Departments were very difficult to contact and get hold of because they were not working, because it was Christmas, or they were on holiday.
Local farmers were saying in November that the moors and hilltops were saturated with water after record rainfalls in November. Some were warning that if we had severe rainfall in December, we would be in trouble, as the only place for water to go when the land up above is saturated is downhill. That is exactly what happened.
It took several days for the recovery to get fully under way because of the lack of agency co-ordination among Yorkshire Water, the Environment Agency, the National Grid, utility companies, including mobile phone providers —we had areas with no phone coverage at all—Calderdale Council, the Canal and River Trust, Network Rail, highways, police, fire, ambulance, the Army, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and the Department for Communities and Local Government. I am sure there are many more.
In areas such as Calder Valley, where we suffer from flooding on a fairly regular basis and where the floods are getting far more frequent and severe—we had floods in 2000, 2007, 2012, and of course recently in 2015—we need one individual or one individual agency to take responsibility on behalf of all agencies, not just to mobilise all agencies as a co-ordinated response, but to flag areas where flooding can be reduced. For example, if Yorkshire Water had released some capacity from reservoirs in November, the flow downhill could have been slowed. The Canal and River Trust could have opened locks at strategic points. The Environment Agency could have warned residents to move cars, for example, in multiple parking areas that were flooded. All that needs co-ordinating through one person or one body. Although it would not have prevented all the flooding, it would have prevented some of it and would have saved millions of pounds’ worth of damage to infrastructure and personal possessions.
To sum up, may we have a serious look at having one person or one body that will be responsible in areas such as Calder Valley for co-ordinating a rapid response from all agencies during disasters like the one we have just experienced, and that will also hopefully help to prevent them on the scale that Calder Valley has just experienced?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for securing today’s debate. There have been different experiences, but we are hearing very much from Yorkshire today. Many aspects of the operations in York are to be highly praised—the mountain rescue team, the Army, the public sector workers who gave up their Christmases, and the awesome response from volunteers across the city, mainly co-ordinated through one person, Chelle Holmes, and her Facebook page, “York Floods 2015: Help for the affected”, with its 14,000 members, which put together the operation. That, together with BBC Radio York, became the mainstay of communications.
Other parts of the operation have been heavily criticised by people on the ground. Much of this has boiled down to communication and co-ordination during the flood period. It has now become clear from a meeting in the city last Friday that the local authority had no plan for the Foss catchment should flooding occur, despite the council’s strategic flood risk assessment highlighting a greater than one-in-10-year risk of the capacity of the River Foss exceeding the capacity of the pumps at the barrier. To give some context, the River Foss is protected from the far larger river, the Ouse, by a sixteen-and-a-half-tonne steel barrier. When flows of the Ouse rise, the barrier is closed to protect the Foss catchment, and eight pumps are switched on to pump up to 30.4 tonnes a second.
The capacity of the water was 35 tonnes a second over Christmas. The pumps could not cope, and water surged up into the pump house, where the power for the pumps and operations for the barrier were. The decision was therefore to switch off the power supply and lift the barrier in the belief that this was the least worst option and could save 1,000 homes. Reports from the Environment Agency going back to 2004 show that there was a risk of this happening. In the 30 years of the barrier, there has been no attempt to raise the level of the electrics, which are at a low level. There was a plan to lift them higher, but planning permission was denied to the agency at the time.
The revelation that there was no plan should the barrier fail and not be able to cope is quite astounding, and it has left people in York angered, upset and certainly with a host of questions that still need answers. I have been inundated with correspondence. I have been going door to door, and I have held a series of community meetings with residents and with business to ensure that we drill down on the issues and raise them, as we now are, with the various agencies.
I want to raise various points about action for the future. The first and perhaps most vital is that I want to see all local authorities having flood plans externally audited. This will ensure that we will have the right support in place at the right time and that local authorities are not left with the burden of marking their own homework. We know that there were certainly some serious flaws in York during the flooding. Vulnerable people, particularly those in an elderly residential complex and an area where Travellers live, saw no one at all from the council. People self-evacuated when the waters rose. There were also difficulties with the sandbag operation—not only were there problems filling them, not enough shovels and not enough personnel to fill them, but there was no distribution plan. That must be addressed.
There were problems with phones even before 45,000 phones went down—an issue that is the subject of a different inquiry. If someone whose home was being flooded called the number that the Environment Agency gave to the council, they got an answer machine message saying that the council was returning to work on the Tuesday morning. That is not good enough. When the phones at the council came back into operation, just four people were answering calls. We need proper plans in place.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I am listening with interest to what my hon. Friend is saying about the response of her local council. In my city, Leeds, the council responded to the floods amazingly. Nevertheless, the council is worried about the future and what the additional cuts to its budgets will mean, not only for its day-to-day capacity for things such as keeping gullies clean, but for how it will respond in emergency situations. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?
Rachael Maskell
Absolutely. Part of the inquiry I am carrying out is about how much cuts to date have affected the resources available to the plethora of agencies involved and how that will be addressed in future, what with further cuts planned, including to the fire and rescue service, which was overstretched over the Christmas period.
People gave up their Christmases, but there was no one to direct them to where they should volunteer. Again, that was a serious problem. I could discuss other issues, such as electrics being switched on in residential council accommodation without sockets being checked and people being denied their £500 despite their properties being flooded. The list is enormous—it is six pages long—but the Minister probably gets the gist: things must be improved. The council has said that it will carry out its own independent investigation. It is incredibly important that it truly is independent, that all questions are asked and that no stone is left unturned.
I want to share some of the other questions and issues that people have raised. We must recognise that the agencies came together and ensured that nobody died, but important questions have been raised. First, the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax that we hold a conference to try to share best practice was excellent. We are learning a lot at the moment, so it is important that we share best practice in a structured way to ensure that local authorities draw on it to respond to communities.
Secondly, I ask the Government to hold an inquiry into the communications failure. Elderly residents who depend on their Lifeline personal alarms were left without any communications at all. I explained earlier the situation with the phones. When phones go down in an emergency, we should be able to switch systems. Even the ambulance service did not have a system to call on. We should be able to switch call centres to enable a continuous response. We must even look at the basics on the ground. Someone with a loud hailer or a siren could have made such a difference to people’s lives.
Thirdly, I very much support the point made by the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) about expediency in responding. We have a local barracks, but we had to wait for a process to be gone through before soldiers were mobilised. It could have been done a lot quicker. I am going to meet Brigadier Strickland to discuss future military involvement.
Fourthly, we have heard about the success of the flood wardens on the ground who were able to bring things together. There is now a real appetite among the community to ensure that flood wardens are part of the future strategy. It is really important to draw on that experience.
Fifthly, there is concern about drainage, which relates back to the point about local authority resourcing. Gullies, drains and ditches must be cleared. Surface water was a factor in the flooding in parts of the city, so we need to ensure that the right resources are in place to address it. We must also ensure that drainage and sewage are dealt with appropriately, because Yorkshire Water suffered a breach when its pumps failed and sewage went into the mainstream water supply.
Sixthly, we must ensure that there is better flood literacy. There is an assumption that people know how to address issues appertaining to floods and how to build resilience for the future. We cannot make assumptions in these situations, so it is vital that we ensure that there is proper education around floods—what people need to do, how they should respond and how they can protect themselves for the future.
Holly Lynch
On that point, because volunteers were so enthusiastic—so keen to get involved and help people where they could—there were issues with education and keeping safe volunteers who were almost too keen and were potentially exposing themselves to risk. That is part of the education that might be required for the future.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point that is true not only for during the flooding, when people are trying to save lives and protect the public, but for the clean-up operation. Clearly, when people are dealing with sewage, they are also dealing with risk. People need to be made aware of the risks and how best to protect themselves.
Seventhly, we have heard very clearly that businesses really do require support. Last Friday I brought together the local chamber of commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses and the local enterprise partnership to discuss how we can support business better at times of flood. It is clear that our city centre, like so many towns and cities, is experiencing a downturn in trade, so it is important that we get more support to local authorities to help with plans to build capacity back into the city.
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend mentions the impact on businesses. In my constituency, around 250 small businesses have been affected by the floods, but those businesses employ 2,500 people, most of whom have not been working since Boxing day. That is a real worry. As well as talking about the businesses, we should be mindful of the people who work for them and think about the support we can provide to them, both to regenerate the places where they work and to support them in the interim.
Rachael Maskell
I totally agree.
Finally, I want to raise the issue of personal finances. So many people in my constituency who were flooded could not afford any insurance at all. They just do not have the resources to pay for insurance, and £500 does not stretch far. All I have been told is that they need to draw on charitable sources. We need a more structured approach to support people who, in their poverty, have lost even more.
There are so many things that I could raise; this is just the start. I hope that there will be an opportunity for MPs to gather together to share their intelligence and concerns and to raise issues that they believe could help future operations. As we gather that intelligence, between us we could ensure that sufficient plans are in place to address the need, should such floods occur again. With climate change on its way, there is a high possibility that that could be the case.
Calum Kerr (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (SNP)
As seems to be in keeping with proceedings in Westminster Hall, this has been an enlightening and constructive debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on kicking it off so perfectly. Her description of the River Calder as becoming weaponised is something I can relate to. I walked through very shallow flood water in Hawick in my constituency and was taken by the sheer power, even of shallow water. The sheer force was incredible, which means all the more credit should go to those who went out and worked for days and nights to try to help people to save properties and businesses throughout the UK. We thank them for their commitment and hard work.
The hon. Lady made a number of excellent points that brought home the incredible damage and range of costs that have resulted from the flooding. I echo her thoughts on the EU solidarity fund. The fact that it might take a while to get the money suggests to me that perhaps they think we will be out of the EU by the time it comes through. I do not care: let us get the money, because it should all help. Everything helps, and every pound is a prisoner nowadays, so absolutely, let us apply and have some benefit from the EU instead of continually complaining about it.
The hon. Lady made an excellent point about Flood Re. I realise that there are some challenges and that we have to be careful, but if there is a will, there is a way, so I am sure we can do something.
Andrew Percy
I sat on the Bill Committee that debated Flood Re, so I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if a business is also a residence, it falls within the scheme. The problem is that Flood Re is paid for by other consumers. Nobody of any party in the Bill Committee tabled an amendment to include businesses, because the cost would be passed on to other consumers. That is the rub.
Calum Kerr
Absolutely. That is a great articulation of the challenges, but as I said, if there is a will, there is a way. Let us look at what schemes we can put in place, even though there will be limitations.
The hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) talked about the importance of insurance for businesses. He brought the issue alive with some detailed figures about the impact on businesses. It is easy to talk about things conceptually, but personalised stories enable us to really understand how important this is.
Having a single agency is an interesting idea, but the approach in Scotland is different. Granted, we have a considerably smaller population, but the structure of the agencies is different, so we have an opportunity to share lessons and experiences and learn from one another. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the importance of learning lessons. Although floods happen too often, thankfully they do not happen very often. Whenever they happen and cause people trauma and disruption, we need to look for lessons that we can learn. As the hon. Lady said, we already knew some things from past problems. Let us ensure we do not say the same thing when the next event happens, as it surely will. She came up with a number of great suggestions as a way forward.
The reality is between December and January—certainly in Scotland—we had the greatest rainfall in the past 100 years of available records, and there were 50 new record river levels across Scotland. We will probably not get used to climate change, but it means that we need to look at how we manage severe weather in the future. Local authorities in Scotland were at the centre of the relief operations. They worked in partnership with the Scottish Government and other agencies to distribute funds and plan for future risk.
In Scotland, the draft budget provided £4 million of extra funding for the local authorities most affected by flooding, including my constituency, which was one of the worst hit. The Scottish Borders Council got nearly £2 million. Earlier this month, Nicola Sturgeon announced an additional £12 million of funding to help affected areas, including capital funding of up to £5 million for local authorities to replace infrastructure severely damaged by flood waters. An additional £5.8 million has been allocated to households and businesses, including a provision for local authorities to make payments of £1,500 to households, businesses, charities and communities affected by flooding. A flat-rate grant payment of £3,000, which will be funded separately by the Scottish Government, can also be made to businesses to offset clean-up costs.
Earlier this month, I was in Selkirk with the Scottish Environment Minister to launch our first ever flood risk management plan, which includes 14 local strategies. In June, local authority-led partnerships will set out a detailed action plan with details of how that plan will be delivered up to 2021. The Scottish response has been rapid, comprehensive and effective, with partnership and local authority action at its heart, but we still have lessons to learn, and we strive to do so. We recognise that there are severe challenges across the UK. We welcome all UK Government investment in flood prevention, not least because it led to Barnett consequentials, which we gratefully received.
Flooding is not going to go away, so the Scottish Government have prioritised prevention. We need to share best practice across the UK and in the regions and develop a fuller understanding of the issue. The UK and Scottish Governments can and should learn from each other. That is an example of how the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for securing this important debate. All hon. Members who contributed made excellent points. My hon. Friend made the important point that only one Government Department can respond to this issue. We discussed which Department is the most appropriate to respond, but the responsibility fell to the Department for Communities and Local Government. I will do my best to sum up the debate, and I am sure the Minister will respond in kind.
Hon. Members made several important points. I do not want to repeat what everybody said, because I want to hear what the Minister has to say in answer to them. It is, however, important that we talk about electricity sub-stations, which is an issue that I have raised in the Chamber. We need to do something about our flood defences around electricity sub-stations. The major issue in my area was not the flooding, but the power cuts that left 20,000 homes in the borough of Rochdale without electricity for a long time, so the Government must improve flood defences around our power stations.
An important point was made about the listed building status. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on what we should do when a building or structure becomes unfit for purpose. I fully appreciate the problems that my hon. Friend, who is a history graduate, has with that issue. We need to pay a lot of attention to it.
Let us apply for the EU solidarity fund. I do not understand why the Government keep saying, “It’s difficult; it’s a lengthy process.” Prevaricating makes the process even lengthier.
Several Members talked about business support. I fully concur with my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), and with the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr). Every Member in the Chamber mentioned business insurance, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West made a very important point about people who are still out of work because damage to their business has made it unable to operate.
I fully support the idea of getting Department for Business, Innovation and Skills staff to bring their expertise to flooded areas. We have been called on to work with other Departments. It is really important that we use our expertise to advise businesses that are struggling with ruined stock and problems with insurance.
The idea of a national floods conference is excellent. Everyone in the Chamber said that we need to learn lessons and that local councils can learn from best practice. We heard about some brilliant examples of good practice and some not so good examples where there were delays in communication. In York Central, there were problems with the phone lines.
We could spend three hours on this debate, but I will wind up to give the Minister sufficient time to respond. Will he consider the example of the Somerset Rivers Authority? It has been given the power to raise a shadow precept from April 2016, which enables it to raise additional funding for flood risk. Will the Government allow other areas to use a similar mechanism where there is local agreement to do so?
Sir Alan Meale (in the Chair)
Before the Minister starts, I want to say that we have had a full and frank debate. Members on both sides have been very kind in being here for the whole of this very serious debate and restricting themselves to making interventions. This is a very difficult subject, and we are grateful for that. I ask the Minister to leave a little time at the end for the mover of the motion to respond to the debate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (James Wharton)
Thank you, Sir Alan. I will of course take that request on board and endeavour to do so. The debate has been constructive, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on bringing it forward.
Those whose constituents have been affected know just how devastating flooding can be and the impact that it has on individuals, businesses and communities. Whether an area has a small number of homes or, as we have sadly seen in some areas during the recent storms, a significant number of homes, that makes little difference to the person or business affected by flooding. We need to look right across all areas to see what we can do to support them now that we have passed through the immediate response phase. We must ensure that recovery starts, that businesses are protected as best we can, that homeowners are given the support that they need, and that we recognise the good response work that so many different agencies, local authorities and volunteers have done. We must do everything that we can to mitigate the flooding’s impact.
December was a record-breaking month for rainfall in some parts of the UK, with exceptional amounts of rain falling on to already saturated ground. Over the weekend of 5 and 6 December, we experienced the highest levels of rainfall ever recorded in a 24-hour period in the UK. Around 7,000 properties were initially reported as flooded. Over Christmas and new year, we experienced more heavy and sustained rainfall, which resulted in widespread flooding across the north of England. At the height of this second incident, 32 severe flood warnings were in place and around 9,000 properties were initially reported as flooded. It has been a major series of incidents and the impact has been significant, as we have heard in hon. Member’s comments today.
We deployed resources and personnel to where they were most needed in what was a fast-moving, complex situation. The multi-agency response to the flooding was rapid, with the army deployed from day one and with assets deployed and money paid out to local authorities in record time. We wanted to ensure that local authorities had the financial support that they needed to respond quickly, and without hesitation and concern as to what would follow. Cobra met 14 times, including daily between Christmas eve and new year’s eve, to assess impacts and to co-ordinate where and how most effectively to deploy further resources from across Government to support affected communities. The Environment Agency, local authorities, fire and police, military personnel, the voluntary sector, utility providers, communities and a range of individuals came together to respond to what was such a significant incident.
I also include in that list many Members of Parliament. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is in the Chamber, was out in his constituency delivering sandbags to those who needed them during the Christmas recess. He was working hard to look after and protect his constituents and to ensure that they were given every support. Members were not only out doing things on the ground. Many were also talking to Ministers, responders and their local authorities, feeding in what was going well and what they wanted done differently, ensuring that the response was as informed as it could be, so that it could do what was needed to minimise the impact of such a significant weather event.
It is appropriate to put on the record the scale of the response and the scale of what we were responding to. The Government have announced support packages worth around £200 million. Money has been given out in record time. There have been concerted efforts to co-ordinate across Government Departments and agencies. We have seen so many individuals work so hard throughout the period.
I want to address some of the specific points raised by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Halifax made specific reference to Elland bridge and the welcome £5.5 million for its repair. She asked about its listing and what that means for the repair work. Listed buildings are complex, and it is sometimes difficult to know the right answer. The list of listed buildings is maintained by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and if consideration is to be given to delist a building, it would be done in consultation with Historic England to ensure that it is the right thing to do. If the hon. Lady wants to pursue the matter, I am happy to assist in facilitating that. I do not know what the outcome will be, because we will have to look at the impact and at the bridge’s contribution and consider Historic England’s views, but if she feels that it is an avenue worth pursuing, we should discuss it further.
The hon. Lady and several other hon. Members have asked about the European Union solidarity fund and I want to make the Government’s position absolutely clear. We have not ruled out applying for such funds, but we need to understand what that would mean, what sums of money we are talking about, which incidents are eligible, and what resource would need to be put in to the complex process of applying—it is an incredibly complex fund.
However, we have not yet reached a deadline by which a decision whether to apply would have to be taken, so we are looking to understand the impact across the board to see how it breaks down and what making an application would mean. A decision will be made at the appropriate time as to whether it is the right thing to do. It is true that it takes a long time for such funding to be paid. I believe it is in the region of six to seven months from the date at which we can make an application, which has not yet arrived. It would not therefore provide the immediate relief that many areas are looking for, but if going through that process is the right thing to do, it is of course what we will look to do. We want to understand exactly what it would mean and exactly what sums we are talking about before giving a black or white answer, which some Members may seek, because the picture is not as simple as some—not anyone who has contributed to the debate today—in public discussion have occasionally attempted to present it.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the cases of specific businesses and the level of Government business support. My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) also referred to several businesses in his constituency about which he has concerns. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has teams located across the country, and our teams covering the north-west, Yorkshire, Humber and the north-east are working closely with local partners on business recovery. Where specific expertise or additional support is needed, I encourage hon. Members to contact me with the details. Our teams can be deployed to try to provide support, advice and guidance, and we will look to direct them to any businesses in Members’ constituencies that have been specifically affected. I am happy not only to take on board the comments that have been made during the debate, but to take something constructive and proactive away from it should hon. Members want to contact me.
The proposal for a national floods conference has merit—it would be foolish of me to say we would not consider it. At this time, we have to support local authorities with their significant ongoing work dealing with the situation, but in the longer term I see no reason why we would not want to consider such a conference.
Andrew Percy
I agree with the Minister that that is something to consider, but we have been here before, through such lesson-learning exercises—guidance was issued years ago to local authorities about the need for emergency plans. My contribution, which I hope to make in this intervention, is that they are not top-down only. The 2007 event hit my area, as all those other events have, but we are in exactly the same position with resources. The response has to be bottom-up, with strategic sandbag stores in the localities, run by parish council emergency committees, such as the one established in my area, and with local flood warnings. We have to have a bottom-up approach. I commend to him North Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire for the funding that they have provided to parish councils to do just that, so that the parish councils are the people who respond to an event.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that I have shown in many different kinds of debate my support for devolution and for allowing people at the appropriate level to make decisions and to drive forward responses, whether to flooding or in other areas of local government. We have seen some of the lessons learned in the Government response to the events of recent weeks and months. We have seen funding transferred quickly to local authorities, but control over how it is spent has also been devolved to them. They have had much greater flexibility in how they deliver schemes, in how they support local areas and in what they do. We have looked not only to support but to empower local authorities to do what is needed with that £200 million of funding on which I have already commented.
Rachel Reeves
I agree with the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) that a bottom-up approach is needed. Floods are an example of an area in which we have to pool risk and share resources, including for flood defences. In 2011, the Government scrapped the flood defence scheme in Leeds that would have protected the area from the city centre and the train station up to Newlay bridge. Had that scheme been in place, the Boxing day floods would not have had the same devastating impact on Kirkstall. I urge the Minister to take the opportunity to learn the lessons from the floods and to put in place the comprehensive defence schemes necessary if we are to create a northern powerhouse.
James Wharton
I gave way hoping that the constructive nature of our debate would continue, but I fear that we are starting to venture into broader points of a party political nature, which I had hoped we would avoid. In 2005, the Government spent £1.5 billion on flood defences; the coalition Government in the last Parliament spent £1.7 billion; and in this Parliament £2.5 billion is to be spent—a real-terms increase in each consecutive Parliament.
We need to learn lessons, however, and we need to look at what the areas can do. We need to listen to what local communities understand about their areas and about what has to be done.
James Wharton
I have given way to the hon. Lady once, but now I must wrap up so that the Member who introduced the debate may conclude it.
It is important that we recognise that MPs from across politics and the areas affected have worked well in and with their communities. Lessons have been learned from what has happened before, and we have seen evidence of those lessons in the route that Government response has taken recently. We ensured that funding got out more quickly and we gave local authorities as much flexibility with it as we could to ensure that they could respond properly. We are continuing that in the nature of the resilience funding that we are providing, which is up to £5,000 per flooded household. Furthermore, only last week at a meeting in Manchester, we gave guidance to local authorities that gave them flexibility on how they will deliver their schemes, because we recognise that different areas need different things.
Hon. Members have raised a number of important issues, some of which I have been able to touch on, including insurance. We need to continue to look, to listen and to learn lessons from what has happened. A lot is being done, but we can always ask, “Can we do more?” My hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley wanted a single responsible person, but we have already seen great improvements in how Government respond and bring Departments together. We have seen the appointment of flood envoys by the Prime Minister in response to some of what we have seen happening recently. We always ought to look at where we might go further and what else we might do, however, and my hon. Friend’s ideas are valuable.
James Wharton
I will give way to my hon. Friend, but then I must conclude and allow the hon. Member for Halifax to sum up.
Julian Sturdy
In the spirit of bringing people, Departments and local authorities together, does the Minister not agree that, when we are talking about spending money on flood defences, we have to look at the whole catchment area? That might mean spending money to defend York outside the city in the wider catchment area.
James Wharton
My hon. Friend makes an important point that will of course form part of our considerations. I hope I have been able to answer some of the questions asked by hon. Members. I am always happy to have further discussions and meetings, whether in debates or outside the Chamber. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Halifax who introduced the debate might wish to add a further comment.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister for his comments. I will follow some issues up with him in more detail, if that is okay. I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate today, and I thank you, Sir Alan, for your chairmanship. I hope we can all work constructively together to prevent some of the damage we have seen recently in future events.
Written Statements
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Civil Society (Mr Rob Wilson)
I am today placing in the Library of the House the Department’s analysis on the application of Standing Order 83L in respect of the Government amendments tabled for Commons Report stage for the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill.
Attachments can be found online at: http:// www.parliament.uk/writtenstatements
[HCWS477]
Police Reform
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)
The Government consulted in September 2015 on a series of reforms to enhance the powers of designated police staff and, for the first time, enable volunteers to be designated with powers without taking on the office of Special Constable. We also proposed that, for the first time, a single piece of legislation should set out the core list of powers available only to those that hold the office of constable.
As I said when I launched the consultation in September, the office of constable is central to the delivery of policing in England and Wales. But I was equally clear that we needed to explore whether police staff and volunteers could play a key role in helping officers to police our communities, bringing new skills and expertise, and freeing up police officers to concentrate on the core policing task that most requires their particular powers and experience.
Today I am announcing the Government’s consultation response, which sets out the key themes highlighted in the consultation and our response to the issues raised. We received 150 responses from a wide range of representative bodies and individuals, from members of police forces, existing police staff and volunteers and from the wider public.
The majority of the responses were supportive of all our proposed reforms and were clear that there is indeed a role for police staff and volunteers, provided of course that they are appropriately selected, trained and accountable for the role that they undertake.
The vast majority of responses (86%) agreed with the principal proposal to give chief officers a greater level of control over the designation of powers on their staff. Sixty seven per cent of responses agreed that chief officers should be able to designate powers on volunteers.
The proposal to create a list of powers exercisable only by police officers was very well received, with 92.5% of respondents welcoming this. The content of that list, as set out in the consultation document, was also well received, with few proposals to add to the list and none to subtract from it. We have accepted the suggestion from the Police Federation of England and Wales to add the power to conduct intimate searches to this list.
Given the majority of respondents welcomed all of the proposals, with the caveats in some areas as summarised above, we intend to legislate in the forthcoming Policing and Crime Bill to give effect to the proposals consulted on, with the small number of changes set out in the consultation response which has been published today.
[HCWS478]
House of Lords
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Death of a Member: Lord Weidenfeld
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
NHS: Preventive Medicine
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Rawlings
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend further to incorporate preventive medicine into the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, the NHS five-year forward view set out a shared vision for the future of the NHS. It includes the long-standing aspiration for the NHS to focus as much on prevention and promoting wellness as managing poor health, working in partnership with local public health services through health and well-being boards.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his positive reply. I never thought that I would quote in your Lordships’ House the leader of the Opposition in the other place. He asked the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s Questions recently whether he had,
“forgotten the simple maxim that prevention is cheaper and better than cure”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/15; col. 1545.]
I commend the National Health Service for shifting its policy from sickness and cure to wellness and prevention. Would the Minister, through the National Health Service, encourage private health insurance organisations to do likewise, thus evading certain serious sicknesses and not adding to the National Health Service’s overstretched budget?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, there is clearly a direct legal contractual relationship between a private insurance company and an individual. The NHS cannot interfere directly with that contract. There is no similar legal relationship between the NHS and the citizen, although there is clearly a social and moral contract between the two. As part of that contract the state agrees to provide free, high-quality healthcare. It is only right that the individual should accept personal responsibility for their health and well-being, and that of their family.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Can I make a suggestion to the Minister? If the Government want to take preventive medicine seriously, they should invite Sir Nicholas Wald, Professor of preventive medicine at the Wolfson Institute, to come and talk about his lifetime’s work on things such as the polypill, and, indeed, his leadership in1990 of the Medical Research Council’s work on preventing spina bifida and neural tube defects in babies by the use of folic acid in flour.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue today. We discussed it yesterday and the Government will give him a full response to the issue of fortifying bread with folic acid in the very near future.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Does the Minister recognise in his answer that people should be responsible for their own health and the health of their families that there is a responsibility on the NHS to ensure that there is adequate support before, during and after bereavement of children? The preventive effect on mental health problems later in life is very clearly shown. Those who are unsupported do less well in the whole life course in mental health, and in social and educational outcomes.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, clearly, the state has a huge role to play in prevention; I was certainly not questioning that for one moment. I was just saying that I believe that individuals and families have responsibilities as well.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, given that £1 in every £5 of healthcare costs is associated with conditions that could be prevented, what assessment have the Government made of the likely cost savings on NHS spending of using more preventive medicine?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, if the noble Baroness reads the Five Year Forward View, she will see that prevention is a very critical part of that. But, of course, prevention goes much wider than healthcare in the NHS; it goes to employment, housing, education and a whole range of other things. Having a strong and vibrant economy with high levels of employment is vital.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, in their preventive strategy what will the Government do to attend to the social determinants of ill health, including inequality, deprivation in early childhood and deteriorating public services?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, it is a very serious issue that over 40 years, and probably for longer, the difference between the life expectancy of the rich and the poor has always remained at about 10 years: and for healthy living it is more like 25 years. I think it is fully understood from Sir Michael Marmot’s report and thereafter that the social determinants are more important in closing that gap than anything we can do in healthcare directly, so what the noble Lord says is absolutely true.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
In the 2015 report Opportunity Knocks: Designing Solutions for an Ageing Society, the University of Cambridge Engineering Design Centre, the ILC-UK and the IET highlighted the vital role of good design and technology in supporting preventive medicine, particularly, but not exclusively, for older people. The OBR warned us last year that without technological innovation over the next decade, health spending in 2063 might be 5% of GDP higher than currently projected. Do Her Majesty’s Government agree that we must invest in technology to save money by facilitating the preferred solution of sustaining independent living, particularly among older people and those subject to the revolving door syndrome? Will the Government support this and invest in it?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, good design is very much part of any long-term strategy towards improving the lives of our citizens, so it is a hugely important part of our longer-term strategy.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, we know that smoking is by far the biggest cause of death in the UK and research shows that two-thirds of smokers want to quit, yet the recent ASH survey has shown that the cuts in public health funding and in council budgets have led to 40% of local authorities having to cut stop smoking services. Last year these were used by more than 450,000 people. They are three times more likely to quit if they get the vital support of these services. How can it make sense to cut services when for every £1 spent on cessation services, £10 is saved in future NHS and health gains?
Lord Prior of Brampton
Successive Governments have had a huge impact on reducing smoking levels, which are now down to 18%—the lowest they have ever been.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, would this not be a suitable subject to be considered by a royal commission on the health service, which my noble friend Lord Fowler has advocated and for which he has considerable support in all parts of the House?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the issue to which my noble friend refers was fairly fully discussed in a debate in this House initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, only some two months ago. If Members of this House wish to discuss it further, they are, of course, very welcome to do so. However, I am not sure that a royal commission is necessarily the right way to proceed.
Housing: Underoccupancy Charge
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the effect of the underoccupancy charge on the health and well-being of those subject to it.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
Our reforms are designed to ensure that work always pays and the removal of the spare room subsidy has incentivised more people to enter work and increase their earnings. Evidence shows that work can keep people healthy as well as help promote recovery if someone falls ill. Those who require additional support can access discretionary housing payments and we are making more than £800 million available over the next five years.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, the Government—and indeed the Minister in previous replies—have failed absolutely to concede that there has been an adverse effect on the health and well-being of those who are subjected to the bedroom tax. The Minister talks about evidence, but has he read the reports commissioned by his own department, the academic studies that have been done by a number of universities, the information from local authorities, the information from citizens advice bureaux, or the personal testimonies on blogs such as the “My Spare Room” blog? They tell a very different story. In the light of this overwhelming evidence, what changes will he bring in to this policy?
Lord Freud
This is now a long-standing policy of this Government, to make sure that we tie in the availability of social housing to those who need it. People tend to forget the numbers who are on waiting lists or are in overcrowded accommodation and that this policy of matching available stock to people’s requirements improves their outcomes.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell us what is happening in health and well-being in this country?
Lord Freud
We have run a well-being survey since 2012, published by the ONS. I am pleased to report that, on all four key measures of well-being, there has been an improvement every year since the survey started almost four years ago; that is, in life satisfaction, finding activity worthwhile, happiness, and reduction of anxiety.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I understand what the Government are attempting to achieve through the underoccupancy charge, but does the Minister have an estimate of the number of people who are subject to that charge for whom there is no appropriately sized accommodation available? Does he have any plans to relieve those particular households from the charge, when it is no fault of their own that they cannot move out?
Lord Freud
We saw in the report that came out just before Christmas—which we were able to discuss in this Chamber—that nearly 100,000 people have moved and are no longer affected by the removal of the spare room subsidy. More than half of them have been able to downsize—mainly within the social sector, but some in the private sector. More want to do so and the process is continuing.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry to get up, but the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, has been trying to get in for a little while. Then we should go to the Labour Benches.
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, it is really welcome that the Government have initiated the discretionary housing benefit allowance to offset the negative impacts that the spare room tax has on people’s health and well-being. Despite this extra subsidy, many people are affected. They are going to food banks and are in significant rent arrears. This will be compounded by the ESA WRAG component, under which many people with mental health problems and with a disability may be further affected and may lose their homes. Can the Minister say how this effect will be mitigated?
Lord Freud
I just want to point out to the House that some of the concerns that the House rightly had about the impact of this policy on what would be happening to arrears and so forth have actually not come to pass. We are looking now at rent collection levels in the social sector at 99%, and 92% of social housing associations are saying that they are within plan and that customers are managing their rent accounts well.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
My Lords, once again the Minister has talked about the policy incentivising people, but the report to which he just referred—which, as he said, we discussed just before Christmas—found that only 5% of those affected actually found work, and about half of those were still subject to the bedroom tax. In what way does this constitute a successful outcome for either the Government or the tenants, many of whom are clearly suffering hardship as a result?
Lord Freud
Some 20% of the total number affected have looked to improve their employment outcomes; among those who are unemployed, that is up to 63%. In the overall figures you can see real changes in behaviour, with the number of workless families in social housing down to an all-time low of 39%. This in a context of dramatic changes in employment levels, with employment at its highest level since records began; record lows in inactivity; record female employment; record youth employment; the lowest number of workless households since 1996; and out-of-work benefits at their lowest level since 1982. We are seeing a transformation and this is part of it.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, in Newcastle alone, 4,720 households are affected by the charge—1,200 with children and 1,000 of them working households. The average loss per household is £748 a year, and arrears from 2,000 households amount to £639,000. How does the charge contribute to the well-being of these families and will the Government be applying equivalent financial sanctions for underoccupation to those to whom they intend to offer benefits under their starter homes policy?
Lord Freud
I understand that the noble Lord is referring to a study conducted by Newcastle University. I have to point out that that study was a qualitative survey, based on interviews with 38 people, which was a self-selecting sample.
Syria: Refugees
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessments they have made of the range of potential flows of refugees from Syria, under different scenarios for the future of that country; and of the potential numbers who might be offered asylum in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for International Development (Baroness Verma) (Con)
We use UNHCR assessments of refugee flows and fund the International Organization for Migration to improve data collection and analysis. The overwhelming majority of refugees remain in the region and this is where our support is targeted. We have been at the forefront of the response and have pledged more than £1.1 billion to the crisis. The vulnerable persons relocation scheme will prioritise the most vulnerable and resettle up to 20,000 Syrian refugees during this Parliament.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply and point out that sometimes, in pursuing foreign policy, one has to sacrifice ideals to a sense of national pragmatism. If the current Government fell, the flow of refugees from Syria would increase substantially, particularly if the Alawite and Christian communities were turned into refugees. This could mean 2 million further refugees looking for asylum. Do the Government have any plans to deal with this possible influx?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the Government have been consistent in trying to support people within the region, where we think they are best placed to be looked after, and to encourage them not to become victims of smugglers and people traffickers by trying to get across to Europe. We are also encouraging our donor partners to contribute so that we can work better within the region. We have a conference coming up in February. Ultimately, what we need is a long-term political solution.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister has noted how vulnerable unaccompanied refugee children are. For example, of those seen in an Italian clinic, half were suffering from sexually transmitted diseases. Will the Government urgently address the request from Save the Children that we should take in 3,000 of these children?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the Prime Minister has committed to looking again at this issue but we have been consistently clear that the relocation of asylum seekers between member states is the wrong thing to do. It will act as a pull factor and does not address the cause of the problem but simply moves it around the EU, so making an exception for children makes little sense. However, as I have said, the Prime Minister is committed to looking at the issue again.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I suggest that there are things more important than quotas, or the possibly uneven decisions made by UN officials. Does the Minister agree that we should have approved channels for family reunion in this country, whereby those families already here and those overseas can apply directly for family reunion here?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, through our vulnerable persons relocation scheme, we have made it clear that the 20,000 refugees we will be taking in will be able to access all the services that the country offers. They will be able to reach out to engage in getting their families here, too. We are being very targeted because we want to make sure that we reach the most vulnerable—those who have no means of supporting themselves in Syria—but also the families whom the partners we are working with on the ground say need our help the most.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not accept that unaccompanied children who may be in parts of Europe must be among the most vulnerable asylum seekers needing help? We have an amendment to the Immigration Bill coming up. Can she please be more positive and say something encouraging? These children need our help and it would be our humanitarian duty to give that help.
Baroness Verma
My Lords, I do not think the UK needs lessons in being right at the front in giving support. What is right and proper is that, rather than moving people around Europe, we look at the source of the problem. That source is in Syria and its region. As I said in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, the Prime Minister is committed to looking at this issue again but we do not want it to be an encouraging pull factor, so that others risk their children by crossing dangerous waters to get to Europe.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, this House has been frequently reminded that the established camps in the area are not regarded as safe places for Christians. Consequently, the Government’s efficient help, financial support and so on for the established camps is leaving the Christian community from several countries uncatered for. What steps are the Government taking to address this problem through the voluntary sector? What support are they giving there and what quotas are they providing for the admission of these most unfortunate fellow sufferers?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important and concerning issue. However, we work with local partners and faith communities on the ground and we provide support to people regardless of their religious background or ethnicity. We just need to focus on the most vulnerable; that is where we must target our support. However, this issue has come to me on a number of occasions and I have asked noble Lords to engage with us to see how we can better reach those vulnerable communities.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, last November the summit in Valletta focused on gaining more co-operation from key origin and transit countries. While there, the Prime Minister announced a £200 million package of development and humanitarian support for Africa. What steps is DfID taking to monitor this spend in meeting the objectives and goals set at Malta, specifically on enhancing the protection of refugees while in transit countries?
Baroness Verma
My Lords, the Government keep a continuous watch on these situations and monitor them, but we need to find longer-term solutions and to ensure that the countries in the region where there is the greatest number of refugees are well supported. The Prime Minister has been very much focused on leading the way in getting other donor partners to contribute fully, so that we support those who are in the region—there are more than 4 million—and those who have come and transited across, so that we can make sure that those people are safe and have the support they need. Ultimately, however, what we need to do is provide long-term solutions.
Cumbria: Floods
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Liddle
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what funding they intend to make available to Cumbria and other areas in the north of England to restore infrastructure damaged during the recent floods.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a member of Cumbria County Council.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government have announced funding of £40 million for Cumbria and Lancashire following Storm Desmond and Storm Eva, and we will help fund the assessment of damage to local highway infrastructure in both areas. Additionally, we have announced £3.3 million to provide a temporary footbridge and for the repair of Tadcaster Bridge in North Yorkshire, and a further £5.5 million to rebuild Elland Bridge in Calderdale.
Lord Liddle
I thank the noble Baroness for her reply and thank the Government for the immediacy of their response to this tragedy. However, the question remains whether the Government are, in principle, prepared to find the full costs of recovery. In terms of transport infrastructure, these are estimated to be £257 million in Cumbria alone—£465 million when you count everything—and £40 million is not much by comparison with that. This is at a time when we are having to make cuts of £80 million over this Parliament, on a £375 million budget, and reduce our staff from 7,000 to 5,200. Given that we are stretched beyond capacity, will the Government commit to fully funding the costs of recovery?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, over this Parliament, the Government will commit £2.3 billion for flood defences and the flood maintenance budget will be protected. In 2015-16, £171 million will be invested. There are pockets of funding in addition to that: there is £40 million for Storm Desmond and Storm Eva, as I said, and £4 million has been committed in match funding in respect of the charitable donations that have so kindly come in.
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, along with their many other excellent qualities, trees have a massive part to play in this battle against flooding. I urge the Minister and the Government to do all they can to encourage the widest tree planting possible in the areas liable to flooding, as a matter of urgency, so that we can make the maximum use of this invaluable resource.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is absolutely right that trees are a very effective mechanism in terms of mitigating floods and slowing flood waters down. However, the storms we had over Christmas, Eva and Desmond, were too severe for this alone to have been an entire solution. We have to look at all the various solutions in the round, including managing the flow of water, to help to prevent such problems in future.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend asked for an assurance on the expenditure which now faces the county of Cumbria. Having looked at the figures, Cumbria County Council has produced a report which shows an overall funding gap of £374 million for repairing all the damage done in the county. Is that bill going to be paid? Talking about £2 million here and £4 million there is irrelevant in the context of the huge expenditure now faced by the county. Who is going to pay this bill? Someone has to pay for all the damage that has been done.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. I have given the figure for the funding committed for the transport infrastructure, but over this Parliament £2.3 billion will be provided for a range of flood defence schemes, which should help to mitigate the risk. It compares with £1.7 billion in the previous Parliament and £1.5 billion in 2005-10. At this point, that is what the Government are committing.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, the points raised about the infrastructure are quite right—it is vital—but does the Minister agree that also vital are small, ongoing maintenance schemes month by month and year by year, particularly clearing leaves from gullies, plastic bags from culverts and trees that have fallen into the becks? Councils are having increasing difficulty doing that because of the funding cuts; I declare my interest as a councillor.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right that ongoing maintenance is vital. In the recent floods, we have had two things: volumes of water, and therefore surface water increasing dramatically, and an extreme weather pattern increasing during some of these disasters. That is why the Government are reviewing the flood defences that we are putting in place because, no matter what we have done before, the next event is all the more extreme.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister explain how long the money will be available for, given that North Yorkshire County Council has not had time to examine damage to other bridges?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I recognise the issue that my noble friend is raising: that it may not be immediately obvious what are the problems and what repairs are needed. The Government are giving local authorities the time that they need to assess the damage and apply for the funding needed.
Trade Union Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
16:45 - Division on Baroness Smith of Basildon’s Motion - Ayes: 327 / Noes: 234 - Baroness Smith of Basildon’s Motion agreed.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the impact of Clauses 10 and 11 of the Trade Union Bill in relation to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report, Political Party Finance: Ending the Big Donor Culture, and the necessity of urgent new legislation to balance those provisions with the other recommendations made in the committee’s report; and that the committee do report by 29 February.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, as a House, our scrutiny role appears to have excited some interest in recent months, with our powers and limitations becoming more widely known and understood—and, indeed, facing scrutiny. So I want to be crystal clear about what my Motion is intended to do, but also what it does not do.
Noble Lords will be aware that Clauses 10 and 11 of the Trade Union Bill are deeply controversial. These two clauses basically deal with how trade unions raise and spend their members’ money for political purposes. The Government contend that this has no direct bearing on political party funding—specifically, Labour Party funding—but both we on this side of the House and the trade unions contend that it does.
I am not seeking today to make the case one way or the other, but I am seeking a way through that will allow us to consider the Bill in the normal way and, at the same time, provide for a Select Committee to examine this specific point. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made a similar proposal about a Select Committee in his excellent speech at Second Reading.
The merit of our approach is that it will take the political argument on the clauses away from the debates on the Bill during the normal Committee stage. It will ensure that the issues other than those in those two clauses, Clauses 10 and 11, receive proper and full consideration, without being clouded by what is a very specific party-political point. Select Committees of your Lordships’ House are highly regarded. Such a committee could take evidence, including from those who have independent expertise, to assess any potential impact of the Government’s proposals on party-political funding. It would examine the Government’s proposals in the light of the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in relation to party-political funding, a committee now chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. Our approach would not prevent any of our other committees from reporting on this Bill, and a Select Committee could make recommendations and offer advice as to whether legislation could be improved.
What the Motion does not do is in any way to seek to hinder, delay or impede the passage of the Bill. I have suggested 29 February as a time limit for the Select Committee to report back, as that would allow time for consideration and for any findings to be taken into account on Report. I appreciate that the Minister and the Government do not share our concerns, but the BIS Minister, Nick Boles, responded to a Written Question by saying:
“The proposals in the Bill are not about party funding … Therefore no assessment has been made in relation to the impact on the finances of any political party”.
In answer to a similar Question, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, the Minister in this House, responded:
“There has been no assessment. However, the proposals in the Bill are not about party funding”.
Many noble Lords will have seen her letter circulated yesterday, which reiterated the same points at some length. I wish that I could accept those assurances, but we believe that the Government are wrong or, at the very least, in denial about the consequences of Clauses 10 and 11.
Let us be precise: our genuinely held concern is that this aspect of the Bill will have a significant impact on the resources of one major political party—my party, the Labour Party. In doing so, that will both disrupt the political balance in the UK and have a damaging effect on the electoral process and on our democracy. Any examination of this issue by your Lordships’ House should be evidence based rather than reliant on opinion—even if they are the opinions of the Minister or myself. We should examine the facts and the detail. The problem is that, even when we eventually receive the long-promised impact assessment—and I find it extraordinary that the Bill has gone this far before we even get one—there will be no consideration of any impact on party-political funding. It will not even look at it as a potential unintended consequence.
The Committee on Standards in Public Life, then chaired by Sir Christopher Kelly, sought to reach a political consensus on this vexed issue in its 2011 report, Political Party Finance—Ending the Big Donor Culture. That committee made four recommendations, only one of which has found its way into any legislative proposals from the Government—this one, the one on trade union funding. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, who now chairs the committee, wrote this week that:
“The committee made a similar recommendation but as part of an overall package of measures”.
He quoted from that report, saying:
“Failure to resist the temptation to implement some parts, while rejecting others, would upset the balance we have sought to achieve”.
Lord Robathan (Con)
The noble Baroness is talking about party-political funding, but I thought that we were discussing the Trade Union Bill. Is she not being perhaps a bit sensitive to the idea that trade unionists wish to subscribe only to the Labour Party? Actually, the political funds might easily go to any other party that they wish.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I would entirely agree with the noble Lord’s final point. As I said, the clause looks at how trade unions collect and spend the money from their members on party-political issues. But it might be helpful to him if he took care to listen to the point that I am making—he says that he is all ears, so let us see if he proves it—which is that the Committee on Standards in Public Life made four recommendations on party-political funding, and only one of those is proposed by the Government in this Bill. The others are being ignored. When we look at such issues, they are sensitive. The noble Lord is quite right—I am sensitive about my party funding, and I am sure that he is equally sensitive about his. But we have to look at this in the round, and consensus is always sought on this issue. That point was made very well by the committee, which was very clear, saying:
“Both as a matter of principle and to support its sustainability, the regulatory regime must be fair to all political parties, and widely believed to be so”.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I shall try to be reasonably brief because, as the noble Baroness said, I referred to a number of these issues at Second Reading last week.
Since then, I have been struck by the number of Members on the Cross Benches and the Conservative Benches who have agreed that this is the right time to look at the wider issue of party funding. Indeed, it is probably the only opportunity that we will get in this Parliament. I therefore very much welcome the initiative by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, to bring the idea back before the House this afternoon in prime time, and I hope that we will be successful today.
The Trade Union Bill before the House is deliberately very tightly drawn. The Minister told us repeatedly at Second Reading that it is not about party funding and, as the noble Baroness said, we have all received a letter from her which makes that point yet again. However, I refer the House to the Conservative Party manifesto which contained a two-part promise not only to make this change in this Bill but to reinitiate cross-party discussions about party funding, so this is part of the general package to which the manifesto referred. By making a tight Long Title to the Bill, without even the usual provision of “connected purposes”, the Government are able to advance changes to the way in which individuals contribute to the Labour Party through union political funds and ward off any amendments to the Bill about the way in which such provisions might apply to other parties and other action on the issue.
Most of the big money goes to the Conservative Party. It took 59% of all party-political donations by individuals in the 12 months leading up to the previous election. Even once trade union donations are taken into account, the Conservatives attracted £2 in every £5 donated to all political parties put together. We now know that the cash was spent—in avalanches—in target seats, in marginal constituencies, in the 2015 general election. Jim Messina, the Conservatives’ election adviser from the US, told the Spectator just a few days ago that he thinks the party spent £30 million in the run-up to the poll last year. I suspect that the Conservative treasurer may have recalculated that in the final returns to the Electoral Commission, since the legal limit is £19 million.
As it happens, quite coincidentally, the figures are out today from the Electoral Commission, and they repay very careful analysis. Michael Crick of BBC2, who I think is acknowledged to be an expert in these matters, comments:
“those are the OFFICIAL national party spending figures. I don’t believe them”.
Nor do I. They do not include Conservative candidates’ own expenditure. He then highlights “unsolicited material to voters” costing £4 million. As a recipient in a target marginal seat, I can confirm that, yes, we were all receiving unsolicited mail of that nature. And then it is identified in the Electoral Commission figures published today that £2.4 million was paid to Mr—as he was then—Lynton Crosby, and £369,000 was paid to that very same Jim Messina. Presumably, his opinion on the amount that has been spent by the party is worth paying for.
Having deployed those funds to win a narrow majority in the other place, the Government are now plainly set on redefining the rules of the political game to entrench their own power, perhaps permanently. The Bill must be set against the overall picture of changes secured by Conservatives in the past few months and years. There were arguments over boundary changes. We then saw in the House at the end of last year Ministers nipping through provisions to wipe nearly 2 million people off the electoral register just in time for the boundary-change calculations. We saw last week how the Government are now challenging, with as yet no parliamentary process, even the power of your Lordships’ House. Now with this measure, presented as a technical change to make union members’ donations to political funds more transparent, we have an extraordinary attempt to fully stymie an already hobbled Opposition.
It is extraordinary that we need this Motion, but it is absolutely right to refer us back to the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which examined in detail a whole suite of issues on party funding five years ago. Its work built on that of Sir Hayden Phillips in the review that was commissioned by the then Labour Government. Sadly, no progress was made following the Phillips report because no consensus could be reached on the twin matters of altering principally Conservative funding by way of individual donations on the one hand and altering principally Labour funding by way of restrictions on the way in which trade union political funds work on the other.
We have now an opportunity to look again at a comprehensive package, balanced to affect the major parties in roughly equal measure. The CSPL arrived at such a package in 2011, and that should have been implemented by the coalition Government. It is one of my biggest regrets that no progress was made and the nettle was not grasped then in a fair and equitable way. We cannot turn the clock back, but what we can and should make progress on now, in the first year of this Parliament, is a fundamental package of party- funding reform. It was promised in the Conservative manifesto as well as in those of Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
As the noble Baroness has made clear, a Select Committee of your Lordships’ House seems to be an ideal catalyst for implementing those commitments, and of course it could make very good use of the evidence that the CSPL amassed. Last week the noble Lord, Lord Bew, who chairs the CSPL, made it clear that there is still some work to do in updating the calculations and judgments that his committee made in 2011, and surely a Select Committee is the most effective way to do that. His contribution to the debate last week and that of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, are essential reading, particularly perhaps for their colleagues on the Cross Benches, because they were particularly significant.
The Select Committee could look carefully at the partisan effects of the Trade Union Bill and could make recommendations for progress on balancing the provision of a donation cap. It could also review fully, in the light of Electoral Commission evidence, the operation of the current law on constituency spending. As my noble friend Lord Rennard pointed out last week, the spirit of the law on constituency spending limits is being abused—no doubt by all parties—even if its letter is still observed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
Does the noble Lord not think that his credibility in arguing for fairness and balance and non-partisan behaviour in respect of constituencies would be greatly enhanced if the Liberals had not voted to prevent the boundary changes going through in time for the general election?
Lord Tyler
It is quite irrelevant. What is absolutely clear—and I think I will have the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, with me on this—is that all parties now do not respect the constituency limits that he and I had to observe years ago when we stood as candidates. We were told, were we not, by our lawyers and our agents, that were we to spend one penny over the limit for a constituency, we would be in trouble. Indeed, last year all parties swamped marginal, targeted constituencies with money from outside which, as long as it did not mention the name of the candidate, was completely outwith the constituency limits. I think the noble Lord and I would agree that what was set in motion by the 1883 Act, which limited how you could buy a constituency, is now not worth the paper it is written on. We need to look at that again, and it is important that it should be effectively considered by a good cross-party Select Committee of your Lordships’ House.
Spending on material of that nature hugely exceeds the constituency limits, and it is clear from the figures published today that the Conservative Party, and no doubt the other parties, made huge use of that just last year. Voters do not get to vote nationally in our system. Every voter in a constituency votes for their own constituency MP, and therefore material distributed in those constituencies by parties contesting the election is just constituency campaigning. The law needs to reflect that point.
The Motion today sets out an ambitious timetable for the committee, seeking a report by 29 February. I support that, because foot-dragging is the enemy of progress in this issue, perhaps more than any other. No sooner are proposals produced than people start saying, “It’s too close to the next election to do anything”, so it is urgent that this issue is looked at now. The committee might choose to make a first report by 29 February, which could then of course be seen in the light of progress with the Trade Union Bill through your Lordships’ House. This timetable, however, must enable it to work constructively and fully with the Committee on Standards in Public Life to bring forward renewed proposals for comprehensive reform.
If anyone still doubts that the clauses in the Trade Union Bill will entrench the invidious iniquity in the UK’s party funding arrangements or that there is a dangerous arms race in spending, they need only consult the figures the Electoral Commission has published today, which speak eloquently to both. Ministerial claims in the debates hitherto and in the letter sent to us that the Bill may not adversely affect Labour’s income are either charmingly naive or stark-staring mendacious. Perhaps they think we are naive. Either way, balancing provisions for the rest of party funding are urgently needed, so my noble friends and I will strongly support this Motion in the Lobbies this afternoon.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has a good way with words. In fact, however, he demolished the argument in favour of the Motion before us today. I speak as one who has very real sympathy with the noble Baroness and her colleagues in regarding the Bill as being significantly deficient. If ever a Bill needed the constructive attention and detailed scrutiny of your Lordships’ House, it is this Bill. But the problem with the ostensibly very sensible proposal of the noble Baroness is time. That was hinted at in the concluding words of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.
I say to the noble Baroness that there is a better way forward. I believe there should be not a committee of this House, but a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at political party funding. It could not conceivably report within five or six weeks; there are a whole lot of issues to be examined. Of course, it need not sit indefinitely, and a reasonable timeframe would be to say that it had to report by the end of May or June. The work done by the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, is not absolutely complete, although I agree with the general thrust of his committee’s arguments. It is wrong to single out one political party if we are looking at the funding of parties in this country. Frankly, to suggest that the Bill is not singling out a political party is disingenuous.
I joined the Conservative Party and have been a proud member of it for some 60 years, because I always thought it was a party of fairness. I am a one-nation Conservative, and I do not believe that this Bill marches well with what I understand as one-nation conservatism. I believe, very strongly, that we need reform on the trade union front. I have no objection to looking carefully at ballot arrangements; although, as colleagues mentioned last week, when we are doing that we have to bear in mind the enormous popularity of police commissioner elections—and our failure to invalidate those because they did not cross a threshold. But that is not the subject of this afternoon’s debate. Here, we are looking at funding, and I believe that the best way forward, frankly, is to proceed with this Bill and to seek to amend it where appropriate. It would not be entirely inappropriate to have an amendment that delayed the implementation of this part of it until there is a more comprehensive agreement on political party funding. That would be a measured, sensible and very fair approach to this issue, in the tradition of one-nation conservatism.
The Bill cries out for your Lordships’ attention, however, and I hope that that attention will not, in any part of your Lordships’ House, be overtly partisan. The trade unions have a very important part to play in our economy. There were times when they exceeded their powers and authority, and there are those in the trade union movement today who would do that again. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about trying to have a fair construct which deals with the position of the trade unions in this first part of the 21st century. It is not unreasonable to say that people should make a conscious decision before they make a contribution to a political party. But I think it quite wrong to single out one particular party and its main source of funding, particularly at a time when we have also decided, in our wisdom—or lack of it—that Short money needs looking at.
We have to examine this matter in the round, so I say to the noble Baroness, who made a very good and persuasive speech, that I cannot support her this afternoon because, bearing in mind the complexity of the subject, I do not think that the timetable that she has put before your Lordships’ House is reasonable or practical. I think we should get on with this Bill; in the best tradition of your Lordships’ House, seek to amend it; perhaps consider whether there is merit in implementing certain sections of it at different times; and try to persuade the powers that be that there should indeed be a Joint Committee of both Houses—as your Lordships know, I believe passionately in the supremacy of the elected House—to look at the whole issue of party funding and to try to come to a fair and equitable solution which applies, as what I would call the Bew recommendations apply, to all parties and, so far as possible, in all circumstances.
This afternoon’s Motion is not the way forward but there are great issues to debate as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships’ House.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, the debate this afternoon—not on the Bill as a whole but on the Motion—revolves around two opposing truths. The Opposition, I think quite correctly, claim that the 2011 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Political Party Finance: Ending the Big Donor Culture, which has already been referred to many times, has to be taken in the round and that the idea that you can extract one element from it is an entire misreading of the logic and structure of the report. That I have no doubt about—it has to be taken in the round. The committee makes it clear numerous times in the report that that is its view. To take one element, whether it be the role of trade unions or of business in party funding, and to deal with it separately is not in the spirit of that report. That has to be conceded. I have been sitting late at night reading the report from many different angles over the last few days, as noble Lords may imagine, and I can see no other possible reading of it.
On the other hand, the Government say that they have never claimed to be implementing the report. It is worth remembering that it was published with two dissenting minutes raising substantial matters—one from Dame Margaret Beckett from the Labour Party and the other from Oliver Heald, the Conservative Party representative on the committee. I say in passing that the Conservative dissenting minute, which raised a number of substantial and serious points, does not challenge the idea that the issue should be dealt with in the round. It absolutely accepts that point. None the less, the Government do not claim to be implementing the report. Indeed, if we are talking about the element that we are dealing with today—the role of trade unions—I accept that the Government’s proposals are quite distinct from the proposal in the report from both trade unions. So the Government are not even cherry picking; they have a different agenda, which they are pursuing. It is being debated and the issues are to be put before the people in the country. So there are two competing truths here, neither of which it is possible to dispute, and it is very difficult to see an easy way through.
On the terms of the Motion—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has already hinted at this, and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has done so—I feel that there really is a question over what can be done in five weeks. Since the publication of the report, there has been a very scratchy history of progress or non-progress. Indeed, if we go back to Sir Hayden Phillips’s report of 2007, we see, again, that there has been no real progress. So why do we suddenly believe that an issue that characteristically we have been stuck on in this country will be resolved in five weeks? I find it hard to believe that that can possibly be the case. There is a serious issue there. It does not mean that the concerns that have been raised are not serious, but there is a really serious issue about the terms of this resolution and its practicality.
I also feel a certain frustration with the idea that suddenly progress can be made. After the general election, I wrote to all the parties about their manifesto statements in this area. Only one party, the Conservative Party, replied. It was not a particularly encouraging reply and I can recall no other replies. But that fact alone makes me think that we will not make great progress on this in five weeks. I would regard it as a huge achievement if even one of the issues could be resolved. For example, in Dame Margaret Beckett’s dissenting minute she argues that the Co-operative Party and its arrangements are implicitly treated unfairly in our report. I would regard the sorting out of that, which is one tiny element of a massive structure of problems, as a huge achievement within five weeks, so I am sceptical about the timing implied by this resolution.
I have a comment and a word of warning to all the parties in our system. One thing that is happening is that, almost unconsciously, the conception of Parliament as involving the representation and management of interests is changing. That conception was widely held for a long period in our history, whether those interests be trade union, labour or business interests. We are now moving towards a conception of Parliament as being about the fostering of individual human rights. Those who support the Bill will actually say that certain provisions are designed to enhance the human rights and freedom of choice of trade union members. I understand that that is a possible argument. But matters will not stop here. We are a different place in the way that these matters are now discussed and it is impossible that wider questions about big donor culture and the role of business will go away. Many senior Conservatives have implicitly and explicitly accepted that, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has done in his speech. They have expressed their concern about that matter. That is so important because it goes to the heart of perceptions of trust in modern British politics and the inherent difficulty that my committee has with respect to these perceptions of trust.
The noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, has rightly reminded us several times that we should not be too obsessed with public opinion polls about the level of trust in Members of Parliament and that what really matters is the actual level of trustworthiness. She is absolutely right to say that many of these polls should be taken with a pinch of salt. We have no reason to believe anything other than what my predecessor Lord Nolan said 20 years ago—that standards are not actually in decline in our Parliament or our public service. I would go further today. There is every reason to believe that standards are actually higher, as a result of the recommendations made by Lord Nolan, the much greater transparency that there now is in our public life, the role of IPSA in dealing with issues around MPs’ expenses and the fact that we have in this country the most transparent system for party donations in the OECD. Now that I have said that, some Member of Parliament will be in the papers having done something rather foolish in the next three or four days. None the less, there is no real reason to believe anything other than that Lord Nolan was right and that the many reforms that have been made in terms of transparency have improved the situation.
However, we are in a position where 80% of members of the public believe that people give money to political parties because they expect a tangible reward, such as being made a Peer, and 80% of the public believe that they will not accept party funding. Today’s poll from the Electoral Reform Society has only 77% of the public believing that people give money to political parties expecting a peerage. We can be reassured by that 3% drop in cynicism, but I am not particularly reassured.
There is a huge difficulty in making progress on this because 80% of the public also say that it is a very important part of the proposal made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life that there should be some system of state funding for political parties, but the £25 million envisaged at the moment is something the public will not accept. That is absolutely the case. It is why I am doubtful about taking five weeks to make progress. We are stuck with these issues because they are really difficult, but we cannot evade them—this is the point I am trying to argue with as much vigour as I can. A recent book entitled Ethics and Integrity in British Politics by Nicholas Allen and Sarah Birch, published by the Cambridge University Press, points out that 87% of the public believe that standards are lower than they once were. As I have said, I do not really think that there is strong evidence for that. The use of Lord Acton’s famous quotation that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely has now become a credible cliché although it has been completely stripped of the precise meaning he gave it in 1887 to deal with the cruel abuses of power that he was talking about. It has now become a kind of journalistic mantra which creates a problem, and indeed research by the Edelman Trust supports that. It backs up our own report on comparative perceptions of the political class in Europe, which showed that 3% of the Dutch and 3% of the British have actually had experience of corruption, but only 49% of Dutch people believe that it is widespread in their society while 69% of British people believe it to be so. We have a malaise in public opinion that goes well beyond anyone’s empirical experience.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I spoke at length on this Bill at Second Reading so I will keep my remarks today short. Many noble Lords were kind enough to give me feedback about my speech, and I have to say that it is easy to make a good speech when you feel passionately about the issues involved. For me, this is absolutely an issue of the utmost constitutional seriousness that should be of concern to those who are in any political party, or indeed, like myself, are not in a political party at all. What we are debating today is of crucial importance to anyone who believes in an open, plural democracy.
My sense is that, like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who argued the point very well, I would prefer us not to act on this part of the legislation until the full conversation has happened. That is a compelling argument which I support. Where I think the proposal adds value is that it can and should look at the impact of what is being proposed here, and that is made clear in the Motion before us today. It is both possible and credible to do that in the time available. That is why I support the amendment.
We have what is often called cognitive dissonance here between two different and competing positions. We may be keen to smoke while also being aware of the health impacts of smoking. We have a proposition that these clauses have no impact, and that they are related to the trade unions and have nothing to do with political parties. Yet we know that the practical effect on one political party would be devastating. We have to reconcile and resolve those issues and have them debated in a committee where they can be balanced against the wider issues. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, spoke very powerfully and I absolutely concur with his wider thesis. But there is a useful job to be done here, which is to have a proper conversation and debate about impact in this wider debate of party funding. I will support the Motion.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am conscious of the House’s time this afternoon, so I will be brief. The purpose of this Motion is to convene a separate committee to consider Clauses 10 and 11 of the Trade Union Bill, because its practical outcome is all about political party funding. The Government can say that the Bill is not about political funding but it patently is. It has the practical effect of further unbalancing the playing field in favour of the Conservative Party by practically reducing the access to funds for the Labour Party.
If we look at the report on the Committee of Standards in Public Life, the opt-in was the quid pro quo for Labour to be considered alongside the reduction in maximum donation of £10,000, which would, it thought, roughly equate to a similar reduction in Conservative funding. But after the analysis that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, treated us to, that perhaps is a little optimistic.
To my mind, two points follow. First, the Conservatives seem to misunderstand the role of trade unions in this country. They are as much a part of our functioning democracy as the courts, political parties and the dual-Chamber system, which is also under attack, as are the freedom of information changes which the Government are also currently trying to push through. The Labour Party can be accused of many things, including exceeding powers, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, has mentioned, but someone, as well as the Liberal Democrats, must constitute an Opposition in a functioning democracy, and Labour, frankly, is in a weak enough state already.
Secondly, if the Government have already taken away Labour’s bargaining chip in any future negotiations on party funding, what incentive is there for the Conservatives to ever return to the negotiating table? It is a win-lose situation and happy days for them. The winning advantage that they will get will enable them to stay in power for the foreseeable future.
At Second Reading, I said that one of the roles of this House is to ensure fair play and a level playing field. This section of the Bill risks that, so a Select Committee is the right approach. I urge noble Lords from all sides of the House to support it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I was not planning to speak on this matter but I have been provoked. I do not know what I think about this because I am in two minds. First, this is a manifesto commitment. This House is not expected to oppose Conservative Party manifesto commitments. However, the manifesto commitment is in two parts—it is about a review of funding, and this is only one part. I had to deal with this when I was a Minister of State in the Department of Employment in 1992.
In 1982, my noble friend Lord Tebbit dealt with the matter very well. The issue then on opting out or opting in was that people were not able to choose whether they wished to subscribe to the political fund and many were not aware that there was a political fund. In 1982—I hope that my memory is correct— my noble friend Lord Tebbit and Lady Thatcher’s Government decided that the fairest way to deal with this was to have a regular ballot every 10 years to establish whether there should be a political fund and that people should be able to opt out if they wished, thus preserving individual freedom.
In 1992, 10 years on, we looked at this again and we had some employment legislation which was a little controversial. It included abolishing wages councils and one or two other things like that. The debate in the Conservative Party and the Government at the time was that we should change the law and make a requirement to opt in. I decided that we should not do that and the Government took that view. I decided that we should do so not for any reasons about party political funding, but because I thought that it would be unfair to the Labour Party, reduce its funding and inevitably start a debate about state funding of political parties, to which I am totally opposed. The day we put our hands in the pocket of the taxpayers to pay for our party political campaigning is the day when a bigger gap will open up between us and the electorate.
It would be a great mistake if we moved away from the system that we have—I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the importance of controlling expenditure in constituencies—and the need for political parties to raise their funds by getting members on the ground and in the constituencies. A culture that enables one or two very rich people to bankroll one party, or three or four trade unions to bankroll another, encourages the loss of that grass- roots support that is so desperately needed at present.
As I say, I am in two minds. I hope that my noble friend will be able to answer this in responding to the debate on the Motion: what is the problem that we are trying to solve? What has gone wrong with the trade union political funds and the system established in 1992? I have seen the letter that my noble friend wrote to all of us. Is it that we think that people are being lent on not to opt out of the political levy? Is it, as she said in her letter, that we think that people are not aware that they have the right to opt out of the political fund? If that is the case, is it not possible for the trade unions to come forward with proposals on a voluntary basis that would establish that whatever these deficiencies are would be put right? I know that they have done so.
We are provoking a confrontation that will do none of us any good and certainly will not do the political system any good. I say to the noble Baroness, who I have enormous respect for, on the idea that we can sort this out in five weeks: this will be a bean-feast for the media to have a go at all political parties and their funding.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
If I might briefly assist the House in looking at this issue, I am not for one moment suggesting that, in the five weeks or so to the end of February, the Select Committee would be able to look at all issues of party funding. That is not the purpose of my Motion. It is on one specific point: that, on the issues that the Committee would be deciding and voting on, there should be a parallel process to inform its deliberations. No one would dream that it could do it in five weeks—if we cannot do it five or 10 years, we will not do it in five weeks. It is specific on the point of what the committee will be debating.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
The noble Baroness is very smart and clever and that is exactly the right answer to give to my point, but I am trying to make bricks here. She may be correct in saying that the terms of reference for the committee and its functions could be limited to that period of time, but that will not affect what goes on in the outside world. We will have a great old row about party funding and we will not be in a position to get agreement between the political parties. We all know that it was about setting a limit. The trade unions think that the limit should not apply to them, the Labour Party is so dependent on the trade unions that it will not want to do that, and the same on our side. We know where the differences are. I hope that these might be resolved in the future, but I do not think that the noble Baroness’s Motion is the right way to do that. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack that the proper way to do this is in consideration of the Bill.
I hope that my friends on the Front Bench will recognise that this will take away funding from the Labour Party at a time when the Labour Party is perhaps not at its strongest. I have no brief to build up the Labour Party, but our parliamentary system depends on having a strong and effective Opposition. The Short money is supposed to enable the Opposition to operate in Parliament; it is nothing to do with party politics as such and is being cut, so that makes it harder for them to operate. At the same time, to attack the funding is, I think, misguided because I know what will happen. The people will say, “Well, let’s have a look at the Tory Party. How can we inflict this there?”, and we will get into a war of mutual destruction. I do not think that would help enhance the reputation of Parliament or of the political parties. Therefore, the best possible outcome would be not to pass the noble Baroness’s Motion and for the Government to think again about whether there is a way to meet our manifesto commitment and, at the same time, reach a deal with the trade unions which enables whatever the problem is that the Government perceive makes it necessary to do this to be resolved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for introducing her Motion and I have listened very carefully to the arguments for appointing a Select Committee to consider Clauses 10 and 11 of the Trade Union Bill. However, I ask the House to bear with me as I set out the Government’s position that these clauses relate to trade union reform and not to party funding reform.
The Trade Union Bill is just that: it is about trade unions, and it introduces a number of reforms based on the 2015 Conservative election manifesto, as my noble friend Lord Forsyth explained so eloquently. I believe that most uncommitted observers would regard these reforms as unexceptional. They represent proportionate reform based on a clear manifesto commitment, which includes a transparent opt-in process for union subscriptions.
However, I must deal first with the confusion which has surfaced—namely, the difference between contributions to trade unions’ political funds and trade unions’ funding of political parties. The Bill requires members of trade unions explicitly to opt in to a political fund. That is not the same as requiring opt-in to union donations made to a political party. Political funds are used for all sorts of campaigns, some of which are not at all party political.
Let me explain the problem that Clause 10 seeks to address. Under current trade union legislation, union members have the choice to opt out of contributing to a union’s political fund. However, that choice is on too many occasions difficult to exercise, and not made clear to individuals. So, to reply to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, we want to end that unfairness and provide full transparency by allowing union members an active opt-in to the political fund. I look forward to discussing that in Committee.
This Motion has been brought to consider Clauses 10 and 11 in the light of the 2011 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, also sought to bring forward a Motion on party funding at Second Reading based on the same report. However, Recommendation 4 of the report specifically addressed a cap on affiliation fees to a political party, not how the contributions are made to political funds of trade unions. The latter did not, in fact, form part of the recommendations of the CSPL report, as the report related to party funding, and party funding is not a matter for this Bill. It is a separate matter that has been the subject of a large number of reports over many years. The recommendations in the 2011 report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life were not accepted by the two major political parties, as we heard, including the party of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It would be peculiar for a Select Committee on political party funding to be set up based on a report that does not command cross-party consensus. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, suggested, a lack of party consensus is at the heart of the problem. Therefore, it would be difficult to make any progress in five weeks, as he said.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
Can my noble friend give us some examples of where people have been prevented from opting out of the political fund and explain the extent of the problem? Can she also explain why this cannot be achieved by some kind of agreement of a code of conduct with the trade unions?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, this is a Motion on procedure and I was not planning to go into the detail, but I will certainly write to my noble friend and other noble Lords and we can discuss in Committee the sort of examples that he is talking about.
As we made clear in our manifesto, we will seek to secure an agreement on party funding reform. Indeed, it is open to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, to take this work forward in the light of updated data but, I repeat, such work is entirely separate to the passage of the clauses in this Bill, which relate to trade unions and not to party funding discussions. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and other noble Lords have made a number of interesting points today, which I will not seek to reply to, as this Bill is not about party funding. I recognise, of course, that some noble Lords feel strongly about the Bill, but all institutions need modernisation and that is what the Bill is about.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has suggested that the House is underinformed about the Bill. I find this difficult to believe, given the marathon debate that we had at Second Reading. The measures in the Bill are rooted in the manifesto, for which we won a majority of support in the election. They are supported by members of the public, whose interests as parents, patients and commuters the Government were elected to defend. The measures secured clear majorities at all stages of the Bill in the elected Chamber. They had the benefit of extensive scrutiny in the other place, including in oral evidence from key stakeholders in Committee.
Furthermore, I am looking forward to a comprehensive debate shortly in a Committee of the whole House. Even my noble friend Lord Cormack, with whom I do not always see eye to eye, seemed to think that the Bill should be considered in Committee, in the best traditions of this House. That is because a primary purpose of this House is to scrutinise and improve legislation. Today’s Motion will not improve the effectiveness of that scrutiny; indeed, it would shift the focus of scrutiny to party funding and away from the central purpose of the Bill, which is trade union reform.
To address the specific concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I am pleased to confirm that we will publish impact assessments on the Bill tomorrow. I will personally ensure that copies reach the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, once they are published.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
Would the Minister please address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, as I said, I have listened to the debate and we will all reflect further—as we do when we have important debates of this type—but I would like to conclude on this Motion.
Lord Rennard (LD)
Can the Minister tell us why these impact assessments could not have been published yesterday so that we could have considered them when considering this Motion?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I promised in a meeting that they would be published before Committee stage and I have delivered on that promise. I have arranged for them to be published tomorrow, which will give plenty of time before Committee starts on 8 February. I look forward to discussing them with noble Lords across the House.
In conclusion, this Bill seeks to modernise the relationship between trade unions and their members and to redress the balance between the rights of trade unions and the rights of the general public, whose lives, as I have said before, are often disrupted by strikes. Clauses 10 and 11 embrace the good democratic values of choice, transparency and responsibility. I look forward to full scrutiny of the Bill in this House.
This Bill is a package of measures and it is disappointing that the party opposite has chosen to misinterpret our intentions. As I have demonstrated, Clauses 10 and 11 are quite distinct from the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life mentioned in the Motion and relating to party-political funding. We would merely be adding confusion if we established a Select Committee.
Our reforms in the Bill look at how trade union members choose to contribute to trade union political funds. We are not looking at how trade unions fund political parties. Opt-ins and opt-outs for trade union political funds have always been a matter for trade union legislation. Party funding and its regulation have always been a matter for party funding legislation. Party funding is rightly outside the scope of the Bill and I call on the House to reject the Motion.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, I thought the Minister was making quite a good fist of it until she said that we had misinterpreted the intention of the Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. That has been very helpful.
It may assist the House if I very briefly make it absolutely clear what my Motion seeks to do. The noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, hit the nail on the head when he said it was about the impact of the legislation, not the intention. The Minister says that the impact assessment will be published tomorrow. That is great but it would not have informed this debate at all, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, because there is nothing in there about any impact that the Bill may have on party-political funding.
We strayed a long way from the specifics of my Motion. My Motion is quite clear. It is not about party funding as a whole; it is not about the Trade Union Bill as a whole. It is very specifically about the two clauses in the Bill over which there is a clear difference, as noble Lords have heard, between the Minister and this side of the House—between the Government and I was going to say the Opposition but I think it is much more widespread than that—about whether those clauses will have an impact on political funding.
The Minister reminded us of the Conservative manifesto. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was quite right to challenge on this—I apologise for citing him again. The Conservative Party manifesto says, on page 49:
“In the next Parliament, we will legislate to ensure trade unions use a transparent opt-in process for subscriptions to political parties”,
but now she tells us it is nothing at all to do with political parties. Is the manifesto right or is she? The manifesto goes on:
“We will continue to seek agreement on a comprehensive package of party funding reform”.
I entirely agree but that is not what is in the Bill. The Bill looks at what the Committee on Standards in Public Life says and picks one area. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, was quite clear that one of the recommendations is reflected—I am not saying it is exactly the same—in these proposals.
I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, for his contribution—wise words, as usual. I remind him how narrow and specific our Motion is. He says that he would much rather not have the clauses implemented. That could be debated by the Committee on the Bill when we get to those clauses. What I am proposing today is the opportunity to inform the debate on those clauses on one specific point; otherwise, the debate on those clauses will be clouded by the debate on whether or not there is an impact on party-political funding, although I entirely accept the point about what was in the manifesto about the opt-in or opt-out. I am seeking to remove that party-political element from the debate and debate the specifics of that in a Select Committee in order to then inform the Committee.
Lord Cormack
Does the noble Baroness not appreciate the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bew, as well as by me, that the timescale is wholly unrealistic? A committee has to be set up. It then has to meet. It has to decide precisely on its remit. It has an order to report back by Monday 29 February. That is just unrealistic.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I understand the point the noble Lord is making but I respectfully say to him that he is wrong. The timescale of this is dictated by the timescale that the Government have set to debate the Bill. These issues have to be debated in that timescale because that is the timescale the Government have set for conclusion of the Bill. With due respect to both noble Lords—I think the noble Lord, Lord Bew, made this point—this committee would not address the far wider issues of party funding. Both noble Lords are absolutely right: it could not do so in that timescale. But what it can do is inform the Committee that will be discussing the Bill as a whole in the timescale set down by the Government. It is purely to inform. If we do not have the committee that I am suggesting, those issues will be discussed in the same timeframe but without the external information provided by the Select Committee.
The key thing here is not what the Minister or I think. It is about an assessment of what the impact will be—a forensic assessment of whether it will have that impact. The Minister says no, and I say yes. Who is right? I do not think that we can reach a conclusion on that here, but a Select Committee could look into that impact and it can inform our deliberations on the Bill.
I apologise for citing the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, again but he gave reasons for not voting for my Motion. I say to him that there were reasons for not bringing forward the Bill in the first place because those clauses are so deeply flawed. For the Government to produce an impact assessment which does not even address one of the major issues of controversy that is causing concern across your Lordships’ House is an absolute disgrace. I have heard the Minister but I do not think that she made her points very well and I beg to test the opinion of the House.
Immigration Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bates
“ScheduleFunctions in relation to labour marketEmployment Agencies Act 1973 (c. 35)1 The Employment Agencies Act 1973 is amended as follows.
2 Before section 9 insert—
“8A Appointment of officers
(1) The Secretary of State may—
(a) appoint officers to act for the purposes of this Act, and(b) instead of or in addition to appointing any officers under this section, arrange with any relevant authority for officers of that authority to act for those purposes.(2) The following are relevant authorities—
(a) any Minister of the Crown or government department;(b) any body performing functions on behalf of the Crown; (c) the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.”3 (1) Section 9 (inspection) is amended as follows.
(2) Before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) This section does not apply to an officer acting for the purposes of this Act in relation to England and Wales if the officer is a labour abuse prevention officer within the meaning of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers).”
(3) In subsection (1), for “duly authorised in that behalf by the Secretary of State” substitute “acting for the purposes of this Act”.
(4) In subsection (4)(a), in each of subparagraphs (ii) and (iii), for “or servant appointed by, or person exercising functions on behalf of, the Secretary of State” substitute “acting for the purposes of this Act,”.
National Minimum Wage Act 1998 (c. 39)4 The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 is amended as follows.
5 In section 13 (appointment of officers for enforcement)—
(a) in subsection (1)(b), for the words from “Minister of the Crown” to “body shall” substitute “relevant authority for officers of that authority to”;(b) after subsection (1) insert—“(1A) The following are relevant authorities—
(a) any Minister of the Crown or government department;(b) any body performing functions on behalf of the Crown; (c) the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.”6 In section 14 (powers of officers) before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) This section does not apply to an officer acting for the purposes of this Act in relation to England and Wales if the officer is a labour abuse prevention officer within the meaning of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers).”
Modern Slavery Act 2015 (c. 30)7 The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.
8 Before section 12 (but after the italic heading before it) insert—
“11A Enforcement by Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
(1) The Secretary of State may make arrangements with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority for officers of the Authority to act for the purposes of this Part in taking action in circumstances in which it appears that an offence under this Part which is a labour market offence (within the meaning of section 3 of the Immigration Act 2016) has been, is being or may be committed.
(2) For provision about the powers of such an officer who is acting for the purposes of this Part, see section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers).”
9 (1) Section 15 (slavery and trafficking prevention orders on application) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) omit the “or” after paragraph (b);(b) after paragraph (c) insert “, or(d) the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.”(3) In subsection (7)—
(a) for “or the Director General”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) for “or the Director General”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Authority”.(4) In subsection (8)(b)—
(a) for “or the Director General”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) for “or the Director General”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Authority”.10 In section 19(7) (requirement to provide name and address)—
(a) for “or an immigration officer” substitute “, an immigration officer or the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) for “or the officer” substitute “, the officer or the Authority”.11 (1) Section 20 (variation, renewal and discharge) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—
“(g) where the order was made on an application under section 15 by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Authority.”(3) In subsection (9)—
(a) for “or the Director General”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) for “or the Director General”, in the second and third places it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Authority”.12 (1) Section 23 (slavery and trafficking risk orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) omit the “or” after paragraph (b);(b) after paragraph (c) insert “, or(d) the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.”(3) In subsection (6)—
(a) for “or the Director General”, in the first place it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) for “or the Director General”, in the second place it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Authority”.(4) In subsection (7)(b)—
(a) for “or the Director General” substitute “, the Director General or the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) for “or Director General” substitute “, the Director General or the Authority”.13 In section 26(7) (requirement to provide name and address)—
(a) for “or an immigration officer” substitute “, an immigration officer or the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) for “or the officer” substitute “, the officer or the Authority”.14 (1) Section 27 (variation, renewal and discharge) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after paragraph (f) insert—
“(g) where the order was made on an application by the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Authority.”(3) In subsection (7)—
(a) for “or the Director General” in the first place it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) for “or the Director General” in the second and third places it occurs, substitute “, the Director General or the Authority”.15 After section 30 (offences) insert—
“30A Enforcement by Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority
(1) The Secretary of State may make arrangements with the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority for officers of the Authority to act for the purposes of this Part in taking action in circumstances in which it appears that an offence under this Part which is a labour market offence (within the meaning of section 3 of the Immigration Act 2016) has been, is being or may be committed.
(2) For provision about the powers of such an officer who is acting for the purposes of this Part, see section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers).”
16 In section 33 (guidance), in subsection (1) for “and the Director General of the National Crime Agency” substitute “, the Director General of the National Crime Agency and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.”
Lord Bates
“ScheduleConsequential and related amendmentsPublic Records Act 1958 (c. 51)1 In the Public Records Act 1958, in Schedule 1 (definition of public records), in Part 2 of the Table at the end of paragraph 3 (other establishments and organisations), for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.
Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (c. 13)2 In the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, in Schedule 2 (departments etc subject to investigation)—
(a) at the appropriate place insert “Director of Labour Market Enforcement”;(b) for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)3 In the Superannuation Act 1972, in Schedule 1 (kinds of employment to which that Act applies), under the heading “Other bodies”, for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.
House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 24)4 In the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, in Schedule 1 (offices disqualifying for membership)—
(a) in Part 2 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) in Part 3 (other disqualifying offices), at the appropriate place insert “Director of Labour Market Enforcement”.Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25)5 In the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975, in Schedule 1 (offices disqualifying for membership)—
(a) in Part 2 (bodies of which all members are disqualified), for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) in Part 3 (other disqualifying offices), at the appropriate place insert “Director of Labour Market Enforcement”.Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23)6 In the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, in Schedule 1 (relevant public authorities), in Part 1 (relevant authorities for purposes of sections 28 and 29 of that Act) in paragraph 20E for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.
Freedom of Information Act 2000 (c. 36)7 In the Freedom of Information Act 2000, in Schedule 1 (public authorities), in Part 6 (other public bodies and offices: general)—
(a) at the appropriate place insert “Director of Labour Market Enforcement”; (b) for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 30)8 The Police Reform Act 2002 is amended as follows.
9 In section 10 (general functions of the Independent Police Complaints Commission)—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (g) insert—“(ga) to carry out such corresponding functions in relation to officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority in their capacity as labour abuse prevention officers (see section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers)).”; (b) in subsection (3), after paragraph (bc) insert— “(bd) any regulations under section 26D of this Act (labour abuse prevention officers);”.10 After section 26C insert—
“26D Labour abuse prevention officers
(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations conferring functions on the Commission in relation to the exercise of functions by officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (the “Authority”) in their capacity as labour abuse prevention officers (see section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers)).
(2) Regulations under this section may, in particular—
(a) apply (with or without modifications), or make provision similar to, any provision of or made under this Part;(b) make provision for payment by the Authority to, or in respect of, the Commission.(3) The Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may jointly investigate a matter in relation to which—
(a) the Commission has functions by virtue of this section, and(b) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration has functions by virtue of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.(4) An officer of the Authority may disclose information to the Commission, or to a person acting on the Commission’s behalf, for the purposes of the exercise by the Commission, or by any person acting on the Commission’s behalf, of an Authority complaints function.
(5) The Commission and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration may disclose information to each other for the purposes of the exercise of a function—
(a) by virtue of this section, or(b) under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.(6) Regulations under this section may, in particular, make—
(a) further provision about the disclosure of information under subsection (4) or (5);(b) provision about the further disclosure of information that has been so disclosed.(7) In this section “Authority complaints function” means a function in relation to the exercise of functions by officers of the Authority.”
Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 (c. 11)11 The Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 is amended as follows.
12 In the italic heading before section 1, for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.
13 In section 1 (Gangmasters Licensing Authority)—
(a) in the heading, for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”;(b) for subsection (1) substitute—“(1) The body known as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority is to continue to exist and is to be known as the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority (in this Act referred to as “the Authority”).”;
(c) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) When carrying out functions during a year to which a labour market enforcement strategy approved under section 2 of the Immigration Act 2016 relates, the Authority and its officers must carry out those functions in accordance with the strategy.”
14 In section 2 (directions etc by the Secretary of State), in subsection (2) after “the Authority” insert “and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement”.
15 In section 3 (work to which Act applies)—
(a) in subsection (5)(b), for the words from “the following nature” to the end substitute “a prescribed description as being work to which this Act applies”;(b) after subsection (5) insert— “(6) The Secretary of State must consult the Authority and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement before making regulations under subsection (5).”
16 In section 8 (general power of Authority to make rules)—
(a) in subsection (1), after “may” insert “with the approval of the Secretary of State”;(b) omit subsection (3);(c) after subsection (4) insert—“(5) The Authority may from time to time with the approval of the Secretary of State revise the rules.
(6) The Authority must publish any rules made or revised under this section.”
17 In section 14 (offences: supplementary provisions) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to an enforcement officer who is acting for the purposes of this Act in relation to England and Wales if the officer is a labour abuse prevention officer within the meaning of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers).”
18 In section 15 (enforcement and compliance officers) after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) Subsections (5) and (6) do not apply to an enforcement officer who is acting for the purposes of this Act in relation to England and Wales if the officer is a labour abuse prevention officer within the meaning of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers).”
19 In section 16 (powers of officers) before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) This section does not apply to an enforcement officer who is acting for the purposes of this Act in relation to England and Wales if the officer is a labour abuse prevention officer within the meaning of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers).”
20 In section 17 (entry by warrant) before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) This section does not apply to an enforcement officer who is acting for the purposes of this Act in relation to England and Wales if the officer is a labour abuse prevention officer within the meaning of section 114B of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE powers for labour abuse prevention officers).”
21 In section 25 (regulations, rules and orders)—
(a) omit subsection (4);(b) in subsection (6), omit paragraph (b) (and the “or” before it).22 (1) Schedule 2 (application of Act to Northern Ireland) is amended as follows.
(2) In the italic heading before paragraph 3, for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.
(3) In paragraph 6—
(a) after “work in Northern Ireland,” insert “—(a) ”;(b) at the end insert “, and (b) the requirement under subsection (2) of that section to consult the Director of Labour Market Enforcement is to be ignored.”(4) In paragraph 7, for paragraph (b) substitute—
“(b) paragraph (b) is to be read as if for “work of a prescribed description as being work to which this Act applies” there were substituted “work of the following nature as being work to which this Act applies—(i) the gathering (by any manner) of wild creatures, or wild plants, of a prescribed description and the processing and packaging of anything so gathered, and (ii) the harvesting of fish from a fish farm (within the meaning of the Fisheries Act (NI) 1966 (c. 17 (NI)).”(5) For paragraph 10 substitute—
“10 (1) Rules under section 8 (general power of Authority to make rules) which make provision for Northern Ireland licences (“Northern Ireland rules”) are to be made by statutory instrument.
(2) Section 8 as it applies in relation to Northern Ireland licences is to be read as if—
(a) in subsection (1) the words “with the approval of the Secretary of State” were omitted, and(b) subsections (5) and (6) were omitted.(3) The Authority must consult the relevant Northern Ireland department before making any Northern Ireland rules about fees.
(4) A statutory instrument containing Northern Ireland rules is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (c. 16)23 In the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, in Schedule 7 (designated bodies), in paragraph 13, for “Gangmasters’ Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 (c. 13)24 In the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, in Schedule 5 (designated regulators), for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.
Modern Slavery Act 2015 (c. 30)25 The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is amended as follows.
26 In section 52 (duty to notify Secretary of State about suspected victims of slavery or human trafficking), in subsection (5)(k), for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.
27 In Schedule 3 (public authorities under duty to co-operate with the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner), for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.
Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 (c. 2) (N.I.)28 In the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, in Schedule 3 (slavery and trafficking prevention orders), in Part 3 (supplementary) in paragraph 18(7)(e), for “Gangmasters Licensing Authority” substitute “Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority”.”
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have Amendments 78 to 91 in this group, in which there are also two government amendments. I am sorry that they are not the sort of all-singing, all-dancing amendments with which one might like to start the day’s proceedings, but they are important.
Schedule 1 provides for changes to licensing related to illegal working and covers licensed premises and personal licences. The Licensing Act 2003 sets out licensing objectives. They are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. It seems to us that they cover the ground pretty well and they have been found to do so, particularly when taken with the local administration of licensing which sets it in the local context. I dare say that the Minister will say that illegal working—the subject of the schedule—is a crime, but we have already explained our view that the schedule is futile at best, dangerous at worst and has unlooked-for consequences. I will not repeat those arguments now. If a crime is committed, then whether that specific crime needs a schedule is one of the overarching questions.
Amendments 78 and 79 would retain the Secretary of State’s right to be notified of an application for a licence and to object to that application along with the occupants of 25 Acacia Avenue, those next door to the Bull public house and so on, but it would delete the immigration officer’s right to enter to see—those are the words of the Bill—whether an immigration offence is being committed. In our view, the licensing objective should be about particular individuals and premises and whether they are appropriate for a licence to be granted. Apart from the substantive objections, this schedule produces a lot of bureaucracy. Is it not enough that the Secretary of State has a right to object to the grant of the licence? If the licensee has been employing one or two people without the right to work, it is possible that there may have been confusion, difficulties of checking and so on, so there is a great possibility for mistakes. That is very different from an operation being dependent on an almost entirely unentitled or illegal workforce.
I have mentioned public houses, but I know that there is also concern in, for instance, the curry house trade that these provisions will cause considerable disruption to their operation. What consultation has there been with various relevant organisations, including within the licensed trade? A lot of small businesses stand to be affected by this. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has analysed Home Office lists of penalties imposed for illegal working and says that many of them relate to small businesses. It asks a pertinent question about whether that is because they employ illegal workers more often or because they are targeted more often. Also, for immigration officers to be able to enter premises on something of a fishing expedition without the need for suspicion is a wide power.
Amendments 80 and 83 may look as if I am seeking to extend the powers of the Secretary of State; I am not. This is to probe how the powers will operate and, again, to ask what consultation there has been. The police can already object to the transfer of a licence because it would undermine the crime prevention objective in the exceptional circumstances of a case, so presumably the Home Office has experience of this and should be able to help me with that question. I also ask whether this right for the police is not enough in itself without extending a similar right to the Secretary of State.
Amendments 81, 82, 84, 85, 87, 88 and 90 would change “appropriate” to “necessary”, which is the term used in the 2003 Act. For instance, it would be “necessary” to reject an application under that Act for the crime prevention objective. To change that term to being “appropriate” to reject it for these objectives seems to give a discretion to the Secretary of State that is wider than we are accustomed to in current licensing law, and which I am unconvinced about.
Amendments 86 and 89 are also about the scope for the Secretary of State’s discretion. They mean that the Secretary of State must be satisfied—I will give that much on the basis of reasonableness—that refusing a licence or the continuation of one is necessary to prevent illegal working, not just that the grant of a licence would prejudice the prevention of illegal working, as the schedule says.
Lastly, and rather differently, there is Amendment 91. The schedule provides that on appeal the magistrates cannot consider whether, after the original decision that is the subject of the appeal, an individual has actually been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK. Why is this necessary? What happens if the individual is granted leave to enter or leave to remain but his initial application for a licence has been turned down? Does he in those circumstances have to make a fresh application for a licence, which will carry with it costs as well as difficulties in running a business, and indeed for employees of that applicant? I will hear what the Minister has to say about his amendments, but I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support what might be seen as the rather technical points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I am looking particularly at Amendments 81, 82, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89 and 90. Where it is the practice in earlier legislation to use the word “necessary”, it seems inappropriate to use the word “appropriate”. One should keep to similar phraseology in legislation unless there is some very strong view to change it. “Appropriate”, as the noble Baroness says, gives a very wide degree of discretion—far greater than necessary—and I cannot at the moment see why it is necessary to have it wider than that. The other points—refusing continuation of a licence and so on—are similar. They are perhaps technical but, when they are worked on the ground, they have considerable force, and I am rather concerned to be broadening out what it does not seem necessary so to broaden.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendments 78 and 79, which would remove the Secretary of State’s power. It is a snooping power—a very wide power to search any licensed premises, with no need for suspicion, as the noble Baroness said. I will ask her question again in different words: what is the evidence for the growth in illegal working in licensed premises which justifies these new rules?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with the exception of the final two, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates. They are all concerned with Schedule 1 to the Bill and are generally technical in nature.
Amendments 78 and 79 aim to remove from the schedule amendments to the Licensing Act 2003, which would bring that Act into line with the proposals in the Bill. These amendments highlight the very unsatisfactory nature of the Bill that has been brought before us today, and for that reason, if nothing else, they are useful.
The next part of this group seeks to delete and insert certain words to make changes in emphasis and to clarify at what point action is sought to be taken. To remove the word “appropriate” and insert the word “necessary” in its place would raise the requirement from what is deemed “suitable” or “fitting” to achieve the objective or outcome to something where those exercising the power would have to be satisfied that it is “essential” or “indispensable” to achieve the desired outcome. I agree with the points made in this respect by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
I will not spend any more time on this as there will be more substantial debates later today, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, will be able to answer the important points that have been raised in this initial debate. The final two amendments, which are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, seek to clarify further what is proposed in the provisions in the schedule, and I am satisfied with them.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for speaking to her amendments. Before coming to the questions that have been asked, I will briefly speak to Amendments 92 and 93 in my name. Schedule 1 to the Bill concerns the powers to prevent illegal working in premises licensed to sell alcohol or provide late-night refreshment in England and Wales. These are two technical amendments to Schedule 1 which aim to ensure that those who have applied for a premises licence or a personal licence for the sale of alcohol or the provision of late-night refreshment, and who have not had a decision on that licence application before these provisions have commenced, will have their application determined on the basis of the licensing law in force at the time they made their licensing application.
Amendments 78 to 91 are proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Schedule 1 integrates protection against illegal working into the existing licensing regime, including by adding the Home Secretary to the list of responsible authorities for the purpose of the Licensing Act, by making the prevention of illegal working an objective of the licensing regime and by requiring licence applicants to have the requisite right to work. The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness would adjust the threshold at which the Secretary of State may object to a licensing application. They would permit a court to consider whether the appellant has been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK after the date of the decision being appealed against, in effect duplicating the proper role of the tribunal—the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. The amendments would also make changes to the proposed “entitlement to work” definition from the Licensing Act 2003 to prevent immigration status and, in particular, the lack of it being relevant to alcohol or late-night refreshment licensing decisions.
We do not believe that these amendments would achieve the objective of preventing illegal working in this high-risk sector. They would not provide the necessary clarity for licensing authorities or the Home Office in respect of the proposed power to withhold personal and premises licences based on the absence of the applicant’s right to work in this sector or concerns about the risk of illegal working in the premises concerned. They would also result in inconsistency with the standards employed in the wider licensing framework. Changes made by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 have given licensing authorities greater power to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder, and it is appropriate that the same level of evidence and discretion is also afforded in respect of the prevention of illegal working.
The Home Office decision to object to the issue of a premises licence to prevent illegal working will not be taken lightly. Schedule 1 makes it clear that the Secretary of State may object only where she is satisfied that the exceptional circumstances of the case are such that issuing a licence would be prejudicial to preventing illegal working. Schedule 1 also provides the necessary clarity on the circumstances in which a person’s immigration status should render them ineligible to hold a licence to sell alcohol. The proposed amendments would permit an individual to apply for a licence even though they are not permitted to work in the UK, or where their immigration status prevents their doing work related to licensable activity. This cannot be right. An applicant who has been refused a licence but is subsequently granted leave would simply need to make a fresh application and include the required information that provides evidence of immigration status.
Let me turn to some of the particular points that were made. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, asked what evidence exists that this is a particular problem. Of the civil penalties served for illegal working in the year to June 2015, 82% were served on the retail industry or hotel, restaurant and leisure industry sectors. A large proportion of these sectors hold premises or personal alcohol licences. Enforcement activity is decided as a consequence of intelligence and does not affect only companies that employ a small number of employees.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what consultation had taken place. The changes proposed to the Licensing Act in the Bill have been subject to consultation with interested partners, including licensing authorities, the police, and representatives of the licensed trade. The consultation was undertaken last summer via a number of workshops, which were attended by the Local Government Association, the Institute of Licensing, licensing officers from seven licensing authorities, representatives of the national policing lead on alcohol, and the police and crime commissioner lead on alcohol. The second workshop included industry partners such as the British Beer & Pub Association, the Association of Convenience Stores, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and the Association of Licensed Multiple Retailers. These partners provided a significant contribution to shaping our proposals.
Let me turn to perhaps the most interesting point, raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which is the subject of most of the amendments in this group: the use of the term “appropriate”. This was introduced across the licensing regime in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. We want the test in standards to be consistent across the two pieces of legislation. If we ended up with a differently worded test in the Bill before us, that might require consequential changes to the 2011 Act to bring them into line. I have listened carefully to the arguments that have been made and the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on behalf of the Opposition, and I am very happy to look at this issue ahead of Report to see whether any change is needed. However, that is the rationale for the choice of language.
With that assurance, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendments, and in doing so I commend my amendments to the Committee.
Baroness Hamwee
I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendments. I have to say that my trigger finger on my iPad is not fast enough to have got into the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act. The Minister will understand that I will want to check whether it is on all fours in this regard. If it absolutely is, I might have to say, “You have got me there”.
The amendments have been described as technical. I do not think that they are; they are about people’s livelihoods, and that is why I am quite persistent with them. That was an impressive list of consultees who, we are told, helped to shape the proposal. I could not deduct whether they were shaping a proposal that they did not like and just making it a little better or whether they were going along with the proposal as it was put to them.
I will finish by saying that what I really do not want to see is a confusing of licensing and immigration—a point that crops up at a number of points in the Bill. They are separate issues and that is why I was so concerned. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to indulge myself with this tranche of amendments, and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 78.
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
My Lords, I shall speak also to government Amendments 95 to 99, 102 to 104, 107 to 116, 118 and 119, 123, and 127 to 132. I shall await the formal moving of the other amendments in this group and will cover them in my response.
The Government are seeking to prevent illegal working in the taxi and private hire sector, which, like the licensing sector, represents a high risk of illegal working. Many, but not all, licensing authorities undertake immigration checks. We are therefore taking action in Clause 11 and Schedule 2 to mandate immigration checks by all licensing authorities and to embed immigration safeguards in the existing licensing regimes.
I shall be moving a number of amendments today. While they appear significant in number, their purpose is simple, and that is to extend the existing provisions in Schedule 2 to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Plymouth. The main thrust of the government amendments is therefore to ensure that this measure applies across the whole of the UK. The Bill currently amends primary legislation in England and Wales with the sole exception of Plymouth, as I am sure the Deputy Chairman will be interested to know. We have needed extra time to work out and consult on the technical detail to fill these jurisdictional gaps. Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in Plymouth is covered by the Plymouth City Council Act 1975 and not by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Accordingly, we are seeking to amend the 1975 Act to extend to Plymouth taxi and private hire vehicle licensing provisions equivalent to those in the rest of England and Wales.
Further government amendments remove the enabling power in Clause 11 to extend provision to Scotland and Northern Ireland and, in its place, introduce substantive provision. In the case of Scotland, the provisions amend the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 and, in the case of Northern Ireland, the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008. The Government have worked with the Governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland in bringing forward these amendments.
The remaining government amendments are also technical. We wish to ensure that there is consistency across all relevant licensing legislation where possible in relation to the offence of non-compliance with the mandatory return to the relevant licensing authority of expired licences and licences which have been revoked or suspended on immigration grounds. We also wish to specify the circumstances in which immigration offences and penalties will not be taken into account in any decision to revoke or suspend a licence. These are spent convictions and civil penalties which were served more than three years previously and which have been paid in full. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group; most of them are amendments to the government amendments and most of them come in pairs.
Amendment 99A is the first amendment of these pairs and deals with the licensing authority having to set an expiry date for a licence for someone who has been granted limited leave to enter or remain in the UK. The Government are proposing that the licence period,
“must end at or before the end of the leave period”,
which could mean a significantly shorter time before the end of the leave period. My amendments would mean that the licence would end at the end of the leave period. It would be fairly obvious that I would want to ask why the Government think it necessary to make provision for it to end some time before the end of the leave period. Presumably, the licensing authority can grant a licence for a shorter period in any event. I can see the need that it should not go on beyond the end of the leave period, but why does it have to be less?
Amendment 99B is the first of the other pairs of amendments. If leave is extended, the licensing authority can set the duration of the licence, which must not be more than six months. Again, I would ask why. I am proposing that the licence should coincide with the leave period. I make the point that I made in the previous group of amendments that we are dealing with people’s livelihoods.
Amendment 117 is pretty much the same as the amendment in the previous group about whether an appeal, having been successful, can be entertained when a licence has been refused and is appealed on. I lost a grip of what the Minister said on that and will have to read Hansard, but he will probably have the same answer.
On Amendments 120 to 124, Schedule 2 provides for guidance from the Secretary of State to the licensing authorities in determining whether an applicant for a licence is disqualified because of his immigration status. My amendments amount to a requirement to consult with representatives of the licensing authorities, including Transport for London.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this group comprises a large group of government amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and a number of amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is clear that the government amendments are included to make matters clear and consistent across all relevant lines of legislation. That in itself is a good thing. But for me that further illustrates the point that this legislation has been rushed and ill thought out and these revisions should have been in the Bill from the start.
Also, the Secretary of State is given powers in these government amendments to amend fine amounts by secondary legislation. That may be perfectly acceptable in this case. But the Government like their secondary legislation, hiding behind the limited ability of Parliament to hold them to account in such circumstances, but that I think is a wider issue for the House.
I have looked at the amendments put down by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and with respect to Amendment 117, they have a good point to make. It is not unreasonable for the courts to take into account that, after the date of a decision being appealed against, the person has been granted leave to remain in or enter the UK.
I take it that the other amendments are probing in nature in order to assist the Committee in further understanding the intention of the Government and satisfying noble Lords that what is being proposed is achievable, and of course they can be retabled later in the course of the Bill if we think it necessary. I very much accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that these are important issues that concern people’s livelihoods.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I understand the nature of the amendments and I understand them better now that the noble Baroness has spoken to them. At the same time, I should like to provide some reassurances on the points she has made, in respect of taxi and private hire licence holders who have limited leave to be in the UK, that any licence granted must be for the full duration of the leave period. This fails to recognise that taxi and private hire licences cannot be granted for more than three years, while operating licences cannot be granted for more than five years. As the licence holder’s immigration leave may expire after the relevant maximum licence duration, the Bill must enable licences to be granted for a shorter period.
Amendments 99B, 99D, 101, 106, 118B, 122, 126 and 131B relate to leave being extended by virtue of Section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 when a person makes an application in time for an extension of leave, an administrative review or an appeal. While I appreciate the reasons behind these amendments, the Government believe that it is reasonable to limit the duration of a licence issued during a period of Section 3C leave to six months. The provisions would not work in practice without a stated duration, since licensing authorities cannot grant licences of unspecified duration. The six-month duration mirrors the period of an excuse provided to an employer who performs a right to work check on a migrant during a period in which they may have Section 3C leave to remain. If at the end of the six-month period the licence holder has been granted further leave, he or she will be able to demonstrate this leave and obtain a new licence.
Amendment 117 has already been considered by noble Lords in the context of alcohol and late night refreshment licences. The purpose of an appeal is to ascertain whether the original decision was correctly made. It would therefore not be appropriate for the court to consider a subsequent immigration decision. An appellant who has subsequently been granted leave would need to make a fresh application and include the required information which provides evidence of immigration status.
Amendments 120 to 124 would require the Secretary of State to consult licensing authorities and Transport for London before issuing relevant guidance on whether an applicant is disqualified from holding a licence because of their immigration status. This will be done anyway. In formulating these provisions, the Home Office, with the assistance of the Department for Transport, consulted the Local Government Association, licensing authorities, the Institute of Licensing and Transport for London.
In the light of this explanation, which I hope has addressed the key points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I hope that she feels reassured enough not to press her amendment.
Lord Bates
“London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 (c. 86)(1) Section 18 of the London Hackney Carriages Act 1843 (licences and badges to be delivered up on the discontinuance of licences) is amended as follows.
(2) At the beginning insert “(1)”.
(3) At the end of subsection (1) insert—
“(2) Subsection (1) does not require the delivery of a licence and badge on the expiry of the licence if the licence was granted in accordance with section 8A(2) or (4) of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (but see section 8A(5A) of that Act).””
“(5A) If a licence granted in accordance with subsection (2) or (4) expires, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after that on which it expired, return to Transport for London—
(a) the licence,(b) the person’s copy of the licence (if any), and(c) the person’s driver’s badge.”
“(7A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (7)(b).
(7B) Regulations under subsection (7A) may make transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(7C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord Bates
“Plymouth City Council Act 1975 (c. xx)3A The Plymouth City Council Act 1975 is amended as follows.
3B After section 2 insert—
“2A Persons disqualified by reason of immigration status
(1) For the purposes of this Act a person is disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from carrying on a licensable activity if the person is subject to immigration control and—
(a) the person has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or(b) the person’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—(i) is invalid,(ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise), or(iii) is subject to a condition preventing the individual from carrying on the licensable activity.(2) Where a person is on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Immigration Act 2016—
(a) the person is to be treated for the purposes of this Part of this Act as if the person had been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom, but (b) any condition as to the person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a condition of leave.(3) For the purposes of this section a person is subject to immigration control if under the Immigration Act 1971 the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person carries on a licensable activity if the person—
(a) drives a private hire vehicle,(b) operates a private hire vehicle, or(c) drives a hackney carriage.2B Immigration offences and immigration penalties
(1) In this Act “immigration offence” means—
(a) an offence under any of the Immigration Acts,(b) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 of attempting to commit an offence within paragraph (a), or(c) an offence under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 of conspiracy to commit an offence within paragraph (a).(2) In this Act “immigration penalty” means a penalty under—
(a) section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”), or(b) section 23 of the Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”).(3) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 15(3) of that Act, or (b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 16 or 17 of that Act.(4) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 16 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period, and(b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 17 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.(5) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 24 of that Act, or (b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 29 or 30 of that Act.(6) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 29 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period, and (b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 30 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.”3C (1) Section 9 (licensing of drivers of private hire vehicles) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after “satisfied” insert “—(i)”, and(b) for the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute “and(ii) that the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle; or”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle, the Council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
3D In section 11(1) (drivers’ licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles)—
(a) in paragraph (a) for “Every” substitute “Subject to section 11A, every”, and(b) in paragraph (b) after “1889,” insert “but subject to section 11A,”.3E After section 11 insert—
“11A Drivers’ licences for persons subject to immigration control
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) a licence within section 11(1)(a) or (b) is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”),(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision), and(c) apart from subsection (2), the period for which the licence would have been in force would have ended after the end of the leave period.(2) The Council must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must end at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a) a licence within section 11(1)(a) or (b) is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period, and(b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).(4) The Council must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must not exceed six months.
(5) A licence within section 11(1)(a) ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a private hire vehicle.
(6) A licence within section 11(1)(b) ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a hackney carriage.
(7) If a licence granted in accordance with subsection (2) or (4) expires, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after that on which it expired, return the licence and the person’s driver’s badge to the Council.
(8) If subsection (5) or (6) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return the licence and the person’s driver’s badge to the Council.
(9) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (7) or (8) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, and(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which an offence continues after conviction. (10) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (9)(b).
(11) Regulations under subsection (10) may make transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(12) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (10) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
3F (1) Section 13 (licensing of operators of private hire vehicles) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) after “satisfied” insert “—(a)”, and(b) at the end of paragraph (a) insert “; and(b) if the applicant is an individual, that the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle.”(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle, the Council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(4) In subsection (2) for “Every” substitute “Subject to section 13A, every”.
3G After section 13 insert—
“13A Operators’ licences for persons subject to immigration control
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) a licence under section 13 is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”),(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision), and(c) apart from subsection (2), the period for which the licence would have been in force would have ended after the end of the leave period.(2) The Council must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must end at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a) a licence under section 13 is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period, and(b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).(4) The Council must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it remains in force; and that period must not exceed six months.
(5) A licence under section 13 ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle.
(6) If a licence granted in accordance with subsection (2) or (4) expires, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after that on which it expired, return the licence to the Council.
(7) If subsection (5) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return it to the Council.
(8) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) or (7) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, and (b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which an offence continues after conviction.(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (8)(b).
(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may make transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (9) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
3H (1) Section 17 (qualification for drivers of hackney carriages) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) in paragraph (a) after “satisfied” insert “—(i)”, and(b) for the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute “and(ii) that the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a hackney carriage; or”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (1) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a hackney carriage, the Council must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
3I (1) Section 19 (suspension and revocation of drivers’ licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) that he has since the grant of the licence been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty;”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1)(aa) does not apply if—
(a) in a case where the driver has been convicted of an immigration offence, the conviction is a spent conviction within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, or(b) in a case where the driver has been required to pay an immigration penalty—(i) more than three years have elapsed since the date on which the penalty was imposed, and(ii) the amount of the penalty has been paid in full.”(4) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The requirement in subsection (2)(a) to return a driver’s badge does not apply in a case where section 20A applies (but see subsection (2) of that section)).””
3J (1) Section 20 (suspension and revocation of operators’ licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) before the “or” at the end of paragraph (c) insert—
“(ca) that the operator has since the grant of the licence been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty;”.(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1)(ca) does not apply if—
(a) in a case where the operator has been convicted of an immigration offence, the conviction is a spent conviction within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, or(b) in a case where the operator has been required to pay an immigration penalty—(i) more than three years have elapsed since the date on which the penalty was imposed, and(ii) the amount of the penalty has been paid in full.”3K After section 20 insert—
“20A Return of licences suspended or revoked on immigration grounds
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) under section 19 the Council suspend, revoke or refuse to renew the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(aa) of that section, or(b) under section 20 the Council suspend, revoke or refuse to renew an operator’s licence on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(ca) of that section.(2) The person to whom the licence was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the relevant day, return to the Council—
(a) the licence, and(b) in the case of a licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle, the person’s driver’s badge.(3) In subsection (2) “the relevant day” means—
(a) where the licence is suspended or revoked, the day on which the suspension or revocation takes effect;(b) where the Council refuse to renew the licence, the day on which the licence expires as a result of the failure to renew it.(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, and(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which an offence continues after conviction.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (4)(b).
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may make transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (8) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
3L In section 37 (appeals) after subsection (2) insert—
“(3) On an appeal under this Act or an appeal under section 302 of the Act of 1936 as applied by this section, the court is not entitled to entertain any question as to whether—
(a) a person should be, or should have been, granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or(b) a person has, after the date of the decision being appealed against, been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.””
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, with the leave of House, perhaps I may respond to some points made by the Minister on these amendments. I will be very quick. As to the requirement as regards private hire licensing and alcohol licensing for an applicant who did not have leave at the point when the initial decision was made but gets leave in the interim period before an appeal, it is very hard on that applicant that the licensing of the appeal court—although “appeal” may not be quite the right term for what I am trying to say—cannot entertain the consideration of that situation. The applicant will incur costs and a delay. Businesses will be affected and third parties—employees—may be affected. Of everything I have heard, that concerns me particularly. I may be misunderstanding some of the procedures but, if I am misunderstanding them and the language is not completely clear, that could cause a problem for those who will have to operate them. I beg to move.
Lord Bates
To clarify for the noble Baroness, I understand her point. My understanding is that what we are saying is that the applicant should not be making an application for a licence that extends beyond the period in which they have leave to remain in the country. Therefore, the point we are seeking to hold is that they should have the licence for the period which relates to the legal position that they have been given to be in the UK. We are trying to tie up those two points.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think I follow that—but what if the application for leave has initially been turned down on the basis of a mistake? That would leave the applicant for a licence in a difficult position. I do not think that it will benefit us to take this discussion further now, but I have no doubt that the Minister, in his usual very helpful way, will be able to undertake discussions between Committee and Report. I will certainly look at it again and perhaps we could pursue it.
Lord Bates
“(6A) If a licence granted in accordance with subsection (2) or (4) expires, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after that on which it expired, return the licence and the person’s driver’s badge to the district council which granted the licence.”
“(9) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (8)(b).
(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may make transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(11) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (9) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
Lord Bates
“(5A) If a licence granted in accordance with subsection (2) or (4) expires, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after that on which it expired, return the licence to the district council which granted the licence.”
“(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (7)(b).
(9) Regulations under subsection (8) may make transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(10) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (8) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
“( ) Section 61 (suspension and revocation of driver’s licences) is amended as follows.”
“( ) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1)(aa) does not apply if—
(a) in a case where the driver has been convicted of an immigration offence, the conviction is a spent conviction within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, or(b) in a case where the driver has been required to pay an immigration penalty—(i) more than three years have elapsed since the date on which the penalty was imposed, and(ii) the amount of the penalty has been paid in full.”( ) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2ZA) The requirement in subsection (2)(a) to return a driver’s badge does not apply in a case where section 62A applies (but see subsection (2) of that section).””
“( ) Section 62 (suspension and revocation of operators’ licences) is amended as follows.”
“( ) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1)(ca) does not apply if—
(a) in a case where the operator has been convicted of an immigration offence, the conviction is a spent conviction within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, or(b) in a case where the operator has been required to pay an immigration penalty—(i) more than three years have elapsed since the date on which the penalty was imposed, and(ii) the amount of the penalty has been paid in full.””
“After section 62 insert—
“62A Return of licences suspended or revoked on immigration grounds
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) under section 61 a district council suspend, revoke or refuse to renew the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(aa) of that section, or(b) under section 62 a district council suspend, revoke or refuse to renew an operator’s licence on the ground mentioned in subsection (1)(ca) of that section.(2) The person to whom the licence was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the relevant day, return to the district council—
(a) the licence, and(b) in the case of a licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle, the person’s driver’s badge.(3) In subsection (2) “the relevant day” means—
(a) where the licence is suspended or revoked, the day on which the suspension or revocation takes effect;(b) where the district council refuse to renew the licence, the day on which the licence expires as a result of the failure to renew it.(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (2) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction—
(a) to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, and(b) in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine not exceeding ten pounds for each day during which an offence continues after conviction.(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (4)(b).
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) may make transitional, transitory or saving provision.
(7) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (8) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.””
Lord Bates
“Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c. 45)14A The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 is amended as follows.
14B In section 13 (taxi and private hire car driving licences) after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) A licensing authority shall not grant a licence to any person under this section unless the authority is satisfied that the person is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a taxi or private hire car.
(3B) Section 13A makes provision for the purposes of subsection (3A) about the circumstances in which a person is disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a taxi or private hire car.
(3C) In determining for the purposes of subsection (3A) whether a person is disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a taxi or private hire car, a licensing authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
14C After section 13 insert—
“13A Persons disqualified by reason of immigration status
(1) For the purposes of section 13(3A) a person is disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a taxi or private hire car if the person is subject to immigration control and—
(a) the person has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or(b) the person’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—(i) is invalid,(ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise), or(iii) is subject to a condition preventing the individual from driving a taxi or private hire car.(2) Where a person is on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Immigration Act 2016—
(a) the person is to be treated for the purposes of this section as if the person had been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom, but(b) any condition as to the person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a condition of leave.(3) For the purposes of this section a person is subject to immigration control if under the Immigration Act 1971 the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.”
14D (1) Schedule 1 (licensing - further provisions as to the general system) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 8 (duration of licences) in sub-paragraph (8) after “paragraphs” insert “8A and”.
(3) After paragraph 8 insert—
“Taxi etc driving licences for persons subject to immigration control8A (1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—
(a) a taxi driver’s licence or private hire car driver’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”),(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision), and(c) apart from sub-paragraph (2), the period for which the licence would have had effect would have ended after the end of the leave period.(2) The licensing authority which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it has effect; and that period must end at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies if—
(a) a taxi driver’s licence or private hire car driver’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period, and(b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).(4) The licensing authority which grants the licence must specify a period in the licence as the period for which it has effect; and that period must not exceed six months.
(5) A taxi driver’s licence or private hire car driver’s licence ceases to have effect if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a taxi or private hire car.
(6) Section 13A (persons disqualified by reason of immigration status) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (5) as it applies for the purposes of section 13(3A).
(7) If a licence granted in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) or (4) expires, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after that on which it expired, return the licence to the licensing authority.
(8) If sub-paragraph (5) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return the licence to the licensing authority which granted the licence.
(9) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes sub-paragraph (7) or (8) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
(10) This paragraph applies in relation to the renewal of a licence as it applies in relation to the grant of a licence.”
(4) In paragraph 11 (suspension and revocation of licences) after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) A licensing authority may order the suspension or revocation of a taxi driver’s licence or a private hire car driver’s licence if the holder of the licence has, since its grant, been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty (see paragraph 20).(2B) Sub-paragraph (2A) does not apply if—(a) in a case where the holder of the licence has been convicted of an immigration offence, the conviction is a spent conviction within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, or(b) in a case where the holder of the licence has been required to pay an immigration penalty—(i) more than three years have elapsed since the date on which the penalty was imposed, and(ii) the amount of the penalty has been paid in full.”(5) In paragraph 18 (appeals) after sub-paragraph (8) insert—
“(8A) On an appeal under this paragraph relating to a taxi driver’s licence or a private hire car driver’s licence, the sheriff is not entitled to entertain any question as to whether— (a) a person should be, or should have been, granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or(b) a person has, after the date of the decision being appealed against, been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.”(6) After paragraph 19 insert—
“20 (1) In this Schedule “immigration offence” means an offence under any of the Immigration Acts.
(2) In this Schedule “immigration penalty” means a penalty under—
(a) section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”), or(b) section 23 of the Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”).(3) For the purposes of this Schedule a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 15(3) of that Act, or (b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 16 or 17 of that Act.(4) For the purposes of this Schedule a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 16 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period, and(b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 17 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn. (5) For the purposes of this Schedule a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 24 of that Act, or (b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 29 or 30 of that Act.(6) For the purposes of this Schedule a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 29 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period, and (b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 30 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.””
Lord Bates
“Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996/1320 (NI 10))(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (SI 1996/1320 (NI 10)) is amended as follows.
(2) After the entry relating to section 1(3) of the Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 insert—
“Section 2A(8) | Failing to return an operator’s licence | Summarily | Level 3 on the standard scale”. |
“Section 23A(8) | Failing to return an operator’s licence | Summarily | Level 3 on the standard scale”.” |
Lord Bates
“(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (7)(b).””
Lord Bates
“(8) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the amount for the time being specified in subsection (7)(b).””
“( ) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2)(aa) does not apply if—
(a) in a case where the licence holder has been convicted of an immigration offence, the conviction is a spent conviction within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, or(b) in a case where the licence holder has been required to pay an immigration penalty—(i) more than three years have elapsed since the date on which the penalty was imposed, and(ii) the amount of the penalty has been paid in full.””
“( ) After subsection (4) insert—
“(5) Subsection (4)(aa) does not apply if—
(a) in a case where the licence holder has been convicted of an immigration offence, the conviction is a spent conviction within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, or(b) in a case where the licence holder has been required to pay an immigration penalty—(i) more than three years have elapsed since the date on which the penalty was imposed, and(ii) the amount of the penalty has been paid in full.””
“(1) Section 32 (regulations) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) after “other than section” in the first place those words appear insert “3A(8), 13A(8) or”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) The power to make regulations conferred on the Secretary of State by section 3A(8) or 13A(8) is exercisable by statutory instrument.
(2B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under either of those sections may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
(4) In subsection (4) after “made under section” insert “3A(8), 13A(8) or”.”
Lord Bates
“Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 (c. 4)25 The Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 is amended as follows.
26 (1) Section 2 (operator’s licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (4) for the “and” at the end of paragraph (a) substitute—
“(aa) if the applicant is an individual, the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a taxi service; and”.(3) After subsection (4) insert—
“(4A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (4) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from operating a taxi service, the Department must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(4) In subsection (7) for “An” substitute “Subject to section 2A, an”.
27 After section 2 insert—
“2A Operator’s licences for persons subject to immigration control
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) an operator’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”),(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision), and(c) apart from subsection (2), the period for which the licence would have been granted would have ended after the end of the leave period.(2) The licence must be granted for a period which ends at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a) an operator’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period, and(b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).(4) The licence must be granted for a period which does not exceed six months.
(5) An operator’s licence ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from operating a taxi service.
(6) If a licence granted in accordance with subsection (2) or (4) expires, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after that on which it expired, return it to the Department.
(7) If subsection (5) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return it to the Department.
(8) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) or (7) is guilty of an offence.”
28 (1) Section 23 (taxi driver’s licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) after paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) the applicant is not disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a taxi;”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether an applicant is disqualified by reason of the applicant’s immigration status from driving a taxi, the Department must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
(4) In subsection (8) for “A” substitute “Subject to section 23A, a”.
29 After section 23 insert—
“23A Taxi driver’s licences for persons subject to immigration control
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) a taxi driver’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period (“the leave period”),(b) the person’s leave has not been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision), and(c) apart from subsection (2), the period for which the licence would have been granted would have ended after the end of the leave period.(2) The licence must be granted for a period which ends at or before the end of the leave period.
(3) Subsection (4) applies if—
(a) a taxi driver’s licence is to be granted to a person who has been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom for a limited period, and (b) the person’s leave has been extended by virtue of section 3C of the Immigration Act 1971 (continuation of leave pending variation decision).(4) The licence must be granted for a period which does not exceed six months.
(5) A taxi driver’s licence ceases to be in force if the person to whom it was granted becomes disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from driving a taxi.
(6) If a licence granted in accordance with subsection (2) or (4) expires, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after that on which it expired, return to the Department—
(a) the licence,(b) the person’s driver’s badge, and(c) any other evidence of identification which the Department has issued under section 24.(7) If subsection (5) applies to a licence, the person to whom it was granted must, within the period of 7 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person first became disqualified, return to the Department—
(a) the licence,(b) the person’s driver’s badge, and(c) any other evidence of identification which the Department has issued under section 24.(8) A person who, without reasonable excuse, contravenes subsection (6) or (7) is guilty of an offence.”
30 (1) Section 26 (power to suspend, revoke licences or curtail licences) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2) before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) the licence holder has, since the grant of the licence, been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty;”.(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2)(aa) does not apply if—
(a) in a case where the licence holder has been convicted of an immigration offence, the conviction is a spent conviction within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (SI 1978/1908 (NI 27)), or(b) in a case where the licence holder has been required to pay an immigration penalty—(i) more than three years have elapsed since the date on which the penalty was imposed, and(ii) the amount of the penalty has been paid in full.”(4) In subsection (6) before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) the licence holder has, since the grant of the licence, been convicted of an immigration offence or required to pay an immigration penalty;”.(5) After subsection (6) insert—
“(7) Subsection (6)(aa) does not apply if—
(a) in a case where the licence holder has been convicted of an immigration offence, the conviction is a spent conviction within the meaning of the Rehabilitation of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (SI 1978/1908 (NI 27)), or(b) in a case where the licence holder has been required to pay an immigration penalty—(i) more than three years have elapsed since the date on which the penalty was imposed, and(ii) the amount of the penalty has been paid in full.””31 In section 32 (return of licences etc) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) Subsection (4) does not apply if the licence was granted in accordance with section 2A(2) or (4) or 23A(2) or (4) (but see sections 2A(6) and 23A(6)).”
32 In section 34 (appeals) after subsection (5) insert—
“(6) On any appeal, the court is not entitled to entertain any question as to whether—
(a) a person should be, or should have been, granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or(b) a person has, after the date of the decision being appealed against, been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.”33 After section 56 insert—
“56A Persons disqualified by reason of immigration status
(1) For the purposes of this Act a person is disqualified by reason of the person’s immigration status from carrying on a licensable activity if the person is subject to immigration control and—
(a) the person has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or(b) the person’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—(i) is invalid,(ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise), or(iii) is subject to a condition preventing the individual from carrying on the licensable activity.(2) Where a person is on immigration bail within the meaning of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the Immigration Act 2016—
(a) the person is to be treated for the purposes of this Part as if the person had been granted leave to enter the United Kingdom, but(b) any condition as to the person’s work in the United Kingdom to which the person’s immigration bail is subject is to be treated for those purposes as a condition of leave.(3) For the purposes of this section a person is subject to immigration control if under the Immigration Act 1971 the person requires leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person carries on a licensable activity if the person—
(a) operates a taxi service, or(b) drives a taxi.56B Immigration offences and immigration penalties
(1) In this Act “immigration offence” means—
(a) an offence under any of the Immigration Acts,(b) an offence under Article 3 of the Criminal Attempts and Conspiracy (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (SI 1982/1120 (NI 13)) of attempting to commit an offence within paragraph (a), or(c) an offence under Article 9 of that Order of conspiracy to commit an offence within paragraph (a).(2) In this Act “immigration penalty” means a penalty under—
(a) section 15 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (“the 2006 Act”), or(b) section 23 of the Immigration Act 2014 (“the 2014 Act”).(3) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 15(3) of that Act, or (b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 16 or 17 of that Act. (4) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 15 of the 2006 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 16 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period, and(b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 17 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.(5) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty if—
(a) the person is excused payment by virtue of section 24 of that Act, or (b) the penalty is cancelled by virtue of section 29 or 30 of that Act.(6) For the purposes of this Act a person to whom a penalty notice under section 23 of the 2014 Act has been given is not to be treated as having been required to pay an immigration penalty until such time as—
(a) the period for giving a notice of objection under section 29 of that Act has expired and the Secretary of State has considered any notice given within that period, and (b) if a notice of objection was given within that period, the period for appealing under section 30 of that Act has expired and any appeal brought within that period has been finally determined, abandoned or withdrawn.””
Lord Bates
“Transitional provision(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), an amendment made by any of paragraphs 2, 3, 3C to 3H, 5 to 10, 14B, 14D(2) and (3), 17 to 20 and 25 to 28 does not apply in relation to an application for a licence made before the coming into force of that paragraph or a licence granted in response to such an application.
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) does not prevent an amendment made by any of those paragraphs from applying in relation to—
(a) an application for the renewal of a licence where that licence was granted before the coming into force of that paragraph, or(b) a licence renewed in response to such an application.(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3), an amendment made by any of paragraphs 3I, 3J, 11, 12, 14D(4), 21 and 29 applies in relation to a licence granted before or after the coming into force of that paragraph.
(2) An amendment made by any of those paragraphs applies in relation to a conviction for an immigration offence only if the person in question has been convicted of that offence after the coming into force of that paragraph in respect of the person’s conduct after that time.
(3) An amendment made by any of those paragraphs applies in relation to a requirement to pay an immigration penalty only if the person in question has been required to pay the penalty after the coming into force of that paragraph in respect of the person’s conduct after that time.
(1) Section 19(1) of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975 has effect in relation to the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle granted before the coming into force of paragraph 3I as if before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) there were inserted—
“(ab) in the case of a refusal to renew a licence, that he is disqualified by reason of his immigration status from driving a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle;”. (2) Section 20A(1)(a) of that Act has effect in relation to such a licence as if after “subsection (1)(aa)” there were inserted “or (ab)”.
(3) Section 20(1) of that Act has effect in relation to an operator’s licence granted before the coming into force of paragraph 3J as if before the “or” at the end of paragraph (c) there were inserted—
“(cb) in the case of a refusal to renew a licence, that the operator is disqualified by reason of the operator’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle;”.(4) Section 20A(1)(b) of that Act has effect in relation to such a licence as if after “subsection (1)(ca)” there were inserted “or (cb)”.
(5) Section 61(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 has effect in relation to the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle granted before the coming into force of paragraph 11 as if before the “or” at the end of paragraph (a) there were inserted—
“(ab) in the case of a refusal to renew a licence, that he is disqualified by reason of his immigration status from driving a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle;”.(6) Section 62A(1)(a) of that Act has effect in relation to such a licence as if after “subsection (1)(aa)” there were inserted “or (ab)”.
(7) Section 62(1) of that Act has effect in relation to an operator’s licence granted before the coming into force of paragraph 12 as if before the “or” at the end of paragraph (c) there were inserted—
“(cb) in the case of a refusal to renew a licence, that the operator is disqualified by reason of the operator’s immigration status from operating a private hire vehicle;”.(8) Section 62A(1)(b) of that Act has effect in relation to such a licence as if after “subsection (1)(ca)” there were inserted “or (cb)”.
(9) Subsections (3A) to (3C) of section 13 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 apply in relation to an application for the renewal of a taxi driver’s or private hire car driver’s licence granted before the coming into force of paragraph 14B as they apply in relation to an application for the grant of such a licence made after that time.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I do not wish to see Clause 12 stand part of the Bill. We have other amendments in the group, and we intend to oppose the question that Schedule 3 be the third schedule to the Bill. I have some amendments to Schedule 3 as I am not entirely confident that the Minister will instantly accede to our amendments to and arguments on the schedule.
These provisions are about closing premises if it is thought that illegal working is taking place, followed by the possibility of compliance orders. It seems to us that these are something of a sledgehammer set of provisions. If anyone should be allowed to wield a sledgehammer, it should be the courts, not the Executive. A lot of this Bill—as we have said before and, I dare say, will say again—is about sending messages, which we do not think is the purpose of legislation.
The Bill would give immigration officers powers to close an employer’s premises for up to 48 hours when they are satisfied on reasonable grounds that the employer is employing an illegal worker. He might, of course, not necessarily actually be an illegal worker, but someone that the immigration officer has reasonable cause to believe is not entitled to work. I accept the phrase “reasonable cause” but, by definition, “reasonable cause” is not fact. A closure notice can lead on a pretty fast track to a compliance order being imposed for up to two years, which is a matter for the court. It seems to me that any closure, including the initial closure, should be a matter for the court. What happens when there are mistakes, poor decisions or bad judgment on the part of an immigration officer? The consequences for an employer can be considerable to both his reputation and financially, as they can be for the employees legally working for a business and, indeed, for other separate businesses operating from the same premises. Why is this measure required, given the criminal sanctions proposed for illegally employing someone? What safeguards are provided to ensure that this power is not used oppressively? What records will be made of the decision-making process and will they be disclosed to the owner of the premises?
As I said, I have tabled specific amendments to Schedule 3. Paragraph 1(12) requires an immigration officer to consult anyone he thinks is appropriate before issuing a closure notice. Amendment 135 would require consultation—which, of course, in this context would mean discussion before issuing the notice—with, as a minimum, the employer, people who live on the premises and anyone who has an interest in the premises.
Amendment 146 was tabled following debate in the Commons on paragraph 15(3)(d) of Schedule 3, which is about the possibility of compensation for loss being ordered by the court if, having regard to all the circumstances, the court is satisfied that it is appropriate. The discussion was around whether other criteria must also be satisfied. The Government consider that the word “and” should be included at the end of the relevant provision, not “or”. This is clearly an important point. The ability to order compensation for an employer is restricted, as are the circumstances in which compensation can be paid to third parties—the sort of third parties I have mentioned—who would be adversely affected. Therefore, I am not happy with the Government’s amendment, but at least it will bring clarity.
If the Secretary of State has presented inaccurate information to the court which has led the court to make an order which it would not otherwise have made, or the Secretary of State has acted in an oppressive manner or otherwise wrongfully, will the court have the power to order the payment of compensation or damages without having to start separate proceedings? And if not, why not? The government amendments remove all possibility of compensation for losses incurred as a result of an illegal working closure notice if that notice has been cancelled. It seems likely that where a notice has been issued wrongly, the Home Office should move to cancel it. I ask these questions to seek clarification on these provisions.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, it might be helpful for noble Lords if I speak now to the government amendments to explain them and come to the noble Baroness’s amendments and the stand part debate at the end.
Government Amendments 136 to 145 and 147 have been tabled in respect of illegal working closure notices and compliance orders. They are technical matters, although they also clarify the circumstances in which a person may apply to the courts for compensation where they allege they have suffered financial loss as a consequence of an illegal working closure notice.
Amendment 136 clarifies that an immigration officer may cancel a closure notice only if either the employer operating at the premises is not employing any illegal workers, or the employer does not have an unspent conviction for the offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker, or has not received a civil penalty for employing an illegal worker which is less than three years old or which remains unpaid. This is because these are the circumstances in which a closure notice may be served, according to Schedule 3, paragraph 1(3) and (6).
Amendment 137 corrects an incorrect cross-reference. Amendment 139 excludes compensation from being available where a notice has been cancelled due to the employer being able to evidence compliance with right-to-work checks only after the notice has been issued. This is to ensure that any deliberate delay by the employer is not incentivised in the knowledge that they could still claim compensation. Amendments 140, 141 and 142 simply delete unnecessary references.
Amendments 143 and 144 make it clear that a compensation order may be made only when there has been a mistake of fact as to the conditions in paragraph 1(3) or 1(6) being satisfied. Employers will be given an opportunity to demonstrate that they have conducted right-to-work checks in relation to any illegal workers found before there is any decision to serve a closure notice. The court has discretion to award compensation where these specified conditions have not been satisfied and the claimant has suffered financial loss in consequence of a closure notice.
Following debate in the other place, Amendment 145 simply confirms that the relevant paragraph has a conjunctive construction. In case some noble Lords do not understand that, it means that we add an “and” to the penultimate sub-paragraph, which means that all the conditions must be satisfied
Amendments 138 and 147 omit paragraph 15(4) as it was felt this contributed to the ambiguity raised in debate in the other place. By preventing compensation for financial loss in relation to a person’s work, it could have been read to prevent all compensation for financial loss in relation to a closure notice, such as the earnings of illegal and legal workers. I can assure the Committee that that is not the Government’s intention. Therefore, the government amendments clarify that the compensation mechanism will apply in cases of mistake on specified grounds. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of being a pedant, I point out that, strictly, these amendments are not moved; they are spoken to at this time. They are moved only in the order in which they appear in the Marshalled List.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I react with as much puzzlement to the Minister calling the government amendments “technical matters” as my noble friend Lady Hamwee did when the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, called her Amendments 78 to 91 on licensing, “technical amendments”. These are about people’s livelihoods, whether it is a licence or closing premises. It seems an extraordinary use of Executive power for an immigration officer to be able to close premises—a shop or other place of work—under the conditions that have been cited. I cannot see how this complies with the rule of law. There is going to be no transparency in this process.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, I thank the two noble Baronesses who have spoken. I start by making the general point that these powers will be used only for repeat offenders. They will not be used widely; they are for the most egregious offenders. As well as employing illegal workers, they must already have had illegal working penalties or convictions.
Clause 12, which gives effect to Schedule 3, sets out the regime for illegal working closure notices and illegal working compliance orders. The clause and schedule provide new powers to deal with businesses that repeatedly flout the law by employing illegal workers. The intention is to use them in the most serious cases, as I have just indicated, where civil penalties or previous convictions have failed to change employer behaviour. Such employers may also be exploiting their workers, including legal workers, by not paying the minimum wage or by breaking health and safety legislation. When immigration officers conduct an enforcement visit under existing powers to an employer’s premises, any illegal workers identified may be arrested and the employer may be liable to pay a civil penalty or to prosecution for an offence. Despite this, the employer may continue to use illegal workers who are not apprehended at the time of the visit or who are recruited subsequently. Furthermore, some businesses dissolve to evade sanctions and then reopen in a new name and continue their non-compliance as before. My notes tell me that this is often referred to as “phoenixism” and that may be so. The provisions are designed to break this cycle of non-compliant business behaviour.
The provisions create a new power for immigration officers to close premises for up to 48 hours in certain cases, where the employer or a connected person in relation to the employer has previously faced sanctions for employing illegal workers. An application must be made to a court for an illegal working compliance order, unless the closure notice is cancelled. This compliance order may extend the closure of the premises or make any order the court decides is appropriate to prevent an employer operating at the premises from employing an illegal worker. This might include ordering the business to perform right-to-work checks to ensure that illegal workers are not employed, or to permit immigration officers to enter the premises to ensure that the employer is complying with illegal working rules.
These provisions are loosely modelled on the power to close premises associated with nuisance or disorder, which is in Part 4 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Let me reassure the House that this power will be subject to appropriate safeguards and its use will not be considered lightly. It is designed to be used as a last resort in the most serious cases, where established methods of securing compliance have been unsuccessful, by limiting the duration of the closure notice that may be served by immigration officers; by making the courts responsible for determining whether a compliance order should be imposed; by providing a right of appeal against a compliance order; and by providing a mechanism to apply for compensation, should mistakes be made, we believe that Schedule 3 provides appropriate judicial oversight of the use of these powers and sufficient safeguards and remedies for those who feel that they have been treated unfairly.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, talked about what records will be kept and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about the transparency in the process. Guidance may be published under paragraph 16 of Schedule 3, after appropriate consultation, which would provide for guidance for immigration officers in respect of how their immigration powers should be exercised and recorded. We will ensure that immigration officers make operational records in their pocket notebooks, as is standard practice, and that this is supported by guidance issued under paragraph 16. The Home Office will monitor compliance as a matter of course.
On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the compensation mechanism in paragraph 15 does not apply where the court has made an order, since an adversely affected party should, in this case, appeal the order. The court, on hearing an appeal, may make any order it considers appropriate under paragraph 9(5) and this might include the award of compensation. The noble Baroness also asked whether compensation should be payable when inaccurate information is presented to a court by an immigration officer. If a court considers that the conditions for issuing the notice under paragraph 1(3) or paragraph 1(6) were not satisfied, the court may award compensation to a claimant who has suffered financial loss, if it considers it is appropriate. The compensation mechanism in paragraph 15(3), as I have just said, does not apply when the court has made an order, since the adversely affected party should appeal the order. Compensation may be payable at the discretion of the court if the immigration officer supplied inaccurate information to the court as to whether any illegal workers were present at the property or if the employer had not previously been convicted of an immigration offence or received an immigration penalty. Compensation may also be payable when the immigration officer has not used reasonable efforts to notify people who live at or have an interest in the property.
As to the point that the initial closure order should be issued by a court and not an immigration officer, the Government respectfully disagree. We think that the immediacy of the present approach is designed to serve as a deterrent to employers who have repeatedly flouted illegal working rules. The present approach allows for the trigger conditions to be applied to a particular moment in time. Imposing a requirement for an initial court order would give the employer an opportunity to hide their illegal working, including through dissolving the company.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned that she thought the powers were oppressive and contrary to the rule of law. I point out that the closure of a business premises by law enforcement officers is not unprecedented and the proposal in this Bill, including the safeguards, is modelled on the approach taken in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. As a result of those remarks, I hope that in due course the noble Baroness will accept that Clause 12 and Schedule 3, to which it gives effect, should remain part of the Bill.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Amendment 135 would require the immigration officer to consult the employer,
“people who live on the premises … and … any person who has an interest in the premises”.
The officer will already be required by Schedule 3 to consult any person they think appropriate before issuing a closure notice, and this may include many of those interested parties. In addition, immigration officers are already required to make reasonable efforts to inform any person who lives on the premises and any person who has an interest in the premises that the notice is going to be issued. A requirement to also consult such people—who, I remind noble Lords, have already committed an illegal working offence—seems an unnecessary additional requirement. Also, paragraph 1 makes it clear that a closure notice cannot prohibit access to premises to any person who habitually lives on the premises.
The amendment also requires the employer to be consulted. I can reassure noble Lords that employers will be given an opportunity to demonstrate that they have complied with the law in this area. The decision to serve a closure notice will not be taken lightly. If the employer can produce evidence that right-to-work checks have been undertaken, Schedule 3 makes it clear that the notice must not be issued, or if such evidence is produced after the notice has been issued, the notice may be cancelled. The whole purpose of serving the closure notice is because the business has repeatedly flouted the law in this area. It will be a serious case where the established civil penalty scheme or previous convictions have not prevented continued illegal behaviour.
Amendment 146 would have the effect of always giving the court the discretion to award compensation, even where immigration officers have acted lawfully and the claimant was responsible for illegal working on the premises. This would frustrate the objective of the proposed scheme of closure notices, which is to strengthen our ability to deal with repeat offenders involved in the use of illegal workers. It would be inappropriate to provide the facility for such persons to obtain compensation for financial loss where the immigration authorities have acted correctly in closing their premises.
In the light of my explanation of these provisions, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able not to press her amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might ask my noble friend a couple of questions. He said several times that this is to deal with people who are repeat offenders—the most serious offenders—but paragraph 1(6) requires only one offence. As with certain members of the Government who make mistakes in employing illegal workers from time to time, as do many people, it seems unfair to lump them in with people who are deliberately flouting immigration rules. It sounds very much from what my noble friend is saying that the guidance would require many more offences to have been committed than just the one in the previous three years. I would be comforted if he could reinforce that that is the case and say why paragraph 1(6) says only once.
The other thing that I wanted to raise with him is the conjunction between paragraph 1(3) and 1(11). Surely if the person who is employing gets even a few moments’ prior notice that this procedure is about to be activated, he has a “Lord Sugar” defence—all he has to say is, “You’re fired”, and he is no longer employing anyone.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, in answer to the first question, the whole point is that it is not just sub-paragraph (6) that has to be taken into account before a closure notice is provided; it is in combination with sub-paragraph (3). The condition is that an employer is employing someone illegally and, in sub-paragraph (6), they have to have previously been convicted of an offence. If an immigration officer suspects that illegal working is going on, they can apply for the closure notice if, and only if, sub-paragraph (6) also applies where they have previous convictions in respect of illegal working.
On my noble friend’s second point about giving notice, that is precisely why for the first 24 hours, which may be extended to 48 hours, we feel that an immediate closure notice can be served, before the court is applied to, to prevent employers doing things which would enable them to continue employing illegal workers. The fact that we can do it immediately, albeit for only up to 48 hours, is an important factor in clamping down on this offence.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, when paragraph 1(11) says,
“An illegal working closure notice may be issued only if reasonable efforts have been made to inform”,
that surely says that the person who is running the premises has to be told beforehand that a notice is to be issued and therefore there is a small space of time in which people can be disemployed. I agree that a company could not be closed. I understand how sub-paragraphs (3) and (6) work together, but sub-paragraph (6) is the bit that covers the previous convictions and, in my opinion, it does not match the words of my noble friend that this is for the most serious offences and the really rogue offenders. This catches anyone who has made one mistake beforehand. If we are giving the Executive this power, which I do not disapprove of in extreme cases, we should restrict it to extreme cases and not include a person who makes a second mistake within three years, which in the retail industry is not hard to do.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, we are talking about illegal working by illegal immigrants. It is just a question of what you define as serious. In our view, with employers who have previously been convicted of illegal working offences and who are suspected of employing illegal workers, we regard that as serious. I think it is a question of definition whether you have to have had one, two or three convictions before it applies. At the moment that is where we consider it should be and we consider that serious.
With regard to my noble friend’s earlier point, sub-paragraph (11) says that there is a duty to inform,
“people who live on the premises”—
not necessarily the employer—but we think it is reasonable that people who live on a premises should be informed that a premises might be closed.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, that is exactly the point about the written words matching the oral words which has been concerning me about paragraph 1(6). I do not know whether the Minister can answer this question now. If there has been a conviction, leaving aside for the moment how many offences there have been, and it is a spent conviction under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, it does not apply. But if there has been at any time a requirement to pay a penalty following an illegal working closure notice, and failure to pay that penalty, does that fall within the reference to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act? I suspect it does not. In other words, although there might be a spent conviction, the non-payment of a penalty notice could blight your business for ever. I am not suggesting that penalty notices should not be paid.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I think that the noble Baroness has made my point for me. If there is a civil penalty and businesses do not pay it, they are not the sort of business which we would necessarily feel that this clause should not apply to. On the concern that the printed words do not match the oral words, I am very happy to write to the noble Baroness to confirm that what I said is correct—and we are of course happy to discuss this at any time afterwards. But in the mean time, I would be grateful if she would withdraw her opposition to the clause standing part.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am not suggesting that the Minister is misrepresenting the Government’s intention. I want to see the intention reproduced on paper. A civil penalty should, at the very least for this purpose, be on all fours with a conviction. After all, it is lighter than a conviction. For it to bite for ever and ever, and come up to bite you in 15 years’ time or whatever, seems inappropriate.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Is the noble Baroness saying that if you do not pay a civil penalty for 15 years, you should get away with it?
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, if you can—in the Minister’s words—get away with a conviction because of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which is well-respected legislation, then you should be able to get away with not paying a penalty in the terms in which we are discussing them. I am not advocating law-breaking or the non-payment of penalties; I am sure that the Minister really understands that.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I do understand, and it might be appropriate to continue this discussion between ourselves later, outside the Chamber.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I do not wish to continue that bit of the discussion, but perhaps I might put into a future discussion a question on payment of compensation. The Minister referred to the court being able to pay compensation. Under paragraph 9, it can make any order it regards as appropriate—but a separate paragraph 15, on compensation, requires an application to be made. I think he said that guidance would be given under paragraph 9(5) but I am not sure how paragraphs 9 and 15 work together. I do not expect an answer now; that would not be fair. But I would be grateful if I could have some clarity—others may understand it perfectly—as to how those two paragraphs work together.
I will not test the patience of the Committee by responding to other points. No doubt the Question on Clause 12 is about to be put. We will not at this moment object to it.
Lord Rosser
“Protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers
All overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, shall be entitled to—(a) change their employer (but not work sector) while in the United Kingdom;(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa, each such renewal being for a period not exceeding twelve months, as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds;(c) a three month temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative employment as an overseas domestic worker where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of modern slavery.”
Lord Rosser
My Lords, there are two amendments in this group, one in my name and in the names of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There is a second amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, within the group. I intend to be relatively brief because I imagine that a number of others may wish to speak in this debate.
The amendment to which I wish to speak seeks to reverse the 2012 visa changes for overseas domestic workers by allowing them to change their employer and renew their visa for a period of 12 months,
“as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds”.
It would also provide for overseas domestic workers to be entitled to a temporary visa, permitting them to live in this country for the purposes of seeking alternative employment when there is evidence that they have been a victim of modern slavery.
A similar amendment was pursued during the passage of the Modern Slavery Bill, when the Government declined to go down the proposed road as they were having an independent review undertaken of the overseas domestic worker visa, including those for diplomatic overseas domestic workers. That independent review by James Ewins was, I believe, presented to the Home Secretary on 6 November last year and published on 17 December, when the Commons Minister said that the Government’s response would be announced in due course.
In his review, Mr Ewins considered as his fundamental question,
“whether the current arrangements for the overseas domestic workers visa are sufficient to protect overseas domestic workers from abuse of their fundamental rights while they are working in the UK, which includes protecting them from abuse that amounts to modern slavery and human trafficking”.
His review concludes that,
“the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK”.
In the light of this finding, he recommends in his review as the minimum required to address the problem which he has identified that,
“all overseas domestic workers be granted the right to change employer … and apply for annual extensions, provided they are in work as domestic workers in a private home … that such extensions do not need to be indefinite, and that overseas domestic workers should not have a right to apply for settlement in the UK in order to be adequately protected”,
and that,
“after extensions totalling up to 2 ½ years, overseas domestic workers are required to leave the UK”,
with this extension being, as I said, the minimum required to give effective protection to those overseas domestic workers who are being abused in the UK.
Mr Ewins also stated in his review that the rights that he is proposing should be granted to all overseas domestic workers, with no different treatment between,
“seriously abused, mildly abused and non-abused workers”,
and that,
“overseas domestic workers must be given a real opportunity to receive information, advice and support concerning their rights while at work in the UK”,
if the essential changes that he has proposed to the terms of the visa are to be of practical help to such workers. He also comments that implementation of his recommendations,
“will provide data, information and intelligence which will enable the police, Immigration Enforcement or the proposed Director of Labour Market Enforcement, to take intelligence-led steps to investigate and pursue those who abuse overseas domestic workers with criminal, civil or immigration sanctions”.
There are many other important recommendations and points in Mr Ewins’s review to which I have not referred.
During debate on the then Modern Slavery Bill about the overseas domestic worker visa issue and the Government’s decision to have an independent review, the Minister in the Commons said that the Government looked forward to the recommendations of the review. She went on to say that while she could not commit a future Government, the intention was that whoever was in government would “implement the review’s recommendations”.
I do not wish to go over the ground again on the arguments in favour of the terms of the amendment I am moving, as they were spelled out during the passage of what is now the Modern Slavery Act. Since then, the recommendations from the independent review which the Government set up have been published and, in essence, they confirm the validity of the concerns expressed during the passage of that Act, including on the tie to an individual employer. I invite the Minister to say what the Government’s response is to the recommendations in the independent review and what actions they now intend to take, since we need to resolve the issues surrounding the overseas domestic worker visa as part of our consideration of the terms of this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 134B, which is in my name. Last year, on what became the Modern Slavery Act, we made progress even on the long-vexed question of foreign—that is, non-EU—domestic workers coming to this country on the tied, short-term visa or working for diplomats here in London.
The Government appointed Mr James Ewins QC to do an independent review of the effects, in practice, of the restrictive visa. He took evidence and considered whether there was sufficient protection from abuse of those workers’ fundamental rights, such as would amount to modern slavery and human trafficking. In November last year, as has been mentioned, on the balance of the evidence, he found that the tie to a specific employer without the right to change or to apply for a visa extension was incompatible—I repeat, incompatible—with reasonable protection, as was mentioned previously by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Today, his Amendment 133 goes a long way to meeting the Ewins recommendations. I believe that it repeats the wording of my previous amendment from last year, which was approved by your Lordships on a Division during the progress of the Modern Slavery Bill.
However, I wish to go just a little further and be a little clearer on the instructions to the Secretary of State. My amendment would implement the improvements by changes to the Immigration Rules, making them variable but without recourse to new primary legislation. Proposed new paragraphs (a), (c) and (f) in my amendment are the same as those in Amendment 133. My paragraph (b) provides for an,
“information session within one month of the commencement of their visa”.
This would allow the workers to be fully informed of their rights. Checks could be made at that time that they had contracts of employment and understood them, that they had access to their passports—a point which has been mentioned very often in previous debates —and that they knew how to raise complaints.
My proposed new paragraph (d) would probably not apply to workers on a six-month visa unless the employers themselves obtained extensions of stay, as does in fact quite often happen. It would also be helpful for diplomatic employees and in some irregular situations where time had passed by but there were strong grounds for allowing settlement. It would, furthermore, make possible applications in this country without the applicant having to return to another country and therefore apply from outside the United Kingdom.
My proposed new paragraph (e) would not apply automatically but would helpfully assist family reunion and parental ties—for example, in cases where small children had been left behind in the country of origin. This is obviously a very hard choice but one into which mothers may be forced by extreme poverty. With these explanations, I trust Amendment 134B will commend itself to your Lordships and provide the Government with satisfactory guidance on how to implement the Ewins recommendations. This protection for highly vulnerable people is urgently needed, and further delays would be quite unacceptable.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I wish to support Amendment 133, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and to say a word in support of my noble friend Lord Hylton’s Amendment 134B. In March last year, at the last gasp of the then Modern Slavery Bill, your Lordships voted down the amendment that my noble friend has referred to, which would of course have provided greater protection for domestic migrant labour in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, described. My noble friend Lord Hylton has of course persistently championed this cause, and this new legislation gives us an opportunity to rectify what is a long-standing injustice.
In March, those of us who divided the House pressed for the most basic of protections: first, the right to change employer but remain restricted to domestic work in one household; secondly, if in full-time work as a migrant domestic worker in a private household, the option to apply to renew the visa; and thirdly, in instances of slavery, a three-month visa to allow the workers to look for decent work. We argued that without these sorts of provisions, we would leave in place a system found repeatedly over the previous three years to facilitate exploitation, including trafficking of migrant domestic workers.
One of the foremost charities working with these groups, Kalayaan, described how such workers have literally sacrificed themselves to the well-being of their wider families. They do not self-protect in the way that someone with more choices would expect. Many explain that they are prepared to put up with any amount of mistreatment if they can provide for their children and ensure that the same will not happen to them. Kalayaan reports that 65% of the 120 domestic workers on the new visa who they saw between 6 April 2012 and 6 April 2014 did not even have their own rooms but shared children’s rooms or slept on the floor of communal areas, while 53% worked more than 16 hours a day and 60% were paid less than £50 a week.
In 2009, the Home Affairs Select Committee, quoting Kalayaan, said in its inquiry into trafficking that the visa issue was,
“‘the single most important issue’ in preventing the forced labour and trafficking of such workers”.
I recognise that the wholly unacceptable exploitation of domestic workers will not be entirely abolished by the acceptance of these amendments, but it would certainly be an improvement on the current situation.
In reply to the debate last March, the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Bates—urged Members of your Lordships’ House to resist our amendment and to await the outcome of the review of James Ewins, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has mentioned. The Minister said:
“Most crucially, the amendment is defective because a serious and considered piece of work is currently going through its process under the widely respected James Ewins. Our argument is that that should be allowed to take its course”.—[Official Report, 25/3/15; col. 1448.]
In the review, which followed the debate, Mr Ewins takes as his fundamental question,
“whether the current arrangements for the overseas domestic workers visa are sufficient to protect overseas domestic workers from abuse of their fundamental rights while they are working in the UK, which includes protecting them from abuse that amounts to modern slavery and human trafficking”.
We now have the result of that review, and Mr Ewins has recommended removing the visa tie:
“On the balance of the evidence currently available, this review finds that the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK”.
He goes on to say:
“The review recommends that all overseas domestic workers be granted the right to change employer … and apply for annual extensions, provided they are in work as domestic workers in a private home”.
Who are the kind of people we are talking about? The Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit provides a number of examples, of which I will give only one, relating to the plight of an African national caught up in the cat’s-cradle of domestic labour exploitation. She entered the UK as a domestic worker under the rules in place before April 2012. Her visa has been extended a number of times and she has continued domestic work. She worked for an employer for over three years and was mistreated: she was paid less than promised, shouted at and rarely allowed to leave the house, and her passport was taken by her employers on arrival—the key point. She of course felt very scared. She managed to gain their agreement to a short holiday after the three years, and when she got her passport back, she changed employers. She was advised about the protection available under the national referral mechanism but has been reluctant to pursue this as she fears she will be sent home to her country of origin by the Home Office. The study shows that a common form of control is retention of documents, psychological abuse and restriction of movement.
However, domestic workers who are allowed to change employer can solve problems that arise with one employer by changing employment and moving away from the problem. The case also shows that the NRM will not be the right fit for everyone, even with advice. Individuals can be frightened of being perceived to cause trouble for others and of repercussions from that.
Although Amendment 133 has provided this welcome opportunity to debate what provision should be made for overseas domestic workers, this can all be achieved simply by amendments to the Immigration Rules, so the full range of options is open to the Government. Either way, Mr Ewins’s recommendations, which he identifies as the minimum necessary to protect overseas workers, should be implemented without delay as an essential first step towards comprehensive protection.
As my noble friend Lord Hylton said, he would go slightly further in Amendment 134B. Maybe these two ideas, which are not in conflict, could be taken together before Report. What is abundantly clear is that the Government must get on with resolving this issue and providing reasonable and basic protection to those caught up in a tangle of exploitation and coercion.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have my name to the first of this pair of amendments, but I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, on picking up some specifics from the report and spelling them out in his Amendment 134B. We must all thank James Ewins, who was promoted in my speech at Second Reading, according to the Official Report, to coming from the UN rather than Ewins—not an inappropriate promotion. We must also thank the organisations which gave evidence, which have worked so hard for so long and provided so much support to this group of workers.
I was not entirely clear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, whether he and his party are behind the Ewins recommendations. His tone was certainly warm and supportive, but it may be that when I read his speech I will detect whether they would like them implemented in whole or in part. The Liberal Democrats regard the report and its recommendations as clear, considered, compassionate and to be implemented.
I will not repeat the arguments that have been made, with which I agree very much, but it is telling that Mr Ewins says that,
“this review has not taken such previous proposals as a starting point”,
but,
“has deliberately gone back to first principles and applied those principles to the evidence currently available. The fact that the conclusions accord to a considerable extent”—
not completely—
“with previous recommendations adds further weight to the argument in favour of the changes proposed”.
I, too, look forward to hearing how the changes he proposes are to be implemented.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I share the condemnation of domestic slavery, which I am sure is shared by all Members of this House, and I strongly support those organisations that seek to help such workers. In doing so, I speak with some experience on the ground. I was the consul in Abu Dhabi and the consul-general in Saudi Arabia, which is where 50% of these applications come from.
Let me start, then, by welcoming the Modern Slavery Act, which seeks to tackle the worst cases of abuse, providing advice and support for those who seek to escape. However, what is now proposed goes well beyond that. The independent reviewer seems to be suggesting that any domestic servant who is not satisfied with his or her conditions will be able to change employer and then remain in the UK working legally for, I think he says, two years—others say without time limit. At the end of that period, he supposes, I think, that they would simply pack up and go home to their impoverished home country. That seems a very unlikely outcome. It is far more likely that they will continue to work here—illegally, if necessary—so that they can continue to send money home. In many respects, that is understandable, but we must recognise that if that situation were to develop, word would spread very quickly among domestic workers in a number of source countries and it would not be very long before we had a significant loophole in the immigration system.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
First, I shall clarify the figure that the noble Lord asked about. It is the figure quoted in the Kalayaan report of people that it had interviewed over the course of two years—120 people. The case that I have advanced today is based not entirely on what I regard as the excellent report of James Ewins. I wonder whether the noble Lord has had a chance to read the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill, which looked at this issue and concluded:
“In the case of the domestic worker’s visa, policy changes have unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery. The moral case for revisiting this issue is urgent and overwhelming”.
It recommended that the Home Office reverse the changes to the overseas domestic workers visa. That was also a view that the Joint Committee on Human Rights took; in 2014, it said:
“We regard the removal of the right of an Overseas Domestic Worker to change employer as a backward step”,
and urged its reversal. So this is not just Mr Ewins—there is a substantial amount of evidence from highly regarded committees of this House and Joint Committees, which have looked at this matter in detail and come to the same conclusions as Mr Ewins.
Lord Green of Deddington
Yes, I quite see that. I would expect the people whom the noble Lord quoted to say what they said. There is clearly some force in that, and there clearly is a problem. We are not in doubt that there is a problem over the treatment of domestic servants who are brought to the UK; that is entirely understood and not in question. What is in question is the balance between trying to ensure that that problem is alleviated—it will never be removed; we will always have rogue employers—and the needs of the immigration system, which would be considerable because these numbers would go up very fast indeed. If people knew that they had only to get here with one employer and they were here for ever, of course they would come in their thousands. So there must be a balance. That is really my point.
Lord Hylton
But does the noble Lord agree that they cannot come without visas?
Lord Green of Deddington
I do not think that I understand the noble Lord’s point.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I think that my question to the noble Lord may be the same as that asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The noble Lord said that he knows that currently employers bring in domestic servants but lose them because they go on to other employment. If they come in on a tied visa, how can that be?
Lord Green of Deddington
Well, they come in on a tied visa and then they do a runner and go and work for somebody else. The employer then goes back to his home country and puts in a visa next year for a new servant; he will claim, no doubt, that the servant has been working for a year, because that is one of the requirements, and come with his next servant. So the numbers will certainly increase. If you produce a loophole in these matters, they will increase very fast.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that we are not moving from waiting for Ewins to looking for loopholes. I was a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights at the time of the legislative scrutiny of the 2014 Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton said, this is a matter of human rights. Not only did we say that the removal of the right of overseas domestic workers was a backwards step but we noted that the 2012 regime had been cited internationally as good practice.
I am not going to make a great speech, because I think the case has already been made admirably by other noble Lords. But my noble friend Lord Rosser pointed out that the Minister in the Commons towards the end of the last Government, but a member of today’s governing party, said as a statement of intent that whoever was in government would implement the review’s recommendations. I simply do not understand why this very important report, which we were all waiting for and for which everything had to be suspended to see what it said, was presented to the Government nearly three months ago with a sense of urgency to it, yet we do not yet have the Government’s response to it, even though we have started Committee stage of this highly relevant Bill. Why do we not yet know the Government’s response and how quickly will we know it—and will it be in the spirit of the statement made by Karen Bradley in the Commons last March?
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
I add one more voice from these Benches in support of the amendment. My noble friend Lord Hylton has already reminded us that the amendments in some form have already been won in this House. The Minister will already understand the strength of feeling on these Benches—with, obviously, some notable exceptions. The Ewins recommendations have sharpened them up, recommending the three-month temporary visa. I tend to support my noble friend’s wider amendment. The evidence being already on the record from Kalayaan and others, I shall not repeat any of that, but has the Minister seen the evidence from Justice for Domestic Workers, in its survey of last August, I think, in relation to the ILO convention 189? I shall give some brief illustrations: 72% of these—mainly—women feel that they have been required to work while they are unwell, while 94% say that they are injured while they are at work, by falling over and so on. One has to appreciate the depth of the suffering of these individuals—but I shall not go on about that. Case studies show how vulnerable they are and how wary they are of seeking help from any authorities, including consulting the NRM, where they should be going. I suspect that the Home Office, like my noble friend Lord Green, sees these amendment as holes in the dyke, carrying risk. But we have to give these domestic workers a way out of their situation in such a way that it will not open the gates to more migration. That is where the Ewins recommendations come in: the workers have to pass the test of exploitation. I see no reason why their case cannot be singled out from the rest.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Hylton, for tabling these amendments. It is entirely right that we discuss this important issue; it is something on which, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned, I and the Government are in no doubt whatever about the strength of feeling in your Lordships’ House. What is more, we are in no doubt that there is a problem that needs to be addressed; that is not in question at all. Were it not so, we would not have wasted taxpayers’ money, as it were, on the Ewins review in the first place, nor would we have introduced the measures that we did in the Modern Slavery Act, which sought to address some of these issues.
Let me be clear at the beginning about what I intend to do at this stage—and I hope that noble Lords will bear with me. My proposal is to set out some of the initial response to the report and address some of the comments that have been made in the debate. I would then be immensely grateful if noble Lords who have an interest in this area might have the opportunity to meet Home Office officials and myself—and possibly Karen Bradley if her diary permits—to go over what we propose to do.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Before the Minister sits down, I would be grateful if he would clarify the nature of the process that he has just referred to. It would be very useful to Members of your Lordships’ House if, for instance, Mr Ewins could also be invited to whatever discussions take place. When we looked at the previous legislation on modern slavery, the Minister was good enough to invite organisations such as Kalayaan to come and give first-hand evidence. Although that may not be appropriate at a joint meeting with Members of the House, nevertheless there ought to be some input from that organisation as well. I hope the Minister might give an undertaking.
Lord Bates
I will certainly give an undertaking to go away and reflect on the point that the noble Lord makes. I understand what he is saying. I am conscious that we met with Kalayaan on many occasions in the course of the Modern Slavery Act. It does very valuable work on this and its position is very clear regarding what it wishes to do. More particularly, I was hoping we could outline in a bit more detail than perhaps is possible at this stage where the Government’s mind is on this, and genuinely enter into a discussion about the best way forward.
As to whether it would be appropriate that the authors of the report should be there, I hear very much what the noble Lord says. That may be useful, but he will understand that in the nature of the way that government works, I have, as it were, secured a certain amount of leeway from my colleagues in the course of responding to your Lordships’ concerns, and it would be courteous of me to go back to them and seek their approval for that suggestion. I shall give an undertaking to do just that.
Lord Rosser
Before I respond to the suggestion that the Minister has made, I take it from what he has said that the Government do not actually accept the key part of Mr Ewins’s recommendation, which was that,
“the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK”.
I take it from what the Minister has said that the Government do not actually accept that fundamental part of his recommendations.
Lord Bates
Were it the case that we did not accept that there was any correlation with the visa tie, we would of course not have made the change that we did in the Modern Slavery Act to say that when people enter the national referral mechanism, and there are reasonable and conclusive grounds, they will have the ability to change employers. I do not think it is possible to draw from that that it is something we are not prepared to move on; we have already moved some way on that in previous legislation.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for that response. I also sense from his comments that the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Mr Hyland, is also not necessarily fully supportive of the recommendations of Mr Ewins. I thought I had picked up the comment that he thought there might be as much mileage from taking other action as from loosening the tie, which is the key part of Mr Ewins’ recommendation.
Lord Bates
The anti-slavery commissioner, Kevin Hyland, is independent, and thoroughly and robustly defends his independence. I would simply quote a remark that he made: he felt that a system, which may be included as part of James Ewins’s recommendations, of checks and periodic meetings to ensure that people were aware of their rights and to check on their safety may have more effect in providing a safeguard of the position.
Lord Rosser
I think there will be a degree of disappointment at the response we have had from the Minister today, although I appreciate the offer that he has made, along with the reply that he has given and the detail that he has gone into in order to explain the Government’s position. I also appreciate the contributions that we have had to the debate.
Bearing in mind that the Minister has offered to have the meeting between Home Office officials, himself and interested Peers—as I understand it, I think he said that he would consider whether Mr Ewins might also be there—and that the Government have said they will bring forward proposals in response to the Ewins report on Report of the Bill, I certainly have no intention of declining the offer that he has made. I thank him for making that offer and for giving the detailed explanation of where the Government now stand, and I can only sincerely express the hope that we are able to get to the point where the proposals that the Government bring forward on Report meet the wishes of the House and of those who have been campaigning so hard on this issue.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Asylum seekers: permission to work after six months
(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3(9) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
“(10) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must provide for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment, including self-employment and voluntary work.
(11) Permission to work for persons seeking asylum must be granted if—
(a) a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it was recorded, or(b) an individual makes further submissions which raise asylum grounds and a decision on that new claim or to refuse to treat such further submissions as a new claim has not been taken within six months of the date on which the submissions were recorded.(12) Permission for a person seeking asylum to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.””
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 134 in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Rosser, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, would allow those asylum applicants who have been waiting for longer than six months for a decision on their asylum application to be allowed to work. The latest immigration statistics show that about 3,600 applicants have been without an initial decision for longer than six months. The only exception that they are presently allowed is that after 12 months an asylum seeker can apply for permission to work, but only in national shortage occupations.
When this is compared to other countries in the EU, we are certainly not generous. All EU member states, with the exception of the UK and Ireland, permit applicants to work after nine months, and some have gone further: Belgium and Denmark permit work after six months, and in Germany it is after three months. For many asylum seekers, not being allowed to work means that they are unable to develop and maintain skills, and for professional people this can have a very difficult effect on their future employment prospects in this country, if in due course they are granted asylum status and allowed to work, or return to their country of origin or move elsewhere. Allowing asylum seekers to work after six months would also cut the cost to the taxpayer, as those who found work would no longer need to be supported by the taxpayer.
Amendment 134A, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would make a small but important change, allowing asylum seekers to work after 12 months as a matter of right without having to apply for permission. I support the aims of that amendment as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, my name is to this amendment. I am particularly delighted that it has been moved from the Labour Front Bench since this was not something on which they felt able to support us during the last Parliament. This is something that we sought to achieve then even though we were part of the coalition Government. We have tabled this amendment to the Bill in these terms in the Commons. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno will have a good deal to say on it, as he has had a Private Member’s Bill on the subject and argued for this proposition many times.
I will not take long, but I do not apologise for the fact that the arguments are not novel. According to the latest immigration statistics, I am told by the Refugee Council, over 3,600 applications for asylum have been without an initial decision for longer than six months. As the Refugee Council comments, when you take into account their dependants, that is nearly 5,000 people living on little over £5 a day in asylum support who are unable to work. It seems to us that applications should not drag on and, as the noble Lord said, six months, which is the Home Office target, is not overly ambitious. In any event, what is to be gained by a restriction that continues up to the 12-month point?
It seems that a lot is to be lost: contribution to the economy through work and taxation; savings for the state on asylum support; and, as for the individuals, the impact on their self-esteem, mental health, possible—probably likely—loss of skills, and the ability to find employment when the period comes to an end. It also seems that this restriction reinforces exclusion. For those who stay, their community integration is important and we should not delay it, because more than half of the asylum seekers who come here stay.
This is a very topical point, as a colleague, Suzanne Fletcher, who was a councillor in the north-east and who is still a very active Liberal Democrat, has been all over the media today on the issue of the red doors, on which the Times has reported—doors that were painted red so that the occupants could easily be identified as immigrants. Of course the Minister, James Brokenshire, immediately criticised that, and I believe that the Government are taking steps there. However, from the emails I have seen on this subject today, it has taken years of campaigning to bring this to attention. That shows what power the media have, because Suzanne had taken that matter to the National Audit Office and to one of the Select Committees in the other place.
Would relaxing the current restrictions be a pull factor? Is there evidence of that? I suspect not. If your reasons for coming here are economic rather than to seek asylum, I would have thought that six months would be quite a deterrent in itself.
Our Amendment 134A deals, as the noble Lord has said, with the 12-month period. Currently, if you are here for more than 12 months, although you may be able to work, your work is confined to the “shortage occupations” as designated by the Home Office—for the same reasons, of course, that could be applied to the six months. In addition, however, the list of shortage occupations, which I had a look at over the weekend, seems to be made up almost entirely of technical or professional occupations and often requires references from previous employers, which I suspect are by definition unavailable, or requires UK qualifications. Therefore, asylum seekers would not be likely to get such jobs, because the period of their stay is uncertain, even if they were qualified to do them. They are more likely to get low-skilled jobs that British citizens, frankly, are often unwilling to undertake.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, in supporting the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, may I first put in a request to the Minister, almost in parenthesis, for when he comes to reply? This relates to an issue that was raised on day one, which is the role of people who are involved in voluntary work and what the legal position is, because contradictory positions were expressed on day one. I was looking at some of the briefing material for today’s debate, particularly about a project called the Brushstrokes Community project in Smethwick in Birmingham, which has been providing services for refugees and asylum seekers for over 15 years. Brushstrokes described one asylum seeker who volunteered with the project for over a year before she received refugee status, and who continues to volunteer to this day. Last year she won an award as volunteer of the year in Sandwell. Another woman volunteered as a teaching assistant for around six months while awaiting the outcome of her application. She has now been granted refugee status and is on the path to fulfilling her aspiration of becoming a teacher in the United Kingdom. What is the legal situation of people who work in a voluntary capacity?
There are five substantial reasons why the arguments expressed so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, should commend themselves to your Lordships’ House. First, these amendments would provide asylum seekers with a route out of poverty. More than 3,600 asylum seekers have currently been waiting more than six months for an initial decision on their case, surviving on just £5 a day.
Secondly, it reduces the burden on the taxpayer, as asylum seekers who are able to work will not need to be supported for extended periods and will instead be able to contribute to the economy through increased tax revenues and consumer spending. It also safeguards their health and prevents them having to resort to irregular work in what some describe as the black economy.
Thirdly, it avoids the negative consequences of prolonged economic exclusion and forced inactivity. During my 18 years as a Member of another place representing an inner-city neighbourhood in Liverpool I often saw that kind of grinding poverty first hand: the detrimental impact on mental health and self-esteem, the break-up of marriages and families—many Members of your Lordships’ House are very familiar with these kinds of arguments. The dignity that work gives should never be underestimated.
Fourthly, what is the experience elsewhere in other European Union countries? With the exception of the United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland, other European countries allow asylum seekers to work after nine months and 11 of them grant permission to work after six months or less if a decision has not been made on their asylum application. That has not been a bad experience—it works very well and has not been a pull factor, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right to remind us.
Fifthly, for those asylum seekers who are eventually given permission to stay, avoiding an extended period outside the labour market is key to ensuring their long-term integration into UK society and encouraging them to be self-sufficient. Therefore, alleviating destitution amongst asylum seekers is a prerequisite if we believe in the upholding of a person’s human dignity. The right to work is fundamental to this and it also relieves the state of having to provide financial support.
In 2014, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, set out the defence of the Government’s policy when he said that asylum seekers are,
“provided with support and accommodation while we determine whether they need our protection and until they have exhausted the right of appeal”.—[Official Report, 17/3/14; col. 30.]
However, the reality is that £5 a day to meet their essential living needs of food, clothing, toiletries and transport and to pursue their asylum application—housing and utility bills are paid for separately for those who need it—is wholly inadequate. Which of us could survive on that kind of paltry sum? Therefore the asylum seeker loses, but so does the state. We must give asylum seekers a route out of poverty and help them not to become part of a dependency culture.
At the end of June 2015, more than 3,500 asylum seekers had been waiting more than six months for an initial decision. The Minister arranged an all-Peers meeting, which I was able to attend, and Mr James Brokenshire, the Minister, was also there. He of course said that the Government’s aim is to ensure that there are no people waiting for longer than six months. Can the Minister tell us just how many people are waiting for longer than six months and how long it will be before that objective is met?
I am told that an asylum seeker spends an average of around 18 months on Section 95 support. Asylum seekers who have to survive solely on this level of support for extended periods of time will suffer a negative impact on their mental and physical health.
While a Member of the Commons, Sarah Teather chaired a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people. In January 2013 it found that,
“asylum seeking parents are prevented from working, leaving families dependent on state support. This means that parents are left powerless and lose their skills”—
a point to which the noble Baroness alluded—
“while children are left without positive role models. The government’s own research has highlighted that this can lead to high levels of unemployment and underemployment once a family gains refugee status”.
That inquiry took evidence from over 200 individuals and organisations, including local authorities and safeguarding boards, and specifically recommended that asylum seeking parents and young adults should be given permission to work if their claim for asylum had not been concluded in six months—the point of these amendments.
Let us be clear: by keeping them out of work, many experienced and professional asylum seekers are deskilled, and the time spent not working hinders the opportunity to develop a career. It prejudices the chance to get references for future employment, and it denies people the chance to gain experience. Mr Brokenshire said that this provision would,
“blur the distinction between economic migration and asylum”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 10/11/15; col. 461.]
But this amendment addresses that concern, because permission to work would apply only when the delay was not due to action taken by the applicant. I therefore hope that this amendment commends itself to the House.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 134, which I wish to support, is simple, just and proportionate in its aims. I accept that Home Office officials must, in the discharge of their duties in this area, deal with barriers of language, emotional distress, the fear of authority, the complexity of people’s lives and, on occasion, deceit. All this takes time. However, it is far from unknown for applicants for asylum to wait months or even years for a substantive decision in their case. This subjects them to a fearful limbo, with limited means of support and the background anxiety of not knowing for a very prolonged period what the outcome will be. Furthermore, we know from the experience of our own citizens the deleterious effects of prolonged inactivity on their emotional and physical well-being, and how this can erode an individual’s skill base.
The European Union’s reception conditions directive, which came into force last July, recognises this and requires of all EU countries—except Ireland, Denmark and the UK, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was saying—that asylum seekers waiting nine months for a decision may work. Germany has responded, interestingly, by legislating for a three-month threshold.
It is the policy of the Church of England, by resolution at its General Synod in February 2009, that all asylum seekers should be granted permission to seek employment. If the Government brought forward their own amendment with a threshold of nine months rather than six, as here, I could accept that. What is manifestly unfair is excluding such individuals from the world of work for an indefinite period, as at present. This amendment, with its threshold of six months, is not an invitation for migrants to enter the UK job market by an easy route. It could not be, with that sort of threshold. It is a measured and fair response to a manifestly unfair and damaging exclusion. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and others.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be able to speak in support of the amendment tabled by my noble friends on the Front Bench. Indeed, I, too, am delighted that this is now my party’s official policy.
The right to work—or, perhaps more accurately, the right to be allowed to undertake paid work—is a human right enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and incorporated into human rights law as part of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which recognises,
“the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work”.
After the Second World War, TH Marshall wrote that in the economic field, the basic civil right is the right to work. More recently, in 2007—long before I came to this place—the Joint Committee on Human Rights described the denial of the right to work as part of a deliberate policy of destitution, in breach of asylum seekers’ human rights.
The all-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton—of which I was a member—talked about how asylum seekers who are not able to undertake paid work lose skills and are unable to provide a role model for their children, and about the impact on their self-esteem, self-confidence and mental health. All this has a damaging effect on their children. A Freedom from Torture report on poverty among torture survivors states:
“Many questionnaire respondents, and most participants in client focus groups, highlighted the importance to them of having permission to work while their asylum claim is decided as a means of supporting themselves and being self-reliant. Indeed, the lack of permission to work for asylum seekers was a major theme of discussion and the key change that focus group respondents called for, although they also recognised that many torture survivors”,
may not be “well enough to work”.
A letter to the Independent at the end of last year asked why asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK. It pointed out:
“We have skills to contribute: some of us are doctors, nurses, carers, teachers, builders. But these skills are wasted and deteriorate while we wait for a decision on our asylum applications. We want to contribute to the UK economy and to be part of this society”.
Much of government social policy, whichever party is in power, is premised on the principle that paid work is the primary responsibility and the most important contribution that people make to society, summed up in the rather tired mantra of “hard-working families”. Why should asylum seekers be denied the opportunity for a whole year of joining the happy ranks of hard-working families in the labour market—and even then joining only on very restrictive terms? The evidence shows that this impedes integration. The Home Office’s own research shows that delayed entry into the labour market can cause problems even when refugee status is then granted, leading to high levels of unemployment and underemployment.
We have already heard about what happens in other European countries. My understanding is that most of these countries have fewer applications for asylum than are received in the UK, which does not support the argument that providing the right to work acts as a pull factor. The lack of impact on the number of applicants is confirmed by a study of OECD countries. Indeed, after our last debate on the issue, the then Minister acknowledged the paucity of hard evidence to support the Government’s case. Moreover, as Still Human Still Here argues, it is not very likely that economic migrants would draw themselves to the attention of the authorities by making an asylum claim, so that they might be able to apply for permission to work in a whole six months’ time.
The danger is that asylum seekers will end up in the shadow labour market, facing the kind of exploitation we discussed earlier in the context of undocumented migrants. Indeed, can the Minister say whether, if they do take paid work, they could be caught by Clause 8 —criminalised for working illegally even though they are legally in the UK awaiting a decision on their asylum claim?
I fear that Governments are often timid with regard to the rights of asylum seekers, for fear of public opinion. However, surveys by the IPPR, and the British Social Attitudes survey, show that there is public support for allowing asylum seekers the right to work. The Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, in an inquiry into destitution among asylum seekers a few years ago, said:
“Overwhelmingly, giving asylum seekers the right to work was the favoured solution identified”,
by those who gave evidence.
As has been said, we have debated this issue a number of times in your Lordships’ House, even in just the five years that I have been here. Since the previous time we debated it, the financial position of asylum-seeking families has worsened because of the savage cut in asylum support for children. So the cost to them of not being able to undertake paid work is all the greater now, with damaging implications for their mental and physical health and that of their families. I urge the Minister to take this amendment away and think about whether the time has not now come to concede this most basic of human rights.
Baroness Ludford
I, too, welcome the support of the Labour Party and its conversion to this cause. It is hugely important and significant. All the considerable benefits of a change in policy have been cited, and I do not need to enumerate them. They are so powerful, and there are only benefits—there are no costs, quite honestly, associated with this policy, except possibly a political one. That is no doubt what the Government fear. So I want to propose a rebranding exercise: to position this not so much as the right to work as the obligation to work—a requirement to work, except for asylum seekers who, for reasons of age or health, cannot do so. We could reframe it in those terms, as we do in the field of welfare. Indeed, a Liberal Democrat policy document from two years ago did exactly that. Why not talk about an obligation on fit asylum seekers to use their skills to benefit themselves, this country and the taxpayer? I think that you would also see a different approach and a different perception from the public, as well as, one hopes, from the Government, if that rebranding were to take place.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, first, I welcome all those who now support so vigorously and enthusiastically the right of asylum seekers to work after, say, six months. They have such potential. I know they are not asylum seekers but a third of the doctors and consultants in the hospitals and half the nurses in north Wales are not of Welsh extraction; they are from overseas. We rely on each other. If you go to the hospitals in Liverpool, the same story is told. We work together; we are one world. We have a responsibility towards each other—a responsibility, I suggest, to help everybody, wherever they are from, to reach their potential and to contribute as much as they can to the well-being of the whole community.
I am not going to speak at great length—I would be very unpopular if I did. In any case, everybody else has said what I wanted to say. It is wonderful that we are in an atmosphere of wanting this policy to succeed.
I will say just one thing. Last night I was at a meeting where we spoke of the children in the camps at Calais and Dunkirk. At Dunkirk there are no facilities, and we have all seen the pictures of the children tramping in the mud, which in places is a foot deep. One contributor last night said, “You know, they haven’t had any education for 12 months. They haven’t had any schooling. They are missing out”. Many of those of Arab extraction who are coming to the UK—people who speak the languages of other nations—could become the teachers who help this new generation, and in helping that new generation I am sure we will be doing something to build the kind of world that Lloyd George talked about. He once said that he wanted to build a country fit for heroes to live in. Let us build a world fit for children to live in. We can do it in this Bill by adopting amendments such as the one that is proposed here.
The Earl of Sandwich
My Lords, I am always heartened by the words of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. I remember one rather lonely evening when he moved a version of this amendment and there were not so many friends present as there are today. I see already that he is heartened by the voices from all around the Committee.
I am strongly in favour of extending the time available to migrants and asylum seekers because it is realistic. It recognises and legalises a situation that is already happening. As my noble friend said, the issue of permission to work is linked to concerns about destitution, which we will come to in Part 5 when we discuss Section 95 support. As Sir Keir Starmer said about Clause 8 in the Commons, the most vulnerable will become even more so if we do not pass this amendment. For example, making it a specific crime to work without leave drives the exploited and enslaved further underground.
There is one more point which needs to be underlined. The Immigration Minister said during Committee in the Commons that asylum seekers could frustrate the process of application in order to qualify for the permission, and I expect that the Minister has this argument in mind this evening. But the amendment addresses this point—and the Refugee Council makes this clear—because permission would be granted only where the delay was in the process and not due to any action taken by the asylum seeker.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, until seven years ago, I thought that Red Cross food parcels were handed out only to British prisoners of war in Germany. However, when I was a commissioner in the Independent Asylum Commission, I saw Red Cross food parcels being handed out on the streets of Manchester to destitute asylum seekers who had been refused permission to work.
One of the things that has distressed me most about what has been said tonight relates to remarks that I made at Second Reading about the quality of Home Office casework. Listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Alton, I could not help reflecting that a great deal of this unnecessary destitution is caused by poor casework in the Home Office. I wonder whether the Minister can say what steps are being taken to improve that situation and speed up the processing of these applications.
Lord Green of Deddington
My Lords, I think that I may find myself in a small minority in this Committee, although, I have to say, certainly not in the country. The first point to make is a very general one: it is a mistake to generalise about asylum seekers. Roughly 50% of them claim only when they are discovered. Therefore, it would appear that they come, at least initially, as economic migrants. Of those who then do claim, half are refused, but only half of those who are refused are removed. That is why I suggest that we need to be a bit more discerning about people who are referred to simply as asylum seekers.
As for the amendment, the Committee will be aware—indeed, it has already been mentioned—that the most recent EU directive, No. 33 of 2013, requires that asylum seekers should have access to the labour market after nine months if the asylum claim is still pending. The UK, Ireland and Denmark have, of course, opted out. Nevertheless, the amendment proposes a time limit of six months. It would also remove the current requirement for the job to be on the shortage occupation list, despite the fact that the EU directive provides for such provisions. Therefore, in these two respects, the amendment goes beyond the minimum standards now required by the EU directive, from which we have, as I said, opted out.
Let us be clear that the effect of the amendment would be to make the UK not the most but one of the more generous countries in Europe in terms of access to the labour market, and there is no doubt that that would act as a pull factor for both asylum seekers and economic migrants. The extreme case is Sweden, which until recently allowed asylum seekers to work on arrival. Of course, the numbers went up and up and now it has had to close its borders. So it is absolutely clear that the ability to work is, in that case and more generally, an incentive to people when they choose a country in which to seek asylum.
It is also worth pointing out that people are queueing up in their thousands in Calais—in a country which is perfectly safe. They have every right to seek asylum in France—they would have a slightly less good chance of getting it—but they do not. They want to come here despite the fact that they cannot work for 12 months. I hope that it is the general nature of our society that attracts people, and let us be proud of that, but I come back to the point about balance when it comes to setting up an immigration and asylum system. There has to be a balance between reasonable treatment of people, half of whom are in serious need, and the need not to attract those who may well not be genuine asylum seekers. For goodness’ sake, anyone who has read the newspapers in the last three months will surely understand the need to be very careful on that front.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
The noble Lord referred to the position in most of the European Union where people have to wait for nine months before they can work. Is he saying that he would support a time period of nine months?
Lord Green of Deddington
No. I am saying that we should keep it at 12 months in order that we are not more attractive than other countries on that point.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Amendment 134A in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says that asylum seekers should get permission to work after 12 months as a right. Would the noble Lord support that amendment?
Lord Green of Deddington
The short answer is no. We have an asylum system which does not work as fast as people would like, but let us improve the system. The obvious answer is to process the claims more quickly and then this question would not arise. However, I would go back to the original, existing system.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
My Lords, this is an emotive issue. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, these are not new arguments. In fact, I think they were had on the last Immigration Act and possibly in immigration Bills before that. Of course, it is an emotive issue and everyone has sympathy with the plight of some of the people whom we are talking about. It is a difficult line to draw and we have to draw a balance.
I have listened carefully to the arguments in favour of allowing permission to work where an asylum claim is still outstanding after six months, removing the caveat that any delay must not be of the asylum seeker’s own making, and lifting restrictions on the types of employment available. The amendments would radically change existing permission-to-work arrangements for asylum seekers and the Government are not convinced that that is sensible. As a general rule, the Government believe that it is not appropriate to allow asylum seekers to work. It is important that we protect the resident labour market for those lawfully present in the UK.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
Did the Minister listen to the employment statistics announced by one of our Ministers three weeks ago? She said that there were 200,000 job vacancies in the UK.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I am not aware of those statistics, but I will take a look at them.
Lord Green of Deddington
There are about 600,000 vacancies in the UK, and there always are. It is frictional unemployment. The only way that you can take another job is if a job is vacant.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
We will come to employment in a moment.
It is important that we protect the resident labour market for those lawfully present in the UK and discourage those not in need of protection from claiming asylum for economic reasons. There are provisions in the Immigration Rules to allow non-EEA nationals to come to the UK to take up employment where there are no suitable resident workers available, and which give priority to those coming to fill roles included on the list of shortage occupations published by the Home Office. These arrangements are subject to numerical limits. This ensures that the employment meets our needs for skilled labour and benefits the UK economy. This approach prioritises access to employment and business opportunities for those lawfully in the UK, including recognised refugees. It will undermine this approach if non-EEA nationals can bypass employment restrictions by claiming asylum, particularly where that claim is clearly without merit.
There has been much comment, including tonight from the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about historic delays in decision-making in the Home Office, but this has been brought under control. The Home Office met its public commitment to decide straightforward asylum claims lodged before April 2014 by 31 March 2015, and to decide all straightforward claims lodged from 1 April 2014 within six months. About 85% of cases are straightforward. This means that the vast majority of asylum claims are decided quickly. While awaiting a decision, asylum seekers are provided with free accommodation and a cash allowance to cover essential living needs—I will come on to the detail of that in response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton—if they would otherwise be destitute. They can also undertake volunteering activities while their claim is outstanding. I am not relying on volunteering as a primary argument, and it will not be financially beneficial, but it will help with integration, making friends, learning the language, maintaining skills and so forth. I will also deal with the noble Lord’s question about volunteering in a moment.
The Government believe that the current policy strikes the right balance. If a claim remains undecided after 12 months, for reasons outside their control, the person can apply for permission to work. That is a fair and reasonable policy and is consistent with our obligations under EU law. It also assists genuine refugees. It is common knowledge that some people make unfounded asylum claims. The reasons why can be difficult to establish, but it is reasonable to assume that some do so because of the benefits, real or perceived, that they think they will gain. Earlier access to employment risks making asylum more attractive for those who are otherwise not eligible to work in the UK.
Providing more generous employment opportunities for those who claim asylum therefore creates a risk of more unfounded claims. An increase in the number of such claims would slow down the processing of genuine claims and undermine our progress towards a fair and efficient asylum system. The Government do not believe that that is a risk worth taking.
I said that I would address the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about voluntary work and volunteering. Asylum seekers can undertake voluntary activity, but it must not amount to unpaid work. They cannot be paid for it and it cannot be undertaken on a contractual basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked a straightforward question about whether asylum seekers would be caught by Clause 8 and the offence of illegal working. The right to work is a different question from whether you are in the UK lawfully and it is better if I write to the noble Baroness and send copies to interested Peers to confirm how Clause 8 will affect asylum seekers.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hamwee, talked about other countries that allow asylum seekers to work that had fewer asylum claims and whether reducing the period would act as a pull factor for asylum seekers. Germany, which was mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and others, allows asylum seekers to work after three months and the highest number of applicants were registered in Germany in 2015, including thousands of migrants from the western Balkans who are economic migrants and rarely qualify for asylum. Germany has the highest asylum intake in the EU.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about the permission to work, which is limited to the shortage occupation list. The list is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee. It comprises skilled jobs where there is an identified national shortage that it is sensible to fill, at least in part, through immigration. The restriction ensures that the employment meets our needs for skilled labour and benefits the UK economy. Under EU law, we are entitled to prioritise access to work for UK and EEA citizens over asylum seekers. Limiting access for those granted permission to work to employment on the shortage occupation list is an effective mechanism for achieving that. However, those granted refugee status have unrestricted access to the labour market.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the recent news about red doors. As the Immigration Minister told the other place today, we have commissioned an urgent review and officials will be travelling to Middlesbrough tomorrow to begin that.
The noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Alton, talked about the support package that is made available to asylum seekers. Nobody is pretending that they will live in anything like the lap of luxury, but it is not a random amount. The £36.95 per week is in addition to free furnished accommodation, with utility bills and council tax paid; and the weekly cash allowance is designed to meet essential living needs. It is reviewed every year using evidence-based methodology and we are satisfied that we provide enough to meet essential needs. The current level is for each person in the household—the asylum seeker and any dependant—and of course they have access to NHS healthcare and all minor children are legally entitled to free primary and secondary education.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked how many asylum seekers had been awaiting a decision for at least six months. There are around 3,500. As I have said, the delays that have happened before have been brought under control and we have met our public commitments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, talked about Red Cross food parcels. The British Red Cross has produced a report on the problems of destitution faced by asylum seekers which is based on 56 cases, but for the most part these were not asylum seekers. Some 46 of the 56 were failed asylum seekers, people the courts agreed did not need our protection.
As I said at the beginning, this is an emotive issue. The Government do not believe that the risk entailed in reducing the period is worth it. In light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask the noble Lord to agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, in response to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the Minister referred to the nature of voluntary work. I think we may need a little more detail on that, and perhaps it would be a good idea if he wrote to noble Lords. It is an important point because voluntary organisations and the people who work for them need to be very clear about their position on this matter.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I completely agree that it is an important point and I will be happy to write to the noble Lord and others who have spoken on this after our session in Committee today.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. Can he be clear in that response on the distinction that is being made between voluntary activity and voluntary work, which I found very difficult to understand, and I am sure that many in the field will find it perplexing too. Their worry will be that either they as organisations or some of those asylum seekers who are involved in voluntary activities could find themselves prejudiced against or even prosecuted. These are significant issues that need to be addressed in some detail.
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I take the point from the noble Lord, and that is why it would be better if our response was written down once we had had a chance to think about it carefully and get our definitions right. I will circulate the response and put a copy in the Library of the House so that voluntary organisations know where they are.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. When applications for asylum take longer than six months, being allowed to work is a reasonable objective. I thank the noble Lord for his response and I look forward to the letter on the points we have just discussed. Some powerful speeches have been made, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and many others. Surviving on £5 a day is an impossible hardship and it has to be endured for many months. As my noble friend Lady Lister said, the risk is that these people will be driven into the illegal work market where the risk of exploitation is even greater.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the issue of the red doors in Middlesbrough. It is unbelievable and I hope that the Government will take very firm action, but let us make sure that we do not end up just painting all the doors blue next time. I make that point because this has to be dealt with properly. It is a scandal and an absolute disgrace. With that, and with my thanks for other comments made by the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hylton
“Protection from slavery for overseas domestic workers
Rules made by the Secretary of State under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 shall make provision for overseas domestic workers in the United Kingdom, including domestic workers employed in diplomatic households, to—(a) change their employer;(b) be required to attend a group information session within one month of the commencement of their visa;(c) be able to renew their visa as long as they remain in employment and are able to support themselves without recourse to public funds;(d) be able to apply for settlement;(e) be able to apply to be joined in the United Kingdom by their dependants;(f) be entitled to a three month temporary visa permitting them to live in the United Kingdom for the purposes of seeking alternative employment as an overseas domestic worker, where there is evidence that the worker has been a victim of exploitation.”
Lord Hylton
My Lords, I rise to confirm that I only spoke to my amendment and did not move it, but in doing so perhaps I may thank those who spoke in favour of the fullest possible implementation of the Ewins recommendations, and I welcome what the Minister said as regards his intention to make progress between now and the Report stage.
Lord Bates
(a) the immigration officer considers that the condition in paragraph 1(3) or (6) is not met, or(b) ”
“( ) that at the time the notice was issued, the condition in paragraph 1(3) or (6) was not met,”
Lord Bates
Health: Cancer
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the factors contributing to cancer survival rates in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, my reason for asking for this debate is to highlight the fact that, despite much good work, cancer patients in the UK have poorer survival chances than those in comparable countries. We rank 20th out of 24 developed countries for cancer survival in breast, cervical and colorectal cancers. For a Government that seek a world-class health service, this is not good enough. I want to look at the reasons and ask what the Government plan to do about it, in particular the implementation of the five-year cancer strategy.
Anyone who has had a diagnosis of cancer will know the naked fear that the news generates. At that moment, it is hard to remember the great strides we have made in cancer survival, with half of all cancer patients now surviving for 10 years or more compared with a quarter 40 years ago. Some cancers such as breast cancer have seen remarkable improvements in survival rates, particularly because of the excellent screening programme, for which I am most grateful. But others such as pancreatic cancer have seen very little improvement. Some cancers related to lifestyle or environmental factors, such as skin cancers or the various bowel cancers, have become more common. But many more people are living with cancer for a long time and we need to consider how we look after their needs.
So what needs to change? We need to invest in prevention through information and help for people to reduce their risk and earlier, more accurate diagnosis. We need better training and resources to enable GPs to refer quickly and a realistic approach to consultant utilisation and shortages, along with that of specialist nurses. We need better data collection and transparency and earlier access to innovative treatments. To show public support, I hope that all noble Lords will celebrate World Cancer Day on 4 February by sporting a unity band to celebrate survival, show solidarity with those in treatment and remember loved ones.
Let us look at some figures. According to Public Health England, four in 10 cancers are preventable. Cancer cases are increasing, partly it is believed because we are living longer and partly due to lifestyle, so more people are living with cancer. One in two people will develop cancer at some point in their lives. But according to Eurocare-5, the UK’s survival performance rates are below the European average. According to the Lancet in 2011, Norway, Canada, Sweden and Australia do a lot better than us, while recent studies have shown that the gap is not being closed. As we do better, other countries are doing even better. That is why we need excellent data and accountability. Experts tell us that the one-year survival rate is a very good indicator of success or failure, so it is important that this information is collected efficiently and made available transparently.
This week, we have had some very worrying headlines. Cancer services have missed key targets. The six-week target for diagnostic tests to be done was missed and it is now two years since it was last met. One of the key cancer targets, the 62-day target for treatment to start from urgent GP referral, was missed. Those missed targets mean that nearly 2,000 people—not targets—had to wait longer than they should have. Wales was the worst, with only 71.9% of patients starting treatment within that time in Swansea and 62.9% in Cardiff and Vale. In Wales overall, the target has not been met since 2008. In England, just under 8,000 people with suspected cancer did not see a consultant within two weeks of an urgent referral by their GP and 536 patients had to wait more than a month to have their first treatment for cancer. We need to be cautious about targets. There is no point in setting higher and tighter targets for tests if hospitals do not have enough consultants to deal with the patients diagnosed as positive.
What is the Government’s answer? The independent cancer strategy, which reported last July, made six key recommendations: a radical upgrade in prevention and public health, including national plans on reducing smoking and obesity; earlier diagnosis with 95% of patients referred by a GP being diagnosed or given the all-clear within four weeks; patient experience on a par with clinical effectiveness and safety through access to test results and a clinical nurse specialist or other key worker; transformation in support for people living with and beyond cancer, and appropriate end-of-life care; investment to deliver a modern high-quality service, including upgrading radiotherapy machines, reviewing the Cancer Drugs Fund and better molecular diagnostics for more personal treatment; and a big effort to address the shortage in the cancer workforce. It also called for overhauled processes for commissioning, accountability and provision with a regional network of care alliances and a national cancer team to oversee delivery of the strategy.
The Government have accepted the recommendations and the latest NHS five-year mandate asks for: early diagnosis to be a priority; more work to tackle smoking, alcohol and physical inactivity; reduced impact of ill-health and disability; and support for research and innovation to enable new treatments to reach patients more quickly. So there was a recognition of the role of speedy diagnosis in improving cancer survival rates, but nothing about better training or diagnostic tools for GPs. Molecular diagnostics have made enormous strides in recent years for monitoring the effectiveness of treatments as well as diagnosing the disease and enabling more effective personalised treatments. The strategy asks for a national commissioning framework for this. Will the Minister ensure that that happens? It is vital for equal access for patients, particularly for rare cancers.
The mandate recognised the need for prevention, but then we had cuts in public health budgets. When will the Government accept the common sense and economic benefit of prevention and put their money where their mouth is, and save money and lives at the same time? The mandate mentions support for research and innovative new treatments, but many in the service are not convinced that appropriate pathways exist. The mere existence of the accelerated access review recognises that the UK is very poor at getting innovative new treatments to patients, and that needs to change.
In the first year, among other things, the Government are reviewing the operating model of the Cancer Drugs Fund within its existing budget. This is currently being consulted on, but patients, clinicians and pharma companies have serious concerns that the outcome will not achieve what it should. Does the Minister agree that any new methodology should guarantee increased access to innovative medicines, as proposed in the cancer strategy? We do not want the UK to become a “late-launch market”, meaning that UK patients would have poor access to innovative drugs compared to others worldwide.
Nothing should be done to deter pharma companies from doing R&D and clinical trials in the UK, since this both adds to total UK life sciences and covers the costs of treating patients which would otherwise be borne by the NHS. Indeed, we need an about-turn in relation to research. Every patient, every doctor and every health worker could be involved in medical research, but there are currently threats to the collection of data. I would encourage all patients, with suitable assurances, to allow their anonymised data to be used for medical research to save future lives. Without complete data, the researchers are working blindfold and we cannot hold CCGs, hospitals and the Government to account.
NICE must look again at its methodology for evaluating cancer drugs, especially those focused on rare cancers. But there are no proposals for NICE to change the criteria or thresholds and no recognition of unmet need, such as for cancers with very poor prognoses, such as pancreatic cancer.
It is instructive to look at some specific cancers to see where the problems lie. Despite being the 10th most common cancer, pancreatic cancer is the fifth biggest killer. Yet it only gets a tiny research spend. Survival rates are shockingly low. Only 4% survive five years from diagnosis and this has not improved in 40 years, indicating a desperate need for earlier diagnosis and more research. Around four in five patients are diagnosed at a very advanced stage and may have made up to seven visits to their GP with symptoms. All that suggests a need for better GP training and better access to diagnostic tools so that patients can have surgery before it is no longer an option. Other specialties such as skin cancer have a shortage of consultants and the ones there are spend far too much of their time seeing patients whose GP could have diagnosed the lesion as benign if they had had better training. This is another area where public awareness of symptoms needs to improve.
I have not been able to cover all the ground in 10 minutes, but I hope that other speakers will. I thank all those who are about to take part in this debate and hope that the Minister can answer the many questions that will be raised.
Lord Colwyn (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on securing time for this debate. Her excellent speech enables me to bring the dental profession to your Lordships’ attention—again. A speaking slot of four minutes is always very restrictive but I am pleased to be able to make reference to dental professionals, most of whom play an important role in the detection, diagnosis and treatment of many forms of oral cancer.
As we all know well, cancer remains one of the biggest killers and burdens on our health service. In turn, tobacco is by far the biggest preventable cause of cancer, with more than one-quarter of all cancer deaths in the UK being linked to it. Cancers of the head and neck are among the ones most directly linked to smoking, second only to lung cancer. Two-thirds of all cases are as a direct result of tobacco use and as many as nine in 10 cases could be prevented. Oral cancer is also one of the fastest-increasing types of cancer, with cases up by almost 40% in the last decade alone. With almost 7,000 patients diagnosed every year, it now kills more people in the UK than cervical and testicular cancers combined.
With tobacco cessation and early diagnosis being the keys to reducing the incidence and improving the survival rates of this particular kind of cancer, we cannot overlook the important contribution dentists can make in the fight against this terrible disease. Dental professionals are on the front line in the fight against mouth cancer. Dentists are uniquely placed to diagnose oral cancers very early, before the patient notices any symptoms and seeks help. This is crucial, as mouth cancer patients have a 90% chance of survival if the condition is detected early, but this plummets to just 50% if their diagnosis is delayed. The British Dental Association and Cancer Research UK have recently jointly launched a very useful new scheme called the Oral Cancer Toolkit, which improves dentists’ knowledge of how to prevent and detect oral cancer. This is something that could and should be built on.
Being the only health professionals who regularly see healthy patients, members of the dental team are also in an ideal position to help prevent future cases of oral and other cancers by becoming involved in tobacco cessation. They update the patient’s medical history form, which includes questions on tobacco, during every visit and can often see visual evidence of smoking or chewing tobacco during a check-up or treatment. Trials have revealed that dentists with the right support and access to information on tobacco counselling can contribute significantly to tobacco control measures in the community. It is important that the dental profession is involved in the development and delivery of the new tobacco control strategy, as it is a potential resource we truly cannot afford not to harness in the fight against cancer.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for securing this debate. I shall focus on childhood cancers, which present challenges that are often distinct from more common adult cancers. I declare an interest as a father of a boy who has been treated for brain cancer and take this opportunity to declare my thanks for the extraordinary joined-up care he continues to receive.
Childhood cancer is the most common cause of death in children aged one to 14 and the most common medical cause of death for 15 to 25 year-olds. Death from cancer at any age is, of course, tragic and traumatic for those left behind, but childhood deaths from cancer are especially so, and the years of life lost are considerably higher.
Paediatric cancers are rare and histologically diverse, which provides challenges for both diagnosis and attracting research funding. For many cancers, such as non-Hodgkin lymphoma and bone tumours, survival rates for 15 to 25 year-olds are worse than for adults, and childhood cancer treatments have particular hazards because they take place while bodies are still in the early stages of development and often involve lifelong consequences for those affected. But there is good news: survival rates have steadily increased for more than 20 years, from under 70% in 1990 to more than 80% in 2010. We are in the top third of high-income countries for childhood cancer survival rates, which is encouraging—but we know what more needs to be done to improve further, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, talked about.
There are four challenges in particular. The first is diagnosis. Nearly a third of teenage and young adult cancers are diagnosed through emergency presentation at A&E—much higher than the average for all other cancers in the adult population. About a third of this young age group have to visit the GP three times with symptoms before getting a referral—delays that make it more likely that a cancer will advance and that make the treatment much more complex. I know a number of parents of child cancer sufferers who very sadly feel that their GP acted as though rationing entry into the diagnostic system. I am keen to hear what more the Minister thinks can be done to raise awareness among GPs of warning symptoms.
The second challenge is education. Surveys show that teenagers have less understanding of cancer than older age groups, yet we know that many of the major risk factors for developing cancer in adulthood are initiated in adolescence. The Independent Cancer Taskforce recommended that a cancer education programme should be instituted for all secondary schools to raise awareness of healthy lifestyles and cancer symptoms. Will the Minister say whether the Government plan to endorse this proposal?
Thirdly, there is the issue of clinical trials. Half of young children with cancer enter trials for common cancer types. Among 15 to 19 year-olds just under a third do, and for 20 to 24 year-olds the figure is only 14%. That is why the Teenage Cancer Trust is calling for NHS England to set an expectation that at least half of teenagers and young adults with cancer be recruited to cancer trials over the next decade. Will the Minister comment on that ambition and say whether the Government intend to support it?
Lastly, perhaps the most important issue is funding for research. From 2010 to 2012, paediatric cancer research funding fell by 25%. What is as worrying as this dramatic fall is that it is wholly due to a reduction in government-funded research, which fell from nearly 40% of all research spend in 2011 to just 12% in 2014—so in 2014 the Government spent on paediatric cancer research one-third of what was being spent by the Government in 2009. We live in straitened times that force us to focus on priorities—we all know that—but I suggest that public funding of research into childhood cancer has to be, as for any generation, one of those priorities.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Association of Medical Research Charities, via whose members the British public contribute £1.3 billion annually to medical research, the largest part of which is spent on cancer research.
My noble friend Lady Walmsley noted that our cancer survival rates are significantly worse than in many comparable countries. People in the UK are dying of cancer quite unnecessarily. I know that the Government are acutely aware of that and that they recognise the need for urgent progress. The very impressive report of the Independent Cancer Taskforce, led by Sir Harpal Kumar of Cancer Research UK, shows us how to make that progress, and I am glad that the NHS has endorsed its recommendations.
Not surprisingly, a key recommendation of the report is an improvement in early diagnosis. I am myself a beneficiary of a very early diagnosis five years ago of lung cancer. Without that early diagnosis, I would not now be alive. To improve early diagnosis we need better training of GPs, better symptom awareness among patients, and better and quicker access to scanning. In this context, I am very disturbed to read reports of CCGs offering financial incentives to GP surgeries not to refer patients for further tests or specialist advice. Will the Minister tell us how widespread this practice is and what is being done to stop it?
The UK has a world-class record in medical research—a vital tool in improving cancer survival rates—and the mandate for NHS England requires publication of a plan for research. But we do not have that plan for 2016-17; in fact, we never got it for 2015-16. I know that some charities have had sight of a draft plan and that Cancer Research UK, for example, considers it to be limited in its vision of the NHS as research-active. Will the Minister say when we can all see the plan?
To date, the NHS has been slow to engage with the research community and to act on its recommendations. More effort is needed from NHS England to ensure that research funders can help them effectively meet their ambition to support and promote research. For example, as things stand, despite the pledge in the NHS constitution and the wishes of the Prime Minister, only 31% of cancer patients said that taking part in research had been discussed with them. This is despite the fact, too, that there is very good evidence that research-active trusts deliver better health outcomes.
Then there is the issue of money. The Government deserve congratulations for the science funding settlement in the spending review, but there are some important outstanding issues. The plan for a national fund to be held by NHS England for payment of excess treatment costs for cancer radiotherapy trials—a recommendation of the independent task force endorsed by NHS England—has not yet been published. Will the Minister say when we will see this?
Then there is the issue of excess treatment costs in general. We now have the guidance on this, but no published timetable for implementation. Delay in implementation prevents the full benefits of the HRA’s new single-approval system being fully realised, which is critical to the much-needed streamlining of research approvals. Will the Minister say when we might see the excess treatment costs implementation plan?
Finally, there is the question of the Charity Research Support Fund. The Minister will know that this fund is critical to universities seeking charitable funds for basic research, the largest part of which is on cancer. He will know how successful this fund has been: in 2013, the Government’s £198 million leveraged £883 million in charitable investment. We need this fund to continue. We need to protect it in real terms and to increase it in line with charitable investment.
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, I begin my speech with a startling fact: rare cancers accounted for 43% of cases in 2010, but 59% of cancer deaths. Let me repeat that: these less common cancers affect roughly four in 10 of new patients, but make up six in 10 of deaths. If we want to improve survival overall we have to improve our performance in these cancers, and our performance in caring for them is poor relative to international peers. Broadly speaking, in every case there is a 5% to 15% gap in the UK’s one year performance. In stark numbers, we kill one patient more for every 10 we treat. This cannot go on.
So what can we do to improve care in these cancers? First, we should publish risk-adjusted hospital survival by cancer so that patients have informed choice. These do not need to be put into the NHS dashboard if that will delay things. Patient advocacy groups can pick up the data and take them to their constituents.
Secondly, we should measure other important care quality outcomes, such as incontinence in prostate cancer. To give noble Lords a sense of the power of measurement, Germany recently introduced metrics in incontinence and impotence after prostatectomy. On average, about 50% of German patients are left incontinent, except in Hamburg, where the Martini-Klinik has been tracking its outcomes to drive internal performance improvements. Its rates are 6.5%—in other words, a national average of one in two men in diapers for the rest of their lives, versus one in 20.
Thirdly, we should streamline diagnosis and better connect primary and secondary care. The Government should be commended for putting one-year survival rates and emergency presentation data into the CCG dashboards, and these will drive local behaviours in this area.
Fourthly, we should centralise more services, especially specialist surgery. As an example, my sister’s cancer was in the chest cavity. Getting access for such thoracic surgery is highly complex and risky. General surgeons doing these sorts of procedures get worse outcomes than those who do them more often. It is like playing the piano; the more you practise, the better you get, yet we run shy of the necessary service reconfigurations to achieve this; and, without the data on hospital performance, one can see why. Patients can judge only convenience.
Fifthly, we should introduce national molecular testing for those cancers where there is no service incumbency, such as cancers of the upper digestive system or of the female reproductive system. We should use that patient volume to catalyse precision medicine trials in these diseases. They share the same genetic mutations as common cancer, and so, if pharma can recruit to trial, they will prove whether their drugs for common cancers work for these less common ones.
Sixthly, we must continue to collect rich clinical data on all patients with cancer out of routine care. This is essential in the emerging era of personalised molecular medicine. England has at the moment the largest and best cancer registration data collection service anywhere in the world. It is this rich clinical data linked to the molecular and genomic analysis that will allow us to understand both rare and common types of cancer. However, if we allow large numbers of individuals to opt out of the registries, then our hopes for improving care quality and finding treatments and cures for rare cancers will be lost for ever.
While some of these measures will cost money, some are cost-free. Public Health England, in the form of the National Cancer Intelligence Network, has hospital survival data, but we just do not publish them on. The Government have made a commitment to open data. This is an area where data can save lives. We must unlock Public Health England’s vaults and give the information to patients and doctors.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for bringing forward this important debate. Most of us have had someone close who has been diagnosed with cancer, so this subject is personal to me, as it is no doubt to many other noble Lords here this evening.
Every two minutes, someone in the UK is diagnosed with cancer. It is now estimated that one in every two people born after 1960 will be diagnosed with some form of cancer during their lifetime. Cancer can be both physically and psychologically distressing given its unpredictable nature, the potential for spreading, and the often intensive and damaging treatment required to treat it. Then there is the uncertainty about whether the disease has truly gone, and the lurking fear about whether it will return.
In the wider and longer-term context, results are improving. Awareness and understanding, through to diagnosis, treatment and, ultimately, survival, have improved enormously in recent decades. Overall, rates of cancer survival have doubled in the last 40 years. However, these rates still remain around 10% lower than the European average. As we have already heard, as with all health matters, prevention is key. While cancer is indiscriminate, we are able to influence our likelihood of falling prey to it. Alongside medical advances, we must examine what we as individuals can do to lessen our risk. We also need to focus very heavily on the most prevalent cancers, as, between them, lung, prostate, breast and bowel cancer account for more than half of all cases. Public awareness campaigns play an important role in educating people about the risks they face should they make certain lifestyle choices.
Early diagnosis is critical. Regular tests and screening for cancers is where government support and personal responsibility can go hand in hand. However, given that cancer is most common in older people, with a third of cases being diagnosed in people aged 75 and over, I am slightly concerned that this is not reflected in the age brackets where regular screening is standard. For example, women over the age of 70 cease receiving invitations for breast screening, and instead must self-refer. However, the fact is that around one in three women diagnosed with breast cancer, and more than half of those who die from it, are over 70. Given that we know early diagnosis is the best way of stopping cancer in its tracks, and with an ageing population, surely we should allocate proper resources to ensure comprehensive awareness and monitoring among this older age group.
Cervical cancer is most common in women aged 30 to 45, and after this time screening invitations are sent only once every five years, and cease to be sent once a woman reaches the age of 65. However, an academic study last year found that one in five new cases of cervical cancer are in fact diagnosed in women 65 and over. Half of cervical cancer deaths are now also in this older age group. The charity, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, has called for further research into a self-administered urine test, which women can carry out at home to check for signs of cervical cancer. I suggest that this is exactly the sort of measure that we should be looking into.
I also encourage greater uptake of the PSA blood test for prostate cancer, and to consider introducing the CA125 blood test for ovarian cancer, as this is often discovered all too late. Once cancer has been diagnosed, follow-up appointments and treatment need to happen speedily.
Government must ensure that their policies are shaped by science and statistics, using resources where they are needed the most. In turn, we must all be proactive in taking responsibility for our health and choosing to live healthier lifestyles. This will ultimately save public money and, more importantly, lives.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for securing this short but very important debate. I declare an interest as a member of the All-Party Group on Cancer. On many occasions, I have been to presentations of cancer survival rates in Europe and it is alarming to see the UK near the bottom. I ask the Minister, why is this? Whatever happens, we must get better. Early diagnostics are vital.
On Monday evening, I attended a reception for the Lymphoma Association. I met a young scientist who told me the story of her brother. He was aged 26 and had just taken his exam for a pilot’s licence. He had swellings, excessive night sweats, weight loss and tiredness. He went to his GP three times but was told that he was suffering from stress from taking his pilot’s exam. Family members then took him to a private doctor and insisted that he had blood tests. The results came back and he was sent directly to St Thomas’ Hospital and told that he had cancer. Because it was a late diagnosis he had to have strong chemotherapy, which gave him many problems including depression. His career was in ruins and he is now a stay-at-home father.
Lymphoma is cancer of the lymphatic system, which is part of the body’s immune system. It is the fifth most commonly diagnosed form of cancer. Without consistent and reliable data, further opportunities to improve the diagnosis, treatment and aftercare for lymphoma will be missed.
The Minister knows my concern about the patchy provision of vital healthcare across the country. The vision of the British In Vitro Diagnostics Association is to have robust, fair and sustainable access to and provision of molecular diagnostics across England. Rapid advances in medical science and technology are transforming the way health problems are identified, prevented and treated. However, in the area of molecular diagnostics, further reform is needed to ensure that patients can realise the benefits of these tests and have equity across the country. I hope that NHS England will take note.
Proton beam therapy came to the public’s notice when the parents of a young boy with a brain tumour went to the Czech Republic for treatment. This showed that the UK was lagging behind other countries in targeted methods of treatment. The treatment allows high-energy protons to be targeted directly at the tumour, reducing the dose to surrounding tissues and organs. Can the Minister give us a progress report on the availability of this treatment in the UK? If London and Manchester are to be the chosen centres for this treatment, patients from all over England should be able to use it and should have help with travelling and accommodation.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for introducing this debate this evening. Unfortunately and as we all know, cancer touches us all. Every year, more than 250,000 people in England are diagnosed with cancer and, sadly, around 130,000 of these die as a result of the disease.
However, more people are now surviving cancer and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those healthcare professionals and volunteers—and dentists—who dedicate their lives to finding cures and caring for patients. The sad fact remains though, that our survival rates are still worse than those for other countries that are as wealthy as us. If we want the best for cancer patients, we have to invest in treatment but our priority also needs to be prevention through early diagnosis, as we have heard from earlier speakers.
I welcomed the Government’s strategy on cancer in 2011 and efforts to raise awareness of symptoms, with £750 million allocated to support this. If we take bowel cancer, for example, which is the fourth most common cancer in the UK and where survival rates are closely associated with the stage at diagnosis, it is estimated that up to nine in 10 people could survive if they were diagnosed in the earliest stages of that cancer. There is a huge variation in survival between cancer types and we have the staggering statistic that one in five cancers is not spotted until A&E.
This Government made a manifesto commitment to continue to support tackling cancer through campaigns such as Be Clear on Cancer. Many noble Lords will be familiar with radio and television advertising that encourages people with possible symptoms or concerns to visit their GP and get them checked out. I, for one, would welcome increased media attention, with a possible monthly “focus on cancer” to promote awareness of the symptoms of a different cancer each time and what to look for.
Alongside diagnosis, access to appointments is vital. In May last year, the Prime Minister reiterated a commitment to seven-day general practice and hospital services by 2020. One initiative that I think has been particularly effective is the free NHS “midlife MOTs” for those aged 40 to 74 who do not have a pre-existing condition, which we have delivered in north Lincolnshire with GP support. These health checks mean that residents will be better prepared for the future and able to take steps to maintain or improve their health. However, we still have a stigma attached to seeking advice on health, particularly with older residents and especially men. I would welcome the Minister considering this point and explaining what further assistance may be available to local authorities to increase contact with these target groups to improve survival rates. We also need to look at lifestyles to reduce the risk of cancer, with around a third of cancers being linked to smoking, diet, alcohol and obesity. By running screening programmes, we have the chance to get an earlier diagnosis so that treatment is more likely to work.
We face a massive challenge ahead to do the best we can against the seemingly endless toll that cancer has on people’s lives. I am positive that more can be done to support those with cancer and identify the risks sooner, but at the same time I acknowledge the huge strides that have already been made.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on securing this debate and on making a number of points in her excellent speech—as indeed did other noble Lords—of such merit that I plan to repeat them.
It is good news that cancer death rates have fallen steadily in the past 20 years and that half of adult cancer patients are now expected to survive for 10 years or more. As a cancer survivor myself, I hope to reinforce those figures. However, this is not a uniform picture, and I shall speak about one of the cancers with the worst survival rates of all. I declare my interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Pancreatic Cancer.
As we have heard, pancreatic cancer is the 10th most prevalent of the top 21 cancers but the fifth biggest killer, causing some 8,700 deaths a year. UK five-year survival rates are just over 5%. Shockingly, these have hardly changed in 40 years. Average survival after diagnosis is a mere two to six months; 80% of patients are diagnosed too late to be operated on; and 45% are diagnosed only as a result of emergency admission to hospital, with only a 9% chance of surviving for one year, as opposed to 26% for GP referrals. I could go on but I will end with just one more dismal fact: the UK is near the bottom of the European league table in its pancreatic cancer outcomes, with a one-year survival rate that is only half that of Belgium—21% versus 40%—and well below the average of 30%.
What are the factors contributing to pancreatic cancer survival rates—or, more accurately, non-survival rates—in the UK and what might be done to improve them? I will make five suggestions, based on the findings of two inquiries carried out by the all-party group in 2013 and 2014. If the Minister has not seen them, I would be glad to send him copies.
The first requirement is for more research. Pancreatic cancer accounts for 5.2% of UK cancer deaths but only 1.4% of research spending. Of course, the experience of other cancers shows a clear link between research and improved survival rates. The second is earlier diagnosis. The all-party group reports have highlighted ways to achieve this, including better training and diagnostic support tools for GP practices; new referral pathways, giving GPs direct access to CT scans; and multidisciplinary centres to avoid patients being shuttled back and forth between their GP and various investigative routes before a correct diagnosis is made.
Thirdly, a specific strategy is needed for tackling pancreatic cancer and other so-called cancers of unmet need whose outcomes are lagging behind. These are not adequately addressed in the current national strategy for England. Fourthly, as we have heard, the public should be made more aware of pancreatic cancer. A 2015 poll found that 71% of people in England could not name a single symptom of pancreatic cancer unprompted. An awareness campaign is needed, if not for pancreatic cancer on its own, then perhaps for the whole group of gastrointestinal cancers, including pancreatic.
Finally, it is deeply troubling that the only new treatment for pancreatic cancer in some 20 years, providing a real, albeit small, extension of life for patients, has been removed from the cancer drugs fund and rejected by NICE for use in the NHS, although it remains available in both Scotland and Wales. This only exacerbates the finding of the 2014 national Cancer Patient Experience Survey that pancreatic cancer patients report a lower standard of care than others; for example, in terms of the information provided, the availability of cancer nurse specialists with specific pancreatic cancer skills, and access to specialist dieticians.
I have outlined five ways in which the Minister could set about improving cancer survival rates, particularly for pancreatic cancer sufferers, for whom the need is so dire. Perhaps he might borrow from President Obama’s cancer “moonshot” idea in his recent State of the Union address and bring to the battle against cancer the sort of energy, innovation, commitment and resources that led to America putting a man on the moon—or at least enable us to catch up with other leading countries.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for instituting this debate. Clearly, we have made progress over the past 10 to 15 years but much more needs to be done. International comparisons show that to be the case. I also acknowledge briefings from many different organisations for this debate, including Macmillan Cancer Support, Cancer Research UK and the Teenage Cancer Trust. Of course, my noble friend Lord Wood has already spoken very eloquently about the devastating impact of cancer on young people.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, can he clear up the status of the Cancer Taskforce report? A number of noble Lords referred to this being accepted. I would like to know what that means. Does it mean that, in essence, NHS England is committed to implementing all its recommendations or is it a broad-brush acceptance of the philosophy behind the report? I believe that there is some confusion here.
Secondly, I move on to early diagnosis. A number of noble Lords mentioned GPs. There are any number of conditions where issues are raised about GPs and diagnosis. I am not one who rushes to blame GPs but there is now a general issue about how you get the benefits of general practice, which are many, and then ensure that diagnosis is better than before. It is a very difficult question. At the very least, are the Government working with the profession on this?
Thirdly, there was the question about screening and the age limits. Why, for instance, is the screening for bowel cancer stopped at the age of 74? I have tabled Written Questions about this and I am not convinced that there is an answer. I am not at all sure whether the National Screening Committee is keeping up to date with the demographics in this country. Also on screening, there is the recommendation from the NSC about making changes to both bowel and cervical cancer screening programmes to make them more effective. What has happened to those recommendations? One of the tests is called FIT; the other is for HPV in relation to cytology tests. I would be grateful if the Minister could at least write to me on that.
A lot of charities have expressed concerns that we do not have enough diagnostic capacity. I know from the latest OECD survey that, in the UK, we have less access to new equipment than in many other countries. What is going to happen in relation to that?
I would like to ask the Minister about drugs. A number of noble Lords, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, mentioned the fact that we have an appalling record in getting innovative new drugs to our patients. We have an accelerated access review. The question that I keep asking the Minister is: where is NHS England’s commitment to this? I sense that there is no commitment and that it sees drugs as a burden and a cost, rather than a huge advance for patients. It is essential that the philosophy of the NHS is changed in terms of the accelerated access review.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, raised very important points. The Minister is very generous with his time, but I wonder whether he would be prepared to meet him to discuss the points that he raised about data and huge variations. The noble Lord referred to Germany but he could of course have referred to the UK in those terms.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised a lack of co-ordination. Will the Minister agree to bring back cancer networks locally? They were brilliant and it was a pity that they were dissolved. They should be brought back.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I join everybody else in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for bringing this very important debate to the House. It really is a shame that we have only an hour. So much has been said that I cannot do it all justice. The noble Baroness kindly gave me a hint of what she might say this evening, so I hope that I will cover that in my main speech. I would like to come back to her on the two-week target. Maybe I could write to her on that.
My noble friend Lord Colwyn raised the importance of the dental profession, which again is all part of the common theme of early diagnosis. The importance of clinical trials was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wood, particularly in relation to teenagers and children. They are clearly very important. I would like to come back to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, about his comment that CCGs were putting in incentives to GPs for not referring suspected cases of cancer. Perhaps I might investigate and come back to him on that important issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, mentioned powerfully the power of transparency. The example he gave which stuck with me was that of prostate cancer and the differing rates of incontinence as a result of that. I think that it was in Hamburg that the results were particularly good. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I have already agreed to meet the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg. Transparency about survival rates will not solve all the issues but could be very powerful.
Both my noble friend Lady Hodgson and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of screening for elderly people. I will write to them on that issue, as I cannot give them an answer this evening. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, raised the issue of proton beam therapy. Again, I will write a progress report to her on that. As she knows, we are proceeding with two centres, one in Manchester and one at UCLH in London. I believe that both of them have started and are on target, but I will revert to her on that if I can.
My noble friend Lady Redfern asked whether we could look at increasing public awareness and referred to the Be Clear on Cancer campaign. That is important. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised the issue of pancreatic cancer. I was not aware that the survival rate after a year was 5%. That is terribly low, and I would like to research that more. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised lots of important questions, but in answer to a particularly important one, NHS England has, as I understand it, accepted the recommendations of the Harpal Kumar report and will be implementing them over the next four years.
I hope that I will answer most of the questions in my speech. It is worth noting that we have made huge progress over the last 15 years, even though the kernel of the debate this evening is that we have got a lot further to go to catch up with our European neighbours. Activity has increased dramatically. In the last five years, 645,000 more patients with suspected cancers were seen, an increase of 71%. Almost 40,000 more patients were treated for cancer, an increase of 17%.
The proportion of cancers diagnosed as a result of emergency presentation—an issue raised by a number of noble Lords—has decreased significantly. At the same time, the proportion of cancers diagnosed through urgent GP referral following a suspicion of cancer has increased. In 2006, almost 25% of all cancers were diagnosed as an emergency. In 2013, this figure had fallen to 20%, or one in five. That is a considerable reduction, but there is still a long way to go. To help diagnose cancer earlier, we have invested over £22 million in our Be Clear on Cancer campaigns and we continue to expand and modernise our cancer screening programmes. Nationally, 37% of radiotherapy treatments are now being delivered with more precise intensity-modulated radiation therapy—IMRT—ahead of the 24% target.
Since October 2010, the Cancer Drugs Fund has helped more than 84,000 cancer patients in England, and £1 billion has now been made available to support that fund. We are committed to the fund, although we are out for consultation at the moment as to how we should progress it forward for next year. It is worth noting that in this current year some £340 million has been spent in that fund. Some of these new cancer drugs are extremely expensive.
We know that cancer survival in England has historically lagged behind the best-performing countries in Europe and the world, but none of these international comparisons of cancer include patients more recently diagnosed than 2009. As a result, we should be careful about using these comparisons as a measure of the current performance of the system, although they can be useful as a long-term benchmark. Although we will have improved considerably since that time, I suspect that other countries will also have improved, so the question is whether that gap has closed. Although our survival rates are at a record high and continue to improve, as shown by the new figures published by the ONS in November, we know that we must do better. The gap between England and the better-performing countries is narrowing for some cancers, but for others it remains.
That is why, in January last year, NHS England announced a new Independent Cancer Taskforce to develop a five-year strategy for cancer. A report was published in July 2015, which I think was well received by most interested parties. It recommends improvements across the cancer pathway with the aim of improving survival rates. I thank Sir Harpal Kumar and his colleagues for that report.
In terms of delivery, NHS England has recently appointed Cally Palmer, whom some of you will know, as she is also chief executive of the Royal Marsden, as the NHS National Cancer Director. She will lead on implementation, as well as new cancer vanguards to redesign care and patient experience. She is currently setting up a new Cancer Transformation Board to lead the rollout of the recommendations of the new strategy, and a Cancer Advisory Group, chaired by Sir Harpal Kumar, will oversee and scrutinise its work. I hope that that will go some way to addressing the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the networks that used to be there. We hope that they will put in place something similar, if not the same.
Although this is a five-year strategy and an implementation plan is being developed, good progress has already been made on many of the key recommendations. The task force recognised the importance of early and faster diagnosis to improve outcomes and experience. It is essential that we make sure that cancer is diagnosed as early as possible, so we will adopt the task force’s ambitious new waiting times target for the NHS. From 2020, patients will be given a definitive cancer diagnosis or the all-clear within 28 days of being referred by a GP. This will mean that the period of uncertainty will be as short as possible.
We are backing this with an expected investment of up to £300 million a year by 2020, along with a national training programme for an additional 200 staff with the skills and expertise to carry out endoscopy tests by 2018. This is an area of shortage at the moment. We have also confirmed a commitment from NHS England to implement the Independent Cancer Taskforce’s recommendations on molecular diagnostics. This will mean that about 25,000 additional people a year will have their cancers genetically tested to identify the most effective treatments. I noted the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, about fairness in access to molecular diagnostic tests.
To monitor the impact of the new strategy, we are also introducing two new outcome metrics: the proportion of cancers diagnosed at stages 1 and 2 and the proportion of cancers diagnosed through an emergency route. These will be published quarterly at CCG level from May 2016. From April 2016, the new cancer dashboard will enable every CCG to see its data and benchmark itself against other CCGs and England as a whole. It will measure progress with a focus on incidence, survival rates, patient experience and quality of life for patients.
In conclusion, I congratulate your Lordships’ House on the quality of this debate. Some fascinating issues have been raised. The personal experience of many noble Lords has been particularly illuminating. I hope that I have been able to set out our commitment to delivering the Independent Cancer Taskforce’s new strategy, the good progress that has already been made, and NHS England’s robust plans to turn the recommendations into reality.
If the NHS is successful in implementing its initiatives and ambitions, an additional 30,000 patients a year will survive cancer for 10 years or more by 2020, 11,000 through early diagnosis. There will also be a closing of the gap in survival rates between England and the best countries in the world, which is something that we all want to see.
We have some progress to report. It is never enough. It will take time to build up both the diagnosis and treatment resources so that we can close that gap with other European countries completely, but with Sir Harpal Kumar’s task force report, we have a very clear way to do that.
Lord Aberdare
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I hope that I did not misspeak, but the figure I cited of 5% for pancreatic survival was for five years, not one. I apologise if I misled the Minister.
Immigration Bill
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
“( ) In section 33(1)(a), for “race” substitute “a protected characteristic as defined in Chapter 1 of Part 2 of that Act”.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this group of amendments takes us to the provisions in the Bill on the right to rent. The debate and many briefings around the evaluation of the restrictions applied in the West Midlands under the scheme instigated by the 2014 Act, particularly references to discrimination, prompted me to look at that Act. Section 33 requires a code of practice from the Secretary of State specifying what a landlord or agent should do to avoid,
“contravening … the Equality Act 2010, so far as relating to race”.
I confess that I cannot remember why only race is mentioned in that section, not the other so-called protected characteristics, which include age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, religion and belief, and sex and sexual orientation. I accept that some of these may be unlikely to influence a landlord’s or agent’s attitude, but it can be difficult for some people to distinguish discrimination on the basis of race and religion in practice. So my question to the Minister is: why did we confine this to race? I am implicated in this, after all, as I took part in debating that Bill. In any event, is the matter not due for review?
The other amendments in this group are on the evaluation of the right-to-rent scheme. My Amendment 159 was tabled to come before Clause 13, but it does not matter. I have added my name to Amendment 151, which is about applying criminal sanctions to the provisions in the 2014 Act, making non-compliance into a criminal offence. That obviously requires an evaluation of how the 2014 provisions are going. Amendment 159 would provide that there would be no rollout of those provisions from the West Midlands until the evaluation to which I referred in the amendment. Since then, the Government have laid a statutory instrument to roll out those provisions. I have also tabled a Motion to annul that—quite separately, of course, from today. For a number of reasons, I was very sorry that that was laid, obviously because of the substance of the matter but also because I was really rather proud of this amendment, which, somewhat to my surprise, did not get altered in its passage from my head on to the Marshalled List. The evaluation which Amendment 159 would require would be an independent one by a representative sample of landlords, agents and tenants, looking at the impact both on the lettings market and on the wider local community, as well as on whether the aims of the legislation were achieved. I would give until the West Midlands scheme was in effect for long enough to undertake a good evaluation. I have said five years, but I appreciate that that may be contentious—and I apologise to the West Midlands for continuing to inflict this there. These are all issues that have been identified by those who work in the sector, both the landlords and agents and the various groups which have concerns for immigrants.
The Home Office evaluation of the West Midlands scheme acknowledges that the sample sizes were small—I would say they were very small—and that the findings are indicative rather than definitive. The sample does not claim to be representative. My comments are not intended to be any criticism of those who were tasked with the evaluation. The majority of the tenants surveyed were students, who are clearly not representative of families, older people and people who are in work. It is particularly easy to check on a student’s right to rent, so in that way they are less representative as well. I understand that they were specifically targeted by an information campaign in the area. The majority of tenants did not move property, so there is no experience there. The pointers to discrimination in the period that the scheme was running may have been few, but they are significant in the context. You certainly cannot say that the evaluation shows that discrimination was not an issue. In fact, the evidence showed discrimination.
The aims of the right-to-rent scheme are to reduce the availability of accommodation for people who are illegally in the UK, to discourage those who stay illegally—in other words, to encourage them to leave—by making it more difficult to establish a settled life here and to reinforce action against rogue landlords. I do not believe that the report demonstrates that those aims were met.
I congratulate the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants on the work it did. I shall not quote a great deal from its report as I hope that I have made the points fairly succinctly, but it points out from an independent evaluation it commissioned that 42% of landlords said that the right-to-rent requirements have made them less likely to consider someone who does not have a British passport and more than one-quarter said that they would no longer engage with those with foreign accents or names; at Second Reading, I said that I thought that with my slightly odd name I might find it hard to find rented accommodation. The council also said that 50% of respondents who had been refused a tenancy felt that discrimination was a factor in the landlord’s decision and—I am so naive that I found this shocking—landlords and agents have charged fees in order to undertake the right-to-rent checks. In addition, unscrupulous landlords have passed the potential cost of a fine on to the tenant in the form of increased rent or deposits.
I have also heard from Crisis, as other noble Lords will have done, which comments on the problems arising from the scheme for homeless people, whose documents often get lost or stolen. It says that replacing missing documents is expensive, probably prohibitively expensive, and when the lettings market is very high pressured and fast moving, as we know it is, landlords are not prepared to wait for tenants to produce documents. They will rent to somebody who can provide the evidence immediately and thus provide them with rent immediately.
Crisis also comments on the right-to-rent scheme applying to live-in landlords who take in lodgers and is concerned that it will act as a disincentive to people letting out rooms in their homes given the housing pressures we are experiencing.
I end by quoting from a letter that I received yesterday from the Residential Landlords Association, which says:
“Given that the little data available is at best contradictory and at worst shows that the Right to Rent scheme is … not achieving what the Government wants; and … is leading to discrimination against those unable to clearly unable to identify their nationality, we believe it premature to roll out the scheme across the country … To proceed at this stage runs the very real risk of causing considerable harm to the relationships between landlords and tenants which are so crucial to the smooth operation of the private rented sector”.
I thought it important to include that because it comes from the perspective of landlords, not that of many others from whom we have received briefings.
My name is on the third amendment in this group, but I beg to move Amendment 148.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Rosser would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an evaluation of the national rollout of the 2014 right-to-rent scheme before the offences listed in the clause came into force. Again, this issue was raised at Second Reading, and there is considerable concern about this position. Landlords can find themselves in some difficulties as they are not immigration officers and do not have the expertise to make determinations. The penalties for offences committed under new Sections 33A and 33B are severe: on conviction on indictment, a penalty of up to five years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both; and on summary conviction, a prison term of up to 12 months, a fine, or both.
The amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have considerable merits. Amendment 159 would stop any orders coming into force other than in the pilot area until the Secretary of State had published an independent evaluation of these sections of the Immigration Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was right to say that we do not have a very long period in which to make a proper evaluation. She also made a valid point about the protected characteristics in Amendment 148.
I hope that the Minister will be in a position either to accept these amendments or at the very least to reflect on them before coming back to this issue on Report. As I have said, the Bill is in a bit of a mess and, unlike the Modern Slavery Act, we have not had the pre-legislative scrutiny required. That is why we are having all these difficulties as we go through Committee.
Will the Minister think about the effect on the rental sector and the injustice that can be done not only to landlords and people who rent out to lodgers but to prospective tenants who may be unable to rent easily just because they are foreign, have an accent or dress differently, or their documents are not understood by lay people because they are in a foreign language? They will suffer unfairly due to the Government’s proposals here not being properly thought through, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to.
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment about delaying the rollout of the pilot scheme. This seems to focus on the likelihood of landlords potentially asking all those with foreign names or accents for evidence of their right to rent. I thought that the whole point of a pilot scheme was to ensure that what was being put forward was actually working as intended. However, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants found that two-thirds of landlords had not fully understood the code of practice on preventing illegal immigration or indeed the code of practice on avoiding discrimination, and that 50% of those who had been refused a tenancy felt discriminated against, while 40% of tenants in the pilot area had not been asked for any identity documents. That is hardly a resounding success for the pilot scheme, yet the Government want to roll out this contentious scheme across the country next month. That cannot be the right answer.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 151 in particular. The pilot scheme has done nothing to allay all the fears that have been voiced by many organisations that the policy will have unintended, discriminatory consequences, for the reasons given by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred to the JCWI’s independent evaluation. I would be interested if the Minister could tell us what view the Government take of its evaluation alongside the pilot that they have prayed in aid to suggest that everything is fine.
At Second Reading I made brief reference to concerns raised by the charity Rights of Women about the possible implications for women fleeing domestic abuse. I will quote more extensively from the briefing it sent, because it is important. Rights of Women, as noble Lords may know, is a charity which specialises in supporting women who are experiencing or are at risk of experiencing, gender-based violence, including domestic and sexual violence. It says it is,
“deeply concerned that the ‘right to rent’ scheme will place already vulnerable migrant women who have experienced domestic violence at further risk of harm as a result of a scheme that creates barriers to accessing private … accommodation … Many women, including British citizens, experiencing violence in their relationships will have been deprived of access to important documents, such as passports and biometric residence permits, necessary to prove their right to rent and therefore these provisions will have a disproportionate effect on women fleeing abusive partners or other perpetrators of abuse regardless of their nationality.
Furthermore, women with limited leave to remain in the UK on the basis of their relationship with a British or settled person are dependent on that relationship subsisting for the continuation of their leave; when the relationship ends their immigration leave is at risk and women need to take steps to regularise their status in another category. Women who have fled abusive partners often need time to recover from their trauma before starting to address matters such as regularising their immigration status. It is not uncommon for a woman to find out much later after the breakdown of a relationship due to violence that unbeknownst to her the Home Office has curtailed her leave after her abusive partner informed them of the relationship ending. Without receiving notice of a Home Office curtailment decision, a woman can find herself without leave in the UK, unable to work or access housing.
Many of the vulnerable migrant women we advise on our telephone legal advice line have left or are trying to leave abusive relationships. Of these women a significant proportion are presently undocumented though either have an existing right to reside in the UK under European law or have a strong basis on which they can submit an application to the Home Office for leave to remain. The ‘right to rent’ scheme places these already vulnerable women at further risk by preventing them from accessing their own safe private rented accommodation due to a lack of documentation”.
These women will then be,
“at risk of homelessness, renting from exploitative landlords, returning to abusive partners or being forced into entering exploitative relationships”.
The charity gives a couple of case studies which illustrate the very likely problems that could occur, which I will not cite now given the lateness of the hour. However, I will ask: how does this fit in with the Government’s laudable strategy to end violence against women and girls?
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I lend my support to the remarks made from all sides of the Chamber in support of Amendments 151 and 159, which would provide for a proper evaluation of the right-to-rent scheme before we roll it out nationwide.
I have spent a fair amount of time volunteering with a local charity for homeless people in Wimbledon called Faith in Action. On one occasion I was asked to help a person whose documents had been stolen—an occupational hazard when you are a rough sleeper. It was a lengthy and frustrating morning and afternoon—and quite expensive to boot—and I was not successful in tracing the documents on that occasion. I say this because it is clear to me that homeless people, foreign nationals and those from a black and ethnic minority background who have a right to rent but are not in a position readily to produce the necessary documents will be excluded from the rental market as landlords inevitably become more risk-averse in the face of the harsh penalties that could be incurred.
A number of people have talked about the many different organisations that have put forward their case strongly and well. Crisis—a national charity for single homeless people and a member of the Home Office panel—is one of them. It states that, according to an evaluation of the Immigration Act 2014 in Birmingham, which other noble Lords have mentioned, six of the local charities surveyed said that people they represent have become homeless as a result of the scheme, while interviews with landlords found “potential” for discrimination. They, of course, are not alone in those findings. The Law Society raises similar concerns, as does Liberty. To that list I can add Shelter, St Mungo’s and the JCWI. In fact, any charity that works on the ground with homeless people or supports immigrants’ welfare will say the same.
So I can do no less than lend my support to Amendments 151 and 159. Surely it makes sense to delay implementation of the offences contained in this Bill and the rollout of the right-to-rent scheme until independent evaluations of the associated risks have been carried out.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I find myself in a very difficult position. I have to say to my noble friend that there are three elements to this aspect of the Bill, which the amendments address, which seem to me incomprehensible. The first is that, if one is running a private business and is going to make a major change in the way it is run, one has a pilot scheme that one evaluates—preferably independently—and then decides whether or not it has worked. I do not understand how a Conservative Government who believe in private enterprise have not learned this from the private sector. It seems to me that you do not behave like this. You have a pilot scheme, you have it independently assessed, you announce the results and then you discuss what those answers mean.
So I have a problem of comprehension to start with. It is an important problem, because the second difficulty I have is that I find it pretty unacceptable in this country that people should have to prove that they are suitable for renting a flat before they are allowed to do so. I do not find that very attractive. I am one of those who have always believed in identity cards, which I think would be convenient for everyone. But this Government do not believe in identity cards and have tried to argue all the time that they are not necessary. However, we are now creating a sector, a section of the community, which in fact has to have an identity card. I object in principle to the concept that some should have it and others should not.
Central to that is the issue that, however one likes to dress it up, it is likely that landlords will be more suspicious of people of an ethnic minority or with a foreign accent than they will be of those who speak correct English with the crystal accents heard in this House. I do not think that many of us who have spoken today, even those with self-confessed “odd” surnames, would be refused rented accommodation, because landlords would not expect us to be unable to prove our suitability for that flat.
Lord Best (CB)
My Lords, I disagree with an awful lot of what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, and in particular his comments on the so-called bedroom tax. But we will not go into that at this hour of the night.
During the passage of the Immigration Bill 2014 through the House of Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, made some important concessions from the original drafting. One of those was to set up the pilot scheme that turned out to be in the West Midlands. I was subsequently asked to chair the consultative group that would follow the pilot scheme and see whether all was well or everything fell apart as a result of this measure. I jointly chair this with the Immigration Minister, James Brokenshire, and we have been meeting monthly or bi-monthly for the past year or so following the story as it has unfolded.
This has not been a trivial exercise. I assumed when I was joint chair with the Minister that he would come in at the beginning of the meeting, shake everyone’s hand and then clear off. It has not happened like that at all. The Minister has attended every meeting from beginning to end. My role has been very subservient to that, but it has given me an insight into how this pilot has worked out. I have also been to the West Midlands, met various landlords and talked to them about how they worry about these things. From that perspective, let me therefore report back on the pilot and the things have been going on in the Home Office.
There has been quite a considerable investment in this. A YouGov survey was carried out in the fairly early stages of the pilot. It was not awfully large, but then none of the surveys has been very large. It definitely indicated that landlords were saying how reluctant they were to get involved, that it was a nuisance, a bureaucratic nightmare and how they were more likely to turn people away if they suspected something from their accent or whatever. They said all those things. “Grumpy landlords” was the message coming back.
To take an important ingredient of that, discrimination, the pilot set up by the Home Office looked at the area of the West Midlands where the right to rent was being implemented and also looked at a comparison area elsewhere. I am not meant to say where the other area was. We kept it a secret so that the people there did not know they were being looked at in this particular way. But we had a series of mystery shopping exercises in which people phoned with funny accents or with the Oxford English referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and saw how they compared. In the comparison area, the discrimination existed as well as in the right-to-rent area. I am afraid that this does indeed prove that people—landlords and agents—take discriminatory attitudes towards the people whom they might accept as tenants. But it did not show that where right to rent had been introduced, the landlords behaved any differently than in the comparator area.
We did discover that some of the documentation that could prove that you were indeed entitled to be in this country was hard for landlords to understand and get their heads around. At the end of the process—and we only just have the final version—we developed a right-to-rent guide with pictures showing how documents relating to various aspects of identity from different countries looked for real. You would have to be pretty stupid not to be able to find in the guide the document that you are checking, if it exists. If landlords doubt whether the documentation is indeed genuine, they should—it would be unwise not to—phone the Home Office helpline.
We have asked Home Office officials what kind of resources are going into this helpline and how real it is. They have been extremely fast about answering calls, often within minutes. But if the scheme goes national, is the Home Office going to be able to fulfil the commitment that if a landlord or agent has not had a definitive response within 48 hours, the answer will have to be, “Yes, you can go ahead”? The Home Office is given 48 hours to say whether a particular person is here legally or not. If it does not get around to giving that answer because it is too busy, after 48 hours a landlord is absolutely in the clear to let to that individual. We wanted to make sure that the staffing was up to muster and that the helpline was properly serviced—and it is.
The steering group includes representatives from the landlord organisations who have been on both the main group and on sub-groups which have been looking at the discriminatory code and our code of conduct as well as at the evaluation exercise. We have had people from the Residential Landlords Association, the National Landlords Association and bodies that represent tenants’ interests. Shelter has joined, while Crisis has been there since the beginning. We have the GLA and the four local authorities in the West Midlands. These have been big and articulate meetings where people have been able to make the case and say the things they wanted to say.
We have been concerned throughout that the message would not get through. We need to communicate the fact that there is a right to rent and that both landlords and tenants have got to expect this little process to happen, as indeed it does for employers. Let us remember that this is only a parallel to employers being required to check the status of people who come to them for a job. We wanted to know that the communications exercise has been undertaken seriously. There has been a respectable budget for this work. A pretty good website has been set up so that people can see pictures of all the documents they need. There is social media networking using the landlords associations and showing the codes of conduct. Here I declare my interest as chairman of the Property Ombudsman. We have changed our code and we are publicising that. We have to get it out through the landlord networks, which have been co-operative.
From the beginning to the end, absolutely no one, either landlords or tenants, has welcomed this scheme. It is an imposition on them. But it has been an imposition since the passing of the 2014 Act and people are getting used to the idea that it is part of what you do before you undertake a letting. Landlords already need to take references because they want to know that people are going to be able to pay the rent into the indefinite future. They want to know that people really are who they say they are. Passports are regularly required by letting agents, so someone would already not get much further without one. The extra documentation may make life a bit easier for people now that it is clear what designates an individual as being in this country legally or illegally.
When we get to the penalties for offences, I am again interested because rogue landlords are a major problem in all of our big cities. There are people who exploit the tenants who come to them, and in particular they can exploit those who are not here legally. So far, these landlords have not been deterred from doing all kinds of horrendous things, so I welcome the Home Office having joined in and taking an interest as a major additional enforcement agency when it comes to knocking on the doors of landlords who are letting appalling properties at high rents and definitely exploiting the occupiers of those properties. The Home Office has been joining in with local authority enforcement officers, who have often felt rather bereft of the powers they need. They have found that landlords who have been behaving very badly come away from the magistrates’ court having been fined £500 and writing that off as a business expense because they are taking £5,000 a month for a house that is grossly overcrowded and where people are being treated abysmally.
Having the Home Office there adds another dimension to this. It is a powerful extra ally for those of us who are very much opposed to rogue landlords up and down the country, and I welcome its presence. This partnership between the Home Office and local authorities is now a hallmark. When people from the different local authorities in the West Midlands were asked how they felt the exercise had gone at the end of our last meeting, the comment was that there is now a new kind of partnership between the Home Office and local authorities at the local level in areas where they have been targeting rogue landlords.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Bates) (Con)
After the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, I am tempted to say that I invite the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing her amendment at this stage. The noble Lord gave an authoritative and insightful perspective on the process. As this is the first time that we have come to residential tenancies, for the benefit of the Committee I should put on the record that my wife owns properties that are rented in the private sector. It is not something that is required to be listed in the register but, out of courtesy to the Committee, I make your Lordships aware of that.
Amendment 148 would extend the existing requirement on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice that specifies what a landlord or agent should or should not do to avoid contravening the Equality Act 2010. It would then relate to all protected characteristics set out in the Equality Act. Amendment 151 would require that, before the offences of leasing premises in this Bill are commenced, the Government should lay before Parliament a report of the impacts of the restrictions on illegal migrants accessing the private rented sector which were introduced in the Immigration Act 2014 in relation to discrimination and the ability of those lawfully residing in the UK to access rented accommodation where they have neither a passport nor a driver’s licence.
Amendment 159 would require an evaluation to be made of the effect of the measures in the first phase area. This would have the effect of delaying any extension of the right-to-rent measures in the Immigration Act 2014 from the first phase area in the West Midlands until at least 1 December 2019. The Government take their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate all forms of discrimination very seriously. The Government have published the policy equality statement and the evaluation of the right-to-rent scheme. The evaluation found no hard evidence of discrimination where the right-to-rent scheme had been commenced, or, indeed, when that area was compared against others, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, outlined. The evaluation also found no evidence that people who lacked a passport or driver’s licence suffered additional barriers.
The Government have given the fullest consideration to the findings of the evaluation and worked with the landlords consultative panel to ensure that the rollout is taken forward, bearing in mind the lessons learned. There is a list of acceptable documents for the right-to-rent checks, which sets out a broad and comprehensive set of options. This can be used by prospective tenants who do not possess a passport or driving licence to provide evidence of their right to rent. It has recently been revised further in consultation with bodies representing landlords, agents, local authorities and the housing charities Crisis and Shelter.
The code of practice that has been published addresses the concerns raised when the Immigration Act 2014 was passed that the right-to-rent scheme might inadvertently result in increased discrimination on the grounds of race. It provides guidance to landlords and agents in avoiding such discrimination. The Government do not believe that there is potential for the right-to-rent scheme to result in increased discrimination on other equality grounds.
Amendment 159 is at variance with the Government’s concerns that the measures should be implemented across the country with the minimum of delay. The Government are already committed to extending the scheme across England on 1 February and the order extending the scheme from that date has already been laid before Parliament.
In implementing the scheme, the Government have engaged with a panel of experts comprising representatives of landlords’ and agents’ associations, homelessness groups and the Equality and Human Rights Commission, as well as local authorities in the areas concerned. We are confident that we have designed measures that will meet the intended objectives.
Having put those remarks on the record, I come to the points raised in the course of the debate.
Baroness Sheehan
Would the Minister talk about whether he thinks a sample size of 23 people who are visibly from an ethnic minority is a sensible basis on which to base this evaluation?
Lord Bates
I will of course come to that. I realise that there are some very detailed questions and I am certainly not skipping past them, but I wanted to put on record the Government’s response to the amendments before turning to the matters raised in the debate.
There are some interesting points here, the first of which is that, while this scheme has been rolled out into the private sector, the requirement to prove identity has been in operation in the social sector. It was introduced by the Labour Government in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It provides a duty on local authorities to check that those entering social tenancies have a right to be in the UK. Indeed, it goes further and places a duty on local authorities to notify the Home Office where they come across people who do not have a right to be in the UK. What is new is that that requirement is being applied to the private sector.
On the criticism of the independence of the office of evaluation—a point made by my noble friend Lord Deben and a number of noble Lords—the Home Office Science evaluation had scrutiny of the consultative panel co-chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Best. It might be helpful for the Committee to have on record the members of the landlords consultative panel, co-chaired by James Brokenshire and the noble Lord, Lord Best. The representatives included: the Association of Residential Letting Agents; the UK Association of Letting Agents; the Residential Landlords Association; the National Landlords Association; the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors; the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; the Department for Communities and Local Government; the Equality and Human Rights Commission; the boroughs of Sandwell, Dudley and Walsall; the National Approved Letting Scheme; Birmingham and Wolverhampton city councils; Universities UK; and Crisis.
Lord Deben
I did not criticise this as not being an independent group. My point was that the work should go on for longer before it is assessed, perhaps by the same group. It is not a question of complaining about the independence of the group; I fear that there has not been sufficient time to be able to draw the kind of conclusions which have been drawn. I think that is precisely what the noble Lord, Lord Best, indicated—that it would have been better to have had a longer period. All I was suggesting was that if you had a longer period and then had the independent assessment that would be better, given what a serious matter this is.
Earl Cathcart
I have a reservation. The Minister said that this is being done at the social housing level. However, it is relatively easy to get the message across to that sector because you just write to all the councils and tell them what it is. You cannot write to all the landlords because nobody knows who all the landlords are. There is no national register of landlords. I believe that is where the confusion has arisen in the pilot area, where 65% of landlords—two-thirds—do not understand the code of practice on preventing illegal immigration or the code of practice on avoiding discrimination. The message has not got to the landlords. When the Government roll this out, I wonder how the Minister proposes to get the message out to all landlords right across the country.
Lord Bates
I am very happy to take that further. First, it is worth pointing out that landlords already undertake a number of checks. It is standard for them to check people’s identity to determine whether they are who they say they are. They take up credit references. It is standard to take up references from previous landlords to determine whether the tenants are suitable people. They require proof of employment. Therefore, a number of checks are already required. Establishing that somebody has a right to be in the UK and has the appropriate documents should be done already under best practice. However, I shall address some of the practical points about how we communicate this change.
I return to the point about the robustness of the research because that was raised by a number of noble Lords. A wide range of research tools have been used, including 17 online surveys with 539 responses. They were just part of the exercise. There were 12 focus groups and 36 one-to-one interviews. In addition, a total of 332 mystery shopping encounters were completed. The evaluation has been overseen by the consultative panel to which I referred. The Home Office has not made claims about how representative the tenants’ survey was as it was administered via mailing lists and web links, and therefore we do not hold detailed responses on that. Research was carried out with landlords’ letting agents. The landlords’ survey had 137 completed responses, 114 of which related to landlords with properties in the phase one area. The tenants’ survey had 70 completed responses, 68 of which related to tenants in the phase one area. As regards the robustness of the research, multiple methodologies were used to understand the impact of the scheme in its first six months between 1 December 2014 and 31 May 2015. It reached multiple stakeholder groups—I know that is the concern of my noble friend Lord Cathcart—of landlords, letting agents, housing associations and other voluntary and community sector organisations, including local authorities. I can also provide further details about the research if that would be helpful.
Lord Deben
Can I come back to single rooms that are let in a house? I have said to the Minister that I am perfectly happy to go along with him if I could know that we have looked at this particular issue. As far as I understand, we have not got very much evidence about the interaction between this legislation and people letting rooms in their own house. Do we know how many people have been interviewed on this? Do we know that it does not have the effect that I fear it has? If he can show that to me I will withdraw entirely but I just want to know and I am not sure that the evidence is there.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To save the noble Lord from jumping up and down, our concern is that this could affect some people who have a perfect right to be here, such as British citizens—this is part of the point that the noble Baroness was making about people who are homeless. Vulnerable and disadvantaged groups—I talked about women fleeing domestic violence—may simply not have the evidence. A landlord who is in a hurry, and if there is great competition for space, is more likely to take the person who has all the documentation right at hand. It is not just between people who are not supposed to be here and people who are, because actually other groups are vulnerable to the unintended discriminatory consequences as well.
Lord Bates
I hear that. I am making the point that private sector landlords, in doing their due diligence on the person they are renting to, will already require a great deal of detail or proof of who they are and that they have a right to be here. It would surely be in their own interests. If they were letting out their property to someone who had no legal right to be here, they might find that that person disappears and they are left out of pocket. This is eminently sensible in terms of due diligence on the behalf of landlords, as well as being widely consistent with making it more difficult for individuals who are here illegally to operate, in terms of bank accounts, driving licences and employment. The evaluation found very little evidence that British citizens with limited documentation were experiencing problems as a result of the scheme.
With regard to the unacceptable burden of checks, landlords are being asked to take responsibility for ensuring that prospective tenants have a right to rent in the UK by carrying out simple document checks; where necessary, in a small number of cases, making a report to the Home Office. This supports the work of the Government to make it more difficult for illegal migrants to reside here unlawfully and to stop them accessing services to which they are not entitled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned domestic abuse. She said that victims who do not have documents will struggle. In August 2015 the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, announced a £3 million fund for 2015-16 to address any gaps in the provision of specialist accommodation-based support for victims of domestic abuse.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked who should be checked. The answer is any adults who will be taking up the accommodation as their main or only home in the UK. This means all adult occupants, not just those who may be the named tenants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked about evidence of stolen documents. If a document is stolen, a letter from a UK police force confirming that the holder is the victim of a crime and personal documents have been stolen, stating the crime reference number and issued within the past three months, would be acceptable.
I have covered the point on domestic violence. The Home Office will be aware of who is applying for leave to remain under paragraph (289A) of the Immigration Rules as a victim of domestic violence. It will refer to the national referral mechanism to ascertain who has been the victim of human trafficking. Permission to rent will not be denied to such persons.
In answer to another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, the landlords’ survey included a broad range of landlords with different sizes of properties and portfolios. Focus groups also included small-scale, informal landlords, including those renting a single room. I was asked about fees. The report noted:
“However amongst the focus groups with informal tenants it was suggested that the charging of fees by some agents was common practice. This was not due to the Right to Rent scheme, but had been a long-standing practice—especially in areas where demand exceeds supply”.
I think that I have covered the points about homelessness and students. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that we have worked with Crisis and Shelter in developing the list of acceptable documents for the right-to-rent checks.
Baroness Sheehan
I want to put more about the evaluation on record. We have heard a lot from the noble Lord, Lord Best, about his experience on the evaluation committee, but Crisis was also a member of that Home Office panel, and its assessment is very different. It is very concerned that,
“the harsh penalties for landlords who fail to evict tenants who don’t have the correct immigration status will compound the effect of the previous Immigration Act and make landlords much more ‘risk averse’ and less likely to rent to people who may not have easily recognisable documentation such as homeless people, as well as leading to increased discrimination against foreign nationals and people of black and minority ethnic backgrounds”.
I also had a meeting with the Residential Landlords Association, which said that its fears had been allayed. It was really quite concerned about its members who rented to students and that large student accommodation would be exempt. So while I know that landlords’ concerns have mostly been put to rest, let us please not forget the concerns of people who are dealing with the more vulnerable groups, such as the homeless and the not so well-off immigrants.
Lord Bates
That is an important point. Students are of course exempt because their right to be in the UK will have been checked by their university in granting them accommodation. The fact that they are exempt is because those checks are happening, and the social sector is exempt because the checks are happening there. All we want is for those checks to happen in the private sector as well.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Can the Minister say a bit more about who is doing the evaluations? The points that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, have made clearly could not be further apart.
Lord Bates
In that respect I might suggest that the partial solution which we came across for our last debate, which was on overseas domestic workers, was to look at organising a meeting in between Committee and Report. However, it would probably be more useful for the House to have the noble Lord, Lord Best, at such a meeting if he were willing to meet with colleagues on that basis. We would certainly be happy to facilitate one to explain more about the process, but we have tried to be as transparent as possible about this. It has been a long trial and there has been a thorough evaluation. It will also continue to be under review because this is not the completion of the process; we are simply talking about moving to the next stage of rollout, which is to England. There will be further opportunities for evaluation thereafter. I hope that, with those suggestions, I might have prevailed upon the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment at this stage.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I will want to go back and read what the Minister had to say about protected characteristics, so I will not spend time on that. I am not surprised that he does not agree with my Amendment 159—that is self-evident.
I would not for a moment accuse the Government of not being transparent on this. It is no secret at all that his party, in the last Government, did not want to have a pilot but to roll the scheme out right across the country immediately. We have information which has been the basis of the argument against rolling it out further. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, are unanswerable.
Lord Howard of Rising
“( ) The landlord does not commit an offence under subsection (1) if the landlord—
(a) has taken reasonable steps to verify the identity and immigration status of the person or people with whom the landlord has concluded the residential tenancy agreement; and(b) has no reasonable cause to believe that any other person who meets the first and second conditions is residing at the property.”
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 150 and 150A. I declare an interest as the owner of properties which are let to long-term tenants.
I find it a bit rich that landlords should risk imprisonment for housing an illegal immigrant when it is the Government’s failure in their duty to protect the borders of this country that has resulted in the illegal immigrant being here in the first place. I fully understand the difficulties in controlling our borders, which will inevitably lead to errors, but should the person responsible for the error go to prison? If those responsible for allowing illegal immigration should not go to jail, why should a landlord? I am afraid that I do not share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the power will not be abused at some stage.
New Section 33A says that if any illegal immigrant resides in a property, it will be a criminal offence by the landlord regardless of whether or not that individual was the person to whom the premises were let. Amendment 148A seeks to restrict the criminal offence to those checks which would be reasonable for a landlord to carry out and which are set out in the Landlords’ Guide to Checking Immigration Documents, issued by the Home Office. I can understand that landlords should check the person taking the property, but can the Minister say how in practical terms it is possible for a landlord to check on each person residing in the property once it has been let? Is the landlord supposed to keep a permanent watch? What about the case where a house with a number of bedrooms has a drive and trees and is thus concealed from view?
Can the Minister suggest what reasonable steps could be taken to ensure that the person who has legally rented the premises is not allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the house? Any person renting a house legally who then wishes to house illegal immigrants is hardly likely to announce their intention when taking the property. It will be totally impractical for any landlord to monitor the ongoing use of the property and whether the person renting it has illegal immigrants to stay.
Proposed new Section 33A(7) states that a post-grant contravention is an offence. Essentially, this says that if a person becomes disqualified it is an offence for that person to continue to occupy the premises. How is the landlord expected to know if a person has become disqualified? Will the authorities notify the landlord?
Amendment 150A is to avoid Clause 13 from being retrospective. The draft right-to-rent code of practice issued by the Home Office clearly states at paragraph 3.2:
“The Scheme applies only to residential tenancy agreements first entered into on or after the date on which the Scheme is implemented in the area where the property is located.
A landlord is not required to take any action in relation to residential tenancy agreements entered into before that date, or which are renewed after that date if the renewed agreement will be between the same parties and there has been no break in the tenant’s right to occupy the premises”.
Amendment 150A would bring the Bill into line with the guidance being issued by the Home Office and avoid the unfairness of retrospective legislation.
The issue of discrimination has been mentioned this evening, and I come back to it only in relation to Amendment 148A. It is touched on in the draft right-to-rent code of practice, where it states:
“Whether or not a person … has permission to stay in the UK and has a right to rent is a matter of fact that can be verified. Only the listed documents should be used to reach a decision on whether the person has a right to rent”.
How does this apply to persons who might come to stay at the property unbeknown to the landlord? If my amendment is not included, to prevent a landlord being guilty of a criminal offence without being aware of it, the Bill will create the bias towards discrimination that has been talked about this evening.
The checking service is a method of confirming whether documents are correct—again, this has come up this evening. Can the Minister indicate the likely response time for the service and whether there will be charges for those using it, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, asked?
If it was simple for landlords to do what is being asked, why are the authorities not already monitoring illegal immigrants more effectively? It is not unreasonable for landlords to play their part in helping with the problem of illegal immigration, but what they are asked to do should be reasonable and proportionate. Landlords being subject to imprisonment for something over which, in practical terms, they can have little or no control is not reasonable. I point out that the people most affected by this will be that huge army of very small landlords who do not have agents to act for them, and who will be unable to follow what is happening to a property that they have rented out which may be in a completely different part of the country. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart
My Lords, before I speak to my Amendment 150, supported by my noble friend Lord Howard, I would like to support his two amendments. The first is Amendment 148A. As drafted, the Bill has no defence for a landlord who has done their best to check the immigration status of a tenant, or for a landlord who is caught out by an unscrupulous tenant. They are merely reliant on the Home Office not prosecuting them in such circumstances. They will still have committed the offence, which will put them in breach of many mortgage companies’ conditions. I therefore support the amendment, as it will provide greater protection for landlords who are deemed to have committed a criminal offence even if they have done all that they can to confirm the status of the tenant.
My noble friend’s Amendment 150A is important because the Government have not yet been clear on whether the right-to-rent checks apply to existing tenancies. Checks part-way through or on renewal of a tenancy will leave landlords and agents with tenants who may then be deported; this will probably lead to a large number of random reports if tenants ignore correspondence or decline to provide documents. I support this amendment, as it provides clarity about when landlords will be expected to undertake the checks.
Amendment 150 in my name is supported by my noble friend Lord Howard and reads:
“A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) or (7) where they are proceeding diligently to evict an adult who is disqualified as a result of their immigration status from occupying the property of which that person is a landlord”.
As we have already heard, Clauses 13 to 15 make it an offence for a landlord to fail to check the immigration status of tenants who are subsequently found to be in the country illegally. In such circumstances, landlords face being fined up to £3,000 or imprisoned for up to five years. This builds on the Immigration Act 2014, which requires landlords to check the immigration status of their tenants; the 2014 Act contained only the threat of civil penalties for landlords, and it is the Government’s plan for the checks to be rolled out across the country from February this year. That was debated at length under the previous grouping.
As the Bill is drafted, when a landlord is notified by the Secretary of State that a sitting tenant does not have the right to rent in the UK, that landlord is deemed to have committed a criminal offence even before the 28 days that the Bill allows a landlord to evict such tenants have ended. It could well be that this was the result of a landlord being caught out by forged documents that they could not possibly have been expected to detect. It could well be that those same forged documents enabled the illegal immigrant to get into the country in the first place, as my noble friend said, but I do not believe that the immigration officers who allowed the immigrant into the country are deemed to have committed a criminal offence or are fined £3,000 or imprisoned for up to five years—so why the landlord? As a landlord, I do not see how I can possibly spot a forged document if immigration officers cannot, with all their sophisticated equipment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Is the noble Earl aware that most illegal immigrants in Britain came legally and therefore that there is no reason why they should have been detected on arrival? They came legally and have overstayed.
Earl Cathcart
No, I am not aware of that.
I understand that previously the Government have said that they want common sense to prevail. However, landlords, fearful of the potential consequences of getting something wrong, need further assurances. A simple amendment to the Bill can rectify this and make it clear that landlords will not commit a criminal offence where they have done everything possible to verify the status of the tenant and are in the process of evicting a tenant whom they have been notified does not have the right to rent within the 28-day window that the Bill permits.
It is important to note that while a prosecution might not be taken out against a landlord seeking to evict a tenant without the right to rent, simply deeming him to have committed a criminal offence can cause extensive difficulties, especially with mortgage lenders and insurers. The fact that no prosecution has been taken does not mean that the landlord has not committed an offence. Most contracts relating to property contain a prohibition on using the property unlawfully.
While an amendment would be the clearest way of addressing this issue, in addition, clear guidance should be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions outlining: first, that prosecutions will not take place where a landlord who has been informed that their tenant does not have the right to rent has done everything possible to check the status of that tenant and is within the 28-day eviction period; secondly, that landlords will not be prosecuted where they have fallen victim to forged documents from a prospective tenant that they could not reasonably have been expected to recognise as false; thirdly, that landlords will not be prosecuted where they were unable to receive a letter from the Secretary of State notifying them that the tenant did not have a right to rent due to hospitalisation or other reasonable measure that might prevent them reading and acting on a notice; and fourthly, how he intends to proceed with the Government’s commitment that landlords will not be prosecuted for a first offence.
This amendment is supported by the Residential Landlords Association, which looks after the interests of more than 40,000 landlords, and by the Association of Residential Letting Agents. Its managing director, David Cox, commented:
“It would be unjust and inequitable for a landlord to be in breach of the law through no fault of their own, irrespective of whether the Government has outlined it will not prosecute in such circumstances. Being in breach of legislation will cause landlords great concern, and therefore, we request these technical amendments be incorporated into the Bill to ensure the spirit of the legislation is reflected in the wording of the Bill”.
I could not have put it better myself.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am conscious of the time, but we need to spend just a few more minutes on this. I shall not take too long. Noble Lords who have spoken have identified very serious drawbacks in the legislation, even if one ignores the thrust of these provisions, as I do not wish to do. If they are to be implemented in the way in which the Government wish, the points that have been made are very well made, and I am sorry that we kept the two noble Lords so late in order for them to be able to make them.
I have my name to a number of amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is about to speak to them.
On Amendment 152, I want to make a point that once again has come from Crisis, which says that there are a number of situations where a claim for asylum fails but the person is unable to return to his country because there is no stable state to return to, or it is unclear where they should return to—we are familiar with these problems, of course. It says that at the very least the Home Office should clarify these people’s status with regard to the new eviction process.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, this group of amendments contains some very sensible protections for landlords, who could find themselves in difficulties and at risk of prosecution and a fine, imprisonment or both, although they have taken all reasonable precautions and have no intention of breaking the law. Landlords, as has been said before, are not immigration officers. One of the concerns about this section of the Bill is that people will take reasonable precautions but will still find themselves in difficulties and possibly at risk of prosecution.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, is both simple and effective, and he has made a compelling case here today: the landlord would not commit an offence if they had taken reasonable steps and there was no reasonable cause not to believe that other persons who met the first and second conditions were residing at the property.
Amendment 149 seeks to afford landlords protection when they are prohibited from evicting a tenant under new Section 33D(4), and Amendment 150, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, would protect landlords who were acting diligently to evict people who were disqualified as a result of their immigration status. Again, the noble Earl has made a compelling case as to why the amendment should be supported.
I have no issue with Amendment 153 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bates. The remaining amendments are in the names of my noble friend Lord Prosser, myself and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. These important amendments would ensure that individuals and families could be evicted only following due legal process, by removing from the Bill the provisions to grant new and extensive powers to landlords outside the oversight of the courts. I say to the Minister that the Government really are creating a very difficult situation here. This whole part of the Bill puts significant pressure on landlords, with tough penalties and little protection, along with extensive new powers with no oversight by the courts.
There is a real risk here, as has been said by other noble Lords, that landlords will just not rent the property to anyone who looks as though they might be more of a risk, and great injustices could take place. To make it worse, the courts are to be excluded from the process of evicting people if they are resident in a property. This is not right, and the Government are going to have to make some movement on these matters again. I hope the Minister will agree to meet Peers who are interested in these matters and campaigners before we come back on Report.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 153 in my name and respond to the amendments spoken to by noble Lords. Government Amendment 153 provides powers for the Secretary of State to prescribe the form of the notice that the landlord must serve in relation to the eviction powers in new Section 33D, and the manner in which it is served. This amendment provides clarity and consistency to landlords, tenants and High Court enforcement officers about the circumstances in which High Court enforcement officers will be permitted to enforce a notice. The Secretary of State may prescribe the form or forms to be used by order, subject to the negative procedure.
I understand the concern that has been expressed thoughtfully and passionately, particularly by my noble friends Lord Howard of Rising and Lord Cathcart, that reputable landlords who have made a mistake or been deceived would be committing an offence immediately when they receive a notice from the Home Office that a tenant is disqualified from renting. However, I reassure them that the focus of these measures is on the minority of rogue landlords who deliberately flout the law. They are the intended target of the legislation, as the noble Lord, Lord Best, said in his excellent summary on the previous amendment. They are not intended to be used against reputable landlords who may have made a genuine mistake. In fact, if we look at the Bill in its present form, new Section 33A(3) says that the condition for an offence to be committed,
“is that the landlord knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the premises are occupied by an adult who is disqualified as a result of their immigration status”.
That threshold of proof, “knows or has reasonable cause to believe”, is very high.
The offences in the Bill are to do with landlords and agents knowingly renting to illegal migrants or doing so when they have reasonable cause to believe that they are doing so. They are not strictly about a failure to evict. While a desire to safeguard the position of responsible landlords is understandable, it would not be right to afford a grace period of 28 days to the worst offenders, such as the one that would result from Amendment 149. Such landlords deliberately rent to and may also exploit illegal migrants. Likewise, it would be difficult to be certain in any particular case what would constitute “proceeding diligently” for the purposes of Amendment 150. I am concerned that this would also provide rogue landlords with a way to avoid prosecution.
Amendment 148A is unnecessary because, under the right-to-rent scheme introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, the landlord should perform document checks to a reasonable standard. Should they do so, they will not be liable to a civil penalty, nor will they be subject to prosecution under this legislation unless they are explicitly notified or become aware when they undertake subsequent checks that an occupant is an illegal migrant.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Nobody here wants to protect the rogue landlords—all these amendments are about protecting the good landlords and they relate to genuine concerns about that. It would not be the first time that mistakes were made; people get things wrong, officials get things wrong. We are trying to ensure that we protect the good landlords, not the rogue ones.
Lord Bates
I accept that, and the noble Lord is making a genuine point. Certainly that is the intent, as we have said, behind the legislation. If evidence comes to light during the passage of this legislation through this House that that may not be the case, clearly the Government will want to take note of that, because it is explicitly not the intent to catch the vast majority of genuine landlords. There are a small number of rogue landlords.
Earl Cathcart
I am sorry to interrupt again. I understand the issue about rogue landlords, and of course one wants to catch them and not the good landlords. Will the Minister say whether he will consider my idea of clear guidance from the Director of Public Prosecutions? To that effect, I listed four things that he might consider.
Lord Bates
The Home Office will investigate this and present cases to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision about whether to prosecute, and resources will be targeted at the most serious offenders. The intention behind the measures, which is that they should be used only against those landlords who deliberately and consistently flout the law, has been stated unequivocally by Ministers during the passage of the Bill. However, I give an undertaking that I will be very happy to meet my noble friend, officials and other interested Peers to discuss whether there are gaps or particular remedies as regards guidance that could be brought forward.
Lord Howard of Rising
I very much welcome the chance to meet my noble friend to discuss this. I point out, with regard to the guidance—the Explanatory Notes—my noble friend keeps talking about landlords doing the checks, but it specifically says in the guidance to the Bill that it,
“applies where any adult is occupying the premises, regardless of whether the adult is a tenant under or is named in the agreement”.
We are not saying that there is a problem where people have been able to do checks, but that where somebody comes in, the guidance specifically says that those people have to be monitored—and I do not know how my noble friend expects landlords to monitor them. We are not a police force. That is a really important point. The other thing is that whatever anybody says—the noble Lord or my noble friend Lord Best—I cannot think of any legislation that is not abused sooner or later by somebody.
Lord Bates
We need to avoid creating an unintentional loophole that effectively says, “We’ll ask no questions and we won’t contravene the proposals in this legislation”. That cannot be right. I would imagine that most landlords would want to know who was occupying their property. In the event that a property is the subject of subletting agreement, at that point there would of course be a liability to carry out the background checks, which would fall to the people who have made the decision to sublet. However, making a general exemption in those circumstances could create an unwelcome loophole.
Lord Howard of Rising
I thank the noble Lord for his comments and for agreeing to a meeting; that is very gracious of him, and I look forward to that. Depending on it, I may wish to return to this subject, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bates
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee
I will move Amendment 158 very briefly. This amendment came about as a result of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I will not explain the detail of the clause because I am aware that the Minister intends to make a full response to the DPRR report—as I understand it, before Report. I am moving this amendment in order to ask that we get that response in reasonable time just in case we do not agree with what the Government have to say. If that is the case, we may want to use Report stage as the last opportunity to put down an amendment similar to this one. I beg to move.
Lord Bates
My Lords, Clause 16 gives the Secretary of State the power to make such regulations as are appropriate to extend the residential tenancies provisions, as set out in the Immigration Act 2014, to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is entirely right that there is provision to make such an extension throughout the United Kingdom as the residential tenancy provisions in this Bill are for the purposes of immigration control, which is a matter reserved to the UK Government.
Amendment 158 seeks to remove the provision for regulations under Clause 16 to confer functions on any person. In order to make appropriate provision that applies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, it may be necessary to confer functions on a person—for example, the Secretary of State for the Home Department or an immigration officer—under those regulations. The provision in the Bill is helpful as it makes it clear what can be done under these regulations. Removing the provision would serve no useful purpose and would lead to an unhelpful lack of clarity.
I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s 17th report of Session 2015-16 has drawn attention to some aspects of the Bill but not to this specific provision. As the noble Baroness has asked us to do, we will certainly provide a full response to the committee’s report and also, of course, make sure that Members of your Lordships’ House have a copy of the response before Report. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to consider withdrawing the amendment but to note the further consideration being given by the Government to the points raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]
(8 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text