House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
1. What steps his Department is taking to ensure the greatest possible engagement by children and young people in the commemoration of the first world war.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
All our first world war programmes, including the school battlefield tours, the great war debate series and the 14-18 NOW culture programme, are designed to engage children and young people. Only last week, young people played a prominent role in our commemorations to mark the Battle of Jutland. I was delighted to be in Orkney and I commend the young people who participated. On 30 June and 1 July, we will commemorate the centenary of the Battle of the Somme, when young people will again play a key role at national events taking place at Westminster Abbey, in Manchester and at the Thiepval memorial in France.
Stephen Metcalfe
My “Forget Never” project, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme and supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund, is already getting young people from across Basildon thinking about the important events of 100 years ago. Will my right hon. Friend therefore join me in encouraging more young people to get involved in commemorating the Somme by calling on all remaining schools in Basildon to sign up to this project so that their students might also benefit from its opportunities?
Mr Evennett
I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments and am delighted to hear of the fantastic work being done in his constituency. I endorse all efforts to encourage young people to engage with the programme and to discover history. Young people can also get involved in the Commonwealth War Graves Commission’s “Living Memory” project in their local area and find out about events near them run by schools and not-for-profit organisations that are part of the Imperial War Museum’s centenary partnership.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is important that young people engage with the commemorations, but it is also important that we in the House do so too. Does the Minister share my concern that, just a few weeks ahead of the centenary of the Battle of the Somme, we do not have a planned moment to debate the matter in the House? My concern is shared widely across the House. If he agrees, will he use his good offices to raise the issue with the Leader of the House so that Members might have that moment here to reflect on this important moment in our history?
Mr Evennett
I totally endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I will have a word with the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, as the responsible authorities, but I would certainly back such a debate.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the first world war is commemorated, too much emphasis is not placed on the set-piece battles. On average, every day during the first world war, 450 servicemen lost their lives, which is equivalent to all the losses in Afghanistan. It was not just a few set battles; it was every day for four years.
Mr Evennett
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is funding for communities to explore local first world war history, through the Heritage Lottery Fund, as well as through the War Memorials Trust for the repair and conservation of local war memorials. Local communities should be commemorating every aspect of their local communities to highlight what happened and remember those who served and gave their lives.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank the Minister for acknowledging the contribution of the young people of Orkney to the Battle of Jutland commemorations last week, at which he was present. Is not the lesson that involving young people makes it meaningful and poignant for those of all ages and that, if we want to engage young people, we should involve them, not lecture them?
Mr Evennett
I was delighted to be in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency to experience the moving ceremonies for the Jutland centenary commemorations. It is vital that we engage everybody, particularly young people, so that they might learn about what happened.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I welcome the Department’s work to engage young people so that they might understand the suffering and sacrifice. What steps is it taking, however, to make young people understand the wider implications of world war one, such as the Balfour agreement and the redrawing of boundaries in the middle east, and how, in Europe, it sowed the seeds for world war two?
Mr Evennett
It is important that we get across the whole of this, and what the hon. Gentleman says is very important. At the moment, we are determined to focus on the particular events being commemorated, but more widely we also want to make people, particularly young people, aware of our 20th century history, of people’s experiences and of the tragedy of war.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Will the Minister congratulate everyone who was involved in the first world war, including those from the rest of the world, particularly Ireland—for us in Northern Ireland—but also the Indians, the Africans and all those who were part of it, so that children might learn that it included most areas of the world and that an awful price was paid by many?
Mr Evennett
Indeed. It is very important, for the empire and the Commonwealth, to recognise the contributions of all parts of the communities in the four nations of our country and particularly people from Commonwealth countries such as the Indians, the Canadians, the Australians and the rest. This lies at the heart of what we are trying to do, as we commemorate all those who participated in the Somme.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
2. When part two of the Leveson inquiry will commence; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
Criminal proceedings connected to the subject matter of the Leveson inquiry, including the appeals process, have not yet completed. We have always been clear that these cases must conclude before we consider part 2 of the inquiry.
Christian Matheson
Let me pin down the Secretary of State. Are we saying that when criminal proceedings have finished, there will be a part 2 or there might be? He told us on 3 March that a decision
“about whether or not Leveson 2 should take place”—[Official Report, 3 March 2016; Vol. 606, c. 1097.]
will be taken afterwards. Is it when or whether?
Mr Whittingdale
This will need to be considered in detail once those cases have been concluded. There are still areas that were not fully explored in the original inquiry. There have obviously been events since the original inquiry, not least the proceedings in the courts. All these matters will need to be taken into account when we consider how best to proceed after the conclusion of those cases.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State was one of three Chairs of Select Committees, along with myself and the now Lord Alan Beith, who went to see the Prime Minister and we were given a cast-iron guarantee that there would be a part 2. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about criminal proceedings, which is exactly what the Home Secretary said on 16 December, but there is no reason why we should not have a timetable to prepare for the eventuality. These cases cannot go on for ever—even in our criminal justice system. There has to be an end. May we not have a timetable and perhaps the selection of a head of the inquiry so that we can begin that very important process?
Mr Whittingdale
I am delighted to hear that the Home Secretary and I are singing from the same hymn sheet on this matter. I have talked to her about it, but that was at a time when it looked as if the cases were going to come to a conclusion in the reasonably near future. Fortunately, or unfortunately, new cases have been brought, and one or two of them have not even started yet, which makes it very difficult to put a timetable on developments. I obviously agree with right hon. Gentleman that these cases cannot go on indefinitely, but they are already going on rather longer than was initially anticipated.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
3. What steps he is taking to support the tourism sector.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
The Prime Minister’s five-point plan for tourism sets out how this Government will help to grow the British tourism industry. The year 2015 set new records for inbound visits and spend, but we are not complacent. To boost tourism in England further, the Chancellor announced a new £40 million Discover England fund at the last spending round. This will support visitors to discover even more of England’s hidden gems.
Cat Smith
The Secretary of State may be aware of the many great tourist attractions in north Lancashire along the Fylde coast, including the historic Lancaster castle with stunning views over Morecambe bay and the area of outstanding natural beauty, the forest of Bowland? Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the tens of thousands of jobs that are supported by tourism in my area are helped or hindered by the potential threat of fracking wells appearing in north Lancashire?
Mr Whittingdale
I very much share the hon. Lady’s appreciation of the beauties of the Fylde coast and the north-west. Fracking offers terrific opportunities for accessing further low-cost energy, and I do not believe that it should represent any threat to the tourism industry.
I would like to take advantage of this moment at the Dispatch Box to pay tribute to the fantastic work of the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), who is responsible for tourism. He has done a great job. We look forward shortly to welcoming back to her role the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), but my right hon. Friend has done a fantastic job in her absence. I have no doubt that he will continue to advocate sports, tourism and heritage in the extremely effective way that he has over the last few months.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Our coastal communities are particularly important to the tourism sector, but they are also the communities that have been particularly badly affected by our membership of the EU over the last 40 years. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that the initiatives he mentioned will be directed particularly at coastal communities?
Mr Whittingdale
I share many of my hon. Friend’s views on our membership of the European Union, although I have to say that I do not think EU membership has a great bearing on tourism. People come to this country because of our fantastic heritage, our wonderful landscape, our arts and our sport, not because we are members of the European Union.
The north-west does have many attractions, and I hope it will take advantage of the Discover England fund, which I described earlier. The fund is designed to raise awareness of the many attractions that England has outside London, and, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), many of those are indeed in the north-west.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Has the Secretary of State had any recent discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive about Tourism Ireland, that strange body which is responsible for marketing the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland overseas? There is concern in Northern Ireland about the possibility that its identity will be lost and it will be unable to benefit from the inflow of tourists visiting the rest of the United Kingdom, although it currently has a tremendous amount to offer them.
Mr Whittingdale
I am aware of the slightly different arrangements for the promotion of tourism in Northern Ireland, although I have had no discussions with the Minister responsible for it. I think he has only just arrived. I look forward to meeting him in due course, and I shall be happy to talk to him about the issue then.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State in applauding last year’s success, when a record number of people—36.1 million—visited the United Kingdom. As he will know, 67% of those visitors were from the European Union and 74% were from other European countries. Will he join me in saying, “Thank you, Europe—thank you, our European colleagues—and please come more and spend more”?
Mr Whittingdale
I am extremely happy to join my hon. Friend in saying that. My view is that this country would prosper better outside the European Union, but that is in no way reflected in my attitude to our fellow citizens in Europe coming to visit us in the UK. I hope that they will continue to do so in ever-increasing numbers, whether or not we are in the European Union.
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
4. What steps his Department plans to take to increase the level of tourism in England from (a) domestic and (b) foreign visitors.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
We now have the full domestic and inbound figures for 2015. As we have just heard from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, there is good news on both fronts, but there is particularly good news about domestic tourism. The number of overnight trips in England reached 102.7 million, up 11% on 2014, and spending reached a new record of £19.6 billion, up 8%. However, there is more to be done, and we are determined to increase the number of both domestic and foreign visitors in the coming year.
Pauline Latham
What support can the Minister give the Derwent valley cycleway scheme, which allows visitors to cycle from Derby silk mill in the city centre through the Arkwright mills world heritage site at Belper, and on to Cromford and beyond? The scheme not only provides safer cycling for people of all ages, but encourages much-needed local and international tourism in the area.
Mr Evennett
I give my full support to the Derwent valley cycleway. This is an excellent scheme that safely opens up the beautiful Derwent valley, a world heritage site, so that more people can see it. Cycling has many health and environmental benefits, and the increased number of local and international visitors using the cycleway will benefit tourism in the region even further.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister—for whom I have great respect—use his common sense, ground his boss and bring him to Yorkshire, so that he can talk to real people in the tourism business who are dreadfully worried about the impact of our leaving the European Union on jobs, investment and so much else? Yorkshire is a prime tourism destination, and we do not want to harm that.
Mr Evennett
Yorkshire is indeed a prime destination for tourism, and it has so much to offer. I have been going around the country—I am off to Devon and Dorset today and tomorrow—to promote tourism and heritage again, and I will do all that I can to persuade domestic and foreign visitors to come to Yorkshire and the rest of our great nation.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the people of Devon and Dorset will soon realise how lucky they are.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
5. What plans his Department has to promote the community benefits of rugby union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
Sports such as rugby union bring tremendous benefits to the individuals and communities who engage in them. Between 2013 and 2017, Sport England is investing £20 million to get more people playing rugby.
Kevin Foster
We certainly know how lucky we are in Devon.
There are 47 rugby union clubs across Devon, and they provide people of all ages and backgrounds access to the game and a chance to get more involved in their community. What further support can the Government give those clubs and Devon Rugby Football Union to enhance further their role of getting more people involved in the game and their community?
Mr Evennett
I take this opportunity to congratulate Devon RFU on the work that it has been doing to provide so many opportunities for people to get involved in the great game of rugby. Across Devon, Sport England has invested £319,632 to upgrade, improve and repair nine grassroots rugby clubs since 2010. As I have said—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) should listen. We listened to her yesterday when she was waffling on about the BBC, so she should listen today to get some facts. We are focused on getting more people from all backgrounds involved in sport and physical activity.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Talking about the BBC, rugby union is only one of many sports covered by the corporation with its editorial independence. Has the Minister taken time to reflect on yesterday’s BBC debate, reviewed today’s press coverage and realised that Government interference in editorial issues such as the proposed “Scottish Six” is deeply unwelcome?
Mr Evennett
I was here listening to the debate yesterday, and I commend the excellent speeches of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
With the support and the help of the Minister’s Department, we had the first ever mixed ability rugby world cup in my constituency last year. Will my hon. Friend’s Department continue to help and support mixed ability rugby, and will he use his good offices to extend the mixed ability format, which has been so successfully run in my constituency, to other sports as well?
Mr Evennett
I have noted what my hon. Friend has said, and I know what a champion he is for his area and his constituency. We very much believe in inclusion and getting as many people involved as we possibly can. I will look at what he has to say and reflect on it.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Has the Minister had a chance to look at the success of schemes such as Rugby Get Onside, which is run by Saracens Rugby Club with young offenders at Feltham? Rugby has a great role in rehabilitating young offenders. Will he discuss that with the Justice Secretary and consider the role that rugby can play as part of his Department’s reforms of prisons?
Mr Evennett
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I will certainly do that. Rugby is a fantastic game that brings together all sorts of different people from different backgrounds and has great opportunities for community.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
6. What steps his Department is taking to accelerate the roll-out of broadband in (a) rural and (b) urban areas.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
I am very pleased to tell you once again, Mr Speaker, how well the rural broadband programme is going. We have reached our target of 90%, with 4 million homes passed, and we will reach our target of 95% by the end of 2017.
Huw Merriman
My constituents in the parishes of Dallington, Brightling, Mountfield, Ashburton and Penshurst will welcome the Government’s new legal right to fast broadband. May I ask the Minister whether the reasonable cost test will be benchmarked against, first, the realistic cost to install in rural areas that are not currently connected to fast broadband and, secondly, the cheapest cost that any provider would charge rather than the cost that BT Openreach may calculate?
Mr Vaizey
We will certainly consult on the reasonable cost test, and it may well be that a number of providers do provide the universal service obligation, which will potentially provide welcome competition. That will be open for consultation once we have passed legislation, which I know will have the support of the whole House.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
Earlier this week, I received an email from the Minister, which helpfully informed me that 3,198 premises in my constituency—that is 8% or nearly one in 12—are not currently planned to be connected to superfast broadband. What has the Minister got to say to the sizeable number of my constituents who face the prospect of never being able to access an adequate broadband connection?
Mr Vaizey
I would say to her constituents that we said that we would get to 90% by the end of last year, which we achieved, and that we would get to 95% by the end of 2017, so we have been completely transparent about what we are planning to do. We are now consulting on a USO precisely to help those constituents of the hon. Lady who are not in the rural broadband programme. We are bringing in important changes to planning in the digital economy Bill, which I hope will have the support of the Opposition Front Bench team. She should congratulate the Government because the way the contracts have been constructed means that almost £300 million is coming back, so we are going to go further than 95% and reach more of her constituents. She should be telling them that rather than complaining.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Residents in Denford are extremely frustrated at the lack of progress in securing superfast broadband. Will the Minister encourage Superfast Northamptonshire and BT to redouble their efforts to get Denford connected?
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
What discussions are the Minister and his officials having with Welsh Government Ministers and officials about the universal service obligation to ensure that we can have joined-up thinking when the Bills, which I support, come through? To cement this relationship between the Welsh Government and the UK Government, may I repeat my offer of Ynys Môn as the location for a pilot scheme?
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
We know that the Secretary of State wants to leave the European Union, but his Minister appears already to have left the United Kingdom to inhabit some fantasy “Broadbandia” in which everything is, in his words, an “unadulterated success”. For the rest of us in the 21st century United Kingdom, however, the reality is different. One in five broadband users still has less than half the speed that Ofcom classes as acceptable, and 70% of smartphone users in rural areas have zero access to 4G. Rather than living in “Broadbandia”, the rest of us are living in “Broadbadia“. Will the Minister stop fantasising and acknowledge the view of the Countryside Alliance:
“This rural broadband betrayal is devastating”?
Mr Vaizey
I know that the hon. Lady will want to join me in commemorating this important day, which is the 33rd anniversary of Margaret Thatcher’s landslide election victory in 1983. In that year, there was no broadband and the Minister you see before you was sitting his O-levels. The Secretary of State, however, was on the great lady’s battle bus.
The hon. Lady might quote the Countryside Alliance, but the gardener Robin Lane Fox wrote an article in the Financial Times, which I know she reads, in which he talked about a move to the rural arcadia brought about by our broadband roll-out programme. He said that, like Falstaff, he was looking forward to dying babbling of green fields because he could live in the countryside with a superfast connection. Let us remind ourselves that Labour had a pathetic megabit policy, and that is still its policy. Let us also remind ourselves that we are two years ahead of where Labour would have been, and let us talk up the success of this programme instead of constantly talking down great broadband Britain.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s performance is greatly enjoyed, not least by the hon. Gentleman.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
7. What assessment he has made of the potential benefits for the UK digital economy of completing the EU digital single market.
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
As I was saying, we have a great broadband Britain in a great European Union. Britain sits at the centre of the digital single market, which, if it is implemented, will increase GDP for Europe by 3%, or some £300 billion.
Stephen Timms
This time, I think the Minister is on to something. The UK is Europe’s leading digital economy, and we have the most to gain from the digital single market. That is why 70% of techUK members and 96% of the members of the Creative Industries Federation want us to remain in the European Union. Will the Minister have a go at persuading his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State how damaging it would be for digital jobs in the UK if we left the EU?
Mr Vaizey
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a mind of his own, and he quite rightly often takes the view that it is not worth listening to me, which is probably why he is such a successful Secretary of State. I do wish he would listen to me on this issue, however, because tech and digital companies do benefit from our membership of the European Union and they will continue to thrive if we stay in the EU.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the internet has been a huge source of economic growth in this country and that the last thing it needs is to be stifled by the Brussels bureaucrats, which is exactly what will happen under the proposals in the EU’s single digital market strategy?
Mr Vaizey
That intervention reminds me that this is the 41st anniversary of the first radio transmission from the House of Commons, and quality interventions such as that keep the British public listening to and watching our proceedings. However, I do not think that the Brussels bureaucracy is stifling. In fact, 500 broadcast companies are based in Britain precisely because of European regulations.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
8. What steps his Department is taking to support the protection of cultural heritage in conflict zones overseas.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
The protection of cultural heritage affected by acts of destruction is a priority for this Government. The Government are providing £30 million for a new cultural protection fund, and the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill, which will enable the UK to ratify the 1954 Hague convention and accede to its two protocols, had its Second Reading in the House of Lords earlier this week.
John Howell
As one of the few archaeologists in this House, I feel that we as a country need to take a lead in protecting cultural heritage. Will the cultural protection fund and the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill do that?
Mr Whittingdale
We certainly benefit from my hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. He is absolutely right: this country has long been a strong advocate of cultural protection, but the perception of our commitment has perhaps been undermined by our failure until now to ratify the 1954 Hague convention. I am delighted that we will be doing so through the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill, reinforcing our position as one of the leading voices in advocating the importance of cultural protection around the world.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
9. What assessment he has made of recent trends in (a) the level of and (b) regional variations in the level of domestic tourism.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
As I have already said, there is good news on domestic tourism. The number of overnight trips in England in 2015 was up by 11%. Five regions—the east midlands, the west midlands, the south-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, and London—saw double-digit growth in domestic overnight trips on the previous year. Last year, there was positive growth in tourism in the east of England, including in both inbound and domestic visits and stays.
Will Quince
As you know, Mr Speaker, Colchester is the oldest recorded town in Britain and our first capital city. We have Roman walls, Britain’s only discovered Roman circus, and the largest Norman keep in Europe. May I invite the Minister to visit Colchester to see the amazing tourism potential that our town has to offer?
Mr Evennett
I commend my hon. Friend for being a champion for his city of Colchester. It is a place of huge cultural significance and history, and I encourage tourists to discover what is on offer there. I thank him for his invitation, which sounds like a fantastic opportunity, and my office will see what my diary permits regarding future visits.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
As someone who spent several years as a bus driver, I know that one factor that encourages tourism is integrated ticketing on public transport. Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for Transport about amending the Bus Services Bill to allow more integrated services and to enable councils to run bus services?
Mr Evennett
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not in my remit and is not for me to comment on. I can say, however, that the Chancellor has been rather generous with his spending on transport in this Parliament—50% higher than in previous years. We want to ensure that visitors have the confidence to explore Britain using public transport.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will know, we only have a new cathedral in Lichfield: the original, built in 650, burned down, so our current cathedral was built quite recently, in 1280. What can we do to encourage people to visit places such as Lichfield, which, beautiful though they are, are regarded by bus and coach companies as slightly off the beaten track?
Mr Evennett
My hon. Friend has been a tremendous champion for his constituency over many years. Thanks to the Chancellor, we have the £40 million Discover England fund to incentivise the development of world-class itineraries. I hope that my hon. Friend’s area and others like it will be looking to make applications to see that we get tourists to their parts of the world.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his response so far. We have an increasing number of tourists visiting Northern Ireland, not just because Liam Neeson is voicing the tourism adverts or because we have the Titanic, the SS Nomadic and the Giant’s Causeway, but because more people are holidaying at home. What can the Minister do to ensure that all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland work together so that we can all take advantage of the tourism attractions in each of them?
Mr Evennett
I know the fantastic opportunities that there are for tourist visitors to go to Northern Ireland and see what is on offer. We are trying to encourage people to have holidays at home—staycations—but we are also working with the devolved authorities to try to promote tourism, along with VisitEngland, Discover Northern Ireland, VisitScotland, Visit Wales and VisitBritain, so that we have a joined-up approach that shows the fantastic offer we have in our four countries of the United Kingdom.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
11. If he will take steps to ensure that football supporters from all nations of the UK have non-paying access to watch their national team play on TV.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
The Ofcom code on listed events ensures that key sporting events are made available for free-to-air channels. Our sport strategy, published last year, made it clear that the Government do not propose to review that list.
Gavin Newlands
Like every other football fan on these islands, Scottish fans are looking forward to Euro 2016. We have our wallcharts at the ready and will be watching keenly. During qualification, however, we were unable to watch significant matches, including those against the world champions, Germany, on free-to-air channels. This month, we will be able to watch matches such as Romania versus Albania and Iceland versus Austria. How can those fixtures be regarded as of national interest when those of our national teams are not?
Mr Whittingdale
Scottish football fans will have the choice of the three home nations that have qualified in the championships to support, and I am sorry that on this occasion Scotland did not make it through. However, the question of which matches are shown by which broadcaster is essentially one for the sporting authorities. The limited list applies only to a very restricted number of sporting events, but beyond that it is for each sporting body to decide how best to strike the balance between maximising revenue for their sport and reaching as large an audience as possible.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I am sure that the whole House will want to wish the teams of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland all the best in the European championships. Football shows us that we have more in common with our European neighbours than divides us, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. That was demonstrated by the singing of the Marseillaise at Wembley in defiant response to the attacks in Paris. In that spirit, will he join me in urging fans to enjoy the tournament peacefully, whether they are travelling to France or watching in the company of their friends at home or in public places, and to assist the police and security services in trying to ensure that we have a safe and secure tournament?
Mr Whittingdale
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful to him for putting the case as he has done and giving me the opportunity to endorse everything that he says. We look forward to the matches in the championships to come and we wish all the home nations success. I have a second interest in that I drew England in the departmental sweepstake and will be supporting England in their match against Russia, which, sadly, was drawn by the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), so she will have torn loyalties. We hope nevertheless that that match and every other match pass peaceably and to the maximum enjoyment of those participating and watching.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr John Whittingdale)
Since the last DCMS oral questions, Andy Murray has reached the final of the French Open and boxing has lost its most famous and greatest exponent, Muhammad Ali. The South Bank Sky Arts awards in June honoured British talent, including the Minister for Culture’s favourite rapper, Stormzy, and I am sure that the whole House will be looking forward to the Euro championships, which begin in France on Friday, and will join me once again in wishing success to all the home nations taking part.
Will Quince
Colchester Borough Council, Essex County Council and Arts Council England are all contributing to the Mercury theatre’s £8.8 million expansion plans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that investment in the arts is an investment in our local economy and that we should all get behind these exciting and impressive plans?
Mr Whittingdale
I certainly do join my hon. Friend in that. I think he was 10 at the time, but he might recall that I represented part of Colchester in the House of Commons, so I am very familiar with the Mercury theatre. I am delighted to hear about the investment in its expansion. I think that any investment in the arts brings real benefits, not least in economic terms, for the local community. I wish the Mercury continuing success into the future.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the Secretary of State told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee in his evidence that there had been no discussions within government about Channel 4 privatisation, and that the examination of such an option had not been started by 9 September 2015, when he had previously answered questions before the Committee. However, in answer to an FOI request on 27 April, received in my office, the Department confirmed that he himself met the Minister for the Cabinet Office to discuss Channel 4 reform options on 3 September—six days before his appearance in front of that Committee. Can he explain the discrepancy?
Mr Whittingdale
Yes. The first discussion that I had with the Cabinet Office Minister was about Channel 4 and what possible options there would be for its future. At that stage, no decisions had been taken. Following that, the Department did begin to look at whether or not there was a case for having a fundamental examination, and the decision to go ahead with that was actually taken after my appearance before the Select Committee; it was taken later in the month of September.
Maria Eagle
Well, on Tuesday, in answer to questions from the Select Committee, the Secretary of State was asked whether or not any discussions at all had taken place before 9 September, and he replied—I have the transcript—“No not within government.” That seems to me a clear discrepancy, and it seems to me he may have misled the Committee, and I invite him to correct his evidence to it now on this very important matter, which matters to a lot of us in this House—the future of Channel 4.
Mr Whittingdale
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that the future of Channel 4 is an important matter. Whether or not the discussion with the Cabinet Office Minister, which took place on 3 September, constituted the beginning of an examination, when actually a decision was not taken to begin that examination until about four weeks later, does not seem to be a centrally important matter in the future of Channel 4. We did decide that it was sensible to carry out an examination. That examination is still under way. We have still not yet reached decisions about the best way forward for Channel 4, but I look forward to having that discussion with Channel 4 in the very near future.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
T3. There is a great aspiration in Cornwall to have a sports stadium. The Minister will know of this aspiration. What financial or other support can his Department give to deliver the stadium for Cornwall?
Mr Whittingdale
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his efforts particularly to bring about the stadium for Cornwall, which the Government are committed to. As he knows, I have already held two meetings with interested parties in Cornwall, which he was able to come to. I understand that good progress is being made, and that a draft planning application is now going before the council. I hope that that will lead to progress, and that we will see commencement of work on a stadium in the near future.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
T4. What protections can my constituents and others expect on mobile phone roaming charges in Europe in the event of an exit on 24 June?
The Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy (Mr Edward Vaizey)
That is a very good question. Britain was at the forefront of negotiating the reduction in roaming charges, working with our European partners, and it is yet another example of the benefit to consumers and citizens of being a member of the European Union.
Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)
After the huge success of the London Paralympics, we all saw how Paralympic sport can inspire. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating my six Worcester constituents, who have been selected to represent ParalympicsGB in the wheelchair basketball at the Rio Paralympics?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr David Evennett)
I should be absolutely delighted to do so. I think it is very important that we wish all our athletes great success in Rio. The Paralympics are just as important as the Olympics and we wish them all success in their ventures.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
T2. On Tuesday I met Jean Cameron, the project director for the Paisley 2021 bid for UK City of Culture, for the third time. Despite my asking the Deputy Leader of the House a few weeks ago to give the Secretary of State a nudge, the bidding cities for 2021 are still none the wiser about the dates involved in the process. May I encourage the Secretary of State to get on with it and allow them to plan appropriately?
Mr Vaizey
I certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s points on board. We will make sure that the bidding process is as transparent and clear as possible and we will make the rules as clear as possible. While we are talking about culture, it is important to mark today as the anniversary of the publication of the first Book of Common Prayer by Archbishop Cranmer on 9 June 1569, following the Anglican Church’s break with Europe—I mean Rome!
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his email on Monday about superfast broadband which I am sending out to my parishes. May I raise with him the problem of not spots in rural areas? What is being done following the cessation of the mobile infrastructure project run by Arqiva?
Mr Vaizey
You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that I have run out of anniversaries.
The mobile infrastructure project was a fantastic success, with 75 sites established, but it has been overtaken by the emergency services programme, where the plan is to build 300 sites to complete the network cover—5,000 km of roads. I hope my hon. Friend’s constituents will benefit. In the next few months we will have a clearer idea of where those masts are going and which not spots they are tackling, and I will keep him informed.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
There has been much discussion in the House in recent days about world war three. There is a real risk that world war three will start in my constituency between residents and a local school on the subject of footballs that keep falling into residents’ gardens. Can one of the Ministers advise whether there might be grants available that would help stop this problem?
Mr Whittingdale
I am sorry to learn of the problems faced by residents in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency. We are keen to encourage sporting participation and excellence in sport. Perhaps better aiming in kicking the balls will help to alleviate the problem. That is certainly something we would seek to encourage.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
1. What assessment the Commission has made of the effect on hon. Members and visitors of the level of diversity represented in artwork displayed in the Palace of Westminster.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
No formal assessment has been made. However, the strategic priorities for developing the parliamentary arts collection are reviewed by the Speaker’s Advisory Committee on Works of Art at the start of each Parliament. The Committee makes targeted acquisitions that reflect the interests of the House, and makes changes to the presentation of works of art to promote engagement by the visiting public. The Committee has already decided to give further consideration in the current Parliament to the representation of the collection of parliamentarians of black, Asian or minority ethnic origin.
Chi Onwurah
In the six years that I have had the privilege of serving in this House, I have often felt that the dead white men in tights who people the walls of this Palace follow me around, sometimes into the Chamber itself. As the answer to my parliamentary question showed, there are only two representations of BAME people in the whole of this Palace. In a few weeks, children from English Martyrs Primary School in Newcastle will make the journey to visit Parliament. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they should be overawed and impressed by the Palace, but feel that they are part of its present as well as its future?
Tom Brake
I agree entirely with the hon. Lady’s point. She will, I hope, be pleased to hear that on 5 July the Advisory Committee will discuss this very subject. I hope the Committee will be able to provide her with a clear action plan that will help to address her concerns.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is vital that we embrace diversity at all levels to ensure that history is remembered correctly. We have portraits and statues of Queen Victoria in the House of Lords. Does the Commission agree that Members and visitors, particularly the latter, are astounded by the architecture, colours and sheer splendour of the Palace, and that there is unlikely to be anyone who leaves feeling negative or even discriminated against?
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
2. What discussions the Commission has had with trade union representatives on the terms and conditions of employees of the House.
Tom Brake
The Commission delegates to the Executive Committee responsibility for negotiating changes to terms and conditions of House staff with the recognised trade unions. The House is currently in pay negotiations for the financial year 2016-17 with the unions representing staff in the main A to E pay bands and the catering pay bands. These negotiations are being undertaken in the context of the general pay constraint within the public sector and the requirement for the pay of House staff to remain broadly in line with that of the home civil service.
Christian Matheson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. I am concerned to learn that certain members of the catering department are having to work double shifts in order simply to make ends meet. Can he confirm that, as part of the pay negotiations, staff will be paid the London living wage, not the Government’s bogus living wage? Does he agree that perhaps paying an extra 5p or 10p for a cup of coffee or a meaty wrap would be money well spent if we were paying our staff correctly?
Tom Brake
I am happy to confirm that staff are indeed paid the London living wage, and to ensure that the hon. Gentleman receives a response to his question about double shifts. I am also happy to raise his suggestion that a tariff should be applied to sandwiches in this place to ensure that pay is raised in the way he has indicated.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
3. If he will introduce topical oral questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
We gave this matter careful consideration, but the Leader of the House recently wrote to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee stating the reasons we will not be introducing topical questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. As a consequences of devolution, the range of issues that are the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office is narrower than for most other Departments. The introduction of topical questions might lead to a situation in which some questions fall outside the range of the Secretary of State’s responsibilities.
Danny Kinahan
I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for that answer. I do not want to stop all of us playing a part in each other’s areas and constituencies, but when we look at Question Time we see that the same questions are repeated, which minimises the number of Members who can get in. Topical questions might be another way of increasing participation and having more varied questions.
Dr Coffey
Each Member is responsible for the questions they submit. Because of the way the process of tabling questions works, the Table Office is able to ascertain whether a question relates to a devolved matter or is the responsibility of a UK Government Minister answering at this Dispatch Box.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
Would not one way of increasing participation in Northern Ireland affairs, especially by Northern Ireland Members, be to have more frequent meetings of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee?
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I appreciate the comments of the Deputy Leader of the House. However, in relation to Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, I suggest that members of the public are entitled to expect members of the Government representing those posts to be subject to the same level of scrutiny as their peers around the Cabinet table. I therefore hope that further consideration will be given to introducing topical questions for all those areas.
Dr Coffey
As I have already indicated, we have given this matter careful consideration and, for the reasons I have set out, decided that it is not appropriate to introduce topical questions at Northern Ireland Question Time—and that would also be true for Wales and Scotland.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
In response to the rather disappointing answers from the Deputy Leader of the House, may I ask whether she will consider introducing topical oral questions for Scotland and Wales?
Dr Coffey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place; I think that this is the first time he has asked a question from the Dispatch Box. I genuinely want to put across quite carefully the level of consideration that we have given to this matter. The Table Office is a very useful filter that enables us to ask questions that are in order. The risk is that Members could end up being ruled out of order while trying to ask their topical questions, which would not be good for their reputations either.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
4. How much was spent on the refurbishment of the north entrance to the parliamentary estate in the last Parliament.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington)
Some £55,958 was spent in the last Parliament, and £240,997 has been spent to date in this Parliament. The total forecast budget for the project is £423,902. All those figures include VAT.
Diana Johnson
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. My point is about cyclists being excluded from the Curtis Green entrance, even though it is on the new cycle super-highway. Given the need for cyclists to be able to negotiate busy junctions safely, and the fact that they have to use the Derby Gate and Carriage Gates entrances, what assessment was made before the decision was taken not to allow them to use the Curtis Green entrance?
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
It is not just a question of cycles being able to enter the estate; it is a question of the danger to cyclists. As a car turns in—I have had this experience in a car—it has to cut across the cycle lane and there is a real risk that, if the driver is not really attentive, a cyclist may hit the car and be in danger of death.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
5. How long the House spent voting in the 2015-16 Session.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
6. How long the House spent voting in the 2015-16 Session.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
The Government do not collect this information and do not have the information available. However, the House publishes a record of the time taken on all types of business in the House, and that will be available in the next Sessional Return when it is published in due course. As has been published, hon. Members had the opportunity to participate in 269 Divisions during the last Session, but the total time taken for all business that gave rise to one or more Divisions was 471 hours and 46 minutes.
John Mc Nally
We will all be aware that on Monday night we began voting on the Investigatory Powers Bill at 8 pm and finished voting at 11.14 pm. Members’ meetings and other engagements were disrupted for three and a quarter hours for only four votes. Our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are able to vote on all Divisions at once. What consideration has the Deputy Leader of the House given to a daily unified decision time?
Dr Coffey
The Government made sure that on Monday a decent amount of time for debate was protected rather than compressed. On having a decision time, as in the Scottish Parliament, I suggest that separating decisions on an important piece of legislation from the discussion of them is not to the benefit of that discussion. We should try to ensure that we vote on matters that the House has debated. As we have seen in many debates, people have changed their minds as a consequence of listening to what was said.
Alan Brown
One of the defences the Leader of the House has previously given for the current voting system is that it allows Members to grab a Minister in the voting Lobby. The thing is that guys on the SNP Benches are never in the same voting Lobby as Ministers. The 269 Divisions in the last Session meant that we spent roughly 60 hours of our time hanging around in the voting Lobbies, which is equivalent to a football player’s entire season in the premier league, so are we going to see electronic voting or the continuation of an inter-party league?
Dr Coffey
The hon. Gentleman has made an estimate based on the information I have just given him, but a lot of Members value the opportunity to see each other in the Lobbies. I recognise what he says about SNP Members often being in a different Lobby from the Government, but perhaps he should learn from his more experienced neighbours on the Labour Benches, who certainly use the voting process to grab Ministers when they leave the Lobby. Frankly, this Parliament spends more time scrutinising legislation than any other Parliament in the world, and I genuinely believe that our voting system is appropriate for that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House for changing the list of initials under which we go through the Lobbies to vote. Moving the Gs to the left-hand column has speeded up the voting process, and as an H, it is now bliss to vote. I might add that I know from personal experience that it is very easy to vote against the Government and then to nip to the other Lobby to wait for the Minister to come out and ask them a relevant question.
Dr Coffey
I was trying to suggest that that was what Opposition Members tend to do, but I recognise what my hon. Friend has said. As a C, getting the Gs in with us has seemed—apart from the fact that I now vote in the same queue as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is a G—to increase the time it takes for us to vote. Nevertheless, we are all happy together in our Division Lobby.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
While I am sure we are all very sorry that the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) had his dinner plans messed around on Monday night, may I urge my hon. Friend not to listen to those people who come here and within five minutes want to change long-established proceedings in this House that many of us value?
Dr Thérèse Coffey
Of course, matters of voting are ultimately for the House to decide, although I do not sense an extended appetite for the changes suggested.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
7. What plans he has to review English votes for English laws.
Dr Thérèse Coffey
We have fulfilled our manifesto commitment in introducing English votes for English laws, which we believe will continue to strengthen the Union. However, the Government will undertake a review of the English votes for English laws procedure in the autumn, as we said we would, drawing on the work of the Procedure Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the House of Lords Constitution Committee.
Dr Coffey
All Members’ votes in this House count. The process is very clear. The change that we introduced ensured that matters that are devolved must now have the explicit consent of English Members. On the Wales Bill, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are transferring powers from this House to the Welsh Assembly, creating a stronger Welsh Assembly, and as a consequence we believe that all Members should be involved in that discussion.
International Syria Support Group: Airdrops
(8 years, 4 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
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to make a statement on the International Syria Support Group’s plans to commence airdrops to besieged areas in Syria.
The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)
I have been asked to reply, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is giving evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee this morning, and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who is responsible for the middle east, is travelling abroad on ministerial business.
The Government’s objective remains a political settlement that allows Syria to become a stable, peaceful state with an inclusive Government with whom we can work to tackle Daesh and other extremists. Only when this happens will stability return to the region and the flow of people fleeing Syria and seeking refuge in Europe stop. To achieve that goal, we need to get political negotiations between the Syrian parties back on track. The International Syria Support Group has made it clear that in order to create the best environment for talks to succeed, there needs to be a comprehensive cessation of hostilities leading to a full ceasefire, and sustained, unfettered access for humanitarian aid. Talks are now paused because progress on both those tracks has been insufficient. That is why we are pressing hard for an end to the current violations of the cessation of hostilities, the majority of which are down to the Assad regime. It is also why we need to see an improvement in humanitarian access to besieged and hard-to-reach areas inside Syria. Both these points were agreed by all members of the International Syria Support Group in Munich in February this year.
However, in the light of the continuing dire humanitarian picture, at the most recent ISSG meeting in Vienna on 17 May, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary proposed humanitarian airdrops by the UN World Food Programme in besieged areas in Syria if access could not be achieved by road by the beginning of June. That deadline has of course now passed. We welcome the arrival of some limited aid in Darayya and Muadhamiya over the last few days, and we note, too, that the Syrian Government have agreed in principle to allow land access by the United Nations to the majority of areas requested for the month of June. Such progress as we have seen is undoubtedly the result of international pressure, including from the possibility of airdrops. Nevertheless, it is now crucial that the ISSG should hold the Assad regime to account for delivery of these commitments.
United Kingdom officials are meeting their ISSG counterparts and UN officials in Geneva today to continue that work, and the UN is pressing the Assad regime to allow airdrops if access by road is not permitted. We remain clear that airdrops are a last resort. Land access is more effective, more efficient and safer, both for those needing the aid and for those delivering it. The UN has plans in place to begin airdrops if they are needed, but it is clear that in a complex and dangerous environment such as Syria, this will not be straightforward. We will continue to support the UN in its efforts, but if the regime is not willing to allow sufficient land access or airdrops to those in desperate need, the ISSG should consider very carefully what steps might be taken to deliver the aid that is so desperately needed.
Diana Johnson
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. As the Minister has pointed out, this is a clear humanitarian issue. There are 582,000 people living in besieged areas in Syria. The conditions for the men, women and children in these areas is beyond what many of us can comprehend. In the words of the UK’s special envoy to the UN,
“It’s a concept from medieval times: starvation as a weapon of war and purposefully withholding lifesaving medicines.”
That is what the Assad regime is doing. As the Minister confirmed, the British Foreign Secretary gave a deadline for that to stop, and that deadline expired a week ago. Since then, aid has reached a few areas, but that aid has not always included food, and we know that children are still starving.
The Foreign Secretary said that the International Syria Support Group would commence airdrops into besieged areas if aid was not allowed in by 1 June. He argued that that had the support of Iran and Russia, and he indicated that their support would be sufficient for airdrops to commence. Yesterday, however, the UN briefed that it had made a request to the Syrian Government to commence airlifts, not airdrops. It seems as though airlifts or airdrops are subject to the whim of the Assad regime. The Foreign Secretary made a promise to the people in those besieged areas and sent a clear message to the Assad regime.
As the humanitarian situation appears to be bleak and the position of Assad seems to have been strengthened, will the Minister answer these four questions? First, the current proposal appears to be for airlifts to be led by the World Food Programme, with the consent of the Assad regime. Can the Minister confirm whether there is a timetable for that to happen? If there is no consent from the Assad regime, what will happen next? Secondly, what happens if the Syrian Government refuse permission for that to happen? Thirdly, is the position of Iran and Russia the reason why airdrops have not occurred? If so, did the Foreign Secretary overstate their position on 24 May, or did they subsequently change their position? Finally, what implications does the Minister think the ISSG’s failure to agree to airdrops has for the Syrian peace process?
Mr Lidington
On the hon. Lady’s last point, there is no question but that the appalling humanitarian situation inside Syria makes it more difficult to have any hope of rebuilding a modicum of trust that might lead to political progress. I agreed with her description of what is going on inside Syria on the ground, and of the attitude taken by the Assad regime. I do not think anyone should be under any illusions about the fact that it is deliberately using the denial of access to humanitarian aid as a political and military weapon.
It is important that the United Nations, which is accepted by all as impartial and peaceful in intent, should be in the lead both in the talks with the regime and in the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Given the nature of the military conflict inside Syria and the nature of the air defences, both Syrian and Russian, that are available, the best outcome would be agreed terms of access, either over land or by air, for the World Food Programme assistance. That is what was agreed and is happening with regard to an area that is being besieged by Daesh forces in one part of Syria. That would be better than other powers trying to intervene.
As I said earlier, if the Assad regime does not deliver on its commitments, the ISSG will have to return to this matter. We will have to take stock during today’s meeting in Geneva of how far the talks between the UN and the Assad regime have taken us and what chances there now are. Iran and Russia made commitments earlier this year to support the delivery of humanitarian aid to the people who are in need. Those are the powers that have influence over Bashar al-Assad and his regime, and it is their responsibility to use that influence to save the lives of these people who are in such desperate need of assistance.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I intend to run the exchanges on this question until 11 o’clock, but not beyond that. I know that colleagues will take their cue from that advice.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister is right that Russia is the key to this. Only Russia can persuade the Assad regime to acquiesce. What steps are the Minister, the Department for International Development or both of them together taking to put pressure on Russia to do just that?
Mr Lidington
Russia is the key player in terms of influence over Assad and, of course, the key sponsor of Syria’s military capability. We use every opportunity, both within the ISSG, of which Russia is a full member, and in other diplomatic exchanges with Russia at official and ministerial level, to emphasise the importance of Russia delivering on the commitments she has made.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Some towns in Syria have not received food aid since 2012. We have an absolute moral responsibility to protect civilians who are suffering the wider effects of a conflict in which the UK is now an active participant. No expense has been spared in dropping UK high-tech missiles on the country, but it is bread, not bombs, that the people in Syria need, and it is incumbent on us to do all we can to make sure that they get it. May I ask the Minister why eight days have passed since the UN deadline, with no tangible action? Are we really asking for permission from Assad to feed the very people he has starved? The Minister will be aware that malnourished and sick children need specialist care that cannot be provided by airdrop. What action are the Government taking to re-establish road access to these desperate people?
Mr Lidington
It is the United Nations that is talking to the Assad regime about getting access, the United Nations that has the good offices to make those approaches, and the United Nations that is in charge of delivering the humanitarian assistance. That is the way forward that we judge at the moment is most likely to lead to a successful outcome that is safe for those receiving the aid and those delivering it.
There are parts of Syria where high-level airdrops of humanitarian assistance might be of help if we could not get overland access, but that is not a precise way of giving help. There are other parts of Syria where the nature of the conflict, or the densely populated urban character of the communities we are trying to help, means that we would have to bring in helicopters and could not rely on high-level airdrops at all. That again emphasises the complexity of the task and why the best outcome, for all its imperfections, would be the UN securing access, with the agreement of the regime, either over land or, failing that, for airborne assistance.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
What material support is the United Kingdom giving the United Nations in preparation for access being granted, as we hope it will be?
Mr Lidington
As my hon. Friend knows, we have committed very large sums—£2.3 million—to humanitarian assistance in the crisis in Syria and its neighbouring countries. We are ready to provide additional support, if the UN wants it, for an expanded airdrop operation in the besieged areas.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
As the Minister knows, the holy month of Ramadan began on Monday. There are millions of Syrian refugees in the countries immediately adjoining Syria. Will he confirm that our humanitarian efforts are continuing, so that those people are helped where they are, rather than having to make the perilous journey to the Greek or Turkish border?
Mr Lidington
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of this. After all, people in the camps moved across the Aegean last summer because the United Nations was not getting sufficient funds to maintain either food rations or hours of schooling at previously agreed levels. We are certainly committed, and we are pressing all the countries and international organisations that, at the recent London conference on Syria, committed themselves to spending more to deliver on those pledges fully and promptly.
We welcome the opposition High Negotiations Committee’s suggestion that there be a Ramadan truce inside Syria. We hope that that might be an opportunity to stop further bloodshed.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is depressing that starvation is again being used as a weapon of war, particularly when one man, President Putin, could make one phone call to his friend, President Assad, to remove many of the barriers to international aid. Assuming that the UN gets permission to deliver international aid, have we offered the use of British military bases, particularly those in Cyprus, to allow that delivery to happen quickly?
Mr Lidington
We have not been asked to provide that kind of assistance to the UN. Obviously, we would consider any request that we received from the UN seriously and sympathetically, but my understanding is that the UN would prefer to use civilian airports, because that would emphasise to all parties the humanitarian, rather than political, nature of the flights.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Bashar al-Assad’s father-in-law lives in London. He is a retired doctor. He used to boast—he has boasted to me—that he had considerable influence over his son-in-law. Has anyone in the Foreign Office met Bashar al-Assad’s father-in-law? That might be one additional approach that we could try.
Mr Lidington
I do not know whether there has been a recent conversation with Assad’s father-in-law, but I will ensure that that point is noted in the Foreign Office, and will perhaps write to the right hon. Lady.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The UN said on Thursday that helicopters would have to be used as air bridges in 15 of the 19 besieged areas because they are densely populated. In reality, the UN, working with the World Food Programme, would use helicopters, which need permission to land. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that means that it is vital to use diplomatic channels to urge Russia to insist that Syria open up those channels?
Mr Lidington
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. This is an important test of Russia’s professed commitment both to the UN and its humanitarian aid work, and to a political solution in Syria.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
If Assad and Russia’s shameful blocking of aid by land and air continues, will the Government redouble efforts with our allies to ensure that Assad is eventually brought to justice for crimes against humanity and war crimes?
Mr Lidington
The first objective must be to secure humanitarian assistance to those who are in desperate need. Then we need to achieve a strategy for a political settlement in Syria. When that is in place, there will indeed need to be a time when individuals who are responsible for the most appalling crimes can be held to account.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend makes important points, and I am pleased that I agree with everything he says—not something I have usually done of late when he has been at the Dispatch Box. Will he join me in praising the work of our former colleague, Stephen O’Brien, who is now the United Nations emergency relief co-ordinator in this area?
Mr Lidington
I am very happy to do so. Stephen was a good friend of mine when he was a Member of the House, and while he served here he had a sincere and enduring commitment to international development and humanitarian assistance. He is showing real dynamism and leadership in his work on behalf of the UN.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
The Opposition are right to raise the nightmare of the humanitarian consequences of this situation, but are not the Government absolutely right to proceed with the greatest caution in a situation with wholly unpredictable consequences, and particularly to reject the facile solutions of military interventions, even when they are put forward by a past Prime Minister with a record of shooting first and thinking later?
Mr Lidington
In terms of this urgent question, the key objective must surely be to find the means by which we can get humanitarian aid to those who need it as quickly and effectively as we can; I hope that we can all agree on that point.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The question of what Russia can do has already been raised. Can the Minister provide examples of what the Russians may have done so far, or give any positive news, that would suggest that they may be about to change their approach?
Mr Lidington
I would like to be more encouraging in my response, but so far the Russian approach has been frankly disappointing. The United Nations has been allowed access to help people who are besieged by Daesh forces, but those people are loyal to the Assad regime, so the Russians and the regime have been happy to allow that humanitarian assistance. A real test of Russia’s intentions is whether it will bring to bear the pressure that it could on Assad to act before the people we are talking about suffer further.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister has confessed that children are dying for want of food and medicine. May we concentrate on the primacy of the United Nation’s role, and on those fantastic people in the International Rescue Committee, Médecins Sans Frontières and Save the Children who have real expertise? Is he regularly consulting those people on the ground?
Mr Lidington
The Department for International Development is in regular contact with those organisations, as is the United Nations, which has long-standing relationships with all international humanitarian non-governmental organisations. As the hon. Gentleman will know, a large proportion of the British Government’s aid assistance to humanitarian causes in Syria and the surrounding states is channelled through precisely the organisations he has listed.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The vexed complexities that the Minister has referred to, and the acute sensitivity of current UN efforts, are understood by the Syrian refugees whom I met in my constituency on Sunday, and they explained the dire plight of their starving compatriots. Their basic question to me as a Member of the House is this: why can powers not marshal the capacity and resolve to supply the means of life, given that we have shown that we can deploy the means of death?
Mr Lidington
One must take into account the military realities on the ground. We are talking about a regime in Syria that is besieging most of the communities whose plight we are discussing. The regime has formidable air defences of its own, and Russia has deployed its own air defence measures inside Syrian territory. For that reason, we believe that the safest and most effective means of providing humanitarian access would still be for the UN to agree terms under which that aid can be delivered. If that proves not to work, we must return to this issue, as I have indicated.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
The conditions on the ground are clearly very challenging. As the Minister has said, many of the besieged areas are built-up, urban areas with no suitable space for a drop zone, and obviously high-altitude drops could harm people on the ground. Will he continue therefore to press for access for aid delivered by truck convoy and helicopter?
Mr Lidington
Yes, we shall, and we will continue that in Geneva this afternoon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. According to the UN, 600,000 people are in danger of starvation, but the Syrian Government say that airdrops are not necessary because there is no starvation, so there is clearly a difference of opinion. We need to secure support from the Syrian Government and the Russians. We in Britain pride ourselves on our tradition of helping others, both domestically and abroad. If we cannot secure land access and if the only way is by air, will the Government support the UN in pushing ahead with that to ensure that there is not a humanitarian crisis and that people do not starve?
Mr Lidington
Yes. It was my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary who pressed at the previous ISSG meeting for airdrops to be considered as a last resort, and if we cannot secure the access that the UN, with our support, is seeking, we will have to return to that possibility.
Business of the House
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Chris Grayling)
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 13 June—Conclusion of the remaining stages of the Policing and Crime Bill (day 2).
Tuesday 14 June—Second Reading of the Wales Bill.
Wednesday 15 June—Opposition day (2nd allotted day). There will be a debate on the economic benefits of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union. The debate will arise on an Opposition motion.
Thursday 16 June—As you will be aware, Mr Speaker, we go into recess until after the referendum, so the House will not be sitting.
Friday 17 June—The House will not be sitting.
The business for the week commencing 27 June, when we return, will include:
Monday 27 June—Motions to approve Ways and Means resolutions on the Finance Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House of the Finance Bill (day 1).
Tuesday 28 June—Conclusion of Committee of the whole House of the Finance Bill (day 2), followed by motions to approve Ways and Means resolutions on the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 29 June—Opposition half day (3rd allotted day—part one). There will be a half day debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced, followed by a general debate on the centenary of the Battle of the Somme.
Thursday 30 June—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 1 July—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 4 July will include:
Monday 4 July—Estimates (1st allotted day). Subject to be confirmed by the Liaison Committee. At 10 pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Chris Bryant
Let us start with a brief quiz. What is the shortest ever piece of British legislation? Answer: the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918, which in 27 crisp words enabled women to stand for Parliament for the first time. As we commemorate the 150th anniversary of the founding of the campaign for women’s representation, it is worth remembering that the campaign is often long but the moment of justice is short and very, very sweet.
What a week it has been: torrential rain; floods in the SNP offices; downpours in the lifts; thunder and lightning—very, very frightening. Clearly, God is very angry with the leave campaign. The Prime Minister was on the Terrace on Tuesday evening enjoying a sneaky fag—no, not that kind—and some congenial company, but then he was mostly chatting with Labour MPs because Tories will not talk to him any more. In fact, there has been so much blue-on-blue action this week that the air is getting as blue as the Culture Secretary’s DVD collection.
The Tory Government in waiting, also known as the Justice Secretary and the former Mayor of London, have been touring the kingdom in their blunder bus like Dastardly and Muttley in the mean machine. The special thing about Dastardly and Muttley, of course, is that no matter how much they cheated—and, boy, did they cheat!—they never won a single race. On the one occasion when they nearly won, Dick Dastardly stopped just before the finishing line to pose for his picture, as it was a photo finish. How very Boris! As Dick Dastardly always said, “Drat, drat and double drat!”
When will the Leader of the House publish the Government’s response to the Procedure Committee’s report on private Members’ Bills? The House is hoping that the Government are genuine about reform, because the system, frankly, is a monumental waste of time and a fraud on democracy.
Can the Leader of the House explain something to me? He has announced the 13 days that are for consideration of private Members’ Bills, but the first one this year is not until 21 October. In previous years, it has always been in September—and early September at that. Why so late this year? It makes it virtually impossible before the end of January for any Member to get a Bill through the House of Commons, let alone through the House of Lords. Are the Government deliberately sabotaging private Members’ Bills even before they have started?
On 14 January, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) asked the Leader of the House whether the rules of the House could be changed to allow Welsh to be used in the Welsh Grand Committee when it sits here in Westminster. I understand that the language of this House is, of course, English, but Welsh is the mother tongue of many of my compatriots and constituents, so is it not time that we allowed Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee?
We are about to consider emergency legislation on electoral registration for the referendum. It is obviously a delight that so many new people have tried to register. In the last three months alone, there have been 4.5 million extra attempts. Even allowing for the fact that some of those will be people just checking that they have already registered, that is the equivalent of 63 extra parliamentary seats in areas with high numbers of students and ethnic minorities. Would it not be bizarre in the extreme for the Government to insist on the Boundary Commission using the old December 2015 register to determine the boundaries and number of seats allocated to Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England—or is this just gerrymandering?
Our Opposition day debate, as the Leader of the House announced, will be on the economic benefits of the UK’s membership of the European Union, because the last thing our very fragile economic recovery needs is the prolonged bout of uncertainty and the self-inflicted recession that Brexit would undoubtedly bring. We always achieve far more by our common endeavour than by going it alone. John Donne was right that no man is an island, and these islands are not a hermetically sealed unit. If we want to tackle climate change, environmental degradation, international crime and terrorism; if we want a seat at the table when the major decisions affecting our continent are made; if we want to shape Europe and fashion our own destiny: we have to lead Europe, not leave it.
Is it not fitting that on the Wednesday after the referendum we shall commemorate the Battle of the Somme, in which there were at least 200,000 French, 420,000 British and 620,000 German casualties? The continent that has been at war in every generation and in every century, that has spilt quantities of blood on the seas and the oceans, on the beaches, on the landing grounds, in the fields and in the streets and in the hills is now—thank God—at peace. We should not ever risk our children’s future: remain, remain, remain.
Chris Grayling
I start by marking the anniversaries of the campaigns to get votes for women and to get women into Parliament, which we are currently celebrating. I commend everyone involved in the art exhibition and new work of art in Westminster Hall and indeed all who came together in this Chamber last night for the photograph to mark the occasion. It is a very important development in our history that we should never forget. It is not so many years ago that, inexplicably, women were not given the vote and did not have the right to sit in this House. To our generation, that is incomprehensible. It is a change that always should have happened, and I am very glad that it did.
With apologies to the Scottish nationalists, I offer my good wishes to the England, Wales and Northern Ireland football teams in the European championship that is due to start this weekend. I very much hope that all of us here will cheer on all the home nations as they play their matches in the weeks ahead. [Interruption.] I am asked what this has got to do with the Leader of the House, but half the things that the shadow Leader of the House mentions have nothing at all to do with the business of the House—talk about pots and kettles, Mr Speaker! [Interruption.]
If I can shut up the shadow Leader of the House for a moment, let me confirm something that he would like to hear. We will be flying the rainbow flag from the top of Portcullis House to mark Pride weekend in London from 24 to 27 June. It looks like that has shut him up, Mr Speaker.
On the boundaries issues, let me remind Members that the current boundaries are based on figures from the 2001 census. In no way is that fair; in no way is it right and proper. In future, the boundaries will be based on figures that are updated every five years, and it is right and proper that, given concerns about the nature of our register, reforms be put in place to ensure that it is robust, appropriate and honest in a democracy.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the private Members’ Bills report. We will respond to it shortly, as is due process.
I have given question of the Welsh Grand Committee careful thought, as I said I would a few weeks ago in the House. English is the language of the House of Commons, and it would cost taxpayers’ money to make a change at this point. I therefore think that English should continue to be the language of the House, although if someone who cannot speak English arrives here, we may need to look at the issue again.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned next week’s Opposition day debate on Europe. I was delighted to see that, notwithstanding the lively debate we are having in this country at the moment, the April figures for our manufacturing sector showed an improvement, which is a sign that the economic improvement over which we have presided since 2010 is continuing.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman managed to pay a visit to my constituency this week, and to speak to my local Labour party. He was, and always is, most welcome in Epsom and Ewell. I am sure that, in the event that things become too tough in Rhondda and the threat from Plaid Cymru becomes too great, my local Labour party will be delighted to welcome him as its candidate in 2020.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Given the repeated poor performances by Govia Thameslink Railway, which are adversely affecting thousands of my constituents, will a Minister make a statement on what is being done to improve services on the line?
Chris Grayling
I am well aware of that issue, which has been raised by a number of other Members on both sides of the House. I know that the rail Minister is concerned about it, and the company should certainly be immensely concerned about it. This is obviously a difficult time because of the improvements at London Bridge, but the Secretary of State for Transport will be here later this month and I shall expect my hon. Friend and others to raise the issue then, because I know that it is causing concern to a great many constituents.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, although I suspect that the business on 27 June may be rather more interesting than what is currently billed.
This week, Ministers appear to have been working tirelessly. It is just a shame that they have spent all their energy on attacking each other rather than running the country effectively. That is why we need an urgent debate on the Government’s abject failure to manage the online voter registration system. Amid that embarrassing disaster, the employment Minister has called the Prime Minister “shameful” and “out of touch”, and the Justice Secretary has labelled the Government's own policies “corrosive of public trust”. Imagine what the rest of us think, Mr Speaker.
Let us also have a debate on immigration policy. Some current Tory Ministers have been touring the country declaring that when Brexit is secured Britain will kick migrants from the EU out and pave the way to letting more migrants from the Commonwealth in. Aye, we believe them—not. At the same time, other Minsters are trying to deport people like the Brain family from Dingwall, who are from another Commonwealth country. While all that has been going on, the Justice Secretary has stated that he wants to crack down on immigration to the UK altogether. Ministers are saying one thing to one part of the country, and telling a different tale to another. Just who are people to believe?
You will be aware, Mr Speaker, that the debate on the Investigatory Powers Bill earlier this week featured a range of patronising and condescending remarks by Tory Back Benchers, directed particularly at women on these Benches. That was unfortunately repeated during yesterday’s Westminster Hall debate on the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia, in which I participated. There were continual suggestions that we “don’t understand”. May we have a debate on “mansplaining”, and the fact that male Tory Back Benchers are not the only ones to have been elected to the House with an understanding of difficult and complex issues? The House will then find that women are very good at it too. I shall be happy to elaborate further if the Leader of the House needs any help in explaining that to his Back Benchers.
Chris Grayling
Let me start by reminding the hon. Lady that, if I am not mistaken, a few days ago the leader of her own party criticised the European referendum campaign of which she was part. I am not certain that the SNP is entirely aligned on this one.
The hon. Lady told us about the work that the House had done this week. Notwithstanding the fact that we are having the most serious debate that we have had in this country for a generation, the House is getting on with the important business of protecting the country from the security threats we face. I was grateful to the Labour party for the constructive way in which it approached that debate, but it was disappointing that, on a matter of national security, the SNP lined up in the Division Lobby against measures that we believe are essential to protect our citizens.
The hon. Lady talks about the legal position of migrants. As we are having this debate and people will be listening to it, it is worth being very clear about what the position is. Under the Vienna convention, regardless of the referendum, the legal position of anyone who lives in another country is that their position is protected if the nature of the residency arrangements in that country changes. I do not think that any of us, on either side of this debate, should give an alternative impression to people who might be worried about their position afterwards.
I would never in any way condone patronising comments towards women in this House. However, it is perfectly fair to say that the Scottish National party does not understand the importance of defence issues to this country. Its policies make no sense. Its arguments would do damage to Scotland, economically and in defence terms, and if we challenge them on them, it is right and proper to do so.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
May I come back to the thorny issue of Avon and Somerset police force? The chief constable is under investigation. He and the police and crime commissioner tried to come to see me, and they are trying to influence MPs about what is going on with the serious sexual allegation against the chief constable. He is still in post. It is causing problems with the police force in Avon and Somerset. We really need a debate in this place to find out what is happening. This is a sizeable police force, covering Bristol and the Somerset area. Unless we get to the bottom of what is happening, we may have at least a problem with justice and possibly a travesty of justice.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend makes his point in his customary robust way, and he clearly raises issues that will be of very great concern to his constituents and to others elsewhere in the county. The Home Secretary will be here on Monday, so he will have a direct opportunity to raise this issue with her, and I am sure that he will do so.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May we have a debate in the near future on the political situation in Northern Ireland—thankfully, not because of any crisis, but because we should celebrate the fact that we are now embarking on the third term of uninterrupted devolution in Northern Ireland? We had very successful Assembly elections—certainly as far as our party is concerned. A debate will allow us time to debunk the nonsense being spoken today by the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, about the peace process and the political process in Northern Ireland being under threat if we vote to leave the European Union. Surely that is the most irresponsible sort of talk that can be perpetuated in Northern Ireland. It is very dangerous and destabilising, and it should not be happening.
Chris Grayling
I pay tribute to all the political parties in Northern Ireland. The recent elections were characterised by being immensely dull, and that is a real tribute to the political progress that has been made in Northern Ireland. The fact that there was an election campaign based on detailed discussion about detailed issues—
Chris Grayling
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his success. He will agree that we should be immensely proud of having a routine election campaign about local issues without the controversies of the past. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House cannot shut up and cannot recognise the progress that has been made in Northern Ireland, and I commend everyone who has been involved in it.
Mr Speaker
Order. All this shouting from a sedentary position is very unstatesmanlike. It is not the sort of thing that I would ever have done.
Chris White (Warwick and Leamington) (Con)
Child and adolescent mental health must be a priority for local health services and every local authority. May we have a debate on the extra measures that we can implement to ensure that the framework is effective in providing the necessary support for some of the most vulnerable in our society?
Chris Grayling
The Government can boast of a good record in this area. We are already implementing measures that will deliver additional childcare for very young children, which will give their parents the opportunity to get into the workplace and bring a sense of direction and purpose to their households. We are also bringing forward measures, which are about to be discussed in the other place, that will help tackle issues around the adoption system and the care system. We have a good message to tell about what we are doing, and I hope that every local authority up and down the country will give this issue the importance that my hon. Friend rightly says it should have.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement and for the news that there will be a Backbench business day on Thursday 30 June. I also particularly welcome the half-day debate, on the previous day, Wednesday 29 June, on the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. I shall travel to the Somme on that day to join many members of the Northumberland Fusiliers Association. The Northumberland Fusiliers were heavily involved in the first few days of the battle, with battalions such as the Tyneside Scottish, the Tyneside Irish and the Newcastle Commercial battalion being heavily involved on the front line as hostilities began on 1 July.
I also ask the House to note that the membership of the Backbench Business Committee has now been concluded. The details are in today’s Order Paper. I welcome the new members, the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and for Hazel Grove (William Wragg), to the Committee. I should also like to place on record my personal thanks to the hon. Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) for their service to the Committee and to the House over the past 12 months.
Chris Grayling
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to my two hon. Friends. I wish all the new members of the Committee well, and I congratulate him on returning to his position as its Chairman. There will be many opportunities for Members to seek opportunities for debates from his Committee over the coming months, and I look forward to seeing the range of topics that they bring forward for debate. I also pay tribute to him and to all those who will be going to celebrate the anniversary of the Battle of the Somme. In fact, it is not a celebration; they will be going to mark that anniversary. People are absolutely right to say that we should do everything we can to prevent such a conflict from happening in Europe ever again, and we should particularly note the role played by the NATO alliance over the past 75 years, and the role that our American friends have played in that transatlantic alliance to help us to keep the peace in Europe. Long may that alliance continue.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
We know that 76% of all suicides are men. The figure in this country is nearly 5,000 a year and those who are most affected are in the age group between 45 and 59. May we have a debate on what more local councils and local health authorities can do to reduce that alarming rate?
Chris Grayling
This is a subject of increasing importance. The rise in suicides among young men in particular is deeply alarming. The Secretary of State for Health takes this issue very seriously indeed and he is working on upgrading the national suicide prevention strategy. As a Government, we will do everything we can, and we are already putting additional resources into mental health treatments in the health service to try to tackle this and other problems. We are working immensely hard to tackle this.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
In regard to parliamentary representation for women, it is worth remembering that in 1912 a future Labour Cabinet member, George Lansbury, resigned his London east end seat in protest against women being denied the right to vote and to be represented in the House of Commons. He subsequently fought a by-election, which unfortunately he did not win, although he came back to the House in due course. Does the Leader of the House agree that it would be useful to have a debate shortly on what is happening to women abroad? Yesterday, a 17-year-old woman in Pakistan was burnt to death by her family because they disagreed with her marriage, and it is said that 1,000 women a year in Pakistan are murdered in the same way. Despite all the progress we have made in this country, the suffering that goes on and the murder of women should be remembered, fought over and debated, and we should try in every way possible to end it.
Chris Grayling
It is a great pleasure to find something on which the hon. Gentleman and I entirely agree. The treatment of women in some societies around the world is absolutely atrocious, and we as a leading nation in the world should always seek to improve that situation. We should use what influence we have around the world to change other regimes in other countries and to create a world that is more enlightened and more supportive towards women and that treats them in the way they should be treated.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
May we have a debate on blood cancer? Next week, I am pleased to be starting the new all-party parliamentary group on blood cancer—Tuesday at 2 o’clock, room N, Portcullis House—and I would be grateful if the Leader of the House considered granting time for such a discussion.
Chris Grayling
I wish my hon. Friend well in establishing his new group. The great benefit of all-party groups is the strengthening of ties between this House and those outside who are affected by conditions such as blood cancer. It is an important part of the work of individual Members of Parliament, and I commend him for what he is doing.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
When I was a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry—now Business, Innovation and Skills—I was given a draft of an answer to a colleague’s parliamentary question to sign off that said that they would have a full answer by the end of autumn. The Prime Minister’s long-awaited decision on the Airports Commission is still awaited, but he said yesterday at PMQs that we would get a decision “in the summer”. Can the Leader of the House clarify whether the September fortnight is part of the summer session or the autumn session?
Chris Grayling
Formally, summer will depend upon the weather, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the decision will come shortly. We have taken time over the decision because, rightly, Members of the House and on the Opposition Front Bench—[Interruption.] We hear them chirruping yet again. They have asked us to take immense care over the issue of air pollution in the United Kingdom, so we have been careful to consider the impact of nitrous oxide emissions around Heathrow to ensure that we get the final decision between the two choices right.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 were dealt with under the negative resolution procedure. Despite the statutory instrument’s provenance, much of it is commendable and will help in the fight against tobacco-related disease. However, may we have a debate on the paragraphs relating to e-cigarettes and vaping? ASH, Cancer Research UK, the Faculty of Public Health and the Royal College of Physicians are concerned that the paragraphs will be unhelpful in reducing the toll that tobacco takes.
Chris Grayling
I am very much aware of the issue that my hon. Friend raises. He is right that the measures have been carefully considered by the appropriate Committees of the House and have been debated and discussed in Brussels. I note his concerns and will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health understands the concerns that exist on the Government Benches and were raised through the Standing Order No. 24 application yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main).
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
We are now less than four weeks away from the publication of the Chilcot report and the former Prime Minister is back, haunting the television studios like some unwanted poltergeist, reassembling his old gang and getting his retaliation and excuses in first, all of which should give us some indication and encouragement that the report’s verdict will be damning—he has of course seen it—as indeed it should be. What will the parliamentary response be? Will there be a statement on the day of the report’s publication? Will the Opposition parties get sight of it under secure conditions? Will there be a debate in the following week? Will it be on the Adjournment? Will it be on a substantive motion? The Government have had a long, long time to think about this, and perhaps the Leader of the House can enlighten us on the parliamentary response to Chilcot.
Chris Grayling
Let me be clear that there will need to be discussions between the parties about exactly how we handle advance sight of the document, but it is of course essential that the House is able to question and discuss the report, even though it is not a Government report. I give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that such opportunities will be provided.
As for the reappearance of the former Prime Minister in the media, it is noticeable that he has been omnipresent recently. The right hon. Gentleman might have noticed his interesting contribution today, in which he accused the current leader of the Labour party of changing it from a party of power into a party of protest, with which I, and probably even the shadow Leader of the House, agree.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Constituents of mine with relatives who have severe mental health problems often want to be close to them and to support them however they can, but are frustrated by the understandable confidentiality that mental health professionals must observe in relation to their patients. May we have a debate on how we can protect both patient confidentiality and the understandable desire of people to do their best for relatives who are suffering?
Chris Grayling
It is a really difficult issue and one that all of us have come across in our capacity as constituency Members. A relative who wants to do the right thing may or may not be doing the right thing, and professionals have to make difficult judgments about giving relatives access to information. It is an issue to which there is no right or wrong answer, but I will ensure that the Secretary of State for Health is aware that my hon. Friend has raised those concerns and he will perhaps respond to them directly.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
May I remind the Leader of the House that on joining this House some of us took the Oath in both English and Welsh, so will he look again at the proposal to use Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee? Some of us did not speak English until we were aged five. Most of us are now bilingual, but nevertheless the Welsh language and its status are very important.
Chris Grayling
I absolutely understand the need to protect the Welsh language, and across different Administrations over the last generation extensive steps have been taken to protect the Welsh language and make it part of routine life in Wales. My question to the right hon. Lady, however, is about whether, at a time of financial pressure, it is really sensible for us to be spending taxpayers’ money in a House where the prime language, the main language, the official language is English and when we have Members of this House who talk in that language. As long as that is the case, although I have considered the matter carefully, I do not believe that we should change things.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister has said that the EU budget has been cut, so I thought that I would check with the House of Commons Library. I do not think that these figures have been published, but according to the Library our net contribution to the European Union will increase by more than £2.7 billion this year—to £2,727,000. That does not seem to be a cut, so may we have a statement from the Government next week explaining the situation?
Chris Grayling
Fortunately, courtesy of the Opposition’s debate choice next Wednesday my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to ask questions and make a speech about these issues in this Chamber. I have no doubt, given his assiduousness in these matters, that he will ensure that he does so.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
As the Leader of the House will know, this Sunday marks the start of Diabetes Awareness Week. Will he join me in congratulating Diabetes UK on this important campaign? Although 3 million people have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, including me, 1 million people still do not know that they have diabetes. May we have a statement next week about the Government’s response to Diabetes Awareness Week? Will the Leader of the House personally show his support—this has nothing to do with the excitement of the EU referendum campaign—and visit a pharmacy or GP in his constituency and have a diabetes test to encourage others to do so?
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. This condition affects large numbers of people, as he rightly says, and there are people who are not aware that they suffer from diabetes. I will give him that assurance, although probably not over the next two weeks—there is quite a lot on. I will give him a commitment that I will have that test at some point over the next few weeks and months, because that would make an important point. We, as local Members of Parliament, could well follow his suggestion to raise awareness of diabetes in our constituencies.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made urgently by the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary about the Government’s position on Turkish membership of the EU? In 2010, the Prime Minister said:
“I’m here to make the case for Turkey’s membership of the EU. And to fight for it.”
In 2014, he said:
“In terms of Turkish membership of the EU, I very much support that.”
Last night, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who seems to be prepared to say anything at all to secure a remain vote, no matter how ludicrous, was saying that Turkey would never join the European Union. May we have an urgent statement to clear up this difference of opinion between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and, in the meantime, will the Leader of the House confirm that it is still the Government’s position that Turkey should be able to join the European Union and that British taxpayers’ money is still being used to help Turkey’s accession to the European Union?
Chris Grayling
I am sure that my hon. Friend’s comments will have been noted by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and, of course, the Prime Minister will be back in this House next Wednesday before we go into recess. Notwithstanding questions about timing, it is still the Government’s policy that in due course Turkey should join the European Union.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I was recently contacted by several constituents who were looking to purchase the freeholds of their properties, which were built a few years ago. My constituents had found that the developers who originally built the properties had sold the freeholds on to private investment companies, who were now asking for three or four times the original asking price to purchase those freeholds. I know there is a process to resolve these issues, but it is lengthy, complex and expensive, so may we please have a debate on what can be done to simplify that process and give people some comfort that the homes they have bought are not being used by third parties as part of some speculative investment strategy?
Chris Grayling
This issue obviously affects a great many people and, where there are set processes, it should not be possible for any freeholder to exploit an individual leaseholder by contravening the rules. The amounts payable are calculated according to a formula that is set down in law, and should not be exploitable. If the hon. Gentleman has identified cases where this is not happening and from which there are lessons to be learned, I ask him to write to me, and I will pass the matter on to my colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and ask them to take a detailed look at the concerns he has identified.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
May we please have a debate on how this House responds to the very diligent work of the European Scrutiny Committee? At a time when the nation is just two weeks away from taking the most important decision in a generation, it is inexplicable why there are no less than eight documents—
Mr Nuttall
There are no fewer than eight documents covering a range of important topics, such as free movement and the European Union charter of fundamental rights, all of which have been recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for debate on the Floor of this House.
Chris Grayling
Mr Speaker, I have a proposal for the House. We know that the shadow Leader of the House is a champion of charities. May I suggest that we all sponsor him in a sponsored silence to raise funds for his chosen charities?
On the subject of European Scrutiny Committee timetables, of course there are opportunities in the next few days, particularly next Wednesday on the Opposition day, to debate many of those issues, but I do understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) makes. We sought in the previous Session to make more time available for debate, and I will ensure that we look again to see that we can do that in the coming Session.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May we please have a debate about the excellent work that charities, such as KIDS in Hull, do, working with children with disabilities and their families? They provide services commissioned by Hull City Council. I am really concerned that, given the cuts to local authorities, great charities like that are now finding that their funding is being cut or reduced and that services to the most vulnerable in our communities will disappear.
Chris Grayling
It is always a great disappointment when we hear about local authorities—all too often Labour authorities—that are not innovative enough when it comes to dealing with financial pressures. There are some great councils around the country that are dealing with those pressures in a thoughtful way, pooling resources with neighbours and avoiding the cuts to front-line services that the right hon. Lady describes. I would simply ask her to urge her local authority to look for those examples and ensure that best practice keeps those services in Hull.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Leader of the House has just confirmed that it is the policy of Her Majesty’s Government to encourage Turkish accession to the European Union. Indeed, we are paying £170 million a year to help Turkey and four other applicant countries join. In the borough of Kettering there are about 5,000 migrants from eastern Europe, from a population of 72 million, 12 years after accession. Given that the population of Turkey is 76 million, that means that the people of Kettering face the very real prospect of having at least 5,000 Turkish migrants 10 or 12 years after Turkish accession—something that would transform the borough of Kettering. May we have an urgent statement from the appropriate Minister about why on earth we are spending £170 million a year on promoting this madness?
Chris Grayling
I know that my hon. Friend feels passionately about these issues and is making these points during the course of the campaign that he is part of. There will be an opportunity next week in this House to debate matters related to the European Union, and I am sure he will also take advantage of that opportunity to raise the issues he has brought up today.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
Constituents of mine in Motherwell and Wishaw have waited well over a year for a decision on their asylum applications. In that time, they have placed no financial burden on the UK. May we have a debate in Government time on the length of time still being taken to process and to make decisions on asylum applications?
Chris Grayling
Of course, it is not true to say that asylum seekers place no burden on the United Kingdom, because we do both provide accommodation for asylum seekers and support poor asylum seekers. That money comes from somewhere; it does not come from thin air.
We are all committed to seeking to get the fairest, speediest possible system for asylum in this country. We have a long tradition of being a refuge—a safe haven—for people escaping persecution, and that should always continue, but it is important that we do not allow our asylum system to become a veil for economic migration. They are different things and they should remain so.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Humberston Fitties is a unique community in the Cleethorpes constituency consisting of holiday homes. Yesterday North East Lincolnshire Council ruled that residents will be able to occupy their homes for only eight months of the year, rather than 10 months, as has been the case for many years previously. That is partly a result of guidance or rulings from the Environment Agency and other bodies. May we have a debate to clear up the confusion between what is guidance and what is a statutory instruction from such agencies to local authorities?
Chris Grayling
I sometimes wish local authorities would make that distinction. The intention is to give them options to pursue, rather than telling them exactly what they should do. Local circumstances vary around the country, and when the participation of residents of holiday homes is lost for part of the year, that can have an economic impact. My hon. Friend has made an important point and I hope his local authority will take a long, hard look at what it must do and what is right for its area, and not simply tick a box because it thinks it must.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
A number of my constituents have suffered long delays in having their Disclosure and Barring Service applications processed, particularly where those have been processed via the Metropolitan police, and more than one has fallen into serious debt as a result of not being able to take up employment as a result. May we have a statement or a debate on how we can tackle this problem and resource the service properly?
Chris Grayling
I know that this problem crops up from time to time for all of us as Members of Parliament. I have had experiences similar to that of the hon. Gentleman. The Home Secretary and the Policing Minister will be here on Monday. The hon. Gentleman will have the opportunity to put that question to them and ask what can be done to improve things.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
My constituent Susan Fleeting contacted me regarding the tragic case of her son Robert, who died a non-combat death while serving in the armed forces in an English military base. Mrs Fleeting, like many similar families affected, cannot gain closure as there is no automatic inquest by jury into Robert’s death. Families require that we debate this important issue so that Mrs Fleeting, for her late son, and all armed forces personnel are assured of rigour and justice in the face of tragedy.
Chris Grayling
Of course, anyone who loses a child in unexplained circumstances should have information and should understand what happened. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Defence is aware of the concerns that the hon. Lady has raised. She might like to write to me or to him giving more details. He will be here on the Monday after the referendum and I am sure he will be happy to take that question and give her a proper response.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The pub code, which is designed to give some measure of protection to pub tenants against the sometimes appalling behaviour of pubcos, was meant to be implemented on 28 May, but so far the Government have put nothing before the House. When will the Government bring forward a statutory instrument so that we can get the code in place to protect tenants?
Chris Grayling
I believe the answer is very shortly, but I will write to the hon. Lady and give her more detailed information about what is planned.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 68.
[That this House notes that Kamuran Yuksek of the Democratic Regions Party was in the UK on 25 April 2016 addressing a meeting in the House of Commons at the launch of the trade union Freedom for Ocalan Campaign; further notes that he spoke eloquently on the need for a peaceful settlement to the Kurdish question and expressed similar views in the Kurdish media; notes that on the evening of 10 May 2016 Mr Yuksek was taken away by Turkish police following an arrest warrant by the Public Prosecutor in Diyarbakir, while his house and office were raided by the police; believes the motivation for Mr Yuksek's detention is purely political; notes that he is the latest in a long list of journalists, lawyers, trade unionists, politicians, academics and human rights defenders who have been incarcerated for having the temerity to criticise the authoritarian regime of President Erdogan who has unleashed a genocidal war against the Kurdish population; believes the behaviour of the Turkish authorities to be outrageous and unacceptable; and calls for the immediate release of Kamuran Yuksek.]
The motion demands the release of Kamuran Yuksek, the leader of the Democratic Regions party, who is currently incarcerated by the Turkish authorities. May we have a statement or a debate in Government time on the outrageous and unacceptable behaviour of the Turkish authorities towards the Kurdish population?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. All of us regard with some concern some of the recent developments in Turkey. As a Government we urge the Turkish Administration to follow all the principles of democracy and fair justice in a democratic society. It is in their interests to do so, and if they aspire to join the European Union in future, whether we are in it or out of it, they will have to do that.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I refer to early-day motion 155.
[That this House congratulates the BBC for a vivid and restrained account of the suffering of the loved ones of the British soldier Tom Keys who was killed in the Iraq War caused, in his father's opinion, by the lie of the threat from non-existent weapons of mass destruction; looks forward to the publication of the Chilcot Inquiry Report, but is concerned that attempts may be made to invent a fictionalised history of the reasons for the UK's involvement in the second Iraq War; and recalls a letter sent to Tony Blair by the hon. Member for Newport West in March 2003 which warned that the world would be a more dangerous place at the end of hostilities in Iraq than it was before, and that the UK's involvement in President Bush’s Iraq War would deepen the sense of grievance among Muslims that the Western and Christian world seeks to oppress them and that this would provide a propaganda victory to Osama bin Laden that would increase his support and the likelihood of more acts of terrorism.]
When may we debate the motion about the Iraq war, a decision of this House that resulted in the deaths of 179 of our brave British soldiers, and the need for a new and swift inquiry—a parliamentary inquiry—into a decision of this House that resulted in the deaths of 438 of our courageous British soldiers? That was the decision in 2006 where only six of our soldiers had died in combat, and the decision was to go into Helmand province in the belief that not a shot would be fired. In the interests of informing our future conduct, is it not right that we set up that inquiry into the Helmand incursion as swiftly as possible and understand the consequences of that terrible decision?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman talks about separate inquiries, but we have the vehicles in this House for carrying out such inquiries; the job of Select Committees is to carry out precisely the kinds of investigations and lesson-learning that he has just described. It is always open to the Defence Committee, and indeed the Foreign Affairs Committee, to carry out such work if they so wish.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Further to the question from the vice-chair of the save the pub all-party group, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), having had a year to get the pubs code in place, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills then pulled it. Tenants are being denied a legal right that is laid down in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. BIS is refusing to give a date for when the code will finally come in, so may we have a statement on that? Can the statement also confirm that the code will apply retrospectively to the dates set down in legislation to ensure that those who are currently being denied their legal right get it?
Chris Grayling
As I said, I will get a proper response to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is copied into it. The Secretary of State will be here on the Tuesday after the referendum, when both hon. Members will have an opportunity to raise the matter.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Leader of the House and the Prime Minister have rightly condemned anti-Semitism, yet under our constitutional set-up a Prime Minister of Jewish or Catholic faith would be expressly forbidden from undertaking some of their duties, and the monarch still has to be of Anglican faith and is expressly forbidden from being of Catholic faith. Is the Leader of the House going to bring forward any plans to change these arrangements, or is he happy with a set-up that is effectively anti-Semitic and sectarian?
Chris Grayling
I hate to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but disestablishment is not on the Government’s agenda at the moment; there is quite a lot to deal with, and that is not top of our list.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
This week the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief released a report entitled, “Fleeing Persecution: Asylum Claims in the UK on Religious Freedom Grounds”. It highlights the shortfall in the number of caseworkers who determine asylum applicants on religious grounds and outlines 10 points for improvement. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement on what steps the Home Office is planning to take to ensure that caseworkers are adequately trained to assess claims by individuals seeking asylum on religious grounds?
Chris Grayling
This is obviously a sensitive area, and we have to take great care with it. Of course we want to provide refuge to people fleeing religious persecution, but we need to ensure that our system is robust and that the people we are dealing with really are who they say they are. Great care is already taken to do that. The Home Secretary will be here on Monday, so if the hon. Gentleman has further thoughts about what we should be doing, I suggest that he raise them with her then.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 175, which I tabled yesterday to mark the fourth anniversary of the Istanbul convention on preventing violence against women and girls.
[That this House notes that 8 June 2016 marks the fourth anniversary of the UK Government becoming a signatory to the Istanbul Convention on violence against women and girls; expresses disappointment that the Government, despite outlining their commitment to do so several times, has still failed to ratify this important convention; recognises that women still face a significant amount of inequality, with one in four women experiencing some form of domestic, sexual or psychological abuse during their lifetimes; further notes that ratifying the Istanbul Convention should ensure that a series of preventative policies will be introduced to help tackle and end violence against women, such as non-violent conflict resolution in relationships and the right to personal integrity being included in school curricula at all levels; congratulates the campaign group ICchange for their continuing work in applying pressure on the Government to ratify the convention; and calls on the Government to accede to this pressure and ensure ratification as soon as possible.]
I have sought debates on the matter through the Table Office, but with no joy. May we therefore have a debate in Government time to get to the bottom of why the Government have failed to ratify this important convention?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman has a number of different options for pursuing these issues, such as Adjournment debates or the Backbench Business Committee. I am sure that the Chair of the Committee, who is in the Chamber, has listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said. If other Members share his concern, I am sure that the Committee will consider that possibility.
EU Referendum: Voter Registration
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr Oliver Letwin)
I beg to move,
That the draft European Union Referendum (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 8 June, be approved.
It will probably help the House if I restrict my remarks simply to explaining the nature of this statutory instrument, as the issues it raises will no doubt be debated in the ensuing discussion. The House will already be aware that on Tuesday night, between 9pm and 10pm, there was a huge surge of applications for registration—three times as many in one hour as have ever been experienced—and that, as a consequence, the website crashed at around 10 o’clock. Therefore, there were two hours during which it was lawful to apply to register in time to vote at the referendum, but people were denied that opportunity. The House will also be aware that it is the Government’s intention, following the strong cross-party support and the Electoral Commission’s approval, to introduce legislation to enable people to apply for registration up to midnight tonight and, if they are registered, to vote in the referendum. I want to explain to the House how the statutory instrument will achieve that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I am listening to my right hon. Friend with great interest. He says that the website was down for two hours. What was the hourly rate of applications, and therefore what is his official estimate of the number of people who wanted to register in that timeframe but were unable to do so?
Mr Letwin
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. Unfortunately, I can give him only a very partial answer. We know as a fact that there were, if memory serves, 214,000 applications in the hour leading up to the crash. What we cannot know, because it is in the nature of the computer system that it cannot tell us, is how many people either tried or would have tried to apply during the succeeding 90 minutes or so during which they were unable to apply. The answer is therefore that I cannot tell.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Have the Government made any inquiries, assessment or technical analysis of whether there is any possibility that some malevolent attack was made on the website at that time, as opposed to there being an incredibly unusual spike in the numbers?
Mr Letwin
My hon. Friend will very much recognise that I am not a technical expert on computing, but I am advised by those in the Cabinet Office and the Government Digital Service that, as far as they can make out, there was no untoward event whatsoever. There was simply an incapacity of the system to handle that number of applications. The system is designed to be scoped to deal with a certain number of simultaneous events, and that number was exceeded during that period, so in retrospect, it was not surprising that it fell over. I should add that since that time, as the very first lesson learned, the website has been altered so that it has a larger capacity—I think almost twice as much capacity—to be able to deal with a higher number of simultaneous events than previously.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I think the question that most people want answering is: what is the rationale for extending the period for voter registration by 48 hours, given that when the system crashed it deprived people of the opportunity to register for two hours? Why not 24 hours or 72 hours—why 48 hours?
Mr Letwin
That is another very good question that I am very happy to answer for my hon. Friend. If we had been able to work out more quickly how to bring forward legally watertight legislation—in two or three hours, rather than 24 hours—it would have been possible to introduce the statutory instrument yesterday, and it might then have been possible to have an extension for a 24-hour period. We are anxious that the legislation should not be in any way retrospective, and it therefore makes sense that it should apply from midnight tonight, after the time at which this House and the other place will, I hope, have passed the statutory instrument. In the meanwhile, we have of course been doing our utmost to promulgate the fact that people can apply to register during this period and will still be able to vote in the referendum, thereby correcting the error that occurred as a result of the crash.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. The message did get out in Northern Ireland—the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland promoted it, saying that people could still register beyond the deadline—only for a sudden reverse to take place later, so that it now does not apply to Northern Ireland. Why the shambles? What went on in terms of consultation with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland? Why are citizens in Northern Ireland being deprived of this extra opportunity? I know we do not have the digital system, but having been told that by the chief electoral officer and the Government, people had such an expectation. This is a UK-wide referendum, so why is there a difference?
Mr Letwin
I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for the fact that the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland did indeed issue a statement of the kind he describes. I do not know quite why it was issued, but that body is of course independent of us. As I think he is entirely aware, discussions went on yesterday about whether this should or should not include Northern Ireland. The answer to his question is the answer that he himself indicated: there is not an online system in Northern Ireland, and therefore the thing we are correcting did not go wrong in Northern Ireland. He would need to discuss with my colleagues in the Norther Ireland Office whether it would have been sensible nevertheless to extend this, but their view was that it would not be.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
One of the big bugbears in the issue of electoral registration is the fact that people have to register some distance away from the actual election date. I am very pleased that the Government have now found that it is possible to shorten that period. Is it their intention that there may also be a shorter period for future elections so as to give people more time to register in advance of them?
Danny Kinahan
I want to emphasise the same point as the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds). In future, can we look to having something whereby the whole of the United Kingdom is on the same digital system and everything works together, because then all the electorate will understand it?
Mr Letwin
I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman that comfort. Northern Ireland will shortly move to an online registration system, and it is clearly desirable that it should do so.
Let me briefly explain how this statutory instrument achieves the intended effect and avoids a problem that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, when the matter was discussed yesterday. Our aim is to enable those who are applying to register up to midnight tonight to register to vote, if they are eligible, in the referendum on 23 June. That moves that date forward by 48 hours—two working days. The statutory instrument achieves that by taking an entire block of time, which used to elapse between midnight last Tuesday and midnight on 16 June, and moving it lock, stock and barrel, without changing any of the relationships within it, two working days forward. That is why, if Members look at the statutory instrument, they will see that it inserts in a whole series of pieces of legislation a date of 20 June, which would previously, either actually or in effect, have been 16 June. The reason why 16 June to 20 June is seen as two days rather than four is that the whole of our legislation is constructed around working days, and the Saturday and Sunday— 18 and 19 June—are therefore excluded. So we have taken a block of time and moved it two working days forward. The net effect of that is twofold, and only twofold. First, it achieves the intended effect of ensuring that people can register to vote in the referendum if they do so by midnight tonight; and, secondly, it means that the registers will be published at the end of the process by midnight on 20 June rather than by midnight on Thursday 16 June. No harm to mankind arises from the delay in the register being published.
The reason the SI solves the problem that was very rightly and acutely raised by my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee is that we retain the full five-day period for objections to applications, and indeed all the other aspects of the process, inside that block of time, because those relativities are not altered. I think that that is what led to the question from the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about whether we could do exactly the same thing in future now that we have discovered that it does not cause any harm at the end of the process.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome the fact that we are allowing people ease of registering to vote; I think we all agree with that as democrats. On the checking of who is eligible to vote, with large numbers seeking to be on the electoral roll, I have had a number of reports in my constituency of EU nationals being sent postal voting papers, and last night somebody called me to say that their 17-year-old daughter had received voting papers. What sort of assistance will be provided to electoral services officers and returning officers to ensure that the vote is secure in that sense?
Mr Letwin
First, nothing that we are doing in any way affects any of that, because the blocks of time are unaffected and therefore all the processes have the same amount of time in which to take place as they would have done previously. Secondly, there has been, in a few cases, a problem with the issue of votes to people who were not eligible to vote. That problem has been inspected and cured. We need to make sure that in future elections it does not happen. Thirdly, I have no knowledge of what might have happened to someone who is 17. I am sure that if my hon. Friend takes that up with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), the Minister with responsibility for constitutional affairs, the Minister will be delighted to look into it immediately.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
My right hon. Friend says that the problem of ballot papers being issued to those who are not eligible to take part in this election has been identified and cured. Can he therefore give us an idea of the scale of the problem? How many of these wrong ballot papers were issued?
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that paper applications will also be considered even though they may have arrived in the post yesterday morning or this morning, in the same way as late applications made online will be considered?
Jim Shannon
There is a knock-on effect from the registration for postal votes. As we heard in the news this morning, some people have voted already in mainland UK, whereas others in Northern Ireland have not. A large number of Northern Irish supporters are going to the European finals—the indication is that it will be some 20,000 people—and their postal votes could arrive on any date between 9 and 16 June, which means that those people will be away when their postal votes arrive. In the light of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) has said, there seems to be a bit of chaos in the system. What discussions has the Minister had with the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland to clarify those matters, get them sorted out and ensure that people who want to vote can vote?
Mr Letwin
There are two separate issues here. There is the question whether this statutory instrument has any effect on postal voting deadlines, and the answer to that is no, none whatsoever. They remain entirely intact. If there are people in Great Britain who are now able to register but who cannot get postal votes, they can take proxy votes instead. The deadline for proxy votes has not yet evaporated; it will be reached on 15 June, if memory serves. I have not had direct discussions with the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland about the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I suggest that he take them up with my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.
I am conscious of the fact that I am using up time that needs to be used by the House for debate, so I will close by saying simply this. We have, of course, taken advice from our own lawyers—I had extensive discussions with the most senior figures in the Government legal service over a number of hours, as the House might imagine, yesterday—and from not only the Electoral Commission but, through it, its lawyers. We are absolutely convinced that we can do this by statutory instrument within the powers given us under the statutes, and that therefore this is a legally watertight measure. I hope that it will command the support of this House and the House of Lords in time for it to become effective before midnight tonight.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
We welcome this statutory instrument, and I am glad that there has been extensive consultation, particularly with the Electoral Commission. The day before yesterday, more than half a million people successfully completed their application to be on the electoral register. That was a record, and all of us who believe passionately in democracy were truly delighted. But at its peak, the website was dealing with far more applications than at the previous peak, which was just before last year’s general election. There has been understandable concern, on both sides of the House, about the fact that the online registration system was unable to cope with the demand before the close of registration the night before last. At an appropriate time, there will need to be an examination of how that could have happened, especially as there is likely to be increased digitisation of the process for conducting elections in future.
While many of those who applied to register after 10.15 pm were successful, sadly many were not. The result was that many people who wanted to register so that they could exercise their democratic right to vote were unable to do so. That was a negation of democracy and we are right to give those people the opportunity to exercise their democratic right to vote.
I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, does the statutory instrument alter the provisions relating to postal vote applications? He touched on that, but I would like him to say a little bit more. Of course, voters with postal votes are able to cast their votes not just before the referendum day, but on the day itself by delivering them to the polling station. Secondly, what provision are the Government making for proxy vote applications, or will the situation stay as it is?
My third question relates to the extra financial burden that could well fall on certain local authorities. The Minister for the Cabinet Office made reference to extra resources being made available, but I wonder whether the Minister before us can be more specific about how those resources can be applied for, whether there will be a ceiling on those resources and if there is any estimate of what the overall additional cost might be to the Government.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Labour party agree with me that it is very important that the will of Parliament on whether people from the continent of Europe can vote in the referendum is enforced? It is the clear will of Parliament and most British people that they should not vote. Does the hon. Gentleman have any independent intelligence on how many of them have wrongly been sent polling cards?
Wayne David
I certainly agree that the rules should be adhered to, and I am reassured by the Government’s assurance that that will be the case. However, it would be wrong to exaggerate this issue and make any kind of political point out of it.
As I said, the statutory instrument has our full support because it will enable those people who feared that they had been disfranchised to cast their vote on 23 June. I sincerely hope that those voters do precisely that. I urge the Government to publicise as widely as possible the fact that this facility is available. I urge them to consider new means of advertising it, such as having an advert on Facebook.
I said a moment ago that the statutory instrument has the support of both sides of the House, but I am disappointed that some in the leave campaign have criticised it. It is said by some that the statutory instrument is disproportionate. Others in the Vote Leave campaign have even suggested that the registration site was crashed deliberately to provide an excuse for extending the registration period. That really is absolute nonsense. It is equally nonsensical to suggest that the statutory instrument is somehow unconstitutional. That is clearly not the case.
The Opposition believe that every single person who is entitled to be on the register and who has made a valid application should be able to cast their vote. Of course, how people cast their vote is up to them—that is what democracy is all about.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Is it not the case that students who are registering at this time may have been preoccupied with exams and graduation? Is it not wholly reasonable, therefore, if the system has crashed, for the Government to do something about it and extend the time for registration?
Wayne David
Yes, that is entirely reasonable. We could cite many examples of people the length and breadth of the country, particularly young people, who for reasons like those that my hon. Friend has given have not found time or had the inclination to register to vote. I am heartened that although many people say that the vote has not engendered a great deal of interest so far, the referendum has certainly excited a great deal of interest among young people. The indication is that many of the people who have applied quite late are young people who want to exercise their democratic right.
Mr Hollobone
It is obviously good news that the referendum is generating excitement among people of all ages who want to take part in the ballot. However, many students are doubly registered, at their home address and at their place of learning. So that those people do not get into trouble, should it not be made clear that even if they are legitimately registered twice, they cannot vote twice? Should that not be explained, especially to those who are voting for the first time?
Wayne David
I think that most people realise that it is one person, one vote. That is a fundamental, core principle of our democracy.
Valerie Vaz
With the change to individual registration, that has not been possible. The figures show that a million young people have fallen off the register, so it is not a case of registering twice; it is a case of not registering at all.
Wayne David
I do not want to go into detail about individual electoral registration. We have expressed our concerns about the process in the past, and I welcome the fact that more and more people want to be on the electoral register and thereby have the ability to vote. It is good for democracy that young people in particular want to be involved in our democratic debate and will cast their vote on 23 June.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Would not someone have to be a time traveller to vote twice, in their university seat and also at home? The idea that people would go to such lengths is ridiculous.
Wayne David
I reiterate that it is important for us to say categorically what most people realise: in our democracy, if one person has a vote, they should use it on one occasion on polling day. That is abundantly clear.
All who are engaged in the debate hold strong views, but it is vital for democracy that people have the right to cast their vote on 23 June. I therefore warmly welcome the Government’s initiative. It is unfortunate that we have had a technical mishap, but action has been taken. I urge people throughout the length and breadth of this country to take advantage of the opportunity to register to vote and to cast their vote, whichever way they wish to do that, on 23 June. The decision is the most important that this country will make in a generation, and it is therefore vital that everyone who is entitled to vote casts their vote.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
Most of us, from whatever side of the argument, accept that the greater the number of voters who take part in the referendum, the better, because a high turnout, with more voters participating, gives the result added legitimacy.
The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is right that student preoccupations are many and diverse. They do not always involve study or graduation—certainly in my experience. However, perhaps one of the lessons for the future is that leaving registration until the last two hours possible may not be the wisest thing to do. Perhaps those who follow these proceedings will in future decide to register in plenty of time if they want to have their vote.
The sad tale of Government, the public sector and IT continues. This is yet another chapter in it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that, given the demand on the system, it was unsurprising that it crashed. I am very surprised that it crashed, so I would like to know one or two things. First, how much load testing was done? Why did not we anticipate that, when people realised that the referendum was getting closer, they would want to register? Why was sufficient provision not made in the system to allow for a spike in demand? That happened before the general election—it is not unprecedented. Why did the Electoral Commission not make sufficient arrangements to determine whether its system could cope with the demand? How do we know that it will not happen again? If we have another deadline tonight, how do we know that the system will not crash in exactly the same way?
Mr Letwin
It might help if I answer that point now. A massive amount of load testing was done, and the system was tested with the assumption that we would not face anything like the extent of the difference between what had been experienced previously—for example, at the general election—and now. This spike was three times as intense as the one that occurred before the general election. For today and yesterday the system has been made twice as capacious as it was previously, and we would now have to have about six times as many applications as were made at the general election before the system crashed again. I profoundly hope that that will not happen.
Dr Fox
We also hope that such a crash will not happen again.
I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend provided further information either today, or to the House in due course. First, how many of these are duplicate applications? There is clearly a problem, and a lot of voters believe from the literature provided by the Electoral Commission that registering for the referendum is different from registering for the general election or any other election. A lot of voters have said to me, “I’m registered for the general election. Do I have to register separately for the referendum?” The information given by the Electoral Commission was less than clear, and I wonder how many of the applications are in fact duplicates from people who are mistakenly asking whether they are already registered.
Mr Letwin
My right hon. Friend is asking pertinent questions, and it will be useful to have them answered for the rest of the debate. We do not and cannot know how many applications are duplicates, because until they have been verified we do not know whether those people were already on the register. Anecdotally, we think that a large proportion of applications may be duplicates, but we will know that in aggregate only once we see the published register and compare it with previous registers.
Dr Fox
An important lesson will be to see whether a larger number of people register for the referendum than for the general election. If it is a much larger number, it suggests that the clarity and instruction given by the Electoral Commission had a good deal missing, which would be an interesting lesson for us all. On the competence of the Electoral Commission, let me return to the point that I raised earlier about ballot papers being sent to those who are not entitled to vote in the referendum. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend said that issue was identified and cured, and I wonder whether in due course a list can be published of those local authorities that say they had no problem, and of those that did have a problem, so that we can see exactly where the problem occurred across the country and its extent. I would be interested to know whether for some of those local authorities that said they had no problem that genuinely turned out to be the case, or whether it was an estimate about whether there was a problem or not. If the issue is so difficult to identify, it is difficult to believe that people can be so sure that they did not make mistakes in sending out those ballot papers.
I totally accept that this is a legally watertight mechanism, but to legislate for an electoral process during the election itself is not a precedent with which I feel entirely comfortable. I understand the emergency nature of this legislation, and I want as many people to participate as possible. I understand why the crash happened in terms of the technology, but I do not find it easy to agree to in effect changing the rules of any part of an election during the electoral process. We must be careful to state that this is an emergency procedure, and that we are not in any way accepting a precedent for Governments of the future to introduce changes to the rules while the game is in play.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
The Scottish National party welcomes the extension to registration. Our right to vote is precious, and we all bear responsibility for giving people that right, so I thank the Minister for coming to the House today. I also agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), who said that we would rather avoid legislating for an election during an election period, but we are where we are.
It is essential that everyone who wishes to register is able to do so, and the SNP will back the Government today on extending the registration window. This is a critical vote, and Members across the House with different views recognise the importance of this referendum. It will affect future generations, and it will have a much more substantial impact on younger voters, who will have to live with the decision that we make in two weeks’ time, than it will on older voters. We are on the final straight; there are two weeks until the referendum. Will the Minister assure us that there will be a post-match analysis, so that we can consider what lessons we can learn from what happened over the past 48 hours?
Mr Hollobone
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with great interest, and I agree that there should be a post-match analysis. Does he share my concern that that analysis will be conducted by the Electoral Commission, which will be writing a report about itself? Should there not be some kind of independent analysis? Otherwise, the report will automatically be skewed.
Stephen Gethins
Of course the Electoral Commission should look into this matter; we should always consider how we can improve our democracy. I hope that the Government will also look into this issue, given that they bear the burden of responsibility for it.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is important that there is a steward’s inquiry at a later date into what happened. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must also consider the effect that moving to individual electoral registration has had on this issue? Every time the register is compiled, there is a surge of new people joining it for the first time; this year, I fear that we may have had the additional burden of a lot of people who were previously on the register checking to see whether they are still on it, or realising that they are not, and that has created a big spike in demand.
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend raises a good point about people double-checking. I double-checked myself, and I encouraged others to do so, so I wonder whether the Government will consider that.
I also ask the Government to consider what lessons can be learned from Scotland. During the independence referendum, voter registration was at 98%, and everybody involved in that process should rightly be proud of themselves. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) has also reflected on that. Having had 98% registration, we had an 85% turnout in the referendum, with huge voter participation on both sides, and we should learn from that. I hope that we will reach a turnout of 85%, or even higher, in the referendum, as I am sure that colleagues across the House do, although I am not sure we will quite get there.
Danny Kinahan
I wonder how much of that increase was due to lowering the voting age, and giving younger people who are at school the chance to take an interest.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. If, as has been suggested, younger voters are the ones registering, I encourage that, and perhaps we should consider giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote. Evidence shows that the younger a person engages in the political and democratic process, the more likely they are to be engaged in the long term, so I hope we can reflect on that.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes important points, but we should not forget that an estimated 7 million people are not even on the register in the first place. We should not lose sight of that, or of what we need to do to get those people to register.
Stephen Gethins
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that ties into the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). My hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) and other SNP Members have wondered whether we should start looking at automatic registration. We want to encourage people to register, and we do not want this problem in future. Automatic registration works in other countries, and it can be a better and cheaper system. Will the Minister commit to considering automatic registration when he conducts that post-match analysis? In conclusion, the SNP welcomes the extension to the registration period, and we encourage as many people as possible to take part in the important decision in two weeks.
Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)
Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I shall keep my comments brief. The statutory instrument is a sensible and proportionate measure that is in no way harmful to decent process, as the Minister sensibly set out. It simply picks up and shifts the period, which is a measured way of dealing with this unfortunate problem. I do not like it that the problem has arisen. I was the Minister who introduced online registration, an innovation of which I am very proud, and I wish the system well; we all want to see it functioning properly.
Let us not forget what the alternative to taking this measure would be. It would be to allow an unlawful situation to have persisted from Tuesday night, whereby people with the right to register to vote were denied the ability to do so—and an arbitrary situation also, given that, because of the nature of queueing on a website, it would not be possible to be even-handed towards citizens. It would be deeply ethically wrong to allow such a situation to persist, so we have no alternative but to take this measure.
There is another reason. None of us should accept poor service from the Government towards their citizens—those citizens ought to be the Government’s master—so I greatly respect the ministerial team for their efforts to ensure that public services, digital as well as paper-based, work better for citizens. That is very important.
Wayne David
Does the hon. Lady think it a fair point that the upsurge and crash occurred after the big debate between the Prime Minister and Nigel Farage? Might not the Government have anticipated a surge of interest at that point?
Chloe Smith
The Government have answered that point for themselves many times yesterday and this morning, but I think it was a foreseeable circumstance, what with the TV scheduling and the availability of online registration. I am, however, reassured by what I have heard today about a further multiplication of capacity. It is the right response. As I have said, retrospectively allowing for a further 48 hours—we hope that gets the message out—is a sensible solution.
I offer one more practical thought. If would-be registrants got as far as leaving their contact details on the site before it failed, it might be possible for them to be contacted directly in the remaining hours. I offer that as a suggestion. I know that it will not cover everyone who tried to register on Tuesday night, but it might be possible in some cases, and it would be a sensible thing to attempt, in order to avoid an unlawful or arbitrary loss of those citizens’ rights.
I end with a point that The Economist made last week, in reference to American politics:
“Any political party that hopes for lower turnout has lost its way…lawmakers must decide whether they still believe in the good sense of those they aspire to govern, or whether they lost that faith somewhere on the way to the statehouse.”
That should be the principle in all our hearts, both in this referendum and, crucially, as we go about politics from hereon in.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I am pleased, if not astounded, by the speed at which the Government have moved on this issue. I am grateful for that, and for the Minister’s clear explanation of the reason for the statutory instrument and its purpose. Given that this is the biggest decision for a generation, I believe, like others, that it is essential that as many electors as possible can take part. This is not a general election; it cannot be rerun in five years.
As others mentioned yesterday, there are major implications for the Boundary Commission, so I would like to ask the Minister a very specific question: will there be discussions with the commission as a result of what has happened in the last 24 hours, given that it will clearly have a major impact, as many more constituencies will now have reached the appropriate number of electors?
Chloe Smith
I do not entirely follow the right hon. Gentleman’s logic. If there is only a lift and drop of the same number of days in total, how will that affect the end result for the Boundary Commission?
Tom Brake
The point is that a large number of people not previously registered are registering, which will affect the number of electors in each constituency. This means that the commission is using figures that do not reflect the number of newly registered electors. That is why this is important.
I have a technical question for the Minister. Is it possible that some people who were in the middle of registering when the system crashed were left with the impression that they were registered, and will not find out otherwise until their ballot papers fail to arrive? If so, what is being done about it?
The Minister has rightly said that what happened has allowed us to identify that the final point in the process—the publication of the register—is not a critical point, and that publication could be brought closer to the date of the election. I wonder whether it would be possible to bring it closer still to the election date. If nothing needs to happen after publication, except for local authorities putting copies in the packs for polling stations, why not move it even closer to the date of the election?
Finally, as a result of what happened, there has clearly been some confusion among the electorate generally about whether it is still possible to register up to the end of today. Is there Government funding available that can be used today to ensure that the likes of Facebook and Twitter use the channels by which they can reach a mass audience instantly to make it clear to everybody that they can register until midnight tonight?
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I correct any misinterpretation? Everyone I know in the leave campaign—in Vote Leave, in particular—welcomes the enormous interest and surge in the number of people registering to take part in the referendum. It was clearly imperative that something be done, if possible, to address the anomaly that arose on Tuesday night. I welcome the fact that young people in particular are registering, and I absolutely take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) that anybody in politics who thinks they will thrive on a lower turnout is not thriving in a democracy that we want to be part of.
There will be a time for an inquest, not just by the Electoral Commission or the Government, but by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. We have already pencilled in what we will do in the aftermath of the referendum, to see what lessons should be learned, and in the aftermath of the general election, individual registration and so on.
John Redwood
Is it not particularly important in the case of big national issues, such as whether we want an independent democracy in one country, that the electorate be the one chosen by Parliament? Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there is not proper control over continental Europeans registering and voting in the referendum?
Mr Jenkin
I was going to come to that later but will deal with it now. With individual registration, it is imperative that every new registration is cross-checked with national insurance data and, if necessary, Border Agency data. There is no post-registration audit of electoral registers, so anybody who is mis-registered stays on them. This needs to be looked at, because we have no idea how many non-UK EU nationals not from Malta, Cyprus or Ireland are recorded as eligible to vote and have been sent ballot papers, not because of a software glitch but simply because they were mis-registered, either on purpose or inadvertently. Indeed, one electoral returning officer told a member of the House of Commons Library—off the record—that if somebody lies on their registration form and it cannot be checked, nothing can be done about it. The person still has to be registered. There is no way of cross-checking to find out whether someone has lied.
Mr Hollobone
I am listening to my hon. Friend’s remarks with great care. This is an issue for my constituents, who are really concerned about it. If an EU citizen in the borough of Kettering applies to be on the register but ticks the wrong box—either inadvertently or deliberately—and declares that they are a UK citizen, can that be picked up and the application rejected? I have not yet heard that there is a mechanism for doing that, and certainly not if there are to be 100,000 or hundreds of thousands in just a few hours.
Mr Jenkin
My hon. Friend raises a legitimate question, and we should inquire further into it. There should be a fail-safe way of ensuring that someone is who they say they are when they register their vote. At the moment, there is not. If people on the register now who are registered incorrectly are being sent ballot papers, and if it is not due to a software glitch, there is no way of picking it up.
I have urged the Electoral Commission to make more public statements, because the system now has different franchises for different purposes. Why will there not be notices in polling stations? The electoral officer is bound to offer a ballot paper to someone who is on the register, but a “Read this” notice could make it clear that people who are not eligible to vote but who knowingly do so commit a criminal offence.
Mr Kevan Jones
I accept the point about people filling in the application form without declaring that they are an EU citizen, but if they are an EU citizen they will be marked up as such on the register at the polling station. If they were sent a polling card inadvertently, the clerk would know that they were not entitled to vote.
Mr Jenkin
Not if they were misrecorded—that is the point. We need to make people aware of who is eligible to vote. It would be perfectly reasonable for the Electoral Commission and the Government to make more visible public statements to make it clear that if someone has been offered a ballot paper but is not eligible to vote— and knows it—it is an offence to vote. It is as simple as that. I am not asking polling officers to discriminate when the vote takes place; I am simply asking for more clarification and greater public awareness of who is and is not eligible to vote.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
This is not a new issue. The registers for the Scottish Parliament elections and the local government elections are different from that for the UK general election. We had elections for the Scottish Parliament about a year after the Westminster general election, but the problem highlighted by the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) did not arise—there was not a great deal of confusion. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill.
Mr Jenkin
If the wrong people are able to vote, it is not making a mountain out of a molehill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not want the wrong people to vote, so I am surprised that he does not want the public to have the information that they should have.
The matter before us should not have arisen. It reflects a lack of adaptation, because individual registration has enormously increased the pressure on systems to cope with the problem. The Government were warned by the Electoral Commission and the Public Administration Committee, as it then was, about the consequences of rushing forward with individual registration, however desirable it was. There was a lack of foresight. The Government agreed to spend millions of pounds on promoting registration in the run-up to this poll. Perhaps they should have used publicity to clarify that people did not have to re-register if they were already on the register. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) rightly noted, and as the Minister confirmed, a great number of people registered to vote in this referendum when they were already on the register—perhaps up to 75% of those applying. That is one reason why the system has become clogged up. People have not clearly understood that if they are already on the register, they do not need to re-register. We need to learn from that.
Let us be clear about the consequences. A requirement to change the law when a poll for postal voters has effectively already opened is highly irregular. If this happened in some fledgling democracy in the former Soviet Union or in Africa, what would the observers say about the conduct of the poll? This is a really unpleasant precedent to set in our system, which should be one of the finest democracies in the world. The fact that Ministers have spent so much talking to lawyers underlines the point I made yesterday that this is on the cusp of legality. We are on the edge of what is acceptable. I do not for a moment believe that there will be a legitimate challenge, but the fact that we have to consult lawyers in such detail and so carefully to get this right underlines the pickle that we are in as a result of this lack of foresight and lack of care.
More pressure is being placed on electoral returning officers and electoral administrators. I have heard anecdotally from one authority that “we are near breaking-point”. There are record numbers of postal votes, record numbers of registrations, record numbers of proxies in a massive national poll, on which so much is hanging. The pressure is on them, and this adds to that pressure. We should be mindful of that, thank them for their incredible commitment, which makes our democracy run so smoothly most of the time and wish them well in their tasks.
I extend my best wishes, too, to the Electoral Commission. I and others have criticised it, but it is doing its best under very difficult circumstances. There may be lessons to learn about the future of the Electoral Commission and the future role of the Cabinet Office when we conduct our inquest into this referendum.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I had thought it a unifying point in the debate that we wanted to get the maximum number of people to vote and to be registered in this campaign. What I have just heard from the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), however, is a typical muddying of the waters that we have seen from the leave campaign, even in respect of the facts that we are dealing with. The hon. Gentleman threw out a figure of 75%—I accept that some people will have re-registered without needing to do so—with no evidence to explain where that estimate came from. We must deal with facts.
We have seen in the press that huge numbers of people who are EU citizens and not entitled to vote have obtained voting cards. If they are getting voting cards, there will be an indication on the registrations that they are EU citizens. The register that officers will tick off will show whether people are EU citizens and unable to vote. This attempt to muddy the waters on the legitimacy of the polling is complete nonsense. Attempting to rubbish this referendum even before it starts and using the sort of highly emotive language that we just heard, suggesting that the electoral process would somehow be questionable for a developed state brings no credit to those arguing such a case and is not at all helpful.
I welcome what the Government have done. The upsurge in those wanting to vote in the referendum has been a problem, but we should celebrate it. It is good that people want to vote in this very important referendum. Unlike with a general election, there is no possibility of a change in five years’ time; this decision will guide the future of our nation for many decades to come.
It must be the first time I have ever agreed with a Liberal Democrat, but I agreed with the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) that we must subsequently have an inquiry into whether the increase in registration should be reflected by the Boundary Commission.
Let me knock on the head the nonsense we have heard about 17-year-olds voting. I have been an election agent and a candidate in many elections, and I have never known an election yet in which somebody has not been on the register who should not have been. It happens; it is human nature. If someone who is 17 has been given a poll card and turns up at the polling station, they will not be allowed to vote because their date of birth will appear next to their name. Let us try to clear away the fog that Members are trying to create by suggesting that the process is somehow illegitimate. I do not know whether they are preparing their excuses for the result post-23 June, but the fact is that long-standing mechanisms are in place.
May I ask the Minister one simple question about postal applications? He said that the deadline would be extended until midnight. Will there be any provision for a councillor or returning officer to obtain the applications from the post office before midnight? In most cases, the last post will be during the day, and we do not want large numbers of postal applications to sit in sorting offices if they could be delivered to the returning officer. Could the returning officer, or councillor, arrange with the post office to collect them later in the day? Even if they were collected at five o’clock, at least people would then be registered.
What has happened is unfortunate, but I must give credit to the Government for coming up with a solution. That brings me back to the main point, which is that we must ensure not only that as many people as possible are registered to vote, but that the turnout is as high as possible on 23 June.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I think it is worth pointing out that the reason we are having a referendum at all is that the Conservatives won the last general election. All the Opposition Members who are celebrating this massive increase in registration should bear it in mind that none of this would have happened had they formed the Government following the election.
Mr Hollobone
Because the Labour party would not have agreed to a referendum on our membership of the European Union, and we would therefore not have seen more than 2 million extra people registering. The Conservative victory means that we are a healthier democracy than we could ever have been if Labour had won the election.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is a most assiduous Member of the House, and is also extremely particular about adherence to conventions and scope. I therefore do not encourage him to dilate further upon the point that he has just made. He has made it, but I know that he will now wish to focus on the instrument, and not beyond it.
Mr Hollobone
I am grateful for your wise counsel, Mr Speaker.
The instrument amends the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which specified what we all assumed at the time was the last possible date for registration. One of the worrying aspects of this revision is the fact that we are now being told that it will be possible to register two days after what the Government had told us would be the last possible date. I fear that the Government inadvertently misled the House. Surely, if the aim is to encourage more people to register, it is desirable to specify the last possible date, which is what we have now arrived at by means of the instrument. I urge the Government, when it comes to future elections, to ensure that “the last possible registration date” means precisely that.
I understand that the instrument does not change the postal vote application deadline. There will be instances in which people apply for postal votes without being on the electoral register, and assume that they will be given postal votes because they are registering today. My understanding is that they will not qualify for postal votes, because it is not possible to apply for a postal vote without being registered.
Mr Letwin
I am sorry to intervene, but I think it would be helpful for me to do so at this stage. My hon. Friend has asked a serious question, but what he has said is not accurate. I asked the same question myself, because it is a fine point.
It is not, in fact, necessary to be registered to apply for a postal vote, although it is obviously necessary to be registered in order to receive and exercise that vote. Those who applied for postal votes in time for the postal vote deadline, and are now able to register in time for the new registration deadline, will qualify for postal votes.
Mr Hollobone
I am most grateful for that clarification. We have ended up with the right result, even if it is the wrong way round.
I am concerned about an aspect of student voting, although I hope the Minister will tell me that I have got it wrong. It is great that so many young people are signing up to take part in the referendum, and of course many participants on both sides will be very enthusiastic. First-time voters, in particular, may not appreciate a fairly simple point that many other voters do appreciate, which is that even if people are registered twice, they cannot vote twice. There is a serious point to be made here. My understanding is that voting twice is a criminal offence, and that it is the police who investigate it. I think it would be a great shame if students ended up being investigated by the police because, in their enthusiasm and naivety, they voted twice.
Mr Kevan Jones
It is, again, trying to confuse the situation to say that that will create a problem. How could someone who was registered in Durham—other than by means of a postal vote: I must say that before the hon. Gentleman comes back at me with it—vote in two places on the same date? That is not possible.
There is another point which the hon. Gentleman and other Members have missed completely. When people walk into a polling station, they see a long list of dos and don’ts, and the don’ts include voting twice.
Mr Hollobone
There is a long list of dos and don’ts, but no one reads it, because the type is so small and the notice is so big. It looks like what it is, a load of legalese about the correct procedures. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House and an experienced politician, and he knows about democratic procedures. The serious point that I am making—not from a vote leave standpoint, or indeed from a remain standpoint—is that there will be hundreds of thousands of first-time voters who do not understand registration, and because they realise that they can register at the last minute, they have done so. What I want to avoid is police investigations afterwards because students have made a silly mistake.
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman has no evidence whatsoever that this will be a big problem. He is obviously trying to get a headline into tomorrow’s Daily Mail. As an experienced candidate and an experienced election agent, I can tell him that anyone who is unclear about the rules can always ask the poll clerks, who will explain the process of voting.
Mr Hollobone
I am sure that no students in Durham will be affected by this potential anomaly.
Stephen Gethins
I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the quality of the universities that he knows, or about how fast their battle buses must be to take them from one place to another, but will he at least accept that we should be encouraging students and young people to become involved as a point of principle?
Mr Hollobone
I have already said that twice, but I am happy to say it again. I think it is great that we are seeing loads more people signing up to the electoral register, especially young people. If it were up to the hon. Gentleman’s party, or the other party, we would not be seeing that at all.
The instrument makes it clear that there will be a post-match analysis, and that the Electoral Commission will have to produce a report on the conduct of the referendum. This is a serious point: the Electoral Commission will be writing a report about what the Electoral Commission has done in the referendum. Now, that is fine—that is one piece of evidence—but there is no provision in the statute for another investigation to be conducted.
This is a matter for my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). I think that, whatever the result of the referendum, it will be an urgent priority for his Committee to initiate an investigation of not just this matter, but the way in which the system has worked in general. I understand that there are issues involving the electoral arrangements as a whole—not just registration, but the way in which the referendum is being handled—owing to the scale of the challenge confronting registration officers, and those who conduct the referendum itself. I urge my hon. Friend and his Committee to begin that work as soon as possible after the referendum. The Minister helpfully said that there were 214,000 applications to register in the hour before the crash. I think I am right in saying that the down time of the crash was one hour and a quarter.
Mr Hollobone
Right. None of us knows, but it would be reasonable to assume that about 400,000 possible registrants were not able to register. To make up for this down time—I am not saying that this is wrong; I am just pointing it out—we are effectively extending the registration period for two days. It is very important that Her Majesty’s Government publish the number of registrants in that two-day period. Effectively, they are stopping the registration clock as of midnight two days ago, and they will publish the numbers of applicants for the two preceding days.
Mr Letwin
It may help the House and my hon. Friend if I say that, according to my latest information, there were 242 applications yesterday, which was the first of the two days to which he is referring. That is just over half the number he is talking about across the two days.
Mr Hollobone
I am grateful for that. It is great to have the latest information here in the House.
I close on this point—I keep reiterating it, but, as usual, the Government do not seem to listen—why do we not have the simple system whereby every time a member of the public is in contact with a Government agency of some sort, whether it be a local authority or the benefits department, they are asked the question by a Government official, “Are you on your local electoral register. This is how you apply, and we encourage you to do so.” I do not see why that should be difficult for the Government to organise across Departments, and it would help to minimise the scale of this problem in future.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
I will try to be brief, Mr Speaker.
Whatever we think of the problems that this country has with its relationship with Europe, we certainly have problems with disfranchisement, disengagement and disbelief in the values of what we do in this place and with politics in general. I welcome the fact that we have seen huge numbers of people registering in this process, and the fact that we have extended that process for two days. As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) said, it demonstrates that we could extend the period for voter registration to closer to the date of an election or a referendum. We now have a very good precedent for doing so. For my money, I would also look seriously at 16 and 17 year olds voting, and at compulsory voting. The serious point that I seek to make is that for those of us who favour in principle the idea of online voting, this exercise has demonstrated quite how perilous that transition could be.
Matt Warman
The right hon. Gentleman read my mind.
Although there are many Members across the House who think that online voting is inevitable, it is crucial that, in a world where we cannot get voting in person right in some parts of the country in the 21st century, we conduct sensible small-scale trials of online voting.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in 2004 the Labour Government did a trial of all postal voting, e-voting and other things. It was commended by the Electoral Commission. It was his party and others who argued that fraud could be endemic, and that was why the trial was not taken any further.
Matt Warman
I agree that trials have taken place and that they were a good thing, but they did also demonstrate that the system was not perfect. I do not think that anyone who looked at those trials, which were 12 years ago and which did not use the technology that we would now use, would say that they should have been rolled out across the whole country, because they were not as robust as we would have liked them to be. None the less, it remains the case that online voting is inevitable given the direction in which this country is going. We should look carefully at what that means, but, given the experience of the past 24 to 48 hours, let us bear in mind that if we get things wrong, we risk not only further undermining people’s faith in democracy, but putting ourselves in a position where even fewer people than now would vote, and that would be bad for all of us.
Although I welcome many of the things that we have seen over the past 24 to 48 hours, I urge the Government to seize the opportunity to extend the registration deadline closer to the period of an election or a referendum, to demonstrate the real appetite of people to use the web to get involved in democracy, and to begin those trials into online voting so that we can, over however many years it takes, get to a point where people can use the web to cast their vote and increase turnout overall.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft European Union Referendum (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 8 June, be approved.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask whether you have had any request or indication from a Minister or a Law Officer that it is their intention to come to the House today, or at any time, to make a statement regarding the announcement by the Crown Prosecution Service today that, having considered the case of UK security service personnel and possible involvement in extraordinary rendition of two families to Libya, it has decided not to take proceedings? The press notice issued by the CPS indicates that it has concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support the contention that the suspect had sought political authority for some of his actions. This is the first occasion on which we have had any indication that the Government of the day had any knowledge of what might or might not have been done. Surely this House should be told about that.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise it. The short answer is that I have received no approach from any Minister indicating a desire or intention to make a statement on this matter. Moreover, although a matter of huge interest to him and a great many other people in the House and beyond, it is of course not a matter for the Chair. However, he has put his point very forcefully on the record, and it has been heard by cerebral occupants of the Treasury Bench, and doubtless the thrust of what he has said will wing its way beyond this Chamber to other important persons. We will leave it there for now. I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what we have just heard.
Carers
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered carers.
Imagine a day when 6.5 million people did not turn up to work as expected. They had a duvet day. They went to the beach. They subscribed to Netflix. They did some beauty therapy and some shopping therapy. They went drinking and they had fun—they might have taken a trip to the beach, or had a day at a theme park. What if those 6.5 million people made no arrangements for the care of their loved ones? What if those massive numbers of people simply took a holiday and did not arrange any cover? How many vulnerable people would go unbathed and unfed? How many would be unable to get out of bed to go to the loo? There would be no pills, no jabs, no dressings administered and no GP appointments attended. There would be nobody caring for the people who cannot do it for themselves. How frightening, gravely concerning and inhumane would that be? How many people would die? How many people’s conditions would deteriorate? How would our emergency services cope? Who would pick up the slack if those 6 million carers did not turn up for work one day?
In this country, 1.3 million provide more than 50 hours of unpaid care a week. The care they provide is worth £132 billion a year, which is what the NHS costs us. There are 150,000 doctors in the NHS and 87,000 soldiers in our Army. In Eastleigh, there are more than 10,000 carers, and the same number in Chippenham and Sedgefield. There are more than 8,000 in Stirling and more than 12,000 in North Antrim. An army of carers turns up every day—day in, day out.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. She is right to highlight the financial value of carers. Does she agree that the personal value should also be considered? According to Carers UK, three out of four carers feel that their role is not understood in their community. Does she agree that community support is vital in helping to build carer-friendly communities?
Mims Davies
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am delighted to have secured this debate today to highlight these issues. I know that she works tirelessly in her community to support carers and the people who need them. I agree that there is a human cost and an economic cost to caring.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for being so supportive in ensuring that this important topic gets time in the Chamber. I hope that this will be a wide-ranging debate. I am also grateful to the Government and to the Minister for Community and Social Care, who has been very supportive of my application to hold the debate this week, which is carers week.
We know the value of carers, but do we really understand what is involved? How do you become a carer? A loved one might get older or become disabled. A child might be born with challenges. Someone might experience an unexpected change in their health. There might be a car accident or an incident at work. An operation could go wrong. A mental health challenge could arise, resulting in the need for care. All of a sudden, you become someone who needs to be a carer. How do you manage it?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) has suggested, long-term caring can have a financial and emotional effect on families. It can have an impact on relationships. You lose friends. You lose leisure time. You also lose your freedom. Relationships between husbands and wives change. You become a carer rather than a lover or a friend. The impact of the need for mum or dad or a child to come first means a big change for families. You can develop a fear of the phone. You could be at work, out shopping, doing the chores or walking the dog when you get a phone call to say that something has happened on your caring watch. It is worrying for you as a carer when the phone rings. You are mindful of what damage could be done while you are not there.
Carers week represents an important collaboration by Carers UK, Age UK, the Carers Trust, Independent Age, Macmillan Cancer Support, the Motor Neurone Disease Association and the MS Society. The focus this year is on building carer-friendly communities, and that is why I have tried in my opening remarks to remind people that someone in their lives is taking on the extra responsibility of being a carer. How many hidden carers do Members have in their constituency? Who do we know who is taking on that role? This debate gives us a chance to highlight the need to ensure that all our communities are aware of the work that unpaid carers do. Local GPs should understand the restraints a carer might face—I am aware that GPs themselves face many pressures—and employers should be spearheading flexible working and educating their own organisations to support carers.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate. Does she agree that some of the hidden carers are young people aged 12, 13 or 14? I have met some of them from Staffordshire and they do the most amazing work. They need our support.
Mims Davies
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall go on to discuss the importance of young carers in a moment. More than 700,000 of the 6 million carers in this country are young carers who are taking on at a tender age all the burdens that I have described. This has an impact on their education and their opportunities. Our schools should show understanding and foster an environment in which young people can be carers. They should forge an appreciation of caring in our ageing society. Three in every four carers do not feel that their caring role is understood or valued by their community. It is incredible that we have so much more progress to make before we can live in a truly carer-friendly Britain. I believe that we are now at the start.
As I have said, more than 6 million people in England provide unpaid care, with 1.3 million providing more than 50 hours a week. In my constituency, there are more than 10,000 unpaid carers. We have an army of carers quietly working away looking after their loved ones across this country, and they do it for humane reasons. We do not do enough to support and recognise them. Locally, the loss of respite has been a great cause for concern. Respite offers carers freedom and time to regroup, and a lack of it can be a great concern. Alternatively, the wrong type of respite might be offered or it might be poorly managed. I have heard about such experiences in my constituency surgery feedback.
I thank the volunteers in my constituency who support our carers. The One Community brings together many groups to support each other, including the Age Concern centre, Dementia Friends, the Alzheimer’s group and all the people who help carers by driving their loved ones to hospital or to the GP.
I also want to say thank you to everyone in my constituency who runs a lunch club or a social club, all of which provide important opportunities for social contact.
A recent Carers UK report highlighted the fact that many carers are struggling. Most of us will have to care for someone at some point in our lives, and we want to be able to do that. Three in every five people become a carer at some point. Members of this House and of the other place, and our staff, are carers too.
In leading this debate, I should declare an interest. I was a carer, although I did not realise it. I was a hidden carer. We are nothing if we do not bring our own experiences to bear in our work in the House. I was a “sandwich carer”—that is, someone with small children and older, ill parents. We became so friendly with the local ambulance service that we were on first name terms, and I thank them all for the kindness they showed me and my family. My dad was affected by an incident at work and was cared for by my mother for more than 25 years. That had a massive financial impact on me as I grew up and on our family. And when dad was gone, guess what, mum needed looking after too, because when you are looking after someone you often forget to look after yourself. People can go downhill quite quickly in those circumstances.
I found myself muddling along looking after small children, going to GP surgeries and getting mum up to London, where we struggled on the escalators and on the tube to get to vital hospital appointments. I did not realise that that was an ongoing role for me. I gave up my job and threw myself into it. I remember the phone calls. One came when I was about to go on air at a radio station just before 6 o’clock in the morning. Dad was unresponsive. There had been a problem with his insulin. Luckily, mum was awake because she was going to care for my children, covering for me while I was at work. She was caring for me, I was caring for her, and we were all caring for dad. When the phone rang, I had to drop everything and get there. For me, that was a snapshot of what people are doing day in, day out, and year in, year out. There is no break. If someone is lucky to get one, that is great, but it is still your watch even when they are not with you—are they in the right place?
A particular story that comes to mind was when my dad developed glaucoma as a result of the diabetes that was brought on by the head injury. He was given respite, but at that point he had not told people that he was losing his sight. He was in a respite centre and got lost going to the loo in the middle of the night. He got in the wrong lift and was wandering around a strange place. He was over 70, frightened and concerned though he was meant to be in a safe place. That story meant that no further respite was taken, meaning no further breaks.
I want to move on from my experiences, but please remember that all of us will be doing this. There are people in the House who do it already. I hope that we can recognise and understand the issue.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend allow me to add that each of our offices has caseworkers to whom we should pay tribute for their dedication in trying to help carers and others? That is only one part of carers week, but it is one that should always be remembered. We are grateful to them.
Mims Davies
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. My caseworkers have been into the community, meeting constituents who are unable to come to surgeries or drop-ins. They have been to refuges to see women with difficult disability issues. They are prepared for anything and we would be nowhere without them.
Today’s debate will allow us to realise that caring will only increase in importance. With an ageing population and advances in medical science, we are seeing a steady increase in those who need care and those who are willing and able to provide it. Since 2001, the carer population has grown by a staggering 16.5%. There is a strong economic case for doing more for our carers. The economic value of the contribution made by 6 million carers is £132 billion a year, which is nearly equal to the UK’s total health spend.
As the number of young carers grows to over 700,000, perhaps we need a national day to recognise them and to highlight and support what they do. They look after family members who are physically ill, mentally ill, disabled or perhaps even misusing substances. These young children miss out on many normal childhood experiences that they should be taking part in. Young carers can sometimes be isolated and bullied owing to the pressures they face at home.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that many such carers are hidden and scared of coming forward to seek help? They are worried that they might end up in care themselves because their parents, or their parent, are unable to look after them.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I absolutely agree. Pointing out that there are difficulties at home can be a frightening experience, and young carers may wonder what it will mean for them. It may feel better to say nothing, but that is a frightening place in which to be.
Young carers often miss school days. When they become young adults, they are more likely to drop out of college or be unable to head to university. That is not good enough after all they have put into their families and given the impact on their lives. They need support when helping their loved ones. They display real human decency at such a young age and suffer as a result. We should be nurturing, supporting and applauding our young carers.
The vast majority of carers are of working age. Many of them want to work, and 3 million people juggle full or part-time work with their caring duties. At the House of Commons carers event this week, I spoke to carers who are juggling their desire to do it all and who are not dropping the ball even though their health is often suffering. They are sometimes aware that they are able to care for their loved ones only for a limited time: they need to stay in the workplace for financial reasons. It is often not a choice; it is forced.
It is bad for companies if they lose our carers because the carers feel they have no choice but to walk out the door, which is what I did. If I was not in this place, I would now be without any caring responsibilities—apart from the two small children who do not seem to have been adopted yet, so I have to remember to look after them! I would be looking for a job and would have been out of the workplace for some time.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate today. Does she agree that carers contribute a great wealth of experience and other skill sets to employers that non-carers perhaps cannot?
Mims Davies
Absolutely. Carers have a can-do attitude that they bring to the workplace. If I was rewriting my CV, I would hope to put that on there.
It is bad for carers to fall out of the workplace. When asked about their experiences, the results were astonishing. Over a third of carers felt that their employer simply did not understand their caring role, and a third said that their employer did not have policies in place to support them. Flexible working is a key support mechanism to help carers to do their valuable work. Some progress has been made in supporting flexible or agile working. A limited right to request flexible working was introduced in 2002, and I am pleased that the Children and Families Act 2014 extended that to all employees after 26 weeks. However, given the pressures that carers face, that is not long term enough. The Government need to look to do more. The new legal right also paves the way for a possible culture shift in flexible working, and I want employers to take up the mantle.
It is deeply worrying that there seems to be a strong gender bias, with caring falling mainly on women in their 40s, 50s and 60s. Let us make it acceptable for all to take the time to care. One in four women aged 50 to 64 has caring responsibilities for older or disabled loved ones compared with one in six men, but I have met men in my constituency who have given up their jobs to care. I would like to see that as a real possibility. If someone wants to be there and can be there, it does not matter who they are.
This debate is an excellent opportunity to pay tribute here in the House to the crucial work of carers. Some 20% of carers currently receive no support with their caring work, because they simply have not put their head above the parapet. They do not realise that they are carers, and I know how that feels. Half of carers expect their quality of life to get worse in the next year, which people made clear at the carers event in the House earlier this week. People are concerned that they are not looking after themselves and simply do not know how to facilitate that. The national carers strategy is currently being written, and I am delighted that the Minister has written to me as part of the process and that I am involved. He is allowing time to focus on the matter to ensure that we get it right. I hope that the debate will give hon. Members the chance to set out clearly to the Government and to the country that we are not doing enough for our carers and that they are struggling.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) for securing the debate. I am sure that this is an issue that touches many hon. Members. In my family, my father needs caring for, and the circumstances will be the same for many of us. As our population ages, the situation will only get worse.
I want to focus particularly on carers’ finances, as the struggle that many carers face in making ends meet has been raised with me repeatedly by my constituents, including Graeme McGrory, who cares for his partner Ann, and who has explained to me that the carer’s allowance—the main benefit for carers—is the lowest benefit of its kind. It works out at £1.77 an hour. If we compare that with £7.20 for the national living wage, we can see that there is a huge gap. In a 35-hour week, that gives a difference of £170 a week. I cannot imagine that there are many carers out there who work only 35 hours a week; I imagine most work much longer.
It is not just that the carer’s allowance is so low. The Government also need to make sure that when any changes are made—for example, to the minimum wage— or when any welfare reform is implemented, the impact on carers is properly assessed, so that they are not affected negatively. For example, at the moment the carer’s allowance threshold is £110 a week. Before April, if a carer worked for 16 hours a week on the minimum wage, they would earn £107.20 a week, but the rise in the minimum wage that came in in April means that the same person is now earning £115.20. That is not a lot more, but it is enough to take them above the earnings limit. That puts carers in a difficult position. What are they supposed to do?
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
This has happened to a constituent of mine, and I can tell my hon. Friend what she had to do: she had to drop her working hours from 16 to 15 a week, because working 16 hours a week put her £5.20 over the income threshold and took away every penny of her carer’s allowance. I implore the Minister to look into this, as it would only mean a £5.20 increase in the income threshold for carer’s allowance. I would really appreciate it if he could come back to this issue in his remarks.
Sue Hayman
I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important point. If someone has to choose between cutting back on work or losing their entitlement, they are between a rock and a hard place. I do not want to believe that the Government would want to punish carers in such a way. I agree with my hon. Friend that this needs to be reviewed urgently. I hope that the Minister will consider reviewing the threshold, and that in future any changes will be considered from the perspective of the impact on people in receipt of carer’s allowance, to ensure that they do not suffer unnecessarily.
There was the same problem of the Government not looking at the impact of new policies on carers when the bedroom tax was introduced. The Government introduced the change without considering the impact on carers, and without properly understanding why a spare bedroom can be so vital for families with a disabled, chronically ill or terminally ill member.
These are the reasons carers are struggling so much to cover basic living costs. That is particularly hard when family members have had to cut back on working hours to care for somebody; often, they will have given up well-paid careers. If the person being cared for has also had to give up their job—for example, because of an accident at work—that means that the family has to cope with a really steep drop in income. On top of that, if the family have children or are caring for elderly relatives, they are under a lot of stress and pressure. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, carers do society a huge service, saving all of us taxpayers a lot of money—an estimated £132 billion a year. If carers were to go on strike—perhaps they should if they want to get attention—imagine the impact on the NHS and local authorities. The people they care for could not just be abandoned.
The Government need to commit to helping, and to improving dramatically the situation for many carers. They also need to recognise that this dramatic loss of income often leaves carers with an increase in other costs. Carers UK’s recent inquiry found that carers can face higher utility bills, transport costs and shopping bills. On top of that, they might also need to bear the cost of adaptions in the home. The recent report by the New Policy Institute found that there are now 1.2 million carers living in poverty. That is simply not good enough.
If we consider ourselves to be decent, compassionate people; if we believe in society and community; and if we recognise that any one of us here might become a full-time carer, or might need care, we must pledge to do more. We must come together to support carers, who do such an important job in our society and who are often exhausted, both physically and emotionally. We have to say: enough is enough. It is time that the Government stopped the shameful situation in which carers and their families are pushed into poverty. It is time that we all said, “Enough.”
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Many people think of carers as a small but dedicated group, yet as we have heard today, as many as three in five people will be carers at some point in their life. There are an estimated 50,000 carers in Wiltshire alone—roughly 10% of our county’s population—and 3,000 of those are under the age of 24. Mr Deputy Speaker, you or I could be a carer one day, but chances are that we would not realise our role. We would just think that we were caring for our loved ones. Some 70% of carers in Wiltshire continue to remain hidden, and it is believed that many of those people do not understand or recognise their caring status.
That is why this week and this debate are so important, and I applaud my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) for securing the debate. I also thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. We need to work together to raise the profile of these silent heroes, these astonishing individuals who give and give, time and again. Carers enable hundreds of my constituents to continue to live in their own home. Let us face it: without carers, our NHS would not cope, our care homes would be flooded, and the independence of thousands would be compromised. The care provided, unpaid, by the nation’s carers is worth an estimated £119 billion a year, but their role in our community and economy is invaluable.
I was delighted that the Government made an additional £400 million available to the NHS between 2011 and 2015 to provide carers with the breaks that they need from their caring responsibilities, and that we are developing a new national carers strategy to look at what more can be done for existing and future carers. That highlights an understanding and, importantly, appreciation of the role. Fundamentally, it shows the importance of caring for carers.
The charity sector plays a crucial role in enabling carers. An excellent example is the Independent Living Centre in Semington in my constituency, a charity that offers first-class impartial advice, and solutions for easier living. A support network is equally essential for carers. It can be an isolating role, and one about which non-carers often know little and have little understanding. In a study of more than 6,000 carers, half had let a health problem go untreated, or seen their mental health get worse, as a direct result of the time and effort that they had put into caring for their loved ones.
Fun4All is an impressive local charity in Chippenham. One of its aims is to improve the health and wellbeing of carers by providing social events and breaks, and crucially, it forges a network between carers. I attended one of its fish-and-chip lunches with entertainment, and I can assure the House that it is certainly fun for all.
Also based in my constituency is Carer Support Wiltshire, with whom I have volunteered. I saw at first hand its extremely high level of work and dedication, and its enormous impact on the lives of so many local people. Its role as a charity locally cannot be overstated. It helps carers to access support, services, education and training, as well as breaks from their caring role. This Sunday, it is organising an awareness and fundraising event called “Walk a mile in my shoes” in Chippenham. Last year it proved very successful. I look forward to participating once again, and wish it success.
A key hurdle for carers, as we have heard, is juggling their caring role with employment. Last year we made a massive leap forward when we extended to carers the right to request flexible working arrangements to help them balance work and care; but many problems remain, and it is still a huge challenge to balance the two. It is often about having the ability to cope, but also a level of understanding from the employer.
Carer Support Wiltshire has devised a scheme intended to raise awareness and understanding among employers. It has a strategic arm dedicated to that. I have worked with it on this, and although the strategy is in its early stages, it is a blueprint that could be replicated throughout the country. Employers need to understand the benefits that carers offer and not see them only as a strain on their business. It is important to stress that the issue of supporting carers needs to be targeted nationally and locally, and within the voluntary sector.
Nationally, the Care Act 2014 gave carers fundamental legal rights, and I hope that the national strategy will directly challenge the problems that carers face. Specifically, I hope that we will look at supporting more training opportunities locally to ensure that those in a caring capacity always have the confidence, abilities and skills to perform their role.
Wiltshire Council is finalising its local strategy on carers, which will bring many organisations together to support carers. A variety of services are already in action in my constituency, such as complementary therapies, outings, trips, counselling, befriending services, talk and support services, carers’ cafés—the list is endless, but still much more work is needed.
Fundamentally, there is a complete and utter lack of understanding of the role of carers and the support available. I have seen that time and again in my constituency surgeries. Very many constituents have come to me, complaining that they are struggling, stressed, worried. They do not know what benefits they are entitled to. If I had £1 for every time someone has come to me who is entitled to the carer’s allowance but does not realise it, I would have sent out a lot more leaflets by now. We need to address this head-on. We need to go even further, and I am confident that the national strategy will encompass strenuous efforts to address the awareness and entitlement issues.
Many of the constituents who come to me are pensioners, and they do not realise that if their state pension falls below the amount of the carer’s allowance, they are in effect entitled to a top-up. Alternatively, if they are not in that bracket, they have what is defined as an “underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance”, which means that when they are means-tested, that is reviewed. I mention these entitlements today because I am convinced that it is important to stress them, and to get the message out to any elderly carers who are watching.
Mims Davies
My hon. Friend hit the nail on the head when she talked about the importance of better communication—of communicating to carers who feel isolated and vulnerable about the support that is available and the opportunities to make things better. As a result of today’s debate and through the Minister, we could look at communicating better with that group of people.
Michelle Donelan
I thank my hon. Friend. I could not agree more with her comments today. Another thing that concerns me deeply is that it is very easy to stereotype a carer, yet the reality is very different from the stereotype. The 2011 census identified 166,363 young carers under the age of 18 caring for a family member or friend; more than 110,073 were under 16. The real figure, allowing for hidden carers, is very much greater. Yes, the Children and Families Act 2014 extended the right to an assessment of support needs to all young carers under the age of 18; and since 2010 the Government have created specific training guides for teachers and teaching staff, to enable them to identify and support young carers.
However, there is still a big problem, which we need to face up to. Around one in 20 young carers regularly miss school because of their caring role. Young carers often get lower grades; a recent survey showed their most common grade at GCSE to be D. Young carers are twice as likely as their peers not to be in education, employment or training. They are therefore more entitled than other groups to the support that we can offer. That is why it would be completely wrong for me not to stress that I completely and utterly support the campaign to allow the pupil premium to show its understanding of the stresses, strains and pressures on young people who are carers. Does not a young carer, like any other young person, deserve the best shot at life, the best chances, the best opportunities? It is extremely hard to be a carer at any age. Imagine combining that with struggling to cope with schoolwork, GCSEs or A-levels, while growing up. Imagine the impact of that—the emotional pressure it would create. In this country we have a pupil premium, which is designed to develop a level playing field. Surely it is time that young carers were allowed on the pitch too.
National Carers Week is all about highlighting the silent heroes, of all ages, in our community, whose dedicated love keeps people safe, secure and often living in their own home. Without them, the economy and the community that we all love in our constituencies would collapse. Today, I hope that we help raise awareness and understanding, show our support, and highlight the different ways that we can improve and develop our national strategy.
I would like to finish by thanking each and every carer in my constituency and in the country for all their hard work.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
According to the family resources survey, there are at least 5.3 million informal carers in the UK, although the number might be higher. There are thought to be more than half a million carers in Scotland, 10,000 of whom are in my constituency. The good news for carers is that, under the Scotland Act, benefits for carers, disabled people and those who are ill are being devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
The UK Government are renowned for their disregard for the disabled. Disabled people have already taken a cut to their benefits, which will affect their ability to live independently, and consequently the support they require from carers. Those cuts not only affect the livelihood of disabled people but their carers, who will be impacted too by the overall cut in support for the person they care for.
The Scottish Government’s approach to social security recognises the need to ensure that disabled people and their carers are fully supported with dignity and respect. It is estimated that unpaid carers in Scotland save the Scottish economy almost £11 billion a year, so it is little surprise that the Scottish Government see social security as an investment in the people of Scotland. Unpaid carers are the backbone of community care, and play an indispensable role in supporting the needs of their loved ones, often at an enormous cost to their own health and wellbeing.
I often think “carer” seems a tiny, inconsequential word that is in total contrast to the reality of being a carer. What does being a carer mean? A carer is a personal assistant, undertaking duties such as washing and dressing, morning and night. A carer is a medic, administering medication, assessing health needs and determining whether to seek medical assistance. A carer is a cleaner, dealing with multiple changes of clothes throughout the day and cleaning up accidental spillages. A carer is a risk assessor, carrying out health and safety checks to ensure that the person they are caring for is in a safe environment—for example, away from kettles and cookers—and cannot wander out the front door. A carer is a driver, to the numerous health and hospital visits. An outing, however small, is not like an outing that you or I would have. It is essential to be ready for all eventualities—medication, if it should be taken at a certain time; emergency changes of clothing.
A carer is a negotiator, collaborating with the many services that are now part of their life. A carer is a cook and a waitress or waiter, ensuring that the person they care for has tasty, appetising meals even when their appetite is diminished. A carer is a friend who is there to listen and offer support, particularly when things are difficult. A carer is on constant night shift, sleeping with one eye and one ear open to make sure that nobody has got up during the night. A carer is an entertainer, looking for ways to brighten the day, and a Philadelphia lawyer to cope with and understand the mountain of paperwork that comes with the role and the services involved. A carer has to be strong, both emotionally and physically. That list is not exhaustive but, as hon. Members can see, the small word “carer” does not quite cut it.
Having cared for my lovely father, who has dementia and Alzheimer’s, I have first-hand experience of the juggling act that carers have to perform every single day. It is exhausting, mentally and physically, and often it is impossible to predict what will happen from one day to the next, which is why the support services are so important for carers. The fantastic East Ayrshire Carers Centre in my constituency provides invaluable respite breaks to carers, allowing them to recharge their batteries and continue caring. It also offers training for young carers.
As we have heard, young carers may struggle to balance caring with being at school and often feel isolated, and they do not have the same recreational opportunities as their peers. This can impact on the opportunities open to them when they leave school. The Dalmellington carers centre offers work placements to young people to give them skills, experience and the confidence to find work, but those skills and experience are of no use if employers are not able to offer flexible working patterns.
It is not just young carers who are affected. The majority of carers are of working age. Carers UK estimates that the economic value of the contribution made by these carers is £132 billion a year. However, according to the New Policy Institute, more than 2 million of them are living in poverty. Almost 1.5 million people of working age spend at least 20 hours a week caring for someone, and more than a third of them are living in poverty. As demand for care continues to increase—and as the state pension age rises—the pressures of managing care and work are becoming a reality for more and more people.
Working-age adults with substantial care commitments are sacrificing their income from employment to undertake unpaid care. Many are forced to give up work entirely. Women take on a disproportionate responsibility for care in the UK, which is further widening the gender pay gap and increasing inequality between men and women. Caring falls particularly on women in their 40s, 50s and 60s. Research in 2012 found that women were four times more likely than men to give up work because of multiple caring responsibilities. Women pay a high price for time taken out of work, and this disadvantage persists well beyond the years they spend caring. Breaks in employment and part-time work have a long-term impact on women’s incomes across their lifetime, on their ability to progress in the workplace, and on their ability to save for their retirement.
A lack of carer-friendly workplace policies means that an increasing number of employees, more often than not women, are forced to either give up work at the peak of their careers or move to part-time working. Just last year the Prime Minister pledged to end the pay gap within a generation. If this Government are serious about tackling the pay gap, employment law needs to respond to the increases in unpaid caring. The extent to which the labour market is able to accommodate people with caring responsibilities is important. We have a responsibility to break down the barriers to carers’ access to employment opportunities. Increasing the availability of quality part-time, flexible work, as well as raising the awareness of the right to request flexible working, would be important steps towards supporting carers to enter employment that suits their needs.
There has been a tendency in the UK to see part-time working as the only solution to balancing employment with caring responsibilities, but part-time work means limited promotion and progression opportunities, and is much more likely to be available only in low-skill, low-pay sectors. Whereas women dominate part-time work, uptake is more evenly balanced between men and women where flexible working is available. I acknowledge that the Government have extended the right to request flexible working, but there are no policies in place to address the lack of jobs being advertised with that as an option.
In conclusion, this Government appear to accept the benefits of flexible working, but are doing little to expand its use as a mainstream employment model. If the Government are truly committed to supporting the ability of carers to work, they need to do more to address the issue of access to flexible work, supported by carer’s allowance and other benefits.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I am delighted to take part in today’s proceedings and I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) on securing today’s debate. I thank her, the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) for sharing their personal experiences. I am not a carer myself, but I have close family members who require care and I recognise the stresses that have been described.
The motion asks us to consider carers and their contribution to society. This debate has been organised to coincide with carers week, when we celebrate carers and thank them for the vital role they play in society. Carers not only perform an important role for the person whom they look after, but their selfless acts help ease the demand on our public services. Across the UK, this unpaid care is worth an estimated £100 billion each year. I often wonder what would happen to our public services if our unpaid carers decided not to continue to provide the care that they do. How would we respond to that?
Carers week is very worthwhile, but we as parliamentarians fail carers and those they look after if we debate, celebrate and take note of carers’ issues only in this week. This is just a normal week for our carers. I do not doubt that carers value our thanks and appreciation, but after speaking to a number of carers in my constituency, I know that some of them tend to avoid carers week. They are desperate for more than the usual “unsung heroes” soundbites or the “pat on the back” platitudes. This should be a week of celebration and thanks, but more importantly this should be a week when we talk with, not to, carers in order better to understand the experiences that come from being a carer.
As I said, I am not a carer and I do not pretend to know all the issues facing carers. Nevertheless, I have pledged to fight the corner for carers as I sincerely and honestly have the utmost respect for them. When I was first elected, I quickly set up 13 surgeries a month, one of which is a specific monthly carers surgery at Renfrewshire Carers Centre, which allows me to hear at first hand some of the issues and challenges that carers face. There are more than 9,000 known carers in my constituency and these surgeries can be heart wrenching, but they also motivate me to do more to help ease the burdens that our carers face daily.
My constituency office is only too well aware of the challenges and struggles that carers face, as one of my staff members, Lynn Williams, recently had to resign from her post in order to care for her husband full-time. This was a real blow for the office, because Lynn was, as we say in Scotland, a well kent figure in the caring and voluntary sectors. After three years working for the Princess Royal Trust for Carers and lobbying to improve the lives of carers, she went on to be asked to join the Scottish Government’s welfare expert working group, all the while combining full-time work with caring for her husband.
We often talk about the £100 billion a year that carers save the UK economy, but very rarely do we talk about the economic loss that occurs when our talented people such as Lynn are forced to leave the economy because of caring commitments. Carers UK and Age UK estimated that in 2012 £5.3 billion was wiped from the UK economy as a result of the lost earnings of carers giving up work to care. At a time when austerity is gripping our economy, it makes no sense whatever that we allow such a significant amount to be lost to our economy.
There is a clear and urgent need to reform the current care and support system to ensure that hard-working individuals are not forced to leave the workplace. We also need to create a working environment that raises awareness of the challenges that carers can encounter. I want to see an environment where employers are aware of the struggles and demands that carers face, and thus create a flexible working environment that can deal with those caring responsibilities. I support the Carer Positive scheme, which seeks to recognise employers who support carers. Around one in seven people in the workforce will have a caring responsibility, and with the number of carers expected to increase, we need to encourage more organisations to operate flexible working environments for carers. This will be good for business, good for the economy, and good for carers and the people they care for.
In Scotland, the SNP Government have a strong track record of working with carers to help develop policies that make carers’ lives that bit easier. We have invested around £114 million in programmes to support carers—more than ever before. A £13 million short break fund has provided around 15,000 carers and cared-for people with the opportunity to relax without feeling stress or guilt. The Carers Parliament has been established to provide carers, young carers and carer representatives from across Scotland with the opportunity to discuss and debate matters important to them.
My first ever speech to an SNP conference—to 3,000 people in Glasgow, incidentally—was about carers. In it I called for carer’s allowance to rise at the very least to match jobseeker’s allowance. As a bare minimum, our carers deserve parity with other income replacement benefits. I was therefore delighted when, just a few weeks later, the Scottish Government announced that, with new powers over social security, they would do precisely that—a commitment that will benefit carers by nearly £600 a year. I am aware, however, that many carers do not believe that this increase in carer’s allowance is enough, and they have a strong case. I hope that this is only a start and that the debate is now open about how we value and reward caring in Scotland.
Furthermore, only today the Scottish Government announced, through their newly appointed Social Security Minister, Jeane Freeman, that they intend to consult on a young carer’s allowance, stating:
“It is unfair that some young people who have the responsibility and pressure of caring for a loved one may experience financial difficulties. That is why we will now consider whether a Young Carer’s Allowance could bridge that gap in support.”
I call on the UK Government to match the increase in carer’s allowance in Scotland and to consider a young carer’s allowance, to ensure that carers both young and old right across these islands can benefit.
I am under no illusion that there is much more that we can and should do to help improve the lives of our carers. I am sure that I am not the only Member who has been keeping an eye on #RealCarersWeek, which has been trending on Twitter. This hashtag has provided a glimpse into the lives and struggles of our carers. Tweets have been posted raising awareness of the endless bureaucracy and form-filling, which other Members have alluded to. They refer to the sleepless nights and endless visits to GPs and hospitals, and to the lack of appreciation that certain Governments have for the role that carers provide for our society. Unfortunately, there have been many disgusting responses from some ignorant and small-minded people, many of whom, ironically, will require care at some point in their lives. When politicians rightly tweet their support for carers week using #CarersWeek, I strongly encourage them to read some of the tweets under #RealCarersWeek as well.
I want to challenge the UK Government directly on the pain that their polices are causing in the lives of carers and those they care for. The Government may want to hide behind soundbites such as “hard choices”, “fairness” and “empowering the claimant.” However, they are only soundbites that attempt to justify the pain and stress that is being caused. Carers are exhausted with the endless form-filling that they are expected to undertake, or the lack of appreciation that they receive. However, the biggest stress that they experience is seeing their loved one have to deal with their own personal pain. They are angry with the effect that personal independence payment assessments—often pointless but always demeaning—are having on the quality of life of the people they care for.
I am sure that I am not the only one who was upset and angry after reading The Guardian article that suggested that 500 adapted cars, powered wheelchairs and scooters are being taken away from disabled people each week. The article, by Dr Frances Ryan, states that PIP is a disaster for disabled people and asks whether welfare reform is becoming dangerous for them. I will let others make their own conclusions, but forcing 500 disabled people each week to become housebound is not productive for the person directly affected, for their carer, or indeed for the economy.
While it is right that we take time properly to thank and credit carers for the role they perform in society, let us give carers what they really want: a commitment from parliamentarians of all persuasions that we will listen to them, work with them and deliver for them.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) not only for securing the debate, but for bringing to the Chamber her powerful experiences and sharing them with us. I also want to thank the Minister for all that he does to ensure that carers are given the support they need and deserve.
I want to sign up to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) that we should extend the pupil premium to all young carers. There are 160,000 young carers whose life chances are disadvantaged by the amazing duty that they perform. Extending the pupil premium to all those young people seems to me to be a very fair exchange for all that they do.
Looking at the other end of the age spectrum, 28% of my constituents in Bexhill and Battle are over 65. By comparison, the national average is 17%. Accordingly, I have a very high number of older carers in my constituency. That is what I want to focus my contribution on today. The 2011 census revealed that there are over 1.8 million carers aged 60 and over in England—almost 16% of the population in that age range. The number of carers aged 85 and over grew by 128% in the past decade, according to a report published last year by Carers UK and Age UK, and it is expected to double over the next 20 years, according to a Government report from 2014.
East Sussex has the highest proportion of over-85s in the UK. Again, that group will be highly pertinent to my constituency. Supporting this army of carers is absolutely essential if we are to ensure that our NHS continues to function. Given the Government’s welcome desire to support keeping people at home in their advancing years, rather than placing them in hospital, that support is even more important. I welcome the passing, by this Government when in coalition, of the Care Act 2014. The Act granted significant new rights to carers in England and placed duties on local authorities to ensure that support is delivered, advice is given and information is provided. It also placed a duty on NHS bodies to co-operate with local authorities in delivering Care Act functions, which, if the clinical commissioning groups in East Sussex can work as a whole, will lead to a “Better Together” integrated health system in East Sussex.
I am conscious that the delivery of those rights is contingent on local authorities having the necessary financial resources in place. I welcome the devolution of business rates to my county, but the yield in East Sussex is low and the demands from a population with above-average ageing is high. Our county will need more time to deliver and more investment in infrastructure to attract new businesses to the coast if this is going to provide for carers and other groups who need local authority finance and support.
I welcome the new 2% levy that local authorities can apply to council tax, provided that it is spent on adult social care. While I champion the rights of carers within the home, many carers are caring for loved ones who reside in care homes due to complex or advanced needs. It is absolutely essential that those carers have the comfort of knowing that their loved ones will be well cared for when they are not in the home to deliver it. I have championed the care home industry, which features heavily in my constituency. Funding them properly via the new 2% levy will, I hope, result in better Care Quality Commission ratings than those that have been awarded following recent investigations.
Across East Sussex, 60% of our care homes were found to be inadequate or needing improvement. It concerns me greatly that, because of these poor ratings, many of our carers may choose to soldier on at home when a care home would be the better choice for their loved ones. All the care homes that I have visited in my constituency have been fantastic. It is important that those that need to improve do so with the extra funding that the Government have procured.
In a rural constituency such as mine, social isolation can be a particular concern. This is exacerbated for older carers looking after loved ones. According to a report published in 2011, more than two thirds of older carers reported not getting breaks away from caring at all, with a further third getting a break only once every two or three months, or less. Let me therefore take this opportunity to thank all those constituents who do so much to give carers a break. While I am at it, let me name-check my mother and my two sisters, who regularly host teas at home attended by carers who do not get the chance to get out of the house and get looked after by someone else for a change. While it is right to look to the Government to be the ultimate support, very often it is the community and their acts of kindness, via visits, conversations, moral support and basic errands, who improve the welfare and wellbeing of our elderly carers. I salute all those who do it.
I am keen for the Government to look at the following suggestions that were made to me by the fantastic Care for the Carers team in East Sussex. First, we should help national partners reach more carers. Would it be possible to make it a duty for the NHS to identify carers, in the same way that the Care Act does for local authorities? Secondly, we should ensure that carers have good support. Would it be possible to ensure that local authorities do not charge carers for the support that they are entitled to? East Sussex is currently not charging carers, which I recognise and celebrate.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point about the NHS having a duty to identify carers. I have tried three times to introduce that in a private Member’s Bill, so I am really pleased to find support for it among Conservative Members.
Huw Merriman
I am pleased, as a novice in the House, that there is agreement across the House on that cause.
Thirdly, there should be help for carers in complex situations—those caring for people with dementia or mental health problems. It seems to me to be an obvious ask to promote good practice recommendations to commissioners and health professionals and to promote it in national policy making.
Finally, I thank and express huge admiration for all those who care for others in my constituency and beyond. I know that they seek little praise, but it is right that we should praise them this afternoon.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
I am very pleased to speak on this subject, which covers so many areas. I am especially pleased to support the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) in this debate, which I thank her for bringing forward. I also support her call for a young carers day, which is essential, and I congratulate her on that idea.
I was never involved in this field in my time as a councillor and in the Northern Ireland Assembly, so all I have learned about it has been through the casework in my constituency offices. I thank all my staff, who have dealt with everything and pulled this together. They are just a small group of all those who work every day in our offices to help everyone concerned.
In learning on the job, I have also learned about the policy changes. In Northern Ireland, two policy changes have suddenly thrown up different things. One was the closure of residential homes. It seemed right to move people to be looked after at home, but at the same time it actually took away some people’s chances of respite when their loved ones stayed in a residential home. At times, we need to rethink what we are doing. The other involved the mental health hospital that kept trying to send home one person who was having great difficulties. His family could not cope, however, and he eventually drowned himself after putting on his waders and walking into the local reservoir.
We all need to be aware—this week has been quite fantastic in making people aware—of how hard everyone is working in the caring industry. I have been hugely impressed by those, whether the families, the neighbours, the community or all the organisations in our constituencies, who are pulling together to provide help. I have been horrified just as much, however, by the stories I have read this week and heard about at other times through my offices. There are stories about those who have very little support, and about the sacrifices they have had to make in using their savings, selling their house, losing their job and all the awful things that go just because they are doing what is absolutely right in looking after their loved ones.
In Northern Ireland, there are some 220,000 carers—that figure has gone up nearly 20% in the past 10 years—which is one in eight of the population. Some 30,000 people care for more than one person, and some 26% of carers provide more than 50 hours of care a week. I am sure the figures are no different in all the other constituencies, but this debate today, and this week, is for getting across our points about the importance of carers. In 2016, it is estimated that carers in Northern Ireland save the state £4.6 billion. A massive amount is going on—I will not steal all the statistics from my colleague, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I know has many more to cite—but I want to congratulate and salute all those involved.
From what I have learned this week, I believe that if we are to adopt the national strategy for carers, it needs to be pulled together into a longer-term strategy in the same way as happened with pensions. Caring covers many other fields, so a strategy needs to be worked out with those fields so that everything is joined up and they all work together. My age-old point is that it is phenomenally important to get all the countries in the United Kingdom working together.
One thing was really brought home to me during the particularly cold spell in Northern Ireland some five years ago when I was working with Home-Start to help families in Antrim. I think it was 18° below, and it came down to a heat or eat choice for some families so, by pulling together with local businesses, we helped to get food for people. The next day, those who delivered it said that two of the families broke down in tears when the food was brought to their doors because they had been pushed right to the limit. That is the sort of story we should take away from today.
There are so many points to mention, including about helping carers to be recognised by everyone and getting employers to be more flexible in looking after them with, for example, a tapering pay limit. So many things are now coming out, and this week has been fantastic in teaching all of us, so I congratulate everyone involved. I thank hon. Members for listening to me.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, and to thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) for bringing it forward for us all to participate in. This is the second such debate that she has led on this subject, and we look forward to many more on similar subjects in times to come. I also thank all those who have spoken—I understand that I will be the last to speak from the Back Benches before the shadow Minister and the Minister. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) has just nipped out, but I look forward to her speech, and I very much look forward to the Minister’s. I have honestly found the shadow Minister and the Minister to be compassionate—we have a compassionate shadow Minister and a compassionate Minister—and I am convinced that their responses will both focus on the issues we have raised and those that it is important for us to be involved with.
Carers UK estimates that there are some 6.5 million carers in the UK. Over 1 million people in the UK say that they are supporting or caring for family members who have an illness that is terminal, which is also an issue. To put those figures into perspective, there are two carers for every person who died last year in the United Kingdom. Statistically, that is a massive figure. It is estimated that the NHS saves some £11.6 billion each year because of these unsung heroes. We have used that expression often today, but just because we use it often does not mean that it is any less appropriate. Their contribution as volunteer carers is immeasurably valuable.
Carers may end up providing more than 100 hours of care per week. From my knowledge of those who come to see me and those with whom I have worked in my constituency, I know that 100 hours per week is a low estimate. For some of them, caring is a 24/7 exercise, such are the medical and health difficulties of those for whom they care. All too often the outside world is completely oblivious of their efforts. Even those who know carers may be oblivious, because they do not always know what is happening once the door is closed and the carer is left alone to look after the cared for. We do not know what happens behind those closed doors.
I believe that employers are forcing some workers to forgo promotions. That is clearly stated in the background information that has been provided, on which I congratulate those in the Library. Its staff are not often thanked for what they do, but the background information they have provided—the stats and the paperwork—is very detailed and informative, and they deserve to be congratulated on how well they have prepared us for this debate.
Carers have said that they have had to forgo promotions, reduce working hours or leave work altogether. More than a third of them do not feel comfortable at work talking about caring, just over a third say their employer does not understand their caring role and exactly a third say their employer does not have policies in place to support carers. Some 60% of carers have given up work or reduced their hours to provide care, 25% have been unable to pursue or have had to turn down a promotion, 37% say their work has suffered and 42% say they have struggled financially. These are not just figures; these are people’s lives.
The figures illustrate very clearly what the issues are. Some 55% of carers have struggled financially, as it says in the background information. My colleague, the hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan), mentioned that. I suppose all MPs have personal knowledge of this, but we are certainly aware of how carers are struggling in Northern Ireland. Some 72% of carers have given up work or reduced their hours. Again, these figures tell us where the problems are.
As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, Carers Week is being supported by all the health organisations, including Age UK, the Carers Trust, Independent Age, Macmillan Cancer Support, the Motor Neurone Disease Association, and the Multiple Sclerosis Society. I work with these organisations almost every day of the week. They are household names, unfortunately, because of the level of problems that we have across the whole of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.
A subject close to my heart, as is the case for many of those here, is dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. A few months ago, we had a debate on that in Westminster Hall. I have not experienced it personally in my family, but I have certainly experienced it through meeting some of my constituents and their families. It is hard to explain to anyone who has not experienced it. These are very delicate issues to address; they are not just physical but emotional and mental. I have seen people with dementia who can often, unknowingly, become agitated or even violent. Night-time wandering can have a serious impact on carers’ sleep patterns, let alone the sufferer’s. Many people out there require someone close to them to give up much of their lives to provide the care that they need. Sleep patterns are just the tip of the iceberg.
I commend the groups in my area, particularly some of the church groups. For example, a Church of Ireland church, St Mark’s in Newtownards, has a group for the whole of Ards and North Down where people with dementia and Alzheimer’s come together to do painting and crafts. Music is a wonderful thing for helping those with dementia and Alzheimer’s. It helps to relax them, and for some people it takes them back to where they were many years ago—to their youth and their childhood.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking movingly about the challenges that dementia sufferers and their carers face. This week the Carers Trust raised with me concerns about patchy levels of support in dementia care around the country. Does he agree that local authorities need to go out and learn from best practice around the country, such as the church groups in his constituency and the successful dementia gateways in Dudley, to make sure that more carers and more dementia sufferers can receive the support they so desperately need?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I wholeheartedly agree; I think we all do. Those of us who are aware of this issue will understand the importance of all these groups. The issue that he touches on was frequently mentioned in the debate in Westminster Hall. Some 38 Members were involved in that debate, and it got a massive response. I thank him for his very important words.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh referred to young carers, as have other hon. Members. Crossroads Young Carers in Newtownards has been around for many years. We have a massive number of young carers in my constituency alone. I was rather shocked to find that they were so numerically strong. That illustrated to me the importance of the role of these schoolchildren, sometimes even primary schoolchildren, who almost become old before their time in looking after parents and family. The Carers Trust says that 80% of young carers miss out childhood experiences. They grow up before their time. They miss out on the leisure, the fun and the nights out with friends because they are looking after their mum, dad, brother, sister, or whoever it may be. They are almost hidden carers in the job that they do. I recognise the good work that Crossroads Young Carers does in my constituency.
We need an awareness campaign about carers so that they are no longer the unsung heroes but become the recognised heroes that they should be, not just in this House but in all our constituencies across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Too often, carers are left to suffer in silence. The services on offer are not publicised enough and, sadly, too often are not up to standard either. When we read the background material that explains some of the everyday events that carers have to deal with, we get a feeling for and an idea of what they endure each day. I am not sure whether this has been mentioned yet, but, if not, it needs to be put on the record: many carers suffer from bad health themselves as a result of looking after others. In an intense situation, looking after someone 24/7, they need some time to switch off—their brain and their body have to get a bit of rest. It is very important every now and again to get a weekend, or even an hour or two, away from it all.
The main social security benefit available to carers is carer’s allowance. This is for someone who provides more than 35 hours of care a week, and it entitles them to only £62.10. Furthermore, carers may incur sanctions on how much they can earn on top of the allowance. Dementia carers save the NHS more than £11 billion per year, to put a financial cost on it, yet they get only £62.10 per week for giving up their lives for someone less fortunate. I know that the Minister’s Department is not responsible for that, but, with respect, it is not a good reflection on Government, given the hours that carers spend on caring. I recognise that times are tough financially. You cannot produce a high-quality suit if you have low-quality cloth, and the same thing applies to finances. We therefore have to be realistic about what we can do, but it must be highly insulting to carers to see some of the things happening in the news when they are getting only £62.10 per week. Although the Minister is not responsible for benefits, could he give some pointer for carers with regard to benefits advice? I give them benefits advice when they come to my office. To be fair, the benefits system is very responsive. We just have to point people in the right direction and show them the right opportunity. Perhaps there is a role for Government in that. I understand that our colleagues in Scotland have considered upping the carer’s allowance. That was discussed in our debate on dementia and Alzheimer’s.
Carers UK calculates that the value of unpaid care is some £132 billion each year—the equivalent of NHS spending. Although it is hard to calculate how much of this relates to people who care for someone who has a terminal illness, research has found that carers who look after someone with one of the four most prevalent cancers—lung, breast, colorectal or prostate—provide care worth £219 million per year: a third of the total of end-of-life care costs. Providing end-of-life care—that difficult time for people emotionally and physically—saves the NHS a massive amount of money as well. Other people have referred to personal things in families. My mother looked after my dad before he passed away, and that was not always easy. My mum is a fresh 85-year-old, or she will be on 14 July. If it were not for the closeness and the commitment of family, we would face a lot of other serious issues.
According to research by Carers UK’s Northern Ireland subsidiary, Carers NI, 16% of carers cannot afford to pay their utility bills, while nearly 40% cannot afford their bills without struggling financially. I can vouch for that in my constituency, given the numbers of people who come to me who are finding it very difficult to make ends meet financially. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) raised the question of heating or eating during the cold spell. That is a reality today as well, perhaps even more so than in the past. A third of carers are using savings to pay everyday living costs, and a third have used up any savings they had and now have nothing to fall back on. Thirty-two per cent. of carers have ended up in debt as a result of caring, and over four in 10 carers—almost half—are cutting back on food or heating. Furthermore, carers experience higher levels of fuel poverty in Northern Ireland than anywhere else in the UK. We have the highest levels of fuel poverty in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Information given to us by the Library indicates that 51% of carers
“have let a health problem go untreated…Half of carers (50%) have seen their mental health get worse…Two thirds of carers (66%) have given up work or reduced their hours to care…Almost half of carers (47%) have struggled financially…Almost one third of carers (31%) only get help when it is an emergency.”
That is the reality for carers. Full-time carers are twice as likely as non-carers to be in bad health. Eighty per cent. of carers say that caring has had a negative impact on their health, and half of carers state that they experienced depression after taking on a caring role. Sixty-three per cent. of carers say that they are at breaking point, and one in six carers receive no practical support at all. Despite an ongoing rise in the number of carers in the UK and sharp rises in the number of people caring full time, the number of people who receive carers’ assessments and carers’ services is falling. When we hear all those stats, we need to remember that there are people behind them who have to deal with reality.
It is often said, and we need to say it again, that food banks have been extremely helpful. That is the case in my constituency and, I am sure, in others. Food banks operate out of compassion and heart. They bring together Government bodies, churches and individuals who want to do their bit for the community. The food bank in my area, run by the Trussell Trust, has done exceptional work with carers, those who are under financial pressure and those who are experiencing delays in benefit or not getting all the benefits that they should be getting. The food bank is very much a part of life in my constituency. By the way, I think it is good to have food banks in our constituencies. They bring a lot of good things to my area. I do not see them as a negative; I see them as a positive, because people reach out and want to help each other. That is good, because if we help each other, we do what we are supposed to be doing in this world, which is to make lives better as best we can.
Carers UK estimates that the number of carers will grow to 9 million by 2037. Will any of us in this Chamber be here in 2037? I am not sure. I probably will not be—if I am, I will be the oldest man in the world, but that is by the way. We have to look at the stats, because they take us to where we will be in a few years’ time. I hope that the Government take cognisance of the stats, because it is important to form a strategy.
It is clear already that the support provided to carers does not suffice. Independent analysis demonstrates that the gap in funding for social care is expected to reach between £2.8 billion and £3.5 billion by the end of this Parliament, and that does not even begin to cover what will happen if the Government do not take into account the fact that the number of carers is growing. This should serve as a wake-up call to everyone—the Government, the regional Assemblies in the devolved Administrations and all stakeholders—about the reality ahead. There will be significantly more carers than there are already, and appropriate planning is needed to ensure that support is there.
I conclude with these comments. I welcome the fact that the Government are developing a new carers strategy, and I look forward to the Minister’s response on that. It is important that we, as elected representatives, put forward this debate in a positive fashion to get a strategy and responses to our questions, which we can feed back to our constituents. On the issues that I and others have raised, I impress on the policy makers the need to remember that there are real people behind all the statistics. It is people such as carers whom we are elected to serve. I can only hope that the debate will raise awareness of the need for urgent and large-scale reform of the way in which the Government treat carers.
A number of carer support groups come together in the churches and the community centres of Strangford. They are wonderful people who do great work, and they deserve to be supported and helped by us, as MPs through our Government and through the regional Assemblies, in whatever way we can. Those groups bring together all the people of the Ards and North Down Council area who want to participate. They give carers much needed opportunities for rest and socialisation. The opportunity to socialise and interact with others, or to get a moment or two to themselves, can make a world of difference to carers.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) for securing this debate in carers week. Frankly, one week in the year is not enough; carers care for more than just one week in the year. I will talk predominantly about informal carers—the people who are looking after family—but we should also remember the people who work in the care industry, because they support the carers and the people who need caring for. We have problems getting high-quality care because we do not value those people. We pay them very poorly. They work for companies that often treat them badly. Pay for travel time may not be included, and they may be doing 15-minute visits. These jobs are therefore short term and temporary, and people get out of them as soon as they have the opportunity. Unless we turn this into a profession that is valued and respected and includes development—as we have done with nursing, over the years—our relatives and loved ones will not be cared for by people who actually want to do the job. I would just like to open with that.
We have heard a lot of detailed statistics about informal carers. Across the UK, 10% of people—6.5 million—are involved in caring. In Scotland, the proportion is higher, at 17%. People often do not identify themselves. Those carers are not always the same people, because there is a turnover—a change—every year of one third, or 2.1 million people. Some of them, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, will be people caring for loved ones at the end of their life. When we lose that loved one, although we may face other challenges, we leave the informal care group, but other people take up that role. The same number of people—more than 2 million—enter and leave the role of informal carer each year.
We have heard about the cost that informal carers save the state. If we were to replace them with professional staff, the cost would be almost greater than that of the NHS, but how do we treat the people who deliver that care? A third of them live in poverty. That is because we have tangled things up so much around carer’s allowance, and we never seem to have a “health in all policies” view, so on different days of the week we make decisions that absolutely counteract each other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson)—I hope I got that right—mentioned some of the changes that have been made, including to the personal independence payment and the employment and support allowance work-related activity group. Perhaps the Government think that those changes send people back to work, but the reality is that many of the people affected, particularly where mental health or waxing and waning illnesses are involved, will not get back to work. That household will simply become more impoverished. We need to realise that that has an impact. If someone cannot afford to do things, their quality of life goes down. People who are caring— 1.3 million of them for more than 50 hours a week—already have a pretty tough life without having to deal with poverty on top of everything else.
We have heard that carer’s allowance is some £62 a week; it is pretty insulting that that is less than jobseeker’s allowance. People tend to spend six or nine months on jobseeker’s allowance, but they may depend on carer’s allowance, along with other benefits, for much longer than that. To pay someone, in essence, £62 a week for the hours that they put in is derisory. In Scotland, if I may correct the hon. Member for Strangford, we are not just considering raising carer’s allowance to £72 a week; that is a commitment. It will become the same as jobseeker’s allowance. Even that is very much a baseline. It does not recognise what those people need.
Of course, there are people in caring situations for whom money is not an issue, because they have a pension or large amounts of savings, but they are not the generality of cases, if a third of carers are in poverty. Half of them have used up all their savings and have had to borrow. A quarter of them have had to re-mortgage their home. That all adds stress to people who contribute massively to society.
We have well over a million older carers, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned. What has not been mentioned in this debate is that people on retirement pension do not qualify for carer’s allowance. That seems bizarre, because one of the biggest groups of carers is people who are retired. In the past, people would have been caring for a partner as they became more frail, but as people are living longer, we are retiring people who are caring for a parent, or for a parent and a partner. The hon. Member for Eastleigh spoke of caring for little ones and older ones, but we actually have people who are caring for older ones and much older ones. That is massively challenging.
At the other end, we have heard mention of young carers, who are defined as those under the age of 16. They are completely excluded from carer’s allowance as it starts only at the age of 16, yet those children again play a major role and suffer major detriment. They will often be in a poor household, because the parent—as it usually is—for whom they are caring will have suffered from the various cuts to support. Their parent may have a physical or mental illness, may suffer from addiction, or may in other ways not be the parent in the family. If 12 and 13-year-olds are carrying that burden, and cannot afford to go on a school trip, and do not have time to do the little Saturday job or paper round that allowed the rest of us to invest in the height of fashion, we are allowing their quality of life to be lowered still further.
Young adult carers are defined as being 16 to 25. If they are students, they are automatically excluded from carer’s allowance, regardless of the fact that a quarter of them work more than 20 hours a week. If they work less than 35 hours a week, they do not qualify for anything. If they are official students, they qualify for nothing.
We have all these pockets of people who are working really hard, yet we as a state are offering no support to them. That is the minimum that we should be doing. They will still be doing a hard job and putting in long hours that save the country masses of money. We should all feel ashamed that they can have to choose between eating and heating, and that there are young people who have no opportunities and know that their job opportunities will be limited by going through that. Obviously, given my health background, I have looked at the health of these people, and they are twice as likely to be ill. Indeed, 8% of them are on disability living allowance as was, so we have someone who has frailty caring for someone else who has frailty.
One fifth of the people who are putting in more than 50 hours a week are not getting any services because, as has been mentioned, they do not identify themselves as carers, no one else identifies them as carers, and they have no idea where they should go to get help. I back the call that this should be part of the health service’s duty. If a doctor diagnoses someone with advanced cancer or dementia, or a child with disability, they should ask, “Who are the carers here?”. That is part of the primary care role in Scotland, but I am not sure what the roles are in England. Certainly, as part of the quality framework in Scotland, there must be that discussion. There is still room for improvement in our communities on that. People simply see themselves as looking after their family, but actually, they are looking after all of us.
We know that the ageing population will increase. We already have 800,000 people with dementia, who are being looked after by 670,000 carers. At the moment, 60% of us will be carers at some point. As the numbers increase, all of us must expect to spend a portion of our lives as a carer. If that always causes massive detriment to our work, our ability to do anything and our quality of life, we will have allowed the quality of life of everyone to deteriorate.
For women, there is a disproportionate hit, because 60% of carers are women, and one in four of those women will end up giving up work. As was mentioned, they end up in part-time, low-quality, low-paid jobs, and they do not get promotion. Right at the end, they get a rubbish pension, which, as we have heard in many debates in this Chamber, may be plucked out from underneath them. That is the last slap in the face. With modern technology, we should be able to have more home working and flexible working to allow people with talent and skill to remain active and have a career, even if they face a few years of having to commit to caring for someone. As we go into the future, whether we are carers or not, as politicians we need to make sure that we provide the basic funding and services to support carers as they support those who need help.
As individuals, we need to do more in our communities. We have heard mention of carer-friendly communities. I was honoured last Saturday to be part of the launch of one of my local towns, Prestwick, as a dementia-friendly community. It was a fantastic event, and the turnout of the community at the market cross for music, food, cupcakes, fiddling and singing by the wonderful Musical Minds choir, which is made up of people with dementia, was fantastic. The community is already coming forward, and local businesses have undergone training.
Within that, we have a group called Crossroads, which supports carers and allows them little informal breaks, so that they can try to keep some of themselves. Women are used to being recognised as somebody or other’s wife and somebody or other’s mother once they have got past being so-and-so’s daughter. The problem for somebody facing this intensity of care is that they can feel like they disappear altogether—that they as a person have no outside view at all. Their hobbies are gone and, as was mentioned earlier, their friends are gone.
It is important, not just as politicians and people in families, but as members of our communities, that we value and recognise carers if they are out and about, and accept the person they are caring for, no matter if they are a bit loud, if their wheelchair gets in the way, or if they need time to get on the bus. If we accept the person they are caring for, the carer will also feel more accepted in our communities. Basically, I call on everybody, because we all have a role to play.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Just as we must not lose our recognition of people, or identify them just by their disability, the fact that they need care or the fact that they are carers, it is important that we recruit carers to contribute to thinking on public policy—and not just when it relates to care issues; often, carers are disfranchised and disconnected from society because of their caring commitments. All of us at all political levels need to do more to engage carers, so that they contribute to a range of public policies.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I refer him back to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) about the Carers Parliament in Scotland, which looks at young carers, young adult carers and older carers. When they consult, the Scottish Government make great efforts to pluck people out of the voluntary world to come and tell them how it really is, because unless we hear how it really is, we are not going to fix it.
We all have a duty, including the Government, to look more at health in all policies. We cannot fix everything, but we should not be adding poverty on top of all carers’ other challenges.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on carers. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for the debate and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) for the thoughtful way in which she opened it.
There have been some interesting and thoughtful contributions from hon. Members. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman), the hon. Members for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). We also heard briefly from the hon. Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Foyle (Mark Durkan).
There are more than 6.5 million carers in the UK. We have all used different figures in the debate, but I tend to use that one. In my constituency, there are nearly 11,000 carers. I have known ever since I became a Member of Parliament that many of them have a heavy workload due to the ill health in my constituency.
In many areas of the country, people are living longer. As the population ages, we are living with increasingly complex care needs. Three in five of us will become carers—the hon. Member for Eastleigh touched on that. There are also more older carers. In England and Wales, almost 1.3 million people aged over 65 give unpaid care to a family member or friend. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) spoke about the fact that, between 2001 and 2011, the number of carers who are over 85 increased from 38,000 to more than 87,000. More than half of carers aged over 85 give 50 hours or more of care every week. That is certainly something to think about.
We are failing to address key issues for carers. Inadequate support for carers and the people they care for damages carers’ quality of life. I will argue that Ministers must do more to recognise the importance of carers and to put in place policies to address their needs.
First, many carers continue to suffer financial hardship because of their caring responsibilities. As we have heard, a recent report by the New Policy Institute found that 1.2 million carers are in poverty. It is shocking to think that so many carers are struggling to make ends meet. In the Carers UK report, “State of Caring 2016”, half the carers surveyed reported cutting back on essentials such as food and heating. Others are having to borrow money, and more than a third use their own savings. The hon. Member for Strangford raised those issues. I feel very strongly that no carer should be pushed into poverty because of their caring responsibilities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Workington for talking about financial hardship among carers. It is an increasing problem.
Secondly, too many carers are left to cope on their own with little or no support. As we have heard, one in five of the carers who give 50 hours or more of care each week receive no practical support with their caring role. More needs to be done to protect carers’ health and wellbeing. We must ensure that carers are identified at the earliest possible stage so that they can find the help and support they need. As I said earlier, in the past I have introduced private Members’ Bills to place a duty on GPs and NHS bodies to identify carers and ensure that they are referred for support. The last time I introduced such a Bill, the coalition Government did not support it. However, that duty on the NHS to identify carers was included as a pledge in Labour’s manifesto in 2015.
The Government have promised a new carers strategy to give carers
“the support they need to live well while caring for a family member or friend.”
However, to achieve that aim, any new strategy must include a duty on GPs and NHS bodies to identify carers. After all, the NHS is nearly always the first point of contact for carers as they begin caring, and so is best placed to identify them. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle for a vital change that we can make for carers.
Thirdly, I want to talk about the chronic underfunding of social care and the impact on carers. I have raised that many times with the care Minister and most recently with the Chancellor. In the previous Parliament, there were five years of funding reductions for adult social care, totalling £4.6 billion. Local authority spending on social care for older people fell in real terms by 17%, even as the number of people aged 85 and over rose by 9%. Three hundred thousand fewer older people receive publicly funded adult social care now compared with 2009. In the Carers UK survey, 60% of carers who had seen a change in the amount of support they received said that that support had been reduced due to cost or availability.
I hope that the care Minister will not repeat the Chancellor's mantra about the 2% social care precept and the increases in the better care fund arriving by 2019-20. The 2% social care precept is inadequate to meet even the Government’s minimum wage policy. In my local area of Salford, the cost of paying increases in the national minimum wage in the care sector will be £2.7 million, but the 2% social care precept will raise only £1.6 million. In effect, the council tax payers of my local area are paying for that Government policy of increasing the national minimum wage. The Minister knows that there is no increase in the better care fund this year and only £105 million extra next year. It is hard to understand why Ministers have refused the reasonable request from the Local Government Association to bring forward £700 million of better care funding to address the financial pressures that it faces this year and next year.
We know that there are real concerns about the financial viability of many of our social care providers. In evidence this week to the Public Accounts Committee inquiry on discharging older people from acute hospitals, the president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Care, Harold Bodmer, said that the sustainability of the residential care and domiciliary care sectors was the main concern for social services directors. He also pointed to significant regional differences. He said:
“I wouldn't underestimate the impact of the differential effect on the social care market in different parts of the country, because there isn’t a domiciliary care problem in the north-east, but there is in parts of Hertfordshire, Oxfordshire and Norfolk. It is really difficult to get domiciliary care in north Norfolk."
I thank the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire for talking about home care not being valued. It may be that people in parts of the country where they cannot get domiciliary care are voting with their feet. People do not want to work in a sector that does not value or pay them properly. Home care should be a much more valued role.
I have real concerns that this fragility in care provision could leave more people without adequate care and put more pressure on unpaid family carers. This is worrying because more people are already providing care for more hours than ever before: 1.4 million people now give more than 50 hours of unpaid care a week, and that number is rising faster than the increase in the general population of carers. There has been an increase of 25% in people caring more than 50 hours a week in the past 10 years compared with an increase of just 11% in the total number of carers.
The Care Act 2014 entitles all carers to a timely assessment of their needs. However, one in three carers who have had an assessment in the past year had to wait six months or longer for it. Worryingly, nearly 40% of carers caring for someone at the end of life also had to wait six months or more for an assessment. That is unacceptable. Carers for people at the end of life should be prioritised. We have talked about that in different meetings here.
Timely assessments are surely one of the starting points in providing support to carers, but even when carer assessments take place it seems that they do not properly address carers’ needs. Almost 70% of carers in the Carers UK survey felt that their need to have regular breaks from caring was not considered in their assessment. Members have rightly repeatedly referred to the importance of breaks for carers. Seventy-four per cent. of working age carers did not feel that the support they needed to juggle care with work was sufficiently considered. We need those important assessments to be more than box-ticking exercises, but that can happen only if the Government invest in support for carers and give local authorities the resources that they need to provide care and support. I hope that hon. Members have been able to meet and listen to a number of carers this week—indeed, I understand from the debate that that is already happening.
At the carers week parliamentary event I met Katy Styles, who cares for her husband Mark, and she told me about a number of issues that she has encountered as a carer for a person with motor neurone disease. What I felt most in talking to Katy was that she wanted to be recognised and listened to as a carer, but she also raised issues of financial hardship. Katy and Mark Styles told their story to the all-party group on motor neurone disease, and Katy said:
“We told them about how we were once two professionals and how our lives had been devastated by Mark’s condition. I explained that as a teacher I had earned £150 a day and now I receive £62.10 a week in carer’s allowance for providing never-ending care and support for my husband. Mark explained how he was forced to retire at 46, that our income had fallen off a cliff, but our bills continued to increase. He told the group about how we travel miles and miles to receive care, and how we had to make adaptions to our home which were paid for with savings that we will never be able to replace.”
The MND Association found in its survey that more than half of carers for people with MND care for more than 100 hours per week, yet only a third have had a carer’s assessment, and four out of 10 people were unaware of their right to one. Caring for more hours each week can mean carers having to give up work and facing financial hardship, and we have touched on that in this debate. Some 2.3 million adults in the UK have given up work to care, and almost 3 million have reduced their working hours.
I do not want to leave the issue of financial hardship without mentioning women born in the 1950s who are carers, but who are now not getting their state pension until later in their 60s. I have spoken about carers such as Marian, who has given up work at the age of 62 to look after her mother and her brother, both of whom have dementia. Her only source of income is a small private pension of £2,500, and her husband will have to support her until she gets her state pension at 65. The Minister has probably not been involved in many of the debates on the state pension age, but many women born in the 1950s are in such a situation and now face financial hardship.
We have mentioned those who give up work to care or who struggle to manage their working hours, and about combining care with work, and the feeling in the debate has been that more needs to be done to ensure that employers provide carers with enough support. Some companies are leaders in providing support for their staff who are carers. For example, Centrica offers flexible working, access to counsellors, and an employee-led carers network that is supported by the company’s senior leadership. Its carer’s leave policy offers up to one month matched paid leave per year to help with caring responsibilities, and it also takes into account that caring responsibilities may fall to people who are not immediate family members.
I have concerns that members of this House are not able to provide those levels of support. IPSA contracts for Members’ staff offer only five days’ leave for caring reasons, and even that is stated as being for emergencies and dependants only. That minimal policy does not reflect good practice—the Minister will know what that is—and we could do better for our staff. I invite the Minister, the hon. Member for Eastleigh and others who have raised that issue, to join me in talking to IPSA to request a change in that policy. It is not good enough not to have better practice when supporting our staff who are carers.
As has been said, carers week is an important annual event because it provides us with an opportunity to recognise the contribution that carers make to society, and to highlight the challenges they face. I thank all organisations that support carers and provide hon. Members with so much information about caring issues: Carers UK, Age UK, Carers Trust, Independent Age, Macmillan Cancer Support, the MND Association, and the Multiple Sclerosis Society. My constituency contains the excellent Salford Carers Centre, and an amazing group of young carers are supported by the young carers project. I look forward to meeting them tomorrow. I also thank Marie Curie, which launched a report on end-of-life care for LGBT people in the House yesterday, as well as Together for Short Lives and the Rainbow Trust Charity for their support for children with life-limiting conditions and their families. Finally, I thank the UK’s 6.5 million carers, and especially the 11,000 carers in my constituency, for the essential role that they play in supporting our health and care system. Carers need and deserve so much more respect and support than they are currently given.
The Minister for Community and Social Care (Alistair Burt)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) on securing this debate and on the way she opened it, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate during carers week. I will start where the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) ended, and thank all those who are involved in caring in our society. As we have heard from every speaker, carers make an invaluable contribution to the UK that we could not do without, and perhaps I can illustrate that by citing some of the remarks made by colleagues during the debate.
I will touch on some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh in the remarks I have prepared for this debate, and I will also comment on her other points. She started with a graphic description of what might happen if carers were not around and if they decided not to do what they do every day, which brought the point home to us. She spoke about how people become a carer, and said that it could happen to any of us at any time. At last year’s national care awards I remember watching a video in which the point was made vividly that any of us in that hotel room could become a carer within 24 hours, and we can all understand that. As others pointed out, carers are no longer a minority group but people we all know—many of us are closely connected to carers, if not carers ourselves—and we are all only going to become more closely involved in the future. She, like others, made that point very well.
My hon. Friend also spoke, as did others, about the need to identify people not solely as carers but as husbands, wives, partners, employees—everything else they still are—and about the great danger of someone being pigeonholed because they have become a carer. It is important to remember that someone does not lose their identity when they become a carer. Hon. Members also highlighted the importance of carers week. I am proud to be the president of Carers in Bedfordshire—I have been for some years—and I thank it for its work. All hon. Members have thanked their local groups.
My hon. Friend was not the only colleague to speak of her personal experiences of caring. As I have mentioned from the Dispatch Box before, the range of Members’ experiences goes far beyond what the media are keen to portray and touches on virtually all aspects of life outside. When I hear the cares and experiences that colleagues bring to this place, I always hope that people outside read our debates and understand a bit more about us, why we want to be representatives in Parliament and the personal experiences we bring.
The hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) and others spoke about finances, on which subject I could spend the whole 15 or 20 minutes. I know that this subject is particularly important to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South, the spokesperson for the Opposition. On carers allowance, which the hon. Member for Workington focused on, the Government keep the earnings limit under review and keep under consideration whether an increase is warranted and affordable. The increase of 8% in 2015 far outstripped the increase in wages. The earnings limit is currently £110 a week, but that is a net figure, and if allowable expenses, such as childcare and pension contributions, are deducted, a claimant might earn significantly more. The limit enables a carer to maintain some contact with the employment market and achieve greater financial independence, but I recognise and would not minimise the constant financial pressures and difficulties facing families. The limit is kept under review. Also, as I said, there is a wider review of the carers strategy, which has allowed a lot of people to make contributions on finance, not just the amount but the important interlinking of benefits. That point will not be missed, and I thank her for raising the matter.
Barbara Keeley
Carers charities often raise with us the link with things such as the national minimum wage. The Minister talked about the figure last year, but the national minimum wage changed in April, and many of the carers trying to keep a part-time job going will be at that level, so it seems sensible to link the threshold with the national minimum wage so that when the national minimum wage increases, so does the threshold.
Alistair Burt
I cannot make that specific commitment, but I understand fully the hon. Lady’s point. As I said before, the earnings limit and all the factors affecting it are kept constantly under review, but I am sure that Treasury colleagues will not have missed the remarks made today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) also made the point about carers not being a small minority. She commended Carers in Wiltshire, and I commend her for being a volunteer—another example of the experience we all bring to this debate—and she raised the important issue of entitlement to benefits and signposting. In our call for evidence as part of the review of the carers strategy, respondents raised the importance of people being directed towards the things they need as soon as possible. The moment someone becomes a carer, their world changes, and they need as much information as possible at that time. She was right to mention the importance of signposting in particular. She spoke with great passion on the subject.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson), who also spoke from personal experience, made a point about access to work. I shall talk about employment later, but she made her point strongly, and again she was not the only person to recognise that, although we all wish for a world in which burdens are shared equally, in truth they are not. Women carry the biggest burden when it comes to caring, and will probably continue to do so for some time. Recognising the extra pressures on women is particularly important. The hon. Lady made that point very well.
The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) was particularly helpful in saying that although it is carers week for us, it is just another week for carers. I also liked it when he said that it was a week to talk “with”, not “to” carers. That was a particularly well made point. He spoke forcefully about the reality of life—the sleepless nights and other issues that carers experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) brought up the issue of care homes. I am not going to linger on that subject, but, as some colleagues know, I am particularly exercised about safety in care homes. It is my belief that someone in the care of the state, whether it be the NHS, local authorities or anyone else, needs to be as safe in a care home, a mental health institution or in learning disability facilities as they would be in an intensive care unit. As I expressed in yesterday’s debate about Southern Health, that is simply not the case.
I am very conscious of issues surrounding care homes. I have a round-table meeting on Monday with those responsible for the monitoring and regulation of care homes, and I pay tribute to the Care Quality Commission and others who are trying to do a good job of regulation, but this also involves some of the groups that are critical of regulation, want to see more done and want to ensure that there is safety in care homes. Some of the stories of abuse that we read about in the papers need to become fewer and fewer until they are extinct.
I want to praise the National Care Association because there are many good care homes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle said. It is important to keep the right balance in recognising the quality of good homes without minimising the pressures on them. When things that should not be happening are going on, it is quite difficult to maintain that balance. I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend mentioned this important issue. I commend, too, the ideas coming forward from the carers team in East Sussex, and I urge members to ensure that the ideas put to my hon. Friend will be put into our national call for evidence. They have until the end of this month to do so. I do not envisage a statutory instrument to extend that still further, should there be a rush of evidence at the end of the month, but we never know in the present circumstances. Getting that information in would be very helpful.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) was not the only one to refer to the pressures on our own caseworkers, who do so much work to look after people in the House. I appreciated his mention of that point. He hoped that the carers strategy would be a long-term strategy. I hope it will, too. The strategy should be reviewed from time to time—this is the first review for two or three years—and that is certainly the aim. That is why I would like the strategy to look slightly beyond the immediate and consider how to build for the future rather than simply having a snapshot now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I call him my hon. Friend—is exceptionally generous and courteous to all Front-Bench Members when he speaks. I would like to tell him how much that is appreciated—it really is—when he is so genuine in expressing his views. He spoke of his personal experiences, pressures in Northern Ireland and the Crossroads young carers in Newtownards who particularly stressed the difficulties faced by young carers and the things that they often miss out on. My hon. Friend spoke about a singing group. A few weeks ago, I went to Biggleswade at the request of the Alzheimer’s Society to join a singing group, and I sang some songs with the people there. It was certainly an uplifting experience that morning. I commend those groups and the carers who work with them.
The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) made a considered and thoughtful contribution, as usual. She spoke about all the financial pressures. Particularly telling was her comment that although there are a relatively fixed number of carers and although it is steadily growing to 6.5 million, it is a replaceable 6.5 million and about a third leave for all sorts of reasons.
On bereaved carers, I was contacted through Twitter by someone in that position who asked whether the strategy and review would cover them, and I answered “Yes, it will and it should”. The moment that caring for someone stops because of bereavement, the carer’s life has changed—perhaps in an anticipated way, but it is has still changed. Caring for people in those circumstances is really important. We must not forget this group, so I greatly appreciated what the hon. Lady said. She also spoke of the need to ensure that social care is seen as a profession as much as nursing and domiciliary care are throughout the NHS and elsewhere, and I thoroughly agree with her.
The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), whose background in caring requires her to be listened to seriously every time she speaks about this issue, made a number of comments. I shall deal with the subject of finance a little later. Let me say first that I will ensure that the review that we are conducting will cover early identification in the NHS. We are trying to ensure that it takes place earlier and earlier. The issue of GP identification is very important, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady raised it again.
Barbara Keeley
I should be happy to send the Minister a copy of my Bill and the explanatory notes if that would help to elucidate the points that we have made.
Alistair Burt
I have no doubt that those are already deep within the recesses of the Department of Health, but if it would speed things up and provide encouragement, I should be grateful if the hon. Lady did indeed do that.
The hon. Lady also made an important point about our staff in the House. She said that we should look after them. I appreciate the point that she made about the staff of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, and I will look into how we can best ensure that we recognise properly—in line with best employment practice elsewhere—that those who work for us bear considerable burdens of caring from time to time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to come to the House and share the important work that is under way to develop a new cross-Government strategy for carers. I continue to be humbled by the many powerful, honest and informed contributions that we have heard throughout the afternoon from Members who have described the carers whom they know and represent, as well as their personal experiences. Those views, and the many others that we have received so far, will be fully taken into account as the Department works with Government colleagues, stakeholders and, crucially, carers themselves to develop the new strategy.
Today we have been reminded that behind the statistics stand spouses, partners, parents—in fact, all manner of relatives, friends and neighbours—who are providing care right now in our communities. Their commitment can scarcely be quantified or questioned, and we must ensure that our own commitment to support people is demonstrated clearly as well.
I pay tribute to the national care awards, which are sponsored by LloydsPharmacy, Carers UK and The Sun. I was at the awards ceremony a couple of weeks ago, and we met the winners at lunchtime. The Prime Minister was kind enough to offer No. 10 Downing Street for a lunchtime reception, and we took people round. We are always struck when people like that say that it is a privilege to be there. We say to them, “No, it is our privilege that you are here with us. It is the other way round.” Those people were a great group—great winners. We went to a dinner that night. Radio 2 was very good: there is always a table of wonderful people to support the awards. When we hear the personal stories—which have been reflected in some of what we have heard in the House today—we are all immensely impressed. Let me again pay tribute to those awards: they do one of the jobs that we have all been speaking about this afternoon—valuing and recognising carers for what they do in so many different circumstances.
Before we go any further, may I offer a small philosophical comment? I picked this up from a piece in The Guardian by a writer called Madeleine Bunting. I do not read The Guardian all the time, contrary to the belief of many of my colleagues, but every now and again I am struck by something that is really good, and what Madeleine Bunting wrote is important. She was writing about what care is. We talk about it—we talk about the facts and figures and the finance here in the House—but what is it precisely, and where is it going? Madeleine Bunting wrote:
“We recognise instantly when we experience it: an interaction that acknowledges a moment of human connection. It may be brief, but it expresses and confirms a common humanity, a recognition of the individual—and always involves a particular quality of attention.
But the characteristics needed to provide this kind of care are losing cultural traction. Attentiveness requires two crucial ingredients: patience and the willingness to put one’s own preoccupations aside and to be available to another. Yet in a myriad of ways we are all being groomed by consumerism and digital media—to be the opposite: impatient and self-preoccupied. That impatience makes us easily distractable, addicted to the next stimulus.”
I think that Madeleine Bunting was making a really important point. The people about whom we have been talking have avoided that: they have patience, and a commitment to others that is beyond many of us. However, there is concern about society—concern about where it is going and the pressures that it is under. Demographics suggest that we will need more care, and yet certain pressures are making it more difficult for that to be realised. What will carers be like in the future if they have become too distracted and too self-occupied? That is not the case with carers now, but it is a valid point to raise with regard to the future.
We owe a duty of care to this vast army of people, who show their patience and their compassion for others. I am talking about not just providing them with the support, tools and information that they need to care well, but ensuring that their own health, wellbeing and life goals are not compromised. Our respect is unreserved, but respect is not enough. We must never lose sight of that fact if a new carer strategy is to succeed.
I should say at this point that I do not wish to paint a negative picture of caring. Although personal sacrifices are made each and every day, many carers have told us that it remains a privilege to care, and that they have a strong desire to repay the kindness of others. Indeed, carers derive immense satisfaction and peace of mind from being the primary source of comfort and reassurance for friends and loved ones. However, that satisfaction must not be at the expense of carers’ own mental and physical health.
We have also heard this afternoon about the great diversity in types of caring. There is no such thing as a typical carer—carers are people of all ages and from all walks of life, and those for whom they care have different needs. In particular, we neglect at our peril the needs of children and young people with caring obligations. They are most at risk of having not just their health and wellbeing compromised, but their education and career ambitions too.
There is no “one size fits all”. We must be alert to that as we attempt to craft new and improved support for all those providing care in our communities. It is no surprise that one in six of us is currently caring. As lifespans extend and our population grows, caring for others has already become part of the fabric of our lives. All those who have spoken today have made it clear that they are not affected by the lazy mindset that tells us that carers are other people; carers are all of us. As a constituency MP, I have had the privilege of visiting carers and carers’ groups in Bedfordshire. As a Minister, I have spoken to carers’ groups in relation to pulling together the new carers strategy. I strongly commend those who work in my own county.
Almost 20 years after the Carers Act 1995 first gave official acknowledgement to those providing “regular and substantial” care, the Care Act 2014 now gives carers new rights, including parity of assessment, advice and support with those for whom they care. Those new rights are a historic step forward. We have provided local authorities with £433 million in 2016-17 for new burdens arising from the Act.
We know that the Care Act is taking time to bed in. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South referred to the matters that affect assessment, and I understand them very well. Care varies from place to place. A group from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services working with the Department is looking at those variations in care, so that in places where assessments are much slower than in others, we are looking at what can be done and how things can be improved. That is very much on our mind.
Barbara Keeley
Having been present during discussions about certain groups of carers, perhaps the Minister will tell us whether he believes that carers of people who are at end of life should be prioritised for assessment. It is pointless to have people waiting six months when the person for whom they care may have only a few weeks or a few months to live.
Alistair Burt
I will ensure that that is considered as an important point of the assessment. I will write to the hon. Lady in relation to that.
Let me turn to finance now. There is always concern about the amount of finance that is available. It is almost impossible to get the right amount. By spending around £2.5 billion a year on benefits in Great Britain, benefiting more than three-quarters of a million carers, we are trying to respond to the needs that are there. That money provides a measure of financial support and recognition for people who give up the opportunity of full-time employment in order to provide care. As I said earlier, those allowances remain constantly under review. As this debate has made clear, it is not just about finance, but about all the other things, including supporting young carers and making sure that they are not forgotten and remembering that employers play an important part. I commend NHS England for the important work that it has done in relation to carers and for its commitment to carers.
I also want to mention the results that our call for evidence has produced, just to give people some assurance that these things are on our minds. We have received 3,800 responses so far, 85% of which are from carers themselves. A great number of the responses have been candid and honest, and it will frighten my officials if I read them out. They describe financial hardship; a lack of recognition and involvement; the impact on carers’ health and wellbeing; the difficulty of maintaining life outside caring; and frustration with access to assessments and services. All these issues are on our minds.
The need to ensure that carers get the recognition they deserve has been well illustrated in the compassionate speeches that we have heard today. Carers are vital, and not just in carers week. There is also a young carers awareness day—it was on 27 January this year—sponsored by the Carers Trust. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for holding a round-table about carers recently. This matter is on the minds of everyone in the House and I appreciate the courtesy of hon. Members in giving their time to deal with this important issue this afternoon.
Mims Davies
Thank you for allowing me a few more moments to speak at the end of this important debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to thank all Members for their thoughtful and helpful contributions today. I also want to thank the Minister for his characteristically compassionate and understanding comments on the carers strategy and for taking on board the comments that have been made across the Chamber. I am grateful for the wide-ranging comments from those on the Opposition Benches, who have also been most helpful.
Carer signposting is vital. Recognition by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is also vital—a point that came up yesterday with the staff in my own office. I have also had women who were born in the 1950s coming to see me in my constituency about their roles as carers resulting in financial hardship. I also spoke about my own personal experiences of caring, which resulted in some challenging financial times and a drop in the quality of life. I therefore never underestimate the financial challenges that face carers and their tenacity in making ends meet. That is always astonishing.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) for talking about the brilliant work being done in her constituency and for championing the “Walk a mile in my shoes” event. That is absolutely the right way to manage these things. The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) said that “carer” was just too small a word to describe such a big role. She also mentioned the variations in the different work that people do. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) talked about carers week being more than just a congratulatory event, and said that it was about identifying needs and opportunities for change. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) highlighted the need to look after carers and to allow them to have breaks. His own family provided a fine example of that. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) spoke powerfully about the wonderful success of carers week in Northern Ireland and about the measures that should be adopted. I have scrawled something here about joined-up thinking. It is easy to say those three words. If only we could achieve it sometimes!
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) characteristically picked up on many of the points made by other Members around the Chamber, particularly those relating to hidden carers. I have been contacted by people on Twitter and Facebook who have been listening to or watching the debate today—some people have also been messaging me—to say that they now realise that they are hidden carers. Perhaps they are looking after someone with vascular dementia, for example, and this is having an impact on their lives, day in, day out. Others have spoken about the effect of looking after children and other family members.
I welcome this opportunity for Members to talk about end-of-life care, which is a really important time for carers. It can involve financial pressures, costs, poverty, stress, borrowing, and perhaps re-mortgaging or losing a cherished home as the impact of the situation bites. We have also talked about the issues affecting student carers and young carers, and I am reminded particularly of the issues that come in weekly to our caseworkers, who deal with them so well.
In my summing up, I was also feeling slightly philosophical, like the Minister. Theodore Roosevelt said that people do not care how much you know until they know how much you care. I thought of one of the last conversations I had with my dad before he died. I was in the hospital, helping him to bathe and go to the toilet, and he said to me, “Did you ever think that you would be looking after your old dad like this?” and I said to him, “I wouldn’t have it any other way.” Caring may be the most challenging, boring, difficult, monotonous or heart-breaking role, particularly at that end-of-life stage, but carers will never regret being there and doing it. Caring is a challenge, but carers look back and relish the fact that they made those last few moments and times better. Carers, we recognise and salute you today. You are special and a true carers army.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered carers.
Adjournment
Westminster Hall
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
Stillbirth
(8 years, 4 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
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered stillbirth.
I am grateful that I was able to secure this debate today. I know that I am not alone in this place in having direct or indirect experience of the very important issue of stillbirth. I will not attempt to put into words what going through this experience does to those who are left to pick up the pieces. There are no words to describe the pain and, normally, I am a pretty private person. However, I realised that, if I am going to campaign to help to improve this situation, I must speak out and use my experience to make things better, if I can.
Too many people suffer horrendously through stillbirth, but they suffer in silence. I am an MP and I believe that I have a duty to speak up for all those people who feel that they have no voice and that no one cares or understands. I want to work with others to make things better.
Stillbirth is not inevitable; it is not something that just happens. In my case, after five years of IVF treatment and one miscarriage, I experienced what all the medical professionals with whom I came into contact called a “textbook pregnancy”. I was glowing, in rude health and despite my small frame I was carrying a huge baby by the time my pregnancy came to an end. However, what I did not know, and what the medical professionals failed to pick up, was that I was suffering from HELLP syndrome, a form of pre-eclampsia. Apparently, it had been showing up in my blood tests for some time but that was repeatedly missed.
I was returned home, after I arrived at hospital on my due date, as previously arranged, with my hospital bag and ready to be admitted. The great discomfort that I felt—pronounced pain through my whole body—was dismissed as the usual discomfort that comes with late pregnancy. Having returned home, almost immediately, I had to go back to the hospital, where I was kept waiting for over an hour and a half and told that I was being a nuisance. Again, I was told to return home, but my husband refused to allow that to happen. It transpired that, if I had indeed returned home, I would most certainly have died.
As it was, I was sent to a bed with extremely bad grace and administered with high doses of morphine. My baby died overnight. No blood was checked, no monitoring took place and no doctor examined me. The next morning, after my baby was found to have died, doctors wondered why my body would not co-operate as they tried to induce labour. While they waited 48 hours to discuss this, my liver ruptured and I started having fits. My husband was told that I was unlikely to survive.
The reason I tell this story is that the failings in my care are far more common than they should be. Unfortunately, my case is very far from unique, particularly in one significant way. Work undertaken by Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal death charity, showed the importance of listening to mothers’ concerns about their babies. Forty-five per cent. of parents who experienced a stillbirth felt that something was wrong before the medical problem was diagnosed. Too many women are told that their concerns are unfounded and sent home, only for their baby to die soon afterwards. One simple change is for antenatal care to become more collaborative. Listen to mothers’ concerns; women know their own bodies.
To this day, Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board has not admitted that anything went wrong with my care. There has been no apology; apparently, it just happened. When I was discharged from hospital, it was agreed that an investigation into my care would take place and that any lessons that could be learned would be learned. At that point, I—like so many others before me—naively thought that that would happen. How else could the system improve?
Eighteen months later, after repeated phone calls, I received a one-page summary telling me, in language so vague and non-committal that I barely understood it, that the case had been looked at and lessons had been learned. At that point, and with extreme reluctance, I sought medical advice.
From that moment, Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board fought like a caged lion to cover its back to abdicate responsibility, which I realised it had, in fact, been doing all along. However, unlike so many other women, I was in a position to commission two independent reports from experts: Dr Shaxted, a consultant obstetrician and gynaecologist; and Dr Benjamin Stenson, a consultant neonatologist from Edinburgh. Quite frankly, they were astonished at the extraordinary, repeated and glaring errors in the care I received.
Many people would have walked away, and I know many people indeed have walked away, crushed by a system that compounds the huge loss suffered by refusing to accept when mistakes have been made, much less learn from them. I fought on because it was the only way I had of showing that my little boy mattered. I could not allow the loss of my son to be swept aside, ignored and dismissed, as though it were an incident of no importance.
People come to their MPs when they feel powerless, when their own efforts to solve a difficult situation in which they find themselves have failed. People often come to their MP when they cannot make themselves heard when dealing with an institution or organisation that refuses to listen to them, and crushes them beneath its weight. I know how that feels. That is why today I feel privileged to be in a position to offer help to some of my constituents when they feel that sense of powerlessness.
After I was elected as an MP, it seemed to me that the Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board became more interested in settling this case, which had dragged on for more than six years and with no apparent end in sight. I was offered a nominal sum, which I instinctively wanted to refuse. What I wanted was what I had wanted on the day I walked out of the hospital. I wanted an apology and I wanted to see some kind of evidence that work had been done to help to ensure that such mistakes would be much less likely to reoccur.
However, my choice was to take the sum offered, or face the real possibility of a judge awarding me the same amount or less, which in practice would have meant that I would be liable for all costs incurred by both parties. Bankruptcy beckoned, and the Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board was allowed to sweep the entire matter under the carpet, at a time of its choosing and without a backward glance after dragging out the entire process for more than six years. No liability was admitted, and as far as the Greater Glasgow and Clyde health board is concerned there is no case to answer. How is that justice? How can others who have suffered similarly have confidence in a system such as this, and confidence that similar mistakes will not be repeated? Since I have spoken out, many people have contacted me to tell me their own shockingly similar stories.
We know that many stillbirths are avoidable, although it is also true that in some cases we do not even know why such a death has occurred, and I applaud Sands for the work it does to raise funds for research in this area. Governments across the UK must commit the necessary funding to help us to understand more about unexplained stillbirths.
It is thought that around 50% of stillbirths cannot be explained by medical professionals. However, let us be clear—not knowing why around 50% of stillbirths occur does not mean that they are inevitable. The fact is that the majority of unexplained stillbirths occur in low-risk pregnancies. That suggests that routine antenatal monitoring is failing to identify babies at risk, even though such monitoring could save their lives. Around 50% of stillbirths can be explained and much can be done to raise awareness and increase monitoring to help to mitigate risk factors.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
First, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the courageous way that she has raised this important issue? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Does my hon. Friend agree that sometimes there is a case for a coroner’s inquiry into babies who are said to be stillborn? My sister lost her son, Hamish Kinghorn, and because he was said to be stillborn there could not be a coroner’s inquiry, despite the fact that there were NHS failings during the labour process. It is a difficult job, but that could be one way that can bring succour to the mother, in this case, my sister. This is obviously one of many cases that my hon. Friend is hearing about.
Patricia Gibson
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments. I will talk about the intervention of coroners in a little more detail but, in principle, I agree: there must be a role for coroners in the process.
With greater awareness, parents will be able to make more informed choices about their health and pregnancy care. As with most health issues, social inequalities are a factor. The truth is we are failing to properly identify many babies who are at risk. We lack knowledge, data and research into why babies die.
To put the figures into context, every year around 6,500 babies die before or shortly after birth. That is one baby every hour and a half—the equivalent of 16 jumbo jets crashing every year. Some 4,000 are stillborn and another 2,500 die within a month of birth. Although some work has been done, it is not unfair to say that there has been no significant reduction in the death rates in the past 10 years. There is still a taboo around stillbirth. Folk don’t like to mention it. They don’t know how. It creates discomfort and awkwardness. It is not like other deaths, is it? You cannot talk about shared memories of the lost baby. That leads to those suffering the loss feeling abandoned and isolated. Life must continue behind what is very often a fragile mask of normality.
Thinking of our own lives, almost all of us will know someone who has had a stillbirth or whose baby has died shortly after birth. However, the tragedies are too often hidden. Road traffic accidents kill around 3,000 people each year. Twice as many babies as that die, and still it barely appears on the agenda. Sands research showed that 75% of the public were very surprised by the numbers of stillbirths. There was more concern about cot death and Down’s syndrome, yet stillbirth is much more common. I think that it is not a political priority because it is considered unfashionable. It is not talked about generally and it is even more difficult for people to talk about when they have experienced it.
Will the Minister give assurances that the practice of trusts investigating themselves when things go wrong will be reconsidered? I have formally written to the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Health, Shona Robison MSP, to ask for similar consideration to be given to that issue in terms of health boards in Scotland. Ideally, an independent body should complete investigations into alleged failings in care within a specified timeframe. That would prevent long-drawn out investigations or, worse still, legal processes. In my case, those lasted more than six years.
Experts in the field are unequivocal when they tell us with one voice that for otherwise healthy babies to die undelivered near term is an easily avoidable event. In answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins), I find myself persuaded by the case put forward by the Campaign for Safer Births that coroners should have the power to hold an inquest for babies who die during labour or are stillborn at full term, which is from 37 weeks on. Coroners currently have no jurisdiction to hold inquests into such deaths.
In my case, Dr Stenson noted “with disappointment” that there was a record in my notes that I did not want a post-mortem performed on my son. He went on to point out that there was no record to indicate who spoke to me or what information I was given. I may or may not have had such a conversation. Quite frankly, I cannot remember, as much of my time in hospital was spent under extremely heavy sedation in a critical care unit and then a high dependency unit. Why was the conversation not had with me when I was more alert? Why was it not properly recorded? I cannot say what my response would have been, but I had no opportunity to make a measured assessment of the relative merits or otherwise of such an important decision. Is that not odd? Is it likely to be unusual? I doubt it very much.
That is what has helped persuade me that coroners should be involved in such decisions. It would mean that particular trends could be noted, informing training needs and highlighting serious failings. It would ultimately help the NHS to deliver what we all want: higher-quality maternity care. Coroners would be in a position to issue a prevention of future deaths report that hospitals must follow to prevent similar mistakes occurring.
In Scotland, 34% of all stillbirths occur at 37 weeks and beyond. The figure for England and Wales stands at 33%. Those figures are truly dreadful and are a national disgrace. The North Ayrshire and Arran health board has a higher rate of stillbirth than the UK average. It comes second in a list of 21 health boards across the UK given red light warnings for high stillbirth and newborn death rates. That causes me alarm, as I know it does for my constituents. Scotland ranks 31st out of 33 high-income countries in the world on this issue. Although international comparisons are difficult—definitions of stillbirth can vary—it is still an appalling statistic.
It is too late to save my little boy. There will be other little boys and girls as eagerly awaited as my baby who are yet to be born. We can do much more in Scotland and across the UK to take action to ensure they have the safest possible care. I urge the Minister to reflect seriously on the suggestions I have put forward. I will also be urging Scotland’s own Cabinet Secretary for Health to continue to work to improve maternity care. We cannot go on allowing 100 babies to die each and every week. It is time that the issue was put firmly on the political agenda. Tears and hand-wringing will not save our babies. Action and political will can. I urge the Minister to take action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
I have been advised that there are five colleagues who wish to speak. The concluding speeches will start at 2.30 pm. Perhaps the other colleagues who have taken the time to be here may be minded to make interventions.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing the debate. She has spoken with great passion from a personal perspective. We have all been moved by what she has said. It was very powerful.
I want to make a short contribution on behalf of a constituent and a member of my family. My constituent wrote to me to tell me about how she lost her first child to stillbirth:
“This life altering event has led to us being placed into a world we never knew existed. Sadly, the baby loss taboo leaves many unsupported and prevention affected.”
She has been trying to get information from her clinical commissioning group on what is happening to ensure that such things do not happen again and that more women can be protected. What she has got back from the CCG so far has been a general statement of Government policy, which includes the four principal activities that CCGs are asked to concentrate on: reducing smoking in pregnancy; monitoring foetal growth; raising awareness of foetal movements; and improving foetal monitoring.
That is all very well—I put great emphasis on the improvement of foetal monitoring, so that the information is provided and is fed back to the individual concerned—but my constituent also wants detailed information about what the CCG is doing to ensure that the issue is addressed. The CCG operates across two obstetric units and four midwife-led units and has a small number of babies delivered at home each year. She has not been able to get detail about what that CCG will do to address the situation for the future. I hope we can send a strong message to CCGs around the country that concentrating merely on the Government’s four key objectives is not good enough. What we need is the detailed information on how they are going to go about dealing with this issue through their sustainability and transformation plans to provide reassurance for women who are in this situation.
I appreciate the effect that stillbirth has on women, but it is not exclusively a woman’s problem. The fact that stillbirth occurs is a problem that affects the whole family, and it affects men as well. I know that, to my own cost, through a family incident. It is essential to bear in mind the impact on the mental health of men who are involved in cases of stillbirth and simply do not know where to turn in what is a completely traumatic experience. I urge the Minister to concentrate on providing information about what the Government are doing for the whole family and for the wider community.
My next point is that essentially we are talking about an artificial distinction here. We are talking about the distinction between miscarriage and stillbirth and about a particular period, which comes at around 24 weeks. That is totally unfair. Before the 24 weeks, parents are given no chance to grieve for the baby who has been lost, or to go through the process of putting their lives back together again. We ought to look at that to see whether that distinction is still relevant.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that counselling should be available for the whole family on request? We should be seeking to take that forward across the whole UK.
John Howell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Counselling needs to be provided for the whole family unit to see them through a very traumatic experience.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for introducing the debate and to the hon. Gentleman for his point about the effect that stillbirth has on the family. To add to that—I know I am not alone; there are women with whom I am sitting here who have suffered miscarriages, too—after you have suffered a miscarriage or a stillbirth, it is extremely difficult to enjoy any subsequent pregnancy. Every minute of every day is spent wondering whether you are going to lose the next child too. It is worth while bringing that point to bear in this debate to ensure that support is available for women after their loss.
John Howell
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. It is not just about the individual stillbirth, traumatic though that is; it is about the future and ensuring that individuals can go through another pregnancy in the full knowledge that they are more likely to be safe than not. Anything that we can do to help that, we should. We should take any opportunity to take things forward. That is all I wanted to contribute to the debate, and I am grateful to have had the chance to speak.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir David. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing this debate and for her heartfelt, considered and important contribution. It will have made a difference to many families, and I believe it will truly help to drive improvements.
We have heard about Sands. Sands awareness month should be a matter of concern to every Member of this House. Stillbirth can affect any family, and it is vital that we give it proper consideration and have ample time to discuss the varied and complex issues that surround it. I understand that stillbirth is a topic that is so hard to think of, let alone to debate here, but if we do not, we miss the opportunity to confront issues facing children and families who have been affected throughout Scotland and the UK. They deserve our attention and consideration.
I know that many people have their own personal experiences to draw on; I am very fortunate that this is not an experience I have had directly. I cannot say how thankful I am for that, and for the excellent care that I was fortunate to receive during my two pregnancies. But, like many here today, I know that not everyone has had experiences like mine. Far too many people watching today will have experienced the heartbreak of stillbirth. I will never forget a little girl who would have been the very same age as my eldest son, but who was stillborn. That is one of the memories that will stay with me forever. It is important that we remember all these children and acknowledge them.
We are fortunate to have access to excellent House of Commons Library briefings for debates. I was struck by the introduction to a briefing relating to this debate, which said:
“When a baby dies the impact on a family can be profound, with many parents reporting symptoms of anxiety and depression for years after their baby has died.”
I appreciate that that statement was included in that briefing because, although it seems obvious to all of us here today, it needed to be written down and put in black in white to be absolutely clear. There can be few things that anyone will ever have to deal with that are more difficult than the loss of their baby. It will have a terrible impact on family members, and for a long time. It is not something parents or families will ever forget about.
It is also vital that we continue to take steps to look at why stillbirth happens and what we can do to minimise the instances and increase awareness among medical professionals and parents of anything that might cause concern and be worth looking at.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on her very moving speech. Some Members may be aware that before I came to the House I specialised in medical negligence law, mainly acting for pursuers, or plaintiffs as they are known south of the border. Drawing on what our hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, does my hon. Friend agree that what is most important in cases where there has been medical mismanagement is a prompt investigation, a prompt apology and an undertaking to ensure that whatever lessons are required to be learned are learned?
Kirsten Oswald
I agree entirely with my hon. and learned Friend.
Stillbirth rates remained largely unchanged from the late 1990s to 2011. More recent figures have shown a decline, and the rate is now at its lowest level since 1992. Of course, that is positive, and there is undoubtedly a desire from both the UK and Scottish Governments to progress towards improving those figures further, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said, a desire is not enough: real action is needed. Maureen Watt, the then Scottish Public Health Minister, noted that
“The Scottish Government responded to a parliamentary petition in 2010…by forming a stillbirth working group and setting an aim in 2012 to reduce stillbirths by 15 per cent by 2015”.
She also noted a subsequent reduction of 18% in stillbirth rates, which
“shows that a combination of approaches”
can make an impact. Importantly, she stated that
“ministers were determined to reduce rates further.”
As my hon. Friend said at the beginning of her speech, this is not an issue of party politics, as I am confident that everyone present agrees; it is about finding ways to improve prospects for babies and preventing heartbreak and loss for families. We can all agree that this issue should have our support.
I am pleased that Scotland has made progress on reducing the stillbirth rate in recent years and similarly that the UK has made progress, but there is much work to be done and we must commit to focusing on that. It is also important that mothers who go through this traumatic and heartbreaking experience are offered the appropriate support and care, and have access, as my hon. Friends have said, to a complaints process that is open and transparent and offers opportunity for redress.
The comments made about the importance of investigation and the role of coroners are worth considering. It was interesting to see the Royal College of Midwives in The Lancet stating:
“Attention to preventing stillbirths in approach to term and 36 weeks plus must be improved”,
and that more must be done, just as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran. We need to focus our minds on the stark statistics that she has told us about. One third of stillbirths happen at term—37 weeks’ gestation or beyond—and in the vast majority of all stillbirths we never know what has befallen the baby. These areas need to be addressed with as much energy and urgency as we address important messages regarding maternal health and wellbeing.
Researchers for the Campaign for Safer Births have estimated that approximately 500 babies die every year because of avoidable factors during birth. Many are left permanently brain-damaged or disabled. They believe that all these tragic deaths and injuries could be avoided with better care. They aim to raise awareness of the issue, which my hon. Friend has surely helped to do by securing this debate today. They want to see safety improvements in maternity units and the provision of information to those who have experienced poor care or negligence.
I believe that a combination of approaches, such as those adopted by the Scottish Government, can make a material difference, but it is clear that we must be committed to driving change if we want to continue to reduce stillbirth rates. That will not happen without continued targeted action. The stillbirth group established by the Scottish Government has provided evidence that the stillbirth rate has fallen in Scotland since it commenced its work. There are 15 maternity units in Scotland taking part in a UK-wide study looking at foetal movements, which we have heard are a vital indicator, and, in particular, at how units respond to women who report decreased foetal movement. I am hopeful that there will be further progress in Scotland and the UK in this very important area.
In March 2015, the Scottish Government appointed Catherine Calderwood, an obstetrician and gynaecologist who was the national clinical director for maternity and women’s health for NHS England, as chief medical officer. That is important. Her work on reducing stillbirths and neonatal deaths in Scotland and avoidable harm in maternity services will be influential as we continue to push for vital further reductions in the number of stillborn babies. Those stillborn children are our children—they are our families’, our friends’ and our neighbours’ children—and we can best respect that by supporting continuing research, encouraging open conversations about stillbirth and helping to break down the taboos that are still all too prevalent. As politicians, we must push for new research and new ways of working, and encourage real dialogue among medical professionals about stillbirth, particularly where things have gone wrong with the care provided.
I express again my admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for securing this most important debate, and to the other speakers who have contributed.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
I echo the comments about the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and congratulate her on securing this very important debate. She is incredibly brave to talk about her experience—I know that from my personal experience of doing the same thing. I also pay tribute to her colleagues who have come to support her, because that is hugely comforting. What she has done is incredibly brave, and I thank her very much for that.
The hon. Lady spoke about the importance of talking about stillbirth and neonatal death. She hit the nail on the head: we do not like talking about death in this country—even more, we do not like talking about the death of children and, in particular, babies—but it is only by talking about not just stillbirth but neonatal death and the death of babies that we can understand the scale of the issue. As she rightly said, a lot of people in this country do not understand how poor we are at tackling this issue. We are somewhere in the region of 23rd in the western world. Given that we have one of the best health services in the world, that is totally unacceptable.
I do not particularly like talking about statistics when it comes to babies. The hon. Lady rightly said that somewhere in the region of 3,500 babies a year are stillborn. If half of those deaths are avoidable, that is approximately 1,500 to 2,000 babies and 2,000 to 4,000 parents who would not have had to go through this experience. It is not just the parents who feel the effects of stillbirth and neonatal death, but the grandparents, the friends and the wider family.
I will talk about my own experience very briefly. I have three beautiful children, but only two of them are currently with us. We lost our son. He was diagnosed at 22 weeks with a very rare chromosomal disorder called Edwards syndrome, which meant that there was a relatively high likelihood that he would not make it. As was said earlier, it meant living every day with the prospect of a stillbirth—it was too late for a miscarriage at that stage. He went full term—he was a fighter—so we went through the experience of stillbirth at full term. I have said in the Chamber previously that there is no word to describe the experience other than numbness—in fact, I will not describe it because it is going to make me upset. The point I want to make is that every single stillbirth is an absolute personal tragedy. We as a Government and as politicians have a duty to do all we can to ensure that as few people as possible go through that personal experience.
That happened in 2014. On entering this place, I was committed to doing something about this issue. I teamed up with a number of other MPs and we set up an all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, which the hon. Lady kindly joined, to do something about this on a cross-party basis. The Government have the responsibility and the power to do a lot of the work, but the all-party group can act as a conduit between the fantastic charities that work in the sector and the Government, who I know are committed to tackling the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) made an important point about mums and dads. We thought it very important that I co-chair the APPG; it is intentional that we have a man and a woman co-chairing the group. It is important that we address the issue from both sides, because it affects men as much as it affects women.
As the hon. Lady said, Baby Loss Awareness Week is coming up in October. In Parliament, we will be marking that occasion for the very first time. Mr Speaker has kindly allowed us the use of his state rooms for a function. We will be sending around ribbons and encouraging as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible to wear them proudly, and to talk about and raise the issue as much as possible in that week and also throughout the year.
I spoke earlier about the amazing work of charities in this sector. I will name just two—Sands and Bliss—but there are so many more that do incredible work, from charities carrying out research to very small organisations that knit hats, mittens, scarves and all sorts of other things, which can be hugely comforting to parents who have gone through this experience.
The Government have a very important role to play in tackling this issue. As the hon. Lady said, research is a huge part of that, whether it is on social inequality—which, as she rightly said, is a known factor in stillbirth—maternal age or ethnicity. We still do not really understand why ethnicity is so important. There is another awkward subject that we do not like to talk about in this country: we do not encourage parents who have gone through this terrible experience to have post-mortems. Often, medical professionals do not want to ask the question, but if they phrase it correctly and say, “By offering your baby for a post-mortem, it would help us immensely in understanding, in research terms, why this happens,” it will help to prevent more in the future. We have to do far more to encourage post-mortems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley talked about education for parents-to-be, whether about drugs, smoking, diet or obesity—the two are somewhat different. There is a huge amount of work to do in that area.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to suggest that this is not a party political issue—it crosses the divide—but I am hugely proud that the Government recognise that it is serious and have taken steps to address it. They are not just talking but putting money in, and they have set a target. Targets are thrown around all the time, but they are meaningless unless the money and resources are behind them, so I am proud that the Government have done that.
There are some important elements to the Government’s new care bundle. I fully agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we ensure that clinical commissioning groups and hospital trusts are doing what the Government are mandating them to do. The smoking cessation work is really important. Still now, more than one in 10 mums smoke during pregnancy. We know that that is such a high-risk factor when it comes to stillbirth. On foetal growth monitoring, we are one of the few countries that do not scan in the late stages of pregnancy. We scan at about 20 weeks and then do not do anything until the mother goes into hospital, but lots of other countries scan at 36 weeks. We are also looking at foetal growth, which is really important. The bump is measured from naval to the pelvic bone, and if there are any issues with its size, the mother is sent to hospital for a scan with a consultant. That is very important. We need to do far more foetal growth scanning in the later stages of pregnancy.
The hon. Lady also made a hugely important point about the awareness of foetal movement and the importance of foetal monitoring. We absolutely have to empower more women when they get that feeling. In so many cases of stillbirth, the mums say with hindsight, “I knew there was something wrong, but I didn’t want to bother health professionals,” or, “I phoned my doctor or the NHS helpline, and they said don’t worry.” The reality is that, if there is an issue, mums often know. It is important to empower women, so that if they feel something is not right, they go and get it checked out. We would much rather they got a diagnosis to say, “There’s nothing wrong. You’re okay. Go home”, than they ignored it, but worried about it, only for horrendous consequences to ensue.
The new Government care bundle is important and good, with £4 million being put in. In my local hospital, Colchester general hospital, we have already seen the start of that money trickling down. New monitors have been installed, and they are going in all across the country, which will help with the monitoring element in the later stages of pregnancy. Another hugely important bit is the training of midwives and nurses, and more than £1 million has been put into that. Finally, a £500,000 investment has been made in the review process, to ensure that we document and learn from every single stillbirth, while treating each as a personal tragedy. Those records should be kept and shared, so that we can look at best practice across hospitals. Some of our hospitals in the United Kingdom are fantastic and world-class, but, sadly, some are not. We need to bring all hospitals and maternity units in the country up to the very best standard.
I am pushing the time limit, but I will touch briefly on two more points. Sadly, even if we meet the Government’s target on stillbirth, which is to reduce it by 15% by 2020 and half by 2030—an incredible aim, and I would love it if we got to that position—1,500 to 2,000 babies would be stillborn every single year, so it is still important to deal with some of the bereavement issues in hospitals across our country.
The first priority should be bereavement suites; it is imperative to get one attached to every maternity unit in the country, because it is totally unacceptable that any mum or dad, having gone through the experience of a stillbirth, should have to go on to a general maternity ward, surrounded by happy families with balloons and teddies and the sound of crying babies. That is not acceptable. The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), has absolutely recognised the issue, and is working hard on it; he is doing a study of exactly what provision we have in our hospitals. I would love it if, by the end of this Parliament, we could have a bereavement suite attached to every maternity unit in the country.
Finally, although the bereavement suite is one part of that jigsaw, the second part is having enough bereavement-trained midwives and gynaecological counsellors in those units who are able to give the support to parents, not only at the time, but afterwards and—as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran said—with future pregnancies.
In conclusion, the hon. Lady is hugely brave. She raises a hugely important issue, and one that I know the Government recognise and are taking action to address. We, as cross-party politicians, can keep pressure on the Government to ensure that they meet that target of a 15% reduction by the end of the Parliament and—what an aim!—to halve stillbirth by 2030.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Thank you, Sir David, for the opportunity to speak in this debate, the subject of which is of such huge importance. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for bringing this issue, and her own tragic experience, to the attention of the House, an act of true bravery. I cannot imagine how hugely difficult it is for her and others who have contributed to the debate to speak so openly about losing their children. Equally, I cannot imagine how difficult it is for any parent or family to lose a child, but today is about raising awareness of stillbirth, and I will highlight to the House the case of dear friends of mine who had twin girls last year, but, tragically, lost one of them, Sophia Faith Fraser, who was born sleeping as a result of a little-known complication called twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome.
My friends were delighted and instantly felt hugely privileged and special to discover that they were to have twins. However, at their 20-week scan they were referred to the foetal medicine unit at the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, as their identical twin girls looked to be suffering from severe complications. The doctor confirmed their fears; their girls were suffering from stage 2 twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. TTTS is a rare disorder, which can happen in identical-twin pregnancies and, simply put, is an unequal flow of blood between the twins across the shared placenta. One baby donates blood across the placenta to their twin, becoming dangerously anaemic, and the recipient twin becomes so overloaded with blood that they are at risk of heart failure. It is a critical condition, which can be fatal to both babies.
My friends’ doctor explained that laser surgery would be the best option, to try and correct the blood flow by closing some of the vessels the girls were sharing, but the procedure carries major risks, and the parents were advised that they could lose one or both of their girls. If left untreated, however, there was only a 10% chance that both girls would survive, and they would be very likely to suffer brain damage. As we can imagine, the parents wanted to help their girls in any way they could, so they decided to go ahead with the laser surgery.
The case carried a high risk of complications so, two days later, Sophia’s mum was taken to Birmingham, where their doctor could perform the surgery with the support of a specialist team. The laser surgery went well, closing some of the shared vessels through a small incision in Sophia’s mum’s abdomen. Two litres of fluid were drained from her womb, a dangerous side effect of the TTTS, and her parents were told that a scan would be performed an hour later, to tell if there were still two heartbeats. That was the longest hour of their lives, but they were overjoyed when the scan showed that both girls had survived the procedure, and had already begun to make improvements. However, the parents were warned that the next few days were critical and, a week later, during a check-up, it became apparent that although the laser surgery had corrected some of the flow, it had not solved the problem completely.
Sophia, the donor twin, was in grave danger and required a blood transfusion, which was given directly into her stomach through her mother’s stomach with a fine needle. That procedure carried great risk not only for Sophia but for her sister, Eloise. Without it, however, Sophia could not survive, and the parents wanted to do everything possible. Their aim was for the girls to make it to 28 weeks’ gestation, when they could be delivered and given a higher chance of survival. The blood transfusion brought some success, and the procedure was repeated to try and build up Sophia’s blood supply. However, heartbreakingly, when her mother was 25 weeks pregnant, Sophia passed away. The parents were devastated; she had fought so hard and for so long. They felt they were living in a nightmare, and—as they described it to me—one they could still not wake up from.
My friends were grieving for Sophia while fighting hard for Eloise, who was still in danger and had to be scanned every two to three days. Sophia and Eloise’s mum bravely carried both girls until she was 34 weeks pregnant when, after a check-up, she was given an emergency caesarean section due to a bleed in her womb. Eloise Hope Fraser was born at 6.46 pm, weighing 4 lbs 7.5 oz, and her little sister, Sophia Faith Fraser, was born sleeping shortly afterwards.
Both girls had been very poorly during the pregnancy, with the uneven blood flow endangering their lives and putting them at risk of severe long-term health problems or brain damage. The girls’ parents believe that Sophia knew how ill she was and let go, giving her big sister a special gift, the gift of life. For that, they think she is a brave and amazing little girl, who will always be an important part of their family. I know they could not put into words how much they love her and her sister, Eloise. Eloise is now thriving, and making her little sister proud every day.
My friends’ case is rare, but not unique. They have often said to me that the care they received during their pregnancy from the foetal medicine unit was absolutely outstanding. They described Dr Janice Gibson as the most dedicated and skilled medical professional they had ever met. She held their hands and cried with them, and she gave them hope and sound advice. They can never repay her for what she did for their family. Dr Gibson is the only person in Scotland trained to carry out the laser procedure, and funding is needed to support ongoing training and families going through similar experiences. The couple now hope to raise money for this important cause, which they have been doing through the Sophia Fraser Foundation. The money they raise will support foetal medicine through the Yorkhill Children’s Charity.
I tell Sophia’s story today, with her parents’ permission, to highlight some of the unknown complications and rare disorders that can occur during childbirth, such as the twin transfusion syndrome. Aftercare and bereavement support for parents, as has been said, is so important, and I pay tribute to Sands, which does work in my West Lothian constituency and across our countries to support families who have lost children to stillbirth or neonatal complications. We have come a long way in medical developments, and although Sophia’s mum had the best care she felt she could have had, we must continue to raise awareness and work to improve services and care so that lives can be saved, and so that parents do not have to go through what Patricia or Sophia’s parents have gone through.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is very hard to sum up this debate. We have heard some extraordinary contributions from my very brave colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), and from the hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Colchester (Will Quince) and my hon. Friends the Members for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). While listening to all those wonderful contributions, I reflected on my own story, which is not of a stillbirth but of a bad miscarriage, which I have never mentioned to my children who are alive now. This debate is so important, because it puts into the public domain the pain, grief and horror of stillbirth. As parliamentarians, we must make this a subject that we are able to discuss so that we can improve the life chances of children yet to be born.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran asked the Minister to take steps to improve the statistics. The hon. Member for Colchester said that we do not want to talk about statistics; we are talking about babies. We want to improve the life chances of babies yet to be born. This is a time that I feel proud to be a Member of Parliament, because we can do that. The Sands month for remembering and mentioning stillbirths is important, as is the work of the other charities that have been mentioned. One charity that has not yet been mentioned is Kicks Count, whose work leads directly to women listening to their bodies and ensures that if there is not foetal movement, they can report that. I hope that as a result of this debate, women will be listened to. I know, since I have been there, that women know their bodies. They know when something is not right. If only we could get health professionals to take on board what women are telling them, that could make a huge difference.
Other changes could be made. As my hon. Friend said, health trusts—CCGs in England—should not be investigating themselves. There should be independent investigations into deaths, and those investigations should be time-limited and not allowed to drag on. That is important. Coroners should be able to hold inquests and post-mortems should be carried out to help our understanding of why babies die just before, during and just after birth. It is important that we take that work forward. I understand that men are also affected by stillbirth. We sometimes concentrate on mothers, but we must recognise that it is families who suffer.
As has already been said, there is nothing but consensus among the parties in this debate, both north and south of the border, and that is very important. We all want the best for babies. We all want them to be born. We all want to improve our standing in global statistics. Actually, we all just want more babies to be born safely, and when they cannot be, for their deaths to be investigated so that the fight to help this really difficult situation moves forward.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this extremely important debate and the compelling way that she introduced it. She is right that she is not alone in having gone through such a terrible experience, and she is certainly not alone in wanting to move this issue up the political agenda. I pay tribute to her for the courage that she has shown in retelling her experience. I do not think that any Member could fail to have been moved by her speech, and I am sure that many of those watching her contribution will, sadly, have recognised the personal tragedy, which was made more difficult by the defensive attitude of the health service. Many people have had such experiences—not just in this area but through many other failings in care in the health service. She made a compelling case for the extension of coroners’ powers to holding inquests on stillbirths. As we know from recent high-profile inquests, there is a need for a comprehensive review of that whole system.
Hon. Members from both sides have made excellent and sometimes very moving contributions. I draw particular attention to the contribution of the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), who rightly raised the impact on parents’ mental health of such experiences and the loss that the whole family feels. Not only the mother and father, but little brothers or sisters and the wider family are impacted by such tragic events.
The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) was right to highlight the need for prevention and how many parents experience a stillbirth and never get an adequate explanation of how that happened. I agree that only through continued targeted action will we drive the necessary progress. The hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) summed up the challenge very well when he said that we do not like talking about death in this country. I pay tribute to him for the great strength that he showed in talking about his experience. I am sure that he will be able to get many more Members to talk about this subject through his work on the APPG. The hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) spoke with great sincerity about her constituents’ experience and the twin to twin transfusion syndrome process, and conveyed the incredible range of emotions that parents must go through in such situations, which are rare but none the less extremely difficult for those involved.
I welcome the debate, which, as we have heard, coincides with Sands awareness month. I add my voice to those of others who have already paid tribute to the enormously important work that that charity does. Sands awareness month gives us the opportunity to increase awareness of stillbirth and neonatal death and the devastating impact experienced when a baby dies before, during or after birth, which hon. Members have conveyed with great sincerity and courage.
In November, I was privileged to have the opportunity to respond for the Opposition in a debate marking World Prematurity Day. That debate was also difficult, and what we heard then from Members about stillbirths and neonatal deaths was equally compelling and challenging. We still face those challenges, and this is an opportunity to explore in further detail some of the issues that were raised in November and have been raised today and to scrutinise the progress that the Government have made in the six months since that debate.
As has been said already, although there has been enormous progress in the past century in tackling stillbirth and infant mortality rates, progress has more or less stalled in the past two decades, and the UK continues to perform significantly worse than many comparable nations on infant mortality rates and remains one of the poorest performing countries in the developed world for stillbirths. That is a clear sign that we are not doing well enough in providing neonatal care or tackling the underlying public health issues that contribute to premature births and stillbirth.
Research into babies stillborn from 28 weeks indicates that the UK has a stillbirth rate of 2.9 per 1,000 births —higher than Germany at 2.4; Poland at 2.3; the Netherlands at 1.8; and Denmark at 1.7. Members have said that this issue is not just about statistics, and it is about far more than that, but those statistics need to be laid out, because it is clear that we are not doing as well as we should be and progress is not as swift as in some other places in Europe. I think that all Members want to see that situation addressed. We welcome the Secretary of State’s ambition to reduce stillbirths and neonatal deaths by 50% by 2030, but 14 years is a long way off, so will the Minister give us some indication of what progress he expects to be made before that date? Will he also set out where he expects us to be by around 2020, by which time the Secretary of State has indicated that he expects there to have been a measurable reduction?
We welcome the announcement from 13 November of a £4 million investment in equipment and training and the establishment of a new system enabling staff to review and learn from every stillbirth and neonatal death. The Government have signalled their intention to review every one of those tragedies, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could update us on how close we are to reaching that target, and when he expects it to be met.
One of the key themes that has emerged today and in the debate we had last year is that we have some of the finest neonatal care in the world in this country, but that there is simply far too much variability between hospitals and regions. In my role as an Opposition spokesperson I have had the pleasure of visiting some excellent facilities, most recently those at Barnsley general hospital, where the commitment and attention to detail of the staff, based on listening to and valuing patients’ views, was particularly impressive. At this point, I think it is worth paying tribute to NHS staff who are tasked with helping families at their most difficult time for the sensitivity, understanding and professionalism that they show.
The hon. Member for Colchester raised the issue of bereavement suites being available in every maternity unit in this country. If we had the same quality of care that I saw in Barnsley throughout the country, that would be a real achievement. We need to see those units that currently offer the very best care spreading their expertise across the country, so that everyone can have the very best throughout their pregnancy. Attempts to achieve that have begun. In March, NHS England published new guidance, building on existing clinical guidance and best practice. It identified four key interventions, with the aim of meeting the Secretary of State’s ambition to halve the rate of stillbirths by 2020. Those key interventions are reducing smoking in pregnancy, enhancing detection of foetal growth restriction, improving awareness of foetal movement and improving foetal monitoring during labour.
It has been estimated that if no women smoked during pregnancy, 7.1% of stillbirths could be avoided, which would equate to around 230 additional babies surviving each year. Smoking and passive smoking increase the risk of infant mortality by an estimated 40%. However, despite those startling statistics, we have seen a significant cut in public health funding, leading to around 40% of local authorities cutting budgets for smoking cessation services. Only last week I saw two pregnant women smoking on the same day. While I appreciate that that is anecdotal, it nevertheless brought home to me that we are certainly not making the inroads that we should be into cutting smoking during pregnancy. As the hon. Member for Colchester said, one in 10 women still smoke during pregnancy, which is startling, given the huge amount of evidence about the risks of doing so. We clearly need to do more to get that message across. If the key interventions are to be effective, cuts to public health budgets will not help in achieving that aim.
I have no doubt that the other suggested interventions will also help us to drive down rates of infant mortality. However, as the Royal College of Nursing has pointed out, England remains 2,600 full-time midwives short of the number it needs. We simply must have the correct level of staffing if we are to successfully implement that guidance. There are also serious issues in the levels of other clinical staff in neonatal units. The report published last year by Bliss, “Hanging in the balance”, argues that neonatal services are “stretched to breaking point”. It also states that two thirds of neonatal intensive care units do not have enough doctors and nurses, with around 2,000 more nurses needed to fill that gap. A report by the Royal College of Midwives also stated that more than 40% of wards became so busy last year that they were forced to close their doors. The average unit closed its doors on five occasions, with some closing more than 20 times.
Worrying reports this week also suggest that staff shortages and increasing demands are impacting on the ability of midwives and maternity staff to provide care. A survey by the Royal College of Midwives found that 62% of midwives and maternity support workers felt dehydrated at work because they did not have time to have a drink; 79% did not take the breaks to which they were entitled; and 52% had witnessed an error, near miss or other incident in the past month. Given the impact of current staff shortages, I question the proposal to replace bursaries for nurses and midwives with student loans, as I believe that is a risk we cannot afford to take at this stage.
The Universities Minister has confirmed that, since the tripling of tuition fees in 2012, the number of student nurses over the age of 25 has plummeted. Given that the average age of nurses and midwives in training is over 25, I have serious concerns that, for all the good intentions we have at the moment, we will not have the resources and staff to deliver the improved outcomes we all want to see. Areas such as neonatal care, which are already stretched, need more support, and I therefore invite the Minister to reconsider the current policy.
I conclude by focusing on the families who experience bereavement when their baby dies during or after birth. It is difficult to contemplate what they go through when what should be a time of joy and celebration becomes a period of tragedy beyond measure. Again, I pay tribute to the compelling way hon. Members have expressed their experiences. They have certainly given us all an awful lot to consider. What has made many people’s experiences even more difficult is that speaking about the loss of a baby has, as many Members have said, traditionally been considered taboo. Families have often felt they have nowhere to turn for help, or even to talk about it. The fact that Members have had the courage to talk about it today will help us challenge that taboo, and along with Sands awareness month, we will be able to make progress in making sure that we can talk about these issues openly and give a voice to those who have experienced the personal tragedy of the death of a baby.
I hope the great sincerity and passion with which Members have spoken will lead to a redoubling of efforts, not only in terms of neonatal care and tackling public health issues but in ensuring that we listen to the experiences of people who have gone through this, so that families get the support they need at the point of such a personal tragedy. They deserve the best possible bereavement support from highly trained professionals, and we should do everything in our power to ensure they are offered nothing less than the very best.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Life Sciences (George Freeman)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this debate and on sharing her experiences so personally and powerfully with the House. I thank colleagues from all sides of the House for doing likewise. Sometimes this House, when it speaks with a personal voice on non-partisan issues, can strike a blow for democracy. I think anyone listening today will have seen their representatives doing their jobs and sharing here in Parliament that which is so often not well expressed in the land.
It is a great pleasure for me to stand in for the Minister for Care Quality, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer). He is unable to be here today, ironically because his wife, who is pregnant, is having a check-up. I hope it will not be anything serious, and I am sure we all wish him well. I know how much he wanted to be here today, and a number of Members on all sides have paid tribute to his leadership and commitment to this issue, which is very personal. I know he would like to be nowhere more than here, other than beside his wife.
Being here is a particular pleasure for me, partly because I am the Minister responsible for research in the NHS, genetics and unleashing the power of our health system to use its daily footprint of treatment and diagnoses to help to prevent suffering for future generations. This is an area in which, as hon. Members have touched on, good research and intelligent use of data from our health system can help to support future care and improve standards of care and prevention.
On a personal note, I was a child of parents who lost a child. I was due to have a baby sister. She was stillborn very late, and it was a tragedy for the whole family, as hon. Members have talked about, and devastating for my mother. It created huge pressure on my mother and her then husband’s marriage, which did not survive, and led to a complex raft of mental health and domestic family issues, which, as a number of colleagues have said, is all too common. People suffer in silence, and I think all of us talking about this today will in itself help to give people courage to recognise that this is an important issue that people should feel free and able to talk about.
Before I address the specific points made by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran and other colleagues, I want to set the scene on the Government’s approach to stillbirths in England. I and the Minister for Care Quality, and the Department of Health and its officials, very much welcome the hon. Lady raising these issues today and her support for Sands awareness month, which is this month.
As a number of colleagues have mentioned, stillbirth is often a taboo subject that many people find difficult to talk about and, because of that, many people do not know the statistics. Stillbirth is a personal tragedy, but the statistics matter. Around 15 babies every day are stillborn or die in the first weeks after birth. Today, perhaps 15 families who are expecting a joyous life event will instead experience one of the biggest tragedies of their lives, with another 15 tomorrow and another 15 the day after, and so on. If there were 15 fatal car crashes every day, I dare say the country would be in uproar, but stillbirths remain an uncomfortable subject for people to discuss. It is important that here in Parliament we raise the issue and raise awareness of it.
I want to commend the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, which is co-chaired by my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince). The APPG was established following one of the most moving Adjournment debates held in Parliament, last November, on bereavement support for families who have experienced the loss of a baby. Reducing the number of stillbirths is an absolute priority for the Department of Health, and we will continue to work closely with Sands and the health system to raise awareness of the risk factors and the clinical practices that can improve outcomes for families.
In fact, England is a very safe country in which to have a baby and it is encouraging that the stillbirth rate in England has fallen from 5.2 deaths per 1,000 births in 2011, to 4.7 in 2013; but we all know that there is much more work to be done. Compared with other similar countries, our stillbirth rates are frankly unacceptable. The Lancet stillbirth series was published in January and showed that the UK was ranked 24th out of 49 high-income countries. The same publication showed that the UK’s rate of progress in reducing stillbirths has been slower than that of most other high-income countries. The annual rate of stillbirth reduction in the UK was 1.4%, compared with 6.8% in the Netherlands. To be frank, that places us in the bottom third of the table—in 114th place out of 164 countries around the world—for progress on stillbirths.
We are aware, however, of the impressive work being done through the Scottish Maternity and Children Quality Improvement Collaborative that has resulted in a 15% decrease in the stillbirth rate in Scotland in just three years. That is another area where the devolution of responsibility allows healthy competition between the devolved Administrations and the best can inspire the rest. We want NHS maternity services to be an exemplar of the results that we can achieve when we focus on improving safety and the patient experience. We believe that, with a concerted effort, we can make England one of the safest places in the world to have a baby.
The Government are wholeheartedly committed to improving outcomes for mothers and babies. In November last year, the Secretary of State launched the national ambition to reduce the rate of stillbirths, neonatal deaths, maternal deaths and brain injuries that occur during or soon after birth by 50% by 2030, with the short-term aim of achieving a 20% reduction during this Parliament by 2020. We were delighted that the royal colleges and maternity and neonatal professionals, as well as key third sector organisations, including Sands, have come together in this area and have welcomed that important yet stretching ambition; we know that to achieve it the health system, the Government, charities and the public all have to take action and work collaboratively.
We know from experience in some maternity services in England that making safety a priority can have an impact very quickly. Strong leadership in the service, good communication, implementation of evidence-based practices, learning from other services about what works and what does not, multidisciplinary team working and training can all have a real impact quickly.
To support the NHS in achieving that stretching ambition, the Government have also announced additional investment: £2.24 million to support trusts in buying monitoring and training equipment to improve safety. That fund was run at the beginning of this year and has now been completed. Over 90 trusts have been successful and received a share of funding, allowing them to buy the latest equipment. We are also putting £1 million into rolling out training programmes to ensure that staff have the skills and confidence they need to deliver world-leading standards of care.
We have also committed to fund the development of a new system—the standardised perinatal mortality review tool. Once that is complete it will be used consistently across the NHS to enable staff to review and learn from every stillbirth and neonatal death. We are developing the tool as many national reports have referenced—as colleagues have here this afternoon—the fact that the same mistakes are being made repeatedly, which is unacceptable. What is missing in these cases is a systematic approach to improving services. We must view individual failings as important and recognise the need for accountability, while balancing that with the need to establish standard processes that will prevent mistakes and avoidable incidents from reoccurring.
In November we also committed to work with Sign up to Safety—the national patient safety campaign launched by the Government in 2014—to support all organisations and to ensure that they can contribute to the national ambition and share best practice. In March we launched the Sign up to Safety sub-brand, “Spotlight on Maternity”. The new guidance asked all organisations with maternity services to commit publicly to placing a spotlight on maternity, to contribute towards achieving the Government’s national ambition and to improve maternity outcomes. It set out five high-level themes for services to focus on that are known to make care safer: building stronger leadership; building capacity and skills for all staff; sharing progress and lessons learned across the system; crucially, improving data capture and knowledge; and focusing on perinatal mental illness.
I want to deal, in particular, with a number of points that have been raised, starting with the investigation of stillbirths and neonatal deaths. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran raised two points about the investigation of stillbirths. The first was the suggestion that coroners’ powers should be looked at and could be expanded, so that they have jurisdiction to investigate the death of a child who is stillborn after 37 weeks’ gestation to try to understand why the death occurred and to inform best practice. The second point was about independent investigations about clinical care when concerns are raised about a stillbirth or neonatal death.
By law, coroners can only investigate the death of a child when the child has lived independently of their mother, and there are no current plans for the Ministry of Justice to change that. The points about the importance of parents being able to volunteer to have a coroner look at such cases have been well made this afternoon, and I am sure that Ministers at the Ministry of Justice will be watching this debate. If there is doubt as to whether a death was a stillbirth, it should be reported to the coroner to consider whether an investigation should be carried out. Expanding the remit of coroners would require a change in the law and would be an issue for the Ministry of Justice—I will make sure that this debate is brought to its attention.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ guidelines on late intrauterine foetal death and stillbirth state that the right approach is for stillbirths to be reviewed in a multi-professional meeting, using a standardised approach to analysis for substandard care and future prevention. We believe that we should be pursuing that focus, led by clinicians. We are looking at all options to improve reviews into stillbirths and neonatal deaths, including investing half a million pounds to create a system to look at them more consistently across the country, so that staff can understand and learn from each incident.
In April we established a new independent healthcare safety investigation branch—HSIB—to carry out investigations and share its findings. It will operate independently of Government and the healthcare system, be transparent and support continuous improvement by using the very best investigative techniques from around the world, as well as fostering learning from staff, patients and stakeholders. We want that branch to act—in the same way as in the airline industry—as an exemplar to the system as a whole, so that investigations improve and clinicians are increasingly confident that when they speak up after a mistake the result will be learning and not blame.
I want to tackle the point the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made about collaborative care between clinicians—midwives and doctors—and mothers. She called for maternity care that is more collaborative and responsive to women. She is right. She mentioned the statistic from Sands that 45% of women who raised a concern with a health professional during pregnancy were not listened to and then went on to have a stillbirth. That is completely unacceptable. All women should receive safe, personalised maternity care that is responsive to their individual needs and choices. That is why the Minister for Care Quality has taken such a strong lead on this issue.
In February the report of the independent National Maternity Review chaired by Baroness Cumberlege, “Better Births”, was published. It set out the vision for maternity services across England to become safer, more personalised, kinder, professional and more family-friendly. As we work towards achieving the national ambition, the Department will continue to work closely with NHS England to ensure that this work is embedded in the maternity transformation programme that is delivering the “Better Births” programme.
Women and their partners and families also have a role to play. Evidence shows that this stretching ambition cannot be achieved just through improvements to NHS maternity services. The public health contribution will be crucial. In fact, The Lancet stillbirth series concluded that 90% of stillbirths in high-income countries occur antenatally and not during labour.
When starting pregnancy, not all women will have the same risk of something going wrong and women’s health before and during pregnancy is one of the factors that most influence rates of stillbirth, neonatal death and maternal death. We know that a body mass index of over 40 doubles the risk of stillbirth. A quarter of stillbirths are associated with smoking, and alcohol consumption is associated with an estimated 40%. In addition, the report, “Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries in the UK” published in June 2015 showed that the risk for women living in poverty is 57% higher, for babies from black and minority ethnic groups it is 50% higher and for teenage mothers and mothers over 40 it is 39% higher. Those striking statistics show why the Department of Health will continue to work closely with Public Health England and voluntary sector organisations to help women to have a healthy pregnancy and families to have the best start in life wherever they are and whoever they are.
As part of the national ambition, the Department is already developing a public-facing communications campaign with Sands and Best Beginnings to highlight the avoidable risk factors. It is vital that women and their families understand these risks and the impact they can have on outcomes for them and their babies, and the lifestyle changes they can make to increase their likelihood of a positive outcome. This campaign will be launched imminently and I encourage all hon. Members to support it during the launch period.
I want to touch on research as the Minister for research in the Department. Some hon. Members have asked that we support research into the causes of stillbirth and neonatal death so we can better understand how to identify babies at risk. Unless we invest in research, we simply cannot understand how to improve services. I welcome the fact that just this week Sands announced the launch of its 2016 research fund. In recent years, the Government have invested significant sums in support of research into important questions regarding stillbirths and neonatal deaths.
The National Institute for Health Research, for which I am responsible and on which we spend over £1 billion a year as the NHS research laboratory around the country, supports biomedical research centres at Cambridge and Imperial College, where it has invested over £6 million in research on women’s health, including research to increase understanding of stillbirths and neonatal deaths. Other NIHR funding pots are available for bids from researchers and charities. It is vital that we continue to encourage bids for studies on the causes of stillbirth and neonatal deaths and the identification of babies at risk, so we can learn how to improve services.
I want to touch on the importance of bereavement care, which has been raised. The death of a baby, whether during pregnancy or following birth, is a trauma and a tragedy for those involved. I can only begin to appreciate just how devastating it must be for the parents who experience that loss. It is important that we provide them with appropriate care and support at that time. It is our duty to them. The recent MBRRACE report stated that 60% of parents currently receive a high standard of bereavement care, but that means that 40% do not.
Since 2010, we have already invested £35 million in the NHS to improve birthing environments, including better bereavement rooms and quiet area spaces at nearly 40 hospitals. We have also conducted a survey to map the bereavement provision in England, which will allow us to build up a picture of current provision and identify where the gaps are. The qualitative data we have collected is also crucial in both highlighting areas of good practice and understanding the challenges that services face. My officials are considering all that information and working on setting out the next steps imminently.
In the time available, I want to try to deal with the other points that have been raised, including third trimester scans. The UK National Screening Committee is currently carrying out a call for new screening proposals. I can send hon. Members details of how to submit a proposal to that funding pot.
On routine antenatal care, the “Better Births” report by the National Maternity Review calls for safer care based on a relationship of mutual trust and respect in line with the woman’s decisions. The vision is for women from the antenatal period to receive care from a small team of midwives who work closely with an identified obstetrician. The relationship developed between the woman and the clinicians needs to ensure that the woman receives personalised and safe care that is responsive to their individual needs.
My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) asked about ensuring that clinical commissioning groups are properly aware of their obligations. The “Saving Babies’ Lives” care bundle published in late March by NHS England brings together elements of maternity care that are recognised as evidence-based and/or essential for best practice. It is designed to tackle stillbirth and early neonatal death, and focuses on those four key areas. I am happy to take this opportunity to highlight the fact that CCGs should be aware of it and to make sure that NHS England ensures that CCGs are aware of their responsibilities and what is expected of them.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) asked about our commitment to report on the progress of our ambition of a 20% reduction by 2020. I am delighted to confirm that the standardised perinatal mortality review tool will be available to all trusts by 2017 and we will provide annual progress reports following the launch of the strategy. The annual progress report will include expert advice from all the royal colleges and we plan to publish the first this autumn.
Some hon. Members asked about counselling for families. We are committed and believe that good bereavement care should consider the needs of the whole family: mother, father and children. The Government are absolutely committed to improving bereavement care. We are working actively on setting out the next steps in due course.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran for securing the debate and hon. Members from all sides for sharing often personal and traumatic stories. It has allowed us to highlight some very difficult issues and to acknowledge the silent suffering of so many of our constituents—this condition does not respect party or geographical boundaries—and to stress the importance of tangible progress from all the agencies involved. I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that the Government are taking the matter seriously. We are putting in both investment and, importantly, leadership, which I think all hon. Members agree the Minister for Care Quality is showing. I look forward to seeing the progress of all this work and reporting on it later this year.
Patricia Gibson
I reiterate my gratitude to the House for allowing me to have this debate. I want to make a brief point to the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), which other hon. Members have made: of course this is an issue not just for women; it is an issue for mums, dads, fathers-in-law, mothers-in-law, sisters and brothers. It affects entire families and we must recognise the impact of that.
I thank all those who turned up today to participate in the debate or simply to observe it. Their presence helps to reinforce the importance of the issue. I thank the Minister for responding to the debate. I was hopeful when he mentioned that the Ministry of Justice might be interested in extending coroners’ powers. I will watch that carefully. I am heartened to see that there may be some movement towards independent reviews of care and deaths. I am also heartened to hear about the commitment to fund research to better understand the issue. I am very pleased to hear the Minister’s emphasis on and understanding of the need for more collaborative care that is more responsive to women, as well as his commitment to and faith in the “Better Births” programme. I thank him for that and I thank everyone who attended.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered stillbirth.
Refugee Family Reunion Rules
(8 years, 4 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
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered refugee family reunion rules.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, for what I think is the first time. I am delighted to have secured this debate on what to my mind is one of the most important issues facing this country today.
I am going to break one of my own golden rules, Mr Bone. I know that from time to time you speak about Mrs Bone in the Chamber, and those little family insights are no doubt treasured by us all. I rarely speak about my family, and probably most right hon. and hon. Members will understand why. Today, however, I will depart from that rule for a minute or two because—this goes to the heart of things—we have to stop thinking about the family reunion rules as an abstract or theoretical issue. We need to stop thinking in terms of targets, quotas and rules and instead start thinking of individuals and families. We need to introduce some humanity into the system.
Last weekend, I was myself part of a family reunion. The whole Carmichael family—three generations of us—gathered on Islay to celebrate my parents’ diamond wedding anniversary. As some hon. Members may know, Islay is a small island, but it is home to no fewer than eight distilleries. It is fair to say that we learned some years ago how to have a good party, and last weekend was no exception. I mention this because I think it would help us all, as we approach this subject, to ask ourselves how we feel about our own family. What would we do to keep them together; what would it mean to be separated from them; and how would we feel if that separation was the result of some arbitrary set of rules?
My wife and I have two sons. We have a 15-year-old in secondary school and a 19-year-old in his first year of university study. If I were in this country as a refugee, the 15-year-old would be entitled to join me, but the 19-year-old would not. That reminds me of the Old Testament story of Isaac having to choose between Jacob and Esau. Forcing that sort of choice on people belongs in the Old Testament, not in a 21st-century, modern democracy. My 19-year-old son did not suddenly become a different person when he turned 18. The feelings I have for my 19-year-old son did not change when he became 18, and if I were separated from him, I would feel that separation every bit as keenly as I would if I were separated from my 15-year-old.
I contrast my family’s happy weekend with the stories of so many who come here seeking refuge and our help. I am sure that we could stand here all day exchanging anecdotes and personal stories, so I will offer only one example. Muhammed came from Syria. He arrived in the United Kingdom in March 2014. He was granted refugee status in December 2014 and immediately began the process of applying for family reunion. The restrictive family reunion rules mean that the former lawyer—I am a former lawyer myself—his wife and their younger children are separated from the two older children because they are over 18. His oldest daughter, Athar, is currently in Turkey, while his oldest son, Kusai, 19, is in a refugee camp in northern France. The rigidity of the rules means that essentially we are forcing young people to make dangerous journeys to reach their families and safety.
I am grateful to the several campaign groups and agencies that supplied briefing material ahead of today’s debate. To pick just one, I am supporting the British Red Cross’s Torn Apart campaign. This is my first ask of the Minister today. Will he meet the British Red Cross and the Refugee Council, which have both done so much work directly with the families affected and which know the issue so much better than any of us in the House?
I pay tribute also to UNICEF and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which also provided detailed and substantial briefings for today’s debate. I cannot improve on quoting the former. It says:
“The lack of safe and legal routes to Europe, or within Europe, for those fleeing conflict and persecution is forcing children into the hands of traffickers and smugglers, and putting the lives of refugee and migrant children at risk. Restrictions in the current UK refugee family reunion rules for unaccompanied children alongside delays in expediting the Dublin III procedure for family reunion are combining to mean that children are often stranded alone in Europe, or facing even longer stays in makeshift camps, with many risking their lives in efforts to join family members in the absence of a belief that the system will support them.”
UNICEF says—this is its first ask in regard to the rules—the Government must provide safe and legal routes to family reunion by applying the UK’s rules and practices on refugee family reunion more flexibly and widening those rules to ensure that children can be reunited with extended family members; and by implementing the EU’s Dublin III regulation as intended, enabling unaccompanied and separated children to have their asylum applications transferred to countries where they have family members to join. I hope that the Minister will address that ask from UNICEF when he replies to the debate.
Let me turn, then, to the Dublin III agreement, under which children are able to be reunited with their extended family. The UK immigration rules apply to children anywhere in the world and can therefore provide a safe and legal route for children, avoiding the need for them to embark on perilous journeys to Europe. That is in keeping with the Government’s own stated policy objectives. However, the UK’s own rules on refugee family reunion apply only to spouses or partners and to children under 18 and born before the family fled. There is provision for exceptions to be made outside the immigration rules, but the extent to which children benefit from judgments based on the “serious and compelling family or other considerations” or “exceptional circumstances” test remains unclear, as the Government do not specify which cases involve children. Overall, 175 visas for family reunion under “exceptional circumstances” were granted in the last five years. That is 175 over five years; there were 77 cases in 2011 and the number fell to 12 in 2014. It is worth putting those figures in the context of the upheaval that we have seen during that period.
The rules fail to recognise that after years of conflict, many of these children have been orphaned or otherwise separated from their parents but they may have grandparents, aunts and uncles or adult siblings in this country who could care for them. Children in that situation would have no choice but to make the dangerous journey to Europe before they would be able to be reunited with their family under Dublin III.
Further, the refugee family reunion rules do not permit a child to sponsor their parent or main carer to join them in the UK. When a child is granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, that is in recognition of the fact that the child cannot live safely in their home country and therefore cannot join their parent there. By preventing children from applying for their parent or main carer to join them in the UK, the rules are enforcing family separation, rather than enabling family reunification, and they risk depriving children of their right to a family life.
It is worth pausing to reflect on what the purpose of the rules should be. It seems to me that if the purpose of the rules is to reunite families, that is exactly what they should do, but the implementation of the rules has exactly the opposite effect. We do not have family reunification rules; we have family separation rules.
The agencies and non-governmental organisations ask that we widen part 11 of the UK immigration rules in various ways. They ask that we include an expanded group of extended family members who have refugee status or humanitarian protection, including adult siblings, aunts, uncles and grandparents, to sponsor the children in their family to join them. They ask that we allow unaccompanied and separated children to sponsor their parent or main carer to join them in the UK, and they ask that we include children born after the family fled from their country of origin. To put it another way, they ask that we start looking at families as families, and not as a disparate collection of individuals connected by consanguinity.
They ask also that we interpret and apply the UK immigration rules on family reunion in a generous and flexible manner, which the Minister will hopefully agree is in the best traditions of the British Government and British civil service. They ask that we promote the protection of children and do not act as barriers to children in precarious situations being sponsored where other criteria such as family relationships and the children’s need for protection are met.
They ask that we clarify UK immigration guidance and practices, including in relation to evidential requirements and the definitions of conditions of “serious and compelling” circumstances—again, that is a test—and collect disaggregated data on exceptional cases relating to children outside the UK rules. Their final ask is that we should waive the accommodation and maintenance requirements and the application fee for children falling outside part 11 of the immigration rules.
As a set of rules, the Dublin III regulation has been agreed by 32 countries in Europe to determine the state responsible for considering an asylum application submitted in one of them. Under this regulation, unaccompanied children are entitled to be reunited with family in the UK through the transfer of existing asylum cases to the UK from another EU member state. However, the implementation of Dublin III is far from working in the best interests of the children.
Unaccompanied children across Europe have been understandably reluctant to seek access to the asylum procedure. Such children lack trust and confidence in the system, and in many cases lack knowledge or the language skills to understand family reunification procedures. Procedurally, the maximum time limit for Dublin III transfers is 11 months, and cases are typically taking that long to be processed. That is far too long for a vulnerable child to wait to be reunited with its family.
The cases of unaccompanied children in northern France are the nearest and most visible of children trapped in vulnerable situations and on dangerous routes who have a legal right to join their families in the UK. Putting an effective, sustainable process in place for the processing of Dublin claims by the UK in northern France and across Europe would ensure that no more of these children are unnecessarily kept in limbo, so close to family and yet so far from safety.
In terms of the implementation of Dublin III, my asks of the Minister are these: the Government should ensure adequate investment and resourcing of the system across Europe, enabling family reunion in the UK, including the deployment of further Home Office staff to Europe. The Government should publish guidance on the handling of Dublin III family reunion cases, including a clarification of responsibilities and procedures for assessing UK-based family members of unaccompanied children ahead of any transfer. At the local level, central Government should ensure that local authorities have sufficient funding and capacity to conduct such assessments to enable Dublin transfers to be expedited while safeguarding the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child is a test that we apply routinely to children in our own legal system. Again, why should we apply a different test to the children who come here in such desperate circumstances?
Working in partnership with other European Governments, the Government should invest in ensuring that unaccompanied children have access to high-quality legal assistance. We will all have seen from our constituency casework the impact that the removal of legal aid from those seeking access to the asylum and immigration legal processes has had over the years. That is now becoming acute and really does need to be addressed.
The Government should ensure that children in Europe have child and language-accessible information about the procedures for reuniting children with their families in the UK via the Dublin procedure. Again, I draw on my own personal experience as a solicitor in practice and previously as a prosecutor. The way in which we provide information to children in dealing with court systems, for example, is light years away from the standard and quality of information that is provided to children seeking refuge here. Why do we treat these children as though they are somehow worth less than our own?
I expect that the Minister will speak about the rules for family reunion visas being granted outside the set criteria in the exceptional circumstances to which I have referred. However, the figures speak for themselves. Given the massive upheaval in the middle east and elsewhere and the vast number of people on the move, the number of visas that have been granted in such exceptional circumstances is painfully low. Refugee family reunion is about protecting lives. It has its basis in refugee law, so it should be considered part of the refugee and asylum process, not just part of the immigration system.
My final ask of the Minister is that we should allow more refugees in through the Syrian vulnerable persons scheme. At the current rate I am not sure how the Government will meet their own target of 20,000 by the end of this Parliament, let alone do more as we all believe they should. We should take refugees from Europe through our own scheme or by signing up to the European relocation scheme. We should take unaccompanied refugee children who have made the journey alone and are now vulnerable to traffickers in Europe. We should offer safe and legal routes to cut off the air to smugglers and we should do this hand in hand with our European and other international partners. All that would help, but a change to the family reunion rules is the necessary first step. That is the place to start. I look forward to hearing what the Minister can offer us by way of some assurance.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is indeed a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate and on his excellent speech. I also congratulate him on his excellent article, which I read this morning on PoliticsHome and which I would commend to other Members of the House. It has been invaluable in preparing for this afternoon’s debate.
Few would challenge the reasons why protecting the family unit is a fundamental principle of international law, and international refugee law in particular. As the United Nations declaration of human rights states:
“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.”
Fleeing persecution should never require a refugee to have to give up that unit and have to choose between safety and family. There is a second fundamental reason for protecting the family unit and reuniting families, which is that family reunion is also about saving and protecting lives, as the right hon. Gentleman argued, because many of those applying to join family members here will themselves be in grave danger. That has never been as true as at present.
Family reunion is about providing safe legal routes to a place of protection. A failure to provide such routes will push many to turn to people smugglers and dangerous routes in an attempt to be reunited with their loved ones here in the UK. I pay tribute to the many organisations that work so hard to highlight the issues. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, the British Red Cross has been running a campaign called Torn Apart, which has perfectly captured the reasons why family reunion is so important. The powerful campaign video featuring Muhammed and Amal puts human faces on the numbers and arguments. A UNICEF campaign for reuniting unaccompanied children in Europe with families in the UK has attracted more than 100,000 signatures to a petition. As ever, the Refugee Council has been a persistent advocate of the cause.
The right hon. Gentleman highlighted concerns about the scope of the UK’s family reunion rules and problems with how they function in practice, even for those who qualify. As to the scope, he set out examples in which there was a lack of compassion or fairness, including the very restricted provision for children over the age of 18. Similar arguments are relevant to parents, siblings and other relatives. It is only fair to acknowledge that there will always be different views as to precisely where lines should be drawn, but I think most MPs and most members of the public would agree that currently the lines are drawn too restrictively.
Nowhere is that more apparent that in the case of adult children. How can we justify a policy by which an 18-year-old woman who was living as a dependent child with her parents and younger siblings in Syria cannot join them in the UK and must instead be left behind, possibly alone, in a refugee camp in Jordan, Lebanon or Turkey? Returning to the principles behind the rules, it is very hard to defend in terms of the impingement on her right to family life and the family life of her parents and children, it is absolutely indefensible in terms of her safety, and it creates a situation in which we can easily imagine that resorting to people smugglers and dangerous journeys would be a significant temptation.
Similar arguments could be made in respect of other relatives too. It is particularly true of child refugees. The UK and Denmark are alone in the EU in not allowing parents to apply to be reunited with them. The Government’s justification is child safeguarding, but we do not know what the evidence for that is. In fact, in the recent legal case of AT, the President of the Upper Tribunal concluded that the evidence suggested, contrary to the Government’s position, that allowing reunification would promote, rather than undermine, public interest in safeguarding of children. Another example is the exclusion of post-flight family. Again, that is a case where the rules appear to run contrary to the principles behind family reunion and protecting family life.
I expect the Minister will highlight the fact that provision is made for adult children and other dependent relatives to join their refugee families in
“the most exceptional compassionate circumstances”.
However, I do not think that is good enough—for a number of reasons. First, it just does not work. From my dim and distant past as an immigration solicitor, I can remember how incredibly difficult it was to have a client meet the threshold of “most exceptional compassionate circumstances”. From the briefings that we have received, that still seems to be the case. Secondly, that test is particularly inappropriate just now. To be living alone, far removed from the family unit that they have previously lived with and that they remain dependent on, is far from an exceptional circumstance for people in the current migration and refugee crisis. If the Minister cannot be persuaded to make a permanent change to the rules, surely he will consider a change to last for the duration of the current crisis. There are other problems with the rules, including the fact that they place financial tests on the refugee family to show they can support their relative without recourse to public funds.
Instead of hearing the Minister highlight the exception that would allow a few dependent 18-year-old children to join Syrian refugee families in the UK—families that they have always lived with—we want to hear him explain why on earth that is an exception in the first place. Why is it not the mainstream principle to allow family reunion in such circumstances? The wording of the exception simply highlights a far better place for lines to be drawn, if lines have to be drawn at all. Dependency and having been part of the household should be enough in itself. We should take out the financial requirements and the near-impossible task of showing
“the most compelling compassionate circumstances”.
As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked, what does that phrase even mean? Does it incorporate the example I have given of an 18-year-old girl alone in a refugee camp in Lebanon?
The right hon. Gentleman also pointed out that when we consider the exercise of discretion outside the rules, it is noticeable how rare an event that is. There have been about 65 cases outside the rules in the last three years, against a background of 20,000 family reunion applications. Such cases are rarer now than they were in 2011. I ask the Minister, as the right hon. Gentleman did, to explain that decline in the number of successful cases outside the rules, particularly given the current refugee crisis. We support hon. Members and campaigning organisations who favour a broadening of the categories of people who qualify under family reunion rules, and we ask the Minister whether he will work with experts, for example from the international Red Cross, and legal experts to broaden the scope of family reunion rules to reach a fairer and more just policy.
I want to echo some of the concerns raised about how the rules work in practice, even for those who are fortunate enough to fall within their ambit. First, it is true that family reunion is far from straightforward. Many require support, including legal support. In Scotland, solicitors can still provide help through advice and assistance funding from the Scottish Legal Aid Board. I can safely say that in my time as an immigration solicitor I never felt I was in any way wasting public funds by providing that service. The evidence gathered by the British Red Cross in its report “Not So Straightforward” backs that up. On the contrary, legal advice and support is often pivotal. I urge the Government to consider a similar scheme in England and Wales.
Secondly, there must be a change to the ridiculous procedure whereby very short entry clearance periods are issued to those seeking family reunion. That often leaves poorer families facing a near impossible task of gathering together funding for travel in the short time allowed. Will the Minister look again at the limited entry clearance period that is granted? Thirdly, we must find ways to make it easier to submit applications. Many applicants, 95% of whom are women and children, are required to travel to third countries to find their nearest British embassy. The Red Cross has highlighted the risks of violence, torture and harassment that a majority face when making that journey, and there is evidence that certain high commissions fail to follow correct practice in dealing with applicants—for example, turning away children in Rwanda because they arrived without passports. Will the Minister work with organisations such as the Red Cross to explore alternative ways of submitting applications?
Fourthly, as all hon. Members will have experienced in general immigration work, there is sometimes—not all the time—an infuriating tendency for entry clearance staff to refuse applications because there is one missing document, or one part of the form that has not been completed properly. Instead of clarifying the situation with a simple phone call, they simply refuse applications and protracted, expensive appeals follow. Can the Minister ensure that all possibilities of seeking clarification or further information are exhausted before family reunion applications are refused?
Finally, we could have a whole separate debate on the operation of the Dublin regulation and processing of “take charge” requests. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made many valid points about that. It is pivotal for children—and others— living in the awful conditions at Calais and Dunkirk or in camps in Greece to be reunited with families as quickly as possible. It has been difficult to monitor progress, and some of the answers to parliamentary questions have been frustrating, but we should all be pushing the Government to do everything possible to speed that process up, and we will continue to do that.
The Government have provided protection and shelter for refugees in regions neighbouring conflict zones, and they have done some admirable work in that regard. That is beyond doubt, and other countries should follow that example. However, the Government have also recognised that work in the region is not enough and that offering a place of safety to many is also important. In doing that, surely it makes perfect sense to include the broader set of family members of refugees who are already here. It is the right thing to do to protect people and families, stop perilous journeys and make a just contribution to alleviating the awful crisis that continues to rage.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing the debate and on the tone of his contribution. The reference to his family was a powerful way of driving home the point about the cut-off point at age 18. We often say in the House that there is a refugee crisis on a scale not seen since the second world war—and that is right: we have seen the numbers from last year and this year. However, we have a tendency—into which I myself fall—to talk in terms of numbers. Bringing some humanity to the topic is important, and that is what happened when the right hon. Gentleman spoke.
We must remember that refugees are mums, dads, children, brothers, sisters and grandparents, and are all fleeing from persecution over borders in the best way they can in the circumstances. We do not often refer to them, first and foremost, as families, but they are families who are often disintegrated and split because of the circumstances in which they have to leave a particular country or situation. We must always remember that, as it reminds us why we must always distinguish between refugees and others who move—immigrants in the broader sense of the word. We must recognise that it is a different context and set of circumstances, and that different rules ought to apply. One problem is rules that are intended to apply to immigration broadly being applied to the sub-group of refugees.
We must always remember that refugees come from many countries across the world, not just Syria. We often refer to the situation in Syria because it is so terrible, but there are other countries in which there are terrible situations and from which refugees are on the move. One of my concerns, which I have raised with the Minister and in the House a number of times, is about the potential in this country for a debate to emerge that takes a two-tier approach to refugees, with Syrians being seen in one context and other refugees in another. We must keep reminding ourselves to bear in mind not just Syria, but the very many other places from which people are fleeing.
Reunification is a particularly good example of rules intended to apply across the board not working well in relation to refugees. That is why I welcome this debate, the campaign being run by the British Red Cross, and the work of UNICEF and the Refugee Council on unaccompanied children and reunification in particular. I echo the comments of other hon. Members: we need to remember that reunification is important because families want to reunify. We live as families and when we are split and have to cross borders, we want to reunify as families. The family unit is a powerful human need. In this context, by having more flexible, wider rules on family reunification, we limit, at least to some extent, the extent to which people make dangerous journeys that they would not otherwise have to make, because they would have a safe and legal route for getting from where they are to where they need to be to reunify with their families. We must bear both those points in mind.
The reunification rules, like many aspects of the refugee framework, are under strain given the events of the last year or two. However, it is time to look again at the reunification rules in the round. I saw for myself the situation in Calais and Dunkirk earlier this year, where it was evident that there were unaccompanied children. When I went to Calais in January, there were about 130 or so unaccompanied children, but at least they had been counted and identified to the best ability of those who were there.
When I was in Dunkirk—things have changed since I was there—nobody was in a position even to identify and count the number of unidentified children there. That demonstrated the mismatch between the approach we have to children in this country and the approach that was applied in Calais and Dunkirk. When I visited, I went on the Eurostar from London and the journey took one hour. It was extraordinary that there should be a place such as Calais or Dunkirk where there were unaccompanied children who were not being assisted in the way that I would hope they would be if they were in the UK.
In the UK, we have recognised for many years that if children are to exercise their rights to reunification—or, indeed, any rights—somebody has to assist them to do so. It is simply not good enough to say to a child, “There is a mechanism. Why don’t you access it?” There has to be somebody to assist in that process.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I am sorry to have missed the opening remarks of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). My hon. and learned Friend will know from his visit to Calais of the concern about the 157 unaccompanied children, all of whom appear to have links with families in this country.
In the Bishop of Durham’s evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs on Tuesday, he said in answer to a question I put that he believed that the children should already be here. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that where links can be demonstrated and have been established—not as a matter of rule, otherwise it will encourage more people just to send their children—the children ought to be allowed to join their families here?
Keir Starmer
Yes, they should be allowed to join their families here. The rules provide for that and they need to be effectively applied. That means somebody assisting in the process on the ground. I was particularly struck at Dunkirk that there were simply no officials at all in the camp when I was there. The only officials were gendarmes on the gate, whose sole function was to stop people bringing pallets on to the site, which they wanted because the ground was so wet that they simply needed to get the tents off the ground. That was the only official presence in Dunkirk.
It is not just about the right to reunification; it is about that being within a reasonable timeframe. Months go by and that is a long time for a child. Those children are on their own and they are particularly vulnerable. We have had debates about the number of children missing in Europe; some months ago, Europol put out a figure of 10,000. Time is measured differently by children, as we all know, and those children are not only young, but vulnerable. They should not be in parts of Europe or the rest of the world without assistance. This is about the speed of the exercise.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate; I was speaking in a debate on carers in the main Chamber. To follow up the point made by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the shadow Minister noted that we need someone in place to help. Almost 1 million Christian refugees have left Syria and have been dispersed not just across Turkey, but across the whole of Europe. Some of those are young families and young individual children. May I suggest that one group that could, should and would be keen to help is the church? Will the Minister, in his reply to the shadow Minister, look at that as a possible solution to trying to find a family background for the many children who have been left on their own and who are isolated and vulnerable at Calais and elsewhere across Europe?
Keir Starmer
Of course the churches should, and do, play a part in providing support, as do many others. There are people in the camps across Europe who are trying to provide the best support they can, and that is welcome. It is, of course, a tall order to provide the help wherever it is needed, but that goes to the question of how many staff are deployed and where. In a sense, we need to step back, take a look at the rules and the reunification framework in the round, and review it across the board.
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly emphasises the importance of time, particularly for children. He will be aware that a few months ago four or five children from the camps were admitted, thanks to a tribunal ruling, on human rights grounds because the Dublin procedure was so slow. Does he agree that one option for the British Government, rather than challenging that decision, would be to implement it more widely? That way, rather than having to wait for the children to go through the French process first and then make a take-charge request, the children could be brought to the UK straight away.
Keir Starmer
That challenge was brought by, among others, lawyers working in Doughty Street Chambers—the chambers that I am still associated with. I think the children arrived in St Pancras, which is in my constituency. That demonstrated how quickly things could happen if a court approved the process. In fairness, it is not for me to tell the Minister what approach the Government should take to the appeal, but clearly speed is of the essence. There have to be practical and effective ways for children and their families to exercise the rights to which they are entitled. It is marked that there are still children relatively near, in parts of northern Europe, who have a right to reunification here but that the process is working far too slowly.
It is often said that when we respond to refugee children on their own, in Europe or elsewhere, there is a risk that if too much is done, it will encourage others to follow their path. I have been very cautious about that argument for two reasons. First, although when we talk about immigration more widely we might have to engage with the pull factor argument, when we talk about refugees we should recognise and focus on the push factors. Refugees are fleeing. Over the years, families have split as they have fled across borders. Secondly, there are children right here, right now who are already on their own in different parts of the world. For my part, and I expect for everyone else, I am not going to say, “We mustn’t extend the support that they need right here, right now lest others follow in their wake.”
Keith Vaz
I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way to me a second time. I agree with him, but does he not agree that we need to be careful about messages? The first people who pick up such messages are the people traffickers and the organised criminal gangs, and we simply have not done enough to address those gangs. They are the people who are able to transport individuals, and they are the people who prey on the vulnerable. They never put their lives at risk in the Mediterranean. We and our EU partners, including Frontex, need to do much more to deal with them.
Keir Starmer
I heartily agree and endorse every word. Ultimately, the refugee crisis will be addressed effectively only if we start at the very top, which means de-escalating the violence, and then work upstream to stop the work of those who are engaged in trafficking and putting people through the illegal and dangerous routes. I completely agree with that. In a sense, what we are discussing this afternoon is what we do much further down the line, when people and children have arrived in Europe. I am simply cautioning against the argument that has been made in the House when we have debated similar issues—although not in today’s debate—that it would somehow be wrong in principle to provide the support and assistance that is needed in Europe lest other people follow.
The problems highlighted by the British Red Cross’s campaign are real. Where over-18s were living with their family before the family split and fled across the world because of persecution, they are, of course, over the age of 18, but still vulnerable and still wanting to reunify with their family for the reasons powerfully put earlier in the debate. Refugee children not being able to sponsor family members is an issue where there simply is not sufficient flexibility to address the injustices that arise. There is the unresolved question of wider family members beyond mothers, fathers and children, and there is the problem of there having been no legal aid since 2013. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on legal aid, I take it particularly seriously that since 2013 it has been difficult to mount effective challenges unless lawyers are prepared to act on a pro bono basis, which is not how we should be proceeding on such issues in this country.
Labour has pressed these issues. Our amendment 122A to the Immigration Bill was defeated in the House of Lords, so there have been efforts, but it is good that we are debating the issue again today—not to resurrect those discussions in the other place, but to step back and ask: is it now time for that wider review? I call on the Government to look at and review the entire framework for family reunification, and I ask the Minister to make a commitment to that effect and to update us on the ongoing review of the Dublin III arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees (Richard Harrington)
I add to the small but impressive list of right hon. and hon. Members today who have said what a pleasure it is, as ever, to serve under your jurisdiction, Mr Bone. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate.
My history in the legal profession often feels inadequate in Parliament, but particularly so today. I do not compare in any way to former practising solicitors nor to someone as eminent as the shadow Minister of Doughty Street Chambers and the great office he achieved afterwards. As a mere holder of a law degree, and not a very good one, I have not looked at a law textbook since 1979, but I will do my best.
Family reunification is a serious subject that is easy to paint in terms of good and bad, black and white or evil and nice, and I thank the speakers today for not doing so—it is an easy and very cheap way to attack any Government. With that in mind, I will try to answer the points that I can answer with the same level of constructiveness. Anyone would agree that family unity is an important principle. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned it in terms of his own family, and I have two boys of a very similar age to his, as does the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). To the many of us who come from a background of people fleeing from abroad, although it was not in our generation—it was several generations ago—it is something that is passed down. When I took up my office in the Government, I did not do so lightly.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
That goes to the heart of the debate. It is about how we regard refuge. What does it mean to be a refugee? As a country, what are we offering when we offer people refuge? Surely it has to be more than residence. Surely it has to be some sort of security and stability. How do people get that when their family is split across countries?
Richard Harrington
I would find it hard to disagree with that point. I feel, and I hope that most right hon. and hon. Members agree, that this country has a very good reputation for accepting refugees not just historically but in the present day. Although I am sure that no one would suggest that our asylum system is perfect, it has certainly become speedier, allowing people not to live in such lengthy periods of limbo by making determinations comparatively quickly. I agree that those periods can still be shortened, and I hope they will be shortened. I hope that the financial package offered by the Government for the Syrian resettlement programme and other resettlement programmes shows that the Government are committed to enabling people to live proper and decent lives once they arrive here. When refugees arrive here, I agree that hopefully it is job done on human safety, but on their leading fulfilled and proper lives it is the beginning of the end, or the end of the beginning—it is not for me to quote Churchill, or to mess it up, but I hope right hon. and hon. Members will know what I mean. It is the beginning of a process, as the Government have realised in, for example, the funding of the five-year resettlement programme. I hope that many of those refugees and their families will not need the funding, because I hope they will be able to work and get the benefits of life generally, but the Government realise that it is important that that funding is available.
I apologise to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland; the point that I wanted to make about family reunion was that the Syrian resettlement programme is predominantly for families. More than 50% are children, but within family groups. The Government are not completely oblivious to the issue. However, I return to his specific points about family reunion. His first ask was simple compared with the others: would I meet the Red Cross and the Refugee Council? I am happy to meet them, but I do anyway. I am happy to meet them on any occasion; in fact, I would have met most of them this morning, except that I could not have got to east London and back in time for this debate.
If the right hon. Gentleman would like to facilitate further meetings, I am happy to go to them, but I assure him that the Red Cross and the Refugee Council are partners of ours in many things. I know that the Minister for Immigration met the Red Cross to discuss many of these issues today, but I am happy to do so as well.
As part of the latest review of the family reunion policy, we have listened carefully to many arguments in favour of widening the criteria and effectively creating another resettlement programme for family reunion alone. The debates in both Houses during the passage of the recent Bill, and in the wider community—including representations received for this debate—demonstrate the level of compassion felt about the issue. Unquestionably, right hon. and hon. Members have made eloquent and forcible arguments in this debate for doing so.
We recognise that families may be separated by conflict and persecution. It happens quickly, and the speed and manner of it is often not controlled. The motivation of most people is unquestionably just to get to their family in the UK. However, it is easy in discussions like these not to stress that we already do a lot of family reunification. In the last five years, there have been about 22,000 successful cases of family reunification. It is often not mentioned that in our programme for Syrian resettlement, family reunification is a criterion in its own right, quite apart from the other vulnerability criteria for acceptance.
The reunification system takes into account some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. It does not involve visiting a British embassy abroad; the point has been made about how difficult and dangerous that can be. It involves registering with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and going through an interview process with the UNHCR, which I have witnessed. It is lengthy, but it is not dissimilar to the type of interview that might happen at Lunar House in Croydon or other centres in the UK. Family reunification is one of the five criteria, even without the other matters. People are then brought here on one of our charter flights and resettled with their family, with an immediate right to work on a humanitarian protection visa. That is often not mentioned in the context of family reunion, but such people are coming through the Syrian system now.
At this juncture, I would like to say in the presence of the erudite and eloquent Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who came to join us today, that the comment that the Government would probably not make its target of 20,000 during this Parliament is not correct. We are well on track, and we have recently added to the target the up to 3,000 children at risk whom we are taking under the—
Richard Harrington
The right hon. Gentleman is hoping to intervene, and of course he will, but I will just finish my sentence—or page, or paragraph, in the hope that we run out of time. Excuse my humour, Mr Bone. That is an additional 3,000 children, not just from Syria and the countries around Syria; it is from the middle east and north Africa as well, and it can include non-Syrians.
Keith Vaz
The Minister does not need to carry on talking, because I am rising to praise him. Universally, all those who have dealt with him have pointed out that he has done a great job as Minister for Syrian refugees. Our concern is that speculation about the target is not helped by the Government’s refusal to publish figures monthly. The Minister will know that from his last appearance before the Committee. He keeps telling us that the figures will be published in the quarterly results. However, because he is doing a brilliant job, it would help his case if he published those figures more readily so people knew of the good work that is being done.
Richard Harrington
I must compose myself after that intervention. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he said. It is true that the Home Office publishes the targets on a quarterly basis, but the resettlement targets are broken down—
Richard Harrington
I beg your pardon; yes. I meant “results”. The right hon. Gentleman makes me nervous, Mr Bone. I do not know why, because he is a very nice chap and I respect him a lot. The results are published quarterly, and are now broken down by local authority region. That is significantly more information than he felt was previously available.
Keir Starmer
I myself have said regularly how good the Syrian refugee proposal is and how well it is working. I agree that the Minister is doing a good job there, and I have said that before. The concern is the other refugees. A Syrian child who came here alone would suffer, not being able to bring their parents here. I am increasingly concerned about that sense of a two-tier approach.
Richard Harrington
I have every sympathy with what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. It is a feeling that a lot of emphasis has gone into one programme but not into others. I hope to convince him—if not now, then at other times as the process proceeds—that that is not the case, but it is a perfectly reasonable point to make.
Stuart C. McDonald
The key question to which we would like an answer is whether the Minister will at least take away the suggestion that the current approach, in which a child at 17 can apply for reunification but there is an arbitrary cut-off at 18—is sensible. We should consider their circumstances. Did they live with that family beforehand? Are they wholly dependent on the family? Will he at least take that away and work with others to implement a more sensible rule?
Richard Harrington
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I point out—I was going to mention this a little further on—that there will be revised guidance on immigration rules, and many of the points mentioned in this debate will be taken into consideration. If he bears with me, I hope to satisfy him, if not in content then by showing that I am trying to answer some of the questions raised. However, I must make the point that there are already several ways for families to be reunited and the resettlement schemes are part of that.
Our family reunion policy allows immediate family members of those granted protection here or who were part of the family before the sponsor fled their country to reunite in the UK. It reflects our obligations under the refugee convention. As I have said, we work closely with the UNHCR to include the most vulnerable people in the Syrian resettlement scheme.
The Immigration Act 2016, which passed very recently, announced our intention to resettle from Europe a number of unaccompanied refugee children, mentioned extensively by all right hon. and hon. Members here, particularly the shadow Minister. Under that initiative, we will prioritise family links in the UK. A point has been made about the speed at which family reunification takes place. It has been described as far too slow, and we should do what we can to ensure that the Dublin process works far more quickly for the sake of such children, some of whom the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has seen on his visits to Calais, Dunkirk and elsewhere. Again, that is not a point that we completely ignore.
At the moment, we are meeting many of the organisations that have been mentioned today and other member states to find ways to make this process much quicker. The Immigration Minister has been in Greece and senior officials have been to Italy and France to discuss how it is done. There is no question about it—we agree that the system has to be speeded up. That is why earlier in the year we sent a UK expert to France and why we now have a permanent secondee in the Italian Dublin unit. Shortly, we will be seconding further people to Greece. We have already offered 75 asylum and immigration experts to assist Greece in operating the hotspots; 18 have already been deployed and are working there and the rest are in the process of being deployed.
We are really looking at entry clearance timetables, including with the Red Cross, which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) mentioned. It is open to applicants to tell us when they want the visa to take effect—we are not going slowly. Sometimes there is the implication that we are trying to make the process go slowly to stop people from wanting family reunification.
This is a difficult field. The shadow Minister and the right hon. Member for Leicester East, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, mentioned people traffickers. There is not a single member of this House who could disagree with anything that has been said about people traffickers. However, family reunification is vulnerable to people traffickers.
For example, we have heard—I accept that this is just the sort of thing that people hear, but it has been heard by people on the ground—that there were 50 people on the Bosnian-Macedonian border who claimed to have the same uncle in a village in Sweden. The people traffickers actually tell people to say that they have family in different countries, even down to individuals. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members would not think that that means that I think “Oh, we shouldn’t have family reunification, because some people try to exploit it”, but it does mean that officialdom has to try to verify carefully that these are genuine family reunification cases.
Keith Vaz
I thank the Minister for giving way to me a second time. However, that is the problem with the Turkey deal. The deal—the €6 billion that has been given to Turkey—is a reward for Turkey receiving illegal migrants back into Turkey. Actually, the resources should be directed at ensuring that we deal with the people traffickers. We are still not able to get into Libyan waters in order to deal with the boats in the middle of the Mediterranean. Surely the essence should be to stop people being given false hope and to stop people leaving in the first place by helping the countries that are the sources of these difficulties.
Richard Harrington
I agree totally with the right hon. Gentleman. In one of his interventions, he mentioned children in Calais and I will concentrate my remarks on that for the moment. The simple question that he put and that was also put by the shadow Minister is, “Should children be allowed in from Calais where a link can be established?” The answer is, “Obviously, yes.”
The impression given in the media—although not by the speakers today; there is no intention to mislead Parliament—is that we are seeing children in Calais and thinking, “How can we stop them from coming to the UK?” That is not the case. That is why the Government have invested a lot of time and effort working with France. Our officials regularly meet French officials and there are discussions at all levels about how to make this quick. There is now a permanent official contact committee. Since one of our officials was seconded to the French interior ministry, the speed has grown significantly—there is no question about it. The numbers may appear small—
Richard Harrington
I will just finish my sentence and then I will happily accept the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
More than 30 children were accepted between January and April. Many people say that that is totally inadequate and that things are moving at a snail’s pace, but they are speeding up; there is absolutely no question about that. There are many cases now in train and transfers can happen within weeks; there is often an implication that it is months, or even longer.
However, under Dublin, the children need to apply for asylum in France. There is a French NGO that the Government work closely with, called Terre d’Asile; my French is appalling, Mr Bone, for which I apologise. It is funded by the French Government, with our help, to help us to do this. No one child or adult need remain in those camps, but it is impossible to know how many children there are who fall within this. Whether there are 50, 100 or 150, the numbers do not matter to us, because we want to get them processed quickly.
There is lots of speculation about numbers; it is very easy for very good organisations and very well-meaning organisations to come up with numbers. There have been surveys and there has been sampling. However, it is our job to ensure that those children who do qualify understand the process and that the process is explained by people who can speak to them in their own language and in a simple manner. I understand that there is a lot of fear among the children about the French authorities and other authorities. In the countries that these children come from, people do not think of authorities in the way that people think of authorities in this country. So there is work to be done. However, the British Government are doing a lot to work with the French authorities. We must remember that they are in France; we are operating overseas and our officials are still UK officials. They are not French officials and we cannot ignore the fact that they are in France.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East; I will give way to him now.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has given welcome reassurances that the process of taking children from Calais and Dunkirk has been speeding up. Other Ministers—including, indeed, the Home Secretary—have given such assurances as well. However, when Members submit written questions that ask for hard numbers and processing times, we keep getting answers that say those cannot be provided. An excellent report from the Home Affairs Committee has asked for that sort of information to be made available. Will the Minister encourage his colleagues to ensure that it is made available, so that we can check that these assurances are worth listening to?
Richard Harrington
The hon. Gentleman is asking, “Will I encourage my colleagues to disclose as much information as they possibly can?” I think the answer is, “Absolutely. Yes, I will.” I hope that the right hon. Member for Leicester East would agree that more numbers are forthcoming than was traditional under previous Governments, when there was significantly less information on the subject.
Over the last five years, the rate of family reunification has been 4,000 to 5,000 per year, but I see that increasing with the different schemes that are happening. It is for our Government to help the other Governments in mainland Europe to provide the machinery, so that we can resettle those people more quickly.
One could argue that the Governments of mainland Europe have been so overwhelmed by the numbers that they have not been able to process the unaccompanied children for family reunification. Again, I do not think that that is down to lack of will. I just think that the numbers have completely overwhelmed them. From our end, it is important that we do everything that we can to help them to catch up.
I will go on to the points that have been made about the immigration rules, which enable British citizens and people settled in the UK to sponsor their spouse or partner and children under 18 to join them here. Obviously, they have to make the appropriate entry clearance application and meet the relevant criteria. That is our international obligation. The rules allow those with refugee leave or humanitarian protection status to sponsor a spouse or partner with whom they have formed a relationship after they fled their country of origin. The rules are wider than many would think, but I accept that they are not as wide as many would want. They were strengthened in the previous Parliament. The Government do not accept that the rules are unfair. We believe that they have the right impact and help to restore public confidence in this country in the immigration system.
An important point that was raised several times this afternoon—
Richard Harrington
I will just finish this sentence; it may answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question. An important point was raised not about the immigration rules but about those cases outside the rules. The argument has been put forward that, although it is legally within the discretion of officials to go outside the rules, they have not been exercising that discretion. That point has been made several times; my English probably made it sound more cumbersome than I expected it to. Just to reiterate, the point is that there is a power to go outside the immigration rules, but it has not been used a lot. That point was made several times this afternoon. In the next few weeks, the Government will publish a clarification of the immigration rules. I hope that the points where discretion can be and is applied are made clearer. That will help applicants, as well as officials dealing with this.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
I understand why the Minister made reference to restoring public confidence in the immigration system, but to pick up the point that the shadow Minister made, conflating refugee and asylum issues with the wider immigration system is not a helpful way of proceeding and does not help public understanding. I understand exactly why the Minister said what he said, but it was a good illustration of the shadow Minister’s point.
Richard Harrington
I understand the argument that when immigration figures are published, they should exclude refugees and asylum seekers. It is an arguable case, but those people should surely be included within the net number of people coming into the country. For whatever reason those people come, they are still people coming into the country. In my opinion, that does not in any way take away from the validity of us taking people from the situations they find themselves in abroad.
Keir Starmer
It is not just about the inclusion of these people in the number; it is also about having a policy driven by one thing—driving that net migration number down. That is wrong when it comes to refugees, and that is why they should be taken out and looked at separately. The number is self-defining; it is the number of people crossing the border. That is the deeper concern here.
Richard Harrington
I understood the point that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was making. I see the argument to separate the two figures. Those who read the detail of the migration figures—it is a small number of people, and unfortunately most of them are not publishers or editors of national newspapers—see the breakdown beneath. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman and other Members interested in the subject read that breakdown. The point is valid, but however the figures are printed or published, I am afraid the media and so, one has to accept, the general population who get their information from the media will take the number in the round. It is others who accept the breakdown.
So many things in Government are a balance. Most of us who go into Parliament, Government and public service do things with exactly the right intention. That is certainly what I have found in my comparatively short period of involvement. I do not think anyone would become a Member of Parliament or, I specifically hope, a Minister in this field if they did not have a lot of compassion for people desperately wanting to come into this country and others. Everything in Government is a balance, however, whether that is financial or in terms of having some form of policy—not everything can be an exception to that policy, but the policy has to try to allow some exceptions. I believe that the number of people coming in under family reunification from the various sources will increase significantly, but in a proper, measured way. There is flexibility within Dublin and the immigration rules to facilitate that.
I thank right hon. and hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, for bringing these issues before us. I am happy to meet with them or anyone else to discuss this matter.
Mr Alistair Carmichael
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, which has been detailed, interesting and measured.
This is not always an easy subject. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), made the point that what we are doing is discussing the size of the bandage or the sticking plaster, whereas what we really need to do is stop inflicting the wounds that we see in Syria, Libya and elsewhere.
Sometimes it is necessary to have moments of high drama and emotion in our debates; sometimes that acts as a catalyst, as it did last autumn, for some real focus and progress on the issue. When not in the middle of such moments of high drama, however, it is enormously helpful to be able to have debates such as this to engage in the way that all parties have done this afternoon. I am grateful to all parties, and in particular to the Minister—I think we managed to keep him on his feet for almost half an hour. I am sure, whether informally in meetings or on the record on the Floor of the House, this is an issue to which we shall return.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered refugee family reunion rules.
House of Lords
Retirement of a Member: Lord Hurd of Westwell
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D’Souza)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Hurd of Westwell, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Leave of Absence
The Lord Speaker (Baroness D'Souza)
May I also take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be attending the national service of thanksgiving to celebrate the 90th birthday of Her Majesty the Queen at St Paul’s Cathedral tomorrow when the House will be sitting? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.
Government Websites: Titles
Lord Hayward
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will take steps to allow people to include honours in titles when completing forms on government websites.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, this is a matter for individual departments, which are responsible for determining the level of information required for their online forms. However, my right honourable friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office has asked officials in the Government Digital Service to look into the feasibility of the proposal. I will write to my noble friend with the outcome of the review on completion.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I thank my noble friend for that very helpful Answer. Given that in two days’ time the Queen will announce the birthday honours, granting recognition to many people who have dedicated their lives to society at large and the community, or showed gallantry in the face of the enemy, it seems unfortunate that up to now—I note my noble friend’s Answer—government departments have not provided an appropriate field in “addresses” in order that the nation can continue to recognise the great public service that these people have given.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Indeed, they have given great public service. Departments can agree requirements with the Government Digital Service to include a field for honours. This is a matter for individual departments, which are responsible for determining the level of information required in online forms. At present, there is nothing to stop someone putting their honours in the field after their surname, although this is not explicitly referred to in the explanations on the forms. Guidance to departments at present suggests a free-text field and not a drop-down list, as this would be too exhaustive to create.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, some months before the last general election, I completed a questionnaire—perhaps designed by the noble Lord, Lord Hayward—from the Conservative Party. I completed it very correctly, but as a result I kept receiving missives directed to “Mr Lord Other”. Not a problem—but what I think might be a problem, on which the noble Baroness might like to comment, is how much it has cost already to undertake to respond to this extraordinary Question. I was going to say “ridiculous Question”, but perhaps that is going too far. How much is the exercise that she has now described going to cost? It seems to me really rather reactionary.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank the noble Lord for that question. I do not think that it will cost anything. This is available at the moment; it is just that each department can choose what it wants to do. It is not up to the Minister for the Cabinet Office to tell departments how to design their websites. There is no specific field for this, but, as I said, you can already put it in the space for surnames; you can add your honorifics to that space.
Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)
Remembering from a past existence the occasional experience of addressing envelopes to Lord Mountbatten of Burma, should departments perhaps be advised to limit the number of awards that they give to each person?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I can certainly take that back to the department.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend give me guidance? When I write to people similarly loaded with decorations, at what point in the catalogue does one simply put “et cetera”?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
I thank my noble friend for that question. I do not think that one should ever put “et cetera”. One should just keep on adding them, because no one honour is better than the other, so it is right that one should put every single honour, one after the other.
Lord Geddes (Con)
I am sure that I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has had trouble with websites, be they government or not, regarding both titles and honours. Will my noble friend encourage all departments to form a joined-up Government in this respect?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen
That certainly is what will happen. The Government Digital Service is working very closely with all the departments to have joined-up thinking on how they do their forms. The Cabinet Office is looking into the possibility of a special field for honorifics.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
When this investigation goes ahead, will the Government consider looking at honorary titles for the spouses of women Members of this House?
Learning Disabilities: Transforming Care
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hollins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made by the Transforming Care programme in supporting people with learning disabilities to leave in-patient settings and live with enhanced support in the community.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and to draw attention to my interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, the data show a small but sustained reduction in in-patient numbers over the last year. Some 2,565 patients were recorded in hospital at the end of April 2016, compared with 2,800 at the end of March 2015. Forty-eight local transforming care partnerships have mobilised to deliver the three-year service transformation detailed in Building the Right Support, which was published in October 2015, with a national ambition of closing 35% to 50% of in-patient capacity and building community-based support.
Baroness Hollins
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that this programme will succeed only if robust community support helps people to live in their own homes and prevents new admissions? Is the Minister confident that enough money is being provided to local areas to develop and commission the right support and services, as outlined in the NHS England service model, in particular to develop a trained and supervised social care workforce, which is currently seriously underdeveloped?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, progress since the horrendous events at Winterbourne View some five years ago has not been as fast as we would like. Under the Building the Right Support programme, NHS England is putting in an extra £30 million, which will be match-funded by CCGs, and another £20 million for capital investment. That is a very significant commitment of extra resource, but the proof will be in the eating.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord said, it is five years since “Panorama” exposed the scandals in Winterbourne View. Ministers’ responses at the time and since have been admirable in their expressions of concern and the action they require in the NHS. The problem is that very little has happened. Is the Minister satisfied that NHS England, which has been consistently charged with implementing the changes, understands what it is required to do by Ministers? So far there is very little evidence that it does.
Lord Prior of Brampton
It is very clear in the NHS mandate that it knows exactly what it has to do. It was NHS England that produced Building the Right Support. There is a lot more governance around the programme now. Every month we will see the numbers of patients in in-patient care settings. The noble Lord will be interested to know that over the last year 185 people who had been in hospital for more than five years have now left hospital and gone into the community. There are signs that things are happening, but I would advise the noble Lord that what is needed is constant scrutiny.
Baroness Emerton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for reminding us how many patients have been removed from hospital, but I declare an interest that goes back to the 1970s, when I was responsible for transferring 1,500 and then another 1,200 patients from hospital through a joint working party involving social services and the health service. It seems that we have discharged patients. The Royal College of Nursing demonstrated in a recent report that, from the nursing point of view, never have so few nurses been trained in mental handicaps. People with learning disabilities have physical and mental requirements, as well as environmental ones. Safe staffing is the issue here. Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, will the Minister please consider getting out an edict on the importance of looking not just at hospital staff but at community staff?
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Baroness raises a very important point. It is worth saying that an assurance board monitors the national transformation plan on a monthly basis and comprises local authorities as well as CCGs and others. On the workforce front, which is obviously crucial, it is no good putting money into a system if you do not have the right people to deliver the care. We expect the number of whole-time learning-difficulty nurses to increase from around 3,000 to more than 5,000 over the next five years, so there should be more resource going into this very important area.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Hft, a learning disability charity delivering such services across England. It is really very difficult to plan at the moment. We anticipate an element of growth, but we are not sure where or when that will come. The Minister outlined issues such as that. Could the NHS learn from some local authorities that are charged with managing their markets so that when they are ready to discharge such patients they have already established settings for them?
Lord Prior of Brampton
All the transforming care partnerships will comprise both CCGs and local authorities, so all the experiences learned by local authorities should be paid into the process.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that when such in-patients leave in-patient care, much of the responsibility for looking after them actually lies with their families? As this is Carers Week, would the Minister update the House on the Government’s attitude to this with the revision of the carers’ strategy?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I think we have a direct Question on carers next week. We are absolutely committed to supporting carers. Where people who have been in hospital for more than five years are discharged back into the community, as it were, the CCGs will provide them with a dowry to cover their costs. It will be very clear that the funding of those patients will stay with the CCGs.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, will the Government encourage village and intentional communities, which have proved so successful for those covered by this Question and are in great demand by their families, a demand that cannot be met at the moment? I declare an interest, as my daughter lives in such a community.
Lord Prior of Brampton
Yes, I am very happy to do that. There are some concerns about changes in social housing and rent caps, which might have the unintentional consequence of making it more difficult to build new houses that can accommodate these kinds of people. That is very much under review by the Government. We absolutely support what the noble Lord says.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the establishments of the type just described by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, are closing? The Camphill communities are an example of that. I was disturbed to see that, because we cannot afford to lose those facilities. Is he aware of that, and can anything be done to help?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I am not aware of the specific case of the Camphill communities, although I know about Camphill. Certainly, the preference is to have an environment where there are not too many people, with houses containing between, say, five, 10 or 15 people, rather than large organisations with sometimes many hundreds of people. I believe that Calderstones Hospital in the north-west, for example, has 223 in-patient beds. The intention is to close that and reprovide those facilities in the community. The key thing that we should always bear in mind is the best interests of the individual.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the Camphill Village Trust is an excellent organisation that provides small family units. May I ask the Minister to visit the excellent Camphill Village Trust in the Forest of Dean?
Lord Prior of Brampton
This is an area of healthcare about which I am least informed, so I would very much like to do that.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, Sir Stephen Bubb’s update report also said that the review was going forward very slowly. The Minister has also referred to this. What is the new timetable for the full implementation of the Bubb report?
Lord Prior of Brampton
It is a three-year timetable. The intention is to reduce the number of in-patient hospital beds by between 35% and 50%, as I said. There will be a review at the end of the three years to see whether that can be taken further. The truth is that progress seems painfully slow until you look back to where we have come from. We have come a long way over the last 20 years, but nothing like far enough or fast enough. An old Chinese proverb says that it is better to light one candle than curse the darkness. We are making progress, but it could be quicker.
National Clinical Director of Adult Neurology
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gale
To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the National Clinical Director of Adult Neurology post was ended, and what assessment they have made of the consequences of that decision.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, the reduction in national clinical directors resulted from NHS England’s review of its clinical advisory resource. This review sought to refocus capacity on areas where major programmes were being taken forward and in areas identified as priorities for improvement. NHS England will still be able to access neurological clinical advice in future. From 1 July 2016, clinical expertise will be provided by NHS clinical leads, the neurology clinical reference group, royal colleges and wider engagement.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
While I thank the Minister for his response, I am very disappointed. I am sure he is aware that there has been no transparency whatever, and no consultation on making this post redundant. He will be aware that the Neurological Alliance and the Public Accounts Committee have urged that this post should remain where it is. There was great rejoicing when the post was created three years ago and great disappointment that it has now been ended. Will the Minister agree to meet the Neurological Alliance so that we can have a full discussion and a full understanding of why this post was made redundant? Nobody seems to understand it, as it has all been done very quietly. I hope that this is not just a cost-cutting exercise.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I am of course very happy to meet the Neurological Alliance with the noble Baroness. I just say this: if the medical director and board of NHS England cannot make decisions about where they should get their clinical advice, one is bound to ask what on earth the point of them is. There are certain decisions that must be made by NHS England and Bruce Keogh, its medical director, came to this decision. I think it is a decision that he should make, not politicians.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
If three years has been long enough for NHS England to decide that the national clinical director and the regional clinical networks are not working well enough for neurology, how long is it planning to give the new system to prove that it is better for patients?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I do not think that anyone is saying that the system was not working well enough. The argument that NHS England put was that it had to focus its resources on a smaller number of key national priorities—for example, mental health, cancer and learning disabilities—and that is what it is doing. It is poking the resource into a smaller number of well-focused and well-defined areas, but it can still get all the advice that it needs on neurology from the clinical reference groups and other sources.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Do the Government recognise that the UK has only one-sixth of the number of neurologists that the rest of Europe has, which accounts for delays in diagnosis, poor outcomes for patients and wide variation in services? That needs to be addressed urgently for patients to have earlier diagnosis and better outcomes, and for their families to be better supported. Co-ordination of clinical and research efforts needs to be across the UK. I declare an interest at Cardiff University, where the amazing CUBRIC has just been opened by Her Majesty the Queen. It has the potential to transform neurological diagnosis in the UK, but there needs to be UK-wide effort.
Lord Prior of Brampton
Health is of course a devolved matter in the UK, but there is absolutely nothing to stop the devolved parts of the UK—Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England—from working closely together on these issues. I do not think that the lack of a national clinical director prevents us in any way from doing that.
Lord Polak (Con)
I want to register a sort of interest: 28 years ago, almost to the day, I was given six months to live. I had a brain tumour and was saved by a team of neurologists at the Royal Free Hospital. I hope that, in listening to this, the Minister and the department will always remember that individuals and families are at the forefront of this. If there is a belief that somebody central is needed to ensure that the best treatment is given, maybe we could look at it again.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I do not want in any way to diminish the huge clinical importance of this and the suffering of many people with long-term neurological conditions. They are among some of the worst illnesses that anyone can have and I am delighted that my noble friend recovered from his. From everything that I have been told by NHS England and Bruce Keogh, I do not believe that the lack of a national clinical director will in any way detract from the resources that we are making available to neurology.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have enormous respect for Sir Bruce Keogh but, as my noble friend Lady Gale said, NHS England has essentially set out to decimate the influence of clinical advisers at the level of senior decision-making teams. When we set up national clinical directors, they were based in the Department of Health, had direct access to Ministers and were hugely influential. The current situation in NHS England is that they are often part-time appointments with virtually no support and limited influence. Is it not time that Ministers started to reassert control over services for which they are accountable to Parliament?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I do not think I agree with the last part of the question. We have set up NHS England as an arm’s-length body, and a key part of the reforms—the bit that probably everyone supported in the 2012 Act—was to get politicians more out of the day-to-day running of the NHS and to give more power to clinicians. It is better that clinicians rather than politicians should make these decisions. On what the noble Lord said about decimating the influence of clinical advice in NHS England, I just do not think that that is the case. In so far as he has raised it with me, I will have a meeting with Bruce Keogh and put that point to him and get his response.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are many very complex neurological conditions? Surely there should be a co-ordinator and an adviser. It is really very difficult. Surely it should be upgraded, not downgraded.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, it would be a great mistake to think this was a downgrading exercise. This is NHS England deciding to get its clinical inputs from a clinical reference group rather than having a national clinical director. It has reduced the number of clinical directors by six. We are not talking about just neurology; five others have gone in different specialties—for example, pathology. It would be a great mistake if the House went away with the impression that NHS England was in any way decimating or downgrading the importance of neurology.
Migrants
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Higgins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether it is their policy that migrants rescued from the English Channel should be returned to France, rather than brought to the United Kingdom.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we work closely with the French to protect the border and prevent illegal migration. This includes on maritime threats. Our focus is on stopping boats leaving Europe and on developing strong intelligence processes. Migrants encountered in United Kingdom territorial waters by UK agencies are brought here, where they will be processed under UK legislation, in line with EU and international law. For those not claiming asylum, we seek a quick return.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, is it not clear that people smugglers and traffickers are able to persuade migrants to risk crossing the Channel despite the fact that their boats are unsafe and it is extremely dangerous to cross shipping lanes and so on, because they will be rescued and taken to the United Kingdom? Would it not frustrate the traffickers and people smugglers if we were absolutely clear that if people are rescued they will be returned to France, where, if they are genuine asylum seekers, they can anyway claim asylum?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, it is necessary to have regard to international law in this respect, and the extent of our territorial waters. Pursuant to the UN convention on the seas, our territorial waters extend 12 miles from the coast, as do those of France. Our borders agency works within those territorial waters. Equally, the French work within their territorial waters. Of course, at Dover and Calais La Manche is only 20 miles wide. Nevertheless, although it may meet at a median point, we have to respect each other’s territorial waters. Those who are found in UK territorial waters are brought to the United Kingdom. Those found in French territorial waters are taken to France.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Is it not the case that if we left the European Union, the Dublin agreement would no longer operate and the French would have no obligation to receive people who came to their shores but ended up in Britain or in the sea? Of course, the same applies to every other member state where they might have first crossed European Union boundaries. Furthermore, is it not the case that if we left the French would shift the whole horrendous problem of refugees in Calais straight over to the White Cliffs of Dover? What consequence would that have for the people of the surrounding area?
Lord Keen of Elie
Strictly speaking, our agreements with France over these matters are not predicated on our membership of the European Union, so we should be clear about that. Nevertheless, we benefit greatly from close co-operation with the French in these matters; indeed, not only with France but with Belgium and the Netherlands. The degree of intelligence co-operation reflects the very close union we have with these countries.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in light of the comments by the French Interior Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, that if Britain left the European Union after the referendum, there might be a risk that the Le Touquet accords—the very bilateral agreements that the Minister has just referred to—may not be maintained, is it not clear that leaving the European Union would give the United Kingdom less control over our borders, and that by alienating our nearest neighbours we would be helping nobody, asylum seekers least of all?
Lord Keen of Elie
I reiterate that the agreement we have with France is not predicated on our membership of the Union, as the noble Baroness herself acknowledged. Nevertheless, we cannot carry out the protection of our borders unilaterally; we depend on co-operation with our neighbours.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, who exactly is responsible for the recognised surface picture in our territorial seas, both down the North Sea coast and in the channel? There has been talk of three hubs being set up and of the Border Force working with the Navy. There is talk of working with HMRC. There are many agencies. Who is actually responsible for knowing which ships are coming across, with migrants, terrorists or whatever, and making sure that they are properly intercepted? Which department has that responsibility?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. The National Maritime Information Centre brings together information and intelligence provided by Border Force, the coastguard, the police, the Armed Forces, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Marine Management Organisation, as well as by the National Crime Agency. It co-ordinates that intelligence for the benefit of all these agencies.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that an agreement between Britain and France on migrants involves both parties agreeing? Has he seen a report from Paris this morning which says that the French Government are so concerned about the UK leaving the European Union that they will abrogate all those agreements as quickly as possible and encourage many more migrants to set foot in England and claim asylum?
Lord Keen of Elie
One has to bear in mind that the French authorities are concerned about the movement of migrants through France, as well as those entering Britain. They therefore maintain an intelligence and border presence for these purposes. In these circumstances, it is difficult to believe that they would abandon these efforts simply because one country chose to leave the Union.
Baroness Jowell (Lab)
My Lords, I should like the Minister to update the House on the progress being made in processing the applications of those unaccompanied children still in the Calais camp, who may be entitled to asylum in this country under Dublin III, and who are among the most vulnerable to being preyed on by traffickers and most likely to undertake some of the most dangerous risks to get themselves to this country. What are the Government doing in discharging their obligation and the undertakings that they gave?
Lord Keen of Elie
The process in respect of these children involves an application to the French authorities in the first instance. Where it is disclosed that they have a right to come to the United Kingdom, that is then addressed. This Government are assisting in these matters and have personnel available at Calais to assist in these cases.
Automatic Electoral Registration (School Students) Bill [HL]
Assisted Dying Bill [HL]
Access to Palliative Care Bill [HL]
Carers (Leave Entitlement) Bill [HL]
Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL]
Business of the House
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That Standing Order 72 (Affirmative Instruments) be dispensed with to enable a motion to approve the draft European Union Referendum (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016 laid before the House on 8 June to be moved today, notwithstanding that no report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments on the instrument has been laid before the House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Leader of the House can help me in relation to business of the House. In the other place, if a Minister misleads the House, it can be raised on a point of order. We do not have that procedure. On Tuesday, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, told the House that the St Helena airport was open, and it is not. She said that RMS “St Helena” was going to be available to continue taking people on and off the island; at that very moment, RMS “St Helena” was sailing up the Thames, about to be decommissioned, apparently. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, to make a Statement to the House next week correcting the mistake she has made and giving us true information about the situation regarding the airport on St Helena?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
On the procedural point that the noble Lord raised, as he has acknowledged, we do not have points of order in this House. That is an established arrangement in the way we conduct our business. I will have to take away the substantive point that he has raised and explore it further, and give it proper and due consideration.
Business of the House
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
That the debate on the motion in the name of Lord Haskel set down for today shall be limited to two hours and that in the name of Baroness Smith of Basildon to three hours.
Economy and Finance
Lord Haskel
That this House takes note of the economic and financial prospects of the United Kingdom.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to introduce an economics debate because so much has happened in recent months regarding our business and our economy. Ten months ago, we debated the economy after austerity. We looked at the impact of technology, of climate change, of terrorism, of conflict and of low oil prices. Even though these problems remain, I would have liked to have called this debate, “Bremain”. However, the powers that be thought that we should look beyond 23 June, and they are right. There is life after the referendum, and possibly a life more turbulent because added to these old pressures are: the uncertainties of protectionism and trade wars after the elections in the USA and Europe; the effect of excess capacity in China; redundancies in the UK oil industry, even though the price of oil has risen; and the fall in manufacturing output since the last debate.
In addition, we are seeing sentiment moving away from our preoccupation with the deficit. Two weeks ago, the OECD and the IMF both suggested that we might have avoided the low investment in our infrastructure, rising inequality and poor productivity by growing out of our financial difficulties instead of cutting costs. There is much to debate, and I am most grateful to noble Lords who are participating and to the Front Benches.
There is more of a social dimension, too. In recent months, when speaking of the economy, the Government also speak of increasing life chances and helping people who face economic challenge and disadvantage, with a more generous and humane concern about people’s economic insecurities and difficulties. Does this mean that the Government are coming round to our way of thinking—that the market also has to serve people, not just business? Does it mean that there might be government intervention, not only when there is market failure but when there is environmental and social failure—in fact, reflecting the ideas of Labour Business, an organisation of which I have the pleasure to be an honorary officer?
For some time, many have felt that things are not working out as they should—that the cost of austerity could be much larger than the economic benefit. Now there are important allies, whose “disquieting conclusions” as the OECD puts it, is that these policies result in increasing inequality and undermine economic growth. On Tuesday, I heard a major City investor say they now look for good social, environmental and governance factors as a condition for investment, because that is where they are finding competitive advantage. When people feel more secure about the welfare state, they become more willing to accept change, to accept the onset of intelligent machines and robots and the digital economy, which disrupts working patterns—although whether to the extent of 47% of existing jobs, as experts have said, I do not know. Meanwhile, we are stuck in a jobs-rich and low-investment economy, with flat productivity, stagnant wages and lacking in skills, with many workplaces reluctant to utilise labour-saving technologies. At this time of change, when many workers are not with any employer, or are with many employers for a short length of time, it is important to ensure that people enjoy the basic protections when it comes to health, pensions, job security and training. As part of their concern for people, will the Government work towards this end, perhaps in association with the trade unions, which understand these things, where business is concerned? Otherwise, technical progress will become demonised, and investment will go elsewhere.
These ideas are not new; they just need active implementation. The recent papers from the IMF and OECD are just one more nudge in this direction, a nudge to which I hope the Government will pay attention. Another nudge came from the recent EY report about inward investment. The point of the EY report is that inward investors found Britain attractive because of our quality of life, our stable social climate, our diversity and our culture. But inward investors, like that City investor, are now having concerns, largely because of the effect that austerity is having on those elements. The report voiced other concerns—about the environment and the high cost of housing. But, of course, another major threat to foreign direct investment is our leaving the single market. I suspect that foreign direct investment is one reason why many people in business are in the remain camp, together with the practical advantages of free trade.
Part of the remain case should be to present a vision of what we want the European Union and single market to look like when we remain, and particularly what we would try to achieve during our probable presidency in 2017—how the economic welfare of people as well as business can be improved by setting basic standards to prevent a race to the bottom, a race that not only workers but good companies would suffer from.
Initiatives of this kind will indicate that not only are we staying in the single market but we intend to play an important and leading role in its development. However, there is more to do. Half our exports to the EU are manufactured. This is because the uniform regulations and standards make it easy, with many facilities being available for 28 countries. For instance, you can register your trade mark on one piece of paper, and it is valid in 28 countries. Many companies now sell their products or services by profiling potential customers from data available over the internet, but different countries have different rules about personal privacy and protection. We in the UK are rather more liberal over data protection, but this form of direct marketing is growing strongly and we need one rule for all.
So much about the economic strategy in Brussels. What about the economic strategy at home? Many have accused the Government of having none. In response, Ministers trot out the various technology centres and institutes that have been set up—the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, the Centre of Nuclear Excellence, offshore wind investment or the British Business Bank—but this is not a strategy; it is filling in gaps. Certainly it is sometimes filling them in well, but many gaps remain.
Ministers also point to our world-class science. Yes, we have world-class science and technology, and we have world-class scientists and technologists, but we have very few world-class science and technology businesses. Why? This has been answered many times by people such as John Kay and the noble Lord, Lord Turner, and we are waiting for the Government to act. Perhaps they need an emergency to act, as is happening in the steel industry, but that is not a strategy; it is being a fire brigade.
It is the same with productivity. Ministers produced a productivity paper last year which we debated in this House hoping that it would be an important part of the Government’s industrial strategy, but it has disappeared. The BIS committee in another place described the proposals in it as a vague “collection of existing policies” with non-existent milestones. We also know that with long-term interest rates available to the Government at virtually zero, now is the time to invest in the infrastructure, housing, technologies, training and intangible investments needed to raise our productivity. Yes, we have passed the Enterprise Act, but again that was just a catch-up exercise to plug gaps which were becoming more and more obvious. A strategy is not just filling in the gaps as they arise, it is not just dealing with emergencies as they arise, it is not just something spoken of and then forgotten; a strategy is long term. It needs constant nurturing. All these elements need an annual review to understand the short-term changes and to learn lessons. This is the kind of commitment that we seek to raise our productivity.
On 25 May, I asked the Minister about our balance of trade. He surprised me and many noble Lords when he complacently replied that,
“our trade deficit has been relatively stable at around 2% of GDP for the last seven years”.—[Official Report, 25/5/16; col. 383.]
However, that deficit accumulates, and it is now at an all-time high of 7% of GDP. One thing is clear: because of the trade deficit, we are completely dependent on inward investment to pay our way in the world. In no other developed country have inward investors taken control of such a large part of business and industry, finance and public services, welfare and health. I can certainly see the big advantages of foreign investment in industry, with its policy of long-term investment in production and skills. We certainly gain in technology, but ownership matters. Big decisions are taken elsewhere. UK firms are told where they can and cannot export.
Also, much of the money is spent on buying and selling assets, not investing in growth and development. If you walk through my part of London, you will find that the hospital building is owned by a Japanese bank, the street lights by a Swedish finance company, the buses by a state-owned Dutch company and the water by a company in Jersey. The brochure promoting the northern powerhouse presents it as a great opportunity for overseas investors.
There have been a series of initiatives to support foreign direct investment, but if a local citizen is unhappy with what is provided, it is becoming less a matter for the council and more a matter of the terms of the contract with the provider. Meanwhile, we in Parliament are doing what we can to encourage localism. Does the Minister agree that there must be a limit as to how far this can go, not only because this is affecting our democracy but because it restricts our choices in economic development and balancing our economy? I am all for free trade and against trade barriers, but I think a public interest element should be present in these negotiations. The Government are obsessed by the wrong deficit. Paying our way in the world is becoming more important than just balancing our books.
This debate is about the economy. So I ask the Minister: are we a stronger economy when we have a vision for the single market after the end of this month? Are we a stronger economy when we have political control over our basic services and industries? Are we a stronger economy when we carefully invest in our future with a long-term strategy? Are we a stronger economy when we pay our way? Are we a stronger economy when there is a safety net to see us all through these hard times of economic and technical change? I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords, and I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, it is as always a great honour to speak in this debate on the economy, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on securing it. Between this and his other recent erudite contributions on the economy, he has consistently been carrying the torch of rational economic arguments for the Opposition that some would say has been strangely discarded by his colleagues in the other place. His contribution today was extremely well measured, and I hope that the rest of the debate does not descend into a rant about the forthcoming referendum or views on the EU, but focuses on the questions he has raised.
We are asked today to consider the UK’s economic and financial prospects—no small matter indeed. Having said all that I have and meant it, I of course do not agree with everything the noble Lord said. I am happy to say that, thanks to the enduring wisdom of the British electorate, our prospects are good. Not content with a coalition Government who made great strides in restoring our economic credibility, they voted for more of the same in 2015: a resounding mandate to continue the restoration of our public finances and improve the competiveness of our business climate. “Why would they not?”, we might well ask. The UK economy is on the right track. Employment is up, bringing 2.5 million new jobs to the UK, giving to so many the dignity of a job and a means to support their family. As the noble Lord has observed, the deficit is down from a record post-war high to less than 3% this year, and this morning’s trade figures show a reduction in the trade deficit and an increase in exports.
I believe that FDI is actually of great benefit to this country. The noble Lord asked a Question on 25 May about the current account deficit. The point was made that if we had more FDI externally into other countries from UK investors, the current account deficit would close. However, analysis of the UK economy is to some extent best left to experts—specifically those of the IMF, which said in its assessment of our prospects:
“The UK’s recent economic performance has been strong, and considerable progress has been achieved in addressing underlying vulnerabilities. Growth has been robust, the unemployment rate has fallen substantially, employment has reached an historic high, the fiscal deficit has been reduced, and financial sector resilience has increased”.
Those are the IMF’s words, and we continue to grow, create jobs and attract inward investment. I, too, quote from the OECD, which forecast that we would have the fastest-growing major advanced economy this year.
The debate today specifically asks: what of our prospects? To that I say: if this reverse of Labour’s economic management can be achieved over the past six years, imagine what we can do in six more. There are clouds on the horizon. Falling oil prices have plunged Russia and Brazil into recession, and China’s rebalancing has led to lower growth in many economies. So the risks are great and we cannot rest on our laurels. Since some in the party opposite want to question the whole basis of capitalism back to the time of Chairman Mao instead of looking forward, we should at least ask ourselves what is next. In response to that I would like to say a few things specifically about the SME business sector—small and medium-sized businesses—and what can be done to enable it to play a bigger role in our economic future.
The House may be aware that SMEs are a constituency worth looking after, since in 2015 they were responsible for half of employment and a third of turnover in the private sector. Furthermore, a recent interesting online survey by eBay showed that two-thirds of small businesses in the UK are planning to increase investment in the period 2016-17. Let us help them help the British economy.
Budget 2016 set out important measures to help our small businesses thrive. Lower corporation tax, down to 17% in 2020, encourages entrepreneurship and economic activity in small and medium-sized businesses. That it is the lowest in the G20 serves as a lighthouse, gathering small, entrepreneurial ships to our shores to innovate and create jobs.
Small business rate relief—I declare an interest, as noted in the register, as a director of a retailer—has also helped, as the relief for small businesses is being doubled to 100%. We have also seen cuts to capital gains tax—again, I declare an interest as an adviser to businesses which are seeking an exit. This cut in capital gains tax, in combination with continued improvements to entrepreneurs’ relief, which I particularly welcome, will encourage investment in small businesses and start-ups. So we will create the world-class tech businesses that the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, wants to see emanating from these shores.
Most importantly, I am pleased to see tax avoidance being addressed. As I have said in previous debates—I believe that Members in all parts of the House are keen to see this—it is important that large companies are made to pay their fair share but also that the tax system is made easier to use for those who are less well resourced: our small businesses and entrepreneurs. Thanks to measures in the Finance Bill, the self-employed will enjoy simpler treatment through digital filing, and investment in HMRC will help. I hope there will be more to come in this Parliament to support small businesses further.
However, I think the EU referendum is the right call because it is clear from the level of debate in the country that there is a need to discuss many issues. It has been alleged that there is a disparity of views between small and large businesses, with large businesses preferring to remain in the EU—for debatable reasons—and small businesses preferring to come out. I am not sure that that is the correct distinction. To my mind, it is more significant—and the distinction perhaps easier to make—to look at the owners of those businesses. We can look no further than Members of our own House—the people who invest in their own businesses, such as my noble friends Lord Harris of Peckham, Lord Wolfson, Lord Borwick and Lord Bamford, and Lord Edmiston, who has recently retired. They are all entrepreneurs who, in the true definition of entrepreneurship, have invested their own money in their businesses, and they have made their views clear. I only hope that, whatever the result of the referendum and whichever direction we go in, the Government will have listened to the debate and to the businesses that have said changes need to happen.
We have a competitive policy and regulatory climate for small businesses that is attractive. It is not easily built up but it is easily destroyed. We must not return to the old approach of a new regulation here and a new tax rise there. I urge the Government to stick to their strategy of setting out a clear direction of travel for business tax and regulation, one that survives the buffeting of global economic events. If they do this, to return to the subject of our debate today, our prospects look bright indeed.
Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate and to congratulate my noble friend Lord Haskel not only on his excellent speech but on his persistence in ensuring that this subject is at the forefront of our attention in the House of Lords.
I suggest that the economic and financial prospects for the UK are grim if we leave the European Union. I agree, actually, with the late Margaret Thatcher, who, in quoting approvingly from Clem Attlee, said that referendums are a device for dictators and demagogues. This referendum mirrors the Scottish referendum in that there are bitter and bad-tempered exchanges, and it will leave a poisonous residue long after 23 June. It has denigrated the term “immigrant” to the extent that it has seeped into the bones of the electorate.
Facts and expertise have been disregarded and discarded. On ITV last week, Michael Gove, supposedly the most cerebral of the Vote Leave MPs, said that people have “had enough of experts”. I have more reason than anyone to be cautious of experts. As chairman of the Treasury Committee, I drilled holes in the Budget proposals of every Chancellor who came before us. However, although economic models are often wrong, that does not mean that they give no knowledge at all. Indeed, they build up a picture of evidence and trends. Forget the precise figures from the Chancellor—that house prices will fall by 18% and that every household will be poorer by £4,300 per annum. The important point is that the findings by a gamut of economic institutions and researchers—internationally, in the IMF, OECD and WTO; and nationally, in the Bank of England, the IFS and the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—are unequivocal in their belief that Brexit would be a very costly option in both the short and long term.
Only one economic modelling exercise has generated a positive case for Brexit, and that is from a Vote Leave economist called Professor Patrick Minford, of Cardiff University. His analysis has been demolished by the London School of Economics economists, and fellow Vote Leave member Andrea Leadsom, a Tory Minister, disavowed it in a recent “Newsnight” debate.
Let us assume that no precise figures are correct in the Brexit debate. What is incontrovertible is that the negative economic impact ranges from “pretty bad” to, in the words of Christine Lagarde of the IMF, “very, very bad”.
As it stands, Britain has 1% of the world’s population but 4% of global GDP. Already, as an EU member, we are well interconnected in today’s global world. That is a world that has three hubs: the USA, with NAFTA; Asia, with China and the Asian Development Bank; and Europe, with a single market and 500 million people.
Recently, I had the opportunity to have a reunion with a chemistry student who I taught over 40 years ago. He is immersed in the global hub that is Europe and is now leading on research into the Zika virus, which is blighting the lives of many infants in Brazil. I came face to face with a case where UK science is in the vanguard of the search for global solutions. His message to me—and the message of leading university chemistry heads in a letter published this morning in the Times—is that membership of the EU is integral to the success of science. I well remember the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, when he said in a debate here on the Scottish referendum, in January 2014, that in conducting our argument we should always emphasise “the shared ‘we’” and our commonality. We should recognise how we would feel pain, and how both of us would suffer, if Brexit were to happen. On the commonality theme, I am reminded of Pope Francis’s short but hugely symbolic visit to the island of Lampedusa. When he visited the migrants there, he spoke about the issue of global indifference and stressed the physical, environmental and moral space we share, which is under threat as never before.
Mindful of our shared and common endeavours, let us ensure that the questions we ask in this debate are liberating rather than destructive. In that vein, we should pose questions such as: do we wish the European Union to become more effective in the way that it works; and, if so, how do we tackle a democratic deficit and ensure that the home country parliaments have their wishes better respected? Do we wish to strengthen and enhance areas such as international law, human rights, environmental justice and global peace and security, almost all of which hang by a thread at the moment? If we do, others will be safer, but we will be safer as well. On tax havens and the global financial system, do we wish to continue working with our EU partners so that we check rising inequality, enhance our public services and provide a more secure future for our young people?
This referendum is all about young people. They will be the losers if we persist in the bitter, negative and destructive exchanges. Economists are unanimous that Brexit will be a very costly political, economic and social option. I submit that that is too high a price for future generations to pay.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for giving us the opportunity to have this extremely important debate. I am glad that its context concerns the prospects for our economy. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McFall. I agree with his words: our prospects are grim if we leave the European Union. We are one of the world’s largest economies, but we are so because we are in the European Union, not because we are outside it.
I want to put this debate into the context of the north-east of England—where I live—our manufacturing base there and this referendum debate. The north-east of England is a manufacturing and exporting region. Many thousands of jobs—around 150,000 in the north-east of England and millions across the UK—depend on exporting to our European partners. Leaving the EU’s single market, which is the world’s largest free trade zone, would hit our trade and investment and increase unemployment.
I am proud that, because we make things, my region has a positive balance of trade. We manufacture cars and now we manufacture trains. We have huge supply chains in support of our manufacturing. It would increase unemployment significantly if we voted to leave the European Union. The north-east of England simply cannot afford the cost of Brexit. It would be a massive own goal disrupting our economy and the livelihoods of very many households.
Last year, 44 foreign inward investment projects came to the north-east, but this will be put at risk if we leave the EU. Why would an overseas company seeking to expand in the EU want to put itself outside the single market, facing tariff barriers to its exports?
The north-east needs access to the EU single market of 500 million people, with a say over the rules of doing business across Europe. That means more jobs and more financial security for our region.
In addition to manufacturing, sectors such as farming, science, higher education, tourism and hospitality would also be adversely affected by Brexit, and the north-east of England would lose access to hundreds of millions of pounds of EU funding for regional development. The success of our universities relies heavily on EU research funding and our businesses rely on free movement of skilled workers both to and from the UK to drive growth and jobs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, pointed out, manufacturing still provides half of our country’s exports, three-quarters of scientific innovation and 2.5 million jobs. Almost all UK economists support our remaining in the EU but, amazingly, one economist who favours Brexit—Professor Minford—has admitted that if we left the EU it seems likely that we would mostly eliminate manufacturing. This is unacceptable. We need manufacturing and the innovation, jobs and growth it can bring. Car manufacturers and rail manufacturers—indeed, all manufacturers who export or plan to export—want access to the European single market to enable them to trade freely on common technical standards. Small businesses need the same because they form part of the critical supply chain to bigger businesses.
The EU helps all these industries by eliminating both tariff and non-tariff barriers. The next stage of development of the single market will bring down the remaining barriers to trade in services, energy and digital industries, which will be hugely beneficial to the UK. Our success at manufacturing and in the north-east of England depends on our continued membership of the European Union. In the north-east, the warnings from Hitachi and Nissan need to be taken seriously. They want us to be in the single market and their views matter profoundly. The north-east needs the jobs and the prosperity they bring.
The prospects of the north-east of England depend on our being part of the EU and its single market. Voting to leave would do immense damage to our economy, to our growth prospects and to the prospects of our next generation.
Lord Suri (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for securing the time for this debate. It is an extremely pertinent debate given that we will in two weeks be able to choose whether to guarantee our financial and economic prospects or endanger the flow of trade to and from the single market, which accounts for some 10% of our GDP.
Already we can observe the outflow of money from British assets. Some £65 billion either left the UK or was converted into other currencies in March and April. This is the fastest rate since the financial crisis in early 2009. Alternatively, we could look at it as £1.3 million a minute leaching out.
I am disappointed to see the populists of the leave campaign start to turn the polls around. It is notable to see the pound drop more and more as they gain in the polls. People need to understand that this means higher prices in the shops and, if we pull out of Europe, import tariffs. For my business and all the people we employ this will be utterly disastrous. Jobs will be lost and I and others will find it harder to attract the investment that drives so much of our growth.
The sheer foolishness of cutting our trade links with the body that receives just under half of all our trade is extreme. I do not know if we will be trading on Norwegian terms or Turkish terms or Canadian terms. I think that one of the Ministers leading the campaign even suggested that we use Albanian terms. This is the single biggest risk to the economic prospects of the UK. Every single reputable body, from the Treasury to the IFS, from the OECD to our allies, has told us to stay in.
We would be voting for permanently lower growth, higher prices, diminished living standards and a recession. Being in Europe does not act as a muffler; it is a loudspeaker. It is one of the most important international institutions in which we can make our voice heard. Simply, to secure our economic future, we must stay in Europe.
There is another issue which has been somewhat lost in the din of this campaign and will no doubt emerge once the debris has settled. Infrastructure is of critical importance to our future economic growth. I welcomed the decisive moves by the Government earlier in the year to roll out superfast broadband. Physical infrastructure still plays a significant role in the ability of businesses to scale up and sell goods to other nations.
Since I arrived in this country, there has been the perennial blight of airport capacity in the south of England. I, like many others in this and the other place, have seen numerous signs and adverts for Heathrow or Gatwick expansion. The arguments are finely balanced and I will admit that I have been swayed by the warnings of ground-level pollution in west London should Heathrow expand. Noise is also an issue, but ultimately we must weigh up the decision and balance it against the undoubted boost to productivity and growth that it will bring.
My message to the Government is simple: expand one airport or the other, or both. The lack of capacity makes freighting goods overseas far more expensive and the tremendous crowding actually leads to more noise as jumbo jets taxi around the metropolis. Also, we are seeing other hub airports eat our lunch. Amsterdam has captured large swathes of commercial flights, especially on routes that were not in demand a decade ago, such as to Lagos or Manila. Unless the Ministers responsible are capable of screwing up their courage, the UK will continue to be denied growth and transport opportunities for those goods that cannot be transported by sea or overland.
The other pressing infrastructure question concerns our rail capacity. Crossrail has recently been completed and is in my view a roaring success for British engineering, manufacturing, and of course tunnelling. The evidence of the Eddington report showed that the pressing issue of rail capacity was overcrowded commuter lines around big cities such as London, Bristol and Manchester. I still cannot see the case for spending £55 billion on a high-speed connective link when it makes more sense to invest money in higher-capacity and faster regional and metropolitan services. As with most big infrastructure projects, I can confidently predict that the figure will rise during construction.
Trimming half an hour off train trips from London to Manchester will not heal the north/south divide or boost growth in any meaningful sense. The London train will not even stop at a well-connected station due to the decision to make it stop at Euston instead of Old Oak Common. Reinvesting that budget in road improvements or regional train networks will yield fewer photoshoots but greater transport flexibility and capacity. Shorter commuting times around often badly connected suburbs in our big cities will boost productivity, which is where we can reap significant gains. I would urge the Department for Transport to rethink its strategy and redirect at least some investment into regional infrastructure rather than this expensive project.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate and to congratulate my noble friend. Not only did he make a really good speech, he has shown over many years a real consistency in terms of good business, making sure that business is supported and seen as part of the nature of our society and our communities. In a sense, that is what I should have liked to pursue in my remarks, but I am afraid I shall upset the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, because I, too, will have a rant about the crisis that we have been plunged into, totally unnecessarily, and the effect that it will have on my region, which I suspect he does not know in any great depth.
Those of us who come from the north-east—I shall have to be careful not simply to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said—are extremely concerned about the referendum and the potential effect on our region. I very much agree with my noble friend Lord McFall on referendums, and I think this one is not about listening to the British people. I could not help but smile when I heard the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, talk about the great debate. It has been a terrible debate and most of the British people are turned off by it, but they know that they will have to make a decision when they do not feel that they have heard honest assessments of what the outcomes will mean.
What sort of economy do we want? That is where I want to start. I am dismayed that many of the people who are talking about leaving say that manufacturing is not as important as it used to be, and they are satisfied with that. I want an economy that takes manufacturing seriously and goes back to understanding that what we are able to make is still very important. Yes, services are important and I am pleased that the European Union is well down the track in negotiating a service agreement and free trade, in addition to the current agreements that there are within Europe. None the less, I would have thought we had learned the lessons from the crash and what happened to the banks and to the rest of us following that crash. A service industry-led economy will have problems. We need a strong manufacturing economy to make sure that services can succeed.
In the north-east in 2014, we exported £7 billion of goods to the European Union. That was 56% of the total of goods exported from this country. Is it any wonder that those of us from the north-east are very worried about Brexit when we overwhelmingly export the most of what this country exports to Europe? We know that we have to increase the amount so that we can do such things as tackle what is still the largest unemployment rate in the country. We want to do that around jobs that people can value and where they are valued in doing those jobs.
Think about Nissan and consider all the arguments that took place in our region, and elsewhere when Nissan first came to Sunderland. It is now the UK’s largest car manufacturing facility. One in three cars built in the UK are built in the town I was born in. That is a matter of pride. When I talk to people who work at Nissan, they have an amazing experience. I have one friend whose son started at Nissan, having had a somewhat troubled adolescence, I might say. His dad was just so pleased that he got a job. Then he got involved in training and ended up being a senior salesperson who frequently went across to Europe to make sure that the cars were sold. Nobody would have imagined him doing that. That was because the company got hold of training, spotted his potential and developed it even though he did not join with lots of qualifications. Nissan built more than 500,000 cars in 2013 and more than 80% of those were exported. The bulk went to Europe; most of the rest went to other countries on the back of EU agreements with them.
Hitachi has now established itself in Newton Aycliffe, which is not very far from the constituency that I represented in County Durham. It is building trains there. Its chairman made absolutely clear a couple of weeks ago that the only reason it came to the UK was because it is a gateway to Europe. We know from Nissan’s example that Japanese manufacturers like to be in the UK because English is their second language. Hitachi’s chairman came to the north-east because of very good negotiating from my honourable friend the Member for Sedgefield in the other House, Phil Wilson. It has just started and has made clear that it is thinking about contingency plans in case Brexit goes wrong. Its investment is there because the UK is the gateway to Europe.
I have lots more to say about other companies, but I do not have time. This is a rant, but it comes from the heart because I want my region to continue to succeed and succeed even more. It will not if we leave Europe.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on securing the debate. With only a fortnight to go until the referendum, which is so crucial to our country’s economic future, I must focus my contribution on it. I very much disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, on this, although we share the same tailor.
My mood is a mix of anger and sadness—anger that the leaders of the Brexit campaign choose wilfully to ignore the warnings of so many who have far more experience of international trade and finance than they do. They do not care that virtually all trade bodies that have polled their members want to remain, from manufacturers to tourism bodies, from bankers to the NFU. Some 80% of members of the CBI want to remain, as do 80% of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, 80% of the Engineering Employers’ Federation, 80% of the leading tourism body, UKinbound, and 80% of the leading chairmen of our retailers, as polled recently by Korn Ferry. The leaders of the Brexit campaign do not care that the heads of our great international trading companies, such as Shell, Vodafone, GKN, Rolls Royce and Diageo are in favour of remaining, as are all our airline chiefs, who warn that travel and holiday costs would rise if we leave. The leaders of the campaign do not care if our construction industry is deeply concerned that a severe shortage of skilled workers would arise on Brexit, that our hospitality industry would virtually collapse without migrant workers from mainland Europe, or that our banks, such as JP Morgan, have warned of severe job losses.
Brexiteers talk of increasing trade with countries such as China and India. What are these products that we could sell but are not at the present time? Please name me a company that has said it needs Brexit to export more. Of course, Europe would still want to trade with us on Brexit, but it would not make it easy, if only to discourage other countries from following us. On renegotiating trade deals, as Robert Azevêdo, the director-general of the World Trade Organization, said earlier this week:
“It seems that there is a great deal of confusion about the trade implications of a British exit from the EU. I think it’s important to provide the facts. The likelihood is that a British exit would lead to a sequence of complex negotiations—with the EU itself, with the 58 countries that have trade agreements with the EU, and also with all the other members of the WTO. These negotiations would be complex and drawn out”.
Brexiteers peddle another myth: that onerous EEC regulations could and would be swept away. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, which represents 140,000 personnel directors and managers, says that Brexit would lead to “very little … change” in UK employment law. I could do no better than quote Sir Roger Carr, the chair of BAE Systems, who said in the Times on Monday:
“To leave Europe would dislocate the momentum of our steady recovery and threaten exports today and productivity tomorrow. It would be both foolhardy and disruptive”.
How dare those Brexit leaders such as Duncan Smith, Gove and Johnson, with near-zero commercial experience themselves, arrogantly challenge all those bodies and individuals that I have quoted today?
I said I was also saddened by so many of the older generation interviewed in our pubs and clubs just focusing on immigrants and immigration as a reason for voting “out”, as if, by a stroke on Brexit, our borders will be closed and the sad flow of refugees internationally stemmed. Sadly, many of those older Brexiteer voters would suffer if we exited, through stock market turbulence affecting their pensions, price rises on imported goods and more expensive holidays. Their children and grandchildren would suffer through fewer job opportunities as foreign investors chose to invest within the EEC rather than the UK, where they would have to surmount tariff barriers to export to Europe.
Anyone who knows anything about investing and business expansion knows that an economic background of certainty and confidence is crucial. Brexit would provide just the opposite: turbulence and uncertainty; stock market and sterling falls; likely interest rate rises; and a flight from sterling that has indeed already started. I hope and pray that we vote “remain” on 23 June, and that in the end our people pull back from the brink and from the tragedy that Brexit would deliver for this and future generations.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Haskel eloquently introduced what is the third debate on the economy in this House in the past three months. In doing so, he made a compelling case for your Lordships returning to this subject. If a week is a long time in politics, a month is an age in the global economy, even before considering the agonising feeling of time dragging as the EU referendum campaign grinds its way towards a conclusion.
The referendum to be held two weeks today is an inescapable factor in considering the prospects for the UK’s economic and financial prospects. The powers that be have not had the chance to discourage me or a number of other noble Lords from making this a central part of our speeches. In the short term, the referendum itself has clearly had some effect on confidence levels, leading to delays in investment and some consequential slowing up of economic activity. In the longer term, however difficult it is to forecast even one scenario let alone two, the decision that will be taken in two weeks’ time is highly likely to have a significant impact on the economy’s path. The protagonists on both sides have framed their arguments substantially, though not exclusively, around the economic implications of Brexit or remain.
An unexamined life is not worth living, so I do not believe that our membership of the European Union should have been exempt from critical scrutiny. Indeed, even though the great Groucho Marx was American, I think the Groucho principle of not being sure you want to be a member of any club that will have you represents the best form of British scepticism—though I am even more attracted to one of the graffiti seen in Paris in May 1968:
“Je suis Marxiste, tendance Groucho”.
I commend that to others, from the supporters of Bernie Sanders to some members of my own party.
Reform and clarification have been, and will continue to be, needed; and the agreement reached to exempt the UK from ever-closer union and to ensure that non-members of the eurozone should not be discriminated against are important, both symbolically and practically for the UK and other members of the EU. None the less, it is difficult not to feel that these and other reforms could not have been achieved without the cost and uncertainty involved in the referendum, as opposed to considerations of party management and electoral tactics by the party opposite.
Yesterday’s Financial Times carried a measured but powerful article by Douglas Flint, the chairman of HSBC, based on his conversations with the bank’s mid-market UK corporate customers—the very SME sector to which the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, referred . He concluded:
“Leaving the EU risks dismantling the very apparatus that has enabled UK firms to compete, while distracting them from the priority of growing their business and creating wealth”.
He also said that these companies felt,
“a frustration over the lack of a clearly defined alternative to Britain’s current EU membership”.
In this context, perhaps Boris Johnson’s amusing, but economically illiterate, quip:
“My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it”,
is an illuminating explanation of why the Brexiters believe that the UK could have all the benefits of the single market and none of the obligations and costs.
The decision on our membership of the EU is being taken against a background of huge uncertainty and challenges both in the global economy and domestically, such as: low growth in productivity in many major economies, all the more baffling for its occurrence during a period of rapid technological innovation and implementation; the challenge of moving from the current, exceptional monetary policies to more normal ones; and in the UK—and at least as much in the eurozone—an incomplete reconstitution of the banking system, which constrains the supply of capital to business.
There is evidence that quantitative easing and other monetary policies in response to the financial crisis have not been the sole, or even the principal, cause of the unprecedentedly low level of interest rates. Ben Broadbent, the deputy governor of the Bank of England, has spoken on this, which has been taken up in turn by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times. Whatever the other causes may be—the declining rate of productivity growth, an exaggerated level of caution in the system, a generally low level of business confidence—the effect has been to keep the cost of equity capital high, even while the risk-free rate has fallen so far. The equity risk premium is twice the level that it was at the turn of the century.
These challenges should not obscure the strength and competitive advantages that we have in this country: an education system which, despite the stresses and strains of past decades, at its best still helps turn out outstanding scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs and managers; global leadership in a range of manufacturing and service industries; a budding technology start-up sector; and generally efficient and, as my noble friend Lord Haskel told your Lordships, increasingly sensitive capital markets. How, therefore, can we best protect and enhance this base of excellence and growth? The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, suggested that we should look to the undoubtedly successful business owners and managers whom he cited for a lead. However, a lead in the opposite remain direction is given by innumerable other successful entrepreneurs, particularly at the cutting edge of new technology, whether in IT, drug discovery, FinTech or AI.
In economic and, I believe, social and cultural terms, there is a decisive argument in favour of remaining in, and continuing to work to improve, the EU. I fervently hope that in 15 days’ time we will find that every part of our economy and society are still able to benefit from that membership.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, on securing this debate. The financial and economic prospects of the UK look far better balanced and stronger than many had predicted. This position has been achieved due to the sensible stewardship of the economy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his team and so, after seven years of low interest rates, low inflation, rising living standards and real GDP growth—currently the second fastest in the G7, at 2.2%—today we have the highest full-time employment levels of any major EU economy and a country where the poorest communities have seen a fivefold increase in employment since 2009.
The economy is in a relatively healthy state, but how can this be maintained and enhanced? Those among your Lordships who saw the recent Barclaycard 50th anniversary advert will recall that David Mitchell reminds us that Napoleon may well have called us a “nation of shopkeepers”, but I would like to add that we have always been a nation of entrepreneurs, innovators and inventors—people who work hard and want to get on in life. A story goes that a shopkeeper was dismayed when a brand-new business much like his own opened right next door and erected a sign reading, “Best quality”. He was horrified when another competitor opened up on the other side of his shop and put up an even larger sign reading, “Lowest prices”. The shopkeeper was clearly distraught and panicked, until he got the idea—after all, he was an entrepreneur, innovator and inventor—to put up the biggest sign of all above his shop, which read, “Main entrance”.
It is therefore no surprise that, in 2015, the UK was placed among the leaders of the world in entrepreneurship and as the highest in the EU by several highly rated think tanks. It is also encouraging to see our European partners taking further steps to encourage an environment in which entrepreneurs can flourish across Europe, such as the entrepreneurship 2020 action plan—and I am confident that they will remain our partners in the coming weeks. However, what is perhaps most encouraging is that Britain could soon become a nation of young entrepreneurs, with statistics published by YouGov showing that almost a quarter of young people between the ages of 15 and 18 have the aspiration to start their own business here in the UK.
The Government must therefore continue their determined efforts to support the development of new start-up businesses across the entirety of the United Kingdom and help to fulfil the ambition of the so-called “wired generation” to start businesses in the UK. I am delighted that progress towards this has already begun; Britain’s world-leading tech sector gives us a competitive edge that is not just transforming our daily lives but driving the whole economy forward.
Not only does the UK have one of the lowest corporation tax rates in the G20 but you can register a company within 48 hours for as little as £15 and have access to the second largest workforce in the EU. The Government have also supported a number of initiatives, both directly and indirectly, to encourage people at different stages in life to be entrepreneurial. But to best fulfil the aspirations of those young entrepreneurs and, therefore, to drive the financial and economic prosperity of the UK, we must teach them the skills they need to succeed in life. In key areas such as computer science, we must build on the work of this Government to introduce coding classes in schools and further encourage pioneering UK charities such as the Raspberry Pi Foundation. Its credit card-sized, single-board devices, costing only around £30, have the potential to be used in an unlimited number of ways, and its efforts to use these devices to encourage children to learn more about computing are highly commendable.
The Raspberry Pi Foundation poses the question: why buy a child a toy when you could buy them something with the potential to create 1,000 toys, allowing them to use their imagination and create something unique? Developers in all age ranges have used this device to create music players, gaming consoles and remote-controlled cars, among other things. The learning experience, alongside the entertainment value of the device, will only help children grow in a world of automation and software development. I congratulate the six founders of this charity, who not only are helping the next generation of entrepreneurs grow but have been successful UK entrepreneurs themselves, including, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. The recent announcement that they have sold 8 million devices, making Raspberry Pi the bestselling personal computer in the UK ever, is truly astonishing. Through efforts such as this, I am confident that the UK will be able to maintain and enhance its position as a place of entrepreneurship and technology, and drive its economic and financial prosperity into the future.
In conclusion, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to support entrepreneurs, especially the aspiring young entrepreneurs I spoke about, in their quest to drive our economy forward and increase the financial prosperity of the UK?
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, two weeks ago there was a brief debate at Question Time on the state of our balance of payments. The debate was prompted by my noble friend Lord Haskel, who asked Her Majesty’s Government,
“what steps they are taking to reduce the United Kingdom’s deficit on the balance of payments in overseas trade”.
I am indebted to him for providing this opportunity to pursue the matter further.
In answering the Question, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, asserted that the UK’s current account deficit has been driven by “changes in investment income”. He added, somewhat counterintuitively, that this has been a reflection of,
“Britain’s attractiveness as a destination for investors”.
He explained that,
“the recent deterioration is due to the growing attractiveness of the United Kingdom … in the minds of investors all over the world”.—[Official Report, 25/5/16; cols. 383-84.]
This seemed to defy logic. Therefore, I must attempt to uncover what may have been in his mind and what might also be believed by some of his colleagues.
The country’s international transactions fall into two major categories. On the one hand is the current account, comprising the income from the trade in goods and services and the income from investments; on the other hand is the capital account, which I shall examine in more detail hereafter. There can be a surplus or a deficit on either account but, by the logic of accountancy, this must be met by an equal and opposite deficit or surplus on the other account. My noble friend Lord Haskel was alluding to the fact that today Britain has an unprecedented deficit on the current account. This ought to be a major cause for concern.
Our international creditworthiness cannot survive a prolonged current account deficit and to lose it will have dire consequences. The effect will be similar to that of a run on a bank, albeit on a much larger scale. The money invested by foreigners in the UK will be withdrawn and the value of the pound on the international currency markets will plummet. In an attempt to stem the flight of capital, the Government will be forced to raise interest rates. Growth and investment will cease and there will be a prolonged period of economic misery.
The UK has recorded current account deficits every year since 1994. The latest figures show that the current account deficit was 5.2% of nominal GDP in 2015, which is the largest deficit since the records began in 1948. The deficit is worsening. In the fourth quarter of 2015, it was running at 7% of GDP. Unless this situation is amended, the cumulative total of the deficits will sooner or later pass a threshold or a tipping point, and the miserable consequences will ensue.
The principal cause of our current account deficit has been the failure over many years of our export trade in manufactured goods. Our export of goods has diminished both as a proportion of our foreign trade and in absolute terms. In contrast to the deficit in the trade of manufactured goods, there has been a surplus in the trade in services. This surplus defrays part of the deficit in the trade of goods. However, it is less than the deficit, and its growth has ceased.
There are two more items in the current account. These are the so-called primary income account and the secondary income account. The secondary income account concerns payments to and receipts from international organisations, and other miscellaneous transfers. This is something that for present purposes we can afford to ignore, albeit that the relatively modest transfers to and from the European Union are commanding disproportionate attention at present. The primary income account concerns earnings from investments. Our own earnings from investments overseas must be set against the earnings of foreigners from assets held in the UK. In the past, our net earnings have been positive and, at times, substantial. Now, the account is in deficit. The most significant factor in determining the deficit on the income account is the balance between the value of the overseas assets owned by the UK and the assets that are in foreign ownership. The balance is no longer in favour of the UK. In 2014, the stock of UK liabilities surpassed that of UK assets, for the first time since records began. The deficit on the primary income account is a reflection of this circumstance.
We have sought to defray our current account deficit and to balance our payments by divesting ourselves of the ownership of our capital assets and selling them to foreigners. As the Commercial Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, has remarked, they have been keen to acquire the ownership. He has described our divestment of the ownership of our assets as “foreign direct investment”. This terminology is highly deceptive. In the inverted logic of the Minister, the growth of foreign ownership is the cause of our current account deficit. Of course, he is mistaking an effect for a cause. The true cause of our current account deficit has been our failure to export manufactured goods in sufficient quantities. The effect is that we have to rely on the sales of our capital assets in order to maintain the overall balance of payments.
On a previous occasion, I have described the remarkable extent of the foreign ownership of our assets and how this is prejudicing our economic welfare. We have only a finite supply of companies and properties for sale abroad. Eventually, the supply will be exhausted and the consequences that I have mentioned will ensue. The only way in which to mend the balance of payments is to increase substantially our exports of manufactured goods. For our goods to become saleable abroad, the value of the pound must be reduced. If nothing is done to overcome the balance of payments problems, it is inevitable that the value of the pound will eventually plummet.
I asked the Minister, in the course of the brief Question Time debate, whether he could envisage a more orderly way of reducing the value of the pound. There are many ways of achieving this which our economic competitors have applied to their own currencies. However, the answer from the Minister implied that he did not recognise the significance of the problem with the balance of payments. I wish to emphasise the severity of that problem and to call for action to address it.
Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)
My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate and I will start by recalling the words of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, who is sadly not in his seat, who reminded us in his speech that the country voted for the Conservatives’ economic plan last year—but not quite by the massive mandate of his imagination. More pointedly, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that the Government are still searching for a strategy and are mainly just filling in the gaps. That has been one of the themes of this debate.
I thank my own colleagues: my noble friend Lord Shipley, for the very strong case that he made for remain in respect of the north-east, and my noble friend Lord Lee who, with all his investment experience, warned us of the great dangers of uncertainty for the British economy. Whatever else we must assume from this debate today, I think we would probably all agree that the economy is at a turning point or even on a knife edge. We have had very hard times over the last six years to get the deficit down. We have to ask ourselves: can we sustain the growth in jobs and employment that we have had, and the economic growth, so that the benefits can be shared by those who have experienced the pain of the past six years?
I would say that after 23 June, this country will still have to ask itself four basic questions in respect of the economy. First, can we still close the current government spending deficit while protecting long-term investment in infrastructure? Can productivity, which has recently been flatlining, be improved so that we can close the gap with other G7 nations? Can we reverse the worrying trend of the past three years of recovery, during which the balance of trade, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, has actually worsened? There is currently a £100 billion deficit on the current account. We should be more worried about paying our way in the world as well as paying our way at home.
The fourth question is broader than the ones that the debate has tried to encompass so far. Can we counter, through our economic policies, the populism of Trump, Farage and Le Pen? They are feeding on the concerns of working and middle class people, who see their previous certainties and security undermined by globalisation. We are seeing a very slow growth in real income: that has been so over the past 10 years among these groups. The pace of change has been undermining the old skills and making them redundant, and driving people out of well-paid jobs into lower-paying and less secure jobs. There is constant pressure on industry and all other sectors to lower costs and improve efficiency. Home ownership is out of reach of the children of these people unless they downsize and help their children into ownership. There are pressures on public services which people previously took for granted. Pension security is being undermined as well.
On top of globalisation, we are having to deal with digitalisation, robotics, and the transformation of job structures by the application of artificial intelligence to replace layers of routine administrative and support jobs. The insecurity and uncertainty are increased by a growing resentment or outrage in our society at the hollowing-out process whereby it appears that there are a few rich people benefiting from all this while the rest—certainly those at the bottom—have to rely on lower-paying and very flexible jobs. In this very uncertain and insecure world, should we now be baling out from the principal organisation designed to develop and extend our trade within a fair, competitive environment?
It needs explaining to people that this organisation is about developing trade while ensuring that unfair competition does not deplete jobs and that we also retain reasonable working conditions for people in the Union. Of course government, immigrants and distant organisations such as the EU—or London, if you live in Scotland—get all the blame, but that is not a rational analysis. We joined the EU to take advantage of a bigger market in order to raise productivity and growth and to improve competition. So as we look beyond 23 June, whatever happens, let us just return to the principal concerns that we should have: the need to improve productivity; the need for more exports; the need to deal with the deficit and the problem of capital spending; and the impact of digitalisation.
What are we going to do? The Government have been dealing with the steel industry over the last six months, and I hope that they will use that experience. The Secretary of State for Business should give more attention to the industrial strategy initiated by his predecessors. Developing skills, funding research and helping to restructure the development of businesses all require a partnership between business and the state. There is also a vital role within the EU to ensure fair competition.
Our advanced manufacturing sector—whether it is the automotive, aerospace, defence, nuclear or rail sector—requires the development and manufacture of new steels. But here is the rub: development and research can be undertaken more rapidly in this field if we retain our domestic steel production as a partner in the research that needs to be done, alongside end-users, research institutes and universities. Reliance on overseas producers of materials will simply slow the pace of development and risks leading to the offshoring of this whole supply chain. After dealing with pension issues, energy prices and Chinese dumping, using the negotiating power of the EU, we should also as a country set up a materials catapult focusing on technology developments to support future growth in manufacturing.
The second issue is that of supply chains. I do not think that the complexity of supply chains crossing borders is understood in the EU debate. The more we can do to have supplies in this country the better, but, given the complexity of these supply chains and the benefit we get from them, there will be total disruption if we leave the EU. The benefits of sourcing lower supply costs help the competitive position of our exports. It is a little-known fact that in the motor industry, the export of cars has been slower within the EU than in the outside world, which undermines the argument that Europe is holding us back. The export of cars outside the EU between 1998 and 2014 grew from £2.9 billion to £13 billion, against growth inside the EU from £8 billion to £11.9 billion. The complexity of sorting out cross-border sourcing of supply without the EU framework is frightening. We have the opportunity for the UK to source more components here—but, without the EU, all the potential investment will go.
The third area is infrastructure. As we rightly address the current deficit in the public sector, we need to separate out the capital account. Transport, communications and housing are all underinvested in, and a decision on airport capacity will perhaps be symbolic for the business community; the Government will be taking years of underinvestment and stagnant productivity seriously again.
The EU provides a framework to open up trade and ensure fair play. It provides a framework against excessive competition, protects wages and conditions, prevents a driving down of taxation rates and prevents government spending or subsidies going up through unfair competitive practices. It is a framework which still needs reform and better understanding, but, with the issues we need to confront in the next five to 10 years, remain is essential to the current debate over our social and economic progress as one nation.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I of course congratulate my noble friend Lord Haskel on securing this debate and on introducing the third of our economic debates in recent times with issues of real moment and substance as far as the future of the UK economy is concerned. Inevitably, in a debate in which a very substantial number of my noble friends and other noble Lords in the House have discussed Europe, I have to make some reference to it. However, I bear in mind that my noble friend Lord Haskel wanted us to focus on other issues in the economy and will therefore dispense with Europe in fairly short order: first, because I expect the Minister to express the predominant views of the Prime Minister, which my own party substantially supports as far as the referendum is concerned; and secondly, because nearly all the opinions expressed in the House today have been clearly in favour of remain. In fact, where is the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, when we need him? We have had no alternative stance, not least because noble Lords participating in this debate know enough about economics to recognise that there is in fact no case for leaving Europe.
I will make the obvious political point as well: no serious major industrial country in Europe is going to give good terms to a country which withdraws from the European Community and then seeks to negotiate reasonable terms. It is not going to happen, and Brexit better take on board the fact that we would face a calamitously difficult negotiating position if the referendum went the wrong way. I am grateful to those noble Lords who articulated that case. The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, identified that only Patrick Minford had put any kind of case forward in economic terms for the Brexit position—and even he recognised that it would be a sacrifice for our manufacturing industry. I am grateful to all my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord McFall, who I had hoped might talk about banking again, because he does it with a luminosity and accuracy that we all value. But I respect the fact that he concentrated on Europe today.
I want to get back to what I think my noble friend Lord Haskel wanted us to cover—the fundamental position of the economy, and some of its obvious weaknesses. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, put forward a very interesting case on the progress made thus far. I think that he has to concede that we have made the slowest recovery from a recession in modern times, and we are still struggling with the consequences of our slow progress. We will all recall that the Chancellor was meant to hit his deadline in 2015 for the elimination of the deficit. He is now asking for four more years to create a surplus, and is rated by the IFS as having a 50:50 chance of doing so, so the Government’s progress in these terms is pretty limited.
We have crucial issues to face—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, who has just spoken, and to my noble friend Lord Hanworth, who emphasised the unsatisfactory response of the Government to our questions about the balance of payments. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Haskel, who after all opened up the debate on some of these issues. We have a critically difficult trade deficit position, and the gap is widening—and it is causing serious economists to identify that our situation is parlous. We need a strategy for improving our response to the gap in our balance of payments, and to tackle the other issue, the disastrous position of productivity. Are we prepared to accept that we are sixth out of the seven top countries for productivity and that a Frenchman produces more in four days than the British counterpart does in five? Germany is, of course, much more successful than that. Do we honestly think that the economy can recover while its productivity levels are so dismal? My noble friend Lord Haskel drew our attention to those difficulties. We have to recognise that our productivity is growing at 0.25% a year, when prior to the crisis in 2008 we were used to productivity growth of 2.5%. Productivity growth is crucial to the nation’s welfare.
The Government are facing a major problem with the issue of the skills agenda and support for our enterprise and industry. Although the Government boast about the number of apprenticeships, they are pretty poor value compared with the apprenticeships of the past with their rigour, training and skilling of the nation. People who go into apprenticeships from graduate level are taking on apprenticeships that basically embrace A-level skills, while those who go in at A-level level are involved in apprenticeships that stretch them about as far as GCSEs. In other words, these are not apprenticeships that are sufficiently rigorous to really skill the nation, and it will not do for the Government just to bandy the general figures; we have to establish criteria for the levels at which apprenticeships operate. That means that, for a very significant section of our population, particularly young people, their chances are blighted by the lower level of skills that they obtain.
Furthermore—and I have said this in the past, although I have never had a response from the Dispatch Box opposite—the construction industry is poised to have enormous demands made on it. At some stage, the Government will get their act together to get an increase in housebuilding and, at some stage, they will translate promises on infrastructure into real commitment of resources—although, as my noble friend said in talking about the north-east, that area is being neglected. Only one in 13 infrastructure projects that the Government envisage is in northern England. So much for the northern powerhouse.
We need recognition from the Government of what my noble friend Lord Haskel established—that we have to increase our levels of productivity and increase the skills of our nation, ensuring that our nation is more competitive in the workplace. Instead we have the overwhelming commitment to austerity, which both the IMF and the OECD have said has been taken so far that it might have been better if the UK had pursued a growth strategy than concentrating solely on the issues of fiscal reform and the improvement in the budget. Why do the Government persist against that evidence? It is because, overwhelmingly, their commitment is not to the advance of the economy but to the realisation of their own political and ideological agenda, and it is costing the country dear.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for leading this debate and all noble Lords on all sides who have contributed. This is a complex area, with no easy answers. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord O’Neill could not be here—and I was even sorrier when I heard the contribution from the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. My noble friend is in America, working on addressing the threat of antimicrobial resistance, which is a key problem for the future that could kill 10 million people a year by 2050 if we fail to act. I am sure noble Lords will join me in wishing him well in that vital work.
Turning to the discussion today, this Government are continuing to carry out a long-term plan to strengthen the British economy. A long-term and strategic view is what many noble Lords have referred to, and I shall come back to that. The foundation remains the principle that we should not spend more than we can afford. Back in 2009-10, the Government were borrowing around £150 billion a year. That is not only unsustainable but leaves the country increasingly vulnerable to any unforeseen economic shocks. That is why we made a commitment to the British people to bring public finances under control, and we are delivering on that promise. We have brought the deficit down by almost two-thirds and we remain on course for a surplus by the end of this Parliament. The results of our action to foster long-term growth in our economy are also clear to see, as ably outlined by my noble friend Lord Leigh. Since 2010, we have been the second fastest growing economy in the G7, and in some years the fastest. Last year, our GDP was up by 2.3%, and we have seen over 2 million extra people in work since 2010. However, although our economy is now in fundamentally better shape, there is still more to do.
I shall respond to some of the issues raised in the debate and highlight some of the key steps the Government are taking in a minute, but I feel that I really have to address the EU, to which many if not most noble Lords have referred. As they noted, this is the key decision which will affect our economy in the short and medium-term future. The noble Lord, Lord McFall, mentioned, among other things, the harmful effect to the UK’s economy and science base. The “rant” by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, as she called it, was not a rant but was very persuasive. She talked about the impact of leaving the EU on the north-east of England, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. She noted that the chairman of Hitachi said that he would prefer to remain in the EU and that the EU was helping to secure the region’s future. I could go on.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, also referred to the benefits. We agree that remaining in the EU is the best decision for all the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, made a persuasive contribution on the importance of the EU, and included the interesting fact that he shares a tailor with my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, but perhaps, by the look of it, not the same shirt maker. The noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, also focused on the benefits of the EU.
I think it is important that I make the Government’s position clear and outline the benefits in a way that is, I hope, positive and does not contain any wild and dramatic facts that people can disagree with. We are clear that we will be stronger, safer and better off in a reformed Europe than out on our own. We will be better off because, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and many other noble Lords reminded us, British businesses will have full access to the European free trade area of 500 million people, bringing jobs, investment, lower prices and financial security. Since we joined the EU in 1973, living standards in the UK have risen more than in the US, Canada and Australia, as well as in other EU members such as France, Germany and Italy. We will be safer because we can work closely with other countries to fight cross-border crime and terrorism, giving us strength in numbers in a dangerous world, and we will be stronger because we can play a leading role in one of the world’s largest organisations from within, helping make the big decisions that affect our future. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, reminded us that we have the presidency of the EU in 2017.
We also have a duty to point out the downside risks of leaving the EU. I do not regard this as Project Fear. I agree with my noble friend Lord Patten of Barnes that it is Project Sanity, Project Reason and Project Real World. As noble Lords are aware, on 18 April, the Treasury published analysis looking at the long-term economic impact and I think noble Lords know the results of the central scenario. Some people have derided this work, but the assumptions are clear and open and it is a genuine attempt to estimate the effects of Brexit. I do not see any comparable document from the other side. All the alternatives to membership that have significant access to the single market would require the UK to implement its rules, but the UK would no longer have a vote on those rules. No country has been able to negotiate a better deal than the alternatives considered in this analysis, and it would not be in the EU’s interest to agree such a deal for the UK. What incentive would there be for it when it exports only 7% of its goods to us, whereas we export 50% of our goods to Europe?
The Treasury has also considered the short-term impact of a vote to leave the EU. Analysis published on 23 May came to a clear central conclusion: a vote to leave would represent an immediate and profound shock to our economy. Who is most affected by shocks to the economy? It is the worst off, the low paid, those with no savings, those looking for work and the young. Leaving means risk at a time of uncertainty. It is a leap in the dark.
The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, is right that despite the crucial importance of the vote on 23 June, we must also concentrate on the future and look to improve the working of the EU. In respect of the UK, the noble Lord asked why we are not listening to the IMF and the OECD and why we are not investing. Our long-term security hinges on the fact that we are significantly reducing our debt-to-GDP ratio. With a recession every eight to nine years over the past 60 years, responsible fiscal policy should allow room for these risks. We have prioritised investment over day-to-day spending, funding key infrastructure while delivering an overall budget surplus by 2019-20, all the while exceeding our commitment to invest £100 billion by 2020.
The noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Haskel, and other noble Lords talked about productivity. I accept that productivity growth is a long-term problem. UK productivity has lagged behind other major advanced economies for decades; this is not a recent problem. For example, in 1990, UK productivity was 29 percentage points behind the US. In 2014, 24 years later, UK productivity was at a similar level behind the US— 30 percentage points. This is a long-term problem that the Government have identified, and we set out measures to address this issue in the productivity plan last year and the Budget this year. Sustaining productivity growth is not a problem which is limited to the UK. Since the financial crisis, all developed countries have experienced sluggish productivity growth. There are even problems in the US: in Q4 2015, productivity growth fell there. That is the problem. It is a general problem internationally, so what are we doing about it? We are investing in infrastructure, we are increasing public investment, which I will come to in a minute, we have the northern powerhouse and the midlands engine for growth, and we are investing in education and apprenticeships. I shall not go into those in detail because of time, but that is what we are doing.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, also mentioned austerity. We set out our long-term plan to repair public finances. Let us not forget that the deficit inherited in 2009-10 was 10.3% of GDP, its highest level since the post-war period. The Government were borrowing £1 in every £4 they spent. Significant progress has been made since 2010 to put the public finances on a more sustainable footing. The deficit as a share of GDP has been cut by almost two-thirds from its post-war peak, reaching 4% of GDP by the end of 2015-16. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, asked whether we can meet the fiscal surplus while still investing at the rate we are. We made significant progress over the past Parliament to fix the public finances, but deficit reduction needs to continue to finish repairing them. While we are reducing the deficit at a rate of 1.1% of GDP, we are still investing in key infrastructure, exceeding our previous commitment to invest £100 billion by 2020. The consolidation of day-to-day spending has been deemed appropriate by the IMF and, paired with investment in key infrastructure, will lead to a budget surplus by 2020.
I shall talk a bit more about public investment and its long-term nature. As we are taking the necessary steps to put the public finances in order, we are able to make the long-term investment which we all agree we need to build a more prosperous and productive nation. The spending review laid out the Government’s key investment priorities including education and skills, science and crucial areas of economic infrastructure such as the transport network. Taken together, those plans mean that average public investment as a share of GDP is higher over this decade than under the whole period of the previous Labour Government. They include doubling the housing budget; investing £61 billion in the transport system, £20 billion more than in the previous Parliament, including the biggest investment in the nation’s roads since the 1970s; and providing nearly £7 billion in science capital funding to ensure that British science remains at the cutting edge. All in all, the Government are on track to comfortably exceed our commitment to invest £100 billion in infrastructure over the Parliament. In fact, we will invest £120 billion.
The Budget in March reiterated the Government’s commitment to well-calibrated long-term investment, with new funding in key areas like motorways and flood defences. We have brought forward £1.5 billion of public investment that was planned for later years, to ensure that the public benefit sooner. We gave the green light to Crossrail 2 and High Speed 3 between Leeds and Manchester. We are taking steps to ensure that every pound of investment is targeted to provide maximum returns for the public. That is why we are setting up the National Infrastructure Commission to determine infrastructure priorities and—crucially, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned—hold the Government to account for delivery so that it is not just, as he said, a case of vague plans with no delivery attached.
My noble friend Lord Polak asked whether I could confirm that the Government will continue to support young entrepreneurs. Of course we will. That is why we want to invest in education, skills and apprenticeships, which will help small and medium-sized enterprises and entrepreneurs. My noble friend Lord Leigh mentioned other measures to support young entrepreneurs, such as reducing capital gains tax, which are crucial for the development of jobs and the economy.
In moving this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, asked what the single market will look like when we remain. He said that we need one rule across the digital single market in particular. The Prime Minister’s renegotiations, which come into effect only following the vote to remain on 23 June, mean a much more ambitious agenda of economic reform in the EU. That will include the next stage of development of the single market over the next 15 years. These reforms are centred on four priorities: the single market for services, the digital single market, the single energy market and external trade agreements. Further action will be taken to reduce —in the digital market in particular—barriers in cloud computing, payments and postal and parcel deliveries.
My noble friend Lord Suri and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, asked about infrastructure investment and building a more productive economy. I have talked about infrastructure. We think that by prioritising vital capital investment, we have provided long-term funding certainty for key areas where infrastructure is publicly funded. As I mentioned, the £100 billion for infrastructure, which will move up to £120 billion, will include £60 billion for transport up to 2020-21. That is the biggest investment in transport infrastructure in generations, increasing spending by 50% to £61 billion this Parliament. We are committed to building the high-quality infrastructure needed to build and sustain a more productive economy.
I am afraid that in the interests of time I am going to try to duck out of the spat, if you like, between my noble friend Lord O’Neill of Gatley and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, on the complexities of the balance of payments and the balance of trade, mainly because all the answers I would give are exactly what my noble friend would have given. I will draw the matter to his attention, though, and I think that the two economists can deal with this better than we all can today. That may be the coward’s way out but I think it is more productive.
In conclusion, we are making strong progress towards fixing our economy, as my noble friend Lord Leigh has outlined so clearly, and I thank him for his supportive remarks. We have more jobs, rising wages, steady growth and an economy on course for a surplus. Because of that, we can spend more on our hospitals, schools, defence and security, infrastructure and skills. We are creating a lower-tax, lower-welfare and higher-wage economy, with 1.3 million taxpayers taken out of income tax in 2010 and over 1 million workers due to benefit from the national living wage. We must continue along this path to deliver the sensible reforms that we need to live within our means and make our economy fit for the future. We will be relentless in our efforts to create the conditions for growth, whether that is supporting businesses, investing in infrastructure or putting money back into the pockets of working people. We will rebalance our economy to ensure that opportunities are spread across the UK. This is an economic plan for the long term that will lay the foundations for a strong, stable and sustainable economy.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for participating in this debate, which I have found fascinating. It is interesting that most of us agreed on the benefits of remaining within the single market. People spoke of the benefits to shop prices and the cost of living; the benefits to science and to the north-east and how important that is; the benefits to our national and economic security; and its importance to financial and capital markets, and to the hospitality industry. Several noble Lords spoke about the turbulence that the referendum is causing and how that could have been avoided, and questioned whether the whole thing was really necessary anyway.
My noble friend Lord Chandos spoke about the obligations of the single market as well as its benefits, and he is quite right. A number of other noble Lords raised other issues. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, about small companies. I myself built up a business and know exactly what he is talking about, although I do not agree with his views about small businesses and the single market.
I found the views of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, about Raspberry Pi very interesting. He and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, raised the whole question of the importance of technology and technological entrepreneurs, and I agree with them entirely. Have there really been 8 million Raspberry Pis? I am amazed at the number; I thought there were about 2 million or 3 million. I know that the BBC gives out a similar device; in fact, my grandchildren set theirs going using their smartphones.
I thank my noble friend Lord Hanworth for raising the effect of our continually not paying our way, and the uncertainties of the pound for our deficit. He is quite right. The noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, also told us about the importance of paying our way, and I agree with him. I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for his kind words. He is right to raise the whole question of productivity and how it affects us all, particularly our standard of living.
The Minister spoke about cutting the deficit and what our bookkeeping targets were, but we are still waiting for them to be achieved. Of course he did not tell us about the cost of all that—the social cost, the cost in inequality and the cost of lost investment at a time when the Government could invest at virtually zero cost. The other point to which I am not sure the Minister really responded was how much it all depends on inward investment. There is of course a great cost to that. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, said that we ought to invest our money in other countries where we get a better return. I am not sure that that is the only consideration and that we are wise now to depend so much on inward investment. There is a democratic risk there.
Several things have not been mentioned, such as climate change and other risks. Of course, the overuse of antibiotics is a risk to us all. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, is doing work on that and I am glad that he is getting on with it.
My time is up, so I thank all noble Lords for speaking. I am most grateful to everybody for their contributions.
Syria: Air Drops
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the House of Commons earlier today by my right honourable friend David Lidington.
“The Government’s objective remains a political settlement which allows Syria to become a stable, peaceful state with an inclusive Government with whom we can work to tackle Daesh and other extremists. Frankly, it is only when this happens that we will see stability return to the region and the flow of people fleeing Syria and seeking refuge in Europe stop.
To achieve that goal, we need to get political negotiations between the Syrian parties back on track. The International Syria Support Group has made it clear that, in order to create the best environment for talks to succeed, there needs to be both a comprehensive cessation of hostilities, leading to a full ceasefire, and sustained, unfettered access for humanitarian aid.
Talks have now paused because progress on both those tracks has been insufficient. That is why we are pressing hard for an end to the current violations of the cessation of hostilities, the majority of which are down to the Assad regime. It is also why we need to see an improvement in humanitarian access to besieged and hard-to-reach areas inside Syria.
Both those points were agreed by all members of the International Syria Support Group in Munich in February this year. However, in the light of the continuing dire humanitarian picture, at the most recent ISSG meeting in Vienna on 17 May the Foreign Secretary proposed humanitarian air drops by the UN World Food Programme to besieged areas in Syria if access could not be achieved by road by the beginning of June. That deadline has now of course passed. We welcome the arrival of some limited aid in Darayya and Muadhamiya over the last few days, and we note that the Syrian Government have agreed in principle to allow land access by the UN to the majority of areas requested for the month of June. Such progress that we have seen is undoubtedly the result of international pressure, including the possibility of air drops.
We believe it is now crucial that the ISSG holds the Assad regime to account for the delivery of those commitments. UK officials are meeting their ISSG counterparts and UN officials in Geneva today to continue that work, and the UN is pressing the Assad regime to allow air drops if access by road is not permitted.
We remain clear that air drops are a last resort. Land access is more effective, more efficient and safer both for those needing the aid and for those delivering it. The UN has plans in place to begin air drops if they are needed, but it is clear that, in a complex and dangerous environment like Syria, this will not be straightforward.
We will continue to support the UN in its efforts, but if the regime is not willing to allow sufficient land access or air drops to those in such desperate need, the ISSG must consider very carefully what further steps might be taken to deliver the aid that is so desperately needed”.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the response to this morning’s Urgent Question. I am sure we all agree that the most important thing is to focus our attention on the plight of those 582,000 people—men, women and children—who have been denied access, some since 2012. The conditions in those areas must be absolutely appalling and dreadful—it is difficult to imagine—and it is important that we keep highlighting that.
The noble Baroness said—and I heard the Minister in the other place, the right honourable David Lidington, say—that this afternoon British officials will meet their ISSG counterparts to consider the response of the Assad regime to the UN request for access. There is no doubt that the best outcome is agreed land access. That is the most effective way to get support in there. But what will happen if the Syrian Government refuse permission or impose further unnecessary delays? Will we be able to persuade others that air drops are appropriate as a last resort? And what timeframe are we considering? As each day and each week go past, the conditions in these areas will become intolerable.
I heard the right honourable David Lidington say that Russia and Iran have the power to influence the situation. Apart from the discussions in the ISSG, what efforts are the Government making to put pressure on Russia and Iran to use that influence more appropriately? What can we do about that?
There is no doubt that political progress towards a settlement is made a great deal more difficult while Assad deliberately uses the denial of humanitarian aid as a political and military weapon. I know that the noble Baroness shares my view and I hope she will confirm that there will be no hiding place for individuals who flagrantly breach international humanitarian law.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I shall respond to that last point first. The noble Lord is right: I join him in saying that there should be no impunity for those who breach international humanitarian law. However, it is a question of how and when one deals with that. He knows that this Government have put their resources where their mouth is and have committed money to enabling very brave people to gather, across Syria, information which we hope can be used in future judicial proceedings to hold to account those guilty of these atrocities.
It is important that we take stock of the United Nations request for land access to the four areas to which the Assad regime has so far refused the UN access. Once we see the result of that, we will know more about the timetable and about what happens next, but clearly, as land access is more secure, particularly for those receiving the aid as well as for those delivering it, that would be the best outcome. We have made it clear that the UN would then have to consider the application to Assad to deliver air drops. How it would do that and the viability of those air drops would be up to the UN to determine. Of course, we have to take into account that both Assad and the Russian Government have air defences in place in Syria, so if they were not to consent, we would enter a very dangerous process.
Therefore, the noble Lord is right to ask about the influence of Russia and Iran. They are both members of the ISSG, and Russia has played a leading part in agreeing to the cessation of hostilities and to humanitarian aid being delivered. Via our work through the ISSG and other organisations such as the UN and the Human Rights Council, we continue to impress on Russia the importance of using its influence to persuade the Assad regime to do what the whole world sees as the only right thing—to allow aid to be delivered to the areas that have been starved and bombed as a political weapon. That is a disgrace.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the importance of the ISSG holding the Assad Government to account. However, she mentioned that Russia is also part of that. How do Her Majesty’s Government envisage that we can hold the Assad regime to account? In the shorter term, how can we deliver humanitarian aid if Russia and the regime are not willing to allow drops?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, as I outlined a moment ago, the decision-making process has to depend upon the discussions being carried on today, not just with the ISSG but with the UN. It is a matter of what is the safest and most effective way of delivering aid. However, the Assad regime should be under no illusions and neither should Russia. The allies who have united against Daesh are united against the attempt to subvert democracy in Syria as a whole. Therefore, it is important that Assad takes note of the determination of countries that are united in the ISSG, which includes the UK, to deliver humanitarian aid. I pay tribute to the organisations that stand ready to do that.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, is there any evidence that Russia will be co-operative in the United Nations Security Council and not block an initiative? Is there any evidence that Russia is acting positively in respect of pressure on the Assad regime?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord raised a very good point and I am not able to give him a very positive answer—I wish that I could. The signs so far from Russia are that it promised to step down some of its military support for the Assad regime, for example, and then did not. There was much brouhaha about President Putin’s announcement over a withdrawal but the Russian drawdown of military equipment in Syria, I am advised, has been limited to some fixed-wing aircraft and personnel. The number of attack helicopters able to provide closer combat support to regime troops has increased. If that is the message that Russia is giving to the Assad regime, it is not a message that encourages Assad to do what is right, which is to allow humanitarian aid to all.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has been characteristically measured in introducing this subject and in responding to questions. Does she agree that the use of air drops would essentially be a decision borne out of desperation? Must we not also consider the risks involved? First, there is a risk that the material to be delivered could fall into the wrong hands. Secondly, there may be physical risks to the citizens to whom aid is to be delivered if a drop goes awry. Thirdly—the noble Baroness hinted at this a moment ago—this is potentially a very hostile air environment and there could be risks both to aircraft and aircrew. In all the circumstances, may we take it that Her Majesty’s Government’s attitude at the Security Council will take full account of these risks and will accede to the notion of air drops only if they believe that there is no other possible viable alternative?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I agree entirely with the way in which the noble Lord has outlined the risks involved in the delivery of humanitarian aid which is so desperately needed. There are areas, for example, in the middle of Damascus that have been besieged and starved for three years. Getting access there, if Assad agreed to it, is a simple matter—he is standing in the way—but the risks internationally are great. Assad is computing those risks too. What we say to him is: the world will not stand idly by and allow you to continue bombing, starving and using chemical weapons against your people. We are six years into the conflict, and it must stop.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that it may be necessary to move matters rather more forcefully at the United Nations and that a resolution authorising air drops and requiring the Assad regime to permit those air drops would compel the Russians to take a position on that, which they can probably avoid doing so long as merely diplomatic channels are being used? If they veto it, they will be vetoing the provision of supplies to starving people, and that will have a cost to them. If they do not veto it, they are supporting the use of air drops, and that has implications for their own military involvement. Would it not be better, fairly soon, to move matters in a more purposeful way in the Security Council?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord, with his experience of being our representative in the United Nations in New York, has hit on one of the options that are available. Meetings are going ahead today, and I hope that advances can be made through the ISSG and that Russia will use its undoubted influence over the Assad regime to achieve the right objective. However, clearly all countries will be considering the variety of options available.
Government and Parliament
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
That this House takes note of the balance of power between the Government and Parliament; and of the case for Parliament having full details of all legislation that it is asked to consider.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, when I was preparing my comments for the Queen’s Speech, I found myself reflecting on the past Session as much as thinking about the next. When we debated the Queen’s Speech, it became very clear that there were different interpretations of one particular highly significant sentence:
“My Ministers will uphold the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons”.
In two excellent contributions in the debate that followed, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, considered that that might have been a cryptic reference to the Strathclyde review, and the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, referred to it as a shot across the bows of your Lordships’ House.
I try to take a more generous view. Surely, what we had here was a Government making it clear that Parliament, not the Executive, is sovereign, and that the House of Commons has primacy over your Lordships’ House—something about which I am not aware that there was ever any doubt. So it is easy to agree with both those statements, and I warmly welcome them.
But I suspect that the concerns of the noble Lords, Lord Lisvane and Lord Butler, were not misplaced. Clearly, this Government have not welcomed challenge from your Lordships’ House. In some ways, that is understandable, because this is the first Conservative Government in history not to have had an automatic majority in your Lordships’ House. It is worth noting at this point that no Labour Government have ever had a majority in your Lordships’ House, so we understand that this is frustrating and we understand the challenges. Perhaps, as we reflect on the past Session, we should recognise that we are all adjusting to that new and very different situation. We now have an opportunity to reflect on our role, our work and how we manage our current circumstances.
There are two easy and unsatisfactory ways of addressing this. The first is for the Opposition to always vote against the Government, come what may. I have already shown that on this side of the House, as the Official Opposition, we do not think that that is responsible or productive, or in keeping with the conventions of your Lordships’ House. The other easy and unsatisfactory way is for the Government to continue to appoint more government Peers to an ever-growing House. Likewise, that is not a measure that we consider responsible, productive or in keeping with the conventions of your Lordships’ House. We are a responsible, challenging Opposition, fulfilling our constitutional role.
I want to place on record that we welcome those Ministers who have engaged constructively, who have been prepared to take on board suggested amendments and who have offered concessions. That is good government and it makes for good legislation. We also welcome the way in which the House as a whole has wanted to consider the detail of difficult legislation. Noble Lords will recall that we proposed a Select Committee to examine the most controversial clauses of the Trade Union Bill and assist in consideration of the detail. That committee ran parallel to the Bill and did not delay our normal proceedings. That was a sensible, pragmatic approach. Even noble Lords who were initially uncertain about the process now consider that that was a helpful and productive way forward.
Even on the votes on the tax credits SIs, the amendment from my noble friend Lady Hollis provided the Government with the time and space to reconsider their position—which they did, and for which this House was very appreciative.
I also want to take a deeper look at how we consider legislation coherently and constructively. That is the purpose of our Motion today. In the previous Session, we received a number of Bills that were, quite frankly, half-baked. They had inadequate detail and insufficient financial information, and far too much was left to regulation. We saw this in the Childcare Bill, the Cities and Devolution Bill and the Energy Bill, and there were a number of others. On the Trade Union Bill, we did not even have the impact assessment until after Second Reading, by which time the Bill had completed all its stages in the House of Commons. As for the Housing and Planning Bill, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said in the debate on the Queen’s Speech:
“I listened as a Bill was debated that consisted of a whole series of almost blank pages. Metaphorically speaking, there was nothing to be debated”.—[Official Report, 24/5/16; col. 315.]
The Select Committee on the Constitution has noted a trend whereby, to quote from its report,
“delegated legislation has increasingly been used to address issues of policy and principle, rather than to manage administrative and technical changes”.
Similar concerns were identified by the Delegated Powers Committee.
In the first term of a Government, it is understandable, even if it is not acceptable, that some legislation that is brought forward is not fully formed, but the trend towards not providing adequate details for Bills is continuing into this Session of Parliament. In both the Children and Social Work Bill and the Bus Services Bill, there are more provisions for the Secretary of State to use regulations than there are clauses in the Bill, including on issues that should be considered matters of significant policy. My noble friend and former Leader of the House Lord Richard summed it up in the debate on the Queen’s Speech when he said:
“If the Government continue to produce skeleton Bills, they should not be too surprised about the vigour with which this House then approaches the regulations made under them”.—[Official Report, 24/5/16; col. 310.]
Another example of this increasing trend to policy-making by regulation was in the votes on tax credits. The view that this policy change should be more appropriately tabled as primary legislation was widespread across Parliament. It was that debate that led to the review and report of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, which has recommended curtailing the powers of your Lordships’ House—yet all three committees of this House and the Commons committee that considered his report were chaired by members of the government party, were all critical and all declined to support the noble Lord’s recommendations.
Perhaps the Government’s position to seek to restrict even the limited scrutiny we have of SIs is better understood if a report in the Financial Times about greater government use of SIs is accurate. Written by two highly respected journalists, it quotes one political aide as saying:
“We are being told to use statutory instruments wherever possible to get legislation through”.
It also quoted an unnamed senior Tory as saying:
“‘The House of Lords has to tread carefully … If they don’t accept this proposal, we could stop them having any say at all on secondary legislation. That’s a big bazooka’”.
I do not know who uses that kind of language. Why would a Government seek to increase the use of SIs? Would it be to evade deeper scrutiny, or is it because policy is still being developed, so proposals are light in detail? Or is it that non-amendable regulations are easier to get through both Houses?
The Leader of the House has said that the Government need certainty in getting their legislation through. I have to say to her that certainty in politics is a luxury. Rather than examining how to curtail scrutiny to provide such certainty, perhaps a better way forward would be to ensure that legislation introduced in your Lordships’ House was fit for purpose in the first place. It should be well drafted, with adequate detail from informed debate and decisions.
No Government should be able to claim that they are right all the time, every time. This House is part of the checks and balances of our political system. We have a constitutional role to fulfil to undertake that remit. I hope that Ministers will have recognised from our deliberations on legislation in the past Session that the frustrations of this House are not just about policy; they are often about lack of detail, lack of information, the quality of drafting and Ministers being unable to provide comprehensive, detailed answers on policy matters. The role of this House is important in the process of good scrutiny and challenge, but we need the tools to do the job properly.
I greatly welcome the Leader’s recognition during the debate on the Queen’s Speech. She said:
“Every Minister will agree that their Bill is better for the scrutiny it receives here”.—[Official Report, 18/5/15; col. 24.]
Responsible opposition requires responsible government, and responsible government means that details of what is being debated—that is, impact assessments, financial reports and relevant information—should be available when Bills are considered, even if that detail will be voted on only when we see the regulations further down the line.
So we have given some thought to what might be a sensible and productive way forward. It would be inappropriate to accept the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to limit your Lordships’ ability to consider secondary legislation at a time when statutory instruments are growing in number and significance. A preferred way forward would be a more considered, less partisan and less defensive approach to how we as a House can best support good legislation. A number of suggestions have already been referred to and commented on by our committees that reported on Strathclyde and by noble Lords who have considered this issue.
I want to highlight three of them. The first is Ministers abiding by Cabinet Office guidance on legislation—and that includes the availability of full impact assessments prior to Second Reading debates. Secondly, we should ensure that draft regulations should in most cases be available prior to Committee and always prior to Report. Thirdly, would it not be helpful to have an assessment of the quality of draft regulations and legislation? The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, made a thoughtful and useful speech recently on the use of technology to improve drafting, which I am pleased received a very positive response from the Minister.
The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has also considered how we might improve scrutiny. After receiving evidence, it said:
“We recommend that further work should be undertaken by some appropriate form of collaborative group to consider what procedural changes in both Houses could be introduced to make parliamentary scrutiny more effective”.
Obviously, we have no locus for the other place and I am not putting forward a formal proposal today, but we as a House should consider whether a Select Committee—either a new committee or one that is currently established—could examine not just how we deal with legislation but what information this House should reasonably expect from the Government to be able to fulfil its responsibilities effectively. They are two sides of the same coin.
Having reflected on the past Session, we now have an opportunity. We can bring a new rigour and focus to our deliberations. I think that we as a House can devise a more robust, intelligent approach to how we manage our business and remove the frustrations of seeking information that should be, but is not, available—which often extends the debate on the issue of process rather than on the policy that we want to debate. It would also assist Ministers—who, as we have seen, all too often struggle to provide the detail that we need—thereby delivering better legislation.
I think that these proposals are worthy of further consideration. Setting up a committee of your Lordships’ House to look at this specific point should be further considered. I urge the Leader of the House to respond positively to these suggestions today. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for bringing forward this Motion for debate and I welcome many of the comments she made. I intend to focus my remarks on the balance of power between the Executive and the legislature and between your Lordships’ House and the other place, leaving the more detailed discussion of statutory instruments to those with rather more experience in your Lordships’ House than I yet have.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has already noted, one issue is uncontested—the primacy of the elected Chamber. We all agree on that. It is the basis on which the Salisbury convention rests and the reason why your Lordships normally hold back on matters that were clear manifesto commitments of the governing party, even if we on these Benches have not formally subscribed to the Salisbury convention. This inevitably leads to a degree of executive dominance in a way that does not occur in the US, where the separation of powers is strictly observed, or in many European countries, where coalition Governments, consensus Governments and minority Governments often render legislatures relatively more powerful than in the United Kingdom. Coupled with the large payroll vote in the United Kingdom, there is a tendency to executive dominance, for the Government to lead the process of legislation. Parliament sometimes appears to be silent.
In its excellent briefing on the Salisbury doctrine, however, the House of Lords Library reminds us that the doctrine argued that,
“the will of the people and the views expressed by the House of Commons did not necessarily coincide, and that in consequence, the House of Lords had an obligation to reject, and hence refer back to the electorate, particularly contentious Bills, usually involving a revision of the constitutional settlement, which had been passed by the Commons”.
But what of those rare occasions, which seem to be becoming increasingly familiar, of national referendums? The Conservative Party’s manifesto pledge was clear in its intent that there should be reform, renegotiation and then a referendum on whether or not the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union. Hence, Members of your Lordships’ House worked in the spirit of the convention, with due care and attention, to pass the European Union Referendum Act 2015 expeditiously, even if some aspects have not worked out as we intended. I will not refer further at this stage to the Electoral Commission.
The decision to hold a referendum was intended to allow the people of the United Kingdom to decide a contentious issue that divides political parties. It goes to the core of democracy and offers one person, one vote. Can the Leader of the House confirm that in cases where the Government and Parliament have, in their wisdom, offered a referendum, the results of that referendum must stand whether or not Members of Parliament—elected or otherwise; of the other place or your Lordships’ House—like them? As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, noted earlier, certainty in politics is a luxury. We on these Benches want a vote to remain, but we are also clear that the views of the citizens must be respected whatever the outcome in two weeks’ time. Neither the Government nor Parliament should seek to circumvent the will of the people on this matter. Does the Leader of the House agree?
I turn to cases where manifestos are perhaps silent. Proposals came forward in the last Parliament that were not in any party’s manifesto. A case in point was the legislation introduced by my noble friend Lady Featherstone, which was given considerable support in your Lordships’ House by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, in a previous capacity. What arrangements could or should be in place for such initiatives coming forward from the Executive in the absence of any manifesto pledges? Are the current arrangements fit for purpose? Perhaps they are.
Conversely, and more significantly, what provisions do we have and envisage for cases where there is a strong voice from Parliament—usually in both Chambers —that legislation is needed or may need to change but the Government do not agree with that position? In particular, I am thinking of the case in the last Session relating to genocide, particularly the genocide in Syria of the Yazidis and Christian Syrians. The other place voted unanimously for a resolution on genocide but, so far, there has not been a clear response from the Government to that resolution. This issue is the subject of a Private Member’s Bill which is to be brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, next Monday. The Bill reflects, in part, a concern that the United Kingdom is failing in its duties under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention of Genocide. This is not a manifesto commitment of any political party but it reflects the views of Members across all parties in both Chambers.
Will the Leader of the House comment not on the merits of that specific Bill but on the general principle of how the Government might respond in a timely and measured fashion to initiatives—not necessarily brought forward in Private Members’ Bills but in cases such as the resolution in the last Session—where there is clearly a strong will particularly in the elected Chamber and also in your Lordships’ House? Is there a way that the Government can listen and respond to widely held positions in order to re-empower Parliament and rebalance Executive/parliamentary relations?
Lord Strathclyde (Con)
My Lords, this is an excellent Motion to debate and I am delighted that the noble Baroness has brought it forward. It is also an excellent time to have the debate. A year on into a Conservative Government and a new Parliament, with four years to go, it is an opportunity for us to consider and reflect on how Parliament and the Executive operate and on the quality of legislation. In raising these important issues, the Leader of the Opposition has fulfilled her constitutional duty. During the course of her speech, I could not help thinking how much I agreed with her and how I could have made a similar speech from where she is sitting and from where my noble friend the Leader of the House is sitting, too, because these are universal ideals.
I do not detect a concerted or co-ordinated attempt by this Government to circumvent scrutiny by either House of Parliament and there is no evidence to say that there is. However, we should take seriously the natural instincts of all Governments to make their lives a little easier. You do not have to look back far in history to know that the Government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, under the guise of modernisation, brought in deferred Divisions, sofa government to avoid Cabinet government, and guillotines as a matter of course. This was all in order to make the life of the Government a little easier.
Of course we should have more thought-through policy before it comes to Parliament and we should demand better drafted and more understandable Bills. I have still not got to the bottom of why Bills drafted today are so much more complicated than they were 20 or 30 years ago.
Of course Governments can ask for—and should be given—order-making powers for all the reasons that we understand, but they should be clearly expressed and, where possible, published in draft. I would be in favour, if one were proposed, of a committee to look at the drafting of legislation and perhaps take evidence from the First Parliamentary Counsel on the department in question’s resources, its drafting guidelines and so on. I hope the Government would support that.
The noble Baroness raised the issue of what happened towards the end of the last Session of Parliament. At one point, with a few weeks to go, it looked as if we were heading for a great legislative car crash. However, the reverse happened—there was wisdom. This not only requires sensible Ministers but a sensible Opposition to reach a compromise. If, however, we have to agree to disagree, we should do so and not push it any further. That is a proper constitutional role for the House of Lords which is well understood. Yet, in the last Session of Parliament the Government were defeated in more than half the votes—53%—in this House. That just sounds like too many, and I hope the noble Baroness will take her Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip to one side and suggest to them that that was overkill. With that sort of record it is hardly surprising that, as the noble Baroness asserts, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is thinking of stacking our Benches with more Conservative Peers. I suggest that they focus a little more on their votes rather than the broad-brush approach which they have tried so far.
Lord Richard (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He will remember from the position he then held and I remember from the position I then held that during the whole of the period of the Labour Government from 1997 onwards, not only did we never have a majority in this House, but for most of that time we were not even the largest single party here; his party was. The voting records of those Parliaments show that the average number of defeats of Labour Governments was somewhere between 40% and 50%, which is not very different from what he is complaining about now. I did not hear him complaining about the position then.
Lord Strathclyde
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord made that last point because when he looks back at the figures, I think he will find that the average during that period when we were in opposition was around a third. No doubt the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will be able to put me right if I am wrong on that.
The other argument that is made by many is that we have been faced with a tsunami of secondary legislation, and yet the figures which have just been published demonstrate that in the last Session of Parliament we had the fewest statutory instruments since the 1996-97 Session. Last October I was invited to conduct a review. Some thought that I was reforming the whole of the House of Lords—I hasten to add that I was not. Some thought that I was recasting all secondary legislation, but I was not. I was dealing with a small point about how we agree statutory instruments in this House, and seeing if there is a better way. Since then there have been four parliamentary committees, three in this House and one in another place, all pretty much castigating my humble suggestion but none of them coming up with an alternative. That said to me that they had misunderstood the fundamental problem we face in how to agree statutory instruments in this House, and that they had misunderstood the uncertainty of the status quo.
As practically every child knows, the House of Lords is here to revise and to scrutinise, but it does not block legislation. If it does, there are the Parliament Acts which give the House of Commons the power to overrule this House. This does not apply to statutory instruments. Why not? The first question is this: should we retain our veto? I answered no.
As far back as 1968, my noble friend Lord Carrington asserted that we should not defeat statutory instruments. In his royal commission my noble friend Lord Wakeham built on that theme, and again, I believe that he did so by giving us a little more flesh on the bones of my Motion. What I took into account were those who said that the regret Motions we now have are not enough. Far from clipping the wings of the House of Lords, my suggestion was for a new power and a new ability for this House to demand that a Minister in the House of Commons come to the Dispatch Box, explain why the House of Lords is wrong, and if the House of Commons then reaffirms the original order, we should step back. I still think that that is the right way forward.
I hope the Government will respond shortly not just to my report but to the others. There may be room for an agreement with the Leader of the Opposition, but if there cannot be an agreement, I can see that in order to clarify the situation, there will have to be legislation. I am sure that I am not alone in regretting that.
Lord Cunningham of Felling (Lab)
My Lords, I would normally begin by saying that it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, but I have to say that I fundamentally disagree with almost everything he said. On the other hand I warmly commend the speech of my noble friend from the Dispatch Box on this side of the House and strongly support the recommendations that she has put forward.
An effective and robust balance of power between Government and Parliament lies at the heart of good governance. It also lies at the heart of good democratic scrutiny and control of the Executive. It cannot be acceptable in those circumstances that any Government can arbitrarily decide to change the existing balance of powers or the conventions of Parliament because of a voting defeat resulting from the legitimate use of parliamentary power. Nor is it correct for the Government to assert, as they have done, that a defeat of a statutory instrument by this House is a challenge to the primacy of the House of Commons. Nothing could be further from the truth. The House of Commons does not refer statutory instruments to this House; that is done by the Government. The Government invite both Houses to express an opinion at the same time.
As the Joint Committee report on the conventions of the United Kingdom Parliament makes clear, the primacy of the House of Commons is unanimously accepted not just by the committee but by the unanimous endorsement of that report by this House and the other place. The reality is that four Select Committees, which the noble Lord has just referred to—three of your Lordships’ House and one in the other place—comprehensively rejected his proposals. The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee stated in its report:
“The Government should not produce legislative proposals aimed at implementing the Strathclyde Review’s recommendations. Such legislation would be an overreaction and entirely disproportionate to the House of Lords’ legitimate exercise of a power that even Lord Strathclyde has admitted is rarely used. The Government’s time would be better spent in rethinking the way it relies on secondary legislation for implementing its policy objectives and in building better relations with the other groupings in the House of Lords”.
There is not much sign in that statement that the House of Commons feels that its primacy is being challenged by this place.
All four committees mention the overuse, or perhaps I should say the abuse, of secondary legislation by this and earlier Governments to make changes in policy, which is not what statutory instruments were originally intended to do. To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, mentioned this in his own report. The recent report by Mr Daniel Greenberg, entitled Dangerous Trends in Modern Legislation, for the Centre for Policy Studies, also highlights very succinctly the problems of the overuse of secondary legislation. Like my noble friend’s opening speech, that is a good starting point for the urgently needed discussion in your Lordships’ House. We should take the initiative and get on with it. There is no point leaving the procedures of this House and the way it conducts its affairs simply to the Executive. We should not delay. Equally, I strongly believe that we should not delay on reforming other aspects of the work of this House.
Let us face it, this impasse began with a misjudgment by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in trying to use a statutory instrument to make fundamental changes in policy. That is where the problem began. It did not begin in your Lordships’ House, it began in the Executive and the Government, and it was an error from which they are still trying to recover. I remind noble Lords opposite of Healey’s first law of politics: when you are in a hole, the best thing to do is stop digging.
I have seen no evidence to suggest that it is necessary or would be appropriate for this House to make some kind of concession in the face of these government errors. Why should this House agree voluntarily to reduce its very minimal powers, which we all agree are used only exceptionally? It would be going in the wrong direction entirely. I have even heard it suggested—indeed, it was suggested by a member of the Government to one of the Select Committee hearings—that we should agree that this power should remain but should be used only once in a Parliament. Who would make that decision? That would mean that the Government were home free for the rest of the Parliament. They could do what they liked with statutory instruments and this House could do nothing about it. It is a preposterous, ridiculous proposal, and I hope that no one will give it any credibility.
The reality is that we in our own House should challenge this problem head on: the problem of the overuse and the inadequate scrutiny of secondary legislation. After all, most of the scrutiny takes place in this House, so we should be in charge of reforming it.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, at the start of her speech, the noble Baroness, the Leader of the Opposition, was kind enough to make some complimentary remarks about what I said in the Queen’s Speech debate. I want to return that compliment. I very much welcomed the constructive tone of her speech today. I must say that I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, say that he agreed with every word that the Leader of the Opposition said, but fundamentally disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, because, for a major part of their speeches, they were both saying the same thing.
When the Leader of the Opposition put down this Motion for debate, I assumed that this would be a further debate on Strathclyde, so I went to the Printed Paper Office and drew out yet again the noble Lord’s report and the reports of the three Lords Select Committees to find that yet another report had appeared—this time from the Public Administration Committee in another place. I reflected that this issue seems to be prolific in producing Select Committee reports. The only thing that it has not produced so far is a response from the Government.
Today—and I welcome this—the speech of the Leader of the Opposition went wider. She referred not only to Strathclyde and statutory instruments but to the unsatisfactory nature generally of legislation which the Executive present to Parliament. I welcome that because, although secondary legislation is an important part of what is wrong with our legislative procedures, it is not the only aspect. As somebody who spent my career in the Executive, I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that what is at the root of this is not any conspiracy to simplify the legislation coming to Parliament but the desire of the Executive to make themselves an easier life. That has been going on for some 250 years. It lies at the root of the development of the party system, the whipping system, it continues to go on and it results in Bills of the sort we see now. The shelves of the Libraries since I migrated from being a bureaucrat to a law-maker are groaning with the reports of committees on which I served, which sought to draw attention to the ill results of our country’s unsatisfactory law-making. As has been said, Bills are ill thought out, inadequately prepared, insufficiently consulted on and hugely added to by the Executive during their passage and finally often replaced before they are brought into operation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who I am delighted to see is taking part in this debate, in a devastating lecture, drew attention to how appalled he has been in migrating from being a judge to a law-maker by the widespread and growing preponderance of Henry VIII clauses and secondary legislation, introducing policy changes which should have been in the original Bill. On that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham.
One of the committees of which I was a Member—the Leader’s Group on the House of Lords procedure in 201l, set up by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde— recommended that the House should establish a legislative standards committee to deal with precisely the deficiencies in legislation presented to the House which have been referred to and to answer these questions. Has the policy underlying the Bill been properly explained? Has there been consultation to establish whether the proposals are practicable? Is there enough detail to enable Parliament to scrutinise it properly?
The proposal of that Leader’s Group, on which representatives from all sides of the House served, was that, like the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, this new committee would consider those factual questions between introduction and Second Reading—not policy questions but the state of preparation of the Bill—and it should report to the House whether a Bill and its surrounding information were in a fit state for parliamentary scrutiny. The clerks to the House recommended that such a procedure was entirely practicable but your Lordships will be unsurprised to hear that this was yet another proposal on which the Government did not support action. Now the time may well be to return to it.
In the Queen’s Speech debate, I said that Parliament’s scrutiny of statutory instruments needed consideration by the Commons as well as by the Lords. Prompt upon its cue comes a report from the Commons Public Administration Committee which reaches similar conclusions. That committee concludes that instead of producing legislative proposals,
“aimed at implementing … Strathclyde … the Government’s time would be better spent in rethinking the way it relies on secondary legislation for implementing its policy objectives”.
I would add that if the Government do not do so, as has been said, fatal resolutions in this House—so rarely used over the last 60 years—are likely to become more frequent.
The Leader of the Opposition has proposed that we look at this whole question of parliamentary law-making. Why should we not do so? Committee after committee has said that there is a problem to be solved. The Government have an interest in avoiding fatal defeats on statutory instruments in the House of Lords. The Opposition have an interest in securing a procedure which they can legitimately use to defeat or amend statutory instruments in the House of Lords, while respecting the ultimate primacy of the House of Commons. I agree that in this respect the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde’s proposals have been misunderstood and misinterpreted. He is not proposing that the House of Lords’ powers in relation to statutory instruments should be curbed. What he is proposing is to substitute a procedure which the House of Lords rarely dares to use for one that it could use much more frequently to cause the Government to reconsider or amend statutory instruments in a proper way.
I hope that in replying to this debate, the Leader will respond constructively to the Leader of the Opposition’s proposal. But let not the best be the enemy of the good. We also need to solve our problem over statutory instruments. We do not want yet another report about which nobody does anything.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
My Lords, first, my apologies for these glasses; my proper ones are somewhere in the Adriatic sea.
We, Lords and Commons alike, are increasingly failing the public. The Commons, of course, determines legislation but in the light of Lords scrutiny—with our delegated powers and scrutiny committees, and the time we spend debating SIs—we are better placed to do so.
The reason for our failure to the public can be described in two words: skeleton Bills. A skeleton Bill endows the Secretary of State with whatever powers he deems necessary, to do whatever he deems necessary, whenever he deems it necessary to do so. Bills, therefore, are future-proofed for any future Secretary of State in a future contingency to take any further future action without any further proper parliamentary scrutiny.
To take the recent skeleton Housing and Planning Bill, we floundered our way through it. When we probed to find out some detail about how many, how much—central issues one might think—the Minister could not say. She would say, “That will be in regs”. What would those regs contain? She would reply, “We don’t yet know”. Why not? She would say, “Because they are out to consultation”. When did that consultation start? We would be told, “Recently”. When will we get its findings? The reply: “Later, after the Bill becomes law”. We would ask, “Then how can we know what this clause will do?”. We cannot because the Minister cannot—not will not, but cannot—tell us. When regs finally appear, perhaps at odds with our limited understanding of the Bill, we cannot get at them; we can only bleat.
In other words, SIs are being abused in a way that destroys the very purpose of this House: our scrutiny role. As a Chamber we are not democratic, but we are rather useful. That is our justification. How, then, without seeking to challenge the primacy of the Commons, do we ensure that, through our scrutiny, the Government remain accountable to Parliament and therefore to the public, and do not seek to use SIs as a convenient shortcut through controversy?
I suggest four steps. First, consultation should precede—not parallel, let alone follow—legislation. We need to gather the expertise out there, expose policy intent and analyse impact beyond the half-baked gesture statistics we get served in lieu of a decent impact analysis. Secondly, following consultation, policy must be fully embedded and transparent in the Bill, and open to amendment, not left to SIs for future debate. Thirdly, SIs should therefore be relegated to their proper role—the adjustment of technical detail only, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, has regularly argued. Finally, those affirmative and perhaps more controversial SIs that come before us must be effectively scrutinised. How? We cannot amend them, obviously, without engaging in a ping-pong that treats them like primary legislation. To vote against destroys; to regret is to be ignored. We cannot get at them.
Instead, we must have the power to pause. Over the last 15 years we have had several major reports proposing that the Lords might wish very occasionally to delay the automatic passage of an SI carrying a heavy public policy load and ask the Commons and the Government to think again, and, when they have, of course the Lords acquiesces. The usual channels would sort out urgent matters, including security, where delay would be wrong. We need that power to press the pause button for a meaningful period, perhaps for 28 sitting days. The Government could wait it out, and the SI would become effective. But they might also—especially if Commons Back-Benchers are increasingly perturbed, as with tax credits—use that delay, in my view rightly, to change their mind.
In summary, there must be no skeleton legislation. Consultation should precede, rather than parallel or follow, parliamentary scrutiny; otherwise what is the point? Policy is to be embedded in the Bill, not carried by subsequent ungetatable SIs, which should be restricted to technical and minor detail. Draft regs or written statements of what those regs will contain should be published between Second Reading and Committee so that Bills can, if necessary, be amended accordingly. It can be done. The noble Lord, Lord Freud, worked with Committee members during the passage of the then Welfare Reform Bill in 2011-12 to do precisely that. We worked on and developed regs together. It can be done—if, of course, the Lords Minister is a player, not merely a messenger.
Finally, affirmative regulations that this House believes carry previously unexplored or controversial policy content could be paused for further reflection—I suggest for 28 sitting days—by a delay Motion, which then accepts the primacy of the Government in the Commons. This set of proposals would allow us to scrutinise public legislation, as we should. Asking the other place sometimes to think again on SIs, as we do with primary legislation, would help to justify our role as an unelected House, while ensuring that the Commons retains the last word. It would produce infinitely clearer and more transparent legislation, and those whom that legislation affects will know where they stand from day one; that is impossible with regs out there somewhere in the ether, which may be drawn down or not. Above all, it would allow us to serve the public as we should, for we have no other purpose and no other reason as a House for our existence.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, like others, I begin by complimenting the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, not only on the timely arrangement of this debate, but on much that she said, with which I find myself in agreement. I believe that her specific suggestions, and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which we have just heard, are worthy of further consideration. I hope that this debate will generate a large number of such suggestions that will be considered very carefully.
I propose a slightly more general approach in my remarks. They are triggered as a result of the unsettling mood that exists on constitutional matters at present following the words of the gracious Speech referring to the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons. Why did it say that? What does it mean by it? Others have wrestled with this and reached different conclusions. They are both familiar concepts, but each is utterly different from the other, so the juxtaposition is strange: they are not two sides of the same coin; they do not complement each other, nor does one qualify the other. The sovereignty of Parliament is a familiar and profoundly important core principle of our constitution. It is the basis of the rule of law and of the authority of all our lawmaking. But the Parliament to which it refers is not the House of Commons, but the bicameral Parliament of two quite deliberately and desirably different Chambers, each playing its distinctive part and complementing the other. So the concept of Parliament is thus indivisible. It embraces both Houses.
The primacy of the House of Commons is a fact, but it exists de facto rather than de jure. It is built on the existence of the Parliament Acts, the unelected nature of this House and on various established practices and procedures—perhaps not so strongly nowadays on conventions, because they were broken, or certainly badly damaged, last October. That in itself raises problems that have to be addressed. Primacy, however, is not something for the Commons to claim. It is for this House to acknowledge and to volunteer, as we always do. Our restraint, when we adhere to it, is a vital component of what makes the system work. The reason it has broken, or has been crumbling for some time, is partly the loss of restraint in respect of our normal way of behaving on various occasions, but more so—this is the burden of what I want to say, even though it has already been touched on extensively by others—because of the poor quality of the legislation that has been fed into the system in recent times.
The Constitution Committee, which I have the honour to chair—although I stress that my remarks are of a personal nature—has been reviewing the draft of its sessional report for the year 2015-16. It pains me to say that we have found a litany of bad lawmaking habits. The then Scotland Bill was probably the most egregious, for a whole complicated list of reasons from beginning to end that I will not bore the House by developing today, but it is a shaming indictment of how to make laws. I hope it is never repeated in any shape or form with any other legislation. But there is also the growing abuse of delegated legislation, as referred to by others. We reviewed too high a number of vaguely worded Bills that conferred broad and undefined delegated powers on Ministers, with few restrictions, to achieve legislative objectives.
It has been suggested that an effort is now in place in government to improve the preparation and internal consideration of new legislation before publication. I hope that it happens; we have yet to see it. But whatever happened to Green Papers and White Papers, to pre-legislative scrutiny? Instead we have had a diet of skeleton Bills, Christmas tree Bills, very urgent Bills and Henry VIII powers like a sauce added to everything, followed by a flood of slippery secondary legislation, often hoping to slip though policy changes. The trend is not new with this Government. It is true that the numbers are not very much greater than they have been at any time in the last 20 years, but what is different is that they are longer and have more substantive contents, including the trend towards policy development.
I could go on about this but in setting up the Strathclyde review, Her Majesty’s Government blew their own cover when they described its purpose as being,
“to secure their business in Parliament”.
They went on to refer to,
“the decisive role of the elected House of Commons in relation to its primacy on financial matters, and secondary legislation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/15; col. 25WS.]
These two quotations are, in the first case, a clear statement not about the constitutional proprietaries, where they may have had a case of some sort, but about the Executive getting their way by whatever means they could deploy; and, in the second, at best a highly polished gloss of the true position and at worst a distortion of it.
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde accused my committee of castigating him. I am bound to say we did not; we actually let him off the hook because our conclusion was that he had been asked the wrong question and therefore his answer was not really relevant to the issues before us. Our committee and two others separately reached that view. If the words I quoted explain what was meant by the cryptic reference in the gracious Speech to the sovereignty of Parliament and the primacy of the House of Commons, I suggest that the Government might be about to take the wrong kind of action.
It may be that there is a case for reforming the relative powers of the two Houses. It seems, for example, slightly bizarre that this House can amend primary legislation but has power only to reject secondary legislation. Let such matters be considered in the proper and unhurried way, but it is essential to preserve the present balance of powers between the two Houses. We may be faced with some proposals to codify in some way the damaged convention system. If that can be done in a way that maintains the delicate balance of powers between the two Houses, let us at least examine it—though I am sceptical that a way will be found that does not undermine the standing of this House.
However, if the Government come forward with changes simply to make it easier to get their business, that is quite another matter. That would provoke a strong and sustained reaction here. At the end of the day, Governments must get their business. Overall, the present balance of powers provides for that, and so does the general will of this House. The issue should not be sovereignty, the balance of power or primacy but the nature and quality of the legislation laid before Parliament by the Executive. That deserves close scrutiny. It is high time the Government did a better job.
Lord Richard
My Lords, I agree with a large part of the speech that the noble Lord, Lord Lang, just delivered. It is interesting the way in which this debate is developing. There seems to be a genuinely cross-party approach to what is clearly a major problem. That is a good thing. I congratulate my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition on bringing this subject forward at this stage. When I saw it on the Order Paper I thought it would be a rerun of what we debated on the Queen’s Speech—as somebody said, déjà vu all over again. It could have been, but listening to the debate it has taken a different tack.
Before I turn to the Strathclyde review, I will just put some of this argument into historical context. It is interesting to look at the figures on defeats of delegated legislation. In the calendar years from 1950 to 2015 there were five government defeats on fatal Motions. The first was in 1968 against the Labour Government, there were two against the Labour Government in 2000, one in 2007 again against the Labour Government, and one in 2012 against the coalition Government. My arithmetic seems to indicate that that is 4:1. In the same period, there were 27 non-fatal Motions. There was one in 1977 and one in 1978, both against the Labour Government. One in 1983 was against the Conservatives. One in 1985, one in 1992, two in 1993 and one in 1995 were all against Conservative Governments. Then the great change happens. There was one in 1998, four in 2003, two in 2005, one in 2007, three in 2009 and three in 2010, all against Labour Governments. Again, if you add it up, there were 11 non-fatal Motions against Conservative and coalition Governments and 16 against Labour Governments. In addition there was a government defeat on a Motion moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on 13 July 2009. Whether the Motions were fatal or non-fatal, the vast majority have come from the Conservative side of this House and not the Labour side. Almost all of them came, too, at a time when the Labour Party was in the distinct minority here in the House of Lords. Indeed, for a large part of that time, we were not even the largest single party. So let us have no more of this nonsense about the Labour Party being more rigorous or awkward in the way it approaches statutory instruments. That is not true. The facts lead precisely in the opposite direction.
Faced with that, we should put the Strathclyde proposals in a rather more severe context. I repeat what I have said in this House before—it has been repeated today—that the only justification for removing the power to defeat a statutory instrument here is that the Government then legislate in a proper way. By that, I mean that they use primary legislation for dealing with matters of policy and use statutory instruments for what they were designed for: the implementation of that policy. You cannot expect this House to remain silent in the face of legislation such as the recent housing Bill. If the Government insist on sending up skeleton legislation with enormous discretion given to Ministers as to how to put the flesh on the bones, this House cannot be expected to sit down and let that happen. That would be a clear breach of the spirit if not the terms of the Parliament Act.
Of course, that Act gives the Government the authority to disregard the views of the House of Lords in relation to primary legislation but not to secondary legislation. An attempt to use that distinction to evade the possibility of constitutional delay by this House would be a distortion of the existing constitutional arrangements between the two Houses. Nor should it be forgotten that this argument is really not about the Commons versus the Lords; it is about the Government versus Parliament. On this issue, the views of the House of Lords really cannot be disregarded.
One thing that has emerged in this debate is that there is a consciousness here of a very real problem in the quality of legislation as it leaves the House of Commons and comes up to your Lordships’ House, in the fact that it is not properly scrutinised in the House of Commons, and in that the drafting these days seems to be much less precise and cogent than it was years ago. Many years ago, in the late 1960s and early 1970s I sat on a committee. I have the same sort of memory as the noble Lord, Lord Butler. The committee was chaired by—I cannot remember his name, but it was a committee on drafting legislation. Ah, it was chaired by Lord Renton. We sat for a long time, took a great deal of evidence, heard from parliamentary draftsmen and heaven knows who else, and produced an erudite report asking for certain things to happen. Of course, none of it has taken place and that was nearly 50 years ago.
I am not optimistic that another such committee would produce more fruitful or rapid results but I am certain that such a committee ought to be set up. Given the quality of the legislation as it comes up from the House of Commons to this House, the way in which the Government now use statutory instruments rather than primary legislation, and the way in which that claim of financial privilege is used by the Government, there are issues here that deserve full consideration, and on a cross-party basis. I agree with my noble friend Lord Cunningham that there is no reason at all why this should not start up here. We do not need to wait for the House of Commons to do this. A committee of your Lordships’ House considering this matter would be a very good start. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply she will deal with this. I raised it in the debate on the Queen’s Speech but, notably, it was totally not dealt with. Perhaps today will be better.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I wonder how much longer we can go on talking about these issues. I have read report after report; they are all very clear and unequivocal. We are having another discussion today—I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon—and we can have some more talking. However, the question is: when are we going to actually achieve something before our constitutional arrangements disappear into some vague unknown future?
I want to address one issue today, because there is not time to address everything else—it is one I have raised with your Lordships before, and some noble Lords, at any rate, patiently listened to me. Why on earth do we in this House agree to Henry VIII clauses? Why do we? It is our responsibility, too. You can hardly say about a Henry VIII clause, “Ah, well, this has been very carefully considered in the Commons. They have scrutinised it and come to the conclusion that this is an appropriate way to serve the public interest, and therefore we should hold back”. The whole point about Henry VIII clauses is that there is no scrutiny. They are created not for immediate effect but to allow for future effect. So there is no scrutiny of them. Why do we all agree to them?
I am quite sure it will be said—perhaps today by the Leader of the House, but certainly by somebody—“Ah, you are very new here. Don’t you realise that Henry VIII clauses have been going on for years and years?”. The short answer is that I am new here and Henry VIII clauses have been going on for years and years, but they are going on more and more, and more and more rapidly. We are becoming so used to them that we are not even appreciating what they stand for. They stand for dispensing with, or suspending, an Act of Parliament by ministerial decision. That simply will not do. The function of Parliament is historically, and stemmed from, the need to control the king—now the Executive. That is one of the functions of both Houses. The Executive nowadays—I am not making a comment about this particular Executive, the last one, the one before or the one before that—hate to be told no, so the Executive say, and imply, and occasionally say enough to make it clear that this is what they think, that the function of Parliament is to do what the Executive wish it to do. But that is not our function, and never has been. If we allow this to go on, it is what it will become.
I mentioned the Childcare Act on a previous occasion. We have agreed to give power to a Minister by delegated legislation—secondary legislation—to give somebody, anybody the Minister may choose 20 years from now, the power to dispense with a statute: any statute, one that exists now or one that will exist 10 years from now. Why on earth did we do it, and to what advantage? Why was it needed for government business? It was not; it cannot have been. If the business required the Government to act now, the provision could have been clearly set out. Let us consider the wonderful Bus Services Bill. I ask noble Lords to please read it. They will find in Clause 22 a wonderful general Henry VIII power. What is that for? The Children and Social Work Bill to which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred is more complex. Its provisions include that a hybrid instrument is to proceed through the legislative process as if it,
“were not a hybrid instrument”.
What on earth is that for? Guess how many Henry VIII powers it has? I tired after Clause 35, Clause 39, Clause 42 and Clause 43. They are all Henry VIII powers. It is a confetti of Henry VIII powers. Why will we enact them? Why will we agree? Incidentally, the Bill also proposes in Clause 34 that a Minister may create a criminal offence.
I find the idea that secondary legislation can dispense with, or suspend, primary legislation to be a constitutional—I must be very careful how I put this; shall we say—shambles. That is what it is. I am not asking a rhetorical question when I say: why should Parliament—both Houses—dish out powers to a future Executive of any political colour, elected by a view of the country that is taken at a particular time, to dispense with a statute? We do not know what lies ahead. We must not sit back and say, “This is England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales; we are all very civilised. We will never end up with the sort of Government who might misuse their autocratic powers”. Well, we might. Democracy works in funny ways. Austria came very close very recently. One must not ignore these things.
I do not want to go on too long and will say just this. After all the discussion we have had today and have had so far, all the further inquiries, additional papers and the examination of the interests, why cannot we in this House ask this simple question: why should we ever pass Henry VIII clauses?
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I know that that very important and provocative question will be studied closely by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which is always in the front line when it comes to asking why we accept provisions.
It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I want to reflect on the wider issues raised by the second part of the debate’s title: on the need for Parliament to have,
“full details of all legislation that it is asked to consider”.
This is really the question about the relationship between knowledge and power, and is the basis on which we conduct our scrutiny effectively. I raise this question because I have had the privilege of being a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and am now a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which is wonderfully chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
I have had a curious career. I started in Parliament as a parliamentary clerk in the House of Commons and ended up as a Minister in this House, with many parliamentary pit stops in between. I have seen the erosion of parliamentary power from many different perspectives, and have been concerned for a long time while understanding the yearning of all Ministers to grab more power. However, I believe that in the lifetime of this Government we have seen a step change in the pursuit of power.
The debate on the noble Lord’s report became increasingly surreal as each of the four committees wrestled with what was essentially a false premise, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, has already said—that is, that this House exceeded its powers in relation to secondary legislation and needed to be restrained from doing so in the future. There is a predictable consistency in those four reports’ demolishing of the argument. However, for me, what was equally significant was the noble Lord’s advice to government that they should,
“take steps to ensure that ... too much is not left for implementation by statutory instrument”.
My experience is that Governments have never been very good at drafting legislation, and have certainly got worse. The law of unintended consequences never sleeps. However, there is a difference between things turning out differently because a genuine mistake has been made—Professor Anthony King’s book is full of such examples—and bringing legislation before us which is simply premature, incomplete, obscure, or indifferent to evidence and impact, so much so that we cannot, however diligent we are, advise those who will be affected by it on how the law is actually going to work, let alone warn them or achieve some mitigation. We have already had the examples given several times this evening of the Childcare Act—an egregious example of that—the Housing and Planning Act and the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act, all eclipsed to an extent by the infamous case of tax credits. In fact, on coming into office, this Government signalled their intention to break some basic rules of engagement between Government and Parliament very early on.
I so wish that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, had been in this House when we were debating the then Public Bodies Bill in 2010 and the then Deregulation Bill in 2013. The notorious Public Bodies Bill, which attempted to abolish, remove and restrict arm’s-length bodies entirely through Henry VIII powers, was to an extent stopped in its tracks and we were able to mitigate that. What astonished me was that, in 2013, there was a more outrageous grab for power. Clause 14 of the Deregulation Bill, which was introduced with great brio by the Minister Kenneth Clarke, would have caused legislation that was,
“no longer of practical use”—
in the terms of the Bill—to cease to have effect. He described it as,
“a quick and tidy dustbin”,
and was rather bemused when it was thrown out by the pre-legislation committee.
What is it that we in this House depend on to defend the democratic process and challenge Government? It is principally our two scrutiny committees, but these committees are now routinely faced by departments—aided and abetted by the Cabinet Office—which bring forward skeleton Bills, or “mission statements”, as described by the DPRRC. The Bills create a host of new powers for Ministers, as we have heard. They bring forward regulations that are far removed from technical or administrative issues, although officials persist in defending and describing them as such. They design and implement new policies by introducing new and basic definitions, such as “coasting schools”, in the education legislation; new criminal offences scattered through secondary legislation; and new institutions designed to implement secondary legislation. The fact that so few regulations are ever available for the House to see does real damage, I believe, to public policy and public trust in the process.
Last year, the Government had the excuse that they did not expect to have to introduce a manifesto, and I found that unacceptable. I find it far less acceptable that, this year, we are already faced with legislation that does the same. We may not be able to do much about ministerial power per se, but we should at least be able in this House to insist on transparency, integrity and competence.
Such was the concern of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in 2013 to strengthen the ability of the House to challenge inadequate and misleading SIs that it proposed new grounds for reporting SIs for the attention of the House because,
“the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation”.
That is so fundamental. This year, 19% of the reported SIs fell into that category. We have wide frustration, which we have set out in our latest annual report, about the failure to ensure timely, considerate and effective consultation processes, some of which even misreport findings; poor, basically inaccurate Explanatory Memorandums; and minimal or no information on impact. There is a succession of examples that I could refer to, including around the most contentious legislation, such as social security and legal aid, where we cannot form a view as to whether the regulations would operate as intended. We have invited Ministers to come and defend this failure—they all promise to do better; very few of them show that they can.
We have heard a raft of prescriptions as to what is needed. I support all that—certainly pre-legislative scrutiny—and I would suggest that no Report stage should start before we have statutory instruments to discuss. I also urge for better training and support for the Civil Service and Bill teams and an end to the cuts that have debilitated the Civil Service and the quality of advice.
There will always be those who say that nothing will improve because it was ever thus, but I do not believe it. There is a natural tension between Government and Parliament and it is precisely in that contested space that the proper balance between Government and Parliament should be held. That is where the role of this House is at its most critical and why the conversation that we need should be had between both Houses, and be had urgently.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who brings a wealth of experience of Parliament from different aspects. I begin, as many others have, by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on the calm, moderate, sensitive and sensible way in which she introduced her Motion. What has been remarkable about this debate is that there is an emerging consensus. It has not been put into specific words—I will try to make an attempt at that.
We are dealing with the implicit tension in a system where the Executive are drawn from the legislature and then expect the legislature to be their creature. This has been a tendency under Governments of all parties—the Labour Government, the present Government, the coalition Government. One sees the way in which successive Governments try to deal with this subject and the excessive payroll vote in the House of Commons by those who find themselves politically emasculated and those who are very ambitious, who are always a little reluctant to cross swords with the masters of the day. We see it specifically in the background to today’s debate.
I have enormous and genuine regard and respect for my noble friend Lord Strathclyde, but his appointment was a transgression of the balance that should exist between the Executive and the legislature. It was the Executive who told my noble friend to sort out your Lordships’ House. He came forward with a number of proposals based on his great knowledge and came to a conclusion with which, apart from the legislative aspect, many of us could have a degree of sympathy—namely, that our powers should certainly not be removed but perhaps, in respect of statutory instruments, should be to a degree curtailed. We also have to recognise that this comes in the wake of a specific event and, as the Commons committee put it very succinctly,
“there was in fact no constitutional crisis arising from the defeat of the Tax Credits measure”.
But the Government made one. Subsequently, the Government decided not to persist with the tax credits measure—a very sensible move, in my opinion.
We have to recognise these things and to try to come to a sensible, balanced and moderate conclusion. I respectfully suggest to your Lordships’ House that we take on the implicit—and some explicit—suggestions of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and set up a Burns-type committee with a strictly defined remit and timetable to look at the whole issue of secondary legislation, particularly in the light of the apposite and telling comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. I thought that he made an exceptionally splendid speech. That committee could report back to your Lordships’ House and, following that, I would myself very much like to see a proper Joint Committee of both Houses looking at the way in which secondary legislation is dealt with both in the other place and here.
The most encouraging remark this afternoon was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, when she paid a degree of respect to the Salisbury convention. We have to recognise that our recent problems—the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said that we have never been in this situation before with a Conservative Government—are exacerbated by the disproportionate representation of Liberal Democrat Peers. I say to them, many of whom I count among my good friends, that they recognise that too. They might even consider not putting more than 50 Members in the Division Lobby at any one time. That would go a long way to dealing with many of the problems.
Above all, we must remember that no rules have been broken. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, made an excellent speech today. It was her Motion that was carried and it did not transgress anything. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde mutters sotto voce, “Of course it did”. No, it did not, because if we did what he wanted we would have a power to amend statutory legislation, and she was merely saying, “Take a bit more time”. That is all she was saying and that would have been very sensible. We also have to remember that no legislation was lost in the previous Session.
In conclusion, hard cases make very bad law, as we all know. It is very wrong to consider introducing legislation to change perceived transgressions when there was no actual transgression. I think there is an emerging, calming consensus, thanks to the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. Let us look at these things in a calm, reflective light. Let us give to a committee of your Lordships’ House a particular remit and timescale, and then let us get together with our colleagues in another place to try to ensure that secondary legislation, which should never include Henry VIII clauses, is properly examined in both Houses and is capable of amendment in both.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the declining quality of legislation presented to us. I raise this not only because we can do something about it—as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, suggested, we have to do something about it—but because, as standards decline, there is more opportunity to ignore or even break the rules that have been devised over time to protect the public good. I thank my noble friend for moving this Motion and for her sensible proposals.
Like my noble friend Lady Andrews, my concern arises from my past membership of the Delegated Powers Committee and my current membership of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Both these committees have witnessed the decline of which I speak. When scrutinising secondary legislation, quite rightly we look not only at what it says but why it is required, how it is explained and what its impact will be—as my noble friend Lady Smith said, whether it is fit for purpose. More and more the committee has to draw your Lordships’ attention to inadequacies in all these aspects.
We recently drew your Lordships’ attention to an order relating to standards in the welfare of livestock. In that order, regulations were to be withdrawn in favour of a voluntary welfare code based on consultation, which the Minister said would improve welfare. But the consultation said exactly the opposite. When we pointed this out, Defra withdrew the order. Do the Government consider this a defeat or the House doing its work?
Almost one in five of the statutory instruments reported to the House in the previous Session was on the grounds of inadequate explanation. Indeed, the SI relating to tax credits which precipitated the report of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, went back to the Treasury twice because of deficiencies in the Explanatory Memorandum—deficiencies in the explanation as to why it was necessary to use secondary legislation to introduce this new and significant matter.
Why is this not picked up in the other place? As has been pointed out in many reports, not least in the responses to the Strathclyde review, there are so many other pressures on Members of Parliament that they have little time to look at secondary legislation. Indeed, only selected parts of primary legislation are scrutinised, partly because virtually every major Bill is timetabled—not, I think, an invention of the Blair Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, complained about the number of government defeats. Does he not agree that these defeats are not only because of disagreements over policy but because the legislation is incomplete, not properly prepared and not thought through, as most speakers in this debate have suggested?
What can be done? As other noble Lords have said, there is a Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation and instructions that should be given to parliamentary counsel. Are these instructions carried out? There is an understanding of the need for Green Papers, White Papers, draft Bills and a proposed schedule of secondary legislation. Is the problem lack of staff? Have we lost people with the expertise, analytical skills and experience in preparing legislation? Is this the result of budget cuts in the Civil Service?
One way of making up for this loss would be to do what lots of other people are doing—turn to artificial intelligence. As my noble friend Lady Smith mentioned, in the debate on the Queen’s Speech I drew your Lordships’ attention to this possibility and it created a lot of interest on social media. I made the point that the Government’s Science and Technology Facilities Council at Hartree has a five-year collaboration with Watson at IBM. These two organisations are at the forefront of developments in artificial intelligence. I pointed out that we already have machines that can read, prepare and analyse clauses in loan agreements and contracts of sale. With this experience and the excellence of the two organisations, it must be possible to digitalise and code the Cabinet Office instructions on legislation to at least make sure that every element of policy explanation and consultation is present. Having developed this technology, it could be offered for sale to virtually every other legislature in the world. I hope Ministers do not think for one moment that this suggestion is the start of the slippery slope of Ministers being replaced by robots—not at all.
That is just one way of dealing with the problem. Perhaps the Government have other ideas. We have to get the preparation and procedure of legislation right because, if we do not, the low standards will provide an opportunity for poor or bad legislation which will undermine our culture of strong, fair-minded and responsible government, scrutinised by Parliament to make it fair-minded. It will undermine those rules devised to protect the public good, and we will all be the losers.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, as chairman of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, I thought it right to make a brief intervention in this debate. I emphasise that what I am going to say is my personal view, although I rather think that most of my views will be shared by other members of the committee.
I want particularly to deal with the matter that arose after 26 October last year when your Lordships rejected the tax credits statutory instrument. I recognise that there is room for more than one respectable view as to whether that was a breach of the convention that existed—but there is certainly a serious body of opinion that takes that view, which, frankly, is one that I share. So the question is: what do we now do about that? My noble friend Lord Strathclyde has reported. His report has not been universally acclaimed but has been widely appreciated for the detail into which it went. He has raised some important possibilities which the Government will no doubt carefully consider and to which they will respond in due course—maybe even this afternoon.
Before we, or the Government, decide upon bringing in new legislation, we should have an attempt at re-establishing the convention which some of us, at least, believed existed before October last year. I hope that that can be done. It would need the acquiescence of all the major political groupings in your Lordships’ House, including of course the Opposition, as led by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the Liberal Democrats under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace. I believe that the Liberal Democrats take it that they are not party to the existing convention—or what was the existing convention. If they are not party to it, they will have to be party to the new one if that is what is decided upon. So indeed will the Cross-Benchers—but how that can be achieved I am not so sure, because of course they take the view that they are not united on anything, so that is a matter on which they would have to decide. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, the Convenor of the Cross Benches, would have to decide what assurances he could give as to the position of his colleagues on the Cross Benches if that were to proceed.
I hesitate to suggest that the right reverend Prelates should have to take part in all of this. Perhaps that is a step too far—but they were of course party to the proceedings in 1215, when his late Majesty King John was persuaded to sign the Magna Carta. Apparently that is not part of the proceedings nowadays. If it is not possible to reach a new agreement—
Lord Cunningham of Felling
I am grateful to the noble Lord and do not want to take up too much of his time, but since he mentioned the Lib Dems and the Cross-Benchers, they were represented on the Joint Committee on Conventions and voted unanimously for its conclusions. They supported its conclusions on the Floor of this House, so they are committed to the convention.
Lord Trefgarne
I am very glad to hear that, but I think that there will need to be a new procedure now. If he does not mind me saying so, the noble Lord’s committee, to which he referred, sat a number of years ago and the procedure therefore needs to be re-established following the events of October last year. The new convention will need to set out the understanding that only in the most exceptional circumstances would your Lordships want to vote against a statutory instrument. I would wish to add that a Motion for a significant delay would be very similar to a Motion to negate a statutory instrument. I dare say that the convention would need to recognise that point.
I will make one other, more current observation. It relates to the supporting documentation for statutory instruments, which my committee considers nowadays. A number of noble Lords have already referred to this. I have to say that at least 10% of the Explanatory Memoranda and other supporting documentation which we receive is inadequate or unsatisfactory. We often have to ask for it to be rewritten or reproduced. I regret that that is the case but I hope your Lordships will understand that it is an important part of the work that we do. I would like to exempt my noble friend Lord Freud from all that. He has recently gone to great lengths to persuade his department to improve its supporting documentation and I very much appreciate what he has been able to do. I believe that my colleagues on the Select Committee appreciate that likewise.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in this debate as something of what might be called a jobbing legislator after nine years on the Back Benches, a couple of years as a Whip and a Minister and five years as a Front-Bench spokesperson. While I cannot claim the constitutional expertise of the noble Lords, Lord Norton and Lord Cormack, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, or my noble friends Lord Richard and Lady Hollis, I am now back on the Back Benches of your Lordships’ House and hope that my journey might be useful in our current discussions.
I suppose the theme of this debate is that we really have to do things better. Surely it is not beyond the wit of this great Parliament and the people in it to revise, scrutinise and negotiate better legislation. If the noble Baroness the Leader of the House made a list of every one of the sensible suggestions that have been made today, that would be a very good starting point. Although I found the notes from the Library partially useful, I did not buy the overemphasis on the Strathclyde review, because the overweening power of the Executive and the battle to carry out proper and effective parliamentary scrutiny, and the tension between those two, are not new. It has to be said—I believe this and I think others may have said it—that we have too much legislation. I started to feel that this was the case during my own party’s period in government and have believed it ever since. Indeed, like other noble Lords, while reflecting on what to raise in the debate I noticed in my journey through various uses of Google and the parliamentary database that a monarch in the 14th century—I think that it was one of the Edwards—was also bemoaning the amount of legislation going through Parliament, so there is nothing new in that.
During the years that my party was in government, the opposition parties regularly complained about half-baked legislation, and sometimes they were right. But we are in new territory today, where much of the legislation in front of us is not half-baked but totally uncooked. On the question of why legislation and policy are being brought forward and presented to Parliament in such an abysmal state, I wonder whether part of the answer might be the quality standards and perhaps the economies made to the parliamentary draftsmen’s service.
As I scrolled around trying to think about how to express this, I remembered a year of sitting with parliamentary draftsmen and their service in the drafting of what became the Equality Act 2010 before it was presented to Parliament. I found it a remarkable and very wonderful experience, not only because they were extremely clever, considered and diligent but because they produced a Bill that we successfully navigated through this House, with cross-party support, just before the general election. Can the Minister say whether the draftsmen’s office is being properly funded and supported?
I came across a poem drafted by a parliamentary draftsman in 1947, which of course is unnamed. It says:
“I’m the parliamentary draftsman
I compose the country’s laws,
And of half the litigation
I’m undoubtedly the cause
I employ a kind of English
Which is hard to understand.
Though the purists do not like it,
All the lawyers think it’s grand”.
There is a serious question about the quality and standards of the legislation and draft legislation that we are presented with.
I have a second point, which was alluded to by my noble friend Lord Haskel. The internet has revolutionised who accesses the law and Parliament, and who watches us as we go about our work. Just as people are much more ready to check the advice from their GP against medical advice available online, people are also looking to what we do here in Parliament and the legislation that we produce. Whereas 20 years ago you might have needed access to lots of physical volumes to understand and access law, people can now type “data” or “human” into Google and be two clicks away from a copy of the Data Protection Act or the Human Rights Act, and the same goes for any other legislation. I believe that 2 million to 3 million unique visitors are accessing statutes through the National Archives every month. It seems to me that we need to be less obscure, and that there is a need for more clarity about how we express ourselves and how we incentivise our departments, if they need to legislate and it is too complicated, to consider how to express the legislation in a language that we, including the people watching us and how we work and who sometimes want to comment on it and access it, can all understand.
I gather that, in 2013, good law champions were created in every government department, and new web-based drafting tools were introduced, with an emphasis on partnership, including talking and listening more to users. Do these still exist? If they do, is anybody taking any notice of them?
Those are two questions, but I will also say something briefly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, about Henry VIII clauses. When I came into the House in 1998, the Government were accused of putting a Henry VIII clause in a piece of legislation. There was not quite a gasp of disapproval in your Lordships’ House, but the Government were certainly pressed very severely on such occasions, and as a result often took the issue away and rethought it, although of course my Government did not have a majority in the House at the time.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome this timely debate initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. There is much that needs to be done to strengthen Parliament in scrutinising the Executive and their legislation. However, before addressing what is wrong with the process, I will just say a few words about what is right with it.
Parliament is now arguably at its strongest in modern political history in scrutinising the Executive. MPs are much more independent in their voting behaviour. Both Houses are much more specialised, utilising investigative Select Committees, and better informed as well as more open. Government no longer has a stranglehold on the timetable in the Commons. The House has acquired the Backbench Business Committee and a Petitions Committee. The Whips in the Commons have lost their patronage in terms of the chairs and members of Select Committees. The prerogative power in committing forces abroad is now constrained by the need for Commons approval.
In terms of legislative scrutiny, the Commons, as Louise Thompson’s research has shown, has far more impact than is reflected in the small number of non-government amendments accepted. The Commons has introduced Public Bill Committees, and in this House we now utilise ad hoc committees for important post-legislative scrutiny, a development that plays very much to our strengths. This House is to the fore in scrutiny of secondary legislation. The Constitution Committee does excellent work in reporting on Bills of constitutional significance.
There is thus good news. What, then, is the problem? The primary problem is the sheer volume of legislation. The growth in the volume, both of Acts and statutory instruments, dates from the 1990s, with the greatest increase taking place in the number of pages of statutory instruments—it is not numbers, it is length. There were two step changes, first in the 1990s and then from 2005 onwards. The problem is qualitative as well as quantitative: it is not just the length, but also the complexity and scope. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has called attention to the growth of Henry VIII provisions. Governments are trying to do too much and seek to manipulate the legislative process to achieve their goals.
The Constitution Committee, in its 2004 report Parliament and the Legislative Process, looked at the legislative process holistically. It made the case for pre-legislative scrutiny to be the norm, which fits very much with the wording of today’s Motion. There was a notable increase in the number of Bills submitted for pre-legislative scrutiny in the last Parliament, but the number has varied over time and remains reliant on the Government to determine which of their own Bills merit such scrutiny.
The committee also made other recommendations of relevance to the Motion today. It recommended that all Bills should be subject at some point to detailed examination by a parliamentary committee empowered to take evidence. Government Bills starting life in the Commons now go to evidence-taking Public Bill Committees, although Bills introduced in this House do not get sent to an evidence-taking committee, either here or in the other place. The Committee also recommended that Explanatory Notes should set out clearly the purpose of the Bill and how it should be judged in future to have achieved its purpose. That would be very good discipline on government. Linked to that, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, has said, there is a case for a legislative standards committee to ensure that Bills brought forward by a Government meet set standards and that the check is undertaken in Parliament and not solely by government.
The problem, however, is writ large with secondary legislation. As the Hansard Society observed in its report on Parliament and delegated legislation:
“the use of delegated legislation by successive governments has increasingly drifted into areas of principle and policy rather than the regulation of administrative procedures and technical areas of operational detail”.
That is why secondary legislation is presently on the political agenda, but it is important to understand the cause of the mischief. The report of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde addressed the symptom and not the cause, and in any event was based on a false premise. Indeed, it opened by defining the convention and then proceeded to ignore it. It is not clear why this House should be penalised for the Government using secondary legislation for purposes for which it was not intended. The Government are in effect saying, “We wanted to use secondary legislation to achieve policy goals without sustained parliamentary scrutiny, and we intend to legislate to try to restrict the House of Lords in order that we can do so in future without challenge”.
The noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, has already quoted the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other place, which concluded:
“Such legislation would be an overreaction and entirely disproportionate to the House of Lords’ legitimate exercise of a power that even Lord Strathclyde has admitted is rarely used”.
The Government should be reviewing their own procedures. Can my noble friend the Leader of the House tell us what the Government are doing to ensure that departments do not misuse delegated legislation and what constraints they plan to introduce to ensure statutory instruments do not drift into areas of principle and policy? Those are the questions we should be addressing. We should not be distracted by the Government’s attempts to blame this House for their own failings.
There is a lot that we need to do. We should acknowledge what has already been achieved—we are much stronger than many realise—but we need to build on that and ensure that Parliament is truly effective in calling government to account. The bottle of parliamentary scrutiny may be filling up, but there is still an awful long way to go.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Norton. I agreed with an enormous number of his remarks.
The House of Lords has an important constitutional obligation to consider these matters dispassionately, in a non-partisan way. That has been the overwhelming spirit of today’s discussions. The Government of the day, of any political persuasion, will always want to get their business through as readily as possible. That cannot be the starting point from which the Houses of Parliament consider how they scrutinise legislation; it is an important element, but it cannot be the purpose of scrutiny.
The issue of secondary legislation has loomed large. As has been said by many noble Lords today, the root cause lies in primary legislation, but secondary legislation gives the Executive enormous powers, with much less scrutiny than primary legislation. Most people outside Westminster do not understand the difference between primary and secondary. A large amounts of the legislation that affects people in their everyday lives is secondary legislation. Those changes can make an enormous difference to people’s lives, and the tax credits statutory instrument is a very good example of that. So the primary legislation is the root cause, but the secondary legislation that results from it has been granted secondary legislation status by both Houses; that gives the Government of the day substantial powers, with less scrutiny than otherwise. Therefore, the role of both Houses in scrutinising secondary legislation takes on rather more importance than one would imagine. With primary legislation, the House can ultimately reject the Bill or an element of the Bill; it can then be subject to the Parliament Act, but that is a substantial and very rarely used power. This House has the power to reject secondary legislation, but has done so only five or six times in 50 or 60 years. Nobody outside Parliament would regard that as excessive or dangerous use of the powers of this House.
The use of powers to reject is very rare indeed. It requires some care by any Government—and it could be a Government with my party in control, the current Government or some future Government. Governments will always be frustrated by that use, if it happens, but that is not the basis for wanting to change the powers. Woe betide any Government who say that they will take away the power of a House of Parliament because once in so many years it used that power. That would be an abuse of power on the part of government—and I hope that the Government think very carefully before they use one case in a long time to say that they will change the constitutional position of this House.
Briefly, I turn to secondary legislation. I had the privilege—although I did not think of it as a privilege when I was first appointed—of being on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for three years. I have just finished, much to the delight of the postman who delivers the mail to my house in Leeds. I learned a number of things from it; I learned how important secondary legislation is, compared to what I realised before I was on the committee. I always realised it on an issue that I was interested in, but I did not realise that it was important for so many things. I also realised how important the role of this House is in scrutinising that secondary legislation. As the Public Administration Committee said in its report, it is the House of Lords to which Parliament owes a debt for scrutiny.
We scrutinise around an average of 1,000 instruments a year—80% negative and 20% affirmative. We refer only about 10% of them to the House to debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, said, incorrectly, in his speech on the Queen’s Speech that the House of Commons considered and approved secondary legislation before the House of Lords, but that is not true. Secondary legislation goes to both Houses from the Government, not to this House from the House of Commons. We have parallel duties to consider it. Indeed, 10% or 11% of secondary legislation is considered and approved by this House before the House of Commons. We do a very important job.
Finally, I return to the larger issue. The Strathclyde report suggests what I call, perhaps unkindly, the snake oil solution of letting this House reject secondary legislation once, with the House of Commons then being able to override it. My experience of the House of Commons is not large, but my colleagues who were in the House of Commons tell me that that will not work. Overwhelmingly, Governments use their majority in the House of Commons to get their business through. The idea that this House will reject once, then the House of Commons will consider carefully what was said, and that there will be substantial debates and a response from the Minister is simply hocus pocus—it is not true.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the words in the Motion,
“Parliament having full details of all legislation that it is asked to consider”,
have particular resonance for those of us who sat through 45 hours of Committee proceedings on the Housing Bill. That Bill is all I want to talk about today. It was a classic case of abuse in the production of legislation. Certainly, it is the reason for today’s debate. It was a skeleton Bill, as defined in the 2005 report by the Joint Committee on Conventions, which was chaired by my noble friend Lord Cunningham of Felling. It was a Bill riddled with references to the need for secondary legislation. On my count, between the Bill and its schedules, there were, potentially, 81 statutory instruments covering more than 100 separate issues, all to be determined following Royal Assent. Almost every one of them covered an area of controversy. I have heard it said in the Commons that the reason the Government chose to introduce the Bill in this way, avoiding providing details covering the more controversial areas, was because with their small majority the Government were concerned that too much detail during Commons stages could have provoked difficulties on their own Benches and prejudiced the early passage of the Bill. I suspect that will not be the last time that happens.
An indicator of what happens when Parliament is denied full details on legislation came with an amendment to the Bill introduced in the Commons on the last day in Committee after 17 sessions of consideration. The amendment was introduced to begin the process of phasing out long-term council tenancies, which are very much a feature of tenancies outside London, and replacing them with two-year to five-year tenancies. This proposal was never in the original Bill, being too controversial, and was introduced without even an impact assessment. The approach the Government took during Commons proceedings avoided a constituency backlash on that matter from Members of the other House.
There were potentially whole sections of the Bill that we simply could not amend, leaving us with only fatal Motions, which some of us find difficult to support on principle, which I will come to later. I shall give an example. The Bill, under statutory instruments, gave councils the power to require all tenants to declare household incomes. The Explanatory Notes stated that,
“a process of verification may be needed to ensure that declarations of income are correct … The Secretary of State must obtain the consent of HMRC before making arrangements with a private body to fulfil this function”.
If you are a council tenant not in receipt of any benefit—in other words, if you are not means-tested—whatever your income, and particularly if you have a gross total household income, outside London, of more than £30,000, or of more than £40,000 in London, a private company, in the form of Capita, could access your income and potentially breach your privacy as part of the verification process without your specific consent. I believe this is an unprecedented use of regulations with little detail in the Bill, particularly on the process of verification, which we should have been able to consider during the proceedings and which we cannot amend in a statutory instrument.
I have to admit that the Ministers on the Bill, one of whom is in her place today, valiantly sought to defend the indefensible by assuring the House that the regulations and, if necessary, guidance would be introduced following a consultation that was to take place at a later stage. Nevertheless, the truth is that the Bill was premature. Whether you agree with its provisions or not, because it was so controversial, it should not have been introduced until the consultation on its contentious provisions had been completed. In its final hours in this House, the Bill was the subject of almost unparalleled protest on the Floor, all to be found in Hansard on 23 March.
I return to the issue of fatal Motions on SIs, on which I have very strong views. Behind closed doors in my Labour Party group meetings, I have consistently argued against voting on fatals. To me, as a former Member of the House of Commons, it was a matter of great principle. I confess that, against my party line, I declined to vote in the tax credit regulations Division on the basis that I regarded the amendment as fatal. However, after years of arguing on principle, my experience on the housing Bill changed my mind. If the Government want to play silly games with skeleton Bills, then I am afraid the Opposition, despite being unelected, have no option but to retaliate by blocking statutory instruments. I deeply regret that.
Furthermore and finally, I do not see how we can possibly interfere in the current arrangements for handling SIs until we have established a process for determining a proper deposition of what constitutes “exceptional circumstances”, as set out in the 2006 report by my noble friend, and have received a commitment from the Government to avoid the use and indeed abuse of skeleton Bills in the way that happened on the Housing and Planning Bill.
Lord Wakeham (Con)
My Lords, it is one of the great strengths of the House of Lords that a considerable amount of thinking seems to go on between one debate on a subject and the next time that it comes up. That is a credit to everyone, but today I think credit is due particularly to the Leader of the Opposition. A great deal of what she had to say was very sensible, and I am very glad that she said it. This goes back to what I said in the Queen’s Speech debate: I wanted a proper discussion on these matters and I wanted it to be led by the Opposition. Governments have the chance to bring in legislation if they want, but Oppositions are the people who have the power and the opportunity to persuade people that we are not doing things the right way and that we ought to change them. So I am full of praise for the start of the debate. I am hesitant to say a lot of the things that I might otherwise have said, because I do not want in any way to prejudice a proper discussion of all these matters, which I think is not best done in the atmosphere of the House.
However, we are not quite as bad as some people have made out. If we look back to the debate on 24 March, we see that a lot of concerns were expressed but there were quite a lot of things on which most of the people who spoke more or less agreed. First, for example, there was a degree of unanimity that things were not satisfactory at present. Secondly, there were those of us who argued that what we were concerned with were clashes between the Lords and the Commons, while others argued that they were clashes between the Executive and Parliament. It was the noble Lord, Lord Butler, who pointed out that they are both the same thing in practice, and that we ought not to get too uptight about that. There was also, as there has been in this debate, a general feeling that a Government with a majority are entitled to get their business through. Lastly, while no one actually ruled out legislation, at least on the government side, there was a general feeling that if we could find a way of dealing with these matters without legislation it would be a great advantage to everyone. Of course there were things on which we disagreed, and we have encountered them again today, such as statutory instruments, Henry VIII clauses and so on.
It is roughly 44 years since I came into Parliament, and I have to say that these debates have been going on for all that time and probably will for another 44 years after I have long since disappeared. The evidence is not overwhelmingly on one side, which is why the matter needs to be looked at. There are people who argue that that is not what has actually been happening. It is argued—my noble friend Lord Norton said something like this a minute ago—that the Executive are becoming more powerful than Parliament. However, quite a lot of academic research demonstrates that Parliament has much more power over the Executive than was ever the case in the past. There is a considerable amount of academic information about things that Parliament has done to Bills brought in by Governments. I would like there to be a cool discussion of these issues in finding a better way forward.
Every now and again we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Richard, on this subject. He is quite right to raise the question of financial privilege—we have not yet had an answer on that. We need to know what goes on and whether it is properly controlled. It is not that we are worried about the House of Lords having the right to vote down secondary legislation; it is the fact that under the present system there is a complete veto. That is the problem. We need to find a way of getting over it, so of course we need to have a proper discussion. An absolute veto is not acceptable in this day and age.
I very much welcome the tone of a lot of the contributions to this debate. There are ways forward that will not necessarily require legislation, but this issue will require a certain amount of good will and co-operation on all sides of the House.
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
The noble Lord mentioned an absolute veto. Is it not the case that a statutory instrument annulled by this House as a negative instrument can be brought back immediately with a change of title, and that an affirmative resolution instrument which is rejected can be brought back with minor amendments? So it is not an absolute veto. That is what happened in the case of the Rhodesian sanctions.
Lord Wakeham
Somebody who has spent as many years in business management as I have knows that there are ways around all sorts of things. However, the fact is that a statutory instrument which is rejected by this House is dead and another way has to be found of dealing with it. In my opinion, that is a nonsense. We have to find a way of giving this House more influence while recognising that, ultimately, the House of Commons has the final say.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
My Lords, I join those who have congratulated my noble friend on introducing this debate. The balance of power between government and Parliament should probably be discussed by both Houses on a regular basis, including the case for Parliament having full details of all legislation that it is asked to consider.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton, mentioned that in the Commons there have been some interesting developments that are relevant to the overall balance of power, and I think that that is the case. There have not been similar changes in this House—a matter that is also of interest. It is a fact that having full details of legislation is only one aspect of the balance of power, and for good reason colleagues have concentrated on that issue in this debate.
Perhaps I should declare an interest—or maybe a confession—in that I have been both a poacher and a gamekeeper. I have been proud and fortunate to serve as Leader of the House of Commons and as Chief Whip. I have also, over many years, been a Back- Bencher, and I am now a member of the Constitution Committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Lang. I mention that experience because I hope that it gives me a balanced approach to the different interests. We have an unusual parliamentary system and an unusual government system, because the Executive come from the legislature, as has been mentioned. That is different from what happens in most countries and it creates tension. That tension can be constructive if it is used in the right way and if people are aware of the roles that they have and the limits on those roles.
There have been many suggestions today for improvements in how we look at legislation. Incidentally, I must mention to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that pre-legislative scrutiny was a recommendation of the Modernisation Committee in 1997, so it was not all bad, as he suggests. Mention has been made of the fact that we do not use Green Papers and White Papers and use Henry VIII clauses far too often. Although I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, on a great deal, as a business manager, it must be a step too far to say “never” to Henry VIII clauses. We have to consider their role. However, the fact that he says “never”, does not excuse what has been happening in recent years—on that, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, is absolutely right. When he said that one Bill consisted of a whole series of blank pages, it was a wake-up call for everybody to realise just how far things have gone in that direction.
I do not think that, in government, those of us who were business managers ever went so far. However, something that I was asked, time and time again, especially when I was Chief Whip, was which MP gave me the most problems: which serious rebel was the most difficult? In fact, when I was Leader of the House and when I was Chief Whip, the greatest problems came from Ministers, who were trying to do too much—trying to introduce skeleton Bills, Christmas tree Bills and new clauses late on—and expecting the Whips and everybody else to snap their fingers and get all that business through. It was difficult. They were always pushed and they were encouraged by civil servants, but some departments—they know who they are—were particularly difficult.
I recall that when we were in government, we had what was called the LEG committee—the legislative committee of cabinet. Every single piece of legislation that was to be introduced had to go through that committee. Every Minister who presented a Bill had to take it to that committee and it had to pass certain tests. For example, the Treasury had to be willing to sign it off, and it had to be acceptable on human rights and environmental grounds. One of the questions that was always asked at that committee was: what are the implications in terms of delegated legislation? We had Lords business managers on that committee and they frequently reminded us of the difficulties in getting too carried away with what could be done by secondary legislation.
I have been listening to this debate carefully. I was particularly concerned with what my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said about what he was told about why some amendments to the housing Bill were introduced so late; it was a deliberate tactic. I was also concerned with what my noble friend quoted from the article in the Financial Times, where a political aide said that it was “deliberate policy” to try to use statutory instruments wherever possible. That means that it is not an accident that we have seen such a mushrooming in statutory instruments. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can make his point about the numbers, but the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, about the length of SIs is important, as is the fact that we are now seeing more policy issues introduced through SIs. That is really what is causing us some difficulties. This trend is dangerous, and my noble friend Lady Andrews was right to call what we have seen in recent years a “step change”.
It is not just a question of the niceties of Parliament or how this House behaves. This is very basic in terms of democratic accountability. It is also very important for the quality of legislation and the impact of the policies on people in subsequent years. If we saw Ministers future-proofing their powers, it would be very dangerous indeed.
I am afraid that the recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, are not the way forward. It is not just for this House and another place to consider how they deal with SIs; it is fundamental that the Government themselves look at how they introduce legislation and improve preparation and that Ministers take responsibility for the policies they put forward.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, like all the other contributors to this first-class debate, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, on introducing this topic and on the constructive suggestions that she—and indeed many others—put forward. The debate will repay reading in the days and weeks ahead.
As so many contributors have indicated, a delicate balance lies at the heart of our constitution: the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. It is important that we are always on our guard to make sure that the balance does not tip too far in one direction—in favour of the Executive and to the detriment of Parliament.
For Liberal Democrats, the distribution of political power is an issue of prime importance. The belief is in our DNA that, ultimately, sovereignty rests with the people, and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. These beliefs point to a strong democratic process with a just and representative system of government and effective parliamentary institutions, with decisions being taken at the lowest practical level possible.
A key role of Parliament in a parliamentary democracy is to hold the Government of the day to account. That applies to both Chambers. We do this by Questions, by challenging the Executive’s policies and actions and by requiring Ministers and senior officials to account publicly and in person for their decisions.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that there have been a number of positive developments in recent years, both here and in the House of Commons, to improve the balance between Executive and the legislature. There have been changes in the House of Commons following the recommendations of the Wright committee, the new arrangements for Select Committees and the establishment of the Backbench Business Committee. In your Lordships’ House, there has been the introduction of the ad hoc Select Committees which allow us to investigate current issues facing the country in an in-depth and timely manner, and the practice of reserving one of those committees to conduct post-legislative scrutiny, which ensures a more regularised system for evaluating how well an Act of Parliament is working. Added to that, we have topical Questions for Short Debate, for which more time has been made available and perhaps still more could be.
But there is still some distance to go on the path to reform. At the heart of the challenge before us is the capacity of Parliament effectively to scrutinise the volume of legislation that is routinely presented by the Government of the day. The noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, mentioned the paper which was circulated to a number of us by Mr Daniel Greenberg, in which he indicates that between 1960 and 1965 the average number of clauses in a new Act was 24, but between 2010 and 2015 the average number of clauses in a new Act had risen to 49. There has not been an equivalent increase in the amount of parliamentary time devoted to scrutinising them. The paper further points out that in the 1960 annual volume of Public General Acts there were 1,200 A5 pages, whereas in 2010 the same document had grown to 2,700 A4 pages. That is quite a significant increase.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, quoted from the recent report of the Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, which stated that,
“the nature of the instruments has also changed. Delegated powers in primary legislation have increasingly been drafted in broad and poorly-defined language that has permitted successive governments to use delegated legislation to address issues of policy and principle, rather than points of an administrative or technical nature”.
Examples have been given of Bills in the previous Session and in this Session where that has been case, and it was particularly graphically illustrated by the Housing and Planning Act, cited by both the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.
If an increasing amount of legislation is being presented to Parliament, and more policies are being implemented by way of statutory instruments instead of primary legislation, there must be a concern as to whether Parliament has the capacity to cope and to perform its role effectively and efficiently. The result is that government can pass legislative proposals with greater ease and less scrutiny—and that problem is compounded if a Bill is inadequate. Much emphasis in the debate was placed on the importance of having impact assessments on time and on having draft regulations and codes of practice.
Another paragraph in the document from Mr Greenberg caught my eye. It is not just in secondary legislation that much detail is found. Mr Greenberg wrote:
“Another rule of law issue of concern to many is the enormous growth since around 2000 of the use of powers to make quasi-legislation in the form of guidance, codes, schemes and other instruments which have legislative effect but are not given the formality of scrutiny associated with subordinate legislation. They are not published on the National Archives legislation site, and although in principle published on the government’s central website they can be difficult or impossible to find, even if one knows of their existence”.
So there is a whole tranche of regulation or sub-regulation which Parliament barely gets an opportunity to look at.
I have mentioned before how this House has updated its procedures and practice to try to deal with the onslaught of more and more delegated legislation. It is widely agreed across your Lordships’ House that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee provide us with an invaluable service in the work they carry out on the meaningful scrutiny of statutory instruments. This is something that the other place might wish to emulate.
The noble Lord, Lord Cunningham, was right to say that the conclusions of the Joint Committee he chaired were endorsed by the Liberal Democrats. My noble friend Lord McNally served on that committee. It concluded that the House of Lords should not regularly reject statutory instruments but that in exceptional circumstances it might be appropriate for it to do so. To roll back from that in any way would be a dilution not only of the power of your Lordships’ House but of the power of Parliament.
It is against that context that we look at the recommendations proposed by the review conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. It has not had a great press from the various influential committees of your Lordships’ House which have reported on it, or from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons, as has been said.
The common view was best summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, who, in the Lords of the Blog on 23 March, said:
“Lord Strathclyde’s review is not some minor technical report—it is actually quite dangerous in seeking to constrain the capacity of Parliament to call government to account”.
The House of Commons committee, which has been referred to, said:
“The Government’s time would be better spent in rethinking the way it relies on secondary legislation for implementing its policy objectives and in building better relations with the other groupings in the House of Lords”.
We should not consider any actions that diminish the impact of Parliament’s scrutiny function of the Executive. Instead, both Houses of Parliament should examine better ways in which we can work together to achieve a more comprehensive, informed and effective scrutiny of the Government’s legislation and actions. We continue to reject the notion that any Government achieving a majority in the House of Commons should have an absolute power to prosecute their business without the proper burden of checks and balances. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said, the Government of the day are not always right about everything and at all times.
We should not confuse the primacy of the House of Commons with the primacy of the Executive—there is an important distinction to be made there. It is incumbent on Parliament, therefore, not just to fight against moves to weaken our ability to hold the Executive to account but to try to find new ways in which we can improve our procedures. There have been some good suggestions today. The pause button referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is worthy of examination.
My noble friend Lady Smith of Newham drew attention to the fact that the House of Commons has passed resolutions which the Government have done nothing about. We should perhaps examine that issue. The committees of the Scottish Parliament can be the sponsors of legislation. Mr Greenberg suggests that there should be an annual debate. Every Act when it is passed should have something attached to it indicating how much scrutiny it received. If the Government had to debate it annually, it might make Ministers think before they act.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, asked how long we can go on talking. There has been some worthwhile talking today but I take his point that it may be time for action. There have been many good ideas in the debate. I hope that the Leader of the House will respond in the constructive spirit in which noble Lords have contributed, because what is needed is a willingness to seize the initiative.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)
My Lords, I will definitely pick up from where the noble and learned Lord left off and say that this has been an excellent debate. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for the way she introduced it and for all the contributions which have been made. It has been a constructive debate and for the most part I, too, agree with much that has been said. I hope we can find lots of common ground in order to make progress towards ensuring that this House is well equipped to do its job. I will respond to some of the important points that have been raised, but perhaps I may start by making a few points from my perspective as the person representing the Government here in this debate.
As Leader of the House I am appointed by the Prime Minister, I am a member of the Cabinet, and I am responsible for the Government’s business in the House of Lords. As has been acknowledged, my party was democratically elected and has a mandate to govern in line with the commitments set out in our manifesto. But I know that to succeed in my job, I have to listen to this House; I really understand that. Moreover, I not only have to listen; sometimes, I have to deliver difficult messages to my Cabinet colleagues. They do not always like what I have to say, but I know that it is my job and something I have to do. I am getting better at it because I think they are getting a bit more used to some of the things I have to tell them. The point I would make to noble Lords is that the Prime Minister and all Ministers in the Government understand the importance of my role because they are Members of Parliament too. They understand that for people to have confidence in the laws Parliament makes, Parliament has an important role in the legislative process.
The noble Baroness acknowledged what I said in my response to the gracious Speech the other week. We also acknowledge that Parliament improves legislation; that is part of what it does. But it is also true that from my perspective in government, when I see the picture from the other end of the telescope, things sometimes look a bit different. As my noble friend Lord Norton pointed out, since the last general election the balance of power has actually shifted more towards Parliament than has been the case for nearly 20 years, because the Government have such a small majority in the Commons and the Conservative Party in this House has no majority whatever. The noble Baroness referred to the approach of the Opposition in this House. I acknowledge a lot of what she said, but it cannot be ignored, as my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said, that in the first Session of this Parliament the Government were defeated on more than half the Divisions that took place in your Lordships’ House. That is significantly higher, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, than what was experienced when the Labour Party was in government.
We must recognise that the Government of the day are sustained through the confidence of the elected House, and although the Government bring forward their legislation, the legislative process itself is a conversation between the two Houses so when we talk about the balance of power, as has been acknowledged by noble Lords in the debate, we need to be mindful of the balance of power not just between the Government and Parliament but between the two Houses, and that the balance goes both ways. So while it is absolutely right that we in this House have the power and sometimes the responsibility to ask the other place to think again, we must acknowledge at the same time when to take no for an answer, mediated by the conventions that underpin our work. I feel strongly about that because that approach is what helps to protect our legitimacy as an unelected House. That point was very well made by my noble friend Lord Lang, and other noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate.
The legitimacy of Parliament and of this House also relies on the Government upholding their responsibilities in ensuring that both Houses are able to scrutinise fully our legislation. I recognise that we as a Government have a responsibility to make sure that Parliament has the opportunity to carry out its proper role in holding the Government to account and in scrutinising our legislation. I appreciate what lies behind the concerns raised by noble Lords in that respect, and I will come on to some of the more specific points on secondary legislation, and so on, in a moment.
I would also say—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, touched on this as well—that as a House, we care very deeply about how we go about our work in scrutinising legislation, and we have made quite a bit of progress over recent years with some new innovations. We now have post-legislative scrutiny committees that have been set up as part of our regime of Select Committees. We ensured that there was more pre-legislative scrutiny in the previous Parliament than in the one before, and we have new things such as topical QSDs. There is more time for Members of this House to scrutinise and hold the Government to account. Yes, Governments do not always get it right. I know that this one and previous Governments, as has been acknowledged, have not always got it right. I have heard loud and clear, both today and through other debates, that there are areas where noble Lords feel strongly that we must do better.
Let me start with skeleton Bills. Sometimes material is brought forward later than is desirable, as was the case with some material emerging after the election. Yes, I want to ensure that as Parliament proceeds, it has the information it needs to do its job. Having gone through one Session, I feel that I have learned lessons that I want to ensure are properly applied by the Government. The first Session of a Parliament is always a bit different from later Sessions because straight after an election, clearly, the Government have to get on with implementing their commitments in their manifesto. Some things require them to get on sooner rather than later, because if they have commitments that they must deliver by the end of that Parliament, they are required to bring forward legislation very early on and they need to get on.
I have learned lessons and I noted very much what the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, said about some of her experiences when she was Chief Whip and a Minister. I sit on what we now call the Public Bill legislative committee in government. I think that my reputation as a plain speaker, as far as Ministers who bring forward their Bills to that committee are concerned, is starting to get a bit more widespread than it might have been before. I can assure noble Lords that I am taking very seriously my responsibilities to ensure that legislation is brought forward in as complete a fashion as possible.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made many points with which I would agree, and I share her view that this House has to have the right information to do its job properly. I do not accept that we have not welcomed challenge because, as she was good enough to acknowledge, Ministers in this House have engaged quite constructively with Members of your Lordships’ House during the passage of Bills. Yes, a couple of Bills may not have been as well developed as I would have liked, but we did get through 23 Bills in the last Session. By and large, most of them arrived here in greater shape than they might have been—or not necessarily in the shape that some described them. We might have a difference of view on that.
Some skeleton Bills arrive in that way for a purpose. The cities Bill was designed in that way so that we could allow the Government to enter into proper agreements with local authorities. Mention has been made of the buses Bill in this second Session. Again, it has been specifically designed in that way. I do not necessarily argue that all skeleton Bills are bad because that is how they have been prepared.
I move on to the content of legislation, secondary legislation, the number of statutory instruments and the use of Henry VIII powers. The number of statutory instruments was raised by many noble Lords. I cannot let go of the fact that, in the last Session, about 750 pieces of secondary legislation were laid in Parliament. This is the lowest number for more than 20 years. It compares very dramatically with first Sessions of previous Governments over recent times.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
We can move measurements if we like and start counting pages, but it is a statement of fact. I cannot go back and count all the pages of pieces of secondary legislation from 20 years ago, but I can tell noble Lords that we certainly dramatically reduced the amount of secondary legislation in the last Session.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
My Lords, we talk about clauses, SI numbers and pages, but what matters and what the noble Baroness has so far not addressed in her constructive response is whether they are heavy-duty SIs carrying a policy load. Nobody has any objection to a number of SIs that technically adjust things such as the timing of when things will be brought in. What matters is whether they carry policy and therefore, by virtue of being SIs, put that policy beyond proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
We can get into a debate on the detail. I have looked at the content of secondary legislation and how the Government performed in the last Session against the Governments of which the noble Baroness was a member. If she likes, I can trade a range of different examples of where previous Governments were criticised for inappropriate use of secondary legislation, but we are trying to move forward.
On the point raised on Henry VIII powers, I was pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, disagreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. Like her, that is not something from which I take any pleasure. She is right to point out that it would be impossible for us to do without Henry VIII clauses completely, but that does not mean Parliament should not be very watchful of the Government’s use of such powers. Some are appropriate, in that they are used in appropriate circumstances. For instance, the noble and learned Lord referred to one in the Children and Social Work Bill, which is about to receive its Second Reading in this House. That is designed for a specific purpose. Clearly, as that piece of primary legislation goes through, we will have to debate whether that power is appropriate for what it is designed to do. We can and should have a proper debate about these things but I would not necessarily argue that all of them are open to criticism just because they exist.
As the House knows, the Government have not yet responded to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde’s review of secondary legislation. This was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. We are still considering that report and all the Select Committee reports alongside it. In looking at all these things, as my noble friend Lord Wakeham said—I think this is where we have real agreement in the House—we do not want this House to diminish its influence but we need to ensure that the elected House, the House of Commons, has the final say on all legislation, not just on primary legislation. This is a topic that I know we will continue to discuss and consider.
I note what my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and others said about the conventions that were so hotly disputed. The problem is that we still have among us a lack of agreement on where we are with those conventions. That does not mean that we cannot try to seek some clarity and agreement between us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a number of constructive suggestions about steps that could be taken to address these matters. As I say, I think we all agree on the importance of what we are trying to achieve, which is for this House to continue its very important role of scrutinising and revising legislation, and holding the Government to account. I will reflect carefully on some of the noble Baroness’s specific proposals. I note that a lot of the issues she raised—such as Cabinet Office guidance, full impact assessments prior to Secondary Reading debates and draft regulations prior to Committee—are what should happen anyway. That means there is a lot for me to take away and think about. The process is there but I need to ensure that the Government understand their responsibilities in proceeding with and fulfilling that. I will reflect as well on the noble Baroness’s idea of a particular committee to look more broadly at how we prepare for legislation and our various scrutiny procedures in this House.
More than anything, I want to conclude by reinforcing to noble Lords just how much I share with them the objective of trying to make sure that this House is able to do what it exists to do. Like all noble Lords who spoke today, and many more sitting here in the Chamber, we all feel very passionately about the purpose of this House. Noble Lords have heard me say many times that I describe it in this way: this House exists to give the public confidence in the laws that ultimately Parliament makes. I want to ensure that we are always equipped to do that. I will take away the very constructive comments and contributions made today. I will carefully read Hansard again; as noble Lords know, often when one is sitting on the Front Bench it is hard to keep up with everything being said. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her introduction to this debate and for everything that she said today about my ministerial team and their efforts to respond constructively to the scrutiny given to the Government’s legislation. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I thank the noble Baroness, who made some very constructive and helpful points. I also thank all noble Lords who contributed and who listened to the debate today. It has been a very impressive debate, showing this House at its best and, given its quality, perhaps showing why this House should have a greater role when scrutinising legislation.
I never intended the debate to be all about the report of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde. I was really trying to get a sense of the direction of thought from your Lordships’ House on the kinds of measures we have been discussing and that we would like to engage in. It has been helpful to have that today. The support we have had for the proposals is very welcome.
However, I do not agree with noble Lords who think that the conventions have been broken. I do not know how many times I have to say this but I will do so again: we abide by the conventions of your Lordships’ House. Even if some noble Lords think that on one day, on one vote, the conventions were stretched a bit, I do not think that in any way detracts from the observance of those conventions around the House at all times.
When we had the tax credits vote, the proposal from my noble friend Lady Hollis was intended to be helpful. Noble Lords will recall that we did not support a fatal Motion, although I think the noble Baroness said once before in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that, had we done so, it would not have broken the conventions. The House was seeking a way to be helpful to the Government. My grandmother had a saying that no good deed goes unpunished. Given that it led to the Strathclyde review, I wish I could tell her how right she was.
I wish to pick up on a couple of points. Mention was made of how many defeats the Government had suffered or endured in the last Session, and a figure of 53% was given. However, that was around 60 votes, exactly the same as during 2001—the noble Lord need not shake his head at me; I am telling him this as a fact, but I see he wants to use percentages. Let us look at the numbers. It is around 60 votes. The reason why percentages are not valuable here is because this House, knowing the arithmetic of the House, does not vote nearly as often as it did when the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, was the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, we exercise the restraint that the Government so crave, we vote less often, so if we win the same number of votes, that affects the percentage. If the noble Baroness and the noble Lord want us to go through the Division Lobbies far more often and orchestrate losing votes to get the percentage down, that can be done but that is really not the way to do things. Let us look at exactly what we are talking about and not compare apples and oranges.
The other issue around the number of votes concerns the quality of the votes. The Labour Government lost votes around national security. One of the issues on which we voted where this House took a different view from that of the Government was to set up a Joint Committee to look at whether or not the Government’s EVEL proposals—English votes for English laws—could be examined to see whether they had an impact on this House. The Government class that as a defeat. I class it as a victory of common sense for your Lordships’ House. However, it would still come into the 53% figure. Indeed, the Select Committee which set up the Trade Union Bill, and which greatly assisted this House, was something which the Government opposed. Therefore, we have to look at the quality of the votes as well. I make no apology as regards those issues on which we have won votes but I also say that we have exercised restraint. We vote less than half as many times as does the Commons and we vote fewer times than Oppositions have in the past.
The noble Baroness said that there were fewer statutory instruments now. I did not raise the issue of the number of statutory instruments debated in this or the last Parliament. That was not part of the argument I was making. My concern is that in legislation now there is a greater use of delegated powers than we have had before. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging that there seems to be a far greater use of delegated powers for policy issues and not the normal uprating issues. Tax credits were an example. They should have been contained in legislation, not a statutory instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, referred to the number of pages. I have not counted them but it is the significance of the policy matters that cause this House concern. I was grateful to the noble Baroness for acknowledging—as I did—that in the first Session of any Parliament it is sometimes difficult to have legislation that is fully formed. However, we are now in the second Session of this Parliament and that scenario still applies to the buses Bill and the Children and Social Work Bill. Her comments were helpful. If she could rigorously look at those two Bills, as she has offered to do, I am sure that all of us would be very grateful and appreciate it.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made an interesting contribution. He may not think that I am going to agree with him but, surprisingly, I am. He said that a veto, or voting against, or declining to accept a statutory instrument should be used only in very exceptional circumstances. There have been six times, I think, since 1950 where a fatal Motion has been accepted by this House, and something like 150 times where they have been rejected when they have been tabled. So it seems that they are being used only in very exceptional circumstances, and I think that it is fair that we have that.
The other point that the noble Baroness made was about ensuring that impact assessments and draft regulations are available for Committee; I suggest that she does not take the whole burden for that on herself. I greatly appreciate that she would do more with the Bills coming to this House to have that information ready. But we have even had Bills that have gone through their Commons stages and then come to this House without us having that information available. She needs to engage with her Cabinet colleagues to make sure that, at the other end of the Building, they are also ensuring that that information is available when Bills are debated in the other place.
Today’s debate has been really instructive and impressive for your Lordships’ House. I am grateful for the support and I shall go away and think further on some of the comments that have been made. Perhaps we need to up our game on scrutiny and to ensure that we always have the correct information. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made the point about Henry VIII powers—I think that they may have extended too far into the future on some occasions. If we can remove some of the obvious tensions that come about not because of policy issues and policy debates but because of lack of information, then our debates and discussions will be a lot more constructive and helpful, both for Ministers who sometimes struggle because they have not been given a fully formed policy and for those who are struggling to get that information.
I am grateful to your Lordships’ House and to the Minister for her helpful comments, which we can build on.
Obesity: Low-fat Diet
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent new dietary advice that contradicts recommendations to eat a low-fat diet to tackle obesity.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Lords who are speaking in this debate; it is especially appreciated as the timing is not what we originally expected. Before I get to the heart of today’s debate about dietary advice, let me start with the basics and the seriousness of the current situation. Obesity and its related illnesses are costing the country a fortune and it is not sustainable. Only this week Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, told the Health Select Committee that we now spend more on obesity-related conditions than on our police or fire services. Figures from the US released yesterday show that 40% of women in the States are now obese—and we are not far behind. On current trends, three in four adults will be overweight or obese in twenty years’ time.
If we do not wake up to the extent of this crisis, the NHS could end up bankrupt. Enormous amounts of money are already spent on treating diseases that are entirely preventable. After my Question on this topic a couple of weeks ago, a severely disabled friend told me how frustrated he felt that, because of the costs of obesity, there is much less money available for the needs of people like him who have no control over their condition. The problem is that we in the western world live in an obesogenic society—one that tends to cause obesity. For almost all of us food is readily available, most of us never feel hunger and our lives are increasingly sedentary compared to the generations before us. It is all too easy to put on weight and maintaining a healthy weight is also a challenge. If we see someone slim today, we assume them to be a person of real self-discipline.
I declare an interest: six years ago, I was 28 pounds heavier. I was fat. I disliked it, but seemed unable to do anything about it. Like millions of others, I tried every diet going, back to grapefruit and hard-boiled eggs, which I think was a 1970s fad. I remember one diet based on ration coupons—it was not a bad idea given that as a country we have never been as healthy as we were during rationing. You name it, I tried it. I finally gripped it thanks to Louise Parker, and I recommend her common-sense approach as set out in her recently published book, Lean for Life. If you put two or three strangers together—women, anyway—the topic is an immediate ice-breaker: how to lose it, how to keep it off, what tips do you have, what works for you? It is a source of endless fascination.
One pound of fat equates to 3,500 calories. If you consume an extra 100 calories a day—just one small glass of wine, for example—you will put on 10 pounds a year, 20 pounds in two years; it is all too easy. But it can work the other way round: cut out that daily glass of wine and, all things being equal, you will lose 10 pounds a year. While on the topic of alcohol, how is it possible that there is still no calorie labelling on alcoholic drinks?
I read recently of an experiment where two groups of people spent an evening out at the pub. One group had calories included on their drinks menu and consumed an average 380 calories each. The other did not and drank the equivalent of 764 calories—double the amount. One piña colada, for example, is 245 calories, approximately the same as a Mars bar. How many people know that, or that a pint of beer and a packet of crisps contain a similar number of calories? It is not uncommon for people to drink two or three cocktails or large glasses of wine or to have three pints on a night out, but would they necessarily eat two or three chocolate bars or packets of crisps? People want this information and it should be made transparently available.
We currently spend £1 million every hour on type 2 diabetes. If the number of people affected increases at the present rate—400 new diagnoses every day—by 2025 there will be 5 million people with diabetes in this country. Half these people have diabetic complications: heart disease, eye disease and kidney disease, and there are more than 100 amputations a week as a result of vascular disease in people with diabetes. This is unsustainable.
The good news is that it does not have to be this way. Earlier this week we heard of mounting evidence to show that losing weight is the best way to fight cancer. A daily brisk walk of just 25 minutes was shown to almost halve mortality rates for breast cancer sufferers, while a waistline larger than 35 inches increased death rates by a third. This may be an added incentive for some, assuming that doctors are aware and pass on the information. Should the messages be clearer and tougher? A friend of mine lost five stone when his doctor made it clear that he was unlikely to see his daughters grow to adulthood. Some may disagree with this approach but it worked for him.
In the interests of research for this debate, I watched a few programmes over the weekend. “Junk Food Kids: Who’s to Blame?” was absolutely tragic. Those poor children have multiple teeth extractions, simply because they are drinking fizzy drinks and fruit juices instead of milk or water. They have dreadful diets and take no activity. I also watched a couple of episodes of “Lose Weight for Love”, which is currently on the television, where obese couples locked into cycles of overeating which threaten their relationships as well as their health are separated from their co-dependent partners for 10 weeks to learn better habits on their own, at the same time supported by a team of experts. The issue for them is more than food, it is their psychological relationship with food.
The series has taken a holistic approach to diet change and weight management by offering psychological therapy alongside behavioural, diet and exercise interventions. This joined-up thinking does not happen in healthcare as money is siloed into different specialisms. For long-term change to occur, we need to understand why food is so often used to self-medicate. All the couples have lost substantial amounts of weight and appear to be motivated to keep it off. A year later, one couple have lost six stone each.
I think every single one of the participants admitted that before the programme they drank litres of fizzy, sugary drinks every day, which provided no nutritional value at all—empty liquid calories. I commend the Government for taxing them. But at the same time as introducing the tax they really need a publicity campaign about what sugar does to your body. It seems to me, as a lay man, quite right that sugar has become dietary enemy number one, along with processed snacks. I was fascinated by the Guardian’s long read “The Sugar Conspiracy”, published on 7 April, and I recommend the Sugar Smart app as an easy way of checking the amount of sugar in any product.
Yet although losing weight is simple, it is not easy. Giving up sugar is horribly difficult. I could happily go home this evening and eat a tub of ice cream and a packet of chocolate biscuits, but I will not. Once upon a time I might have but I am now motivated by concerns about my long-term health. While I appreciate that the accepted golden rules for a healthy, cancer-free life are not fool-proof, I try to live by them: no smoking, limited alcohol, healthy weight and regular exercise. Should the Government be looking at carrots—I do not mean the vegetables—for those who achieve these goals and thereby potentially save a lot for our overstretched health service?
The current dietary advice is confusing. For example, the Eatwell Guide recommends basing meals on potatoes, bread, rice, pasta or other starchy carbohydrates. Are we so sure that this is good advice? After all, we feed starchy crops to animals to fatten them, so why would they not have the same effect on us? For years we were told not to eat more than two eggs a week, but then research showed that cholesterol in eggs had almost no effect on blood cholesterol. The consequences of that advice were that egg producers went out of business and the population missed out on affordable, natural, nutrient-filled food as it swapped it for sugar-laden, industrially processed cereals. Recent reports have added to the confusion and muddled messages help nobody. So for the sake of our NHS, our nation and especially our poor chubby children, I urge the Government to focus on accuracy and clarity when they finally publish their obesity strategy.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, first, I must congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin of Kennington, on securing this debate. Far more than that, I must pay tribute to her absolutely tireless efforts to raise the matters of diet, eating well and food waste. She has raised almost everything from what goes into our mouths to what does not and becomes food waste, and how to eat well and cheaply. She lives by the example—she has told us how much weight she lost—but in this House she has constantly emphasised the need for cooking skills. Nobody has done more in the last few years to raise the issue here than she has. I thoroughly agree with her. I cannot blame the public for their weariness with government food advice. There have been contradictions in that advice. There has been unclear and quite hard-to-follow advice. That is a recipe for confusion and people have just stopped listening.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, mentioned the Eatwell plate. I underline that to ask the Minister: did as much effort go into ensuring that the advice in the new Eatwell Guide is as sound as she would like? An awful lot of effort went into the redesign of the Eatwell plate. The knife and fork were taken away, apparently because her department thought that they did not resonate with the public. There are a lot of questions about the advice. When we talk about fats, for example, the new Eatwell Guide differentiates unsaturated oils, such as vegetable and olive oil and lower-fat spreads, from other foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar. That is because some fat is essential in a healthy balanced diet, but other foods high in fat, salt and sugar are really not healthy. They should be eaten much less often and in very small amounts. The size of the purple section on the Eatwell plate reflects the fact that oils and spreads are high in fat and contain lots of calories. That seems sound advice but, for all the reasons underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, it is still confusing.
There is an underlying message, which is quite clear, about eating within your need for calories. It is usually about eating less. I would have to declare an interest here in that I probably should eat a bit less. I have to declare a second interest as a co-chair of the All-Party Food and Health Group and a third interest as a vineyard owner. I took greatly to heart the comments the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, made about glasses of wine. She is quite right that they contain calories, but on the other hand the Mediterranean diet, often held up before us as a very good example, contains some red wine. My husband had red wine recommended to him by his cardiologist as an alternative way of thinning his blood following a stent operation. It is back to what my mother said, which is that a little of what you fancy does you good—underlining “little”.
I turn for a moment to a point touched on by the National Obesity Forum in its very controversial report. The way the report came out was unfortunate, because the headlines that resulted were controversial, but that does not mean that everything in the report should be dismissed. The report accuses major public health bodies of colluding with the food industry. I do not know whether that is true but the NOF and the Public Health Collaboration have called for a “major overhaul” of current dietary guidelines. That advice is very sound.
I do not know where the line is drawn between collusion and allowing the food processing and retail industries to reformulate, including by using things that could not even be defined as food. This practice is clearly exposed in Joanna Blythman’s book, published last year, Swallow This: Serving Up the Food Industry’s Darkest Secrets, which shows just how important it is to debate this issue and the causes of obesity. She uncovers just how much of the seemingly more natural—but still processed—foods are clever products of the chemical industry. She has said:
“The pace of food engineering innovation means that newer, more complex manufactured food creations with ever more opaque modes of production are streaming onto the market every day”.
She explains how just about everything from your seemingly healthy option of granary farmhouse loaf or sliced egg salad sandwich has a slew of processes and ingredients for which our digestive systems just were not designed.
Just as the public learned to avoid E numbers and artificial ingredients, so the food industry has now learned to use innocuous-sounding ingredients that really belong in a chemistry lab, not a kitchen. Why does this matter? Have they been passed as safe? Given some of the research coming out now, it matters because we are paying the price with our health. For millennia, our digestive systems evolved to efficiently process vegetables, nuts, fruit, pulses, eggs and the occasional meat and dairy product. Suddenly, in the second half of the 20th century they came under assault.
The effect was explained earlier this year by Jenni Russell, writing in the Times, where she set out the work of the genetic epidemiologist Professor Spector of King’s College London. His work has been to do with the growing amount of evidence that the destruction of our gut bacteria by processed foods is the real enemy and could be behind the obesity crisis. In essence, précising his work, she said that something very curious happened in Britain in the mid-1980s. Obesity rates had scarcely shifted in the 20 years since records have been kept. They were more or less steady, but then rocketed overnight—not just here but around the world. Obesity almost trebled, and every age group was affected. Whether they were 16 or 60, people suddenly started getting fat.
Your Lordships could say that that was because people were sitting in front of the television much more and eating more and worse foods. I know that things such as corn syrup, which goes into so much food, are also implicated. The fact that our food is not the food that our digestive systems have learned to recognise over hundreds of years must have some bearing on this. Other work from around the world is just becoming evident. For example, Professor Chang in Berkeley, California, is exploring the connection between copper and fat metabolism. There are all sorts of things that we are just at the beginning of understanding. Although it is about eating less and taking more exercise, it is also about the fact that our current food system is fatally flawed, especially when it comes to our health, and obesity is the symptom of this. As Professor Tim Lang, who has been working on these issues for decades, says, there is a,
“need for a complete change of mind set to tackle these”,
issues,
“away from a productionist approach with its successes and subsequent problems”.
He outlines a new direction for food policy, building it around sustainable development, low-impact farming systems, diets and low energy use.
The debate about fat and obesity is incredibly important, but we must hold it in the right context. At the moment, it is a bit like seeing someone suffering from a bad cut and having a debate as to whether to put on a plaster or bandage or to sew it up. As a very short-term measure, we need to think about the plaster, but in the long term we need to be able to buy and prepare food that contributes to our health rather than undermines it. That means seasonal, local and less processed food, with more pulses—the noble Baroness will agree with that—more vegetables and more cooking skills taught in schools. What are the Government doing to ensure that all schools receive nutritional guidelines and that academies and free schools are no longer excluded—and that A-level cooking will be part of the curriculum, because I understand that it is being dropped?
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jenkin of Kennington for initiating this debate, which draws attention to the false and misleading advice that a low-fat diet is the way to tackle the obesity epidemic—an epidemic which is killing millions, costing billions and to which the cure is free. You just have to eat fewer calories.
I remind your Lordships that when we swallow food it goes down through the gullet into the stomach, in the upper part of the abdomen. The advice to have a low-fat diet is wrong because, when fat enters the small intestine, it meets special receptors that detect differences in the composition of food. This information is transferred to the stomach and results in delay of emptying. Fat is especially important because, when it enters the small intestine, it greatly delays the emptying of the stomach by making the upper part of the stomach relax and the lower half less active. As the stomach emptying is delayed, it gives the feeling that one has had enough to eat. Later, when the fat has been absorbed lower down, the stomach then starts to empty again.
This is a beautifully balanced mechanism, which tends to prevent us eating too much and thereby prevents obesity. Not surprisingly, the food industry does not approve of this beautifully balanced mechanism, because it has resulted in less food being eaten and lower profits. So it joined up with some rather dubious scientists to produce research that erroneously claimed to show that fat was bad and carbohydrates were good. They ignored the fact that, when carbo- hydrates and sugar enter the stomach, there is very little delay, and the food quickly rushes on. There is no feeling of having had a full meal; the person soon feels hungry and starts to eat again—and they continue to eat too much throughout the day. This has led to obesity in a large proportion of the people in the UK and an even larger proportion of people in the United States.
Recently, there has been a lot of interest in the composition of food, especially in the fact that fat plays a valuable part in weight control. These statements are recent but not new; many of us clinicians have been teaching this for many years, because of the work of Professor Yudkin in the 1960s, and his book published in 1972. However, his message that the answer was fat, not carbohydrates, and that carbohydrates were the danger was not popular with some parts of the food industry, and his career was actually rubbished by unscrupulous scientists in cahoots with even more unscrupulous parts of the food industry. It was a disgrace. The campaign to extol the virtues of a high-carbohydrate, high-sugar diet was started largely in the United States, where it was decided by scientists and food manufacturers that the increasing amount of coronary artery disease was due to excessive fat in the diet. Fat was demonised; a high-carbohydrate, sugary diet was broadcast as the answer; and anyone who contradicted that was marginalised. It has been pointed out that a low-fat diet is not very tasty and it is thought that for this reason the food industry started putting a lot of sugar into food to compensate and make it more palatable, so boosting their sales. The food industry seems to regard money as more important than many parts of the health of the people.
In the United Kingdom, as many noble Lords know well, the Department of Health and NICE maintained for many years that the obesity epidemic was due to lack of exercise. It is a pity that some of the 500 people employed by NICE did not think to go to the gymnasium, get on a machine and exercise to see how few calories one actually burns off. One can pedal away on one of those machines for half an hour and only 200 or 300 calories will be burned up. One has to run miles to take a pound of fat off.
This whole subject has been bedevilled by all sorts of theories about the cause of the obesity epidemic: genetics, epigenetics, psychological disturbances and many other ideas. They are all very interesting, but none of them is the cause of the obesity epidemic. They may contribute to making it more difficult for some people to control their appetite, but one fact remains: it is impossible to be obese unless one is eating too many calories. Only a quarter of the calories we eat are actually expended on exercise. The remaining calories are burned up enabling the heart to beat 8 billion times in a lifetime, the kidneys to filter gallons of blood every day, and numerous chemical reactions in the liver, pancreas and so on.
We have been advised not to be judgmental and not to blame patients for being obese. We are not even allowed to call them fat nowadays, but it is not judgmental to be accurate in diagnosis. It is not for government to tell people how to run their lives, but it is the job of government to give a very clear picture of the truth. I hope that when the obesity strategy is eventually published it will have on the front cover: “Obesity is killing millions, costing billions and the cure is to eat less”.
In a recent review, Dr Aseem Malhotra, a cardiologist, concluded that the current global epidemic of atherosclerosis, heart disease, diabetes and obesity is being driven by a diet high in carbohydrates and sugar, as opposed to fat.
How can we help obese people to avoid an unnecessarily early death from the effects of obesity? It would help them to have a reasonable but not excessive amount of fat, which would satisfy their hunger early on in their meals, and to avoid a diet high in carbohydrate and sugar, which would continue to make them hungry. Roughage in many forms, such as wholemeal bread, wholemeal pasta—pasta integrale—and cereals without sugar also satisfy hunger quickly. It is essential to avoid high-carbohydrate and sugar diets which will continue to make them hungry. Many will need additional help from friends, dieticians and psychiatrists—all this to avoid so many unpleasant illnesses and to avoid them falling victim to this lethal obesity epidemic, which is the worst since the flu epidemic of 1919.
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, on securing this debate on this important but highly confusing subject. The scale and enormity of the obesity crisis facing the UK and the rest of the world has been underlined, and it is clear that the Government’s long-awaited strategy, particularly in respect of providing clarity over dietary guidance, is desperately needed. I hope that the Minister will be able not only to give us some headline information on the content and direction of travel of the strategy, which we assume must now be in an advanced stage of development, but to be much more specific about the publication date for the strategy than just the timetable of “over the summer” that we have been given so far. I hope she fully realises the urgency and seriousness of the situation and the need for the Government to get to grips with the country’s obesity epidemic. The noble Baroness, Lady Jenkin, in particular graphically and thoroughly underlined the challenges we face.
The recent report from the National Obesity Forum and the Public Health Collaborative has led to even greater confusion about what we should and should not eat to help us lose weight or keep our weight in check. To quote one comment article on the report:
“If you’re not confused, you’ve not been paying attention”.
The same article, by Archie Bland in the Guardian, underlined the important need for clear messages on food, such as a simple five-a-day mantra, however much we place our own interpretation on it, and came to the same conclusion on the need for clear, straightforward guidance on tackling weight gain that has been supported here today—that is, eat less and move more. Regarding noble Lords’ comments on the Government’s advice on diet, the British Obesity Society’s 11 tips for 2016 seem pretty sound and cover the full range of issues we have been discussing today.
As we have heard, the report’s findings and conclusions have been fiercely challenged by key medical bodies, including the Royal College of Physicians, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, the Faculty of Public Health, the British Heart Foundation and of course government public health bodies. We also now have the bizarre spectacle of half the board of the National Obesity Forum resigning over a lack of consultation, involvement and input into the report. Regrettably, instead of contributing to the debate, the dramatic statements in the report, and particularly those surrounding its launch, have served only to polarise and confuse the debate still further in a very unhelpful way. They have also detracted from the effective debate and discussion of some of the report’s valuable findings and observations, as a number of contributors have pointed out. The dismissal of Public Health England’s Eatwell Guide as a “metabolic time bomb”, for example, and the description of the discouraging of eating low-fat foods as,
“perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history”,
were over-the-top statements not backed up by evidence in the report itself.
In his response to a Question about the report from the noble Baroness, Lady Jenkins, on 26 May, the noble Lord, Lord Prior, gave assurances to the House that the Government’s obesity strategy would clearly address the confusion and muddle over dietary advice. It is clarity and simple language that are needed, and that is what makes the need for the strategy ever more urgent.
There have been excellent points and questions from noble Lords to the Minister on low-fat and dietary issues, which I will not duplicate. I look forward to her response, particularly regarding this week’s Spanish research, which has found that the Mediterranean diet, with high-fat content from olive oil, does not cause people to put on weight. Confusion reigns. I hope she can reassure the House that the overall strategy will provide an accurate, evidence-based estimate of the current costs of obesity services to both the NHS and social care. Simon Stevens’ estimate is an alarming current cost of £9 billion a year to the NHS alone. We also want realistic forecasting on the future costs and scale of the epidemic, and on what funding is needed for the services to be able to cope.
Will the Minister acknowledge the importance of making sure that the strategy includes actions to ensure cross-departmental government planning and working, particularly for tackling childhood obesity? Recent figures show that over 28% of children aged two to 15 are obese, and thousands of children are being admitted to hospital because of their weight. We know how difficult it can be to achieve cross-government working, so can the Minister assure the House that the new strategy will address this issue? The Royal College of General Practitioners recently called for a COBRA-style workforce to be set up. Does she agree that this would be an important way of achieving the required joined-up approach that extends beyond the Department of Health?
In the time left, I want to raise two key issues on the strategy. First, looking at all the background information and briefing on obesity, the paucity of data about the extent of obesity among, and its impact on, ethnic-minority communities was particularly striking. NICE has underlined its concern that millions of people from ethnic-minority groups who may be at risk from weight-related diseases are not showing up under current tests. The body mass index test simply does not work for some groups, and NICE has called for BMI fatness thresholds to be lowered to ensure that up to 8 million people of African, Caribbean and Asian descent in the UK are covered in order to help identify those at risk of diabetes and heart disease. Do the Government support that view, and what action are they taking to address this problem? Different ethnic groups are associated with a range of body shapes and different physiological responses to fat storage. In terms of public health action, it is particularly important for south Asian populations in the UK, for example, to be aware of the health risks associated with an increased BMI and waist circumference.
According to Public Health England information, apart from the 2004 Health Survey for England data, there are few nationally representative data on obesity prevalence in adults from ethnic-minority groups in the UK, and data for many smaller ethnic groups are scarce or non-existent. Will the Government ensure that their strategy includes actions to investigate and gather information and data on key ethnic-minority groups so that their needs can be assessed as part of the strategy?
Secondly, do the Government acknowledge and recognise the importance of ensuring that the obesity strategy addresses the key issue of obesity among people with disabilities? Again, there are very limited data on this. People with disabilities are more likely to be obese and to have lower rates of physical activity than the general population, for obvious reasons. Children who have a limiting illness are more likely to be obese or overweight, particularly if they have a learning disability. Being both overweight and underweight are issues for people with learning disabilities. Obesity is associated with the four most prevailing disabling conditions in the UK: arthritis, back pain, mental health disorders and learning disabilities.
UK obesity rates have trebled over the last 30 years; the UK has the highest level of obesity in western Europe, ahead of France, Germany, Spain and Italy; and the alarming prediction is that, on current estimates, more than half our population could be obese by 2050. The scale of the problem makes the need for an ambitious health and social care strategy to address the challenges ever more urgent. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lady Jenkin for initiating this important debate, and I congratulate her on having certainly lost weight—and kept it off, which is indeed an achievement. My thanks also go to the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Wheeler, and to my noble friend Lord McColl for their valuable contributions. I will pick up on the various points as I go through my speech.
Tackling obesity is indeed an important issue, as my noble friend implied. We know that obesity is a leading cause of serious diseases such as heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers. Furthermore, obesity is a complex issue to which there is no single solution. Eating a healthy diet has a key role to play in helping people lose weight, maintain a healthy weight and thereby reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes and other problems related to obesity.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Wheeler, suggested that messages are muddling. That is why Public Health England goes to great lengths to ensure that it advises the public clearly and consistently on what constitutes a healthy, balanced diet, basing that advice on broad, robust and objective evidence. It is also why it was so disappointing to see the opinion piece entitled Eat Fat, Cut the Carbs and Avoid Snacking to Reverse Obesity and Type 2 Diabetes. It claims that many of the Government’s dietary recommendations are wrong. However, it fails to provide good evidence. All it has done is confuse the public, and Public Health England has called it “irresponsible”.
To improve diet and reduce obesity levels, our advice remains that people should base meals on starchy carbohydrates, especially whole grains, eat at least five portions of a variety of fruit and vegetables each day, including pulses, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned, and cut back on food and drinks that are high in salt and sugar. That is our Eatwell Guide.
My noble friend Lord McColl and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, mentioned that eating fat is a good thing. It is extremely important. Our recommendations are that 33% of energy should come from fat. As was also stated by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, the cure for obesity is to eat and drink fewer calories, and that must be remembered.
I underline that Public Health England bases its dietary guidelines on comprehensive reviews carried out by the independent experts who make up the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition. The Eatwell Guide was put together by them and Public Health England, and they consult academia, health charities, public health professionals and representative professional bodies. They also monitor changes in the evidence base and, where sufficient new evidence emerges, will initiate a new review to ensure that the guidance remains current.
Public Health England is taking forward a range of actions to help reshape the environment, to make the healthier choice the easiest choice for people, and to tackle inequalities relating to obesity. Public Health England has a broad plan and is committed to working collaboratively, at a national and local level, to pursue and advance a series of sustained actions to tackle and prevent obesity. Public Health England’s obesity plan is based on a framework that covers community engagement, monitoring progress, supporting delivery and changing the whole culture concerning obesity.
My noble friends Lord McColl and Lady Jenkin pointed out that exercise will not cause someone to lose weight. Exercise is important for lots of reasons, but there is no point going to a class or the gym and then going round the corner for a fizzy drink and a doughnut. It is this sort of culture that needs to change.
My noble friend Lady Jenkin also mentioned the problem of sugar in alcohol. The UK has secured provisions to allow voluntary calorie labelling on alcoholic drinks. This is already being used by Sainsbury’s, the Co-op and Waitrose. The possibility of mandating calorie labelling on alcohol is under discussion at EU level.
Public Health England recognises that weight-management services are an integral part of the public health and health service agenda for tackling obesity. Public Health England is clear that only by taking a whole-system, joined-up approach can we hope to make a difference.
As my noble friend Lady Jenkin stated, sugar is a huge problem. The sugar intake of all population groups in the UK is above current recommendations. We are encouraging a reduction in sugar intake through Change4Life, a social marketing campaign. It provides practical tips to help families reduce their sugar intake, and the sugar app is also a very good idea.
As part of its work, Public Health England is exploring how to support councils and the health service in providing evidence-based weight-management services that work better for people. In particular, Public Health England is collaborating with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Public Health to support councils in developing local, joined-up approaches to tackling obesity. The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, mentioned the importance of this and of remembering that those with disabilities have complex nutritional needs. Also, ethnic minorities must not be left behind. This is why Public Health England is concentrating on exploring with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Public Health how to take this down to a local level to decide what is needed in different areas to help those with disabilities and ethnic minorities.
Regarding type 2 diabetes specifically, Public Health England is working with NHS England and Diabetes UK on the development and delivery of Healthier You: the NHS Diabetes Prevention Programme. This year, Healthier You will refer at least 10,000 people to an evidence-based, behaviour-change intervention, funded by NHS England, shown to reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes in those with elevated risk. By 2020, the programme will be made available to up to 100,000 people at risk of type 2 diabetes each year across England. Those referred will receive tailored behavioural support to enable improvements in diet, increases in physical activity and weight loss. Furthermore, Healthier You will link into the NHS Health Check programme, which invites adults between the ages of 40 and 74 for risk awareness assessment and management of the key risk factors leading to premature death and disability in England.
As I mentioned a few minutes ago, obesity is a complex issue. Tackling obesity, particularly in children, is one of the Government’s major priorities and the Government will be launching a childhood obesity strategy next month. The strategy will look at everything that contributes to a child becoming overweight and obese. It will also set out what more can be done by all.
It is critical that we address with young people the obesity issues they face, as we know that it is much more difficult to lose weight later in life. That is why free school meals were introduced in all primary schools and why we have the School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme. I will have to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, on her questions, as I am not up to date on what the Department for Education is doing in relation to cooking in schools and the curriculum.
The soft drinks industry levy announced by the Chancellor in the Budget was the first step in the process regarding sugar intake. The cross-government approach being led by the Department of Health is an exciting one. However, evidence suggests that many of those who have the potential to influence the diet and health of those with whom they come into contact, including childminders, fitness instructors, caterers and those working in care homes, currently receive little or no training in nutrition. Public Health England is working with the Association for Nutrition to devise a competence framework for use in training non-professionals in the catering, fitness and leisure industries in diet, nutrition and health. This is now being used to certify relevant courses. Moreover, the chief executive of NHS England is addressing the presence of unhealthy food and drinks on NHS properties. After all, if those looking after people are not eating healthily, it is not good for any of us. The initiative will encourage NHS staff to lead a much healthier lifestyle.
Eating a healthy, balanced diet plays a crucial role in all our work, but we have choices and we have to take responsibility for them. I thank everybody who has taken part today. If there is anything that I have left out and not mentioned, I will of course write to noble Lords.
European Union Referendum (Voter Registration) Regulations 2016
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bridges of Headley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 June be approved.
Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, let me start by repeating the Government’s thanks for the broad cross-party support for this measure and to those who have worked so hard behind the scenes, in the Cabinet Office as well as in the Electoral Commission, to address the situation in which we find ourselves.
We all agree that the referendum is one of the most important moments in our democracy for over a generation, and it is therefore critical that as many people as possible have their chance to vote in it. The public’s appetite to vote was clearly shown on Tuesday night, when the “Register to vote” website crashed. As I said yesterday, in the hour before it did so, 214,000 people had applied to register—three times the previous peak, which was seen just before the last general election. This dark cloud of an IT glitch has a silver lining, as it was caused by a great surge of public engagement.
From early yesterday we discussed with the Electoral Commission the best course of action to address this unprecedented issue. Given its central role in running the referendum, the Electoral Commission called on the Government to introduce legislation to extend the deadline for registration, and this statutory instrument does that by extending the deadline to midnight tonight. The application deadline is set by legislation, so new legislation is required to allow electoral registration officers to accept applications submitted after the original deadline. This is a technical change specific to the EU referendum and therefore secondary legislation is the most appropriate mechanism.
We have acted quickly but responsibly. Working with the Electoral Commission we have carefully examined the options and have come to the most appropriate and proportionate response. The legislation we are debating now was laid before Parliament yesterday evening. We have had to proceed with some haste but have taken the time necessary to ensure that our approach is legally watertight. In its briefing to Parliament the Electoral Commission has recommended that Parliament approve these regulations.
What does this instrument achieve? Very simply, it will, as I have said, extend the deadline for registration by 48 hours to midnight tonight. This is achieved by shifting the publication of the final register to be used for the referendum to the third working day before the poll—Monday 20 June—rather than five working days as currently provided for. To ensure that all applications are still subject to proper scrutiny, the period given for objections to an application remains five days. Registration officers will still have the full five days to process applications and require applicants to provide additional information, if needed, to satisfy them that those applicants are eligible to vote in the referendum. We are making no changes to the necessary verification processes and the same standard of verification will continue to apply to applications made in this extended registration period. We are cutting no corners. We want to give those who want to register more time to do so, but in a way which ensures that applications are subject to proper scrutiny before people are added to the register.
These regulations make no change to any other deadline date associated with the referendum. The deadline for applying for a postal vote expired at 5 pm yesterday. This means that anyone who has not properly applied to register by that point and has not applied for a postal ballot will not be able to vote by post in the referendum. But anyone who registers now and does not want to vote in person at their local polling station on 23 June, or is unable to do so for whatever reason, can still apply to appoint a proxy. The deadline for a standard proxy application is unchanged by this instrument and remains 15 June.
The change to the referendum deadline will apply in England, Wales and Scotland. The issue we are seeking to fix is in relation to a failing in the online registration service. Online registration is currently available only in Great Britain. The registration system in Northern Ireland is different in a variety of ways. In particular, digital registration is not yet available there, so there is no problem to fix in Northern Ireland as no one there experienced an issue registering to vote on Tuesday night.
In light of the regrettable outage to the system on Tuesday night, since then we have worked hard to ensure that it is more robust and better able to handle large numbers of simultaneous applications. The capacity for the “Register to vote” website was doubled yesterday. It is now four times what it was for the 2015 general election. We have also developed a system to manage any particular spikes in activity. I am pleased that people have got the message that registration for the referendum remains open and are taking the opportunity to register so that they can have their say. According to the latest figures I have, some 300,000 applications have been made since 10 pm on 7 June.
Let me end by apologising for the system having failed and the disruption that caused to members of the public applying to register. Although we have acted as quickly as possible to address this, I reiterate the Government’s clear commitment to conduct a full analysis of what went wrong so that we can learn the lessons for the future. If there are ways to better manage such problems, we will make sure that we identify them. I repeat my thanks to noble Lords for their support for this measure. I beg to move.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief, although I am tempted to go into a long diatribe about compulsory registration, which I think ought to be the case, as people would automatically be registered and would have to take themselves off the register rather than the other way round. That would be the best way of doing it.
What I am concerned about now, however, is registration for the postal vote. We ought to be extending it in the same way, to the end of tomorrow, because the original deadline to ask for a postal vote was 24 hours after closure of the registration process. Now there will be at least a full 24 hours—that is, today—when no one will be able to apply for a postal vote. I think that that is wrong and I hope that the Government will look at it again and consider whether we might have postal voting for those who apply for registration today.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support the Motion proposed by my noble friend. As your Lordships may be aware, although this is not set out in the Standing Orders, it is normal practice for your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, of which I have the honour to be chairman, to report on incidents such as this before they are considered by your Lordships. Clearly that was not possible on this occasion, but I have taken the opportunity to consult as many of the members of my committee as possible. None has raised any objection. I am therefore happy to say to my noble friend that I approve of what he proposes and that my committee has given its informal approval for that process. These are what, in other contexts, we have come to call exceptional circumstances. They clearly apply in this case, and I approve of my noble friend’s proposal.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for his kind words yesterday about my knowledge and interest in this area. I also ask him to convey my thanks to the Minister for Constitutional Reform for his most helpful recent letter which was also copied to my fellow officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Democratic Participation. As the Minister will know, we are discussing with his colleagues our recent Missing Millions report, trying to tackle some of the longer-term problems which have been highlighted this week.
I want to say from these Benches how grateful we are to the Government for acting so expeditiously and properly to ensure that the problems with online registration did not result in people being disenfranchised. Today’s Daily Express headline suggesting that allowing people to vote is somehow “rigging the system” is at least as ridiculous as any of its conspiracy theories concerning the late Diana, Princess of Wales.
Some 242,000 people applied to register to vote yesterday, and more will do so by midnight tonight. But the problem that I raised with the Minister yesterday is that these people were not able to find out easily whether they were already registered, and many of them were. The problems of trying to get people registered at the last minute are the problems that arise from the weaknesses in the system, which have led to the general problem of under-registration. Yesterday, the Minister responded to my point that we really need an online system in which people can easily check whether or not they are already registered. He expressed concern about the creation of a national database to facilitate this. He said that,
“we must guard any solution which results in whole swathes of data unnecessarily being held centrally”.—[Official Report, 8/6/16; col. 751.]
But does he not have concerns that all the major political parties, including his own, already have such a database? All the political parties are entitled to copies of the electoral register in electronic format and they can either aggregate that information or work with any of the credit agencies which also legally have full access to the electoral register. So there are already national databases showing exactly who is on the electoral register.
While there may be some confusion over addresses appearing on those registers in different formats, it should not be hard, for example, for someone to supply their name, postcode, national insurance number or other identification to see whether they are already registered. I raised this issue today with the Electoral Commission. I quote briefly from its email, which is most helpful on this issue. On the question of an online register and checking whether someone is already registered, it says:
“This is a recommendation that we continue to make to Government, including in our February 2016 report, after we received feedback from Electoral Registration Officers, and from electors themselves, that this would be a helpful service. You might already be aware that similar facilities are already offered to voters in other comparable democracies, including Australia and New Zealand”.
Therefore, it seems to me that it would not be too difficult a problem for us to address. We know that in total there may be around 7 million people missing from the registers, and 4 million of them may be young people. I asked in a recent debate why we do not make the electoral registration process part of the student enrolment process. The Minister said that it had been piloted successfully in Sheffield and Cardiff. As it has been piloted successfully there, why can we not roll it out across the whole country? We could make it a universal provision. I have also been pressing, as have many Members of the House, for us to adopt the Northern Ireland model of registering 16 and 17 year-olds as part of citizenship classes at school. The Minister told me that many electoral registration officers are already working with local schools and colleges in their area—but why not all of them? The excuse that Northern Ireland does not yet have online registration is no reason at all for not spreading successful good practice in registering young people across Great Britain.
Finally, I ask the Minister to clarify an issue in the Explanatory Memorandum to this statutory instrument. It states that,
“the Law Commission is currently undertaking a review of electoral law in the United Kingdom and expects to present its recommendations to Government in 2016”.
However, the Law Commission published its interim report on 4 February and made many sensible recommendations for tidying up and modernising our election laws. I have since then been asking for the Government’s response to what the Law Commission said, as the next stages require the Government, instructing parliamentary counsel, to draft the Bill required. The Electoral Commission, I might add, is also extremely keen that this happens. So, what is the Government response to the Law Commission’s report?
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the Motion put forward by the Minister and to commend the Government and the other House on ensuring that full public engagement can take place at this time. I believe that this surge was a result of the just-in-time generation being able to do things at the last minute. We probably have a lot to learn from that. It will be interesting to look at this issue—if one is able to define the 300,000-odd people who elected to register in the last 24 hours. Without this statutory instrument we would be denying the basic human right in a democracy, such as the UK, to vote on such an important issue.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I rise to ask the Minister to clarify one or two things, and to make one or two observations, following the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. One is tempted to remind ourselves that the words “IT project, success and Government” are not often used in the same sentence. This might be yet another instance of that, although, having said that, I think that the capacity installed was pretty substantial. That takes me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that, after the event, we will discover that a fair number of the people who were trying to register were already registered. Had that facility been available they would not have been overloading the system. As I said, we will not know the answer to that for several weeks, until the analysis has been done.
On my specific questions, first, are the returning officers fully okay with and accepting of the new timetables? I assume from what my noble friend Lord Bridges said that they are, but it would be appropriate, given the increased workload that they will face over a shorter period of time, to have confirmation that not only the Electoral Commission but the returning officers are satisfied that they can cope in the circumstances.
Secondly, and I do not expect an answer specifically relating to this at this point, when the specific regulations were debated in Committee I raised the opening of postal votes. I was given an assurance, although I have not checked Hansard precisely, that these would not be opened until the close of the poll because there were recognised implications for the markets around the world. I think that that was the assurance I was given. Rumours are going round about information emanating from the opening of postal votes already. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm with the Electoral Commission and with the returning officers that they are following due process as set out in the legislation and the regulations.
Lord Wills (Lab)
My Lords, I also support this legislation. I particularly endorse what the Minister said. Whatever position anyone takes on the European referendum, I hope everyone can agree that it is vital that everyone who is eligible to vote should be able to do so on this existentially important issue and that registration is the key to this. This is necessary and important legislation. I congratulate the Government on how swiftly they realised this after the debacle of online registration on Tuesday night and how quickly they acted on the wise advice of the Electoral Commission.
I also send my congratulations to Ministers and officials, who have acted with impressive speed in bringing this statutory instrument before your Lordships’ House. We now know that at least this part of the system works. I am also grateful to the Minister for the courtesy and consideration he showed to me in talking about these issues this morning.
I do not want to hold up the passage of this statutory instrument. It is important that it passes as quickly as possible. There will be a time to hold the Government systematically to account for their stewardship of the electoral system, but now is not the time. We have already heard a number of very important contributions in this short debate. I am sure that the Minister will take them away and reflect on them, as he has pledged to do.
It is important to determine whether the Government have now recognised that, while this legislation is necessary, it is not sufficient on its own to put right the problems experienced on Tuesday night. Practical delivery now rests with the Electoral Commission, but unfortunately, in my exchanges with it over the last few days, it seems to believe that because it has been doing a good job in securing increases in registration—it has been doing a very good job—then that is good enough. But when millions and millions of British citizens who are eligible to vote still cannot because they are not registered, and when the Government have been repeatedly warned of the dangers of their approach to electoral registration and disenfranchising people in this way, then good is not good enough. If higher levels of registration had been achieved over time, as the Government and the Electoral Commission have been repeatedly urged by many people to secure, the surge in applications that led to the problems on Tuesday night might well not have happened, at least on the scale that disrupted the system so badly. In these circumstances, an attitude that good is good enough is not acceptable.
Yesterday, the Minister reassured your Lordships’ House that he was not complacent about what happened and today we have heard that he wants to learn the lessons from it. To demonstrate that, would the Minister say what the Government have done since yesterday to persuade the Electoral Commission, providing any assurance of necessary funding, that what happened on Tuesday night created a new situation where a new communications strategy was necessary to ensure that everyone with a potential interest was told that registration is still possible until midnight tonight and how to do it? Finally, will he say what action he took, following his answer to me yesterday, to explore how social media could be used as part of such a communication strategy?
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I add my general welcome to the statutory instrument before us today. It is absolutely essential and I am pleased that the Government acted so quickly to remedy what was clearly a wrong. I hold no truck with those who criticise this, or even try to allege some kind of conspiracy whereby the website was crashed on purpose—that is absolutely bizarre. Clearly, it is right that as many people who have the right to vote are able to do so. That is crucial.
We do not yet know the reason why the crash happened. As the noble Baroness said, I think part of it will be down to those from the last-minute generation. It might also be that some people saw others in their household receive their polling cards and, realising they had not got one, wanted to go online. I would also like to think that the TV debate excited passions about the issue—but I suspect not. That is something to note in future.
I wish that this measure was not necessary and I appreciate that there was unprecedented demand on the night. That is generally accepted. However, it seems strange that there was no back-up. During the course of the website being down, it was still flashing across the TV and information was still going out saying, “Go on to the website and register now”. That will have exacerbated the problem. There was a failure of process somewhere along the line. Now is not the time to look into that, but I would like assurances that it will be looked at in the fullness of time.
The noble Lord said that no one from Northern Ireland was unable to register on Tuesday evening. How does he know that? It seems clear that, because Northern Ireland already has a form of IER, nobody was not on the register because of the transition to IER. I am just curious: how do we know that nobody from Northern Ireland tried to register on that evening?
The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, mentioned electoral registration officers. This now puts additional pressure on them. The reason for the deadline of midnight on Tuesday was to enable EROs to process all the applications. What consultation has there been with EROs and with the Local Government Association?
The Minister would think me remiss, and that I had gone soft in my old age, if I failed to raise with him an issue I raised yesterday—it seems longer—individual electoral registration. Against the advice of the Electoral Commission, the Government forged ahead with it. The Electoral Commission sent briefings to everyone in your Lordships’ House making it clear that it could not be certain that, if everybody had not individually registered by the cut-off date specified by the Government in previous legislation, there would not be people entitled to vote who were knocked off the register. Clearly, the Electoral Commission was right and the Government should not have pressed ahead. We would not be in the position we are in now if the Government had not forged ahead against the advice of the Electoral Commission. We all recognise that that measure passed only narrowly in this House. One reason the Government gave for doing so was that the boundaries review was dependent on the cut-off date being December 2015. Can the Minister tell the House today—if not, I am happy for him to write to me—how many people have been added to the register since that cut-off date? That is quite significant and would indicate whether the Government were correct to choose that cut-off date, or acted with undue haste.
At the time, the Government basically said that the names being knocked off the register were really a matter of fraud. It may well be that it was not fraud but just people who had not responded to the, in many cases numerous, requests. I doubt that everybody who was not individually registered had the nine communications and contacts that the noble Lord spoke of, but there were numerous requests and people still failed to respond. However, that is life and people do not respond to every request they get. These things can be quite difficult.
If the noble Lord can address those points, that would be helpful. As I say, we support this measure. It is essential on an issue such as this that everybody who is entitled to vote does so. I am encouraged that the Electoral Commission is now predicting an 80% turnout on the poll on 23 June. I just hope that the Government are looking at that to make sure they are geared up for it. I remember high turnouts in 1997, when some polling stations were unable to cope and closed their doors before some people had managed to vote. I hope that can be looked at to show that once people have got over the hurdle of registering, they will be able to use their vote on the day.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, I begin where I ended and repeat my thanks for the widespread support for this measure. Obviously, none of us wish to be in this situation but, that said, we are where we are.
I shall try to address as many of the points that have been raised as I can. If I fail to address all of them, I will obviously write to noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, asked about extending the date for postal votes. I am told that to do so would compromise the timing of returning such votes. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for what he said about the scrutiny of this SI. We are obviously in an unprecedented situation and I thank him for his support.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lord Hayward both raised the issue of duplicates. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, knows a great deal about electoral matters, as does my noble friend. I do not want to get into a deep rabbit hole now but, as I said yesterday, we are considering ways in which the IER Digital Service can be enhanced. I note what the noble Lord said about these points. I am sure that we will continue to debate these matters further. The duplicates issue is one of the things this whole saga has thrown up. We need to look at it as part of the lessons learned process. I absolutely heed the points he made about the experience we have had so far. Attainers is one of these issues to which we come back again and again. I hope he will forgive me for saying that I need to get back to him on the Law Commission point. I am sorry that our minds have been somewhat distracted over the last 24 hours or so. I cannot give a full answer on that.
My noble friend Lord Hayward and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, referred to working closely with EROs. We have been working extremely closely with EROs. As I said yesterday, we will certainly honour our commitment to cover reasonable costs. We are very grateful for their hard work. We will continue to remain in touch with them as time proceeds.
I will need to get back to my noble friend on the specific points he raised about postal votes. However, I can confirm that postal votes are opened only at the close of play of the referendum.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked about promoting and communicating the decision. I thank him for the time he gave me this morning to discuss this matter. I need to remind your Lordships that obviously, the Government are prevented from publishing material that is,
“designed to encourage voting at the referendum”,
by Section 125 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. As the noble Lord knows—I mentioned it to him this morning—that provision obviously does not apply to the Electoral Commission. Since this morning, I have been in touch via my officials with the Electoral Commission, which obviously—although I put it on record again—is an independent body. I am assured that it is taking several steps today to make the public aware of the extension to the registration deadline. I have a list of things that body is doing: for example, promoting the message across social media; sharing communications and messages with regional counting officers; continuing its paid advertising promoting the EU referendum; and pointing people to the About My Vote website. The proof of the pudding will obviously be in the eating. Before I rose to speak, I looked at the number of people who are registering. That is running at about 2,000 who are online now, as far as I can see. Therefore, it is clear that the message is continuing to get out. We shall see how things progress during the evening and when the debate takes place this evening.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am sorry to intervene on the Minister but I want to check a point. It does not affect support for the regulations in any way, but he said that postal votes would definitely not be opened until after close of poll. In most elections there are two stages and, in local and general elections, the postal votes are opened before the close of poll for verification that they are valid but are not counted until the close of poll. There are numerous reports of postal votes being opened as they come in, at the verification stage. If the Minister could check that point it would be helpful.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I will certainly check that point and I am sorry if I have created any confusion.
The noble Baroness said that she was surprised that there was no back-up with regard to what happened. We are very clear that lessons need to be learned regarding the technology and the legislation, and what steps might need to be put in place were this kind of thing to happen again. The noble Baroness is absolutely right.
I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness’s point, but it is my understanding that people in Northern Ireland cannot register online. As regards how many people have been added to the register since October 2015, I will need to come back to her. We are not in a position to say right now, as there have been those registering in the last few days and we do not know whether those applications have been fully processed or how many duplicates there have been. She will forgive me for not going down the other rabbit hole of rehearsing all the arguments over IER and carry-forwards. I have a lot of brief that I could entertain your Lordships’ House with on this, but I simply say that I disagree with her position, I am sorry to say, on that point.
The noble Baroness also raised the very valid point of whether, given the considerable—and very welcome—upsurge in public engagement in the referendum, there will be sufficient resources at polling stations on the day. The Electoral Commission’s guidance for counting officers at the referendum makes it clear that:
“Voters who at 10pm are in the polling station, or in a queue outside the polling station, for the purpose of voting, may apply for a ballot paper”.
The commission’s guidance also states:
“Good planning and flexible staffing should minimise the risk of there being queues at polling stations”.
The guidance advises counting officers to,
“ensure that polling station staff are monitoring turnout throughout the day and providing progress reports”
to polling. This is obviously a matter for the Electoral Commission, but my understanding is that it has taken steps to prepare for this.
I have just been alerted to the fact that postal votes are opened but not counted. I think that is the point that the noble Baroness was raising. I thank your Lordships once again for their support.
Motion agreed.
Female Genital Mutilation
(8 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley of Knighton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take in the light of NHS statistics showing that in 2015 over 1,000 cases of female genital mutilation were reported every three months and the lack of any successful prosecutions to date.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, in 2003 the late Ruth Rendell, Baroness Rendell of Babergh, introduced the Bill making female genital mutilation illegal. To date, there has not been a single successful prosecution—a fact made all the more shocking, seemingly, by NHS statistics showing that, in 2015, over 1,000 cases were reported in each three-month period. Are the Government surprised by these figures and how are they reacting to them?
I say “seemingly”, because NGOs have told me that they are not surprised; it is what they have known for some time. Furthermore, the figures revealed some worrying facts: there was some evidence of girls mutilated here in the UK and GPs do not appear to have been involved with the issue as much as they might be in some areas. They could do more to advertise the dangers as, for example, they do in their surgeries about diabetes or heart disease.
The need for a national action plan is paramount. What has happened to the 2014 draft? We are behind practically every other EU country; even countries with far less widespread problems have implemented action plans, including Ireland and Scotland. The NGOs are there and they would love to work more closely with the Government. Of course, progress has been made. The mere fact that we have these NHS statistics, appalling though they are, is a huge leap forward.
There has also been a strong emphasis on education. This has to be the way to secure a change of attitude within these communities, where FGM is normally not to be questioned. This issue is almost always spoken of in terms of women but, vitally, we must target men as well for it is in their name that FGM continues. This is an area to which we could usefully devote more time and resources. Girls are told that men will not want to marry them if they cannot be seen to be pure or if they are in danger of realising sexual desire. Obviously, men need to take a lead in this area.
Of course, prosecution is important, and I will come on to this, but prevention is even more important. The UK is starting to provide a talking point for young girls who are beginning to say no. I have been deeply moved by the testimony of women who have been cut, speaking of their experience—for example, on “Woman’s Hour” and at the University of Warwick—with great dignity, telling not only of their medical and psychological wounds but of their hope and determination not to allow their daughters to go through this ordeal.
Several charities are doing sterling work in sub-Saharan Africa to get men and women talking about and questioning FGM. Here in the UK, local government, in the form of the National FGM Centre, has had considerable success in places such as Newham and Bristol in getting skilled and dedicated social workers to shift attitudes in areas where women and girls are vulnerable. The charity FORWARD is an African diaspora women’s campaign and support organisation. It has been working tirelessly to end FGM in the UK for more than 20 years. I pay tribute to it, to Men Speak Out, which works throughout Europe to engage men in the process of ending FGM, and Equality Now, which attempts to bypass the cultural barriers by framing them within the context of violence done to women and girls. So there is hope, and another reason for securing this debate is to keep the subject aired and current. Many experts and victims believe it is crucial that the word of mouth is that FGM is no longer acceptable and that girls and mothers in this country can and should resist it. It will take time. Deep-seated cultural traditions are not changed overnight.
There are in the Chamber today distinguished members of the medical profession who can attest to the effects of FGM with far more authority than I can. But FGM is child abuse and its implementation is torturous, causing lifelong grievous bodily harm. That is reflected in sentences that the courts could hand out if they were ever to get to deal with a conviction; 14 years in prison awaits anyone convicted of carrying out FGM.
These mutilations are frequently performed by people with no medical training in unhygienic surroundings, using old razor blades or broken glass. My noble friend Lady Cox deeply regrets that she cannot be in her seat. She has witnessed examples of this terrible damage on her journeys around the world. As she says, there is no anaesthetic and the results often lead to sepsis. The actual degree of cutting varies but it can range from the attempted excision of the clitoris to deny the victim sexual pleasure or desire to the cutting off of the labia, both minor and major, and the sewing up of the skin across the vaginal opening, leaving only a tiny hole for natural functions. I apologise to noble Lords for the graphic nature of this but it is important that we never lose sight of the quite terrible pain and damage inflicted.
In the UK, 60,000 girls are thought to be at risk. I have a few more statistics: 137,000 girls and women in the United Kingdom are living with the consequences of FGM. Many of these, it must be said, were cut outside the UK before arriving here. More than 130 million girls and women worldwide have undergone FGM. It is practised in more than 29 countries.
Religious leaders all over the world and of virtually every persuasion have continually stated that there are no doctrinal reasons whatever to justify or encourage FGM. So it is worrying that an Indian Muslim sect, Dawoodi Bohra, which has several thousand followers in the UK, has been encouraged to practise its form of FGM—khatna—by its leader, Mufaddal Saifuddin. His senior representative, a Mr Vaziri, has just been sentenced to 11 months in prison by an Australian court for his part in trying to cover up acts of FGM. The mother of the girls in question has been sentenced to 11 months’ home detention for allowing her two daughters to be harmed, as has the midwife who mutilated the girls. The judge made it clear that Australia was sending a message that it simply would not tolerate this abhorrent practice. If Australia can achieve success in prosecution, why cannot we?
Will the Minister make it absolutely clear, as set out in law, that should anyone encourage others to practise FGM they would be committing a criminal offence? We need to fire this shot across the bows of groups such as Dawoodi Bohra, so that their members are in absolutely no doubt about the grievous consequences of such actions. The one recent prosecution which the CPS mounted sadly failed—or perhaps not sadly, because it was regarded by many in the legal and medical professions as flawed from the outset.
The Government have made it clear on previous occasions that they do not believe in mandatory examination as in France, where many successful prosecutions have been obtained. The Minister will probably repeat this view but, on the other hand, we simply cannot avoid the issue of prosecution while girls in this country are being cut and in danger of being cut. I have a suggestion involving limited and targeted examination, given the 2015 NHS reports of FGM, which have to be reported to the police. I would be grateful if the Minister could give us, if he knows, an indication of what steps the police have already taken as a result of these cases. Among the many thousands of referrals, there must be some leads on which they could act, so here surely is an opportunity to gain convictions. After all, if the police have reports of drug dealing, for example, they get a search warrant. They will question or observe known acquaintances and build up a case. Might not these NHS reports provide fertile ground for the Government to consider targeted mandatory examinations, where reports reveal a hotspot of activity? We know that there are such, for example in London.
I am deeply grateful to the noble Lords who are taking the trouble to speak in this debate. I believe passionately that it is our duty to keep this awful practice under scrutiny and make it clear that in this country, we will pursue with the full force of the law those who encourage or practise the mutilation of young girls, thus damaging their capacity to lead their lives as young women to the full and to hamper seriously their prospects of conceiving and giving birth to healthy children.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, for raising this important matter as a Question for Short Debate. I appreciate that FGM has been the subject of previous Oral Questions but this debate provides an opportunity for further consideration to be given to a matter that, for the vast majority, appears so barbaric that we cannot understand how or why it can continue to be practised. As he pointed out, it is estimated that 137,000 women and girls are living with FGM in the UK. The report Prevalence of FGM in England and Wales: National and Local Estimates confirmed in 2015 that every local authority in the UK has FGM occurring within its jurisdiction. In London, it is estimated that 2.5% of the female population has been subjected to FGM.
FGM has been illegal now in the UK for 31 years and in all that time there has not been a single prosecution—not one—with a parent, guardian, aunt or cutter being brought to justice. In 2014, almost 16,500 parents in England were prosecuted for failing to ensure that their children were sent to school, which is about 45 prosecutions a day in one year alone. I wonder what a young British woman who has been subject to FGM, possibly when she was much younger, would think about that statistic since clearly we care passionately about the welfare of our children. Equally clearly, there is something here that we are still not completely getting right in respect of dealing with and, importantly, preventing this offence.
We understand that due to the secretive world in which FGM exists, the victims are vulnerable and the perpetrators manipulative. It involves pressures from mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, uncles and so-called leaders of communities that are often closed and therefore difficult to investigate. The main problem of course is that the perpetrators of this crime are usually the victim’s parents—the very people with the first duty to protect the child from harm.
Despite these rather depressing statistics, there has been success in raising awareness through national guidelines for front-line workers, the introduction of the duty to report cases of suspected FGM and the introduction of lifelong anonymity for victims, together with the criminal offence of failing to protect a girl at risk of FGM. There have also been national campaigns such as Not in Religion’s Name and Not in my Name, and the Girl Summit in 2014, to name some of the positive work in this area. Yet according to the statistics from the Health and Social Care Information Centre, a case of FGM is reported in the UK every 109 minutes. Based on that estimate, one report will have occurred in the space of this debate. If we are going to be successful in stopping this practice, we have to break the cycle. For every woman we are able to protect, there is a better chance of breaking the link so that this is not inflicted on the next generation.
Will my noble and learned friend update the House as to how the measures of the Serious Crime Act 2015 aimed at strengthening the law on FGM are affecting the landscape? Specifically, how many FGM protection orders have been issued since their introduction, and does he know whether they have been successful in protecting the children involved? The lack of police referrals is often cited in reports, such as that of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, as a serious contributing factor to the lack of prosecutions. Can my noble and learned friend tell the House whether police referral numbers have increased since the introduction of the mandatory reporting duty last October?
Can my noble and learned friend also give some thought to including the equally barbaric and dangerous act of breast ironing into the Serious Crime Act? Again, this is child abuse, violating the most intimate areas of young girls under the thinly veiled disguise of being a religious and cultural practice. Does he also agree with me that breast ironing should be included in the ongoing work on raising awareness and educating girls about the dangers of FGM?
We know France has had some success in securing prosecutions for FGM. Up to 2014, it had had 43 prosecutions, resulting in the punishment of more than 100 parents and cutters. French prosecution success has been partly due to regular medical examinations of girls from an early age—although it is not mandatory, receipt of social security is dependent on participation. The Minister in another place has made her feelings clear about the introduction of these sorts of early examinations and does not feel it would be appropriate—nor does the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. I of course accept their view, and understand that different levels of evidence are required for prosecutions in France, but can my noble and learned friend say whether any discussions have taken place between UK officials and their counterparts in France and other countries which have secured successful prosecutions, to see whether there is anything else we can learn from their processes?
I end by congratulating my noble and learned friend and his department on the work that has been done so far in recognising the incidents of FGM that are practised in the name of religion and tradition but which are nothing short of abuse of young British girls and women. I look forward to his thoughts in summing up.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Berkeley of Knighton on having secured this debate and the timely nature of it given that we are coming up to the summer holidays, when prevention must be a critical aspect of the way that we behave towards young girls who are at risk. We know, as has already been said, that the estimates are that between 60,000 and 65,000 young girls under the age of 17 are at risk in the UK. At the outset, I give credit to two junior doctors, Dr Erna Bayar and Dr Jessica Gubbin, who are trying to investigate the level of knowledge among healthcare workers here in London. They are both junior doctors at St Mary’s, and they are here to listen to the debate today.
With regard to the report from the House of Commons and the figure of 137,000 victims in the UK, which has already been alluded to, it is worrying to note that only one-third of the cases referred to the Metropolitan Police—although there were no prosecutions—came from health and education. The Serious Crime Act 2015 has already been referred to, but it is worth noting that there seems to be enormous ignorance about the Act itself and the extraterritorial offences, as well as exactly what the duty of care is—in particular, the offence of failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM.
A study from Birmingham, conducted through members of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, was the first UK-wide survey of its nature. It revealed that one-fifth of respondents were not aware of the FGM Act, although over 93% knew that it was illegal in the UK—but there is a difference between it being illegal in the UK and the extraterritorial offence created in the Serious Crime Act. Appallingly, fewer than 10% of respondents were aware of the psychiatric morbidity in the victims of FGM. There did not seem to be any difference in the knowledge scores among different grades of staff, but it was worrying to read that there were lower knowledge scores overall among those who had been in obstetrics and gynaecology for more than 15 years. In other words, the younger generation had a greater level of awareness than the older generation, although it does not seem to feature in the curricula of all medical schools, which I suggest that it should.
In 2010, the Royal College of Midwives published a report in which it found that 70% of midwives were aware of UK law and one-fifth stated that it was illegal to resuture after birth, but there was little knowledge of where to refer a victim to, and only 15% of midwives reported having any training. To date, I have not been able to find a survey of paediatricians. There needs to be education across all levels, in medicine, nursing, midwifery, social work, physiotherapy and so on. There are some very useful educational tools out there. Health Education England has produced one, and there are e-learning modules that healthcare professionals can sign up to. But there seems to be an ignorance about how to report within a trust, whether to go to the police, and exactly where the interface is with safeguarding and domestic violence.
The worrying figure from the literature is the large number who do not even know how to ask about FGM, do not know what to look for, do not know how to document it, and certainly do not know the complexities of the law. However, we are looking at children under the age of 17, in general, as victims, and we know that over 80% come from the populations of Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Yemen, Sierra Leone, Egypt, Mali and Sudan, even though, in some of those countries, FGM is deemed to be illegal. There is good WHO guidance out there, but it is not being accessed, and it was worrying to find a study of a small number of UK victims suggesting that, of 27 victims who had been mutilated to a varying degree, the majority of them severely, for 71% it had happened in some kind of medical setting, where it had actually been performed by a doctor.
Teachers in primary schools—and in secondary schools particularly teachers of the lower age groups—have spoken about recognising girls who come back after the summer holiday who are completely different to the lively, bright and happy child who they saw before the summer holiday started. They are pretty sure that these girls have been taken away. They are never the same again. They remain inhibited, depressed and mistrustful within the class. These are girls who will have been at risk.
Much has already been said about obstetrics, and in a previous debate I have spoken about some of the obstetric disasters that can happen to these women. They are at risk of HIV and hepatitis B as well as of pelvic infections and so on. There is another pointer that is often missed, and that is where girls fail to attend GP appointments and when mothers fail to take their daughters along for routine checks, even when they are babies. This failure to engage with the NHS and the general practice system seems to be linked to later becoming victims of FGM.
It is about time that the Government changed gear on this. I know there have been a lot of campaigns to raise awareness, that there are so-called cultural sensitivities around this and that there is a fear of being branded somehow racist or discriminatory. However, these are children, and this is child abuse. It is abhorrent, and we have a duty to protect the victims. We have those who are already victims, but we have to protect the victims of the future. Have the Government considered using Section 75 of the Serious Crime Act to produce further statutory guidance before the summer holidays to go to schools to require them to engage with the parents of children who are in the at-risk population, to open up the subject and the discussion and let it be known that this is an offence here and extraterritorially? There is a duty of care that rests on teachers as well as on healthcare professionals. That must be done before the summer holidays, otherwise we will have another cohort of girls who have been terribly damaged by this deeply abhorrent practice.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for introducing this vital debate and making the point that we need to keep this subject in the public domain to raise awareness and challenge people.
I want to offer some perspectives from my experience in Derby, where I operate as a bishop at grassroots level, to try to help understand why we are in this position and how we might best tackle things. Your Lordships will know that FGM is a very ancient practice going back to at least the fifth century BC. It was mentioned by Herodotus, especially in Egypt and Ethiopia, all that time ago. I remind noble Lords that FGM was practised until the 1950s in western countries as part of dealing with what was then called “female deviancy”. Things such as hysteria, epilepsy and lesbianism were dealt with by this horrific practice as an enlightened medical approach to those conditions. We have to recognise that it is not only deeply embedded in ancient culture, but until quite recently in the west, we have been implicated in using this barbaric method for medical reasons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, have been very clear about the physical and psychological damage that FGM causes and about the sheer scale. I think I am right in saying that even today in Egypt, 90% of girls are cut between the age of five and 14, and in Yemen 75% of girls are cut before they are two weeks old. I mention those statistics because that shows how, as people move into Europe and our country, the culture is reinforced by new recruits who inhabit it. So it is not simply a matter of having a law and fighting back; the problem comes from all over the world into our midst as we speak.
There are four “reasons” in the background why FGM is and has been prevalent. One, as we have heard, is to do with culture and faith frameworks; one is to do with the idea of a rite of passage; one is to do with concepts of purity and virginity; and one is to do with the control of female sexuality. Of course the Government must take a lead in their policy and legal framework but, as someone who was involved in the legislation against slavery, I would observe that it is very difficult to express in law something that can work effectively. With slavery, as with this issue, prosecutions are very low. Therefore, besides the Government giving out a proper signal and benchmark that this is unacceptable and barbaric, we have to work at all kinds of other levels, especially the cultural and faith ones, if we are going to really try to turn the tide.
In the work I have been involved in with colleagues in Derby, there are a number of methods of trying to enable an enlightened discussion. We have much to learn because the areas concerned—gender, the role of women and sexuality—are ones that we in the West struggle with too. We have to be careful about saying that we have all the answers and other people just need to jump to our solutions; we can have fruitful discussions with friends and neighbours from all kinds of cultures about gender, female sexuality and the role of women in society.
From my experience, there are four issues which I invite the Government to think about in terms of their own investment and encouragement. The first is appropriate spaces for conversations, the sharing of stories and the sharing of cultural faith hinterlands. How do we create the kind of space that is safe? Secondly, there is a very challenging issue which we in politics ought to know about: pace. There is a great danger of moving on to the offensive, which will cause a defensive reaction. We need a conversation and debate that is paced so that people can get into it, be influenced by it, participate in it and be changed by it. We have to be very careful about wagging a big finger, so that people do not just think, “Well, that’s western liberal culture, and we have something precious to preserve against it”.
The third thing that we have learned is that the official agencies—the law, safeguarding and local authorities—have limited resources and are regarded by people in a limited way. Therefore, although they must do the policing and act out the standards, they need the support of the informal grass-roots sector, where friends and neighbours can have conversations, listen to each other, share stories and raise aspirations of what is possible, right and desirable. Fourthly, we had a day conference in Derby and did all sorts of informal work with other churches, faith groups and community groups. As a result, we now have 10 community champions, providing community support and signposting at grass-roots level, looking out for the opportunities for those conversations, encouraging them and getting people in the circle, so that there can be genuine change that people have signed up for and committed to, rather than jumping to an abstract law that is thundering towards them.
So my simple question to the Minister is: how might the Government take seriously that important grass-roots work, which requires a particular kind of space, pace, community champions and informality, and which will have an enormous effect in reinforcing the formal law and systems? How might the Government encourage and invest in that work, which would achieve real change and pushback? How might that be part of the action plan that, as has rightly been said, needs to be put on the table?
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for obtaining this debate, which concerns an important issue. As everybody knows, my background is in obstetrics. Because of that, I am involved in a charity that trains doctors and nurses in parts of Africa and the Far East to treat women with fistulas. I have seen the results of this barbaric and cruel procedure, which is sometimes carried out on young children. It results in not only immediate consequences but long-term consequences during childbirth, and it is horrendous to see, even at that stage.
I can talk about the medical consequences but I shall try to look at the legal side. I do so with some trepidation as a doctor taking on a lawyer of the distinction of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. He is well known for his incisive dissection of the law and for trying to defend what cannot be defended.
As has already been mentioned, France is a European country that has been successful in getting the maximum number of convictions and prosecutions—to date, about 50. The reason given is that it has a policy of regularly examining children at risk and children at school. Children at risk have more regular follow-up examinations. Examination is not mandatory, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Hindhead, said, but refusal involves a penalty involving social security benefits. That is the key reason that France has been successful, although other countries in Europe have also achieved certain levels of prosecutions and convictions.
I looked at a study of female genital mutilation in Europe and an analysis of a sample of cases. Considering that some 500,000 women have probably gone through this procedure, Europe has not achieved the levels of prosecutions and convictions that it ought to have done. None the less, some countries have been successful. The study that I looked at developed a comparative overview of recent FGM court cases within the EU, as well as making an exploratory survey of transnational movements in relation to FGM. The legal aspects of the court cases in Europe were analysed, and evidence of transnational movement to have FGM performed was also assessed. The data included court decisions, the migration background of groups from FGM-practising countries in the host countries, the process of FGM reporting, and stakeholders’ proposals and opinions regarding FGM.
The report addressed the general legal context or framework for fighting FGM in the 11 countries that were looked at, including the United Kingdom and Switzerland, although of course Switzerland is not an EU country. It analysed the impact that the embracing of the due diligence standard could have as a consequence of signing the Istanbul convention, to which the United Kingdom is a party—albeit a more recent party.
Findings of FGM are modelled by disparities of public prosecution systems in Europe. Calling on state parties to apply the Istanbul convention and, accordingly, to modify existing provisions that limit their jurisdiction over FGM cases could have an impact on such procedural disparities. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, will challenge what I have just said—maybe not—but I am eager to hear his views on whether this disparity is in any way related to the laws and framework that we have.
The review of existing court cases shows the legal concepts of “error of prohibition” and “neglect of care” as novel approaches for both prosecution and prevention of FGM in Europe. As a consequence, the report points out that these aspects of due diligence, neglect of care and error of prohibition, ought to be further explored in future discussions—not primarily for their potential to result in more criminal court cases resulting in conviction but because of their potential power as preventive tools.
We know from the statistics we heard from several speakers that this crime is committed on a daily basis in the United Kingdom. We also know that the number of these cases is increasing. What we seem to be lacking is the evidence necessary to bring about prosecution, and therefore conviction. We made a mistake with the first case that we brought for prosecution and conviction, which was the wrong case of a doctor who was merely repairing the damage done at birth. In many cases, I have done that, and I am sure on occasions it was for women who have had FGM carried out on them. We need to examine whether there is an issue with our law as it operates or with the way we go about collecting the evidence, knowing, as I just said, that this crime is committed on a daily basis.
In all 11 countries, FGM is legally banned either through specific criminal provisions, as we have, or provisions in the penal code that penalise bodily injury and mutilation. Will the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, comment on whether our legislation complies with that? As I said, the most atypical prosecution occurred in the United Kingdom, but something similar happened in the Netherlands in the case of a father, originally from Morocco, which is not an FGM-practising country, who was accused of having performed FGM on his daughter.
The other question is whether the noble and learned Lord thinks that creating a unified European legal framework might help in detecting more cases and bringing about prosecution. The common framework is established by the Istanbul convention, which originates not from EU law but from the Council of Europe. The system of protection is, on paper, rather standardised, but the practice in different countries varies. As I said, the disparities detected in the procedure for reporting or not reporting, as well as for prosecuting or not prosecuting, would decrease if all countries adopted the Istanbul convention into legislation. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord might comment on that.
Why can we not get the evidence required? What is the nature of the evidence that is lacking and means that prosecution, and therefore conviction, is not brought about? As has been mentioned, if we could successfully prosecute a case and get a conviction, that would be the biggest deterrent to reducing further cases.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, has raised a seemingly simple and straightforward issue: namely, the contrast between the number of reported cases of female genital mutilation and the lack of successful prosecutions. The reason for that cannot be a lack of legislation—although how effective it is proving may be another matter—with the Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985, the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 and, finally, the Serious Crime Act 2015, which extended the reach of the previous Acts including through mandatory reporting and enabling authorities, in respect of future offences, to prosecute parents for failing to protect their daughters regardless of whether the daughters have named them as complicit in their FGM. We await to see whether the Government agree that there is a problem and, if so, to what they attribute that difficulty.
Others have already highlighted potential reasons for the lack of successful prosecutions, including the National FGM Centre, which is a partnership between Barnardo’s and the Local Government Association. In the past year, the centre has provided specialist social care provision in six local authorities considered to have “low prevalence” of FGM. Despite this, the centre worked on 71 cases involving 70 women and 95 girls at risk of or affected by FGM. The centre says that a significant barrier to successful prosecutions is insufficient communication between professionals, particularly those working in health and social care. Although health professionals are under a duty to record cases of FGM, the centre says that the data show that only 17 GP practices produced any records at all in the last quarter of 2015.
The National FGM Centre goes on to say that low confidence among education professionals in asking sensitive questions and assessing risk also results in limited referrals to social care from education, and that when they do happen they often contain insufficient information to be processed by social care. It goes on to say that a number of social care professionals still feel uncomfortable in assessing FGM risk or using the tools available to them such as medical checks or FGM protection orders, with this being especially the case, once again, in “low prevalence areas”.
Barnardo’s has set out a number of recommendations for increasing the number of successful prosecutions, including more specialist training for front-line professionals, better information systems between key agencies, compliance with recording and reporting requirements by all professionals, specialist social care provision and lesson plans on FGM in schools.
The Local Government Association has also sent a briefing, setting out its views on the issue of prosecutions raised in this debate. It says that more than 125,000 women in England and Wales are estimated to be living with the consequences of FGM, and there are 60,000 girls born in England and Wales to mothers who have undergone FGM. Another analysis has said that approximately 10,000 girls aged under 15 who have migrated to England and Wales are likely to have undergone, or are likely to undergo, FGM.
The key points made by the Local Government Association on the lack of successful prosecutions are that FGM is often carried out on young girls who may not understand what is being done to them, or if they are, may be unwilling to testify against close family members; and that, in the overwhelming majority of cases in the UK, the FGM has been carried out before the women and girls arrived in this country.
The Local Government Association says that FGM will be eradicated in the longer term only by changing practice and custom in communities where it happens. It says that through the National FGM Centre programmes are being rolled out across the country to shift attitudes and behaviour towards better prevention of FGM. As has been said, FGM is most often claimed to be carried out in accordance with religious beliefs, but it is not actually supported by any religious doctrine.
There is a rather different emphasis on the reasons for the lack of successful prosecutions between the National FGM Centre and the Local Government Association, and we wait to hear the Government’s views on this issue. There is no doubt, however, that encouraging and promoting change in practice and customs will be crucial, and it is far better to succeed in preventing the offence happening in the first place than it is to prosecute after it has happened. Equally, in the light of the law of the land, action needs to be taken that will help in the shorter term to address the issue of FGM, which is a serious crime, and the lack of successful prosecutions. The lack of successful prosecutions hardly acts as a disincentive to those who commit or aid and abet this serious crime.
The Local Government Association has referred to the work of the Bristol FGM Community Development project, which has led to the development of appropriate services in the community and to an increase in referrals to the police, with a 400% increase in potential FGM referrals from 2009 to 2014. Does the Minister have any information on the outcome of this increase in referrals to the police, based on the work done in Bristol?
In its report last year on FGM, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee was quite blunt in its comments, saying that,
“it is still the case that there have been no successful prosecutions for FGM in the United Kingdom in the last 20 years. This record is lamentable”.
Further on in the report, the committee said:
“There seems to be a chasm between the amount of reported cases and the lack of prosecutions. Someone, somewhere is not doing their job effectively. The DPP informed the Committee that she could only prosecute on the basis of evidence, the police said that they could only investigate on the basis of referral, and the health professionals told us that they could not refer cases because their members were not fully trained and aware of the procedure. While agencies played pass the parcel of responsibility, young girls are being mutilated every hour of the day. This is deplorable. We wish to see more prosecutions brought and convictions secured. This barbaric crime which is committed daily on such a huge scale across the UK cannot continue to go unpunished”.
The Home Office Minister in the Commons has said that lead FGM prosecutors have been appointed for each Crown Prosecution Service area and have agreed joint FGM investigation and prosecution protocols with their local police forces. Have any of these lead FGM prosecutors yet authorised a prosecution for FGM? The same Minister also said last month that the Government accepted that tackling FGM needed a co-ordinated response from a range of professionals, including teachers, health professionals, social workers and police, and that updated multiagency guidance on FGM had been published to support compliance. The Minister also said that free FGM e-learning had been made available for all professionals; that the Department of Health’s FGM prevention programme was seeking to improve the response of the NHS to FGM; and that the Department for Education was funding the Local Government Association and Barnardo’s to develop a centre of excellence and outreach to support local authorities. On the face of it, that all sounds good.
However, how much co-ordination is there at government level, bearing in mind the number of different departments involved, each with their own programme or projects for their own specific areas? What is the total amount of additional money that is now being made available, and to whom, to address the incidence of FGM and the lack of successful prosecutions? As far as the police are concerned, is it ultimately a matter for a chief constable or a police and crime commissioner to decide what resources and priority will be directed to pursuing FGM referrals within their force? Do the Government agree with the recommendations of Barnardo’s for increasing the number of successful prosecutions for FGM, to which I referred earlier? If so, are the Government saying that the steps they have taken already will deliver those recommendations? When do the Government anticipate seeing a reduction in the incidence of FGM? When do they expect to see successful prosecutions in the light of the legislative and other steps that have been taken? Finally, is there any hard evidence yet that the legislative changes in respect of FGM introduced under the Serious Crime Act 2015 are beginning to have an impact?
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for securing today’s debate on this important subject.
FGM is an extremely serious and harmful crime. Its victims deserve to receive support and legal redress. Offenders should be punished and potential perpetrators must be deterred from committing this appalling offence. A conviction for FGM would send a strong message. It would demonstrate unequivocally this country’s absolute intolerance of the practice.
Before I turn to the issue of prosecution and convictions, I wish to say something about the prevalence of FGM in the United Kingdom. The collection of the statistics to which the noble Lord referred was introduced as part of the Department of Health FGM prevention programme and represents the first time these data have been collected across the NHS in England.
As the noble Lord noted, these statistics are providing important information about the prevalence of FGM which can be used to inform the commissioning of services to ensure that victims receive the support they need. The latest figures published on Tuesday show that 1,242 women with FGM were seen by the NHS between January and March of this year. In the detail we can see that the vast majority of these cases are in adults who were both born and underwent FGM overseas. This is consistent with previous reports. As noble Lords will recognise, that means that these crimes are unlikely to be eligible for prosecution under the law in England and Wales. While this may mean that the perpetrators of these acts cannot be brought to justice here, the statistics are helping to ensure that those who have undergone FGM both receive the care they deserve and are educated on the legality and health consequences of FGM.
Of course it is abhorrent that any woman or girl should undergo FGM. Any UK national or resident who carries out, facilitates or allows FGM to happen should be punished accordingly. Indeed, whether or not encouraging FGM could be a criminal offence was mentioned. Of course it could be under the Serious Crime Act. However, we must not underestimate the difficulties in obtaining a conviction. FGM is a hidden crime that is carried out within families and where the victims are often young children. These young girls are understandably reluctant to speak out for fear of the impact that this could have on their family. Even when the crime does come to light, professionals may hesitate to make a report, fearing what the consequences may be for the patient or pupil. There may also be challenges for the police and prosecutors in ensuring sufficient evidence for a crime that may have been carried out many years ago. These are significant barriers but we must do everything we can to overcome them.
To help to do this, last year we strengthened the law through the Serious Crime Act 2015, based on learning from cases referred to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Last October we introduced a new mandatory reporting duty which requires regulated health and social care professionals and teachers in England and Wales who identify cases of FGM in girls aged under 18 to report these to the police. This duty gives professionals the confidence to report FGM without hesitation. It should therefore ensure that more cases reach the police so that they can be investigated and ultimately prosecuted.
Fear of reprisal can be a significant barrier, making victims extremely reluctant to engage in the legal process. This is why we have introduced lifelong anonymity for the victims of FGM. We have also widened the scope of the legislation so that extraterritorial jurisdiction extends to habitual as well as permanent UK residents. Furthermore, we have introduced a new offence of failing to protect a girl from the risk of FGM which extends the reach of the law to cover parents or guardians who do not adequately protect their children from undergoing FGM. The Government’s message could not be clearer: FGM is child abuse. There is no excuse for allowing it to happen or for failure to take action when it is uncovered.
Securing prosecutions is important, but at the heart of any case brought to trial is a victim—a victim who has not been protected from harm. The Government are therefore committed to preventing this crime happening in the first place. That is why we introduced the new FGM protection orders to safeguard those at risk. A question was raised as to the number of those orders that have been secured. From their introduction in July 2015 to December 2015, 32 such protection orders were made to protect girls from harm.
It is also important that professionals know how to identify the risk, share information, and have the knowledge and confidence to take appropriate safeguarding action. We have made significant progress in helping to achieve this. Since 2014, more than 30,000 professionals across all agencies have completed the Government’s free FGM e-learning that was referred to earlier. In April of this year we published new multi- agency guidance which we have placed on a statutory footing for the first time. That guidance provides information on prevention, risk and safeguarding, and sets out the expectations on statutory organisations to adequately prepare and support their staff to tackle FGM. So progress is being made.
To further support the response of health professionals, the Department of Health’s £4 million FGM prevention programme is engaging with healthcare professionals across England through roadshows, e-learning, guidance, and awareness-raising materials. As part of this, a new IT system is being introduced across the NHS to allow clinicians to note on a girl’s record that she is potentially at risk of FGM. To ensure that the social care response is as effective as it can be, the Department for Education’s innovation programme has provided up to £2 million of funding to Barnardo’s and the local government associations for the National FGM Centre which is working to improve the social care response.
Ultimately, we will not stop FGM unless we change attitudes. To do that we have to raise awareness and share good practice. In that regard, the Home Office’s FGM unit is carrying out an ongoing programme of outreach across the country. To date, the unit has spoken at more than 80 events. To dispel the myth that FGM is a religious requirement, the Department for Communities and Local Government has secured the signatures of more than 350 faith leaders to a declaration stating that FGM is not condoned by any faith.
The Government are taking this matter extremely seriously, and we are working right across government to strike at the considerable problem that exists due to ignorance, false religious belief, and so on. The Government have taken significant steps forward in our ambition to end FGM within a generation. We know that more work is needed. For example, last December, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that the police response to so-called honour-based violence, including FGM, is not as good as it could be. We are working with the police, CPS and others to address this, including as part of wider work to improve the police response to vulnerable people. Progress is being made. Many more brave women are speaking out against FGM and many more professionals are taking action to safeguard and support those affected. We have seen an increase in referrals to the Crown Prosecution Service. Prior to 2010 it had received no cases but since then 22 have been referred, and we are confident that that trend will continue.
With regard to the number of referrals that may result in prosecution, I can only say that they are under consideration for the purposes of further investigation, but it would not be appropriate to cite particular numbers that are the subject of consideration for actual prosecution at this stage. While our aim is for all these changes to help secure a successful series of prosecutions, it is more essential that we prevent FGM happening in the first place, and work ultimately to end the practice altogether.
I turn to points and questions raised by noble Lords and will deal with them as relatively quickly as I can. Indeed, if there is any question that I do not address, and I am reminded of that fact, I will of course be prepared to write. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, asked about the steps the police had been taking with regard to reports of FGM. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, cited the example of Bristol. I do not have the figures in respect of Bristol but I have figures of reports for the West Midlands Police—an area where this is a particularly prevalent problem. We know that there has been an increase in the number of reports to the police in the West Midlands in the period from January to November 2014, from about 25 reports in previous years up to 118, so clearly some progress is being made. Of course, we accept that more progress has to be made. As was noted, there is now a lead FGM prosecutor appointed to each CPS area. They have agreed protocols with local police forces, setting out the arrangements for investigation and ultimately the prosecution of FGM cases.
A reference was made to one prosecution. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, said it was the wrong case—I could not possibly comment. It resulted in a not guilty verdict but that is another matter altogether. Eventually, we are beginning to move the rock; we are beginning to get these cases into court and, of course, a successful prosecution would send an important message. However, prosecution is not an end in itself. The practice has to be rooted out, not the punishment.
Reference was made to the fact that some successful prosecutions had been made in France. My noble friend Lord Smith mentioned, I think, the figure of 43; the noble Lord, Lord Patel—I think referring to the EU report on analysis of court cases in 11 countries—gave the figure of 50. I observe that those cases go back to the 1980s and 1990s, so there is quite a history there. As far as I know, there has been only one recent successful prosecution in France of one cutter, but it involved about 18 different children and their parents. However, in response to points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, France has an entirely different system of prosecution and investigation, and, indeed, entirely different systems and standards of evidence. In addition, it has a more or less mandatory system of examination. When it is said that it is not mandatory, in the event of a refusal there is a withdrawal of benefits; we would not contemplate such a mandatory system. We could not have such a wide-ranging system of mandatory examination for all girls. If we then sought to target it, we would face the issue of discrimination. We do not consider that the way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, also mentioned the Istanbul convention. We have signed the convention, but we have not yet ratified it. There are certain technical issues that we have to address before we proceed to ratification. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned the position of Barnado’s and the local authority organisations. As I indicated, we are supporting them financially and liaising with them.
On the question of learning from other jurisdictions, the Home Office’s FGM unit, set up in 2004, leads the Government’s policy on FGM. That includes approaching officials in other countries to share learning and best practice. Indeed, we hosted an EU learning forum, funded by the European Union Commission earlier this year, to address the issues surrounding FGM. A process is going on in Europe to try to learn from those who are perhaps slightly ahead of us.
My noble friend Lord Smith mentioned other forms of violence against women and girls, such as breast ironing. Clearly, that is a form of child abuse. Our cross-government strategy on violence against women and girls, published on 8 March, sets out our approach to these issues. We continue to be concerned with addressing and dealing with them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, raised the question of further awareness in the approach to the summer vacation. In fact, we have recently pursued further steps on awareness. To raise awareness, we have been carrying out an ongoing programme of outreach to local areas, professionals, and community groups. That has been made available on the GOV.UK website. Furthermore, on 1 April this year the Government published a statutory multiagency guidance on FGM, setting out the expectations on all professionals, including teachers, regarding prevention of this terrible crime.
I will not detain noble Lords further, as I keep being passed notes with “Time” on them. Time is relative, but time has come. If there are questions I have not answered, I am happy to write to noble Lords. I am obliged to your Lordships.