House of Commons
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be considered on Tuesday 17 October at Four o’clock.
City of London Corporation (Open Spaces) Bill
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Today is World Mental Health Day and the whole House will want to congratulate Time2Change on its 10th anniversary and the remarkable change in attitudes towards mental illness that it has helped to bring about. Our mental health workforce has increased by 30,000 since 2010 and another 21,000 posts are planned. [Official Report, 16 October 2017, Vol. 629, c. 4MC.]
Stephen McPartland
On World Mental Health Day, I congratulate the Secretary of State on the work he has done, especially for children. We have had 42% more children receiving care for eating disorders and over 21,000 more children have received access to mental health provision. What targets does the Secretary of State have to help to improve such provision?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
One of the staffing shortages is actually in children and young people’s services. In County Durham in my constituency, the waiting time for autism diagnosis is two years. I have raised this with the mental health trust and NHS England, but the problem seems to be with the clinical commissioning group. What can the Secretary of State do to ensure that the extra money that he has pledged to put into the service actually gets to the service?
Mr Hunt
I would like to thank the hon. Gentleman for speaking out about mental health, like so many colleagues in this House, which makes a massive difference to the Time2Change campaign. It is unacceptable for someone to be waiting that long, and I do not want to stand here and defend it. I will certainly look into the individual case that the hon. Gentleman raises, but the fact is that many Members will know of similar cases. The money is starting to get through to the frontline. It is not just money, though; it is also capacity, and having trained mental health therapists—nurses; psychiatrists—and that is why we are boosting their training, too.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
As someone who is married to an NHS psychiatrist, may I start by paying tribute to all those volunteers, carers and professionals working in mental health on World Mental Health Day? Has the Secretary of State seen today’s briefing by the Children’s Commissioner, highlighting the vital importance of prevention and early intervention? Will he set out what steps he is taking to support a growing workforce—volunteers and professionals—working in prevention and early intervention?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am aware of the report that she talks about. We know that half of mental health conditions become established before the age of 14, which is why early intervention is so important. In July, I announced an expansion in the mental health workforce—another 21,000 posts. A number of those will be in children’s mental health, to address the issues she raises.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Secretary of State may know that because of a reduction in the number of mental health clinicians in Cumbria, the Cumbria Partnership NHS Foundation Trust has now chosen to end consultant psychiatric call-out care from 8 pm to 9 am. It would have started last week, but it is going to start in the next two or three weeks. That means, as I am sure he is aware, that it will not be possible to section people under the Mental Health Acts between those hours unless they are within an NHS facility. People in police stations, people in care homes and people at A&E departments will not be—
Mr Speaker
Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants to make an application for an Adjournment debate, he can do that on a subsequent occasion. I think we have got the gravamen of his question.
Tim Farron
The question is: does the Secretary of State agree that that is not an appropriate use of resources, and will he provide the resources that are needed?
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issues around Southern Health, which will have directly affected a number of her constituents. That organisation is being turned around. However, she is also right to say that too many people are travelling out of area for their treatment. We have record numbers of children’s beds commissioned, but in the end this is about the capacity of the system of trained psychiatrists, psychologists and therapists, which was why we announced the extra 21,000 posts.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On World Mental Health Day, may I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for wearing yellow for #HelloYellow on behalf of our team?
The Secretary of State’s claim that thousands of extra mental health staff will be appointed by 2021 is fanciful unless he tells us how they will be funded. Today, the Care Quality Commission reports that mental health services are struggling to staff wards safely. We have also learned recently that two out of five mental health staff have been abused or attacked by patients in the past year. Most blame staff shortages for that violence. Rather than telling us about recruiting for 2021, what is the Secretary of State going to do today to protect staff from violence? [Official Report, 16 October 2017, Vol. 629, c. 4MC.]
Mr Hunt
Let me tell the hon. Lady what has happened in mental health. Some 30,000 more people are working in mental health today than when her Government left office—a 5.8% increase in clinical staff. On top of that —she asked about money—we have committed an extra £1 billion a year by 2021 so that we can employ even more people. We are the first Government to admit that where we are now is not good enough. We want to be the best in the world; that is why we are investing to deliver that.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Developing new routes into nursing is a priority for my Department, which was why last week I announced plans to train 12,500 new nursing associates through the apprentice route in the next two years and to increase the number of nurses we train by 25%—the biggest increase in the history of the NHS.
Rachel Maclean
I welcome the fact that there are currently record numbers of nurses working in the NHS, but what is the Secretary of State doing to provide assurances to hospitals, such as the Alex in my constituency, that have faced issues with recruitment and retention? I very much welcome the new routes into nursing, including degree apprenticeships. What further actions does he propose to take?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. The Alex is going through a difficult period and I know that as the local MP she is giving it a lot of support. The fact is that in 2014 we turned down 37,000 applicants to nurse degree courses. That is why we think that we need to do much, much better in training a number of people who would make brilliant nurses. That was why we announced the big increase last week, which will help the Alex and many other hospitals.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
University admissions departments have reported an 8% fall in the number of people accepted on to nursing courses this autumn, so the situation is getting worse, not better as the Secretary of State claims. What contingency does he have in place, in the event that we crash out of the European Union, to address a further haemorrhaging of European Union staff from the NHS, and when will he review his disastrous decision to abolish nurse bursaries, which has had such a negative impact?
Mr Hunt
Let us be clear: we took the difficult decision on nurse bursaries precisely so that we could have the biggest expansion in nurse training places we have ever had. When we had the higher education reforms in 2011, which the right hon. Gentleman’s party opposed, we also saw a drop in initial applications, but then we saw them soaring to record levels. That is what we want to happen with nurses, because we need more nurses for the Royal Devon and Exeter, and all the hospitals that serve our constituents.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I welcome the apprenticeship route and the associate nurse route into nursing because living on a bursary of £400 a month is no fun, believe me. However, will the Secretary of State look at nurse training so that when nurses qualify they are able to take on courses such as venepuncture and cannulation as soon as possible? Many student nurses and newly qualified nurses are frustrated that they cannot be used in those roles.
Mr Hunt
I will certainly look into that. Of course, my hon. Friend understands this issue better than many in this House. The really exciting change is that it will now be possible for healthcare assistants who could make fantastic nurses to progress to being nurses without needing to take out student loans because they will be able to carry on earning while they learn. That will open up big opportunities for many people.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Although we support moves to broaden access to nursing, these measures are effectively an admission that the scrapping of bursaries has been a disaster, but whatever recruitment strategies there are, the Government need to improve retention. The Royal College of Nursing recently reported that half of nurses surveyed said that
“staff shortages are compromising…care”.
What steps are the Government taking to ensure that nurses can do their jobs properly right now?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman is right to bring that up. One thing we can do a lot better is to improve the opportunities for flexible working. We have announced that we will be making new flexible working arrangements available to all NHS staff during this Parliament. We are also expanding programmes to encourage people who may have left the profession to come back into nursing.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I think everyone would welcome an expansion of nurse training places, but the Council of Deans of Health stated in June that no new extra places had been funded either in universities or, crucially, in hospitals, where 50% of the course is carried out. Will the Secretary of State clarify when that funding will be made available?
Dr Whitford
Obviously we know that it takes quite some time to train a nurse, and one in 10 posts in England is vacant—that is twice the rate we face in Scotland. We also know that there is a 51% increase in nurses leaving the profession, a 96% drop in those coming from the European Union, and a limit on the use of agency staff, so where does the Secretary of State expect NHS England to find the 40,000 nurses it needs right now?
Mr Hunt
Let me just remind the hon. Lady that there are 11,300 more nurses on our wards than there were just four years ago, so we are increasing the number of nurses in the NHS. She mentions what is happening in Scotland. I gently remind her that nearly double the proportion of patients are waiting too long for their operations in Scotland as in England.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Mr Hunt
I support all universities that are trying to move into offering more courses that can help me to ensure that we have enough staff for the NHS. I am sure that the University of Gloucestershire’s bid will be powerful, but I am aware that other hon. Members are supporting bids from their own constituency—including, I have to say, that of the University of Surrey, which puts me in a somewhat difficult position.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is developing guidance on the use of Eylea for the treatment of myopic CNV. NICE has published draft guidance for appeal that recommends use of the drug subject to a patient access scheme that makes it available to the NHS at a discounted price. NICE expects to publish final guidance this November.
Ian Austin
NICE needs to get a move on, because these drugs have been available to patients in Scotland and Wales, but patients in England will be going blind in the meantime.
Some people are told that their eyesight is too good to be treated, but by the time it has declined, they are told that nothing can be done to help. Will the Secretary of State meet my constituent, Elaine Shaw, who has been campaigning on the issue, the Macular Society and the Royal National Institute of Blind People so that we can discuss how to prevent people from facing an increased and unacceptable risk of preventable sight loss?
Steve Brine
Obviously I would be deeply concerned if patients were losing their sight due to treatment not happening in a timely way. Dudley clinical commissioning group tells me that it has already made funding available for Eylea following consideration of the NICE evidence summary issued in June 2016. This is the first drug that we have appraised through the new fast-track process for treatments that demonstrate clear cost-effectiveness. Patients will have routine access to Eylea from 1 December should the guidance remain unchanged. Of course, I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his constituent.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
My colleague, Lord O’Shaughnessy, met the MHRA on 27 September to discuss this very important issue. The Department will have further discussions with NHS England on the support given to patients who have suffered due to this procedure and has asked the regulator to work with the clinical community to assess the associated risks and whether alternative treatments offer better outcomes for patients.
Paul Masterton
Thousands of women across the country, including my constituent Elaine Holmes, the co-founder of the Scottish Mesh Survivors group, have to live with the catastrophic consequences of transvaginal mesh implants. With health regulators across the globe now waking up to the scandal and issuing alerts or deregistering mesh devices, will Ministers join me in urging the MHRA immediately to reclassify this damaging procedure as high risk?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. I fully sympathise with anyone who has suffered complications as a result of these devices, but we do not currently have enough evidence to warrant our asking the MHRA to reclassify these procedures, and this is a view shared by other regulators across the world. I can advise him, however, that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence strongly recommends that mesh implants not be routinely offered for the first surgical intervention on prolapse. That guidance is being updated—publication is due at the start of the new year—and will include an overarching document that looks in depth at the devices and the conditions surrounding the need for them, as well as the treatment of complications, to support better health outcomes.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
A constituent came to my surgery to explain how this has impacted on her life. It is truly harrowing. I understand that NHS England has set up 17 regional teams to look into this. I want to be able to assure my constituent that the voice of women and how this is impacting them on will be considered. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond so that we might understand what the future holds.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am absolutely aware that many women experience substantial side effects and complications following this procedure. Equally, however, many women also experience considerable relief from symptoms. We need a good review of the evidence to make sure that we adopt this procedure only when it fully suits women and that women understand the risks associated with the procedure. But I fully sympathise with the hon. Lady’s constituent.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is deeply worrying, though, that this procedure was introduced with so little evidence to support it. I think we all have to agree it has led to unacceptable complication rates for certain products. Will the Minister heed the words of Professor Heneghan and hold a public inquiry into the numbers of women adversely affected and why the safety of so many women was disregarded?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I say again that many women have received relief from their symptoms following this procedure, but we need more evidence before we can properly review it, so it is important that we allow NICE to undertake its work so that we can take a clear view. Any procedure comes with risk—no surgery is without it—but obviously the more evidence we can gather, the better we can advise women of those risks.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
We are making good progress on the implementation of the five year forward view for mental health. We have published a workforce plan and invested more money than ever before, and we are providing care to 120,000 more people this year compared with 2013.
Rebecca Pow
The charity Mind recently produced a report called “Feel better outside, feel better inside”, which advocated the benefits of eco-therapy—using activities such as gardening, farming and exercise. The National Garden Scheme has also produced a publication on this. Is the treatment being utilised within the NHS?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this area. Yes, I can give her that assurance. It is welcome that local authorities and clinical commissioning groups are considering innovative approaches concentrating on wellbeing, as well as acute services, and eco-therapy is part of that agenda.
Anna Soubry
I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the rest of the House will send their condolences to the family and friends of Rebecca Nevin, a constituent of mine who died aged 32 after many years of poor mental health and an addiction to alcohol. Her father, Stephen, like many parents of adult sufferers of poor mental health, felt largely excluded by health professionals. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need health systems and workers who maintain patient confidentiality while recognising and acting on the genuine concerns of parents of adults?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am sure that we are all very sorry to hear of the death of my right hon. Friend’s constituent, and we send our condolences to her family. It is extremely difficult to balance patients’ right to confidentiality with the needs and requests of their families, and we will study any recommendations that emerge from the coroner’s investigation.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
I heard what the Secretary of State said about funding earlier, and what the Minister said a moment before. However, I sent freedom of information requests to every CCG in the country, and found for the second successive year that more than half of them are not increasing the proportion of their budgets that they spend on mental health. That flies in the face of a commitment made by the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box, and it flies in the face of the spirit of the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health. On World Mental Health Day, will the Minister, along with the Secretary of State, commit herself to ensuring that we ring-fence the money that they say is available for mental health?
Jackie Doyle-Price
On World Mental Health Day, I can confirm that we are spending £574 million more on mental health this year. It remains our principle that decisions should be made locally by CCGs, but we have very clear expectations of them, and they will be held to account via inspections.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The ‘Five Year Forward View’ suggested that the Government accepted the case for comprehensive maximum waiting time standards in mental health to match those in physical health. Given that children throughout the country are routinely waiting for months to start their treatment, may I ask what progress the Government are making with the introduction of a maximum waiting time standard for children’s mental health?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The right hon. Gentleman has raised an excellent point. Our Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health will address exactly those issues. We have made clear that we will tackle mental health through early intervention, and early intervention for children and young people is central to that.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
Not only has the number of nurses on our wards increased by more than 11,000 since May 2010, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, but the NHS has nearly 11,300 more doctors, over 2,700 more paramedics, over 26,000 more supporters for clinical staff, and 5,700 fewer administrators. However, we recognise the pressures on staff from increasing demand. That is why last year my right hon. Friend announced a 25% increase in the number of doctors in training, and why last week he announced a 25% record increase in the number of nursing training places.
Thelma Walker
Huddersfield Royal Infirmary, which is in my constituency, is currently facing plans for a downgrading that would result in the loss of 500 hard-working professionals. Is it too much to ask for the Minister, or the Secretary of State, to visit the hospital, as I have requested, before those hard-working trained professionals are lost, and can he assure me—and my constituents—that those cuts, and the pressures on nearby hospitals, will not jeopardise the safety of patients?
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a growing tendency for colleagues to ask two questions rather than one, which is not fair on other colleagues who are trying to get in. Forgive me, but the questions are too long, and frequently the answers are as well.
Mr Dunne
I will try to keep this answer short, Mr Speaker.
As the hon. Lady will know, the local joint health overview and scrutiny committee has referred those proposals to the Secretary of State, and it would not be appropriate for me to visit the hospital while the referral is in progress.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
On the subject of vital NHS staff, will the Minister join me in congratulating the thousands of community pharmacists on their daily commitment and professionalism? Will he confirm, once and for all, that he has no intention of downgrading their role and putting patients at risk? Surely he agrees that the Prime Minister would have been well advised to seek a cough remedy from a qualified community pharmacist rather than relying on an unqualified Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr Dunne
As the hon. Lady will know, we have inserted payment for extra activity into the contract for community pharmacists because we want more activities to take place in community pharmacies. For example, many flu vaccinations throughout the country are now being carried out by pharmacists.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I thank the Minister for the recent meeting that he had with me and other colleagues about Grimsby Hospital, which is in special measures. It was clear from a recent meeting I had with the chief executive that staff vacancies are one of the biggest problems preventing the hospital from getting out of special measures. What additional support can the Department offer in order to get the hospital back on track?
Mr Dunne
I was pleased to welcome my hon. Friend to a meeting a few days ago to discuss the situation, together with his Opposition constituency neighbours. One of the things that we will be looking at in the coming weeks is the allocation of the new doctor training places. As part of the criteria, we will be looking to ensure that some of those places are allocated to areas where it is difficult to recruit, such as rural and coastal areas.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Minister has visited Kettering General Hospital and knows the wonderful work that the doctors and nurses there do. The problem that the hospital faces, however, is that too few of the doctors and nurses are full-time permanent members of staff, and too many locums are being hired, at great expense to the hospital budget. What is my hon. Friend’s advice for Kettering hospital on tackling the issue?
Mr Dunne
When I visited Kettering General Hospital we discussed excessive agency staff costs. One of the measures announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was a drive to invest more in both regional and local bank agencies within the NHS so that we can reduce the reliance on more expensive agency staff.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
By 2020 we want significantly to improve patient choice in end-of-life care. The Government’s end-of-life care commitment sets out exactly what everyone should expect. In September we published a report on the good progress that we have made over the first year.
Catherine McKinnell
The End of Life Care Coalition has said that it remains deeply concerned about the enduring gap in resources for community-based health and social care services. Meanwhile, Together for Short Lives continues to highlight the unacceptable postcode lottery faced by 40,000 children with life-limiting conditions. What is the Minister doing to ensure that all clinical commissioning groups and sustainability and transformation partnerships will meet the Government’s requirements in full for both children and adults by 2020?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I know that she, through her role on the all-party parliamentary group for children who need palliative care, will continue to hold me to account on these commitments. We did look at the work undertaken by Together for Short Lives to improve end-of-life care for children, which does require special attention—she is quite right to raise that. NHS England recently co-hosted a policy summit with Together for Short Lives, and I will be meeting it next week to discuss that further. We are also engaging local sustainability and transformation partnerships to support planning for end-of-life care, and helping all trusts to develop and improve their services. This work is ongoing, but it remains a key priority.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
When it comes to baby loss, the end of life can often be sudden and unexpected. In this Baby Loss Awareness Week, will the Minister join me in welcoming the launch of the national bereavement care pathway, and pay tribute to Sands, baby loss organisations and charities, the APPG and the former Care Quality Minister, Ben Gummer, who did so much to make it happen?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I am of course happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating those organisations and thank him for all the work that he has done. The 11 pilots launched only last month are very much down to his work and that of hon. Members across the House, who have done so much over the past year to raise awareness of the issue.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Many people would prefer to die at home, but that is actually very difficult to achieve, not only because of the lack of support for Macmillan nurses, for example, but because, frankly, of the reluctance of the authorities to effect a speedy transition to a home base. What can the Government now do to ensure that dying at home is a real option?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Gentleman is quite right: many people would elect to die at home, if the opportunity were available. We need to ensure provision to allow people to do that, if that is their choice, because we should be supporting people to honour their choices at the end of their lives, and it enables us to treat more people in hospitals and hospices.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Hospices, such as Treetops Hospice Care in my constituency, provide outstanding end-of-life care. Although these services benefit from generous charitable donations that enable them to operate on a day-to-day basis, what more can the Government do to help support hospices when capital investment is needed to improve the current setting of new build?
Jackie Doyle-Price
One of the strengths of our hospice movement is that it relies heavily on charitable donations, which shows that people are generous and that they want to support good, locally focused care. However, CCGs should look at where they can support hospices with their care costs, and we will certainly consider including that in the end-of-life care programme.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
NHS staff do a fantastic job in tough circumstances, and pay restraint has been challenging for many of them. However, given the financial pressures, it is also true that the NHS would not have been able to recruit an additional 30,000 staff since May 2010 without the cap.
Christian Matheson
The NHS is short of 3,500 midwives and 40,000 nurses. What proportion of those numbers does the Secretary of State put down to the public sector pay cap?
Mr Hunt
As I said in my previous answer, without pay restraint we would not have 11,300 more doctors in the NHS and 11,300 more nurses on our wards. The hon. Gentleman will know that we recognise that it was not sustainable to carry on with the 1% rise going forward, which is why we have been given the leeway to have more flexible negotiations next year.
Marsha De Cordova
Hospital wards and GP surgeries are chronically understaffed, and the knock-on effect is that waiting lists are spiralling out of control. Is it not in the best interests of patients to scrap the pay cap so that the NHS can be run with the relevant number of staff in place?
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
In the work that I have done in hospitals, staff have told me that they are most unhappy about too much reliance on temporary staff, rota gaps and not feeling valued, as opposed to issues around pay. The latter—not feeling valued—often goes hand in hand with poor management practices. What is my right hon. Friend doing about those causes of staff unhappiness?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend, who has a lot of experience of working in the NHS, is absolutely right. The new Care Quality Commission inspection regime is designed precisely to identify good, strong leadership, because that has the best impact on staff and, through that, the best impact on patients.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
We thank the ACMD for its report, and we take its advice seriously. Discussions will happen across Government, and we will respond fully in due course in the usual way.
Jeff Smith
The ACMD says:
“England had built a world class drug treatment system… This system is now being dismantled due to reductions in resources.”
More than 100 local authorities have had to reduce spending on addiction services this year as a result of Government cuts. Will that reduction in addiction treatment budgets not just cost the NHS more in the long term?
Steve Brine
The Government are already investing £16 billion in public health services over the spending review period. We made it a condition of the public health grant that local authorities have regard to the need to improve the take-up and outcomes of their drug and alcohol services. Local authorities are best placed to make those decisions. The investment in effective services means that the average waiting time is just three days and, according to our monitoring systems, treatment outcomes in Greater Manchester are generally better than or in line with the rest of England.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Ahead of our autumn Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health, we are having productive discussions with the Department for Education on the vital role that schools can play in tackling both mental health problems and the stigma surrounding them.
Mary Glindon
The YMCA and NHS’s #IAMWHOLE campaign, which was launched this morning, shows that young people seeking help are often dismissed by those around them, largely due to a lack of understanding of mental health difficulties. Will the Secretary of State meet the YMCA to discuss what can be done to combat the stigma?
Mr Hunt
I am more than happy to meet the YMCA. I also want to point out the amazing work done by the “Time2Change” campaign. I was at an event to mark its 10th anniversary, and I heard from young people who have spoken up about their mental health conditions, which takes a lot of courage. Things are changing, and we can draw a lot of hope from what is happening on the ground.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Family doctors undertake such work, but why have only a quarter of them had any formal training in mental health?
Mr Hunt
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that a GP is often the first point of contact for many people. What are we doing? Three thousand mental health professionals will be seconded to GP surgeries over the next few years to give GPs the back-up they need in that area.
Mr Speaker
Not for the first time, I implore the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) to issue to colleagues his textbook on succinct questions.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Since the demand for children and youth mental health services far outstrips supply, will the Secretary of State consider diverting resources to voluntary bodies, such as the admirable Off The Record in my constituency, which have a much lower threshold for referral?
Mr Hunt
We will look at the role of voluntary organisations, and I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that they have an incredibly important role to play. We must also consider the role of schools, because teachers are extremely enthusiastic to do more around mental health. I think that if we give them more support there is a lot more they could do.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that when it comes to physical health and stigma, the Department will react right away. Do the Government now recognise the importance of treating mental health with equal status to physical health?
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
The building of the new health and wellbeing centre is supported by NHS England for funding in principle through the estates and technology transformation fund, subject to due diligence checks including a value for money exercise.
Richard Burden
That is fine, but is it not the case that although approval was given by the NHS technology and transformation fund last autumn, NHS England has spent the past 18 months negotiating new procedures for the premises cost directions? The delays in those procedures are jeopardising things such as that health and wellbeing centre. Is it not time that Ministers stepped in to ensure that projects on which everyone agrees can be approved under existing regulations and should not have to wait for the renegotiations?
Steve Brine
The hon. Gentleman is right that NHS England has been negotiating changes to the premises cost directions, which govern how we manage premises costs for general practitioners, but that is not the reason for the delay. We are working through the detail of the content of the scheme and it is not yet at the point of seeking approval. At the end of the day, this is public money and I think that the hon. Gentleman and everybody in this House would expect me to make sure that things are done properly.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
As the hon. Lady knows, the adult congenital heart disease service provided in Manchester has been included in the long-standing clinical assessment of CHD services undertaken by NHS England, which is now reviewing the more than 7,500 responses to the public consultation, which ended in July. The adult CHD service in Manchester was suspended by the trust in June, when the only CHD surgeon left. Hospitals in Leeds and Newcastle continue to deliver level 1 care and paediatric CHD services continue to be provided by Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool.
Lucy Powell
Is not the truth behind what happened that Ministers and NHS England prejudged the review and therefore left services untenable and unviable in Manchester? There are no level 1 adult congenital heart services anywhere in the north-west and patients are having to travel to Leeds and Newcastle for the treatment. Will the Minister apologise today to those patients for this botched review, which has left patients with a great deal of uncertainty and has meant that they have had to travel huge distances?
Mr Dunne
I am sure that the hon. Lady will not want to confuse her patients by suggesting that relying on a single surgeon for prolonged periods is necessarily in their best interests. The facilities that remain in Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust are intended to remain and include CHD outpatient services for adults and children. Level 2 services also continue to be provided in Manchester.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
By passing the Care Act 2014, this Government established a national eligibility threshold that defines the care needs that local authorities are required to meet. This eliminates the postcode lottery of eligibility across England. Social care continues to be a key priority for this Government. That is why local authorities in England will receive an additional £2 billion for social care over the next three years. In the longer term, we are committed to establishing adult social care on a fair and more sustainable basis.
Preet Kaur Gill
Age UK estimates that nearly 1.2 million older people have unmet care needs. After the Government dropped their disastrous dementia tax policy during the general election, all they can offer people is yet another consultation. In the words of the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), the Chair of the Health Committee, is it not time the Government just got “on with it”?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I do not recognise Age UK’s assessment of unmet need. As I said, the requirements are enshrined in statute and local authorities should be held to that. In response to the hon. Lady’s final point, let me say that we are getting on with it, but we need a real cultural change in how we tackle these issues. There is a long-term issue to address in the fact that we are all living longer. This is not just going to need a sticking plaster; we will need to take the public with us. So this is not just another consultation; it is a vehicle for making sure that we as a society tackle this issue once and for all.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust was put into special measures last week, but delayed discharge caused by unmet social care needs contributes to the pressure in the trust. I welcome the £12 million that was awarded to the council this April to address that, but what more can the Minister do to help to relieve the pressure? Will he meet me and my Cornish colleagues to discuss the healthcare challenges faced in Cornwall and on Scilly?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has visited twice in the past year, and the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) is more than willing to meet my hon. Friend next week, with other colleagues.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
The Government want and expect strong relationships and joint working between the NHS and local authorities to make a success of STPs. They are meant to be a one-system solution.
Robert Neill
The London Borough of Bromley has had considerable success in joint working with its clinical commissioning group, through joint appointments, a multi-agency use of funding and a complete sign-up from the council, but we are concerned that reorganisation may detract from this operation at the local level. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss Bromley’s proposals to build on the success it has had so far?
Steve Brine
We are confident that we have some of the best STP leaders in place. I was looking last night at the figures for south-east London, and I saw that my hon. Friend’s local STP is highly rated, both on leadership and overall. I was thinking about him in the gym last night and I thought he might say what he did, so let me say that I am very happy to meet him and to broker a meeting between him and the NHS.
Mr Speaker
It is interesting to hear about the thoughts of the hon. Gentleman when he is on the treadmill or the exercise bike—it is always useful to have a bit of additional information.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Steve Brine
I am always happy to meet Members, including the hon. Lady in order to talk about York. As the shadow Secretary of State said, the STP proposals are not about Tory cuts; they are about redesigning services in the local area. So I am happy to meet her to talk about her area.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
This week is Baby Loss Awareness Week, and the whole House will want to mark the tragedy faced by too many parents every year by redoubling our efforts to reduce avoidable baby death and harm. I am pleased to tell the House that to mark World Mental Health Day today the entire Cabinet was this morning briefed by two of the country’s leading mental health experts, Poppy Jaman and Professor Sir Simon Wessely, on our plans announced today to roll out mental health first aid to 1 million people in England.
Mr Cunningham
Can the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made regarding an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal?
Mr Hunt
I can absolutely tell the hon. Gentleman the answer to that: we have been making very important progress with families over the summer; and we have decided the shape of the inquiry and the leadership of the inquiry and all the factors around the terms of reference need to be decided in close consultation with the affected families. So we are keen to get on as quickly as possible, but we have made some progress in understanding their wishes.
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
I thank one of my constituency neighbours for that question. Improving outcomes for all cancers is one of my main priorities in this job. I visited the Christie hospital in Manchester last week to see the progress being made on the proton beam therapy facility there. I know Barratt’s Wessex in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as it also does work with some of my constituents. We must do better on these rarer cancers with poor outcomes. I will look at what BW does exactly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently remind Ministers that answers from the Front Bench must be very brief during topical questions, because many other colleagues are waiting to contribute and I do not want to disappoint them, as that would be unfair.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
Can the Secretary of State tell us how many elective operations he expects to be cancelled by 31 December?
Jonathan Ashworth
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer, but already more than 80,000 elective operations have been cancelled. That is an increase on the past year. A&E attendance is up on the past year, bed occupancy is higher than last year and the Care Quality Commission has today warned that the NHS is straining at the seams. Winter is coming. Last week, the Tory party made spending commitments worth £15 billion, but not 1p extra for the NHS, so will the NHS fare worse or better than last year this winter, or are we set for another winter crisis made in Downing Street?
Mr Hunt
What the CQC actually said this morning is that the majority of health and care systems across the NHS are providing good or outstanding quality; that the safety of care is going up; and that performance is improving. None the less, the hon. Gentleman is right that we are always concerned about winter. Let me tell him the new things that are happening this year to help prepare the NHS: £1 billion more going into the social care system in the most recent Budget; a £100 million capital programme for A&E departments; 2,400 beds being freed up; and an increasing number of clinicians at 111 call centres. A lot is happening, but, overall, let me remind him that our NHS is seeing 1,800 more people every single day within four hours—that is something to celebrate.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Mr Hunt
That is a very attractive offer, and I am always happy to have a chinwag with the hon. Gentleman. Last week, we announced something that I hope will resolve that, which is that we are looking at holding nurse training courses on-site in hospital and community sites so that experienced healthcare assistants do not have to go to a higher education institution to do their training.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for Frenchay hospital and keeps it uppermost in our minds. The way in which we are looking at the pattern of health provision for the next period is through the STP process, and I encourage him to engage with the STP leadership in his area and make the case for Frenchay hospital.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
As I previously advised the House, I am in conversation with Together for Short Lives to look at how we improve palliative care for children. This clearly raises a different set of circumstances and sensitivities, and it is essential that we do our best for these children.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Do Ministers have any plans to review the “do not resuscitate” guidance for hospitals? I have a constituent who has such an order placed on him, despite the fact that he has left hospital and is in a care home, it cannot be rescinded and his family have not consented.
Jackie Doyle-Price
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. Certainly, in CQC inspections in the past, the whole issue of “do not resuscitate” orders has been an area of concern. This is something we will very much look at as part of the end of life policy, but I would like to hear more about the case my hon. Friend mentioned, if he would like to write to me.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
Mr Hunt
Accountable care systems are supported by such rabid right wingers as Polly Toynbee, writing in The Guardian, because they are about health systems coming together to co-operate to give the best care for patients. That is what is happening across the NHS, and it is already delivering great results.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
This Friday marks Secondary Breast Cancer Awareness Day. In 2015, the Government recognised that data collection for this type of cancer was not good enough. However, research by Breast Cancer Care shows that less than a third of trusts collect the number of people diagnosed with secondary breast cancer. Will the Minister confirm what actions the Government are taking to ensure that all trusts are collecting this information, given its importance to improving outcomes?
Steve Brine
I thank the co-chair of the all-party group on breast cancer in what is BCAM—Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We must never forget the treatment and support we give to those living with and beyond the cancer diagnosis. We must always remember those living with secondary breast cancer and the work of the third sector—brilliant charities such as Breast Cancer Haven and Breast Cancer Care—so that we can focus on access to a specialist nurse. As my hon. Friend says, the collection of data is critical, and I will be discussing that at my roundtable with some of the main players in the cancer community later this week.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Will the Minister abolish the patient penalty and scrap hospital car parking charges, which punish both the sick and hard-working NHS staff, as well as causing problems for residents living adjacent to NHS hospitals, such as Peterlee Community Hospital in my constituency?
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Antibiotic resistance is a major threat to humanity. Will the Minister outline the progress we have made in opening up the £50 million global antimicrobial resistance innovation fund to applications?
Steve Brine
I thank my hon. Friend for that. We expect the first launch to be the bilateral UK-China partnership £10 million fund, which we expect to go live early in 2018. Further information on the calls for the remaining £40 million will be announced in due course.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
Steve Brine
I am very happy to meet the group, and the hon. Lady should contact my office. The Home Office is the lead Department for cross-governmental drugs policy, and we obviously released the new cross-Government drugs strategy earlier this year. However, this cannot all be about drugs services and picking up the pieces after things have gone wrong; it can also be about prevention. We should, as somebody once said at this Dispatch Box, understand a little more and condemn a little less.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
This month is Stoptober, and someone who manages to stop smoking for 28 days is five times more likely to quit for good. Legislation is obviously part of this, but perhaps the Minister could update us on what more could be done.
Steve Brine
At the last health oral questions, I committed to publishing the new tobacco control plan. I did that on 18 July. We have had a lot of legislation, from this and the previous Government. It is Stoptober, and there has never been a better time to quit. We now need to take that legislation, work with the control plan the Government have published and work it through local authorities and smoking cessation services, because my hon. Friend is absolutely right that where buddying services are used, we have better outcomes.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
There is a crisis in mental health staffing levels. Does the Secretary of State accept that today, throughout the country, there are 2,000 fewer mental health nurses than there were when he took charge five years ago?
Mr Hunt
What I accept is that we have 30,000 more professionals working in mental health than when my Government came into office. There has been a decline in the number of mental health nurses, but we have in place plans to train 8,000 more mental health nurses, and that will make a big difference.[Official Report, 17 October 2017, Vol. 629, c. 6MC.]
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust capital expenditure bid would fund a 24-hour urgent care service, and it would also increase bed capacity and improve hospital performance in Gloucester and Cheltenham, to the benefit of patients throughout the county. When do Ministers expect to announce the results of the bid? Will they take this particular bid into careful consideration?
Mr Dunne
I am aware that, under the Gloucestershire STP, a proposal has been submitted for capital funding to support plans to improve the clinical environment for patients and staff at the Gloucestershire Royal Hospital. I am afraid that my hon. Friend will have to join me in awaiting the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget as to whether there will be a second phase of capital funding for STPs. If there is any funding, it will be allocated thereafter.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
GPs in my constituency tell me that because of changes to personal data rules they will no longer be able to charge for providing reports for private insurance and legal claims. Will Ministers update the House on the situation? What assessment has been made of how GPs will cope with the additional costs they will face?
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
If nurses or other NHS staff are awarded a pay rise above the current pay cap, will the Government fund that pay rise fully, or will they require it to be met by cuts in patient services?
Mr Hunt
That is something I cannot answer right now, because the latitude that the Chancellor has given me with respect to the negotiation of future pay rises is partly linked to productivity improvements that we will negotiate at the same time. The fact is, though, that we do have that flexibility, and I hope we can get a win-win as a result.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
May I take the Secretary of State back to the issue of nursing associates? Given that evidence shows that for every 25 patients for whom a professionally qualified nurse is replaced by a non-nurse, mortality on an average ward rises by 21%, how comfortable is he with reports that hospitals in Lincolnshire and Leicester are using nursing associates to plug gaps in the nursing workforce?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Under this Government, there has been an unprecedented fall in the number of nurses: the NHS is short of 40,000 nurses and more than 6,000 have gone since 2010, under this Conservative Government. When will the Secretary of State acknowledge that he is failing the NHS and failing patients, and when will he do something about it?
Mr Hunt
With respect, I really think the hon. Gentleman needs to get his facts right. The number of nurses has gone up, not down, since this Government have been in office. The number of nurses in our hospitals has gone up by more than 11,000, because this Government are supporting safer care in all our hospitals.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The number of unfilled nursing posts in London is now more than 10,000—whatever the Secretary of State’s figures say, it is more than 10,000. When will they be filled?
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Suicide is the most common cause of death for men under the age of 45, and men are significantly less likely than women to seek support from loved ones or medical professionals when they have mental health problems. How can services be better targeted at men to encourage them to seek help more quickly and thereby reduce misery?
Mr Hunt
This is a very important issue and the hon. Lady is right to raise it. The Time to Change campaign has said that this year it will focus on men, specifically to try to address the issues she mentioned. We are rolling out crisis plans throughout the country to make sure we are better able to reach people who reach out to us.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
What reassurance can the Secretary of State give to the Amplify youth project in Northwich in my constituency that timely and improved access to mental health services will be provided?
Mr Hunt
We have said that by 2020-21 we want to be treating an extra 70,000 young people every year, but the truth is that that is still not enough. We need to bring down waiting times much more dramatically, which is why we are doing a lot of work across Government and we have a Green Paper coming out shortly.
James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
Newly released NHS guidance makes it clear that walk-in services can have a future as part of urgent treatment centres. Does the Secretary of State agree with me and thousands of patients in Bury North that Bury walk-in centre can, should and must stay open and that Bury CCG should ensure this when it concludes its review?
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread support in the House for his Government’s commitment to enact the principle of deemed consent for organ donation? He knows from a previous meeting that my private Member’s Bill is due for its Second Reading early in the new year. Will he therefore agree to an early meeting now, so that we can co-ordinate the two and see how to advance his intentions? I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) will be with me again and, with the Secretary of State’s commitment to this, we look forward to an early meeting.
Mr Hunt
I very much enjoyed our previous meeting, which was not so very long ago. I hope the hon. Gentleman is happy that we have made good progress since that meeting, with the Prime Minister announcing that we will start a consultation, but I am always happy to see him and his colleague the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis).
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware that he and he alone has responsibilities under the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to deal with referrals from local authorities of clinical commissioning group decisions. Almost a year ago, Stoke-on-Trent City Council and Staffordshire County Council referred a matter to the Minister regarding the closure of community care beds. To date we have had no response. Letters from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) have gone unanswered. When will we get a response? Is this a case of wilful indifference towards his responsibilities or just ignorance of the Act?
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Yesterday the private ambulance service that provided non-urgent patient transport at Bedford hospital ceased trading, leaving the East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust to pick up the pieces. Will the Minister order an inquiry to establish what went wrong, and does he agree that using private companies to run key services for our NHS is simply not working?
Mr Dunne
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that private and independent providers of patient transport services provide services all across the country and support the ambulance services in that work. I will look into the case that he raises in relation to Bedford and write to him.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
All of the local dementia and rehabilitation beds in my rural constituency of High Peak are earmarked for closure. In some cases, patients and their families will have to travel 25 miles across the moors to Chesterfield. Given the importance of staff being able to work with families to support patients to return home, will the Minister agree to look again at such decisions, which make this work practically impossible?
Mr Dunne
The hon. Lady will be aware that the STP plans being considered for her area include providing more services in the community by community nurses and other nurses in our community hospitals being reassigned, which will allow them to undertake care for more patients than they can at present within community hospitals.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but we must move on. Demand invariably tends to exceed supply.
BAE Systems Military Air & Information Sites: Job Losses
(6 years, 6 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
Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if she will make a statement on the likelihood of over 1,000 jobs being lost across the north of England at BAE Systems Military Air & Information sites.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Claire Perry)
I know that the Government, and indeed all of us, are disappointed to hear the news that BAE Systems is considering reductions of up to 1,400 staff in its military air and information business, 375 in its maritime services division and 150 in its applied intelligence business. This is a concerning time for those working for BAE Systems, particularly in the run-up to Christmas. That is why I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government stand ready to support fully those affected. Indeed, colleagues across the Ministry of Defence, my Department and others are reviewing what support we can offer the company as it goes through this process. Of course, the Department for Work and Pensions is also standing by to provide whatever advice or support is required.
I would like to set out three main points. First, I will provide an update on the process; secondly, I will explain the rationale for the changes; and thirdly, I will set out what the Government are doing to support BAE Systems and this vital sector with our business. The company will now enter a 30-day statutory consultation process, and no final decisions will be taken about the level or type of redundancies until that process is complete. The Government will continue to work with BAE Systems to ensure that compulsory redundancies are kept to a minimum, and the company assures us that the reductions will be managed on a voluntary basis as far as possible. I emphasise that, as is usual in such cases, the DWP rapid response team is engaged and standing by, ready to deploy. It is incredibly important that the skills that people in the workforce have built up are retained in the UK industry as far as possible. That is why we will be using the talent retention system that was designed by my Department, working with the sector, to ensure that vital skills are not lost to the UK.
I turn now to the rationale for the announcement. The House should be absolutely clear that BAE Systems has taken this decision as a result of normal business practice. The decision is the result of internal restructuring and a drive to transform its business so that it can continue to be one of our most efficient and effective companies, generating export orders across the world. This is not related to any UK defence spending decisions. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout all they like, but I hope that we can avoid getting politics into this. It was very striking how during conference speech after conference speech Labour Members—not the hon. Members opposite me, for whom I have great respect—went out of their way to criticise the industry that we are talking about. I suggest that we calm down and think about the people affected and what we can do to support them.
In the last year, the Ministry of Defence has spent almost £4 billion with BAE Systems, as part of the £18 billion—half of which is spent in the manufacturing sector—that we spend across Government buying products and services from UK industry. We continually bang the drum and lead the charge for our world-leading defence industry right across the globe, maximising export opportunities for companies such as BAE Systems and the thousands of people employed in their supply chains. Indeed, only last month the Defence Secretary signed a statement of intent with Qatar to buy 24 Typhoons and six Hawks from BAE Systems. This is extremely positive news, and it demonstrates continued confidence globally in Britain’s defence and aerospace industry. We will continue to work with BAE Systems to maximise opportunities for the Typhoon and the Hawk training aircraft, and the Type 26 global combat ship, in markets such as Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Belgium, Finland, Canada and Australia.
In conclusion, we absolutely understand that this is a worrying time for those affected. We are determined to do all we can to support BAE Systems’ future export opportunities, and I stand ready to meet workers, unions or MPs who are concerned about the potential impact of the announcement in their constituencies.
Mr Hendrick
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing this urgent question. Today’s announcement by BAE Systems has come as a huge blow to thousands of workers and their families across Lancashire in the run-up to Christmas. The majority of Lancashire MPs have today written to the Prime Minister seeking immediate action and offering to establish a taskforce to avert the disaster. We ask the Minister for a swift, meaningful and positive response to our request.
What intermediate and longer-term actions are the Government taking to win contracts around the globe, to fly the flag and to sell the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Hawk? That is essential to sustaining the UK’s leading-edge technology and sovereign capability, as well as highly skilled jobs and the massive supply chain in the north-west of England. In order to maintain a leading edge, we must look to the future. BAE Systems has taken a big step by developing a £12 million academy in Lancashire. Will the Government play their role and announce an industrial strategy for aerospace, as they have done with shipbuilding, and will they commit themselves to assisting BAE Systems to develop a sixth-generation manned fighter aircraft?
With my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham P. Jones), I met Prime Minister Cameron to urge him to secure vital contracts with Japan and India. We were assured that there was good news on the horizon, but there clearly was not. The Minister mentioned Qatar and that is obviously positive, but it is nothing like the size of the other contracts. Lancashire builds the finest because we have the best workforce in the world. We do not want to be let down again, so I ask the Minister to use her good offices to impress on the Prime Minister the major concerns of Lancashire MPs and indeed of MPs from across the House.
Claire Perry
I commend the hon. Gentleman and many of his colleagues for their absolutely resolute support both for the company and the sector. Of course I would be delighted to meet the taskforce, and I think we should extend the offer to the workers and unions affected. It is absolutely clear that we need maximum communication about the process, or to encourage the company to ensure maximum communication, particularly at this worrying time.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Government have a vital part to play in banging the drum for British exports. I have mentioned the Qatar statement of intent, and clearly there are ongoing conversations with countries, such as Saudi Arabia, that have expressed an interest in this technology. There is an appetite around the world for this technology. For every unit that is sold, the whole provision—supply and maintenance—will have a measurable impact on the work available for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and those of other Members.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the industrial strategy for this sector. We are very keen—we are already having conversations about this with the aerospace sector—on a bespoke sector deal. He will know that we have worked with the industry, on initiatives such as the technology for the future combat air system, to set out what we need to do both across this export-facing part of the business and right across the supply chain to ensure we have the right level of investment and skills.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When BAE Systems says to the Government that this is normal business practice, will the Government reply to BAE Systems by reminding it that it is not a normal business, because it enjoys a near monopoly position in many parts of the British defence procurement structure? Will they therefore extract from BAE Systems a promise to work closely with the Government to examine to what extent any streamlining is really necessary and to what extent it can be ameliorated by common action, bearing in mind the special treatment that BAE Systems so often receives from the United Kingdom Government?
Claire Perry
My right hon. Friend is right to remind us that we spend almost £4 billion in procuring products and services from BAE Systems. Again, if we want to have a globally competitive, highly efficient bastion of success in this vital industry, it is really important to allow the company to go through its management processes. Of course we want to procure from BAE Systems, but we also procure from a wide range of other suppliers. It would be wrong for the Government to try to interfere in business processes, but we can say that we are committed to making sure that the company does this as sensitively as possible.
We also want to explore other opportunities. I am struck by the locations of some of the plants that may be affected, and I am also struck by the investment opportunities with, for example, the Siemens investment in offshore wind turbine production in Hull. There are opportunities for skilled engineering staff right accross the UK and right across the region. [Interruption.] I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who knows Hull very well, talking down a major investment in skilled engineering. We remain absolutely committed to working with this company.
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Employees and families across the country will be hit hard by the news that has come from BAE today. The loss of nearly 2,000 highly skilled jobs is nothing short of devastating for communities and local economies that have a proud history of defence manufacturing. Moreover, if these redundancies go ahead, there is a very real risk that these skills will be lost forever, with a knock-on impact on this country’s manufacturing capability. What support will the Government be offering to those highly skilled workers who have lost their jobs, and how will the Government support the communities affected?
A vibrant defence industry is vital for the security of this country and it brings immense economic benefits. In its statement, BAE points to uncertainty in future orders as a reason for the job cuts, and we know that the Government have pursued a stop-start approach which has not given the industry the long-term stability that it desperately needs. Will the Minister now agree that it is time for the Government to come forward with a proper defence industrial strategy to enable the sector to plan ahead? I know from my conversations with those in the industry that they are very concerned about the gaping funding holes in the MOD’s defence equipment plan. What action are the Government taking to address those and to give the industry confidence?
UK-based defence companies are also facing a great deal of uncertainty owing to the Government’s handling of Brexit. We know that the defence and aerospace industries have wide-reaching supply chains that cross many borders, so what steps are the Government taking to ensure that the sector is not disadvantaged by Brexit, and that companies do not take their manufacturing elsewhere?
Finally, the slowdown in Hawk production was also cited as a reason for cuts, but the Government could take immediate steps to counter that by bringing forward orders for nine new Hawk aircraft for the Red Arrows, thus securing their future as the face of the RAF and a global ambassador for British engineering across the world. That would provide a much needed boost to the industry. Can the Minister commit to doing that today?
This is no time for Government to stand by and do nothing. Ministers need to rise to their responsibilities and realise that proactive engagement with the industry could make a real difference to the workers concerned and to the future of our country’s defence industry.
Claire Perry
I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Lady about the need to engage closely to understand the reasons. To reassure her on a couple of points that she raised, this is not due to any stop-start change in the Government’s procurement; this is in fact due to gaps in bringing forward some of the export orders. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State has signed a statement of intent with Qatar, and indeed we are standing by to do everything possible to support further export opportunities.
The hon. Lady may not have heard, but I mentioned the talent retention system. She is absolutely right: for too long we have not thought about people and their skills and worked out whether there are other opportunities, especially in the region, to ensure that those skills are not lost. That is why we will be deploying the talent retention system that has been developed by my Department with this industry, and looking to see what more can be done.
To allay some of the hon. Lady’s questions about our commitment to shipbuilding, I can tell her that we have published the national shipbuilding strategy. I am told that we will be bringing forward the refresh of the defence industry policy document very shortly.
We need to focus on the people who may be concerned about this, meet them to gain an understanding of their concerns, and see what more can be done, particularly to ensure that those vital skills are not lost to this or other sectors.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The tranche 3 variant of the Typhoon aircraft, especially when equipped with the new electronically scanned radar, will be one of the most capable and effective combat aircraft in the world. The Minister has already mentioned the letter of intent with Qatar for 24 Typhoons, and there are, as she has intimated, a number of other countries around the globe that are still interested in Typhoon, not least Saudi Arabia. Can she assure Members in all parts of the House that, just as the Government gave strong support to the Qatari deal, they will strain every sinew to try to support further Typhoon exports, not least in Saudi Arabia?
Claire Perry
I am nervously rising to answer a question from my right hon. Friend, who knows more about this than many of us will ever know. He is absolutely right: not only have we signed the statement of intent, but only last month the Secretary of State got on a plane to Saudi Arabia to press the case for using these aircraft, not just for the upfront sale but for the thousands of jobs that depend on the long-term upgrade and servicing.
All Members across the House should be supporting these export deals and the jobs that are reliant on them. It was a shame that hon. Members—[Interruption.] Well, they say, “Here we go.” Perhaps they were not listening at conference. It was a shame that the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) used her moment on the Labour party conference podium to attack the Government for strengthening co-operation and the deals that this brings with our key regional ally. Let us get behind this industry, so that we can protect and invest in this technology for the future.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
This morning’s news is deeply worrying for BAE workforces across the UK, and we have only just heard that that includes 15 workers in Fife. Of course, it is not just the 2,000 BAE workers who will be affected but the small and medium-sized enterprises, the supply chains and the communities as well. The SNP offer our sympathy this morning to all those who are affected directly and indirectly by today’s announcement.
This is the latest evidence of the Government failing to deliver on defence programmes, and this is not just about an export industry. This is about undermining skilled jobs, undermining our own defence industry and undermining the defence of the UK as a whole. What are the Government doing to investigate what has gone wrong in BAE?
Skilled workers have been mentioned a number of times. Skilled workers are exactly that—skilled. They cannot easily move from one position to another; extra training is required, so what are the Government doing to assist them? And what has been done to provide guarantees to those who are currently still employed in the sector?
Finally, can the Minister now confirm that future MOD orders will come as a steady drumbeat, and not be plagued by the dithering, delays and indecision that have contributed to today’s announcement?
Claire Perry
I appreciate that point, and of course the hon. Lady is right to speak for those who may be concerned about their job future, but she represents, proudly, I know, a country that has built two of the largest ships the Royal Navy has ever purchased and that has contracts to build eight Type 26 frigates and five offshore patrol vehicles—two decades’ worth of shipbuilding contracts signed by this Government. She refers to a stop-start approach. That is why the strategic defence and security review system has been brought forward. That is why we are absolutely determined to spend taxpayers’ money wisely, and supporting British industry, UK industry, is fundamental to that. I suggest that she has a look at some of those proud ships—the QE2 class—and perhaps she will come back just a little bit more cheerful.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)
As the Member of Parliament for Warton, where final assembly of Hawk and Typhoon takes place and where 750 of the jobs that will be lost are largely located, I urge the Minister to work, as the Government did in 2011, to mitigate job losses. Then a 3,000 headline figure was mitigated to 100 compulsory losses. A similar effort must be put in this time.
Secondly, thank you for the work that the Government are doing on supporting defence exports, particularly to Qatar and Saudi Arabia, with the Prime Minister’s visits to Bahrain and Saudi and the Defence Secretary’s visit to Qatar. Please will the Minister not be put off by siren voices that want us to disengage from the largest export customers for these aircraft?
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend makes the case very powerfully. Of course, at Warton there are some additional benefits from the F-35 contracts being brought forward, but he is absolutely right to say that we must be really focused on these jobs and the uncertainty, but we must also be resolute in pursuing export opportunities for this fine British company.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The Red Arrows renewal programme is well overdue and is entirely in the Government’s gift. If it was renewed, it would save jobs at Brough and the Lancashire plants. Get on with it!
Claire Perry
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s pulses beat a little faster when the Red Arrows come over, as mine do when they fly over my constituency. I hear what he says and will discuss it with Ministers, but will he please work with me and others to ensure that this uncertainty is minimised for those in his constituency?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is somewhat concerning, if not a little peculiar, that those who are standing up, notably representatives of the SNP, to condemn these job losses sing the praises of BAE, quite rightly, yet support a policy of being opposed to all arms sales, notably to Saudi Arabia?
Claire Perry
My right hon. Friend knows that I share her position. I would make the point that these are potential job losses and that we are at the start of the process. There has to be a consultation period. A significant amount of work needs to be done with the unions, the workforce, broader industry and skilled employers right across the affected regions to ensure that we do not lose skills, that we minimise job losses, and that any job losses that do come forward are managed through voluntary redundancy.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
The bottom line is that, had exports gone to plan, these sites would not be in this position. We have heard a lot of commitment in words, but we need to see action from the Government. May I make what I hope is a constructive suggestion? The Minister’s point on participation has been heard and I suggest she does not repeat it now. There are ambassadors all around this House, including on the Labour Benches, who could help in an official position to deliver and to get orders for their workforces in their communities. Will she please consider that?
Claire Perry
I commend the hon. Gentleman, and the people he represents in Barrow, for flying the flag and doing such an amazing job for such a vital British industry. He knows better than anyone else the importance of maintaining those skills. At this point, I think we will all put our shoulders to the wheel and do whatever we can to fly the flag for British exports. I would be delighted to work cross-party to do just that.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
BAE Systems is a vital employer in my constituency. It maintains the Typhoon jets that fly from RAF Coningsby and many of my constituents commute to Brough in Humberside, where BAE Systems provides highly skilled careers and apprenticeships. Sadly, we have heard today that Brough is to lose 400 jobs. In that spirit, I very much hope the Government will work with BAE Systems to ensure opportunities for employees and apprentices at Brough. Can my hon. Friend confirm that the commitment to spend 2% of our budget on defence will continue, and that the Government will continue to support this great British company?
Claire Perry
We will of course spend at least 2% of our national income on the defence budget. We will do all we can by working with the company and other players, in particular through the talent retention system. One crucial point, in response to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), is that we cannot lose these skills from the British workforce. They are vital and they have been acquired over many years. We have to ensure that they are maintained and that the productivity they generate is developed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to sell the Type 31e frigate to the United States? The Secretary of State for Defence has mentioned that that is a possibility. Secondly, will the Minister urge the Secretary of State for International Trade to come to the Chamber to explain what exactly he is doing for BAE?
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is flying the flag relentlessly for all aspects of the British economy, including British ships. I am sure he would be delighted to answer a written question or a letter from the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I spoke to BAE this morning as soon as I heard the news. What support will the Department for Work and Pensions provide to those affected? Will the Government assure me that any support package includes Isle of Wight workers affected at the BAE Cowes plant in my constituency? May I also highlight the importance of the advanced radar programme on the Isle of Wight, both for UK defence and for island jobs?
Claire Perry
The Department for Work and Pensions has a well tried, tested and effective rapid response deployment process to get in and talk to companies and people affected during the consultation process to make sure they are aware of any statutory rights and responsibilities, but also of any opportunities. I understand my hon. Friend’s point about the Isle of Wight and I will make sure it is reflected in any work going forward.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
I am afraid the Minister really does not get it. When the French, the Americans or the Russians pursue a contract, they take a relentless whole-of-government approach. Incidentally, that is how it was under Prime Minister Tony Blair. On behalf of the industry and its skilled workforce, will the Government up their game and secure new contracts, especially with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states?
Claire Perry
The right hon. Gentleman is brave to mention the former Prime Minister’s name. Of course this is a whole-of-government responsibility. [Interruption.] In other countries, leaders of the official Opposition do not stand up in public and criticise exactly the sort of defence deals we are trying to sign, or put at risk the renewal of technologies such as Trident, which are absolutely vital to our technology and knowledge base. I suggest he has a word with the Labour Front Bench and then perhaps we can have more of a conversation.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
BAE’s huge contribution to skills, jobs and exports depends not least on cross-party political support for our exports to foreign Governments. Some on the Opposition Benches absolutely understand that, but the fact of the matter is that the Labour party leadership loses no opportunity to criticise what those of us in the Prime Minister’s trade envoy team are trying to do. Will the Minister confirm that although there will be job losses in some parts of BAE, there have been significant increases in other divisions, for example at least 350 new jobs in its cyber division?
Claire Perry
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that this is a very dynamic business, which has to respond to globally changing conditions. It employs almost 36,000 people right across the UK. He is also absolutely right to point out other opportunities. It is absolutely critical that we back these British businesses, focus on export opportunities and work together. Many of us represent constituencies affected by these sorts of announcements and we all fly the flag for one the most successful companies in the world—BAE Systems. Let us get on and do it.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Our thoughts are with the workforce and their families who have received such devastating news. Let us be clear that the people who build and develop our military platforms are as vital to our national security and sovereign capability as those who operate them. We simply cannot afford to lose their skills. Will the Minister commit to developing a defence aerospace strategy, and to meeting immediately unions and employers across the sector to ensure we are not in this position again and can retain our sovereign capability?
Claire Perry
Like me, I am sure the hon. Lady is very pleased that we now have an industrial strategy that focuses on these vital sectors, putting together sector deals working with unions, employers and government. The offer has been made to all sectors to come forward with deals. As I understand it, the aerospace sector deal is well advanced.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
What actions is the Minister taking to ensure that all the young people who have started apprenticeships with BAE Systems and may be affected will be able to complete them, not only retaining the current skills we have but building the skills base for the future?
Claire Perry
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the vital role of apprentices. I think we are all proud of the fact that we now have over 3 million apprenticeship starts. Until we know—this will become clear through the consultation process—the details of any redundancies and the types of jobs that are being laid off, it is too early to comment, but she raises a very important point and I will take it under consideration.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The job cuts at Warton and Samlesbury are twice what they were in November 2015, so it is not surprising that people in Blackpool and Fylde will be concerned. The supply chain has been mentioned. What specifically will the Minister and the Department do with buyers to ensure apprenticeships in supply chains are also supported, and that the Lancashire local enterprise partnership is given the support and resources it needs to support both BAE and the supply chain?
Claire Perry
We stand by ready to understand any potential impact, once the scale of any job reductions is known, and to support the Lancashire local enterprise partnership and other companies in the area to process, cope and adapt to any changes.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I have constituents who are BAE employees and, even though they are perhaps not directly affected, I know that they will be nervous. May I press the Minister on Ministry of Defence procurement processes? Specifically, will the Department look at work that is currently going out to international competition? I think that that could be avoided and that the work could be held in the UK.
Claire Perry
I refer to my earlier answer about the level of UK Government investment in Scotland, particularly in shipbuilding. We have to look at every procurement decision and understand whether it has the right capabilities for the sorts of conflicts that we ask our armed forces to undertake and what is best value for money for the taxpayer, so it will always be a mix. We should all be proud of the fact that the Government directly spend almost £4 billion a year with BAE Systems and about £18 billion a year with the British industrial sector.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister will win no friends in east Yorkshire by saying that people who might be made redundant from BAE Systems can go and get jobs in the renewables industry at Siemens. We need both sets of jobs in both industries—both, not one—to flourish in our area. I am not convinced at all that the Minister is taking our sovereign capability seriously if these jobs go. That is important to our national security, so what will she do about protecting it?
Claire Perry
The hon. Lady speaks passionately on behalf of her constituents. To put this in context, we are talking about a company that employs around 36,000 people right across the UK. It has to go through—as all companies do—a process to make itself as efficient and effective as possible so that the maximum number of productive jobs can be maintained. The level of engagement of the MOD and Secretaries of State is striking—getting on planes, signing the statement of intent with Qatar and pushing for the Saudi deal. This is what we need to do. She is right to say that we need both sorts of jobs. We need a vibrant, highly productive industrial sector that operates right across the UK, which is why she should welcome the industrial strategy and the work going on in the low-carbon economy.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I worked at the Unite trade union when this country was faced with the steel crisis. This Government had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, from a position where it would take no action to a position where it was willing to take a 25% stake in the industry. We are seeing the exact same thing again. If there was a serious industrial strategy, the Minister would take action and guarantee those jobs for the future of the industry.
Claire Perry
I lead for the Government on the steel industry. Indeed, I am working with the steel sector on its sector deal right now. The steel sector is dependent on the opportunities that come from companies such as BAE Systems being able to invest and thrive in the UK economy. The hon. Gentleman should commit to work with the steel companies’ customers, as we want to do, to ensure that they can offer the maximum market for the products of the vital and critical steel industry.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been a bad week for the defence industry. These job losses come on top of rumours that the Government are scrapping the Royal Navy’s amphibious ship capability, and the threat to the Royal Marines. Does the Minister agree that the Government are presiding over emerging sovereign defence capability gaps, and do something about it?
Claire Perry
I gently say that the hon. Gentleman should focus more on the facts and less on the rumours. We have committed to raising our national spending target to more than 2% of national income. We have undertaken strategic defence and security review programmes that have clearly set out a defence strategy for the future. We have invested in two decades-worth of shipbuilding contracts north of the border. I am always happy to discuss the facts. I suggest he puts down the muck sheets and focuses on the facts.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
The Minister talks about seeing things in perspective, but the perspective is this: the loss of 750 jobs in Lancashire is absolutely devastating for individuals, families, communities and the industry itself. Will she not only work hard with BAE Systems to mitigate these losses, keep them to the lowest possible number and protect as many jobs as possible, but look to protect jobs in the supply chain in constituencies such as mine in Burnley, whose very success and existence relies on BAE Systems thriving?
Claire Perry
As I said, we are keen to work closely with the company as it goes through this process. The offer is there for the hon. Lady and others who have important companies in their constituencies to work together, speaking to workers and the unions to ensure that we minimise the number of job losses and maximise skills retention both in this company and in the supply chain.
Mr Paul J. Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
When I worked at BAE Systems, more than 1,700 of my colleagues across the British shipbuilding industry were made redundant in 2013. At the time, that was predicated on investment to create a world-class industry, but that investment is no longer happening. We see the same across these cuts. Every time it happens, a major plank of British industrial capability is lost, whether it is the ability to build tanks or carry out the final assembly of the F-35 aircraft. We cannot compete in shipbuilding internationally or in submarine manufacturing to the same extent that we could. Will the Government commit to reviewing how they finance capital infrastructure investment in defence and ensure that we are doing this in the best possible way?
Claire Perry
The hon. Gentleman raises the point—I defer to his considerable knowledge of the company—that companies need to be competitive in order to thrive and export, and we are told that that is the reason for today’s announcement. But we are spending £60 billion over the next 10 years on shipbuilding in the UK. That is one of the biggest investments in shipbuilding that I can remember. We are doing what we need to do domestically but, equally, we need to support the export opportunities for these companies right across the world.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The latest announcement of the loss of 400 jobs in Brough will be devastating to communities such as Hull and East Riding. I am sorry, but the response so far reeks of complacency. It is not good enough to say that Siemens have created jobs in Hull so that workers from Brough can find jobs elsewhere. We want more jobs, not fewer. So here is a simple question for the Minister: will she choose to save jobs by bringing forward the order for Hawks for the Red Arrows, or will she choose to see 400 jobs go?
Claire Perry
The hon. Lady should be incredibly proud of the fact that one of the highest rates of jobs creation has been in Yorkshire and the north-east. We have to support our industries, which we do through our procurement strategy and our support for exports. I was told that in the recent years to 2015, the county of Yorkshire created more jobs than the whole of France. We should be celebrating that success.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
In order to be competitive, we have to retain the skills that it looks like we are going to lose, but things are going in the wrong direction. Has the Minister seen the estimates from Unite that suggest that 25% of our defence expenditure by 2020 will be in the United States alone? Are we not missing a defence industrial strategy that will stem that, so that we are paying people for skilled jobs, not to be unemployed?
Claire Perry
I am happy to look at the sums, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that we have to ensure that we are buying the technology we need from the best places across the world when we are supporting our future defence capabilities. We are continuing to invest in and support this vital sector. He will be pleased to know that we are working closely with Unite and other unions where we are producing industrial strategy sector deals. The role and commitment of the workers that—particularly in the steel industry—has been vital in getting us to where we are cannot be underestimated. That is why the door is open for consultations and conversations with workers, the unions and colleagues from across the House.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Some 750 of these potential job losses are in Lancashire, which rightly worries many of my constituents who work there. The loss of these highly skilled and well-paid jobs will have a devastating impact on the Lancashire economy. Will the Minister tell us more about what conversations she is having with the local enterprise partnership in Lancashire, what resources and support we can have in the area, and what conversations she is having with the Department for Work and Pensions about the potential job losses and the devastating impact on my constituents?
Claire Perry
We are right at the start of the process. Indeed, the company was not supposed to make the announcement until tomorrow, as I understand it. We want to have those conversations with the LEP and other employers with the aim of minimising the number of potential job reductions made by the company and maximising the redeployment of those people who have acquired such valuable skills over their time of work.
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
Those of us with constituents who work in the supply chain for BAE Systems, as well as those who have constituents directly employed by the company, are disappointed to hear the Minister’s statement because she talked about managing decline. The Opposition want to see proper investment in the skills we need and in defence industrial strategy so that we do not have to buy technologies from abroad. We need the Government to bring forward orders in order to protect jobs. They can do that now. Why is the Minister not doing that?
Claire Perry
This is not about managing decline. We have a record number of people in work and have committed more than 2% of our national income to national defence. [Interruption.] And we have more than 2 million apprentices, I am told. The hon. Lady will understand that businesses and companies evolve and grow and invest in different technologies. The procurement of the F-35 fighter has brought forward jobs for BAE Systems. I appreciate her passion, but if she wants to stand on the platform of a party that wants to support exports in this vital sector, she needs to come across to the Government’s side of the House.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Minister has made a great deal of what was said at the Labour party conference, but what impact will these job losses have on making this a country that works for everyone, and how will it help my constituents to live the British dream?
Claire Perry
I commend the hon. Lady for doing her homework. As the company goes through its normal business processes, we all have to stand by ready to do whatever we can through the consultation process to ensure that the minimum number of people lose their jobs and the maximum number, with those vital skills, find other opportunities. The whole Government stand by ready to do that. Looking ahead, I call that maximising the British dream.
Point of Order
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, following the Prime Minister’s statement, the Leader of the Opposition, quite properly and rightly, sat through the entirety of the exchanges, as is the custom of the House. It did not go unnoticed, however, that the official spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), left early. Given that we are about to have a couple more statements, could you rule on whether it is appropriate for official spokespeople on the Opposition Benches to stay for the entirety of the exchanges on a statement, rather than beetling out just after they have made their contribution?
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The position is extremely clear—at least it has always been so—but I am happy to take this opportunity to reiterate it. If the representative of a party speaks for that party as a spokesperson, he or she remains in the Chamber for the remainder of the exchanges—no ifs, no buts. The only circumstances in which I would regard it as excusable to leave—and in those circumstances, the person would make a request—would be if they were suddenly indisposed. It is not acceptable for somebody to leave the Chamber because he or she has finished and thinks, “I have other commitments; I need to go somewhere else.”
I do not mind telling the hon. Gentleman that I was asked yesterday “would it be all right if” the Member left to attend to commitments elsewhere, and my answer was no. Let me say in terms that brook of no contradiction that I do not expect official spokespersons or their representatives to come to the Chair and seek to engage in protracted conversations or attempted negotiations on that matter. I say to the SNP Chief Whip in terms unmistakable that it is a rank discourtesy for a Front-Bench spokesperson to speak and then leave apparently on the grounds of being very busy, having many commitments, having a very full diary or having to be somewhere else. No, that is not acceptable.
As the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said very fairly, the Leader of the Opposition sat in his place throughout the exchanges, as he always does and as his predecessors have always done, and that has always been the established practice in the House. If a Member has made commitments to be elsewhere that will cause him or her to have to leave early, the answer is that those commitments should not have been made and should be cancelled. If a Member thinks that he or she would like subsequently to be somewhere else, the answer is very simple: put someone else up to speak on the statement, but do not speak and then leave. Not only is it in defiance of parliamentary convention, but it is rude to other colleagues. I should not have to make that point in respect of a party leader. It is so blindingly obvious I should have thought that everybody would have grasped it in any case.
I think that that is pretty clear and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Shipley.
Race Disparity Audit
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Secretary of State and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Damian Green)
I rise—with some trepidation, Mr Speaker—to make a statement about the race disparity audit, which the Government are publishing today through a new website, Ethnicity Facts and Figures, and a summary report, which I have ordered to be placed in the Library of the House.
The audit was announced just over a year ago by the Prime Minister as part of her commitment to tackling injustices in society. This exercise has been unprecedented in scale, scope and transparency. It covers detailed data on around 130 different topics from 12 Departments. The first product of the audit is the website, which has been created to be used by all citizens. It has been developed through extensive engagement with members of the public from across the UK, public service workers, non-governmental organisations and academics. I hope that hon. Members will agree, once they have had the chance to examine it, that the website is clear and user-friendly. Each section of the website includes simple headlines and charts, and allows users to download all the underlying data.
Although the past few decades have witnessed great leaps forward in equality and opportunity in British society, the audit shows that there is much more still to do if we are to end racial injustice. In itself, that will sound to hon. Members like an unsurprising conclusion, but the audit adds a lot more clarity and depth to that single challenge. It tells us in which public services there are the largest disparities and whether those are increasing over time or diminishing, and about the influence of poverty and gender on the wider picture. For example, black people were over three times more likely than white people to be arrested and more than six times more likely to be stopped and searched.
Three issues demonstrate the added complexity of the data. First, there are significant differences in how ethnic minorities are doing in different parts of the country. For example, while employment rates are generally higher for white people than for ethnic minorities, there is a larger gap in the north than in the south. Also, if people are expecting a report that is relentlessly negative about the situation for ethnic minorities in Britain today, I am pleased to say that it is simply not the case that ethnic minorities universally have worse outcomes. For example, people of Indian and Pakistani origin have similar levels of home ownership to white people, although that is not true of other ethnic minorities.
Secondly, on some measures there are very significant differences between ethnic minority groups. Education attainment data show that there are disparities in primary school that increase in secondary school, with Asian pupils tending to perform well and white and black pupils doing less well, particularly those eligible for free school meals. Finally, on other measures, it is white British people who experience the worst outcomes, such as in relation to self-harm and suicide in custody, or smoking among teenagers.
In terms of what happens next, the data set out on the website present a huge challenge not just to Government but to business, public services and wider society. We hope that the website will not only contribute to a better informed public debate about ethnicity in the UK, but support local managers of public services to ask how they compare to other services.
On behalf of the Government, I have committed to maintaining and extending the Ethnicity Facts and Figures website. More importantly, I commit that the Government will take action with partners to address the ethnic disparities highlighted by the audit. We have made a start through initiatives such as the action taken by the Department for Work and Pensions in 20 targeted hotspots. Measures in those areas will include mentoring schemes to help those in ethnic minorities into work and traineeships for 16 to 24-year-olds, offering English, maths and vocational training alongside work placements.
On the criminal justice system, I want to thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his recent report. I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Justice will be taking forward a number of the recommendations in his review. These will include developing performance indicators for prisons to assess the equality of outcomes for prisoners of all ethnicities, committing to publishing all criminal justice datasets held on ethnicity by default, and working to ensure that our prison workforce is more representative of the country as a whole. In addition, the Department for Education will carry out an external review to improve practice on exclusions. It will share best practice nationwide and focus on the experiences of the groups that are disproportionately likely to be excluded. The House can expect further announcements on future Government work to follow in the coming months.
The approach that the Government are taking is “explain or change”. When significant disparities between ethnic groups cannot be explained by wider factors, we will commit ourselves to working with partners to change them.
The race disparity audit provides an unprecedented degree of transparency in reflecting the way in which ethnicity affects the experiences of citizens. It is a resource that will tell us how well we are doing as a society in ensuring that all can thrive and prosper, and I commend it to the House.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I thank the First Secretary of State for early sight of his statement.
There is value in putting all the data together in one portal, but what matters most is what the Government are going to do about the problems that have been identified. For some years, the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust have been looking at some of the burning issues, including the impact of austerity on black and minority ethnic women in the United Kingdom.
The real uncomfortable truth is that the Prime Minister cannot pretend she did not know that there were in-built structural injustices before 2010, because she wrote to the then Prime Minister about “real risks” that
“women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people will be disproportionately hit by cuts”.
Our Prime Minister, knowing full well the damage that would be caused by Conservative cuts, has done nothing but exacerbate the problems. Far from tackling burning injustices, she has added fuel to the fire. We need solutions and a sustained effort to tackle those burning injustices, because talking shops just will not cut it. Mentoring schemes are good, but they are not nearly ambitious enough. The closure of Sure Start centres has contributed to the poor start of many young children, and the closure of Connexions, which was a valuable tool for young people, was also a mistake.
The Prime Minister has said that if these disparities cannot be explained they must be changed, so let me ask the Minister some questions. Will he explain or change the Government’s policy of rolling out universal credit, which has caused some people to lose their homes and has caused vulnerable people to plummet into debt? Will he explain or change their policy on the public sector workers’ pay cap, which has disproportionately affected women and people from diverse communities? Will he explain or change their policies on personal independence payments, which have resulted in the statement by a United Nations panel that the UK has failed to uphold disabled people’s rights? [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like to hear this, but it is important if we are to tackle the burning injustices that exist in our country.
Will the Minister explain or change the Government’s policies on tuition fees, which have crippled the life chances of young people? Will he explain or change the delay in the increase in the minimum wage, which the Government have renamed the living wage? Will he explain or change the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the house-building programme, the Access to Work policy, or the Trade Union Act 2016? There are so many policies that the Government need to explain or change.
We cannot ignore the fact that the actions of this Government have contributed to the burning injustices in our country. They have failed to understand the value of equality impact assessments, which the last Prime Minister described as “red tape”. Britain is at its best when everyone has the opportunity to succeed—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) says, “What are you going to do about it?” Let me tell him. Labour issued a manifesto to tackle problems of discrimination. Its policy proposals included the introduction of equal pay requirements for large employers; the launching of an inquiry into name-based discrimination; the implementation of the Parker review recommendations; the enhancement of the powers and functions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has been subject to Government cuts; and the boosting of income through the introduction of a real living wage—to name just a few.
There are other possible solutions to the problem, some of which must come from the Minister’s own side. The Government should reintroduce race equality audits and impact assessments, independently assess the Treasury, introduce “blind” sentencing in the criminal justice system, and implement their responsibilities under the public sector equalities duty.
What we need is a Government who are not afraid to act on uncomfortable truths, and Labour is that Government in waiting. History has shown that positive change only happens under a Labour Government, and we are ready once again to deliver a fair and more equal society for the many and not the few.
Damian Green
I am puzzled by the disparity between the Labour party’s response to the audit and that of the stakeholders who actually work in the sector. I came to the House today from a roundtable at No. 10 that was chaired by the Prime Minister and attended by about 12 of the principal non-governmental organisations that have worked for many years to improve the lives of ethnic minority people in this country. They are universally positive about this, unlike the Labour party—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) says that was not what they told her, but I have quotations from them here. Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote has said:
“The findings from the Race Disparity Audit present us with a real opportunity to make transformative change in tackling persistent race inequality”—
[Hon. Members: “What are the Government going to do?”] He actually went on to say:
“Yes, some findings make uncomfortable reading, but unless these things are laid bare we can’t begin to resolve them.”
After 13 years of a Labour Government trying to hide the facts, we now have a Government who are ready to expose them and to do something about them.
Jeremy Crook of the Black Training and Enterprise Group—apparently it has also been ignored by the Labour party—says:
“The data can support local communities to have conversations with local public bodies about ensuring that no ethnic group gets left behind in education or health or any other area of public life.”
The people who actually know what they are talking about welcome the audit, and welcome what the Government are doing. The people who do not are members of the Labour party who live in their own world.
The hon. Member for Brent Central appeared to take the general view that in all areas problems for people from ethnic minorities were getting worse. I appreciate that the website has been live for only about an hour, so she will not yet have had time to investigate all 130 datasets, but when she does, she will find a point that is much more nuanced than those that she has made. There are some problems, and some things are getting worse, but some things are getting better. The difference between the general employment rate and the rate among all ethnic minorities decreased from 15 to 10 percentage points between 2004 and 2016. Since 2004, employment rates have increased among all ethnic groups. The inactivity rate among Pakistani and Bangladeshi people, who have often had the worst unemployment rates, has fallen by 10%—[Interruption.]
I would hope that Labour Members, rather than laughing from the Front Bench, might welcome the fact that some of our most disadvantaged communities are doing better than they ever have before in this country. The Labour party seems to think that that is something to laugh about.
The hon. Lady referred to universities and tuition fees. I remind her that more disadvantaged people are applying for university places and going to university than ever before, and more people from black and minority ethnic communities are applying than ever before. Labour Members have a view of the world in which people are permanent victims, but that is not what this audit shows. Their lack of transparency, and their lack of ability to welcome a step by the Government that is welcomed by all experts in the field, reflects very badly on their party.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and the Prime Minister for her commitment to tackling the injustice that is race discrimination. When will the Government bring forward plans across Government to ensure that it is clear what every single Department is doing to tackle these inequities, and particularly to separate economic disadvantage from race discrimination, because at the moment the figures blur together?
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend makes a good point, because we of course need to determine the real causes of disadvantage, as I have said. Sometimes they are based on ethnicity, and sometimes on other factors. That is precisely why, in addition to the individual measures that I have announced today for three Government Departments, other Departments will be making policy proposals in the months and years ahead to address the various disadvantages, and they can now, for the first time, be based on publicly available facts and figures. That is the great advantage of the step forward that we have taken today, because we now have transparency. We will have much better evidence to ensure that the policies we bring forward to tackle disadvantage will be effective.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I thank the First Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. None of this comes as a surprise to any of us. A lot of work has been done over the years, including by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). Although we would welcome any new, user-friendly website, it really should not have been the centrepiece of today’s statement. I very much hope that the Government will be able to take effective and robust action. Given that Departments are carrying out their own pilots in the reviews, it is important that we have a holistic, multifaceted and co-ordinated response. Therefore, when will the Government come to the Chamber with a statement setting out how Departments will go forward with a joint solution for this problem?
Damian Green
That question is slightly similar to the previous one I answered from my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). When the hon. Gentleman reads the audit, he will find that, rather than having a one-size-fits-all solution, it is precisely the value of the data we now have that will enable us to take specific action in a number of different areas.
Damian Green
I have announced some of the action today. I am sorry that the shadow Foreign Secretary was not listening to the statement I made all of five minutes ago, when I announced three separate pieces of action. There will be action from other Government Departments as we develop the policy response to the evidence.
Let me make one final point to the Scottish National party’s spokesman. I would encourage him to encourage his colleagues in the Scottish Government to take part in this process, because so far we have found it quite difficult to get the equivalent information for some areas in Scotland that are completely devolved. Facts and figures on reserved matters in Scotland, where they are available to the UK Government, are included in the audit, but at the moment there are no devolved facts and figures, and I genuinely think that it would help people in Scotland if those could be added to the audit figures.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The review by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) did not actually include much hard evidence of discrimination. For example, despite setting out with the assumption that black people are more likely to be found guilty by juries, it concluded:
“Juries are a success story of our justice system. Rigorous analysis shows that, on average, juries—including all-white juries—do not deliver different results for BAME and White defendants.”
Will the Minister therefore ensure that success stories are also highlighted, that any actions taken are based on evidence, and evidence alone, and that we do not have solutions looking for problems?
Damian Green
I am delighted to have the opportunity to agree entirely with my hon. Friend—that might be regarded as a rare treat. He is exactly right; the report by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was very fair in pointing out the great successes in the criminal justice system as well as the problems, some of the answers to which I have announced today, and my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor will follow up on those. Across the board in this area there are indeed some successes, as I set out in response to the Opposition spokesperson. In some areas there are clearly endemic problems that have been going on for a long time, and action needs to be taken by society across the board—by central and local government, by businesses and by arm’s length bodies. We are not desperately searching for problems for our solutions. We will bring forward solutions only for those problems that we know exist.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I thank the First Secretary of State for the information that he has given the House today about the audit, but it does not answer the probing questions that the data throw up. Why are ethnic minorities still disadvantaged in access to public services, what are the Government going to do about it now that the audit has revealed the extent of the problem, and why have they left out religious discrimination, such as that against Muslims, Jews, Christians, Sikhs and others?
Damian Green
The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s last question is that it is a matter of what we record in our official information. When he looks at the audit, he will see that all the data sets contain a different level of detail. The question of religious discrimination simply cannot be included in an audit of this type, because we have never collected that kind of information. For example, we do not necessarily ask someone what their religion is when they go to the jobcentre, and I suspect that many people would find being asked for too much information intrusive, so we have to work with the material we have. With regard to disadvantage, he will have heard me announce the three Departments’ policy responses today—there are others that I have not announced, from the Home Office and others. He can rest assured that where the audit identifies problems, central and local government will respond to them across the board.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister and the Government on undertaking this broad-ranging audit, which is long overdue. We know what the problem is, and we know what needs to be done to address it. However, given the huge scope of the audit, will the First Secretary of State inform the House what is proposed to ensure that there is consistency and a high level of monitoring across the huge breadth of areas covered?
Damian Green
That is a very good point. There are clearly different problems in different areas, which is precisely why, in addition to individual actions by Departments, there is an inter-ministerial group, which will allow every Department to find out what the others are doing and ensure that it is responding as it should to the individual problems assessed in their area. Of course, the audit is not a one-off event, because the figures will be added to continually so that new policy responses can be made to new problems as they emerge. It will be a living document.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Let us give credit where it is due, because this data set is important. I welcome the Government’s commitment to the transparency that will help to shine a light on the structural racism that still exists in UK society. May I offer the First Secretary of State some advice based on painful experience? The Conservative side of the coalition Government spent five years insisting that we try to get employers to do gender pay gap reporting on a voluntary basis, until my Lib Dem colleagues and I finally won the battle for mandatory reporting in March 2015. We must not now waste five years in the same way, so will he now commit to introducing mandatory race pay gap reporting?
Damian Green
As the hon. Lady will know from her time in government—it was a pleasure to serve with her—we are unlikely at this stage to leap to such long-term commitments on the basis of information that we have only just gathered. However, she makes a fair point. The underlying point is that this is an issue not only for central Government, but for the private sector. I know that many private sector organisations, some of which were represented at the roundtable event held at Downing Street this morning, are anxious to follow up a lot of the work on trying to reduce the gender pay gap and to address pay gaps among people from different ethnic backgrounds as well.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I applaud the Government’s efforts, because this is the first such audit to be carried out. As chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on Pakistan and on communities engagement, I have consistently raised with the previous and current Prime Ministers the matter of the British Pakistani community falling behind on educational attainment, employment and wages. What will the Government’s strategy be to address that? Will there be effective community engagement so that the answers come from the bottom up?
Damian Green
Absolutely. My hon. Friend has a long and honourable record of campaigning in this area. The employment response from the Department for Work and Pensions will be targeted at specific areas, and 20 hotspots where the most difference can be made will be identified. I obviously cannot commit today to saying what those 20 will be, but I would be surprised if the impact was not deliberately designed to help the areas in which those communities tend to live, where the unemployment rate is not as good as it is on average.
Fiona Onasanya (Peterborough) (Lab)
I am slightly confused, so will the Government confirm something for me? Lots of information has been provided, but some of the data collated were already in place and the Government have not specifically told us what they are going to do about that data. A couple of problems have been identified, but talking about mentoring schemes is not the sole answer to those problems.
Damian Green
We have identified 130 different data sets, and coming up with 130 different policy responses in one statement might be a bit much. More seriously, much of the information is new—20 of the data sets are completely new—and it seems sensible to consider the evidence, work out what the best policy response is and then do the policy, not the other way around, which is how the Labour party seems to want to do things.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
What a load of sententious, vacuous guff. Honestly, the Secretary of State should be ashamed. Has he just taken over the department for circumlocution and the office of how not to do anything while pretending to do something? The honest truth is that unless serious analytical work is done to check whether the statistics are a matter of correlation or causation, there is no value to this work whatsoever. Mrs Thatcher fell at the same time as Marathons were changed to Snickers, but I am not aware that there was any causal relationship between the two.
Damian Green
Behind the hon. Gentleman’s characteristic bombast is a serious point. He says that correlation is not the same as causation, so would he like to have a word with his Front-Bench team, who are demanding that all the policy responses should come now before we have done the analysis that he sensibly asks for? We are doing things the sensible way. Not only do his Front-Bench team have no polices, they appear to want policies before they have looked at the evidence. That would be the worst way to go about things. I appreciate that, in all sincerity, he believes that his Front-Bench team are as bad as I believe they are.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The House is in a very excitable condition. I gently point out to the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that she would wish to be viewed across the country and around the globe as an aspiring stateswoman, and I think her demeanour ought to reflect her ambition.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I am sorry that the shadow Front-Bench team find this issue so amusing. As someone who grew up in a deprived working class area—more girls in my school went to prison than to university—I take this issue very seriously. While I welcome the audit, the fact that it focuses on race, not the common issues that all communities face of broken families, poverty and getting into work, means that it misses some things. I point the Secretary of State in the direction of “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”, which has been produced by Conservative Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), and addresses some of those issues in more detail.
Damian Green
I know the valuable document to which my hon. Friend refers. I recommend that she read the audit carefully, because she will find that it reveals the huge differences between areas that look similar demographically or in their ethnic makeup. Anyone who reads the findings carefully and sensibly will realise that some policy prescriptions may not be based on ethnicity and may need to be based on the other factors she mentioned. The sensible way for any Government to proceed—certainly the way that this Government will proceed—will be to look at the evidence and then devise the policy.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
What other reports on race have been incorporated into the race audit data? Why have Sikhs, who are recognised as a separate ethnic group in legislation, been excluded from the audit? Will he put that right by ensuring that Sikhs are not further discriminated against and that the 2021 census will include a Sikh ethnic tick box?
Damian Green
I can only reply to the hon. Lady with what I said to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). Religion is not routinely collected in many of the 130 data sets, so it would be impossible to include. It is not a question of excluding any particular group. Many of the data sets have existed for decades, and we as a society have to decide over time how much personal information we want to collect and publish on every individual in this country. It is sometimes helpful to collect such information, because it helps public policy making, but people sometimes regard it as intrusive. Our view on that may change over time, and we can always have discussions in this House about what level of personal information we want to give to Governments and then have Governments publish, so that might be a way to aid public policy making, and I am happy to discuss that with her.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Having attended a failing school in your constituency, Mr Speaker —albeit before your time—and then having spent five years in a formerly failing school in west London, I have a real passion for what can be achieved through education if we have these race disparity audits. Indeed, that is exactly what happened to transform a west London school’s five A to C GCSE grade rate from 9% to 60%. In addition to sharing my distaste for the appalling behaviour of the Opposition, I ask Ministers to take the data and learn about the best practice in institutions so that it can be rolled out and applied nationally.
Damian Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important point. Action that is taken at a local level—perhaps in an individual school—can be transformative for the lives of thousands of people. The audit will enable us to identify the areas with problems in a more fine-grain way than ever before, so that we can deal with those problems, whether they relate to education, employment and training or policing, in the areas where that action can have most effect. That will be how we can make the most beneficial difference to most people’s lives.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I thank the First Secretary of State for his statement. For some considerable time, black and white British boys in receipt of free school meals have had some of the lowest levels of educational achievement across the United Kingdom, and that is also the case in Northern Ireland. I welcome this initiative, but the data will be of value only if the analysis is mainstreamed into policy making in Departments. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that that happens?
Damian Green
Much good work has been done in Northern Ireland in that field, and we will continue to spread best practice and learn from where we have had successes. Making that part of mainstream policy making is one of way of doing that. The hon. Lady mentioned educational attainment, and it will be interesting to see the evidence from free schools in the years ahead. I suspect that they will be shown to do particularly well by pupils with various forms of disadvantage, but we will develop the evidence over time and we will base our policy on evidence—[Interruption.] I can tell from the noise level that the Labour party has already come to a view about free schools without any evidence. That is typical of why their policy making is always so bad—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Calm. My advice in particular is tendered for the benefit of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant).
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman witters from a sedentary position that he is very quiet. I think the answer to that is that it is all relative.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
May I remind the First Secretary of State that it was the previous Labour Government who led an inquiry into the Stephen Lawrence murder and, following that, introduced the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 and the Equalities Act 2010, which require monitoring, and that this Government have neglected much of that? I welcome this audit, but ask the Minister please, for the love of God, to focus on the structural inequalities—that is, child poverty, which will hit 4 million by 2020, and the cuts to further education and to education maintenance allowances. Those interventions and cuts to those provisions are making it worse for ethnic minorities and white working-class communities. If the Government are serious, we need to stop just doing research and evidence gathering. That is important, but it is not good enough if it is not followed by action.
Damian Green
The hon. Lady is right that one should get the evidence and then take action. I discover from those on her Front Bench that they prefer to take action blind without looking at the evidence first. One fact that we can jointly celebrate is that among the places where educational attainment has gone up significantly for all groups is her area. That shows that there can be improvements in areas that people once wrote off, which should never happen in any part of this country. I can tell the hon. Lady that this Government will not allow that to happen.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
This morning the Communities and Local Government Secretary highlighted that some Pakistani and Bangladeshi women do not have English. May I suggest that one reason for that is that the Government have cut English for speakers of other languages funding by 60%? Will the Minister commit to change that and reverse the cuts so that everybody can reach their potential?
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government was quite right to point out that one of the biggest things holding people back is their not being allowed to speak the language of the country. That is why we spent £100 million last year on teaching English to ensure that more people than ever before can have access to it and play a full role in mainstream society.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
In light of the audit today, will the Government commit to implementing their statutory equality impact assessment on some of their policies and, more specifically, on some social security policies, such as universal credit and the personal independence payment?
Damian Green
I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that every policy has the equality impact assessment applied to it.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The First Secretary will recognise that disparity effectively begins at birth, and one thing we do know is that in Greater Manchester, for example, four in 10 children are not ready for school when they go there. In a town such as Rochdale, that rises to a considerably higher figure among the Pakistani, Kashmiri and Bangladeshi communities and in the poor white community. Will the report make any real financial difference to investment in that early years education?
Damian Green
I have not had a chance to welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House; the last time I met him he was a police and crime commissioner, and PCCs have a key role to play in making this audit practical. I suggest he looks at it, because one fascinating thing I found when I looked at the audit before it was publicly available is the precise level of analysis that can be done of individual communities. He will be able to see that certain similar communities require different solutions. Different problems are at different levels in neighbouring towns that otherwise look very similar. I have looked at a lot of the towns in the north-west in and around Manchester and I can only suggest that he has a look at the evidence. He will find that there will be different policy prescriptions for what would otherwise be similar towns.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I welcome the focus in the audit on educational attainment and many Members have already spoken about the subject. That shows how stubbornly the gap persists between pupil premium children and others. If the Government are serious about addressing this burning injustice, should they not allocate the money to schools to tackle the problem rather than forcing them to make damaging cuts, which the poorest families are least able to mitigate?
Damian Green
I say to the hon. Lady that the schools budget is of course protected and, secondly, that the simple prescription that more money means better public policy was exploded many years ago. She can see that through the different performances of schools in different areas and the differences between individual schools. There is certainly a problem in raising educational attainment and that is why I am very proud that over the past seven years we have had 1.8 million more children attending good or excellent schools than we had in 2010.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Like others, I welcome this audit, but I am not sure that we needed an audit to tell us of the deep rooted injustices and discriminations in many of our institutions. I have a specific question about charges brought under joint enterprise. Is the Minister aware of research from Manchester Metropolitan University that found huge disparities in the number of people in prison under joint enterprise and how those prosecutions are brought?
More than three quarters of those in prison for joint enterprise found that gang narrative and neighbourhood narrative were used in their prosecution if they were from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, compared with less than 40% for those from white backgrounds. I had a recent case in Moss Side that found exactly that: the young black men who were facing these charges found that they relied heavily on a neighbourhood narrative about Moss Side. It is no wonder that people from places such as Moss Side feel that the criminal justice system works against them, not for them. What will the Minister do about it?
Damian Green
I was not aware of that report, but it is clearly centrally important to the sort of evidence that the audit will produce. The hon. Lady will be able to see from the audit at a local level whether the criminal justice system is working in a discriminatory way. I will speak to the Lord Chancellor and the Prisons Minister about the specific points that she raises.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Let me turn to the issue of evidence collection as regards schools. Following the Macpherson report, there was a requirement that all schools had to report racially motivated incidents in school to their local authority. In 2010, that requirement was dropped, so there is now no information coming from academies or free schools, no local statistics and no national statistics on racist incidents in schools. Today, the Institute for Public Policy Research has shown that the figures on exclusions probably under-represent the true position—the figure could be five times as high—mainly because academies are dressing up exclusions under other names. Is it not about time that the Government revisited these issues and gave proper powers and oversight to local authorities so that we can get a true understanding of what is happening in both these areas.
Damian Green
The hon. Gentleman has great expertise in the area of local Government and I am happy to tell him that one policy change that has already come about as a result of the audit is an external review of exclusions to deal with precisely the sort of issue that he has just raised.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Last year, at Cabinet Office questions on 2 November the then Cabinet Office Minister, Ben Gummer, told me that in preparing this audit the Government would apply the 2011 census classifications, which, for example, enable us to identify Gypsies and Travellers in the statistics. I note from the report that it is not yet the case that all Departments are adopting the 2011 census classifications. Will the First Secretary tell us today whether the intention is to require Departments as well as other Government agencies and bodies to apply those definitions?
Damian Green
We are certainly working towards that. Some of the problem is that the information in the audit is not all collected by central Government. The audit contains quite a lot of information concerning Travellers, and some of the educational attainment information revealed for Traveller children, in particular, is especially worrying. I take the hon. Lady’s point and we are seeking, as I have said in answer to other questions, to be as transparent as possible with the information we can collect. We will continue to move down that road.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
There is quite a lot of evidence in the audit that Gypsies and Travellers are one of the most discriminated against disadvantaged groups. I sat through and took part in last night’s debate, during which a succession of the First Secretary’s colleagues simply wanted to talk about planning enforcement matters. If he actually wants this audit to have an effect, perhaps he could start by explaining things to his colleagues and changing their attitudes to some of these issues.
Damian Green
I am not sure there was a question in that, but I take what the hon. Gentleman said in the spirit in which I know he meant it. His remarks will have been heard.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Will the First Secretary address in a bit more detail the serious issue, highlighted by the audit, of educational underachievement among white working-class children? In particular, will he address the fact that only 32% of white children on free school meals reach their expected level of attainment at key stage 2 and that white working-class children from poorer backgrounds are the least likely to go to university? Are we not dealing with a cycle of deprivation that spans the generations? The challenge is not, as he said it is, to “explain or change”—it is to explain and change. May I put it to him that tackling those cycles of deprivation is not helped—rather, it is the reverse—by cuts to Sure Start and early years provision?
Damian Green
In that case, I think many of us would agree on the “explanation”. At the root of a lot of the educational reforms introduced in recent years is improving the attainment in schools containing the sorts of pupils the hon. Gentleman referred to, so that they get a fair chance in life. That is what the whole of this is about and we will continue that approach. I have already said that we have far more children going to good or excellent schools than was the case five years ago and we have more children from disadvantaged background going to university than ever before, but there is always more to be done in this area. This audit gives us some of the tools to enable us to do it in a more precise way. That will be the long-term benefit of this audit.
Bombardier
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on Bombardier, updating the House on the trade dispute brought by Boeing against that company. The case has serious implications for the workers at Bombardier Aerostructures & Engineering Services—Short Brothers—in Belfast, where the wings for the C Series aircraft are manufactured.
Following a complaint by Boeing, the US Department of Commerce has made two provisional determinations in the case, calculating duties of 220% in relation to alleged subsidies for Bombardier and of nearly 80% in relation to alleged mis-selling by Bombardier into the US market. These initial determinations are bitterly disappointing, but they are only the first step in the process: a final ruling in the investigation is due in February and would be subject to further appeal, were this to be upheld. This Government have been working tirelessly to bring the case to a satisfactory resolution and we will continue to do so.
In filing the petition, Boeing asserted three claims: first, that without Canadian and UK Government subsidies Bombardier would have been unable to develop the C Series; secondly, that Bombardier is selling at or below production cost its C Series aircraft in the US; and thirdly, as a result, that this is causing the threat of imminent material injury to the US domestic aerospace industry. This action followed Bombardier securing an order from Delta Airlines for 75 aircraft.
The Boeing petition makes allegations about funding support from the Canadian federal Government and the Government of the Province of Quebec for the C Series. It also alleges that the UK’s provision of £113 million of repayable launch investment funding, committed to Bombardier Short Brothers in 2009 to support the development of the composite wings, contravened trade rules. We strongly and robustly refute that allegation.
I want to make the Government’s position very clear: we consider this action by Boeing to be totally unjustified and unwarranted and incompatible with the conduct we would expect of a company with a long-term business relationship with the United Kingdom. Boeing does not manufacture a competing aircraft, so although Boeing claims harm in respect of the Delta aircraft order, it actually has no product in the 100 to 125-seat sector. Furthermore, this system of launch investment for the development of new aircraft reflects that of all major commercial aircraft programmes in their early years, including the Boeing 787. We refute entirely any suggestion that our support contravenes international rules.
The Shorts factory in Belfast employs more than 4,200 excellent skilled workers, with almost a quarter of those working on the C Series. It also supports a supply chain of hundreds of companies and many more jobs across the UK, as well as supporting nearly 23,000 workers in the United States of America, where 53% of the content of the C Series is produced by US-based companies. We will continue to work tirelessly to safeguard jobs, innovation and livelihoods in Northern Ireland.
From the outset, as is obvious, this has been a dispute that joins Canada and the UK, and we have been assiduous in working closely with the Government of Canada in our response. The Prime Minister has discussed the case with Prime Minister Trudeau, and I have been in regular contact with Canadian Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, to co-ordinate our response and actions. We have had intensive engagement from across government at the highest levels. The Prime Minister has discussed the matter twice with President Trump, stressing the crucial importance of Bombardier’s operations in Belfast and asking the US Government to do all they can to encourage Boeing to drop its complaint. My Cabinet colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Trade Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary, and I have reinforced our serious concerns with, among others, the US Secretary of Commerce, the US Secretary of State, the US Treasury Secretary, the US Trade Representative and other members of the Administration, as well as, on this side of the Atlantic, the EU Trade Commissioner. My colleague the Minister for Energy and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), has met Boeing International’s president, and I travelled to Chicago to meet Boeing’s president and chief executive to make absolutely clear the impact of these actions on the future relationship with the United Kingdom.
I am grateful for the consistent and indefatigable efforts of the constituency Member, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), and indeed the whole community in Northern Ireland who are united in opposition to this action. We will continue vigorously and robustly to defend UK interests in support of Bombardier, its workforce in Belfast and those in its UK supply chain. We will continue to work jointly and collectively with the Canadian Government. We will work closely with Bombardier, its workforce and its trade unions, and we will do everything we can to bring about a credible, early resolution of this totally unjustified case. As I said, the initial determinations are the first step in the process, but we completely understand the worry and uncertainty facing the workforce, which means that the earlier this issue can be resolved, the better. To that end, I expect to have further discussions with Boeing, Bombardier, the Canadian Government and the US Government in the days ahead. The House should be aware that neither this Government nor our counterpart in Canada will rest until this groundless action is ended. I commend this statement to the House.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Following a complaint by Boeing, on 26 September the US Department of Commerce ruled that Bombardier had benefited from state subsidies and imposed a 219% tariff, and on 6 October it found engagement in below-cost selling and imposed an additional tariff of 80%. This decision has catastrophic ramifications for Bombardier, the 4,000 staff it employs directly in Northern Ireland and the 20,000 staff employed throughout the UK in supply chains. Not only does this jeopardise the livelihoods of thousands, but the Northern Irish economy also faces a serious threat, as Bombardier represents 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and about 40% of manufacturing output, so the danger to jobs, the future of Bombardier and the Northern Irish economy because of these decisions in the US is very real.
Sadly, also very real has been the apparent inaction of the Government thus far. The Opposition have repeatedly sought information from them, but we have so far been disappointed by the response—so today I will try again. First, what was the specific content of, and what commitments were made during, the Prime Minister’s and other Cabinet members’ conversations with the US Administration and indeed Boeing?
Secondly, have the Government had any discussions at all with the European Commission, specifically with the Directorates-General for Trade and for Competition, about the support that it might be able to provide? Thirdly, does the Secretary of State have any plans to target all relevant US legislators to lobby the US Administration, including the Senate Committee on Finance, the House Ways and Means Committee, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, and those with constituency interests in Bombardier and its wider supply chain?
Given the devastating impact on the Northern Irish economy and on the already fragile Northern Irish peace settlement, what attempts has the Secretary of State made to urge the Irish Government to apply greater political pressure on the Irish caucus on the Hill to highlight the fact that this is not simply a US-Canada dispute, as the Secretary of State for International Trade has sadly already suggested? Fourthly, what attempts have the Government made thus far to provide evidence to the US independent Trade Commission that Boeing did not compete for the Delta contract and does not manufacture a comparable model to the C Series that would have matched the contract specification?
Finally, does the Secretary of State accept that this whole affair demonstrates the very real security risk of military reliance on one foreign supplier? Ministry of Defence contracts with Boeing total £4.5 billion, but is it correct, as reports suggest, that the Defence Secretary is reluctant to use that leverage because of our dependency on the company? Worse still, the Northern Ireland Secretary and the International Trade Secretary have been somewhat quiet on the issue. Are they afraid of being exposed in Northern Ireland for their failure to protect jobs, or are they so keen to score a sweetheart trade deal with the US that they simply want to wash their hands of this matter? Clearly, politics is being put ahead of the welfare of workers in Northern Ireland. I eagerly await the Secretary of State’s response to my questions, but I fear that Bombardier and everyone who depends on the firm are considered by this Conservative Government to be a fair price to pay for a post-Brexit trade deal with President Trump.
Greg Clark
I am disappointed with the hon. Lady’s response. If anyone is putting politics ahead of the welfare of workers, the evidence was there. She asked some reasonable questions, which have reasonable answers. I said in my statement that the European Commission had been engaged. Commissioner Malmström has been consulted, as have other member states across the European Union. As for the Irish Government, Simon Coveney, the Irish Foreign Minister, has been engaged as well. On the issue of submitting evidence to the Trade Commission in the United States, that has indeed been provided, and, in response to the initial determination, further information will be provided to make it clear that there are no grounds for demonstrating detriment to Boeing, as this aircraft does not compete with Boeing. That has been addressed in clear terms.
Engagement across Government, the Province of Northern Ireland and the island of Ireland has been consistent and unrelenting right from the beginning. I will not detail all the meetings that have been held and the calls that have been made, but they will continue—no stone will be left unturned. We have had 24 calls or meetings with the US Administration, 12 with Boeing executives, and 20 with the Government of Canada. Every day during this process, we have been engaged in getting rid of this unjustified complaint. I would welcome the support of the whole House in this endeavour. I wish to put on record my gratitude to the trade unions, which have played a very constructive role. When it comes to making the case for this action being totally unjustified, I would like to think that this House is completely united not only in looking to the importance of the Bombardier presence in Belfast, but in underlining our total determination to throw out and see dismissed this unjustified action.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that successive UK Governments have always been rigorous in compliance with their international legal obligations on state aid, and that, therefore, these punitive tariffs that are proposed are both irrational and unjustified and should be removed?
Greg Clark
I agree with my right hon. Friend. As she will remember, we do have a very rigorous system for scrutinising state aid, which is why we are totally confident that the system of launch aid that we have applied is compliant with all the international rules. The allegation does not have merit, and I expect to see it thrown out.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement.
The Scottish National party regrets the preliminary ruling by the US Department of Commerce that could put these highly skilled jobs at risk in Northern Ireland, and we sincerely hope that the UK Government are doing all that they possibly can to engage with Bombardier and the trade unions to ensure that the future of all employees is as secure as possible.
These rulings clearly show that no one will be spared Trump’s protectionist agenda of “America first”, with jobs in the UK and Canada—some of the US’s closest allies—being put at risk as a result of the punitive tariffs being imposed on Bombardier.
I am afraid that the Tory Government have been cosying up to Trump with the false illusion—or delusion—that this will help them sign a trade deal with the US after Brexit, without realising that Trump’s Administration will not give in to any demands that may give a competitive edge to the UK over the US.
Leaving the EU means that we will lose leverage in trade negotiations as we will no longer be part of the world’s largest single market of some 500 million people, and we will lose the expertise that the EU has built up over the past 40 years negotiating on our behalf.
Does the Secretary of State not agree that the best way to promote trade and to create jobs across the UK is by maintaining our membership of the single market and the customs union?
Greg Clark
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman supports our opposition to the proposed sanctions. If he has studied the form in these matters, he will know that the initial determination was not entirely unexpected by any of the parties, which was attested to by the Government of Canada. We have an outstanding case that there is no detriment to Bombardier, which we expect to prove along with the fact that the launch aid has been compliant. On our relationship with the European Union, he will observe that this dispute has taken place while we are a member of that Union. That justifies our commitment not just with the European Union but globally to seek a rigorous system of free trade in which there is a fair assessment of complaints rather than these punitive and unjustified tariffs.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and congratulate him on the work that he is carrying out in this matter. It is of course extremely important to Northern Ireland that we get this right and protect the jobs and the industry in the Province. May I also ask him if he will—I am sure that he will—seek to strike a balance here? Boeing is a very important customer to many companies in this country, including some in my own constituency, which is very heavily dependent on aerospace.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why many of us in this House are so bitterly disappointed with the actions of Boeing. The company has been the beneficiary of important defence contracts. As many Members know, it is opening an important factory in Sheffield—its first in Europe. A long-term industrial relationship with this country, which it clearly seeks, entails obligations. Those obligations are to treat reasonably and fairly those important parts of our economy that are being attacked without justification.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
In thanking the Secretary of State for his statement, may I just reflect on the fact that this Northern Ireland trade dispute is unprecedented in terms of the political engagement it has had from our Government? As the representative for east Belfast, I greatly appreciate not only the work thus far but the presence today of the Northern Ireland Secretary; the Business Secretary; the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington); the defence procurement Minister; the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry); and, indeed, the Foreign Secretary, whose presence shows just how much support there is politically for us in Northern Ireland, and I greatly appreciate it.
I was, however, bitterly disappointed by the comments last week by the Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross. His comments were not only belligerent, but showed—while the process continues—the political support at this early stage for Boeing in its dispute. There is deep concern about the political overtures tied up with this ongoing issue. May I ask the Secretary of State, having engaged thus far, and seeing that what happened was the inevitable outcome of that engagement, how long it will be until we can assuage the concerns of those in Belfast and Canada that there are meaningful and genuine consequences in store should there not be an adequate and suitable resolution to this case?
Greg Clark
I repeat my thanks and admiration for the work of the hon. Gentleman, who is standing up for his constituents with vigour and strength. I would like to take the opportunity to pay tribute, too, to the leader of the DUP, and indeed to community leaders across Northern Ireland, for the united response that they have made. We are disappointed not only with the response, in terms of the proposed tariffs, but with some of the words that have been used around this. It seems to me that the case is overwhelming: we can demonstrate that any aid that has been given is not only completely in line with international norms, but consistent with the type of assistance that Boeing has had over time. We expect to be able to demonstrate that in a convincing way.
It also seems to me impossible to establish detriment to Boeing, given that it does not have a competitor aircraft. The process of the hearings is that, following the initial determination, there is a further call for evidence, and the evidence that we, completely hand in hand with the Canadians, will present will demonstrate that. We look to the US to make sure that this is a rigorous process and is not politically influenced.
We have been very clear. The Defence Secretary, on a visit to Northern Ireland, was very clear, as I have been, that this is not the behaviour we expect from a trusted partner, and could have implications for the future relationship between Boeing and the United Kingdom.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I had the great pleasure of going to the wings factory in Belfast, and I pay handsome tribute not just to the 4,000 workers there but to Bombardier in general and to the C series—it is a beautiful and exceptionally fine aeroplane, and we wish it great success. I also thank the Secretary of State and all his colleagues in the Government for the fine work they are doing, but does he share my concern that this decision, which we all hope will be overturned, marks a shift towards a more protectionist policy by the United States Government? Does he agree that that does not bode well, especially as we leave the EU, if we do not get a proper deal with the European Union?
Greg Clark
In my view, it underlines the importance of securing free trade not just with the European Union but around the world. The essence of a free trade agreement is that we have proper protections and dispute resolution mechanisms on which we can rely, so this issue underlines the importance of continuing free trade. As I say, it is not unusual in the aerospace sector for complaints to be made in one forum or another. I think all parties were expecting the initial determination to be as it was, and said as much. In terms of our work—we will not give up on this—we will fight to secure the legitimate future of this very important part of our aerospace sector, and we will do whatever it takes to do that.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I join other hon. Members in saying that I hope this dispute is resolved as quickly as possible in the interests of everybody in Northern Ireland who works for Bombardier or in the supply chain. May I just pick up on a couple of points the Secretary of State made in his statement? First, he said that the Prime Minister had discussed the matter twice with President Trump to ask the US Government to do all they could to encourage Boeing to drop its complaint. While we welcome those sentiments, is the dispute not, in the end, with the US Government rather than Boeing, because it is up to the US Government, not Boeing, to impose sanctions? I hope the Prime Minister is also making that clear, and I just wanted some clarification on that point.
Secondly, the Secretary of State said he had
“travelled to Chicago to meet Boeing’s president and chief executive to make absolutely clear the impact”
on our future relationship with the company. Can he say a little more about what he has said to Boeing about that future relationship, which I am sure Boeing values, with our Government?
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the questions from the Chairman of the Select Committee. In terms of the process, only Boeing can withdraw the complaint. There is an administrative requirement on the part of the Department of Commerce to determine, initially, a complaint, hence the desire—and I think it is highly desirable—that Boeing withdraw this complaint. If it will not—and, so far, it has not—it must be determined in a completely fair and objective way. If it is, it will have no merit, and will be thrown out. Both are therefore important, but it would be in the interests of everyone in the workforce and in the country that the complaint be withdrawn so that this uncertainty can be taken away.
In terms of the points that I put to Dennis Muilenburg, who is the chief executive of Boeing, we were very clear that Boeing has a reputation in this country that was beginning to grow in a positive way through the investment in Sheffield and elsewhere, and to jeopardise that reputation and relationship by doing something that is completely unjustified is something that I do not regard as in the strategic interests of Boeing, and I said that very explicitly in terms.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and for his balanced comments this afternoon. Our airports and our aerospace sector really matter to many communities represented across this House in terms of local jobs and prosperity, and particularly to Southampton in my constituency, which is No. 1 in Europe and No. 2 in the world. What estimates has my right hon. Friend made of the potential for growth in this sector, despite this mighty challenges?
Greg Clark
I am glad my hon. Friend asked that question, because, as the whole House knows, the aerospace sector in this country is one of our proudest success stories. It is growing. It is a huge source of exports—over 90% of the product of our aerospace sector is exported. Productivity growth, which is much debated in the House at the moment, is six times the rate in the economy as a whole. A quarter of a million very highly paid jobs are in aerospace, and we are absolutely determined—those colleagues who are familiar with our industrial strategy will see this in advanced manufacturing and in aerospace in particular—to build on those strengths and advance them. That is why the Boeing investment in Sheffield was welcomed, but to see that relationship jeopardised by this complaint is a huge setback and a bitter disappointment.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s condemnation. What has happened is condemned not just in Northern Ireland, but across these islands, including by the Irish Government, as the Secretary of State said. I hope Bombardier will accept my invitation, as Chair of the International Trade Committee, to help combat this. However, on the wider issue—the World Trade Organisation aspects—is it not concerning that disputes outside the EU, which might be a WTO issue, and where the efficient European Court of Justice will not, and cannot be, used in a post-Brexit situation, the UK may see itself picked off by friend and foe all the more frequently in the future? Surely it has to be a concern to the Secretary of State that interactions with more states will be at WTO level by definition if the UK has changed status.
Greg Clark
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman. The more we can be absolutely clear that the whole United Kingdom, all parties and both sides of the House share this view that the complaint should be withdrawn and the dispute settled, the better, and that has been emphatically the case here. Again, I make the point that it is clearly in all our interests to have free trade. In a sector where 90% of products are exported, that is obviously the case. But that trade needs to happen in a way that gives us confidence that disputes, which will happen from time to time, are resolved in a fair and objective way. We play by the rules—we always will—and all we want is a system that respects that. We are confident that we will gain from that scrutiny.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Will the Government consider stepping in to support the workers in Northern Ireland who are affected by Boeing’s decision in the same way as they stepped in to support the workers during the Tata Steel dispute?
Greg Clark
We will of course always be behind the workers in every part of the country, but my determination is not only to save those jobs in Northern Ireland but to see the number of jobs increase and the company prosper and grow. As has been said, the C Series is gaining orders—it is an aircraft that fills an important position in the market. I would like to see the Belfast success story continue to grow in the years ahead.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
This situation is a tragedy for Northern Ireland and for Bombardier, and particularly for Northern Ireland industry, which, as I know from when I visited last week, is clearly reeling from the impact of Brexit and the concerns about our leaving the customs union. I welcome the steps the Government are taking, but I wish to press the Secretary of State on the punitive tariffs. What does he think such tariffs imply for the prospects of a beneficial future UK-US trade deal? It is true that this is all happening while we are in the EU, but does he think we will be more or less vulnerable to this sort of bullying in future if we are in or out of the EU?
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman describes this as a tragedy; I am absolutely determined that these jobs will be saved, and I never give up. I am determined that this will not be a tragedy; indeed, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), I am determined that Bombardier will go from strength to strength. On future free trade agreements, I repeat my earlier point: we want free trade agreements that provide for a rigorous dispute resolution mechanism on which we can rely. That is something we would hope to negotiate with the US. The credibility and rigour of that process is essential to our agreeing it.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Many of my constituents, like those of the Secretary of State, work in Gatwick, and I am sure they would send their solidarity to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for the work he is doing to support workers in his constituency. The Secretary of State mentioned that aerospace industry turnover has grown to £30 billion; with respect to Boeing’s position, can more be done to use financial leverage for the future?
Greg Clark
The aerospace sector is a good example of how taking a strategic approach, bringing together the industry firms with universities and research establishments, makes it attractive for small firms in the supply chain to establish themselves. That has been the basis of the aerospace sector’s success, and it is the approach we take in the industrial strategy. As the Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said in response to the urgent question earlier, an aerospace sector deal will build on that existing reputation and further advance the industry’s prospects.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Bombardier is a UK success story; I congratulate the workforce and management in Belfast. I agree with the Secretary of State that the relationship with Boeing is important, not only from a commercial point of view but from a military view. Does he agree that if Boeing does not relent on this issue, it will put at risk its plans for both technology enhancements and commercial opportunities in the UK?
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
As I understand it, the Secretary of State has said that the preferred solution would be a negotiated settlement with Boeing—an all-out war between the UK and Boeing is clearly in no one’s interest. He rightly referred to the development of Boeing’s first manufacturing output facility in Europe—it is in my constituency and work has started on it—but Boeing has been an essential and original player in the development of advanced manufacturing facilities in Sheffield and Rotherham for the past 10 years. It is crucial that we do everything we can to defend and protect the jobs at Bombardier, while doing nothing to compromise the possibility of further development and jobs from Boeing in Sheffield.
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and I know from having attended the meetings in Sheffield just how important and welcome that investment has been. Nevertheless, we need to be absolutely clear that although advanced manufacturing institutions such as those in and around Sheffield are being established, we expect, just as the Canadian Government do, that if companies participate in institutions that promote the UK aerospace sector, they must not at the same time recklessly damage another important part of that sector.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am enormously grateful to the Secretary of State for his valiant efforts to save the Bombardier jobs in Northern Ireland. In his statement, he emphasised the fact that the British Government are working jointly and collectively with the Canadian Government; nevertheless, I am really curious—as are, I am sure, people in Bombardier and in Northern Ireland—to know how effective he reckons the diplomatic efforts between the British and American Governments have been. This is our closest ally: how effective have the diplomatic efforts been?
Greg Clark
As I say, we are making a joint effort. It is important that we co-ordinate completely our approach with the Canadian Government, and we have done that. The intensity of our engagement and the actions that we have taken have been completely agreed with the Canadian Government. They obviously have an important relationship with the US, as we do, and we want to make use of that to communicate, as we have done, the importance of Bombardier in Belfast and the importance of applying fairness in this situation, and we will continue to do that. As I have said—my Canadian counterparts are on record as saying exactly the same—this is the first, initial determination. There is some way to go and we, and I personally, will not relent until these jobs are saved and Bombardier can continue its progress in Belfast.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State and his Cabinet colleagues for all the work they are doing on this issue, and I pay tribute to the workforce, the trade unions and the management of Bombardier in Belfast for the way they have approached this crisis. Does he agree that, not only today but going forward, everybody in this House should be united behind the workforce and the management? They should not seek to use this issue to score petty political points or as a battering ram against the Government. Our focus should be on the workers: that is what they want to see and they want everybody to be united behind them.
Greg Clark
The right hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently and strongly, and I think that is the mood of the House. Whatever the resolution, which we are determined will secure and sustain Bombardier’s future, the workforce is currently going through a torrid time, with people wondering about their livelihoods. That is why the earlier this situation can be brought to a conclusion by Boeing withdrawing its action, the better. It is important that we in this country show complete solidarity. Our debates about Brexit and the American Administration can continue, but every single Member of this House should recognise that this is an unjustified complaint against an important part of the economy. We should be united in standing up for the Bombardier workforce.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
I express my sympathy with Members from Northern Ireland, who have spoken eloquently on the issues that face them directly and the workforce that they are trying to protect. The Secretary of State in his statement said that, earlier in the year, the Minister for Energy and Industry, the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) met Boeing about the future relationship with the company. The Secretary of State will be well aware that there are huge and strategic contracts for P-8 maritime patrol aircraft, based at Lossiemouth, which will be important for the UK’s future strategic position and its position in NATO. What specific discussions has the Department had with Boeing about other contracts? How do we square the circle when it comes to what is happening with Bombardier in Northern Ireland and other Boeing contracts that we might have to rely on in future?
Greg Clark
The hon. Gentleman allows me to re-emphasise the conversation that I had with Boeing, which is that if there is to be a continuing relationship, we need the confidence that Boeing will deal fairly with the United Kingdom. If this is to be a strategic partnership, it needs to be a partnership, and partners do not take the kind of action against important United Kingdom interests that Boeing is seeking to take.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that many workers at Bombardier and in the supply chain across County Antrim, and indeed all of Northern Ireland, will find it despicable that some people would come here— indeed, outside this Chamber—and use the peace process, the spectre of the border and the plight of workers as a critique of how the Government are dealing with this issue? We must stand together, united in our approach to this. Will he also give the House the assurance that when it comes to crunch time—and crunch time is coming—the British Government will not be found wanting in how they defend British workers in Northern Ireland?
Greg Clark
I can give that complete assurance to the hon. Gentleman. I think this does unite everyone in the House and across all parts of Northern Ireland, and indeed the island of Ireland. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has again been assiduous in ensuring that no stone is unturned in making the case, as have the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party and others in Northern Ireland.
A point on which I did not answer the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon)—I apologise—was about our contacts with other people in the US system: congressmen, senators and governors. That has been carried out, again in complete co-ordination with the Canadian Government, and it has been significantly helped by the cordial relations that exist between the United States and many people in Ireland.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
These events put me in mind of those in the 1970s, when the American aerospace industry ran an aggressive campaign against sales of Concorde, spiking any sales of that plane at the time. Does the Secretary of State agree that the motivation for Boeing is not about a trade dispute, but about wiping out a competitor? This situation on its own would be serious enough as it is, but does he also agree that, taken with the statement earlier about the problems at BAE Systems, this is a defining moment for the British aerospace sector as a whole and that we need strong Government support across the sector?
Greg Clark
I think these are separate issues. This is a trade dispute—an unjustified complaint that Boeing has brought against Bombardier. It is important that it should be thrown out and the case dismissed. As for the motivation for it, that is for Boeing to describe. It has alleged that this is unfair competition. All I would observe is that it is difficult to point to competition when the product does not compete with an existing Boeing product, so Boeing’s longer-term motivations will need to be justified to the International Trade Commission.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) for his hard work and his endeavours on behalf of the workers. I have a Bombardier factory in my constituency, as well as a number of companies that feed into the supply chain. It is clear not only that those at Bombardier will be affected, but that those in the supply chain will be as well. At the same time, Bombardier’s aerospace business was worth $2.4 billion in the US last year—800 companies and, as the Minister said himself, 23,000 workers. Is it not the case that Boeing needs to be careful about the hand that feeds it?
Greg Clark
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and he is right to point out that, as well as the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has worked so indefatigably on this, constituency representatives across Northern Ireland—indeed, across the whole of the United Kingdom—are also affected. I agree with his injunction that we should continue to pursue this to a satisfactory resolution. He has my commitment that we will do that.
Perhaps I can end by reiterating a tribute to the workforce, not just at Bombardier but in the supply chain, who have continued to work completely uninterrupted at the high level and on a calibre of product for which they have an international renown. We want that international renown extended and able to prosper in the future, and I am absolutely determined that we will do that.
Legalisation of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes)
Tuesday 10th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Legalisation of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes) Bill 2017-19 View all Legalisation of Cannabis (Medicinal Purposes) Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow the production, supply, possession and use of cannabis and cannabis resin for medicinal purposes; and for connected purposes.
This is the Elizabeth Brice Bill. Elizabeth Brice was a remarkable lady who campaigned for many years in this House to re-legalise medicinal cannabis. She was a brilliant person. She was a television producer. Among her many achievements, she translated the Noddy books into Latin. She came here because, as a highly intelligent woman, she was struck down at the age of 26 with multiple sclerosis, which virtually destroyed her life and affected her young family. After 10 years of using medicinal drugs, she found one that gave her peace and relief from her spasms. She came to this House and had a cup of cannabis tea on the Terrace.
Our law states that Elizabeth Brice could have been sent to prison for five years for doing that. There was a court case in which an elderly man in a wheelchair moved a jury to tears with his account of his use of medicinal cannabis. The jury said, “We don’t want to find this man guilty; we disagree with this law.” They asked the judge whether they could change it and find the man not guilty, but the judge said, “No. You don’t make the law, I as a judge don’t make the law; only Parliament can change this.” So the ball is very much in our court today.
Who supports the Bill? The Multiple Sclerosis Society has given me a statement saying that it wants to see this Bill passed. It says:
“We believe the law on cannabis should be changed (like it’s changing in Ireland, Canada and Germany), so that someone with MS can access cannabis for medicinal use”.
I would also have had the support of Queen Victoria, although I had difficulty contacting her, as she used the substance every month of her life.
Cannabis was used as a medicine in this country until 1973. There is a host of people who are now Elizabeth Brices outside. One of them wrote me a very moving letter in which he said that two people in his family are using medicinal cannabis. A medical professional reported to the police that those people were using medicinal cannabis, albeit in a way that was not harming anyone—it was a completely victimless crime; they were growing it themselves. That man writes that he could easily get a criminal record and his family would be in all kinds of trouble as a result.
Are we really saying that this is a sensible law? The tide of world opinion is moving in the direction of legalising cannabis. Some 29 states in America—the majority—have already legalised medical cannabis without any problems arising. There are six or seven states in Europe where it is possible to use cannabis medicinally. We have forgotten that this is the oldest medicine in the world. It has been used for at least 5,000 years—archaeological evidence supports that—and we know that if there were problems with it, they would have been discovered years ago.
As with all drugs, people will object that there are malign side effects, but as someone who has been campaigning in this House against drug misuse for many years, I can say that the ones that we have trouble with now, such as valproate, are the opioid drugs and neuroleptic drugs used in residential homes for the elderly. There is massive misuse of these drugs, which have very serious side effects. Cannabis involves side effects, but no problems have arisen in all the states and countries that have taken this on.
If we legalise drugs, we reduce side effects by taking the market out of the hands of the criminals and the scammers, and putting those drugs in a legal market that can be run by doctors using medical priorities. These are the lessons from all the states in America that have taken this step.
A policewoman suffering from multiple sclerosis came to me because she found herself needing to get her cannabis from the criminals she once arrested. That is the situation that people are in now. I am touched that people have made the journey here today to ask this Parliament to decide not on the basis of prejudice, but on the basis of science.
It is time for us to lead public opinion rather than following it. It would be an act of compassion and courage for us to pass this Bill and make the very minor change it proposes: moving cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2. At the moment, the law says that cannabis has no beneficial effects, but we all know that it does, but if there are problems with it, the former chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has said that we would need to prevent 5,000 people from taking cannabis to stop one possible case of psychosis. I do not know whether anybody will be opposing this Bill today—no one has suggested to me that they will do so—but I would like to deal with that question. Yes, with any drug there are risks, and I certainly would not want to see anyone using cannabis mixed with that deadly, addictive drug, tobacco.
Today people are using the drug outside on the green as a food, a drink, a tincture and an ointment, as well as vaping it. I believe that the public and the police—two police and crime commissioners have written to me in support of the Bill—know that the law is unenforceable. It is time for us to take our courage in our hands and say, “Let us take this step.” Doing so would be a step on the road to intelligent campaigning. We place too much reliance on the prejudices and screeching of the press; it is time for us to take the lead. Doing so would be an act of kindness and compassion that would bring genuine relief to people who are suffering from serious ailments.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Paul Flynn, Frank Field, Caroline Lucas, Mary Glindon, Jeff Smith, Kelvin Hopkins, Crispin Blunt, Michael Fabricant, Martyn Day, Ronnie Cowan, Layla Moran and Mr Alistair Carmichael present the Bill.
Paul Flynn accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 23 February 2018, and to be printed (Bill 108).
Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Government’s policy in relation to the proceedings of this House.
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing today’s debate to take place, and I thank hon. and right hon. Members from other parties who were in the Chamber yesterday to demonstrate the will of the House in the manner required under Standing Order No. 24. I should also like to acknowledge the role of Government business managers in extending our sitting hours today to accommodate this debate alongside the other business of the day.
We have already had two statements, an urgent question and a ten-minute rule motion, and there remains important business to follow, so I want to come as quickly as possible to the substance of the matter. But it is worth briefly reminding the House why this matter is considered to be both urgent and important, as required by Standing Order No. 24.
As I explained to the House yesterday, the House had its first day for Opposition motions on Wednesday 13 September, on which the two topics for debate were public sector pay and student tuition fees. Ministers and Back Benchers spoke vigorously in opposition to both motions, but when the questions were put, no voices were raised in opposition and both motions passed unanimously. The next day, the political commentator Paul Waugh—we would say his name slightly differently in Scotland—described the situation thus in the Huffington Post:
“Crucially, that meant there was no vote recorded other than unanimous approval, and no way to say how individual MPs voted.”
He went on:
“And this was no one-off. In a significant shift in the way the Government treats the Commons, Tory sources told me they have decided not to oppose any future Opposition Day motions. In other words, MPs can say whatever they like but as long as there’s a non-binding motion, the PM will tell her troops to give a collective ‘meh’. Government whips will instead focus on turning out the numbers for ‘votes that matter’, ie on legislation such as Brexit bills.”
That position, he later says,
“reduces all Opposition Days to mere debating society events, with no consequence.”
Mr Waugh is quite right in his assessment of the policy—if it is, in fact, Government policy. It was for that reason that I sought to raise the matter with the Leader of the House at business questions on 14 September. Her answer, I confess, was slightly less than reassuring:
“The right hon. Gentleman should not believe everything he reads in the press.”
That is good advice, and it is a lesson that we probably all learned some time ago, but it is something less than, or short of, the full-throated denial that one might have hoped for in the circumstances. The Leader of the House went on to make some comments about the debates that were not really relevant to the question, but she finished by saying:
“There is no question but that this Government continue to fully engage in Opposition day debates.”—[Official Report, 14 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 997.]
The House needs to hear from the Leader of the House today what was meant by her words “fully engage”. Does she mean that the Government will do as their predecessors have done—engage in debate, agree where they agree, oppose where they do not and bring amendments where they wish to—or does she mean that the Government will, as Mr Waugh so memorably puts it, tell the troops to give this House “a collective ‘meh’”?
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a significant point about the importance of engaging in debates. Can he tell the House how many Liberal Democrats took part in the debate on the very important Finance Bill on 12 September? Could he confirm that it was none?
Mr Carmichael
I can see how this is going to proceed, and it will not be as I might have hoped. I had hoped we might raise the debate a little bit higher than that. The hon. and learned Lady is well aware that there are 12 Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament sitting in this Parliament, and if she cares to consult the record she will find that we play a full and constructive part in the proceedings of this House.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
To be fair, I can see that there is a decent turnout of Liberal Democrats today. However, in the important debate about the national health service to which the right hon. Gentleman specifically refers, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is their health spokesman, confirmed—I am quoting here from Hansard—that he was the “sole Liberal Democrat present” in the debate and felt it his “duty to intervene”. So in a debate in which the Government were fully engaged, only one Liberal Democrat could be bothered to turn up in Parliament.
Mr Carmichael
I can almost read the Whips’ brief that has gone round about the Opposition day debates—“Don’t make this about the Government, because this is not strong territory for the Government. Make it all about the Liberal Democrats or the opposition parties.” With all due respect to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I like and regard as a friend in many senses of the word, if not the political one, I am not going to play his game. Today’s debate is the Government’s opportunity to tell the House clearly and unambiguously how they intend to approach their business for the duration of this Parliament.
There is a further context to the Government’s approach on 14 September that the House should bear in mind. On Monday 11 September, they brought forward the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, including some quite remarkable Henry VIII powers, which many in this House and beyond see as a marginalisation of Parliament. On Tuesday 12 September, they brought to this House a motion to give themselves a majority on all Public Bill Committees, contrary to all previous practice in this House and the formula relied on for many years.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I have a lot of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but he must not say that that applies to all Bill Committees, because he well knows that that is not the case if there are equal numbers.
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, but the hon. Gentleman will be perfectly well aware that the House has for many years used a formula under which the Government would have been entitled at best to a balanced Committee, while in all other respects the majority would have been with the Opposition parties.
Mr Carmichael
Indeed—stitched up, as the hon. Gentleman says.
The Government did that on 12 September on the basis that the confidence and supply agreement that they had struck with the Democratic Unionist party gave them a working majority in the House. Unfortunately, that working majority was not in evidence when it came to the Opposition day debates the next day.
It is worth noting in passing that the Opposition day debates on 13 September were the first to be held since Parliament reassembled after the general election—some 27 sitting days, to be exact. In 2015 the same gap was 13 sitting days, in 2010 it was 16 and in 2005 it was 12. We would have to go back to the early days of the Labour Government in 1997 to find a comparable figure, although I suggest that it is worth considering the nature and volume of legislation that was dealt with in the early days of that Parliament compared with what we have had since 8 June.
Our system relies on a delicate combination of checks and balances. The best Governments—and if ever there was a time in our country’s history when we needed the best possible Government, this is surely it—are those that are tested by Parliament, by the Opposition parties and by their own Back Benchers. Time and again, our system fails when the Government and the Opposition agree and arguments remain untested. How different might the debates on the case for going to war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003 have been if the then Opposition had been prepared to take a more questioning approach to Tony Blair’s case? I am sad to say that this Government, however, do not welcome scrutiny by Parliament, but rather seek to avoid it.
The issues before the House on 13 September were questions of substantial significance. If they are issues on which the Government do not command a majority in this House, then the Government should not get their way. The Prime Minister went to the country in June seeking a larger majority than the one she had, but the people of Britain denied her such a majority. However difficult that may make life for her and her colleagues, the verdict of the people on 8 June ought to be respected in this House. It is the job of all of us in this House to ensure that it is, and Opposition day debates are one important way in which that should be done. Occasionally, it is possible for the Government and the Opposition to agree on a motion and for it to be passed without a Division. Until now, there have been very few examples of a motion being disputed in debate, but still passing without a Division.
Very rarely, the Government of the day are defeated in a Division. In my time in the House, that was most memorably accomplished in 2009, when the rights of Gurkha soldiers who had served the Crown to settle in the UK was at issue. Matters came to a head on 29 April 2009, when on a motion from the Conservative party in opposition the then Labour Government were defeated. It is worth going back and reading the Hansard of that debate. It is apparent, even just reading the words on paper, that that debate meant something. That debate was more than just a debate; it was a vehicle for righting a wrong and a vehicle for change.
We have all heard it said over the years that Parliament has increasingly been marginalised by the Executive. A series of large majorities given to the Conservative and Labour parties has undoubtedly contributed to that process, but this Parliament should be different. Not because you or I say it should be different, Mr Speaker, but because the people of the United Kingdom at the ballot box on 8 June said that it should be different.
In one sense, the Government have done us a favour by bringing this issue to a head, because it forces us as a House to decide what our role in the future of this country is going to be. Is it to be an active participant, with a strong voice and a decisive say, or is it to be a supine bystander as the Government continue to do as they wish, regardless of their lack of a mandate and, as is increasingly obvious, their lack of authority.
I have been a member of many debating societies over the years. They have all been fine organisations that provided entertainment and mental stimulation in equal measure. I mean them therefore no disrespect when I say that I stood for Parliament believing I was doing something more significant than signing up for a debating society. The difference is that in Parliament—in this House —we can actually effect change. Whether we choose to do so is in our own hands.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I am grateful to you for calling me early in the debate, Mr Speaker. I will reciprocate what the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said about me—I have been friendly with him, except perhaps in a political sense—but I think he rather overstates his case. Let me run through his argument. First, he describes a particular decision about two particular Opposition day debates, and suggests that that will be the Government’s practice going forward. The only evidence that he presents is a single tweet by a single political journalist, quoting unnamed sources about the Government’s behaviour going forward. It seems to me that the practice has been—it certainly was when I was Government Chief Whip—to consider what we do about Opposition day motions on a case-by-case basis.
Mr Carmichael
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There have been only those two debates so far. It was for that reason that, at business questions on 14 September, I gave the Leader of the House the opportunity to refute what was in the Huffington Post article. Had she chosen to do so, we would not be here today.
Mr Harper
The right hon. Gentleman says it was about his right Friend’s question. It was a question, but the point is it was about a tweet. Hon. Members would not expect my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to comment on every single press comment about the House and dignify them all with a response. To come back to the point I was making when I took the intervention, the Government cannot be expected to have a blanket policy for what they do about Opposition days. We look at the motion on the Order Paper.
I have got into trouble in the past. When I responded at the Dispatch Box to Opposition day debates, I was often criticised because I used to do that dreadful thing of actually looking at the words on the Order Paper that the House was being asked to agree or not. I would be told that they did not really matter—what mattered was the debate we were having, and the general principle, and that we did not worry about the words. Well actually, the words are important and the right stance for the Government, each time there is an Opposition day motion —indeed any motion—before the House is to look at the words on the Order Paper and then make a judgment about whether they wish to support or oppose them. I will come to the specific motions that were being considered in a moment.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
May I take it from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that from now on, when a DUP Member makes a comment in an Opposition day debate—as they did in our first Opposition day debate in this Parliament—that they are not minded to support the Government at the end of the day in a vote, the Government will not be persuaded by the DUP, will not be dictated to by the DUP, but will actually call a vote? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?
Mr Harper
No, it is not what I am saying. I am saying what I said in my own words. Let me go to the decision that I think the Government took on the motions; then the Leader of the House may comment in due course.
What the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, in his pitch to Mr Speaker yesterday and in his debate today, was that in both debates the Government argued against the motions that were on the Order Paper. Before today’s debate I carefully read the debates to see whether that was right: I do not think it was. In the NHS debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health did not argue against the motion on the Order Paper. What he actually said was that it was bogus, because it did not address some of the fundamental issues. [Interruption.] This is exactly as I said, Mr Speaker. As soon as attention is drawn to the motions on the Order Paper, which the House was being asked to agree, people do not like it. That is the fundamental point here, and one I am sure my right hon. Friend considered before he made a decision about the way that Government Members should vote.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
One of the most precious things in this House is a party deciding when it will or when it will not vote. That is up to a party, or indeed up to a Government. This is the first time I can remember an Opposition complaining that they are not being defeated by the Government.
Mr Harper
It is interesting, because when I read the debate it was of course the Opposition spokesman, the shadow Secretary of State for Health, who asked the Government not to divide the House on the NHS motion. The Government then proceeded not to divide the House on the motion, and now all we get is a load of complaints—which seems to me remarkably strange.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend draw any comfort, as I did, from the fact that the party once of Campbell-Bannerman, Gladstone and Lloyd George has now decided to predicate the national debate on information that it ascribes to something called the Huffington Post?
Mr Harper
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which requires no elaboration from me.
A couple of things struck me about the motion on the Order Paper about the NHS. First, it made very selective use of statistics. For example, it talked about the number of nurses and midwives joining the Nursing and Midwifery Council register, which is an important figure, but of course not directly applicable to the number of nurses working in the NHS, which the Secretary of State correctly pointed out had increased by 12,000. So it would not be right to oppose a motion that had some factually correct statistics in it, but they were not relevant to the argument about the number of nurses and midwives actually working in the NHS.
The final part of the motion talked about ending the public sector pay cap of 1%, and of course my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who excellently wound up that debate, made the point that for the forthcoming financial year, the Government would allow the pay review bodies more flexibility anyway, so it seemed rather pointless to be engaging in that debate.
I have no complaint about the Labour party, but this is what parties do in opposition. It put in the words at the end that suggested that NHS workers should be given a fair pay rise, which I think would probably command support across the House, including from myself and my hon. Friends. The debate, of course, is about what constitutes a fair pay rise—what is affordable. But to think we were going to fall into the trap of voting against a motion that would just then enable lots of Labour MPs to put out leaflets saying that we were against a pay rise! They are playing a political game. We know what the game is. I am going to be very fair: it is what we would do if we were in their position. It is not our job, though, to fall into their trap and make their lives easier. Our job is to get on with governing and making the right decisions, which is exactly what we did.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I am a new MP and I am still getting to know my way around, but I did not expect my new role to be reduced to being a member of a talking shop. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that not allowing a vote on the Opposition debate reflects a deep disregard for parliamentary democracy?
Mr Harper
I would have more sympathy with the hon. Lady if she had actually bothered to turn up to listen to the debate in the first place, which, according to her own colleague, she did not—[Interruption.] Well, according to Hansard, the Liberal Democrat health spokesman, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), said on the record that he was the only Liberal Democrat present and that he felt he had to intervene. If that is inaccurate, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should correct the parliamentary record. It is not my job to be responsible for the accuracy of the parliamentary record of the right hon. Gentleman. I note he is probably the only Liberal Democrat MP not here today.
Wera Hobhouse
I was in the debate: please check the record. I was there and I was very disappointed that we could not vote.
Mr Harper
I do not dispute the hon. Lady’s thing. All I can say is that I was quoting from Hansard, when the Liberal Democrat health spokesman said:
“I feel that as the sole Liberal Democrat present it is my duty to intervene.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 862.]
If that is inaccurate, that is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman and he should correct the record. That is not my responsibility.
On the motion on the national health service on the Order Paper, my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary laid out the facts about the importance of a strong economy in paying for the health service. He laid out a lot of important facts about our record on the health service, but actually he was not arguing that we should vote against the motion at all. He frequently said it was a bogus motion and that he did not want to engage with it, so I do not think that that can be said.
Mr Harper
Yes I do. I read the motion very carefully. It said that the Government should abandon the 1% pay cap; and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, in her response to the debate, made it clear that the pay review bodies for the next financial year would have more flexibility—so, in effect, she confirmed that part of it.
The second part of the motion referred to NHS staff getting a fair pay rise. We all agree that NHS workers—indeed, public sector workers generally—should get a fair pay rise. The point of political debate is to ask what “fair” means. We have to balance affordability for the economy, what public sector workers need to get paid for recruitment, retention and morale purposes, and what those in the private sector, who pay taxes to pay for our public services, are being paid. If we read the motion, I think we find it was completely consistent with the Government’s policy, which I suspect is exactly why the Secretary of State for Health did not feel it was sensible to urge Conservative colleagues to vote against it.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman for taking a second intervention. He obviously was unable to hear my first intervention, so may I just repeat my question? If the 10 DUP MPs indicate during an Opposition day debate that they are not going to support the Government, will the Government vote on the motion?
Mr Harper
I am grateful for my colleagues’ support. I suspect the Government will make their decisions on Opposition day motions on a case-by-case basis, when they have looked at the words on the Order Paper.
The second very important motion on the Order Paper that day was about the higher education regulations relating to tuition fees. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education set out the case powerfully on the substance of the proposition before the House on the need for tuition fees. She contrasted it with the position in Scotland, which does not have tuition fees. In Scotland, fewer children go to university, fewer poor children go to university and universities are not properly funded—not a position I want to see in England. She laid that out clearly.
It was also the case that the regulations were laid before the House on 15 December 2016 and came into force on 20 February this year, so voting against them would have had no effect whatever. There was an argument at the front of the debate when the shadow Secretary of State for Education tried to pretend that it was somehow the Government’s fault that the measures had not been debated. She said that the Opposition had prayed against them but had not had time for a debate. Well, I looked at the record, and there were three Opposition days between the regulations being laid and coming into force on 20 February. Those days were Wednesday 11 January, Tuesday 17 January and Wednesday 25 January. On any of those occasions, the Opposition could have used their time to debate the regulations. If the House had voted against them on any of those occasions, they would not have come into force. The fact that the Opposition chose not to do so is their responsibility, not the Government’s.
Chris Bryant
As Government Ministers constantly reiterated, the whole point of secondary legislation was that if the Leader of the Opposition called for a debate not in Opposition time, the Government would provide the time and the vote in Government time. That is precisely what they should have done. They are the people who broke their word—not us.
Mr Speaker
Order. Large numbers of hon. Members are proclaiming from a sedentary position the self-evident truth that it was not their decision to call the election—a perfectly valid piece of information, but entirely useless for the purposes of this debate. The important point is that Members must be able to hear each other speak in it.
Mr Harper
Of course, it was technically the decision of this House to have the early election. The Prime Minister brought the motion before the House but— thanks to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, which I had a little hand in—it was, of course, the decision of the House to have the election.
My point stands. There were three opportunities when the House could have voted down the regulations. The Opposition had the time and chose not to debate them. The point is that the regulations had already come into force when the House was faced with the debate on 13 September, so voting against them would have had no practical effect. It would have been a completely pointless exercise to have a vote that would have had no effect. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said, the House being a talking shop. Procedures about when we have to vote on secondary legislation are set out in the statutory instruments legislation and the parent Acts; those time limits had expired. That is the Opposition’s fault because they had three opportunities in January when they could have used their time to debate the matter, but they chose not to do so.
Mr Carmichael
If, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, a vote is a nonsense, surely that is an argument for going ahead with it, not for avoiding it.
Mr Harper
It is an arguable point. I have made my argument and the hon. Gentleman has made his, as he will no doubt do again later.
There were two good reasons why the Government chose, looking at the words on the Order Paper on 13 September, not to divide the House. I do not think that sets a precedent for the future. The Government will make those decisions when they look at future Opposition day motions. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is making a mountain out of a molehill. I suggest that the House waits to see what happens on future Opposition days before it gets itself so worked up. We have had a good gambol around the subject but I do not really think that the right hon. Gentleman has made his case to the satisfaction of Members more generally.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has concluded his speech, for which we are grateful. I call Valerie Vaz.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for granting this debate, following the application from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) yesterday.
While the motion reads,
“That this House has considered the Government’s policy in relation to the proceedings of this House”,
I would prefer to deal with two aspects of it separately: the constitutional convention that decisions of Parliament are enacted by the Government and the scheduling of Opposition days throughout the year as set out in Standing Orders. Speaking in support of the motion, I will start with the allocation of Opposition days. The Government have often to be brought to the House for bypassing and—I hope I do not put this too strongly—appearing to have contempt for the House. The two-year Session of Parliament was announced by press release on 17 June 2017. The right hon. Lady could have announced it during business questions on 22 June, her first outing as Leader of the House, but she did not.
A Session usually starts in November and runs until the following October. On average, there used to be four Sessions in a Parliament, but that was before the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011; there is now an assumption of five Sessions. Each Session carries an allocation of Opposition days, as set out on page 334 of “Erskine May”.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
The hon. Lady made a serious charge about the Government having contempt for the House. Does she not think it potentially contemptuous to put forward a motion that has no binding effect and which some might say is purely for political effect?
Valerie Vaz
I am sorry but I thought we were in politics. We are politicians, so that is what we would expect to do in here. In any event, it does not really matter; I will come on to whether a motion is binding. It is something we need to check. If the hon. Gentleman, who is very assiduous, checks “Erskine May”, he will see that on page 334 it says:
“Standing Order No 14 provides that on 20 days in each session proceedings on business chosen by the opposition parties shall have precedence over government business.”
These books on the Table are not window dressing: “Erskine May”, Standing Orders—they are there because they are the rules of the House, as interpreted by the very honourable Clerks. As you know, Mr Speaker, there have been numerous requests for the full allocation of Opposition days—you have heard me ask the Leader of the House for the dates at business questions—but they have not been forthcoming.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I would be most grateful if the hon. Lady could advise the House where in “Erskine May” it says that Government Members have to vote in a Division.
Valerie Vaz
They are the rules and privileges of the House. I will find the reference. The intervention was clearly done to disrupt the debate. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to stop, and if you will allow me the time, Mr Speaker, I will look it up, or, alternatively, we can eat into the time of Back Benchers. He can decide. I am happy to look through it.
Chris Bryant
Is not the much bigger point that if Members decide to let the vote go through, they are effectively assenting to the motion?
Valerie Vaz
That point, which I am coming to, needs to be clarified, and it is the Government’s job to do such a thing. Mr Speaker, you have heard me ask for clarification several times, and we have had numerous discussions through the usual channels, but we have had absolutely nothing. It is sad that Parliament is treated this way. I did not think that, in the first week back after the conference recess, I would be standing here arguing for the same thing I did before the recess.
We play a vital role in our democracy. The use of the term “Her Majesty’s Opposition” was first coined in 1826 by John Cam Hobhouse and was given statutory recognition in 1937. The official Opposition is defined as
“the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office”.
That is an important constitutional role, and we should not be prevented from doing our job. We would like to fulfil that role but that is the effect of not giving us dates for our debates. The Government want to stifle debate and so deny all the Opposition parties a chance to challenge them and put forward their policies.
Secondly, having been given that Opposition day on 13 September, the shadow Secretaries of State for Health and for Education moved and spoke eloquently to their motions, and we then witnessed the bizarre spectacle of the Government making no comment whatsoever. They had tabled no amendment to the motion. There was no voting for and no voting against, so Parliament was left in limbo. What was the status of the motion? It was a proper, substantive motion, defined as a self-contained proposal submitted for the approval of the House and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the House—and it did, in this case to NHS workers and students about to start university.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Lady is right to make the point that the Chamber is not just a hothouse of debate. It is about what people want to listen to, to find out what is important. There are parents in the country who are quite keen to hear the views of all the political parties about how to address the very sad problem of baby deaths. Is she embarrassed and ashamed that she and her colleagues are detaining the House by having a debate about debates, and not about the issues?
Valerie Vaz
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is wrong. My family has suffered a baby loss. This is a very important date, because it is the anniversary of the death of my brother’s baby, my brother being my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I know how important the issue is, but this is not a debate about a debate. People throughout the country want to know what is going on and what we do in Parliament. They want to know that their Parliament is supreme. They want to know that we are debating and discussing.
The position that was outlined in the motions appeared in the manifesto of the Democratic Unionist party, and its members owe their electorate an explanation of why they did not vote in support. Because the DUP has a confidence and supply agreement with the Government, the Government knew that they could not command its support, and would have lost the vote. That is significant, because the confidence and supply agreement itself has to come before the House to be debated. Again, it takes the courts to tell the Government what parliamentary democracy means. Worse still, the Government then decided, during the conference recess, that the Opposition’s policies on those two subjects would be their policies. The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) will know that the Government made a statement on both policies.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned a journalist who is well known around the House, and who suggested that the Government were not intending to vote against or amend our motions, but would sit on their hands for all our Opposition debates.
Mr Syms
The hon. Lady has been in the House for long enough to know that many things are debated here. Ten-minute rule Bills are let through because they raise an issue, and motions are sometimes passed by a few Members during Back-Bench business debates because, again, they raise an important issue. Is it not right that the Government make their own decisions about what they will oppose and what they will not oppose? At the end of the day, that is a choice for the Front Bench. If, politically, Members think that that is a bad thing to do, let them have their Standing Order No. 24 and make the point, but ultimately what we vote for is down to the Cabinet and the Whips Office, and that is our choice.
Valerie Vaz
This is a debating Chamber, and this is a revising Parliament. Members can table motions, and then people can see what policy comes out. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), the deputy shadow Leader of the House, persuaded the Government to take on board the need for a new piece of legislation, and that is how we do things here. Ministers listen, they take on board what happens, and then we move forward. That is what I am trying to say.
Mr Bone
I agree with much of what the hon. Lady is saying. This debate is about Parliament v. the Executive, and it is right that it is urgent, because the issue needs to be discussed. Does she agree, however, that Parliament voted, and therefore the Government should take note of whatever Parliament decided on that day and respond to it? She will agree, I hope, that if the Opposition had wanted to engineer a vote on that day, it would have been quite possible. I do not think we should misrepresent Parliament and say that a decision was not made; a decision was made to support the Opposition motions.
Valerie Vaz
I am pleased to hear that, but I wish that it had been indicated to everyone at the time. It would have been fantastic if it had been 564-nil.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
One point being made from the Government Benches is that it is a matter for the Government to decide whether they vote. However, with regard to the relevance of this place, many people watch debates that come up, on Opposition days and at other times, and they expect a vote, and if there is no vote then they believe that the view of Parliament has been heard and they expect things to change as a result. If the Government’s approach is to allow motions through but then not carry them through in policy terms, then people will rightly think that we are just a talking shop.
Valerie Vaz
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I keep saying, the Government seem to be governing by press release and press announcement, rather than by coming to the House to explain exactly what is going on with regard to policy. That policy has now been agreed. Actually, when we think about it, is it committed expenditure? The Chancellor seems to be saying what he wants but it is not even committed expenditure.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz
I will not give way, because I am conscious that many Back Benchers wish to speak, and I will shut up in a minute.
There were many points of order about the tweet from the journalist—I need to protect my sources, but it was Paul Waugh—stating that this is what would happen, and the matter was also raised in business questions. The Leader of the House then said, “Don’t believe everything you hear on Twitter.” I can understand that for the President of the United States, but the Leader of the House also tweets. Are we to believe her or not?
The most important point is that the Leader of the House gave no clarification or explanation as to why Parliament is being treated in this way, or on finding a way forward. We are now in the spill-over and the House needs this to be explained. Will the Government continue to treat Opposition motions as decisions of the House, as though they were wearing an invisibility cloak? Will the Leader of the House resolve this with Mr Speaker and find a way forward on substantive motions of the House?
Valerie Vaz
No, because I am nearly finished, and the right hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time.
This makes a mockery of Parliament. Parliament is a forum for debate, discussion and amendments, as seen in the example given by the excellent Minister, Phil Woolas, who listened to the House, even though he was ambushed by a celebrity, and changed his policy—whether or not that was the right thing to do. Nevertheless, he said, “I have listened to the House.”
Finally, in the preface to “Erskine May”, the guide to the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of Parliament, there is a dedication to you, Mr Speaker. It entrusts you with the great responsibilities of guardianship of the parliamentary system. You have done that many times in this House, and in granting this debate. I ask you to convey to the Government that they must abide by that dedication.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon, but I think the Leader of the House was intending to come in next. Am I right?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
Mr Speaker, it is entirely a matter for the Chair.
Mr Speaker
It most certainly is a matter for the Chair. The right hon. Lady does not have to be difficult about it. What I was seeking to establish is whether she is an eager speaker; if she is, she can speak, and if she is not, she will not. It is pretty straightforward. Frankly—let me just say this—the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench should have sorted this out between them in advance of the debate. It was a degree of cack-handed incompetence that they did not do so.
Andrea Leadsom
Mr Speaker, I can absolutely assure you that, as in all things, my office was assiduous in coming to the Speaker’s Office to request that we speak straight after the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—
Mr Speaker
Order. The Leader of the House really ought to know by now that these matters are dealt with differently on different occasions and that there are precedents either way. What we know is that the right hon. Lady has the opportunity to speak, and quite a full opportunity, and therefore nothing of which to complain. The Leader of the House.
Andrea Leadsom
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Parliamentary procedure is of vital importance to our democracy, and it is taken very seriously on both sides of the House, so I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this debate, which is of course the 14th hour we have spent debating parliamentary procedure in the 26 sitting days since the general election, and apparently all because of a tweet. Well, I am sure that the nation is glued to the Parliament channel.
In response to the right hon. Gentlemen’s accusation that the Government are not listening, I want to set out some steps that we have recently taken to speed up scrutiny and to respond to requests from Members on both sides of the House. First, the Select Committees were established early—quicker than in both 2010 and 2015—and all parties worked quickly to hold elections so that Committees could begin their important work in the September sitting. I was also delighted to ensure that the Backbench Business Committee was established at the same time so that Members would have another channel for scrutiny, and I am pleased to announce that the first Back-Bench debates will be held next week.
Secondly, a sitting of the House was extended for the Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to allow many Members to speak about that important legislation. Thirdly, we have allocated eight full days in the Chamber, each with eight protected hours of debate, for that Bill. Those 64 hours are in contrast to the rather more miserable 39 hours and 17 minutes that were spent ratifying the Lisbon treaty.
Fourthly, we have provided Government time for specific debates following requests from Members. The issue of illegal Traveller encampments has been raised by Members on both sides of the House at every business questions since I became Leader of the House, and this week is Baby Loss Awareness Week—a truly tragic issue that affects many people across the UK—so it is right that we have found time to debate both important subjects. I have extended today’s sitting because it would be a great shame if Members were unable to take part in the baby loss debate. Let me also remind the House that the Conservative party set up the Backbench Business Committee, restoring a better balance between Government and Parliament.
Lady Hermon
I listened intently to what the right hon. Lady said about the importance of procedure in this House, so how does she feel about the complete absence of DUP Members from the Chamber? Will she also address another key issue? If any of the 10 DUP MPs indicate that they will vote against a motion on an Opposition day, will the Government give an assurance that they will still decide for themselves whether to press for a vote?
Andrea Leadsom
I want to make it clear to all Members that the House expressed an opinion when it agreed to the relevant Opposition day motions. It does the same when a Back-Bench motion is passed. I think what the hon. Lady, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the shadow Leader of the House are trying to argue is that we should be voting against motions. Let me again be clear that the House expressed an opinion in those Opposition day debates. If Members chose not to vote against those motions, it does not mean that the House did not express an opinion.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Given that the DUP is not present in the Chamber to hold the Government to account, may I ask whether the Government Chief Whip approached DUP Members in advance of the Opposition day debates to try to get them to change their mind—yes or no?
Andrea Leadsom
I can only say again that how Members vote is a matter for individual Members, and their parties and policies. This House expressed an opinion and the Government listened carefully, as is the case with the many Back-Bench motions that are debated on the Floor of the House and passed without a Division. In every single case, the Government take part fully and listen carefully.
I also want to make the House aware of work away from the Chamber to address Members’ real concerns about the increased volume of secondary legislation during this Session. The Government are aligning their approach to secondary legislation with their approach to primary legislation. The Cabinet Committee that I chair that oversees all primary legislation will now also oversee all secondary legislation. This will manage the flow and quality of statutory instruments more proactively, giving Parliament a much better service and enabling better scrutiny.
Let me address the specific points made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the subjects of the two Opposition day debates in September. The Government took full part in those debates. The Government matched the Opposition speaker for speaker. Notably, as was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), the Liberal Democrats failed to put up a single speaker in the tuition fees debate and put up only one in the NHS pay debate. Senior Ministers, on the other hand, were present on the Front Bench and made substantial contributions. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for Education both opened their debates, and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation closed them.
On Second Reading of the Finance Bill the day before, however, there were only five Opposition contributions —three from Labour; none from the Liberal Democrats. In contrast, we heard 17 Back-Bench speeches from Conservative Members, including 12 in a row. In fact, such was the extent of our engagement on that important Bill that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) even made a point of order suggesting that we might be filibustering our own Finance Bill.
The vital issues of NHS pay and tuition fees have been thoroughly debated in this House in recent weeks.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
I spoke in the NHS debate in favour of the motion, so I was very pleased that the Government supported it. I can only assume that Opposition Members are so unhappy because they lost an opportunity to beat the Government with a political stick.
Andrea Leadsom
Of course my hon. Friend is exactly right. Opposition Members wanted us to oppose, not support, which was what happened on the day.
Andrea Leadsom
I will not give way to the hon. Lady again.
In addition to the Opposition day debates, there has already been an emergency debate on tuition fees, as well as Government statements, urgent questions from the Opposition and Westminster Hall debates on those subjects.
The Government take their duties in this House very seriously, but I am afraid that those Opposition day motions were meant for party political point scoring. Labour has form in promising everything but not delivering. The party misled students before the general election when the Leader of the Opposition said he would deal with student debt—a £100 billion commitment—only for his shadow Education Secretary to have to admit following the election that that was just an aspiration. Aspirations are not good enough; it is deeds that matter. It is only this Government—a Conservative Government—who can be trusted to deliver strong public services while sorting out the disastrous public finances left to us by Labour.
Andrea Leadsom
I will not.
Do the Opposition even understand why the country has £1.7 trillion of debt?
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for giving way at last. What the House needs to hear from her is whether the votes on 13 September were one-offs, or if we should expect routinely and frequently to hear from the Government that, when they are going to lose a vote, they will simply avoid that by avoiding a Division
Andrea Leadsom
The right hon. Gentleman will obviously want to check his Twitter account for the answer to that one, since he checked it for the initial answer. The Government take these issues extremely serious. I am trying to explain why we chose not to vote on those political point scoring Opposition day motions.
To this day, I hear Labour suggesting that austerity is a choice or that we have deliberately increased public sector debt, but the fact is that in Labour’s last year in office, the Treasury spent £153 billion more than it received in taxes. The House will recall the note left by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) saying that there was no money left, which was a painfully honest statement from a Labour politician. In the seven years since, we have managed to reduce that overspend from £153 billion a year to £45 billion last year, but it is that annual overspend that increases debt, which now stands at £65,000 per household in this country. The only way to start tackling the debt is by first getting rid of the overspend. If we do not tackle it, it will be our children and grandchildren who will pay, but we do not hear Labour telling young people these truths.
Toby Perkins
I have no idea how that last paragraph has anything to do with the debate that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has secured, so let me bring the Leader of the House back to the matter in hand. Having just had a general election in which the Prime Minister ran away from debates, but then at the end claimed there were no serious debates during the election, it is deeply significant that the things we debate in this Parliament and the votes we have here matter. Will the Government therefore simply make a commitment that they will not treat Opposition day debates in the same way as they have treated Back-Bench debates? That is all we want to hear today.
Andrea Leadsom
I am not surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman say he has no idea what that last paragraph represented because I was seeking to explain why this Government are not playing Labour’s party political games. The Opposition do not face up to the reality of the mess they left this country in, and our children and grandchildren will end up paying for their mess unless we can get back to living within our means. That means that in their party political motions we chose to leave them to their games. Conservative Members will always balance the need for fairness to our superb public sector workers with the need for fairness to the next generation.
Mr Bone
There has been a lot of re-running of our previous debate, but I wish to go back to the principle of the thing. If this House expresses an opinion, be it in a Backbench Business Committee debate or an Opposition day debate, it is the Government’s duty to respond to that. Will the Leader of the House therefore undertake that the Government will reflect on whatever decision the House makes and come to make a statement—say within the month—giving their view about or response to what the House has decided?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am trying to explain that that is exactly what the Government are doing in those debates by matching up speaker for speaker to ensure that Back-Bench speakers get their views heard, with Secretaries of State opening the debates and senior Ministers closing them, and by taking account of and listening to Members’ views. It cannot possibly be the case that the Opposition can require Government Members to vote against a motion in order to prove that they were listening—what a daft thesis that is.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I am listening to the Leader of the House with great interest, just as I did to what the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) said. He seemed to suggest that the Government chose not to vote on those motions—certainly the first one—because the Government were in agreement and the debate was a political one about what “fair” meant, but she seems to be saying something different about whether or not there is political game playing. Will she confirm that when the Government disagree with the words of a motion, even if they disagree because of political purposes, they will vote against it? Will they vote against any motion whose words they disagree with?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is trying to put words into my mouth and to make me disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, with whom I absolutely agree. This House expressed a view; what she and other Opposition Members want to do is to force the Government to oppose. The reason why they want the Government to oppose is so that they can then put out a press release that the Government oppose fair pay for public sector workers. That is what this is all about. I am saying that the Government sent their best, most senior Ministers along to take part in the debate and our Back Benchers fully took part in it. We listened, we heard what was said on all sides of the debate, we took part fully, and then we chose to allow those motions to go through unchallenged. That is a completely different issue. This House expressed a view and the Government are listening, but we will not necessarily always choose to take part in party political games. That is what this was, and the Labour party needs to accept its responsibility for the financial mess that means that Conservative Members have to get us out of the economic disaster that they left us. There is just no denying the truth of Margaret Thatcher’s words when she said:
“Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.”
She said that in 1976—it was true then and it is still true today.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to take part in the debate and to set out for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the Opposition the Government’s strong record on encouraging scrutiny in this House and our deep respect for Parliament. Our Parliament is admired the world over for the way in which it gives the Opposition the opportunity to conduct fierce and effective scrutiny of Government—on Second Readings, in Committee, on Report, on Opposition and Backbench Business Committee days, in Adjournment debates, in Westminster Hall debates and on the Select Committee corridor.
The reason why scrutiny matters is precisely because the Government are listening. That is what this Government have been doing, and it is what they will continue to do. I look forward now to moving on to the more substantive business of the day and debating the issues that really matter to people.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Here we go again: another return to Parliament and another attempt by the Government to play fast and loose with the democratic arrangements of the House. This is clearly becoming a pattern, and the nation is starting to get really concerned and anxious about their casual disregard of many parliamentary conventions and scrutiny.
First, we had the horror of the grotesque Henry VIII powers in the repeal Bill. Then we had the Government fixing the Standing Committees of the House so that they could have a majority in each and every single one of them. Now we have all this nonsense about Opposition day debates and what the Government will or will not do in response to them. I think that I have identified the problem with this particular Government: they cannot accept their status as a minority Government. That is the basis of what we have here. They seem to be doing everything possible to try to deny that new reality, but the harder that they do that, the worse it gets for our democratic proceedings and parliamentary structures.
The Government have 317 Members out of a total of 650 Members—48.7% of the membership of the House. They are clearly a minority Government. Instead of fighting that reality, why do they not simply embrace it and accept it, then we can all get on with our business normally, with a minority Government trying to govern in this country?
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as he is speaking about minority Governments which his party now is in Scotland. When the Scottish National party had a majority Government in Scotland, it passed the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012. More than a year ago, when it was in a minority Government, it was defeated by all the opposition parties in a vote and called on to repeal the Act. Can he tell me the status of that? Has his party repealed the Act, or is it failing to respect the Scottish Parliament vote?
Pete Wishart
I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning that point. I was going to come on to that, because it is really important to understand how minority Governments respond to defeats in Parliament. The right thing to do is what the Scottish Government do, which is to review, reflect and consult. Let me cite one issue as an example. We were defeated on fracking. What did we do? We did not attempt to ignore that vote. We consulted, reviewed and came back to Parliament with a ban on fracking. That is the responsible behaviour of a minority Government. I will take no lecture from the hon. Gentleman whose party’s commitment to democratic decisions extends to the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) not even voting in the European Union referendum.
There are certain things that a party has to learn when it is in a minority situation in Parliament. The first lesson is that, sometimes, Governments get beat. They get beat here and they get beat in the Scottish Parliament. That is a feature of minority Government and it is alright—it happens. It happens normally in Parliaments right across Europe. This Government should not overly fret about it. They paid £1.25 billion to the Democratic Unionist party to ensure that they had a majority in the event of a threat to their existence. This House must also recognise how we can represent and reflect the democratic will of the people of this country. Sometimes I enjoy being lectured by Conservative Back Benchers about parliamentary sovereignty.
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Gentleman has twice mentioned sovereignty and respecting the will of the people. Does he respect the will of the people in the two referendums that have recently taken place—one in Scotland, and one on the European Union?
Pete Wishart
I will tell the hon. and learned Lady what I think about the will of the people. I was elected just a couple of months ago—I won an election. The gentleman I beat in that election is now in the House of Lords as an unelected Scottish Office peer. That is how to reject democracy; that is how to play fast and loose with the will of people—rejected one minute and ennobled the next. So I will take no lectures from the hon. and learned Lady.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I am one of the people as well, and I will conduct my voting in this Chamber entirely on the basis of my own opinion and my own conscience. I decide when and how I vote, not the Government, and on the occasion in question, I chose to deploy my vote accordingly. I was in agreement with the first motion, because the lead I tend to take from my Front Bench was in agreement with it. Why would I therefore choose to oppose it? On the second motion, although I was against the sentiments being expressed, it was clear to me that, in accordance with the statute, however I expressed my opinion, it would make no difference. That is the matter in a nutshell.
Mr Speaker
Order. I exercised some latitude for the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), not least in light of his starring performance this morning, when he asked the most succinct question, but that was a mini-speech rather than an intervention. I simply take this opportunity to remind the House that the debate can last until three minutes past 6. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has not taken up a great deal of time so far, so this is not directed specifically at him, but I simply make the point that if Members want to speak, they should try to help each other, and that means refraining from, dare I say it, lengthy or self-indulgent interventions.
Pete Wishart
What would we have done without the contribution from the right hon. Gentleman? He does what he wants, as he always has done, and he should make sure he always does that in the future.
I got a bit sidetracked there with the very interesting intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to come back to this notion of parliamentary sovereignty, which is something my friends on the Conservative Back Benches hold dear. It is about expressing the will of the people in this House. Parliamentary sovereignty is the be-all and end-all—Conservative Members are even committing this great indulgence of economic, cultural and political self-harm by leaving the European Union so they can have more parliamentary sovereignty. They should start to demonstrate their commitment to it by recognising that this is a minority Parliament. We are here to serve all the people of the country, and we have to have arrangements to make sure we properly reflect that.
The Government seem to see not being defeated as some sort of virility symbol, as if being defeated shatters their delusion that they somehow have a majority. When it comes to these issues, the Government will have to stop behaving so arrogantly; they will have to accept their minority status and act with a bit of humility. They went to the people a few short months ago to ask for a mandate and for an increase in their majority; that is what it was all about—they wanted to take advantage of what they saw as the situation in the Labour party. What happened? They came back as a minority—they lost their majority—so maybe responding with a little less arrogance and a little more humility would do them some good.
The second principle of minority Government is that you sometimes have to work harder to get your way. That, again, is what happens in other Parliaments, but we have seen no example of it from the Leader of the House today. There is no point the Government trying to bludgeon their will through in Parliament, as they are currently doing; it is much better to negotiate and make deals to ensure they get solutions. I thought that that was what we were going to get. I will not break the confidence of the Leader of the House by talking about my meetings with her, except to say that when I had my first conversation with her, I was encouraged by what she had to say about her approach to Parliament. She talked about a basis of consensus—trying to get agreement and progress legislation and motions through Parliament on the basis of agreement—but all that seems to have gone. I wish we had the earlier Leader of the House instead of the one who is standing here now.
Maria Caulfield
The hon. Gentleman talks about consensus and agreement, but that is exactly what we reached during that Opposition day debate, and Opposition Members are still not happy.
Pete Wishart
I will move on to Opposition day debates, because I know that is the intended topic of the debate. I do not really understand the Government’s position. Opposition days are a real feature of Parliament. I have been in the House for 16 years and I have always enjoyed Opposition day debates. There is always a bit of tension and there are always good speeches, and they tackle subjects that Governments would not normally bring to the House because they might just get embarrassed —subjects with which they might be uncomfortable. They play an important function in the House, and it is really important that we do not lose sight of their role. The most important thing about Opposition day debates is that they have a conclusion: some sort of decision on the motion is taken by the House. The day that the Government play fast and loose with that arrangement is the day that we really devalue Opposition day debates. We have Backbench Business debates and Adjournment debates. We do not need glorified Adjournment debates; we need real debates that hold the Government to account, and on which we can make a decision and then move on, respecting that decision.
We accept that the votes in question are not binding on the Government. The Scottish National party are a minority Government in Scotland and we know exactly how these things happen: we will get beat, and this Government will get beat. The key thing is that nobody expects them to change their policy or direction on certain issues just because they get beat on a Labour party Opposition day motion—that is the last thing people expect. Nevertheless, the votes on such motions reflect the will of the House, so people expect the Government to respond in a particularly positive way. They should not try to avoid votes or dismiss debates; they should respond and say something. They should go back and consult, review their position and come back to the House with a new set of recommendations. That is what I think the people we represent want from Parliament and from the Government.
Pete Wishart
I think we have heard enough from the right hon. Gentleman. He took up about 25 minutes of the available time so I shall move on, if he does not mind.
We on the SNP Benches have a little experience of minority government: we are in our second parliamentary session as a minority Government. We had a minority Government with just two Members more than the second party, and now we are just two short of a majority. In each case we have tended to try to function as a minority Government, respecting the view that we do not have a majority and trying to work in consensus and partnership with other parties. The exercise we are doing around the budget is an example of how things can be done in a minority Parliament.
I mentioned fracking: it is important that we come back to the Scottish Parliament on that with another view. On other issues on which we are defeated, we will consult further and try to address the concerns. That is how we govern as a minority Government. I am happy to talk things through with the Leader of the House to help her to understand better. If she wants to come to the SNP, we can give her some lessons about running a minority Government. If she is having difficulty with it, which it seems she is, she can come and have a chat with us. I will not break the confidence of our meeting, as she did to me at the most recent business questions. She can come and have a chat and perhaps we can talk through some of the issues.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
As we have heard, it has been 12 months since the Scottish Government were defeated, and they are still at the consultation stage, whereas in the four weeks since the House expressed a view on the two motions in question, the Government have announced a policy change on the level of next year’s tuition fees, and they have announced different terms of reference for the public pay review bodies. The Government have done exactly what the hon. Gentleman is asking of them in terms of considering and reviewing, and I am sure that those matters will come back to the House.
Pete Wishart
I do not think the hon. Gentleman has been listening. I am not making any criticism of the Government—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I am not! I am trying to give them some advice about how to do things and I am trying to get their minority status into their head. I am trying to help them to deal with that, so I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman listened to what I have said. It is good that they are reviewing things—that is what minority Governments do, and they should continue—but they also have to allow Opposition day debates to conclude and then vote on them and express an opinion. It is important that our constituents hear us in Parliament deciding on the important issues. It is important that they know our views, and the only way they are going to find out how we think about a particular issue or subject is if we vote on it. That is the only way they can determine it.
I do not know whether the Government intend not to vote on any further Opposition day motions, but I am not particularly interested in what Paul Waugh has to say in the Huffington Post on a particular day. I would like to hear it from the Leader of the House. Perhaps we can tempt her to say definitively, yes or no, whether she intends the Government to vote on Opposition day motions at some point. I will give her the chance to say whether it will be an option for the Government. [Interruption.] She is shaking her head, or—
Pete Wishart
She is not. That is good, and that is what we expected. All we needed to hear in this whole debate was the Leader of the House say to us, “Well, you know, we did that the first day because we thought we were playing a political game, but we’ll come back and we’ll vote on Opposition day motions.” We will get Opposition days; I would like to think that the Government would come along and vote on them.
We really have to start to get on top of all this. This has been a particularly bad start to the Parliament. I listened to the Leader of the House talking about all the things she did to put in place Select Committees earlier than usual. What utter, utter bunkum. Now that we are back for this long period in Parliament, with sittings right up to Christmas, let us start to show that we respect the political arrangements in the House—the structures and the way we have done things traditionally—and that we can still approach these issues collegiately and consensually, if we can.
The Government also have to get it into their head that they are a minority Government. We have seen no evidence of that yet. As we go through this Session, a little more of a demonstration of where the Government are just now would be useful and good. I hope that we do not have to have any more of these debates. I have been taking part in such debates almost every week for the past few months, and this is something we need to get over. We need to see the Government respecting their position and respecting the traditions of this House.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
It might be helpful to the House to know that, in an attempt to accommodate everybody who wishes to take part, I am minded at this stage to put a seven-minute limit on each Back-Bench contribution. That inevitably is subject to change, but I hope that will not be necessary.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this debate. Like perhaps a number of Members, I was somewhat surprised to find us debating this issue today, when there are so many other things we should be debating, but you are absolutely right, Sir. As the shadow Leader of the House said, you are entrusted with grave responsibilities, and it is only right, when a Member of this House makes what is effectively a substantive complaint against the Government—essentially, that they disrespect this House—that you should call them to this House. I am grateful for that, because it allows those of us on the Government Benches to set out arguments that, as you will see, more or less demolish the proposition that has been put.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) quite rightly said that we need to look at the words of the motion, which says:
“That this House has considered the Government’s policy in relation to the proceedings of this House.”
There seem to me to be two ways one can tackle the motion. The first is to look, as he did, forensically at the debates in question, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to yesterday. Anyone listening to my right hon. Friend’s speech would conclude that the Government clearly did not disrespect this House in any way.
There is another way of looking at this, which is to say, “What would be the basis for the charge?” There seem to me to be four things that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland could complain about. The first is, “Are the Government allocating enough days to Opposition debates?” Is he saying that the Government are not taking part? Is his charge that failure to vote is in some way a slight or a breach of convention? Or is he just saying that the Government are ignoring the Opposition motions?
The shadow Leader of the House complained in her speech about the number of times she has to ask for days. The reality is that the number of days allocated to Opposition day debates has not changed since their introduction in 1998. Governments of all hues— Labour, coalition and Conservative—have observed the number of allocated days. Indeed, in the period 2010 to 2017, when the Opposition were entitled to 140 days, they were actually given 141 days. They were also given 24 more days in unallocated business that there was space for, so they cannot really claim that Opposition business is not being allocated the right number of days.
If the charge is about participation, then a number of colleagues from across the House have pointed out that they are participating, particularly on this side of the House. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, on the day in question the Government fielded some of their most senior members. There were 11 speeches from the Opposition Benches and 10 from the Government’s, and in the second debate I think the figures were eight and 17. In both cases we had almost exactly the same number of speeches, so the charge of non-participation, which seems to be the thrust behind some of the contributions today, does not stack up. If this was the only time made available to debate such matters, that would be serious. It is not, of course. Tuition fees have been debated during ministerial statements and urgent questions, and in Westminster Hall. The subjects have been thoroughly debated by this House, and the charge of non-participation seems to me to be very difficult to prove.
The Government, as the Leader of the House said, take their responsibilities very seriously. If the Opposition really believe there is a need for more scrutiny, there is a way to secure more scrutiny and force the Government to defend their case, and that is by debating and voting on programme motions. The Opposition have chosen to debate only 15% of programme motions in the last seven years. If they really want more time, the Opposition could force the Government to come through the Lobby more often on programme motions, but they have chosen not to do so.
The third charge is that, somehow, by not voting the Government snubbed the House. On the two days that we are talking about, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean and others have made the point that snubbing the Opposition was certainly not the reason for the Government’s not voting. It is absolutely true that no Government have ever been bound by convention or the rules of the House to vote on any motion, especially Opposition motions. As my right hon. Friend has said, it is clear that Government—the Leader of the House is, I believe, following this tradition—should consider each motion and debate as it comes. There is no reason why the Government should be committed to voting on any motion, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House was right to resist the temptations offered by the Scottish National party to commit herself to that.
Lady Hermon
I am not suggesting that the Government snubbed this House, but the fact that they did not vote on lifting the pay cap left uncertainty for thousands and thousands of nurses and doctors throughout the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] If I may, I will continue. At the end of that debate when the Government did not vote, after the DUP had indicated that it would not be supporting them, there was no point of order to clarify the situation. I have scores of constituents in Northern Ireland, where we have no devolved Assembly. We need a lead from this House, and we did not get one. The problem is not the snub but the ambiguity, because this is not an academic point of argument; it affects people’s lives.
Stephen Hammond
The charge of ambiguity is a serious one, but it does not hold up. The Government Front-Bench team answered that question when they responded to the motion, so I do not think that that charge can really be levelled against the Government.
In the short time that I have left, let me make the point that as a Government Back Bencher, I have experienced the frustration of sitting here with my colleagues until all hours of the night, only to find that no vote takes place. On the question of votes, it is for individual Members to make their minds up, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said. We are elected here as individuals, and we can follow our wits, if we choose to do so. We are often urged to do so, and many people choose to do so, but it is for us to make that decision. Equally, it is for the Government to choose, motion by motion, when they should vote.
Finally, Opposition days can be used to raise matters of national importance, but all too often—not necessarily in this case—they are used for narrow party political posturing rather than a discussion of real quality. If a motion is about a matter of national importance, it is often phrased in a way that the Government find provocative or difficult to support. Many Governments have taken the view that they need to note what an Opposition day motion says, but ever since 1978, when the Conservative Opposition twice defeated the then Labour Government, it has become an established custom of this House that Opposition days are nothing more than advisory, and that they are not actionable. Although the Government should take note of the motions and continue to debate the issues raised in them—I have no doubt that that will happen under my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—they are advisory and the Government are not bound by them in any way.
This has been an interesting debate, but what today has shown—my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean pointed this out—is that, in the case of the two debates mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the charge does not stand. If we look behind the four possible arguments for saying that the Government are not listening on Opposition days, it is very difficult to contend that his proposition stands, so I hope Members will vote to defeat it this evening.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) shows how little he understands the matter when he suggests that we will be voting on this, because we cannot vote on it.
We do not have a written constitution in this country, and that is why we need to be very careful about the way in which we operate our conventions. For instance, nowhere, even in statute law, does it say that the Prime Minister has to be a Member of Parliament—a Member of the House of Commons, or indeed a Member of either House of Parliament. That is not written down, but it is an accepted part of the way our constitutional settlement works.
That is why I say to Government Members, despite all the huff and puff today, that they need to be very careful about how they play around with the conventions at the heart of our political constitution. We have a system under which the winner takes all. Even if a party gets only 35% or 42% of the vote and does not have a majority of seats, if it manages to form the Government it gets to decide when Parliament sits, when the Queen’s Speech is, what is in the Queen’s Speech, what gets debated and how long it is debated for. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that we could add extra hours by debating programme motions. We cannot table a programme motion, and if we force a debate on one—
Chris Bryant
I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have not even finished the point I was making.
Chris Bryant
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could just wait a moment. We do not get any extra time. If we use up time debating a programme motion, we are only taking time out of the main debate, so I will not give way to him on that point.
Chris Bryant
I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. He should understand that I am not going to give way to him on that point.
Only the Government can introduce legislation and be certain to get it debated. Once a private Member’s Bill has been given a Second Reading, it can proceed further only if the Government table the relevant motions, even if it was assented to by the whole House or by a significant majority, as happened during the last Parliament. Only the Government can amend a tax or a duty, and only the Government can table motions in relation to expenditure. It is a case of winner takes all, and that places a very special responsibility on every single member of the governing party.
I worry that this is all part of a trend. Of itself, this is not the biggest issue in the universe—of course it is not—but it is part of a trend in this Parliament since, I would say, 2010. The golden thread that runs through our parliamentary system is government by consent. It is not about the Government deciding everything because they have managed to take it all by winning, but about government by consent and the sovereignty of Parliament. Whatever the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean says—he and I have had many debates over many years—the truth of the matter is that the Government knew they were going to lose the vote and that is why they decided not to vote. That was absolutely clear, and it was what all the Whips were saying throughout the day.
The latest trick that the Government are playing in this winner-takes-it-all system—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) really should not lead with his chin on that issue. Their latest trick is to increase the payroll vote in Parliament. In this country, we have more Government Ministers than France, Germany and Italy put together—or, for that matter, than India, Pakistan and Australia put together. We have a vast number of Ministers. In addition, the Government now have 46 Parliamentary Private Secretaries, as well as 15 Government MPs who are trade envoys. All this is an exercise of patronage to make sure they hold on to power. If we look at the percentage of the governing party that that has represented since 1992, the interesting fact is that this is now the highest percentage ever, with more than 50% of Government MPs being part of the payroll vote. That is a despicable process for the Government to have adopted.
The right hon. Member for Forest of Dean said that the Opposition should have tabled a motion early in the year, so as to prevent the student fees regulations from coming into force. But the convention of this House, which he knows perfectly well, has always been that if the Leader of the Opposition prays against a statutory instrument—secondary legislation—the Government will provide time, in Government time, on the Floor of the House for a debate and vote within the timescale, so that the legislation can be prevented from coming into force if that is the will of the House. The Government’s Chief Whip refused to do that. When I asked, and when the shadow Leader of the House asked repeatedly, when we were going to get that debate, we were met with a consistent refusal.
This is a big breach of our constitutional rights in this House. In the last 12 instances when the Leader of the Opposition has prayed against, only five have led to the granting of debates and votes, and three of those were debates in Committee, where even if every single member of the Committee, including the Government Whip, voted no, the legislation would still go through because all the Committee is allowed to consider, under our rules, is whether or not the matter has been debated. In other words, it is the height of cheek—the most brass neck imaginable—to try to blame the Opposition for not providing time to debate statutory instruments laid down by the Government. That is why I say that hon. Members on the Government Benches should think very carefully about this business of whether the Government simply decide, when they think they are going to lose on a motion—a Back-Bench motion, an Opposition motion or any other kind of motion—to up sticks and say, “Oh well, it doesn’t really matter. It’s the kind of motion that doesn’t matter.”
There have been two other Back-Bench motions that I could cite in the last Parliament. One was on Magnitsky, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab); the other, tabled by the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), was on circus animals. The Government knew they would lose in both cases. They decided not to vote. So there was a unanimous vote in favour, and the Government have done absolutely nothing.
You should just beware. If you think we are Marxist Bolivarians, what will we do when we have these powers?
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
This debate purports to be about an important issue. It accuses the Government of the day of flouting the rules of Parliament and it is true that if that were the case, it would be fundamentally objectionable, because we live in a parliamentary democracy, where Parliament makes the laws that regulate our society, and the rule of law provides that no one is above the law, including parliamentarians. It is not the Conservative party that threatens the rule of law; it is the Labour party, because Labour members have, time and time again, stated that they would condone the flouting of our laws, passed in this Chamber. They would condone illegal strikes supported by the trade unions. It is the shadow Chancellor, not Members on the Government Benches, who has threatened the rule of law and our democracy.
This is a debate about procedure, but it is not just a debate about procedure; it is also a debate where the premise is flawed. There is an objection that the Government do not vote on Opposition days, but as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who applied for the debate, knows––having been part of the coalition Government that brought in Backbench Business debates—there is great value in debating important matters that affect the lives of our constituents without a binding vote or a commitment to take immediate action. Indeed, he is using a procedure in this debate, in this House today, which will have no substantive result other than the airing in public of this issue.
Mr Carmichael
The objection is not to the fact that the Government did not call the Division; it is that, not having called the Division, they do not then follow the will of the House; and indeed, that now it is apparently to be the Government policy to do so routinely. Does the hon. and learned Lady really not think that obnoxious?
Lucy Frazer
It is interesting that the right hon. Gentleman says the Government did not follow the will of the House. In the debate on public sector pay, the Government said very clearly that they would be flexible on that. Since that debate, the Prison Service and the police have had a pay increase, so it is completely inaccurate to say that the Government are not listening to the will of the House.
This is the third debate on procedure in which I have taken part in in two years and I have learned that other parties seem to value form over substance. They seem to value debating procedure rather than the issues at stake. In the previous Parliament, I had the honour of sitting on the Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee. In that Committee, we spent much time at the outset listening to arguments from Opposition Members that there was insufficient time to debate the issues. However, looking at the record of those proceedings I can see that on Second Reading, 53 Conservatives contributed as against 13 for Labour, and that on Report, there were 43 Conservative contributions, as against 13 from Labour.
When I knock on doors, not one voter suggests to me that we should spend more time in this House on procedural matters about past debates. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has brought a three-hour debate before this House at a time when there are many more important issues facing our country, such as Brexit—[Hon. Members: “He applied for it.”] He applied for it and Mr Speaker agreed to it. But the issues facing our country are Brexit, the economy, the NHS and education, issues that affect the daily lives of our constituents. It is those issues our constituents want us to discuss and not the procedure of this House.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
This House is rather archaic. Many of these things I can live with: the pomp and circumstance, the wearing of funny clothes—I am one of those who wears their own style—and the walking around with a giant mace. What I cannot abide, however, is when rules and procedure are used, in what seems like an underhand way, to reduce the ability of constituents to hold us to account. Constituents can agree or disagree with their local Member of Parliament, but it is important that they know how their local Member of Parliament views an issue and how they vote on that issue when it comes before them. Voting in that sense is a cathartic process: it allows us to support the process of democracy even if we do not support our particular representative. The problem with not bringing an issue to vote is that it undermines the very process of you, Mr Speaker, hearing the ayes and noes. That will lead to the Opposition forcing votes. It will lead to us wasting time unless it is clear that the silence on the Government Benches is a silence of approval, rather than a silence because they are afraid.
We have heard today that the Government agreed with the two motions, which is fantastic. [Interruption.] On the example we heard about earlier, the House agreed and the Government agreed. I applaud the Government on their turnaround. We heard earlier that in 2009 the Labour Government were defeated on the issue of the Gurkhas—the defeat was quite right in my view. On that very day, the Labour Government came to this House and made a statement on how they would change their course as a result of the vote of the House.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
There is another example: the Conservative Government after the coalition were defeated on the vote over whether we should bomb Syria. The then Prime Minister made a statement from the Dispatch Box to clarify the situation. His words were, “I get the message.” This Government have not got the message yet.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Exactly. It seems that the Government have not got the message that they should be accountable to this House. It is of course welcome that they have announced some minor changes—at the Conservative party conference and to the press lobby—on tuition fees and the public sector pay cap. But the problem with decree through press release is that it reduces the ability of this House to ensure that the detail of the volte-face is actually as the House wished.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
On a simple point of fact, the announcement on the public sector pay cap was a written ministerial statement. It is important that we do not pretend otherwise and that a Government who use legitimate procedures are not misrepresented.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Yes, but the suggested tuition fees amendment was not.
The subject of how we challenge statutory instruments is important in the light of our discussions on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. I sat through a lot of those discussions and Government Ministers tried to reassure me time and again—not that they were very reassuring—that we should not worry about processes through the negative procedure. They said that we should not worry about statutory instruments because if the will of the House was clear, the House would have the opportunity to review and rescind, and to ensure that statutory instruments that overstepped the mark would not be allowed on the statute book. However, what we see here is parliamentary jiggery-pokery.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
No. This parliamentary jiggery-pokery was used not only to ensure that the debate did not come in time to be able to withdraw the statutory instruments, but to prevent a vote in the House. Therefore, the will of the House seems less strong to members of the public. That is the reality of what happened.
If the Government had stood at the Dispatch Box that day and said, “We won’t be calling a vote because we agree on the two issues”, there would be no problem. The problem was that Government Members spent the whole day arguing against the content of the motions, but then did not vote on them. That is the concern. It is fine—in fact, I am more than happy—for the Government to change their mind after listening to our compelling arguments. I applaud them for that, but let us have a statement about how their mind has changed and, therefore, how policy has changed.
It is no good that members of the public are unclear about the position of this House and that people are left in limbo. They need to be able to hold their politicians to account. They need to be able to hold their Government to account, and the Opposition parties and Back Benchers need to be able to do that too. Therefore, I call upon Members of the Treasury Bench to stand up and make a statement about how and when they reflected on the motion passing unanimously, when they will bring forward the changes called for in both motions and the details of how they will do it.
Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), although I must put it to him, given his comment about our constituents needing to know where we stand, that when my constituents contact me they always know where I stand. He also put it that the public are unclear about the view of the House. In respect of the two resolutions we are discussing, the House approved the motions, so it is very clear where the House stood. It expressed its view.
It is a pleasure also to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I respect his—I see he is busy.
Jeremy Quin
He has the better of me. I was genuinely being respectful to the hon. Gentleman, whom I know thinks and speaks passionately about the conventions of this place. I am a relatively new Member, but I regard its role in our national life as very important.
I would not have sought to catch your eye, Mr Speaker, had I not looked carefully into the underlying principles of the application made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). First and critically, as he made clear in his application and as was reiterated by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), Opposition day motions, if carried, are not and never have been binding de jure on the Government. The precedents are clear. Between 1918 and 2015, there were 120 defeats of Governments, most of them on substantive legislative matters on which the Chamber was exercising its core constitutional role of creating and amending the law of the land.
On those occasions, however, when the Government lost a vote on a Supply day, the constitutional position was equally clear. I greatly enjoyed reading one such occasion—the debate on the devaluation of the green pound held on 23 January 1978. I was especially delighted to hear the two contributions, made from a sedentary position, by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who I am sorry is not in his place. One was:
“Leave the Common Market. That is the answer.”
The other one was:
“Get out of the Common Market. That is the answer.”—[Official Report, 23 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1071-73.]
He is nothing if not a beacon of consistency. The Labour Government having lost the vote, there was no suggestion in the closing remarks of either the Opposition spokesman or the Minister that the decision would be binding on the Government.
This to me is core to the issue. Clearly, the House can amend primary legislation, including, critically, money Bills, and pray against secondary legislation, debating such matters either in Government time or on Opposition days. What we are discussing here, however, is not an attempt by the Opposition to amend legislation, but the manner outside legislation whereby the Opposition examine and challenge Government policy. This, too, appears well established. The 1981 Select Committee on Procedure quoted, approvingly, an earlier Select Committee of 1966:
“The real nature of Supply Days was the opportunity provided to the Opposition to examine Government activities of their own choice”.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there are Backbench Business debates in the House that change policy, such as the baby loss debate, the subject of which we are in theory due to debate later today—but which we might not debate because of this debate? Is it not right that policy can be changed without a vote? There is no requirement for a vote to change policy.
Jeremy Quin
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will be brief so that we can get to that very important debate, which I know matters to many of our constituents. She is absolutely right that examining and challenging Government policy can lead, rightly, to a change in that policy. That is mirrored by the people who turn up to these debates. On the two Opposition days that particularly irked the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, two Secretaries of State, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and a Minister of State came to the Dispatch Box, and the speakers were matched one for one on either side. I attended part of both debates and can confirm that the Opposition were certainly doing their best to challenge and examine Government policy, as is their right.
There are good reasons why those debates ended as they did, as was illustrated by my two right hon. Friends for forests, my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), in their interventions. To imply that the whole process was fruitless because there was no physical Division at the end—a vote that we know would have been non-binding—belittles not only that debate but potentially the Backbench Business Committee debates, those in Westminster Hall and, to a lesser extent, the work done in Select Committees, where good contributions are made to the workings of the House and policy examined without Divisions being required.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman has always had my attention. It has been not far off the unanimous view of the House for some time now that we would like legislation on circus animals. Several hon. Members have tried to advance it, including the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and, in the last Parliament, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), but on every occasion the Government systematically let the Backbench Business debate proceed and then had a vote on it, as if to suggest that something would then happen. When the House expresses a view, even if that is because the Government have refused to vote, I think that the Government should listen. Surely the hon. Gentleman must too.
Jeremy Quin
The hon. Gentleman was very fortunate in his placing in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, so the solution to that problem may be in his own hands, although I understand that he believes that he will present more important business to the House, which I look forward to debating in due course. There are other means by which business can be debated, of which private Members’ Bills are but one.
In his application, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred to the motion on Gurkha settlement. I appreciate that he did so in all sincerity, and the subject was also raised by the shadow Leader of the House. The fact that the debate took place eight years ago may be indicative of developments in Opposition day debates over that period. The Labour Government did amend their position following that debate, but my recollection, like that of the shadow Leader of the House, is that there was a great deal more to that issue than what was said during the debate. I recall, as, I am sure, will other Members, the single-handed pincer movement—if such a thing is possible—that was inflicted on the Minister, Phil Woolas, by Joanna Lumley, and the phenomenal way in which she prosecuted the issue.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is not my hon. Friend’s case, in essence, that as long as the Government have the confidence of the House, when the House gives advice, it is for Ministers to decide how much of that advice to accept?
Jeremy Quin
It is undoubtedly the case that the Government should listen to the House and take the advice of the House, and must then decide themselves how to prosecute the business concerned, because they are accountable to the electorate and have that mandate.
The report of the Gurkha debate is intriguing. It was, I think, a unique case that arose eight years ago. The motion only got through this place because of—in the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green)—
“brave members of the Labour Party”.—[Official Report, 29 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 989.]
The brave members of the Labour party who supported the motion and defeated the Labour Government inevitably included the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and, obviously, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Leading the Ayes was the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Clearly Phil Woolas was a forgiving soul, as he subsequently nominated the right hon. Lady for the leadership of his party despite being a campaign manager for David Miliband, on the ground that “David wants to be inclusive”. I hope that moderate members of the Labour party will not get into the habit of nominating colleagues for the leadership of their party for the wrong reasons; who knows who they would end up with?
My view is that the Gurkha settlement debate was in a noble cause, far removed from the simple binary party-political debates in which the Opposition propose declamatory resolutions to spend taxpayers’ money without having the responsibility of funding those decisions. The Government must, of course, present Ministers to the House to defend and explain their policies, but on specific—and I mean specific—party-political issues, the Government believe that not trooping everyone through the division Lobbies is the right decision in the case of a non-binding, non-legislative resolution, and the Government must retain that right.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I rise to make what Members will be pleased to hear will be a mercifully short contribution. I am afraid that I must use some of my few minutes to correct something that was said by the shadow Leader of the House; I am sure that she would like that to be done at the earliest opportunity. She said that it was the Conservatives who introduced the Backbench Business Committee, but of course it was not. It was the coalition Government, consisting of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. That followed the work that a Labour Member of Parliament, Tony Wright, had completed, but it is unfinished business. Let me pre-empt a possible intervention from the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), who, I know, is pressing for the establishment of a Committee to resolve the way in which business is presented in this place. I hope that the shadow Leader of the House did not mind my correcting her on that point.
I thought that the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) was rather generous to the Leader of the House in saying that she could not possibly answer questions about business during business questions. That is her role, and I am sure that her predecessors Andrew Lansley and William Hague, with whom I worked, would have been very happy to answer a question on the subject of the business of the House.
The Government are clearly developing an addiction to closing down debate and scrutiny, or simply disregarding the outcome of any debates. We have heard a lot about Opposition day debates, so I will not touch on those. We have heard about the Government packing Committees to their advantage. We have heard a lot about the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and rightly so, because of course there are Members of this place—they do not appear to be here today, with perhaps one honourable exception—who have preached at great length about the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, often repeating the same speech, but when it comes to that Bill their enthusiasm for parliamentary sovereignty appears suddenly to have evaporated and it is no longer the critical matter it used to be. We see that in the Henry VIII powers and in how much policy the Government intend to push through in secondary legislation.
I want to focus briefly on the 50 sectoral reports that the Government have commissioned on the impact of Brexit. Whether one is a remain supporter like me, or a leave supporter like the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), I think that we all agree that it is important that the Government go public on what the impact of Brexit will be. I feel that it will be very negative, and I am sure that he thinks that it will be very positive, but at the moment we do not know because we are not allowed to see those 50 reports, which the taxpayer has paid for.
I am afraid that situation is often reflected in answers to parliamentary questions on the subject. I would have thought that by now every Department would know how many pieces of EU legislation they were going to have to transpose into domestic law through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill process. However, if Members ask that in a parliamentary question, what answer do they get? Some Departments are willing to hazard a figure of between 800 and 1,000, as the Department for Exiting the European Union has done, but others have no idea and do not give an answer at all. I think that the Government are very scared about allowing Parliament to scrutinise the Brexit arrangements in full possession of the facts.
In conclusion, the Leader of the House has had many opportunities in this debate to clarify the Government’s position on Opposition days, but she has chosen not to do so. We are left with the rather nasty suspicion that this is a Government who care little about parliamentary conventions, less about parliamentary scrutiny and nothing at all about parliamentary sovereignty.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I contribute to this debate from quite a privileged position, as someone who has served both my Parliaments: as a Member of the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood in Edinburgh; and as a Member of our Parliament here in Westminster in London. Of course, in both Parliaments, I have served under minority Governments, so I am well placed to speak about how Oppositions deal with debates in both Chambers.
We hear a lot from our Scottish National party colleagues about minority government here at Westminster, but very little about the fact that their party is in minority government in Holyrood—we heard a couple of sentences about it today from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), but not much before that. It is therefore worth repeating that Nicola Sturgeon went into the last Scottish parliamentary elections with a majority and came out with a minority, largely because the number of Scottish Conservative MSPs more than doubled—from 15 to 31.
The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said many interesting things. After 13 minutes of criticising and attacking the Government and Conservative Back Benchers, he told us that he was being helpful and consensual. That was the only helpful thing he told us, because up until that point it did not seem that he was being particularly helpful or consensual. He also said—I wrote this down because I was very interested—that nobody expects the Government to change policy after being defeated in an Opposition day debate. That was quickly followed by an intervention from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who disagreed entirely. That just shows the confused position among the Opposition parties in today’s debate. It is perhaps because the party of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has a minority Government in Scotland that he does not believe that Governments should change policy due to a defeat in a Chamber.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
It is nice to hear about the Scottish example, but I am interested to know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Government should change course when they are defeated in a Chamber, instead of just hearing him attack the SNP, which I do not have much truck with either.
Douglas Ross
I am a Scottish Conservative Member representing a Scottish constituency, so if the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I will speak about Scottish issues in the House of Commons. I will also speak about Governments being defeated when this Government are defeated. They have not been defeated in this House, but the party of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has been defeated. I want to come on to the point that I tried to make when I intervened on his speech. Hansard will show that I asked clearly about the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, but that the hon. Gentleman never once mentioned that piece of legislation in response.
Douglas Ross
Yes, if the hon. Gentleman is now going to tell me what has happened to that piece of legislation that needed to be repealed.
Pete Wishart
It is interesting that all that Theresa’s Scottish Tories ever do is to get on their feet and talk about the Scottish Parliament. In case it has evaded the hon. Gentleman’s attention, he was elected to serve in this House. As for the 2012 Act, a review is under way to examine hate crime legislation in response to the vote in the Scottish Parliament. That is how a minority Government should respond to a defeat in a Parliament.
Douglas Ross
I am sorry, but as the hon. Gentleman has totally misunderstood what is happening in Scotland with this piece of legislation, it is important that I provide a potted history of what happened. It was introduced by a majority SNP Government in 2011 with no support from the Opposition parties. Legal experts told them that it was wrong, a senior judge went on to say that the legislation was “mince”, and then a Labour MSP’s consultation on repealing the legislation attracted 3,000 responses, 70% of which said that the Act should be repealed. What is happening now? I will tell you. In November last year—
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman held out the prospect for the House that he would provide a potted history of what had happened in relation to the relevant piece of Scottish legislation. I think that he has somewhat stretched the definition and meaning of the word “potted”, and what I am politely indicating to the hon. Gentleman is that he should gravitate towards the thrust of the debate, rather than occupy the tramlines.
Douglas Ross
Thank you, Mr Speaker. You unfortunately stopped me mid-thrust because I was about to come to that point. The final element came in November last year, when I led a debate on the matter in the Scottish Parliament, which then voted to repeal the 2012 Act. The Opposition parties voted for the repeal, but nothing has happened in the past year. The point that I am trying to get across is that people cannot state that what the Opposition parties say here must be respected when they do not respect what such parties say in another Parliament, so I will take no lectures from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire about that.
Parliament gave a view on the two motions that prompted today’s debate. There was a full discussion, with Government Members matching Opposition Members speaker for speaker, and the House did not dissent from the motions. The House expressed an opinion. Our constituents would rather that we focused on the crucial issues that are coming up later this evening instead of spending hours discussing procedural matters. Our constituents would be better served by our getting on to those debates, which I look forward to listening to in the near future.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) for his contribution, but I promise to confine my remarks to affairs of this House. I apologise to colleagues who, like me, perhaps thought that they had nodded off and woken up somewhere else. It is almost exactly four months since we were all elected to this place—many of us for the first time—on a pledge to serve our constituents and the country, but I find myself increasingly dismayed by the attitude and flagrant disrespect for the values of the democratic process that are displayed by those on the Government Benches. First we were presented with the Henry VIII power grab in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and now it seems that the Government intend simply to allow Opposition days to happen and then ignore them, paying no respect to the views of the House, elected Members or, by extension, the electorate who sent us here to oppose and scrutinise. It is not good enough, Mr Speaker, and if we continue along those lines, we will not be serving democracy.
At the moment, politicians spend a lot of time debating and lamenting public apathy, searching for ways to engage the younger generation, and asking why they find so little in the work we do to spark their enthusiasm for public service. Perhaps we had our answer, or at least part of it, during the Opposition day on 13 September, with its debates on NHS pay and tuition fees—hardly unimportant issues. If any young person was visiting the House on that day or watching the TV coverage, what did they witness? Petty political game playing—not dissimilar, I have to say, from what we have seen from those on the Government Benches today.
Alex Chalk
In my experience in this House, Opposition day motions are all too often used as an opportunity to lay party political traps that end up misleading my constituents. Does the hon. Lady agree that, in those circumstances, the Government should take the discretion not to indulge in parliamentary game playing?
Christine Jardine
I would agree with the hon. Gentleman were it not for the fact that what he was doing was party political game playing rather than listening to the Opposition. Surely the point of an Opposition day debate is that the Government listen to a view other than their own. That is the view of the electorate—they think that we are here to serve them, rather than to play games. If they had tuned in on the 13th, they would have seen a Government simply paying lip service to the question with no intention of taking anything on board or of allowing any credence to be given to the debate, lest it should challenge their established view.
Mr Carmichael
On that point, when the Government agree at least partially with an Opposition motion, it is open to them to table an amendment. They chose not to do so last month.
Christine Jardine
Indeed. Why should such behaviour encourage any kind of faith in the political process—“Yes, we’ll let you have your say, yes you can have a vote, but we won’t take any notice of what you say”? Where is the democracy, where is the scrutiny and where is the respect for those who elected us? They surely deserve better.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to follow the new hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). She helpfully reminded us that it is almost four months since the general election, but the point about the general election of which I want to remind the House is that on 8 June the people of this country—my constituents and everyone else’s constituents—had a vote, and the result was that the Conservative party got 56 more seats than the official Opposition. We have a working majority. The Queen’s Speech has already been approved, setting out—[Interruption.] Whether the Opposition like it or not, that sets out the legitimacy of this Government’s programme of work.
The Government also have a record of empowering Parliament, as we have heard throughout the debate, and that means Back Benchers, too. As we have heard, in 2010 it was the Conservative-led coalition Government who established the Backbench Business Committee, which is really important for Back Benchers on both sides of the House. When I sat on that Committee, I saw the range of topics proposed by Members of all parties for discussion. In the couple of years in which I have been a Back Bencher, we have had interesting and useful Back-Bench debates in the Chamber.
Chris Bryant
My only point there is that it is a bit of a pain if we cannot make the debates mean anything because the Government decide to abstain from any vote and not to follow through on a decision of the House. There is an important difference here. Although the Government did not fully implement this from the Wright proposals in 2010, despite promising to do so by 2013, we could have, as the Scottish Parliament has, a parliamentary bureau to decide all the business of this House. Would the hon. Lady support that?
Wendy Morton
I just go back to my point about Backbench Business Committee debates, because they have an important place in this Chamber and can make a difference, as can general debates. We had a very meaningful and useful debate yesterday evening on Gypsies and Travellers, a topic that Members on both sides of the House had been raising—
Wendy Morton
I am going to make some more progress.
Members on both sides of the House had been raising the issue throughout the summer. Given the Minister’s statement at the end of that debate, I sincerely believe that the Government were listening and are pointing to some ways forward. As a Back Bencher, the issue concerns me in my constituency, so I will continue to press it, as I hope other Back Benchers will.
As we have heard, following this debate and another piece of business, we will have a debate on baby loss, which touches many people, again on both sides of the House. The issue has received a lot of awareness in the Chamber, starting from an Adjournment debate that was held a couple of years ago. We have had an Adjournment debate and Back-Bench debates. There is an all-party group on the subject and a ten-minute rule Bill on it was introduced. We have not had a vote as a result of any of those things, yet a private Member’s Bill is to be introduced on the subject. Let us hope that that legislation goes through this place and that we will be able to remember that it started from the Back Benches. That is not one of my private Member’s Bills. I have had two successes, but I would still like to think I could get a hat-trick.
All I am trying to do is to highlight the importance of debate in this place so that we have a chance to express our views. On the day in September that today’s debate is very much focusing on, I had that chance to make my views and thoughts on student tuition fees heard, and that was what I did. That does not have to mean that there will be a vote every time; I had my chance to have my say. What concerns me most is that we have now spent 14 hours talking about procedure. I am not blaming you, Mr Speaker—far be it from me to do that; I would never be called to speak again! The fact remains that 14 hours have been granted for speaking about procedure, but what really matters is what my constituents want to hear. They voted in June for this Government and for me to get on with the job of representing them in this place and raising the issues that matter to them, not to talk about procedure.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I wish to be brief, Mr Speaker. Let me thank you for accepting the debate proposed by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael).
I am particularly interested by this debate because I am a newbie in the House and still have a lot to learn. I arrived in Westminster very much of the view of Parliament being sovereign and this House of Commons reigning supreme. This Government’s blatant disregard for Parliament and for the fact that we are here to vote on issues that will impact the lives of the people who sent us here is a disgrace. If we think back to those two debates in September, it was clear that the Government knew they were heading for a big defeat—not for defeat’s sake, but because they are on the wrong side of history. Their weasel words on public sector pay show very little understanding of what is happening outside this place. The motion was very clear that any potential increase in tuition fees in England and Wales should be scrapped. It was clear, sensible and pragmatic. The failure to vote on the two Opposition day motions shows that the Tories are running scared. That is clear for everyone to see, including those outside this House.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) was right to note the deal between the Government and the Democratic Unionist party. If the 10 DUP members continue to support Opposition day motions—I sincerely hope that they do—what does that mean for agreement between the two parties?
I know that the Leader of the House is not a close friend of the Prime Minister, but a nice and easy answer to this would be to the benefit of the House. How stable is this Government and how can we have any faith in them when the £1 billion deal hangs by a thread?
Between January 1978 and September 2017, there was only one Government defeat on an Opposition motion in this House. I might have been a mere boy then, but I remember that the Government changed their policy the next day, rightly reflecting the expressed will of the House. When the Leader of the House winds up the debate, I hope that she will address that point.
I also think that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) was on to something when he intervened on the former Government Chief Whip, the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper). I agree that when Parliament speaks, the Government should listen. I know that, deep down, Government Back Benchers agree with that statement, but they are running scared of the Whips and, more importantly, of facing the people in our constituencies and community centres, and across all four nations that make up our United Kingdom.
The way that the Government have approached Parliament since the election has been a disgrace. As the shadow Leader of the House noted in her important contribution, this two-year parliamentary Session was announced in a press release on 22 June. The Leader of the House should have come to this House, and she knows it. The failure to increase the number of Opposition day debates was a further disregard of Members.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we would not be spending 14 hours discussing democracy if it were not for Government Members disregarding democracy?
Hugh Gaffney
Yes, I agree with that.
In many ways, this debate is silly. I say that because there are so many important issues facing my constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill and others across Scotland and the rest of the country. We should be doing more. We could be talking about the pressures faced by our hospitals and vital public services, the fact that the jobcentre closures by the Department for Work and Pensions have the potential to destroy livelihoods and the vitality of town centres around the country, the botched roll-out of universal credit that even John Major wants halted, and, of course, Brexit, which will affect everyone.
The Government should be ashamed of themselves. They should learn that, ultimately, this House is sovereign—
Mr Jim Cunningham
I was very interested in the justification from the Leader of the House for the Government’s actions on those two votes. We noticed that she sloganised for Conservative Central Office by blaming the last Labour Government for running the country into debt when she knows that it was her friends, the bankers in America, who caused the problem.
Hugh Gaffney
All I know is that I am skint and that I agree with my hon. Friend.
As I said, the Government should be ashamed of themselves. They should learn that, ultimately, this House is sovereign. Rather than engaging in this playground approach of sticking their fingers in their ears and ignoring the strong and loud voices of Members from all parties, they should show a bit of respect—that is all we ask for.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There are three remaining would-be contributors. The way that things have worked out means that we have slightly more time—[Interruption.] Yes, I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) will be sad that it did not happen for him, but we have heard him many times before, and we will hear him many times again. The limit will now be eight minutes per Back-Bench speech. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene all over the place because he enjoys the mellifluous sound of his own voice, we will wait in eager anticipation of that prospect.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I would say to the new hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) that if he thinks this Government are bad in relation to Parliament, he should have seen the Blair Government. However, I have a hint that we may be friends, because I think he said something nasty about Whips, which is always a good sign for a new relationship.
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this Standing Order No. 24 debate, which is about Parliament versus Government. It is impossible for us as Back Benchers to get this issue debated, so I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for introducing it. Although there was a little party politics on the Opposition Benches, there were also some very good speeches about parliamentary sovereignty, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said everything I would have said—which is worrying me and probably worrying him.
There were some arguments today that were just plain wrong. The argument that this time is taking up time we could be using to debate something else is nonsense. We can extend the parliamentary day, and we have extended it. We could have extended the parliamentary day by three hours today. The Government chose to introduce two statements today, which took up parliamentary time. So the argument is completely false.
There is nothing more important than discussing the sovereignty of Parliament and the rights of Parliament in relation to the Executive. The Executive control virtually everything, and legislation can, effectively, be brought forward only by the Government. We talk about private Members’ Bills, but if we pass a private Member’s Bill on Second Reading and the Government do not provide a money motion, it is completely stuffed. So everything is completely in the control of the Government.
The fact that the Backbench Business Committee was introduced—it came out of the Wright reforms, although its debates were supposed to be in prime time, not stuck on a Thursday—is a credit. However, I remember sitting next to the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, in the Tea Room and saying, “Isn’t it wonderful, Prime Minister, that we have a Backbench Business Committee and substantive motions the House can vote on?” He was having a cup of tea, and he spluttered it all over the place—he had not quite realised that point. However, there is no point having a substantive motion and having the will of the House expressed on a particular issue if the Government then choose not to take action. In my view, the Backbench Business Committee is the thing that has been ignored the most.
We have to come to a situation where, if the House expresses a view, a Minister must respond to that view in a statement. On the two debates that are being discussed, it does seem that the Government have changed policy subsequently, which is good, but would it not have been better if a Minister had come to the House and said, “As a result of that debate, we have thought about the issue, and this is what we propose to do”? I would like to suggest to the Leader of the House that it becomes a formula that if the House expresses a view, the Government should respond to it. That does not mean that they have to accept everything, but they should come to the Dispatch Box and say what they are doing on the issue.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I thought the day would never come when a newbie Lib Dem would agree with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), but I like the cut of his jib. I think there is something more dangerous here, and I will probably incur the wrath of the House by turning to the territory of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), but in the place where I once served for 12 years, we had private Members’ debates of an evening, to which a Minister would reply and after which, to be honest—I have to be careful about parliamentary language—damn all happened. That was dangerous for democracy in Scotland because the general public started to lose faith in the purpose of that kind of debate, and when we lose that, we are in danger of losing something incredibly important.
Mr Bone
I am grateful for that intervention, but may I give the new Liberal Democrat Member some advice? He should never agree with me if he wants to progress in his party.
Let me go back to another false argument that was used today. There was criticism of the Liberal Democrats for not being here for certain votes, and I have on occasion pointed that fact out in this Chamber. However, if we extend that to say that only people in this Chamber who know what the debate is about can go and vote, we would have quite a lot of different results in this House. It is not a bad idea.
A business of the House committee would solve a lot of these problems. That was proposed by Wright. It was supported; it was Government policy. Unfortunately, it was not Whips’ policy, and that is both lots of Whips. Many of the problems we have would be solved by having such a committee.
I am not sure whether anyone from the Government will be winding up the debate, but it would be useful to have a commitment from them on this matter. On an Opposition or a Backbench business day, if the House votes on something—we did vote; it is just that no one opposed the motion, so there was no recorded Division—that is the will of this House of Parliament and we should have a Government response.
Mr Harper
Presumably, my hon. Friend is asking the Government to say something only if the House votes for something that is counter to the Government’s existing policy. My argument was that the motion on the NHS was completely consistent with the Government’s policy, which is of course why the Government did not oppose it.
Mr Bone
I am grateful to the former Chief Whip for his intervention. As usual, he will not expect me to say anything other than that I completely disagree with what he said. I am saying that, if the House expresses a view, a Minister should come to the Chamber. The Minister can stand up and say, “I absolutely agree with the motion”, if that is what it is, but that should happen if, on an Opposition day, on a substantive motion, the motion is carried.
The issue of circus animals is the best example we have had in the House. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority in the House wanted something done about circus animals.
Mr Bone
I am sorry, I do not think I have time to take another intervention.
We really do need this to be done: the Government must take notice of what the House decides. It is a fact that, when the Backbench Business Committee came into being, the Government used to take it seriously. They used to vote on the motion. Then a former Leader of the House decided that it would be a good wheeze just to ignore votes and carry on. The reason we did not vote against the motion on circus animals—we can deny it as much as we like—is that we would have been defeated. It would be good in this parliamentary democracy if the Government on occasion were defeated. It would not be the end of the world and the Government would take note of it. That lot on the Opposition Benches would cry about it, but so what? Let us get used to it. This is Parliament. The people sitting here are not members of the Government—they are MPs sitting on the Government side. No one tells me how to vote.
Mr Bone
The former Chief Whip knows that. If I had wanted to, I could have been the only one to oppose the motion on that particular day. However, I did not feel like that.
This is not a wasted debate. It is a chance for parliamentarians to say that Parliament should come first and the Government should listen to what the House says when it votes.
Mr Carmichael
With the leave of the House, I shall say a few words. I would not often expect to say this, but it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). There was much in his speech with which I had little difficulty agreeing with. On the question of a business bureau for the House, again, that was in the Wright report. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, however, that to proceed with that without looking at other areas of House procedure that require reform would not be sensible. There is a strong case for revisiting the remaining work to be done in respect of the Wright report.
Chris Bryant
Something suddenly springs to my mind. Was not the right hon. Gentleman the Lib Dem Chief Whip who prevented the parliamentary bureau from coming into force?
Mr Carmichael
Indeed, I was part of the Government then—I was the deputy Chief Whip at the time. That was a decision taken by Government as a whole. Of course I was part of that, as were other Ministers.
Others have said that this debate was unnecessary. On one view, I am not without sympathy for that opinion. The debate could have been avoided if the Leader of the House had given us a clear steer on Government policy when I raised this matter with her on 14 September at business questions. She could have denied that it was Government policy to avoid Divisions that they would lose and then to ignore the decision of the House on non-binding motions. She chose on 14 September not to do so. She was given the opportunity again today to deny that this was the Government’s policy. She chose again not to do so. If she wishes to intervene on me now to be clear, I will take her intervention.
Andrea Leadsom
I think I have been clear. The Government look case by case, and voting is a matter for the House. What the right hon. Gentleman is looking for is an assurance that those on the Government Benches will always oppose Opposition—
Andrea Leadsom
That is exactly what he is after, so that he can write his press releases. We will look, case by case, at Opposition motions and make decisions accordingly.
Mr Carmichael
I can assure the House that it has been some years since I wrote my own press releases. What I want is an assurance that where the House reaches a decision—this is the point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made—that decision will be acted on and respected by the Government. We have had no assurance on that point for the third time today. The House will draw its own conclusion from that failure to deny.
From any Minister of the Crown, that would be regrettable. It pains me to say that, from the Leader of the House, who is supposed to be the House’s representative in Government, it is a dereliction of her duties. Those on the Treasury Bench can continue to avoid this issue if they wish, but if they do, it will keep coming back. Inevitably, because this is a democracy, the day will come when they are sitting on the Opposition Benches and somebody else is sitting where they are now. I fear that it is only then that they will understand the damage that they are doing to our House and our constitution now.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Government's policy in relation to the proceedings of this House.
Mr Speaker
We shall shortly be proceeding to the next business, and I am keenly anticipating that, in a matter only of moments, the Clerk will proceed to read the Orders of the Day. However, in order for us properly to proceed with that business, there is a requirement for the presence of relevant Ministers and shadow Ministers, and—for I am not casting aspersions—there is also a requirement for an occupant of the Chair, as the House will be sitting in Committee and the Speaker does not chair the proceedings in Committee, as Members will know. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) is gesticulating in a very gentle way from a sedentary position that the Minister is present on the Treasury Bench, and I am happy to acknowledge that. [Interruption.] The occupant of the Chair is here and I think others are also here. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.
European Union (Approvals) Bill
Tuesday 10th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 View all European Union (Approvals) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
This is a short Bill. As I explained on Second Reading, the purpose of the Bill is to approve four draft decisions of the Council of the European Union. All four draft decisions rely on article 352 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, and therefore require the approval of Parliament. Section 8 of the European Union Act 2011 provides for exemptions in order to avoid the requirement for an Act of Parliament, but the decisions with which we are dealing do not fall within any of the exempt purposes.
The first two decisions will enable two countries, the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Serbia, to be granted observer status in the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency. The third and fourth decisions are necessary to implement a co-operation agreement between the EU and Canada on competition enforcement. Clause 1 provides for approval by Parliament of those four draft EU legislative decisions. Clause 2 concerns the territorial extent of the Bill, its commencement date and short title. Subsection (1) provides that the Bill extends to the whole United Kingdom, subsection (2) provides that the Bill will come into force on the day it receives Royal Assent and subsection (3) provides for the Bill’s short title.
We are content that all four decisions are reasonable and proportionate, and that they will not result in any additional financial burdens on the UK. I urge hon. Members to agree to clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The European Union (Approvals) Bill is a two-clause Bill, as the Minister has said. It will approve four draft decisions of the Council of the European Union in relation to the participation of the Republics of Albania and Serbia as observers in the work of the Agency for Fundamental Rights, and the signing and conclusion of a new agreement between the EU and Canada regarding competition law, including the exchange of information between the EU and the Canadian Competition Bureau. Approval of those decisions by means of an Act of Parliament is necessary under the European Union Act 2011 in order for a Minister to vote in favour in the Council.
The Fundamental Rights Agency replaced the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia in 2007. As the Europa website states, the agency advises EU institutions and national Governments on fundamental rights, particularly in the areas of discrimination, access to justice, racism and xenophobia, data protection, victims’ rights and children’s rights. The agency’s areas of work have been determined through a five-year framework, and the main priority areas include the fight against racism, xenophobia and related intolerance. EU candidate countries can participate in the FRA as observers. The Bill approves two draft decisions on the participation of the Republic of Albania and the Republic of Serbia as observers in the FRA’s work. We support the draft decisions concerning the participation of Albania and Serbia in the FRA.
Competition is vital to our economy, the success of our businesses and the prosperity of the people of our country, and the encouragement of healthy competition is vital. National Governments have a vital role in ensuring that a fair market exists, and not just a free market. The way in which Governments work together is also crucial in determining whether markets are free, fair or otherwise. The decision of the Trump regime to impose punitive tariffs on Bombardier will have a disastrous effect on the workers and communities of Northern Ireland, and on the economy. Such tariffs, if they are allowed to stand, exemplify the use by companies such as Boeing of market dominance to destroy competition.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I am not sure that I like Donald Trump any more than anyone else does, but does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between a regime and an Administration? He calls the Trump regime a regime, but in fact the Trump Administration is an Administration. It is a democratically elected Administration, not some sort of hard left Venezuelan or Cuban-style regime.
Bill Esterson
I do not think there is any danger of confusing Donald Trump’s Administration or regime with anything of the hard left.
That Boeing can act as it has done—initiating trade disputes in a segment in which it does not compete—with the full support of a protectionist US Administration demonstrates the need to ensure that every effort is made to deliver healthy and fair competition. The reliance of some Ministers on the US for trade and for our own economic success has been brought into sharp focus by the actions of the Department of Commerce. Notably, this applies to the International Trade Secretary, who seems to think that our relationship with the US is the answer to all our prayers, but it clearly is not.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
It has been said by some that this Bill lacks substance, that this is a perfunctory debate and that it has little significance. I think that could not be further from the truth. For our actions here in the House this evening demonstrate beyond any discernible doubt that up to and until the point that we leave the European Union, we will continue to use our rights and obligations as full members of that institution, demonstrating that in the United Kingdom the European Union will retain the closest of friends, the strongest of allies and the most dependable of partners.
In that spirit, with our desire to do the right thing by our neighbours and echoing the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday when she reaffirmed our commitment to a peaceful, secure and prosperous future for Europe, it is right that we approve the decisions of the European Union Council. Few other single acts could better signal our desire for a peaceful and prosperous Europe than the granting to Serbia and Albania of observer status in the European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency.
We cannot forget that it was less than 20 years ago that British and other NATO troops were deployed in the Balkans in the midst of an horrific conflict that we hoped we would never see the likes of in Europe again. While I am sure that all in this House would agree that more should and could be done, with the Council of Europe among others, regarding the pursuit of war crimes in Serbia, and on judicial reform, anti-discrimination policies, illegal migration, organised crime and protections of fundamental freedoms, it is surely a mark of the huge progress made in all these areas by the respective countries that the Council of the EU has seen fit to recommend that they be granted observer status as part of their EU candidate status.
Using our rights and obligations to the full until we leave, as we should, it is right that the UK supports Albania in its accession efforts and Serbia in its reform projects. Our giving consent to these—
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about encouraging the enlargement of the EU across the Balkan countries. On that count, does he also support the application of countries such as Montenegro, Macedonia, Kosovo and Bosnia?
Andrew Bowie
Each application has to be looked at in its own individual context. It is obviously not for me or this House to decide where each state is in terms of its candidate status, but for the Council of the European Union. I know that that is going through at this very moment.
The third and fourth decisions of the EU Council are necessary to implement a co-operation agreement between the European Union and Canada on competition enforcement. Canada is one of the United Kingdom’s oldest and closest partners: we have been allies in conflicts for over a century and we have a shared past, strong family links and shared values. As if to underline that closeness, Canadian and British troops, as well as European and other NATO service personnel, are working closely, side by side, as part of Exercise Joint Warrior along the north coast of Scotland. It is because of this closeness, and our shared history and values, that many in this House and beyond find it so frustrating that it has taken over eight years for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement to be agreed between the European Union and Canada. Even then, it almost came unstuck due to the complex internal machinations of Wallonian politics—I was going to make a comment about unchecked devolution, but I have thought better of it. I just wonder whether a UK-Canada free trade deal might take a slightly shorter time.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for reminding us that as well as the co-operation with Canada, subject to this proposed Act, a much more significant and detailed co-operation agreement was finalised not so long ago. He will be aware that while the Bill has been offered a potential six hours debating time on the Floor of the House, the CETA deal was agreed without a single minute’s debate on the Floor of the House. Does he believe that that allowed the House to properly influence such an important trade deal?
Andrew Bowie
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was well before my time in this House so I would not feel entirely comfortable commenting on that. This debate is not about CETA.
The decisions taken in the EU Council being approved by us today for agreement by the European Parliament will replace the 1999 competition and co-operation agreement. As the Minister said, the agreement replicates and builds on the provisions in the earlier agreement by allowing the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau to exchange evidence obtained during investigations, including confidential information and personal data. These decisions will further help British businesses thrive internationally, as both Canadian and European business benefit from strong international competition law. On anti-competitive business practices, we must continue to work with Europe and Canada after we leave the European Union. We on the Conservative Benches know that the only way to reliably increase long-term living standards is through trade. Fair competitive trade is, as we know, the catalyst for reducing poverty, spreading prosperity and fostering innovation.
An outward-looking global Britain, as we will be, must continue to fight fair for business practices across the globe to ensure that free trade works for everyone. I hope the European Union recognises that the approval of its agreements is done in good faith, because it benefits citizens and businesses across the United Kingdom, Europe and Canada. In approving these decisions, we not only signal our commitment to the future of a peaceful and prosperous Europe, reaffirming our position as its closest and most dependable friend, but signal our continued desire to promote fair competition, free trade and an ambitious future for ourselves and our partners across the world.
Peter Grant
I am happy to speak in support of the Bill. As I mentioned in my intervention, it seems ironic that something that appears to attract little opposition and not even a great deal of concern across the House could, if necessary, be granted a total of six hours of debate—tonight’s allocation and what we had on Second Reading—on the Floor of the House, yet massively important and much more contentious EU legislation, such as the CETA deal, is guaranteed no time whatever on the Floor of the House. The Government were eventually dragged kicking and screaming into an upstairs Committee room for an hour and a half after the CETA deal had been signed off but before it was finally ratified. That was after months, if not years, of determined efforts by the European Scrutiny Committee, whose scrutiny process was ignored and overridden by the Government on that and on so many other matters. I will come back in a moment to explain why that is so vital, but it seems ironic that something relatively non-contentious requires an Act of Parliament before the Minister can sign it when Ministers from all parties have quite happily signed much more contentious EU documents in the past without any appropriate reference back to this House.
I want first to speak about the applications from Albania and Serbia. We should enthusiastically welcome the movements in those two countries. I am one of a fairly small number in here who can remember the days when Albania was like the North Korea of Europe. Even before the fall of the iron curtain, even when the Stasi were in charge in East Germany and even when the Ceausescu regime was in charge in Romania, Albania was seen to be the most isolationist place of all. We should welcome the fact that it now wants to move closer to the more modern family of European nations. And look at where Serbia has come from in the past 20 or 25 years; we should enthusiastically welcome the fact that it is now asking to be allowed to co-operate much more closely in the protection of human rights and the eradication of racism and xenophobia. We should encourage the Serbian people and Government to continue on that journey.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I have spoken during a previous stage of this legislation and am happy to do so again. Before I begin on the Bill, I have to take issue with the shadow Minister’s use of the phrase “Trump regime”. This really is the sort of childish politics that we have come to expect from the Opposition. Never mind various shadow Ministers popping along on certain strong leaders’ particular TV channels without seemingly any notice at all—no criticism of that. But describing the democratically elected Government of our biggest ally and friend as a regime is silly, childish politics. The shadow Minister could do better, but he showed why the Labour party is unfit to hold any sort of ministerial office at any time soon.
I take issue with a couple of things that the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said. It is not true that Parliament has not discussed, debated and questioned Ministers on CETA. I declare an interest as a previous vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on TTIP, now the all-party parliamentary group on transatlantic trade. We have had Backbench Business debates in which TTIP has been debated and the CETA deal has been smeared by certain Members as a Trojan horse for American interests, which is a deep insult to our Canadian friends and allies. Ministers have responded to those debates, and of course the issues have been raised time and again in questions. I partly understand his point, but it is not the case that we have not examined and discussed the CETA provisions in depth in this place, both in the Chamber and elsewhere. It is a consequence of its nature that the trade treaty with Canada passes in this form. There is nothing unusual about it. It is part of our constitutional system.
I also take issue with one other thing the hon. Gentleman said, which in my mind was the biggest nonsense I have heard for some time: that the reason the British people voted to leave the EU was that the British Parliament, even in cases of the direct applicability of EU law and an activist European Court of Justice, has not got in the way of things forced on Britain, even sometimes against the wishes of the British Government. It was a bizarre argument. I suppose it is just another example of people failing to accept the democratic will of the people. Seven out of 10 of my constituents voted to leave the EU. They have pretty much been smeared since the referendum campaign for daring to vote a different way from certain establishment types in this place.
Peter Grant
I will not rise to some of the nonsense the hon. Gentleman is speaking. Will he confirm whether he is familiar with the resolution of the House requiring Ministers to get either clearance or an agreement to waive scrutiny from the European Scrutiny Committee, and will he confirm that when the International Trade Secretary—I think it was him, but I cannot be sure—signed CETA, he did so knowing he did not have the Committee’s approval? The resolution does not say it has to be discussed at a Backbench Business debate or by an APPG; it quite clearly says it has to be cleared by the Committee, but it was not at that time—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We are a little more lax because this is Committee stage, but I kind of forgot the hon. Gentleman was intervening rather than making a speech. I should not have let him go on for quite so long, but I am sure he has made his point now.
Andrew Percy
I wish to forget that the hon. Gentleman was speaking, given, again, the nonsense he was trotting out that in some way this is Parliament’s failure. He clearly does not understand how European decision making has evolved through the various European treaties over the years and how the role of this House in that legislative process has been diminished. He is a member of a party that wants to retain decision making in Brussels, rather than repatriate it to the UK, so it is a little difficult to swallow being lectured about parliamentary democracy by a representative of a party that wishes decision making to remain in Brussels.
I am delighted, as I was at previous stages, to support the Bill. It is important, as we exit the EU, that we continue to be good partners in Europe, and if it is the will of Serbia and Albania to join the EU in the future, it is not for us to get in their way. Regardless of whether we are in favour of leaving or remaining in the EU, we will all wish them well as they embrace the values that we in this country and our allies in Europe hold so dear. It is important for their own stability that they be allowed to progress unimpeded down the path they have chosen. Also, by actively supporting the Bill, we show what we wish to be after we have left the EU: good partners with Europe. As a proud Brexiteer, therefore, I am more than happy to support a Bill that might well pave the way for the expansion of the EU.
On the provisions as they relate to Canada, the Minister was unable, quite reasonably, to say whether we would wish to participate in these arrangements in the future. That will of course be a matter for our final arrangements with the EU. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) set out a position, and the Opposition have set out any number of different positions on Brexit, all of which they appear to be capable of maintaining at the same time. That is an interesting approach to such an important issue.
Andrew Percy
I only got a C in GCSE maths, so I am afraid I cannot do such advanced sums involving so many numbers at any one time, but it is certainly a lot, and it is certainly the case that the position taken depends on which shadow Ministers—be they impressive or unimpressive—pop up on the television screen.
Let me now deal with the broader relationship with Canada. This whole process—not only through the agreement that we are discussing, but through CETA—has been an important indicator of how we may wish to do business with Canada in the future.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a typically powerful speech. This agreement is a good start, but, as an advocate for opportunities for future trading arrangements with Canada, does he agree that there is potential to be even more ambitious?
Andrew Percy
I absolutely agree. I am delighted to have been asked once again to be the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Canada, as I was previously until I had the unfortunate experience of being a Minister for a year. I was passionate about the deal that was negotiated. As hon. Members will remember from our work on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, I have been a strong advocate in the House for improved trade relations between this country and north America. I should add, despite being a strong advocate for CETA, that CETA is a classic example of the European Union way of negotiating a trade deal that does not necessarily reflect the peculiarities and the particular circumstances of our economy.
I think—and the Canadians have been very positive about this—that although it would be sensible for us to continue to apply CETA during the immediate period after we have left the European Union and to use it as a starting position, we can be far more ambitious. After all, 40% of our merchandise comes into the EU from Canada. We are the biggest recipient of Canadian foreign direct investment in the EU, and we are the biggest foreign direct investor in Canada among EU countries. It is certainly the case that we can be more ambitious, and aim for more than what has been achieved so far through CETA, although it is a good start and a good base. I welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent visit to Ottawa, where she established a bilateral trade working group with Prime Minister Trudeau and his Government. That was a good step forward, especially in the eking out by officials of where a deal could lie in the future.
I want to make a case to the Minister that I have made at earlier stages. I hope he will take it on board, because it is the crux of my speech, as it was at those earlier stages. While it is important that we maintain our relationships with the federal Government, I think that the one thing we have learnt from the CETA process, on both sides of the Atlantic, is how important—particularly in a Canadian context—engagement at a sub-federal, sub-national level really is. I urge the Minister to ensure that we learn the lessons of how we engage with provincial Governments, who are so important to the success of any future trade deal with Canada. We need to ensure that, as well as continuing our bilateral relationship through the working group that we have established through the federal Government in Canada, we are actively working with those provincial Governments, a number of whom have representatives and trade offices in the United Kingdom, and we need to ensure that we learn the lessons of any failure to do that through CETA.
I have little else to say, other than, again, to wish the Bill every success.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
This is a Bill that I think we can all support. It is small and we have consensus but, as other Members have said, it is still a significant measure. I refer, in particular, to the decision to grant Serbia and Albania observer status at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
One of the EU’s great successes, which I think the House should celebrate, notwithstanding the decision to leave, is its support to progressive movements in many former Soviet bloc countries in eastern Europe. Many of those countries are now full members of the EU, but many others, although now parliamentary democracies, are still seeking to move forward in a range of areas, as the Minister reminded us, such as in combating sexism, racism, homophobia and conservative nationalism in the worst sense of the term. It is important that we reflect on that in this debate.
Only 20 years ago, as the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) mentioned, this country supported Kosovans. We saw ethnic cleansing in that part of Europe, just a few hours away from Heathrow. We thought that ethnic cleansing had been banished, and that it was impossible for that to occur again in Europe after the horrors of the second world war. The instability of the situation threatened the wider region. It has taken Serbia and Albania 20 years to reach the position in which they can be granted EU observer status.
There are still significant challenges. I recently met representatives from Albania at a conference in Rome on slavery and human trafficking, and we were reflecting on the challenges that the country still faces—I am not as familiar with Serbia, but I know that other Members are. All that I wanted to do was stand up in this House and say that the British Parliament thinks about and understands the people who are seeking to bring about progressive change in their counties, sometimes in very difficult circumstances.
There is a question for us, if and when we leave the EU—without getting into the divisiveness of whether or not we should—of how we can continue to support progressive movements that are seeking to tackle some of the problems in Serbia and Albania, and indeed in counties such as Montenegro. The Government will need to consider how to approach that. That sort of consideration can easily be lost in our debates on the EU, but it is of fundamental importance.
Serbia and Albania have made massive advances, but there is still a long way to go. The granting of observer status is another significant step forward. The people in those countries who are seeking to advance the causes of sexual equality, anti-racism and a nationalism that does not remind us of the horrors we have seen before need our support, and they need to know that we are interested, that we care, and that we will support them in their endeavours. The Bill is small, but it is crucial to us all.
Mr Seely
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and I will hopefully pick up on a couple of his points. I will speak briefly in support of the Bill, and specifically Serbia and Albania’s admission to observer status in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. That is important for us, but it is extremely important for those two countries, particularly Serbia.
Whether we like it or not—we clearly do not, because we thought that it had ended about 20 years ago—we are in something of a cold war with the Russian Federation, or at least with its leadership. The aggressive cooling of relations was advertised in President Putin’s Munich speech back in 2007, and it could be said that there was a gestation period of some 10 to 15 years before that during which the forces of proto-communism and socialism, hard-line nationalism, and even an aggressive, virulent fascism coalesced around an illiberal hostility to the western world. Whether we like it or not, there is a battle for Serbia’s future and, broadly speaking, there are two models for where the country is going. One is pro-EU and involves democracy, individual rights and hostility to minority oppression. It is not a perfect system—it could be said that a little more adversarial politics would be no bad thing—but those things are critical to a civilised society.
As the hon. Member for Gedling was saying, the other model that the Serbians face is the one that the Russians want: hard-line nationalism; hostility to individual rights; perhaps a celebration of a sort of pan-Slavism; and aggressive propaganda against NATO, the EU and “gay Europa”, as the Russian official media would have it. The hon. Gentleman mentioned conservative nationalism, but it goes beyond that—it is a virulent form of illiberalism in almost all forms. It is almost proto-fascist, although it gains support from both sides, with avowed fascists and avowed communists having a similar social agenda involving antagonism towards homosexuality and what they perceive as deviance, and a slavish hierarchical acceptance of an order that we would consider stifling and deeply unpleasant.
Examples of the active destabilisation that has sadly been engaged in in the Balkans include the recent attempted coup in Montenegro, which was allegedly carried out by the GRU—Russia’s Main Intelligence Directorate—and the handing out of Russian passports to Serbians in the Balkans. The aim of that is to give the Russians the ability to interfere in politics in that part of the world and, in the worst-case scenario, to create the destabilising, small-scale conflicts that have marked Russia’s behaviour in the former Soviet states. There is also economic and political pressure in mainstream Serbia to try to get the country, and powerful individuals within it, to turn away from a broadly pro-western, pro-EU model.
What can we do about that? From my experiences in former Soviet states, the easiest things are probably free trade and free movement—all those things with the word “free” in—as well as support in every conceivable way for civil society, which the EU’s fundamental rights will help to grow. That is the fundamental basis on which democracy will be strengthened on the basis of our alternative—a broadly pro-western, liberal alternative —with a rejection of more aggressive, destabilising nationalism. For those reasons, the Bill is somewhat important to us, but it is extremely important to the Serbians.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
We are still a member of the EU, so it is right that we proceed with the Bill as quickly as possible. We are not talking about leaving the EU on bad terms, so it is right that we spend time considering such cases as good members of the EU. Two of the four procedures that we are considering under the Bill involve giving Serbia and Albania observer status in the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. The agency replaced the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. It collects data about fundamental rights and seeks to engage the public and civil society on tackling such issues. That sounds to me very much like the work of the Council of Europe. I have returned this morning from Strasbourg, where the plenary session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe is still going on. That body needs a lot of reorganisation and work to bring it up to scratch. However, there was mention earlier of what we might do post-Brexit to engage with such agencies, and it occurs to me that there would be an opportunity, if we were so minded, for us to consider how we might bolster an organisation such as the Council of Europe and wrap things up, rather than duplicating effort.
I think that the last time I was in Strasbourg was during the April session, and I opened up my locker yesterday to find my speaking notes from that trip. The Council of Europe building, which sits next to the Strasbourg European Parliament building, is essentially mothballed. There is a lot of waste and a lot of duplication, and we could work with our European colleagues and partners to ensure that we streamline things and focus on the frontline of protecting people’s fundamental rights. This debate will affect many millions of people.
Albania and Britain have some quite odd but big links. C. B. Fry was offered the monarchy of Albania, which he turned down, giving rise to the reign of the wonderfully named King Zog I. Norman Wisdom is also fêted in Albania; I think he has a statue in Tirana. The reason why I know these two bits of pub quiz trivia and little else about Albania was mentioned by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant): Albania has been a very closed country for a long time. It is important that we work however we can to open up that country and keep it progressing, joining the international community in the fullest possible way and protecting people’s rights.
I welcome the accession of Serbia and Albania to the agency, but I also want to say a word about the Canadian aspect of the Bill, as we consider competition law ahead of the ratification of the CETA deal. I have been lucky enough to travel around the world over the past few years to places such as Bangladesh, Burma, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Taiwan, and they have all been looking at how they can work with the UK through free trade deals. I am excited about the prospect of having free trade with as many countries as we can. I do not care if the EU is involved in this free trade—we need to widen it out so that we can break down barriers wherever they exist. Working on CETA and against anti-competition procedures can only be a good thing for our European partners. Although we might not be around in the EU to benefit from the CETA deal, it is only good for European and global trade that we should push this Bill through.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Margot James
I beg to move, That the Bill now be read the Third time.
The brief explanation that accompanied the clause stand part debate in Committee covered all the points that need to be made about this short Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed so fully, and I am grateful for their support for the measures. I wish the Bill an equally swift passage through the other place and on to Royal Assent.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With your permission, I would like to pay tribute to a loyal servant of this House, Trevor Ford, who has been a Doorkeeper for more than 20 years and is retiring today. He is from my region; he was actually born in Gateshead, but is a proud red and white Sunderland supporter all the same. He served with great distinction in the Royal Air Force from 1969 to 1992 and completed tours in both Northern Ireland, during the 1970s, and West Germany. In 1996, he became a Doorkeeper here in the House of Commons. Many of us will know that Trevor has worked at almost every post in and around the Chamber; he has worked in the Members’ Lobby, at the back of the Speaker’s Chair, in the Strangers Gallery and, more recently, in the Special Gallery. He has been the Bar Doorkeeper and has led the Speaker’s Procession on many occasions. He is a thoroughly well liked, thoroughly decent individual, and he has served this House with great distinction for 21 years. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to thank him for his loyal service and wish him well on his retirement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
On a technical matter, I thank the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) for raising that point of order. It was, of course, not a point of order for the Chair, but I am delighted that he took the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House the fact that this is Trevor Ford’s last day in his current office. On behalf of everyone in the whole House, I would like to add our very grateful thanks to Trevor Ford, who has carried out his duties with great dignity over many, many years. All of us who are elected to this House know very well, every minute of every day, that we could not do our duties if we did not have the support and absolute loyalty of the other servants of the House, who carry out their duties so well. We appreciate that what Trevor Ford has done over many years often goes without notice, but we notice all the hard work and all the dedication. I am absolutely delighted that the House has this momentary opportunity to pay tribute to Trevor’s many, many years of service. I should just say for the record that while I have been saying this he has managed to stand to attention the whole time—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.] It is unusual that we can manage to pay a tribute such as this, but let me give our very sincere thanks from the whole House. We wish Trevor all the very best for the future.
Baby Loss Awareness Week
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
Before I start the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say that I am delighted that you were able to pay tribute to all of our Doorkeepers and, in particular, to Trevor, on his last day here.
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Baby Loss Awareness Week.
I am personally very pleased that this debate is being held in Government time, having participated in last year’s debate on baby loss. It was one of the most moving experiences I have had in this Chamber, as Members from both sides of the House gave expression to their own experiences. That helps to send a signal outside this place of the significance that we accord this, not just within the Department of Health and the NHS; Members of this House sympathise with the many members of the public who go through such experiences. It does this House a good service when Members who feel able to do so place on the record their own experiences. It is right and important that we continue to raise awareness of the devastating impact of baby loss.
I wish to restate at the outset this Government’s commitment to providing high-quality bereavement care and to reduce the numbers of babies who are lost too soon through miscarriage, stillbirth or other causes such as sudden infant death syndrome. I pay tribute to all those who are sharing their personal experiences this week. In particular, I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince), who are in the Chamber today, and all members of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, which they co-chair, for achieving so much in raising awareness during this past year.
I wish to update the House on some of the initiatives that the Government and the NHS have put in place since last year’s debate to improve safety, reduce stillbirths and other adverse maternity outcomes and improve bereavement care. I believe that all hon. Members support the ambition of the Secretary of State to halve the rates of stillbirth, neonatal and maternal deaths and brain injuries that occur during or soon after birth by 2030, and to achieve a 20% reduction in rates by 2020.
Shortly after the debate last October, the Secretary of State launched the safer maternity care action plan, which set out additional support for the maternity and neonatal services working to achieve that ambition. The plan set out a range of initiatives on five themes. First, there is a focus on leadership, with the establishment of local, regional and national maternity safety champions to promote professional cultures, teamwork and continuous improvement. Every trust with maternity services has pledged to appoint a maternity safety champion, and 88 out of the 134 trusts that provide maternity services now have named leads.
Secondly, there is a focus on learning and best practice. This includes the Saving Babies’ Lives care bundle to reduce stillbirths, which was launched by NHS England in March 2016. Saving Babies’ Lives brings together four elements of care that are recognised as evidence-based and/or best practice: reducing smoking in pregnancy; risk assessment and surveillance for foetal growth restriction; raising awareness of reduced foetal movement; and effective foetal monitoring during labour. The Department has also funded Sands and Best Beginnings to develop and promote the “Our Chance” campaign to give parents knowledge and confidence to maximise their chances of healthy outcomes.
Thirdly, there has been a focus on multi-disciplinary teams with an £8.1 million maternity safety training fund, which is designed to ensure that staff have the skills and confidence they need to deliver world-leading safe care. All 134 trusts with maternity units have now received funding and are implementing training packages. Many of those are being delivered by the charity Baby Lifeline, which I met this morning to learn some of the benefits that this training is bringing to improving safety, reducing error, and helping patient outcomes.
I visited Leeds teaching hospital a couple of weeks ago and heard from midwives about their multi-disciplinary training programme “Deliver me safely” in which they and doctors undergo training together in the recognition that human factors can contribute to harm in maternity systems. These simulations focus on situational awareness and team interactions, challenging some cultural hierarchical attitudes, which I am afraid can be prevalent in parts of the NHS, and encouraging everybody to speak up if they have safety concerns.
Lastly, there has been a focus on innovation, with the launch of a maternity safety innovation fund of £250,000, which has supported 25 local maternity services to create and pilot new ideas, and of the national maternal and neonatal health safety collaborative to build local capability in quality improvement and to provide structured support for local teams. One example of this is the safer films project at the University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, which is developing staff training films, using headcam devices to show interactions with clinicians from the mother’s perspective. The patient’s view of the drills undertaken around her allows clinicians to look back at the impact that their activity, including how they communicate with women and their partners, has on the patient.
Just last month, the Secretary of State hosted a roundtable with 25 key partners across the health system to discuss evidence and current NHS clinical practice on supporting women to have safe births. There has been an enthusiastic response to the Secretary of State’s ambition, with a range of initiatives developed by national and local NHS organisations, royal colleges and charities. We will continue to work with our partners to align these initiatives with the work of the maternity safety action plan. I am happy to report that we are on track to achieve our 2020 ambition. The stillbirth rate in England has fallen from 5.1 per 1,000 births in 2010 to 4.4 in 2015. The neonatal mortality rate was 2.6 deaths per 1,000 births in 2015, down 10% from 2.9 in 2010.
I would like to touch briefly on the importance of learning from when things go wrong in clinical care. Many parents I have spoken to have made it clear they want maternity and neonatal services to learn from the deaths of their babies so that other families do not have to go through the experience of losing a much-loved and wanted child if that can be prevented. Recent publications from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and MBRRACE-UK—Mothers and Babies: Reducing Risk through Audits and Confidential Enquiries across the UK—found that some local reviews of stillbirths and neonatal deaths were of poor quality. Input from parents or independent experts is not routinely sought, and there is insufficient information to understand the quality of care provided.
To improve the quality of those reviews and to learn from them, the Department of Health, together with the Health Departments in Scotland and Wales, has funded the development of a national standardised perinatal mortality review tool to support systematic, multidisciplinary reviews of the circumstances and care leading up to every stillbirth and neonatal death. The tool, which will be available at the end of this year, will also support clinicians to talk with parents about the care review and how they can contribute to the process.
Last month, I laid the draft health service safety investigations Bill in Parliament. This Bill will take forward the work of the current independent healthcare safety investigation branch, which came into operation last April. Under the proposals, HSIB will have far-reaching access so that it can investigate serious safety incidents or risks to patient safety; help to develop national standards on investigations; and provide guidance and training to improve investigative practice across the health service.
Earlier this year, we also consulted on proposals to introduce a system of consistent and independent investigations for all instances of severe avoidable birth injury, along with access to ongoing support and compensation for eligible babies through an administrative scheme. The public consultation into a rapid resolution and redress scheme for severe avoidable birth injury concluded at the end of May, receiving more than 200 responses. We are currently in the process of listening to people’s views, and we aim to publish a formal response soon.
Turning to bereavement care, a clear message that we heard last year, particularly from my hon. Friends the Members for Eddisbury and for Colchester and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who I am pleased to see with us this evening, was about the need for a bereavement care pathway to ensure that all families experiencing baby loss receive the highest quality of care, no matter where they live.
Since last year’s debate, the Department has funded Sands to deliver a national bereavement care pathway. I am delighted that 11 wave 1 pilot sites were announced yesterday. I know from the experience of my friends and colleagues that care in bereavement is best described as patchy. In some cases, I could use a less flattering adjective. There is no doubt that we need to do more to raise the training of staff and the facilities available to look after families who go through a bereavement in a hospital setting, and indeed to provide care and support to those who suffer loss outside a hospital setting. That is an important initiative.
Earlier this year, Sands, NHS England and the London maternity clinical network published a new maternity bereavement experience measure. That tool aims sensitively to enable parents whose baby has died to feed back about the care they received. It also aims to support services to learn from the experiences of bereaved parents and identify where local improvements may be needed.
Sands is also working on a project for NHS England on the role of the bereavement midwife. The project will make recommendations for the remit of the role of the bereavement midwife and give guidance on the support structures required around the role.
Since 2010, the Government have invested £35 million in the NHS to improve birthing environments, including better bereavement rooms and quiet spaces at nearly 40 hospitals to support bereaved families. Whenever I visit maternity units, I ask to see the bereavement suite. I am always impressed by the quality of the suites, by the feedback from families and staff alike and by how the commitment of many families who have gone through such terrible loss has often led to them raising funds to help to create better bereavement facilities in hospitals.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I commend the Minister for his excellent speech. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating Forever Stars, which is exactly the sort of charity that he has described. It was started by two of my constituents, who sadly lost their baby, Emily, who was stillborn. They have raised about £200,000 for two suites. A third is on the way, and they are now fundraising for counselling services for the siblings of babies who have not survived.
Mr Dunne
I congratulate my right hon. Friend and thank her for drawing that to the House’s attention. That is one of the most significant examples of fundraising for such suites that I have come across. I pay tribute to the family involved and to the efforts to raise funds for the counselling of siblings, who go through a traumatic experience as well.
I conclude by reiterating that the Government are fully committed to reducing the number of babies who die during pregnancy or in the neonatal period, and to providing support for bereaved families.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am delighted to participate in what is now the annual debate on Baby Loss Awareness Week, although, sadly, the only reason why such a debate and such a week of remembrance are necessary is to mark the 3,500 babies stillborn each year across the UK, with one in three of those stillbirths occurring at full-term. That of course does not take into account the babies who die within a year of birth.
All the experts, including Professor Jim Thornton, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the University of Nottingham, agree that
“For an otherwise healthy baby to die undelivered near term is, with hindsight, an easily avoidable event. Research to make it avoidable in practice is a priority.”
That is why debates such as this, and any and all measures to highlight stillbirth, are vital.
Although the UK’s stillbirth rate has fallen slightly in recent years, it remains unacceptably and stubbornly high. For too long, this taboo was left in the shadows, too difficult, too upsetting to talk about. As politicians, we all know, what is not discussed, what is not acknowledged, is not addressed and, if not addressed, it cannot be improved. We in this House have been and will continue to work to break that deafening silence. That is our duty on behalf of all those trapped in the isolating silence of grief. Some of us in the Chamber today have experienced that silence first hand.
I think back to 9 June 2016, when I had a Westminster Hall debate on stillbirth, which was hugely emotional, not just because of my own experience but because of the realisation that so many of our babies have been lost over generations, with parents isolated in grief, as this was something that was never talked about in our society, except in whispers. However, since 2016 we have come quite a way. The all-party group on baby loss has done so much to ensure that the issue stays firmly on the agenda. Gradually, as a society, we are becoming more willing to acknowledge this awful event, which affects 3,500-plus babies every year in the United Kingdom, with all the devastation, grief and fallout that it inevitably brings.
Since 2016, I have been in contact with a number of stillbirth organisations such as Sands and Safer Births UK—in fact, too many to mention. Early on, I became convinced that if we accept the analysis of the experts, such as Professor Jim Thornton and others, that for an otherwise healthy baby to die undelivered near-term is, with hindsight, an easily avoidable event—why would we not accept what the experts tell us?—then surely it makes sense to have full investigations when otherwise healthy babies do die undelivered near-term. One third of babies across the UK who are stillborn die at the end of the pregnancy. One in three—this is something that requires serious attention.
That is why last year I asked both the Secretary of State for Health in the United Kingdom Government and the Cabinet Secretary for Health in Scotland, Shona Robison MSP, to instigate coroner inquests in England and fatal accident inquiries in Scotland when stillbirths at full term occurred in an otherwise healthy baby. I appreciate that such processes are expensive, complicated and difficult, but if we consider the lessons that could be learned—what has been missed, what was overlooked and what could have prevented the loss of a baby so close to birth—that can inform good practice and improve the care for future babies. Logically, the need for inquests or fatal accident inquiries would surely diminish gradually over time, as fewer babies would be lost. Of course, we would not just be preventing the loss of babies late in pregnancy either; the lessons learned would inform practice and improve it across the whole maternity service at any and every stage of pregnancy.
When I lobbied for that, I was told by some that it was simply not doable—that I should spend my efforts improving practice in other areas of maternity care: surely it would be best to focus on, for example, ensuring minimum and consistent standards of care across the board. Well, yes and no. The minimum and consistent standards of care that everybody in this Parliament seeks should be embedded in improvement and research, and the use of coroner inquiries and fatal accident inquiries could be a hugely important part of that. It is not an either/or question.
I am hugely heartened by the fact that, after an initial refusal, the Cabinet Secretary for Health in Scotland, Shona Robison MSP, has agreed that the Crown Office in Scotland should investigate whether there could be fatal accident inquiries for babies lost late in pregnancy. Such a move is not about bringing prosecutions but about learning lessons, informing practice and making sure that when our children are about to be born but something goes wrong, we find out why and use that knowledge to make other babies safer.
Make no mistake: this is a monumentally significant step forward, which has largely been ignored by the mainstream media. I do not know why, but it means that so many who would be comforted by it may not even know that it has happened. However, the significance of this development cannot be overstated. If, after consideration, the Crown Office in Scotland decides for whatever reason that this measure cannot be implemented, at least we will know where we are. We will know what obstacles we are dealing with and can set about removing them. I am also convinced that this measure will mean that fewer of our babies die. When that is shown to be the case, I am hugely optimistic that a similar measure will be adopted in England. That, I feel, has been a huge step forward in the 16 months since my first debate on stillbirth. Credit must also go to the campaigners who have worked hard to achieve this.
This coming Sunday, 15 October, is Pregnancy and Infant Loss Remembrance Day and also would have been my wee boy’s eighth birthday. It is very important that his death, and the deaths of all the babies who have been lost, should not have been in vain. The campaign goes on, so that other babies do not have their lives ended before they even begin.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is giving an excellent and emotive speech, and she is conveying an important message about inquiries. Does she agree that it is also extremely important that early miscarriage is well researched? I know from my own experience of early miscarriage that when it happens, people say, “It’s just natural, and there is nothing that can be done.” But the more we look into it and research the causes, the more we can prevent that grief.
Patricia Gibson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. If we start our research at the end of pregnancy and work back the way, I think we will be able to spot things much earlier in pregnancy as we learn the lessons that were missed at the end.
No parent should have to bury their child without knowing or understanding why they did not live. That is what drives me on, and I know it drives on many of us who are taking part in this debate. The tragedy of the loss of so many of our babies is that it does not have to be this way. To change that must be, in the words of Professor Jim Thornton, our “priority”.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Leader of the House for going above and beyond to secure this important debate this week, as part of Baby Loss Awareness Week. It is particularly important that the debate should be held this week.
I did not come into politics to be a baby loss campaigner. Like several of my all-party group colleagues, tragic circumstances led me to campaign to bring about change on this issue. Those circumstances occurred three years ago this Thursday, which makes this week all the more poignant. We, as politicians, have the best job in the world, and I would challenge anyone who says that Back Benchers cannot get things done. Politicians do not always have the best reputations—some of that is deserved, and some less so—but I would refer any sceptics to the work of the all-party group on baby loss.
This place is amazing, and if we use it correctly on a cross-party basis we can achieve great things. We can get things done. We can bring about positive change that will make a difference and affect people’s lives. The all-party group was established, and exists, to reduce miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death, and to ensure that we have world-class bereavement care and support for those who suffer the tragedy of losing a child.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and those who will follow for their contributions in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is, like me, a person of faith. We are talking about losing small children or miscarrying; my mother miscarried a number of times, my sister miscarried and the young girl who works in my office miscarried on two occasions, and what sustained all of them was their faith. Does he agree that at such times, when people are in difficult circumstances, it is important that they have someone from a faith or religious background to call on? Does he also agree that it is important that hospitals have rooms where bereaved parents can spend time together, reflect and call on someone greater than us?
Will Quince
The hon. Gentleman makes some very good points, and he is absolutely right that bereavement suites play a very important role, as do hospital chaplains. I say that as a man of faith, but I know lots of people who have been through this tragic experience and who are not of faith. Nevertheless, the hospital chaplain came to talk to them—not about God, and not about religion—and sat there, listened, and allowed them to come to terms with the tragic event that had just happened. The chaplain gave them the time that they needed, and which medical professionals do not always have. It is a really important role, and chaplains are a credit to the NHS.
We now have some ambitious targets when it comes to tackling stillbirth and neonatal death. I applaud the Government for their commitment to bringing about a reduction in stillbirth and neonatal death of 20% by 2020— I recognise the Minister’s efforts to make us aware of the steps that will be taken to achieve that—and 50% by 2030. Those targets are very much to be welcomed. Even if we are to achieve those targets—let us be clear: it would be absolutely fantastic if we could achieve a 50% reduction in stillbirth and neonatal death by 2030—that statistic would still mean thousands of babies dying every year. Tens of thousands of parents—
Will Quince
The fact that we have some really ambitious targets is to be applauded, and I welcome the Minister’s update on the Government’s position on those targets. Even if we achieve a target of about 50%, however, that would mean that between 2,500 and 3,000 babies will still die every year. We must ensure that the parents, grandparents and wider family members have a support network. That is why the all-party group was established very much on the basis of bereavement care, and our focus very much remains on bereavement care.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentioned support networks, and I want to draw attention to the Crowborough birthing unit in my constituency of Wealden. It does fantastic work with mums and dads, and siblings, to make sure everyone can go through the process either of having a healthy baby or, if they have such a tragedy, of losing a child.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend gives a great constituency example. Maternity units up and down this country have the most incredible provision and offer the most incredible compassion and care. In fact, we have some of the best provision in the world. Tragically, however, that is not replicated all across the country, and there is regional variation. I will come on to what we need to do to address that a little later.
To return to bereavement, the very first debate, which I led in this House back in November 2015, was about bereavement care. It specifically looked at bereavement suites in maternity units, and that was very much the focus. I am pleased to say that the theme of this Baby Loss Awareness Week is bereavement.
This week, we have seen something incredible, something truly groundbreaking—the result of over a year of work —which is the establishment of the national bereavement care pathway. The pathway has been developed by a number of charities and professional organisations, with the support of the Department of Health and the all-party group on baby loss. It has primarily been developed to improve the quality of bereavement care experienced by parents and families at all stages of pregnancy and, indeed, baby loss up to 12 months. The objective of the pathway is to ensure that all bereaved parents are offered equal, high-quality, individualised care that is safe and sensitive.
The national bereavement care pathway was launched yesterday in 11 pilot sites, and the plan is to roll it out nationwide over the next year. This has been an incredible exercise in collaborative working. I want to pay tribute to Sands, all the baby loss charities and organisations that have made an input, NHS trusts, the Department of Health and all the parents who have fed in their experiences. It is not easy for them to talk about their loss, and the evidence of all the parents who have talked about their tragic experience will improve care for very many others up and down the country. I also pay tribute to a former colleague, Ben Gummer, who, when he was the Minister with responsibility for care quality, pushed so hard for this and worked so hard to make it happen.
Yes, it is important that we push the Government to address the UK’s high stillbirth and neonatal death rate, but the support that we give bereaved parents is just as important, if not more so. We need to make sure that they have the support that enables them to have the time and the space in which to grieve. We know that going through this most traumatic of experiences can often lead to mental health issues—such as depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, about which there is growing evidence—whether they appear weeks, months or sometimes even years later. The number of couples that separate after losing a child is still very high, and that comes with huge social costs. Putting in place the right level of high-quality, consistent bereavement care is not just the right thing to do for parents; it should be part of our push to improve mental health care nationwide.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
On the pathway for bereaved parents, may I raise a particular type of bereavement that is unusual but does, unfortunately, happen? On 4 August, my constituent Craig Renton went into hospital with his wife Heidi for her to have a caesarean. Sadly, she died during the caesarean, and although their baby was born, she also died 15 hours later. Within the space of 15 hours, the happy couple expecting the birth of their daughter were no more, and my constituent Craig, who came to see me, had lost both his wife and his first and only child. In such a situation, the bereavement care needs to be designed particularly carefully if it is to deal with two bereavements in one day.
Will Quince
My hon. Friend raises a most tragic case, and I know I speak for everybody in the House when we send our condolences to Craig in what must have been a hugely emotional and traumatic experience. My hon. Friend is absolutely right when he says that the point of the national bereavement care pathway is to ensure that care, although consistent, is individualised and patient-centred. That means that when there are unique sets of circumstances—I would say that was a unique set of circumstances—the care package and the bereavement support are unique to match them.
I could never, ever truly express my thanks to the nurses at the Rosemary suite, a specialist bereavement suite at Colchester General Hospital, for the care and support that my wife and I received just three years ago, but I want to ensure that every grieving parent receives the excellent, high-level support that we did. I truly believe that the new national bereavement care pathway is an important step to making that a reality. I am really proud to co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss and I know that the work that we are doing on a cross-party basis is really important and is changing lives up and down the country.
Finally, I want to send a message to bereaved parents up and down the country that together we will break the silence on baby loss.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I want to make sure we all get equal time on this. Can I suggest that Members speak for up to eight minutes, so that everybody gets equal time? It is a very important day, it is a very emotional debate, and I want to make sure we get fairness right across the Chamber.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I speak as someone who has not lost a child, but I remember what happened when I was working in Lebanon and was four months pregnant with my son. We had discussed the risks of going to Lebanon when I was pregnant and we thought I would only be there a few months; even if I was here there would be nothing that could be done, so I was not adding to the risk. But when I suddenly saw blood, all of a sudden I realised how paltry that word “miscarriage” is. I understand that we are predominantly talking about babies who have been lost later, but that term “miscarriage” sounds like “misstep”—like a bump in the road—and by four or five months, particularly once you have had that little ultrasound picture, which you thought was going to be the first of a whole lifetime of photographs, you realise you have already bonded with the bulge that means you need elasticated waistbands and is giving you heartburn or keeping you up at night, or even, a bit later, starting to kick the living daylights out of you at three in the morning. So I think it is really important, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) said, that we think of those who are slightly outwith this debate. That is something that we must try to bring over to medical staff as well.
I acknowledge the discussion about bereavement midwives, and we always need champions and leaders when, trying to raise awareness, but as someone who has worked in breast cancer for over 30 years, I can tell the House that having a grumpy old surgeon and then sending the lady to the breast cancer nurse, who would be nice to her, is not a solution. In fact, with all midwives, all doctors, it only takes one person to turn the knife and make that heartbreak worse.
I had a friend who had three miscarriages before she successfully had two rather wild and lively boys—something for which I am sure she gives thanks every day. On her second miscarriage, a routine scan at 16 weeks revealed that the heartbeat had stopped. They thought she would miscarry, but she did not. The period between then and when she underwent surgery meant she knew she was carrying her own dead baby. That was really difficult. At the scan that made the diagnosis, she was simply sent back out to the waiting room after a couple of minutes. She was sitting there surrounded by women with their bumps discussing their plans, while she waited for almost half an hour to be taken into a room and just given leaflets. There is no point in having one person who knows how someone should be supported: every single member of every single team, from antenatal, perinatal and right through to early paediatrics, needs to know the language, the body language, the timing and the support that someone might need.
The number one thing as a doctor is to try to reduce the number of deaths. Scotland actually had higher perinatal, stillbirth and neonatal figures. About five years ago, there was a big discussion in the profession in Scotland saying that it needed to be tackled. It was not enough simply to collect data—whether the Scottish perinatal mortality data, which go back to 1977, or, now, in MBRRACE-UK. The cases had to be looked at. Regardless of whether that is done through a fatal accident inquiry, it must be done by the clinicians. As surgeons, we carry out morbidity-mortality meetings every couple of weeks to discuss cases that have gone wrong in a very open and frank way. We learn from them. Often, we will suddenly see a pattern that makes us want to change. Since 2013 in Scotland, our perinatal figures have dropped by 34%—a third—our stillbirth rate has dropped by 26% and neonatal has dropped by over 50%. That is what can be done if every single case is discussed.
Believe me, Scottish Members here know that the geography of Scotland makes providing perinatal care really difficult and challenging. It is easy to identify the difficult case with a past history of diabetes or a huge wain and a small pelvis, but any delivery can go wrong. One challenge we face, which is not faced in so many areas in England, is how to get people off our islands and how to cover hundreds of miles, yet we have managed to bring the figures down.
It is absolutely right that, even if we drop the mortality rate further, there will be children who are lost. We must not stop trying to do that and we must support people, in particular those whose babies are born and require extra neonatal care in a special baby unit. We know they have a higher incidence of post-natal depression. We know that, naturally, mothers who lose a child will have an increased incidence of post-natal depression. If we can get all our teams to try to get it right all the way through and support them, then maybe we can tackle both problems.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Mr Deputy Speaker, although I have to say it is not a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. It is absolute torture for many of the speakers who have chosen to share their experiences with the House. It is, however, a pleasure to follow the extremely knowledgeable speech, as ever, of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford). It is so good to hear the good news from Scotland about the real developments that have come from investigation into what happens when things go wrong.
I am most grateful to business managers—even if I am quite close to some of them—for allocating time during Baby Loss Awareness Week, and to all those who organised the extension of today’s sitting. It is a testament to the way the House has changed. I am grateful that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, have chosen to be in the Chair after your traumatic experiences last year listening to us. We are most grateful to all those who have enabled this debate.
It is fair to say that maternal safety keeps me awake at night. Issues with the maternity unit at Horton General Hospital in my constituency sadly continue. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) in his place. I do not know what keeps him awake at night. Indeed, I do not know whether he is kept awake at night. If he is, I suspect his young son probably has something to do with it, but I also know that he worries as much as I do about the future of the unit. The uncertainty goes on. My hon. Friend, other campaigners and I are not giving in. I remain convinced that the current situation is unsafe. Significant numbers of transfers are taking place during labour. Babies have been born at the side of the road and in ambulances. Mothers and their babies are not getting the sort of care that is safe, kind and close to home, which is what everybody in the Chamber wills them to get.
Out of this morass sadly comes some dreadful casework. I have noticed that when something goes wrong, the shutters come down in the health service. Hospitals are on the defensive from the beginning and legal teams are called in. In one of the saddest cases I have had to deal with over the past year, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust responded by saying that it would not meet me or the family in question without legal representation. My attempts to ensure that there was a full and external review of the case by MBRRACE-UK, for example, were stalled for months. This is simply not acceptable. Families, along with most of us, are motivated by a burning desire to ensure that what happened to us will not happen again. They are not interested in compensation except where that is necessary for looking after a desperately sick child. They are motivated by change in practice.
Sir Charles Pollard, the former chief constable of Thames Valley police, has been working tirelessly on producing restorative solutions in the justice sector—that is my background—and increasingly in the health sector, where the needs of all parties, including families, doctors and staff, are crucial. Constructive conversations can be had in carefully controlled environments. I think, particularly after having a lengthy conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), that it is important to find a new language. We do not want to apportion blame to anyone in any way, unlike in the justice sector. Finding a new language would be good for families and for staff, who are often traumatised by a loss on their watch.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
There have been some exceptional speeches on this sensitive issue. I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is aware that my private Member’s Bill—the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill—includes a clause to give coroners the power to investigate late-term stillbirths. Extraordinarily, that is currently not available to them. Many parents who have gone through difficult stillbirths where the circumstances are unclear would like an independent assessment of what went wrong so that everybody can learn from the situation. I am sure my hon. Friend will support that.
Victoria Prentis
I will most certainly support that.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) made an excellent speech in which she mentioned inquests and fatal accident inquiries. I do not know why so many of us involved in this debate are lawyers; it is very strange. These are, of course, very sensitive legal issues. We are talking about when a person becomes a person—things that we have not spoken about in places such as Parliament or the courts, and perhaps should have done, over the years. We have allowed a body of law to grow up that does not fit current requirements. Even though restorative solutions are great, inquests may also be appropriate and may also act restoratively. They do not have to be legalistic. They can be inquisitive, which is why inquests came into being. Inquests and, in Scotland, fatal accidents inquiries, have an important part to play in preventing stillbirths and neonatal deaths.
Today is World Mental Health Day, so it is particularly appropriate that we are talking about the bereavement care pathway in Baby Loss Awareness Week. As we have heard from other hon. Members, the pathway is very good in places but variable in others. We are making progress but we need to do more to ensure consistency, and I know the Minister is on top of this. The Care Quality Commission does not currently ask sufficiently in-depth questions about the quality of bereavement care on offer, but I am encouraged by the constructive conversations I have had with it on behalf of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss recently and am hopeful that we will have real progress to report this time next year.
I would like to end on a high. Petals opened its new bereavement counselling service in Banbury yesterday, in the Horton General Hospital, and I was very pleased to be there. It offers bereaved families six sessions per couple. That might not be enough, and it certainly might not be appropriate for mothers and fathers to be seen together, but the evidence shows that what it does is of very real value and that its outcomes are valuable and beneficial to the couples who use its service. Lots of charities do similar work, as is clear from our well-attended APPG meetings.
We might not enjoy these debates, but they have begun to change both perceptions and the law, and I am grateful to the Minister and the previous Member for Ipswich for all their work. I would like to finish by congratulating us all.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate, which allows us to play our part in Baby Loss Awareness Week.
In terms of how we talk about it day to day, pregnancy and childbirth are for many people times of joy and celebration: a new addition to the family, a celebration of new life, the hopes and dreams—and laughter and tears—that a new baby can bring to a family. It is all the more difficult, therefore, when a family suffers the loss of a baby. These issues— miscarriage, stillbirth, death in infancy—are less commonly spoken about for a range of reasons. I note that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) referenced miscarriage. I know from speaking to family and friends that the loss is felt acutely, but too often, perhaps, society trivialises it. To the mother and family, it is the loss of a baby—an unborn baby—and the hopes and dreams that go with it. When that is taken away, privately it can be very difficult. Some do not tell their family and friends straightway, so the grief takes place in a very private and unspoken way. Others break the news, and it is heart-breaking to have to so shortly after sharing the good news of the pregnancy. I know that that can be particularly difficult for families and women.
The pain and loss that follow from the loss of a child can be acute. I know that families admire the many improvements made and I recognise that much work has been done, but I also know that more must be done to enhance services, including bereavement services, and the support for perinatal and post-natal mental health. I know from speaking to many women that the support services are simply not there at this very difficult time. It is not right, for example, that many women continue to be placed in and around maternity wards, surrounded by new mothers, parents and joy, at a time when they are grieving. Having to listen to the conversations, hearing the cries of new-born babies, while suffering their own personal loss, makes it all the more difficult for them and their families. It is not right that a woman who has suffered miscarriage after miscarriage, often when a child is much longed for, is required to sit in an out-patients maternity ward with heavily pregnant and joyful mothers-to-be. Very often women are left there for half an hour or an hour watching those families and feeling the pain of their loss—sometimes loss after loss—very acutely. It is not right either that families are left without adequate bereavement care.
I want to raise a number of short points. First, our perinatal and support services must improve, not just following baby loss or miscarriage, but in relation to women’s mental health. The way in which we understand the human mind, mental health and trauma has changed and advanced year on year, but I think that, for too many of the people who go through this experience, those services are not advancing at the same pace and they need to catch up.
Secondly, we need to look at statutory and support services for bereaved parents as a matter of urgency. Like many people, before I started to speak to parents, I had assumed that these issues would be dealt with compassionately by employers, schools and statutory agencies, but it became clear that that was not always the case. There is a good basis for the introduction of enhanced statutory protections for bereaved families, to ensure that they are given the time that they need to try to heal and move forward with their lives.
Thirdly, I think it would be remiss of us not to refer to the health of mothers, infant mortality and miscarriage rates all over the world. There is no doubt that improvements can be made, and that they can be made throughout the United Kingdom as well. I welcome the commitment that has been made in that regard, but in too many countries, there are still appalling rates of infant mortality and appalling statistics about the health of mothers and what happens during childbirth. I know that most of those who campaign on the issue here will have the same interest in trying to improve services for women throughout the world. Those in the poorest areas often suffer incredibly during childbirth, and there are still very high levels of infant and mother mortality in such places.
Lastly, I want to take a moment to recognise all the parents and families who have suffered loss in this way. I think that it will be an incredible tribute to those families, and to the loss that they have suffered, if we go on striving to create world-leading services in both bereavement and childcare.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I feel extremely humbled to be able to speak in the debate. Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), as well as all members of the all-party group. They have shone a much-needed light on the issue of baby loss, its effect on parents, and the need for action. They have not only pushed for change, but helped to achieve it. On behalf of everyone who has ever suffered, I take this opportunity to say thank you.
We must also pay tribute to the medical professionals who work day in, day out to prevent baby loss and deal with it, and to organisations such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, as well as charities such as Sands. They play an important role in developing programmes and reviewing the care provided for expectant and bereaved parents.
Baby loss is not a regional or even a national problem, but an international one. It affects people in all our constituencies, and hurts and devastates families in Wiltshire and throughout the country. It has touched my own family. My grandma experienced the loss of her first-born in 1948 when the child was breached. Tragically, the ambulance reached her too late. The months after that were probably the hardest that she experienced in her life, and I heard about them when I was growing up. Like other women in the same situation, she struggled with the ordeal of having carried the baby and prepared for its birth, only to lose that child as soon as it arrived. Devastated and receiving no help, my grandmother suffered a period of depression.
That is the story of the strongest, most no-nonsense woman I have ever met in my life. She was a woman full of grit and strength, yet she had no help in her time of need, and even the strongest among us do need help. My grandma is long passed and now in heaven, but I think that she would want me to share her story, and to ask the question: why, after so many, many years, are the rates of baby loss still so high? The most recent review of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in the UK reports that of 782,720 births in 2015, 3,032 were stillbirths and 1,360 were neonatal deaths. Yes, there has been a reduction since 2013, but the number remains higher than those in comparable European countries.
I am proud that the Government have taken action to address maternity care and set an ambitious target, which I think is bold and moral, to halve stillbirth rates by 2030. Now we must all work together to ensure that we meet that target by keeping the subject on the agenda. I hope that debates such as today’s will help to serve that purpose so that 69 years from now, when another MP is standing here, they are not saying the same thing.
I think that my grandmother would also ask why, 69 years on, we have failed to improve our bereavement care to a satisfactory and appropriate level. Bereavement care, as has been pointed out, is the focus of this year’s Baby Loss Awareness Week. Bereavement care is vital, both for psychological and emotional support, and for advice and signposting. Since 2010 we have invested £35 million in the NHS to improve birthing environments, including better bereavement rooms in 40 hospitals. We need that for every hospital and facility. The current guidelines vary far too much between setting and service. In addition, most of the frameworks are guidelines, and they are not mandatory, or indeed monitored, in all areas. That is why the Government’s work to create a national bereavement care pathway is so important. That will reduce the variation in the quality of bereavement care provided by the NHS so that residents in Wiltshire get the same care as those in, say, London or Manchester. That is essential.
One can only imagine how harrowing and devastating the loss of a baby must be. I think that the courage that Members have displayed by sharing their experiences in this House is remarkable. Bereavement care must be of a high quality, consistent, individualised and available across the UK. It is time that we achieved that so that, as I have said already, we do not look back in 69 years’ time and again ask why we are not doing more for those in need.
It is estimated that today about 15 babies in the UK will die before, during or shortly after birth. Today let us not only remember those who have suffered and the babies they have lost, but pledge to work together, across parties, to support the Government’s work and ensure that nobody faces a postcode lottery when it comes to baby loss. We need to determine what should be the level of bereavement support and ensure that it is consistent across the country so that parents receive what they deserve if they tragically lose a child.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Members and their constituents who have shared their deeply personal stories. It must be very difficult to talk about the loss of a child. We are indebted to all those who have had the courage to talk about their experiences, both this evening and previously. I remember watching the debate last October and being struck by the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft), who is in the Chamber tonight. She said then that it was the most difficult speech she had ever had to write or deliver, but it mattered enormously that she did so. Her speech, as well as those of other Members, many of whom are here tonight, demonstrated that Parliament was willing to talk about this most painful issue.
It was a few weeks after that debate that I met my constituents Jack and Sarah Hawkins, whose daughter Harriet was born dead at Nottingham City Hospital on 17 April 2016. Jack and Sarah were convinced that Harriet’s death was the result of a mismanaged labour, but their concerns were not listened to by hospital staff; they were told that a post-mortem had found that Harriet’s death was caused by an infection and
“to try to move on”.
Jack and Sarah are both health professionals, so they knew that there was no evidence of an infection. They were sure that their healthy, full-term baby had died due to mistakes in Sarah’s care, and they were not prepared to be dismissed. The debate in this House helped to give them the confidence to get in touch and seek my advice and support, but it is thanks to their courage and determination that Harriet’s death is finally the subject of a proper external investigation. But the loss of their much-wanted daughter, and the circumstances surrounding it, have had an absolutely devastating effect on every aspect of their lives. Last week, they spoke to the media about Harriet’s death and the failures of care during Sarah’s labour, and many Members may have seen, heard or read their story. I will not attempt to do justice to it now, but others will be able to look it up online if they want. Jack and Sarah are calling for a change in the law to enable coroners to investigate stillbirths and hold inquests into the deaths of babies after 37 weeks’ gestation. That is the particular issue that I want to discuss today.
Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a coroner has a duty to investigate certain deaths, but current legislation means that a stillborn child is not classed as a deceased person, so the coroner cannot investigate even when a healthy full-term baby has died during labour and the parents wish the coroner to do so. I welcome the Minister’s confirmation that the standardised perinatal mortality review tool is being rolled out across the country, but will he also support calls to broaden coroners’ jurisdiction so that they are able, at the request of parents, to investigate a stillbirth? Hospitals’ internal review processes should involve parents and should answer their questions about why their baby has died, but when those questions are not answered, the coroner can play a vital role not just in providing answers—important though that is—but in identifying preventable deaths, and ensuring that lessons are learned and mistakes are not repeated. Such a change to coronial law would bring England and Wales in line with Northern Ireland, where a landmark legal ruling in 2013 held that a coroner
“can carry out an inquest into the death of a stillborn child that had been capable of being born alive.”
It is clear from several contributions this evening that there is cross-party support for such a change. I particularly welcomed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). She is not in the Chamber now, but she assured me that the change has her support, for which I am thankful. I hope that the Minister will deal specifically and positively with this suggestion when he responds to the debate.
There is nothing that I can do to take away the pain of Harriet’s death for Jack and Sarah, as much as I wish I could, but I think that they would gain some comfort if their experience helped to prevent other parents from suffering in the same way.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
It a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I know exactly how Jack and Sarah feel, because it was the burning desire to see change that motivated me and many others in the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss to work not only to reduce the number of neonatal deaths and stillbirths, but to consider how we can improve things for parents.
When we set up the APPG, saying that we wanted to achieve huge cuts in the number of families affected by all these issues and to put in place a bereavement care pathway seemed to be setting rather a large challenge. I pay enormous tribute not only to Members of this House—it has been a cross-party effort—but to parents and health professionals, who have risen to the challenge set by the APPG and the Department of Health. In a way, I can provide some comfort to a number of Members who have spoken today about miscarriage, for example, because the national bereavement care pathway, which was launched yesterday, in effect addresses loss from conception to up to one year post-birth. That is quite groundbreaking in a number of ways. Pilot schemes in 11 hospital trusts are developing specific pathways to address early miscarriage, late miscarriage and stillbirth, and for those in the very unfortunate situation of having to terminate because of foetal abnormality. I have been encouraged by the willingness of parents to come forward and talk about their experiences as part of the development of these pathways and to share their loss with medical professionals, including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the Royal College of Midwives. There has absolutely been cross-working and buy-in for this change.
I am encouraged that the change is being supported by the Department of Health. Pilots are taking place so that lessons can be learned, with the outcome of those lessons applied before things are rolled out more widely and nationally. As somebody who sat in a room with white walls and a sofa that was not anything like a bereavement suite, I know at first hand, as do so many parents who have not been in such facilities, that when one visits a hospital such as Medway Maritime Hospital, which has the most extraordinary facilities, one can see that change is coming. The improvement and change in the past year has, to my mind, been something that I and many professionals did not imagine would happen as quickly as it has and in the way that it has.
I would absolutely support the hon. Member for Nottingham South if she proposed a ten-minute rule Bill to try to effect the change in coronial law that she spoke about. I myself will introduce a ten-minute rule Bill tomorrow on the regulation of foetal dopplers. I will expand on that point tomorrow, but the false reassurance they provide to parents can increase the risk of stillbirth. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) put forward a Bill in the last Parliament that has now been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), and it is due to have its Second Reading on 20 October. There are therefore methods to effect change in this Parliament, and I know that the hon. Member for Nottingham South would find great support in the House for her constituents if she tried to effect the change that they propose. I know that I will be trying to get the Minister’s support tomorrow on the subject of foetal dopplers.
This is Parliament at its best. We are listening to constituents. We understand where there has been a failure in the system, and there is no doubt that the statistics show we need to make changes in this area. I am delighted that the Government have accepted that quickly and have therefore set ambitious targets. The chief executive of my local hospital, the Leighton Hospital, which has an award-winning maternity unit, was able to say to me that they had had 14 fewer deaths this year. That means 14 fewer families in my local areas going through the loss that so many in this House and outside it have seen. At the same time, I should say that the Countess of Chester Hospital is under investigation in relation to 15 baby deaths. There are concerns about care in relation to eight of them. So the perinatal mortality tool is crucial, as is the investigation of these incidents, in order that those lessons are learned, that good practice is shared and that professionals are honest with parents where something has gone wrong; they need to admit that and learn from it so that it does not affect other families. Let us get that open culture; the Health Secretary has talked openly about the need for no-fault investigation, and the need to learn from that culture is incredibly important. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), who speaks for the Opposition on this matter, will know of the particular importance of that, because the Countess of Chester serves his area too and this directly affects all our constituents.
I say to the Minister that the huge progress that has been made is encouraging. The charities and colleges yesterday spoke about the great enthusiasm and drive that has come from working collaboratively together. If we can take that and use it, the progress we are starting to make can carry on. We can roll it out into the difficult areas. We know that they exist, so let me mention just two. First, we know that there are big issues in respect of minority ethnic groups that go beyond the hospital setting, often relating to factors in the environment. Those issues fall outside the Department of Health’s remit, but wider working will need to be done to examine how those factors can be addressed and whether or not public health issues arise in their regard.
The second area involves general practitioners. I sent out a freedom of information request to every clinical commissioning group in England, and less than 50% of them provide any form of bereavement counselling, whatever the death. So even not in relation to child loss, a lot of CCGs simply are not commissioning support in the community. Those CCGs have relied on provision from the acute sector, and the next piece of work from the all-party group will need to be on how we take the lessons learned from the acute sector into the primary care sector, because that will end up benefiting not just those who have lost a child, but those who have suffered a loss.
Victoria Prentis
The other sector that provides so much of the bereavement care, such as the service I helped open yesterday, is of course the charitable sector. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on whether CCGs should be encouraged to join that sector in funding bereavement counselling, such as that provided by Petals, in the future?
Antoinette Sandbach
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and she can probably guess that the reason for my freedom of information request was to put pressure on not only my local services, but services more widely. There is expertise out there that we can build on, but bereavement touches everybody and this Government’s focus on mental health gives us a real opportunity to approach death in a way that minimises its mental health impacts, which can be severe. We can roll out elsewhere the way in which the Department of Health is leading on baby loss and working together with the third sector. This year’s Baby Loss Awareness Week therefore perhaps has a message of hope that has not been present in the past two such debates we have had.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I am very grateful to be called to speak in this debate. I took part in the debate last year and was very moved by the contributions. I am pleased that we have such excellent speakers again today. I wish to pay tribute to the all-party group for the wonderful work that it has done, and to say to the Government that their record of making improvements and investing in this area is to be applauded.
I am having to stand here again because I wish to speak about my constituents, Mike and Tina Trowhill. Members may remember that I spoke about them last year. Many years ago, they lost their little boy, William, who was then cremated. They were told that there were no ashes, but 20 years later they found that there had been ashes and that they had been scattered without the family’s knowledge. Mike and Tina started to ask questions, and it became clear that they were not the only family that this had happened to. It now appears that there are about 70 families in the Hull area who share their experience. The ashes of those babies may have been left on the shelves of the funeral director’s offices. There was one instance of a baby being cremated, with no indication of an undertaker being used. Nobody seems to know quite how that happened.
When this all came to light, I went to see the council, because I knew that there had been similar instances in Shrewsbury and Scotland and that there had been inquiries about what had happened in those areas. It was on 27 March 2015 that I went to the council with Mike and Tina and we asked whether we could have an inquiry into what had happened to these 70-odd families. It took three and a half months for the council to say that no, it was not willing to do that. I felt that there was an injustice here and that these families needed to know what had happened to their babies’ ashes.
In February 2016, I went to see the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who, at that time, was Secretary of State for Justice. He wrote a letter to Hull City Council, which said:
“My fellow Secretaries of State at the Department of Health and the Department for Communities and Local Government have agreed with me that there is a need for an historic investigation into the practices relating to infant cremations in the Hull area, and we have today jointly written to the Chief Executive of Hull City Council asking him to commission this. We have suggested that the Hull investigation should have terms of reference similar to those of the Emstrey inquiry.”
I was very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. He met my constituents and was incredibly compassionate and understanding. It is really important to see a politician showing such kindness. However, unfortunately, Hull City Council said that it did not need to hold that inquiry and there was a change in Justice Secretary. Without any reference to me, Tina or any of the other families, the Ministry of Justice decided not to pursue the issue with Hull City Council. It accepted that Hull had done everything it needed to do and that everything was fine. I was not told that. I only found it out because the council told me that it was no longer considering holding an inquiry. I was livid and, as Members can imagine, my constituent was completely dismayed. She has now formed a group with the other families called Action for Ashes in Hull.
The families were absolutely dismayed, as their hope of getting the answer to what had happened was snatched away from them. However, the new Justice Secretary did write to Hull City Council, suggesting that it might like to meet the Action for Ashes group. The council refused to do that, saying that it was not willing to meet the group, but that it would meet me, Tina and one other parent. We had that meeting on 24 March 2017. I specifically asked for the full investigation that it said it had carried out to be published so that we could see what it had actually done. That took four months. On 25 July, my constituent Tina was given 27 minutes’ notice that the report was about to be published and given to the press. It was not sent to any of the other parents who were in the group.
A 22-page internal report was produced by Hull City Council, but so many questions still needed answering—questions, as I said at the outset, about why babies’ ashes were left on the shelves of funeral directors and why families were told there were no ashes in the first instance. None of that was properly addressed, and there was no investigation into the role the NHS had played or into the independent funeral directors who had been involved. The report also looked at just 2% of the cremations that had been carried out in the area, whereas, in Shropshire, the Emstrey inquiry looked at 100%—it combed through all the records. In Hull, the report looked only at the families who had come forward and self-identified.
A year on from the last time I raised this issue in Parliament, Hull City Council still believes it has done everything it needs to do, despite families saying they still have not got the answers they need. I still do not understand why, in Shrewsbury and Scotland, an inquiry was appropriate, but one is not appropriate for the people I represent. There have never been clear answers and explanations about what happened. One Conservative Member made the point that there seems to be a fear that this will turn into a legal dispute and that there will be an opportunity for compensation. That is not what these families want; they just want to know what happened, why they were told things that were not true, and who knew what when. It is that basic information that they are still seeking.
I hope very much that come next year—I hope there will be a debate again, because this is an important issue, which we need to discuss each year—I do not have to come here and say, “I am still fighting to get a local authority to display the kindness and compassion this group of people truly deserves.” I am staggered that I am still having to fight this case, because it is absolutely obvious that an internal investigation is not sufficient. What we need is to have some fresh air in this case and to have someone independent come in, look at all the records and ask the families about what happened. That seems to me the best way forward, the kindest way forward and the way we will actually get justice and truth for these families finally.
Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)
Let me start by saying how grateful I am to everybody who secured the extension of today’s business so that we have the opportunity to pay tribute to the families who have suffered the unimaginable loss of a child and to the professionals who provide irreplaceable care and support throughout a journey that no parent ever wants to take, and, in Baby Loss Awareness Week, to break the silence for bereaved parents, as the strapline for this year’s campaign says.
I also pay tribute to the APPG and to my hon. Friends the Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Colchester (Will Quince), and to other Members from across the House, including the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who have spoken with such courage, dignity, passion and determination, enabling us to deal with this issue in a very open and honest way and to really move things forward. The hon. Lady was right to say that if we do not talk about things, nothing ever happens, and I commend everybody for telling their stories.
I want to tell two stories today, one of which I told in my debate in Westminster Hall before the recess, and which focused on bereavement support for employees. It is about a young guy in the west of Scotland, who was recently married and looking forward to becoming a dad for the first time, but whose son died at three days old. He received a phone call from his employer the day after his child’s death to say that because his son was dead and there was no baby, there was an expectation that he did not need the remainder of his parental leave and was therefore expected to come back to work the next day. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) is so right that there is an assumption that people are kind and decent and deal with things compassionately, but the truth in too many cases is that that is not the case.
The second story I want to talk about is about a family in my constituency, and it means a lot to me because it is the story of my office manager, whose daughter Rebecca died of TB meningitis. She had spent the last three months of her life in the Institute of Neurosciences in Glasgow’s children’s hospital. After several failed operations on her brain, her parents were told that there was no hope and that their daughter would die—their daughter, who had previously been fit and well and full of life, would die of a disease not usually associated with a first world, developed country. For the last three weeks of her life, she was transferred to Robin House, which is a most incredible children’s hospice run by Children’s Hospices Across Scotland in Balloch, near Loch Lomond.
The staff of Robin House gave Rebecca, her parents and the rest of her family a week devoted to giving her what I believe is called a “good death”. I am not sure there is ever such a thing, but in these circumstances perhaps that is the right term. It was a week where nothing else mattered, where the tasks that made an impossible situation in the hospital worse, like having to cook, do the laundry, travel, find a car parking space and look after other children, were all entirely dealt with. Rebecca died on 2 December 2009 in the arms of her parents, in a double bed that had been installed in her room from another part of the hospice, because no task was impossible for the staff of Robin House. Indeed, their support for Rebecca’s family continues several years on.
It is important to recognise that for the charities across the UK no task is impossible for the babies, children and parents they look after—from Bliss and its vision to give every baby born prematurely and sick in the UK the best chance of survival and quality of life, to Sands, which offers support to anyone affected by the death of a baby, the Miscarriage Association and its work offering support to anyone affected by miscarriage, and Together for Short Lives, whose mission is to secure the best quality of life and the best end of life for children who have short lives. In parents’ hours of need, absolutely nothing is insurmountable for both the paid staff and the volunteers in these organisations.
As we have heard, however, experiences outside the specialist palliative care environment can vary wildly. Hospital facilities do not always lend themselves well to the purpose of grieving. Not all health boards have dedicated bereavement rooms. They do not all have dedicated staff available. They do not all have rooms where parents can leave the noise and “life” of the hospital environment, which can make things so much harder and painful because it is so impersonal and sterile. Not all hospitals provide night-time accommodation for parents. Rebecca’s mum regularly slept in hospital coffee rooms overnight simply because there were not the facilities on the ward for her.
After death, when families are left devastated—some of them may have lost or given up their job and devoted themselves to being the sole carers for a sick child for many months or possibly years—the support we as a society give them to grieve can make the difference between whether they are able to rebuild their lives or not. Someone said to me that when your child dies you are shattered and, like a smashed vase, you can put the pieces back together but you are never the same as you once were; you are never truly whole again. You may find a way to function in society, but you are not coping; you are never coping. The grief can come on almost randomly and indiscriminately and it can be overwhelming. We must acknowledge the fact that the psychological consequences of grieving for a child are lifelong. It is not something that will ever leave you.
I am talking today not with a list of statistics or data because this is not a debate for pie charts or graphs. It is more about trying to reinforce the message of Baby Loss Awareness Week, to break the silence for bereaved parents who need support, to break the silence to promote the outstanding work of charities such as CHAS, CLIC Sargent, the Rainbow Trust, Bliss and the many charities across the UK that have come together for Baby Loss Awareness Week, and, most importantly, to break the silence for children like Rebecca so they are never forgotten.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Following on from the very moving and courageous speeches by hon. Members about Baby Loss Awareness Week, I rise as someone whose own family members have suffered from the trauma of baby loss. Stillbirths and neonatal deaths affect so many in our community, including in my Slough constituency. The son of my very good friend Councillor Madhuri Bedi was born prematurely. He had strep B, which gave him brain damage. The family had to make the harrowing decision to switch off his life support machine only one day into his precious life. As they remarked, there is very little awareness and not enough support. That is something that we all need to work towards.
I commend the excellent work done by so many individuals, campaigners and hon. Members, on a cross-party basis. I also pay tribute to members of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
On that point, will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the recommendations in the updated clinical guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which include the recommendation that all pregnant women should at the very least be provided with an information leaflet on group B strep, as a tool to raise awareness and prevent what he has just described?
Mr Dhesi
I fully concur with my hon. Friend and thank her for her intervention. In that regard, I would very much like to pay tribute to hon. Members in the all-party group. I look forward to joining them tomorrow to provide whatever little support I can.
It is wonderful to see the advances made and also the pledges made by the Minister, whether on maternity safety champions, funding for safety and training at hospitals or the national bereavement care pathway. I for one most sincerely hope that he and the Government will continue in this endeavour to ensure that we make further advances and minimise the trauma suffered by so many.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), who talked very touchingly about his own family experiences when they were affected by this terrible issue. It is also a privilege and an honour to speak in this debate in Baby Loss Awareness Week. Obviously it is humbling to hear all the different stories from fellow Members and parents on these Benches—they are such harrowing stories—and the bravery with which they are able to communicate them and raise this issue.
This is the most harrowing thing that can happen to any parent. I speak as a parent of four children, one of whom is about to reach his 21st birthday, but this is a fear that will never leave any of us, whatever age our children are. Although we got to four children, we had a number of mishaps and miscarriages along the way, and the hope for those affected is that as more children come along the way, that pain eases a little bit.
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to introduce my own private Member’s Bill to deal with some of these issues—actually, I have merely been passed the baton by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who has done so much work on this. My private Member’s Bill would allow parental bereavement leave. We heard an incredible story from my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), who talked about an employer who would not let somebody affected by this terrible tragedy have time off work. That is absolutely outrageous, but the reality is that in those circumstances—the death of a child—there is no statutory requirement for an employer to let staff have time off. I cannot imagine the distress that that must cause people affected by these terrible tragedies—tragedy upon tragedy—or how terrible the effect must be on the workforce of that employer, with everybody having to hear about it.
Most employers, of course, do not take that approach. I speak as an employer, both here—we are employers in this place—and in my life before Parliament. As an employer, we would not need the Government or anybody else to tell us to give people affected by this tragedy leave. Of course we would do that, and we would pay them whatever pay they were due. Sadly we cannot be that generous in our private Member’s Bill, but I encourage all Members please to attend the Second Reading debate on my Bill next Friday, to contribute and to make sure that we look at all the issues and circumstances. It is wonderful to hear that people are willing to share their circumstances, because it will help us to make sure that the legislation is in the right place.
The Bill would require all employers to provide at least two weeks’ leave for all staff affected by this kind of tragedy. I am delighted that the Government are supporting the Bill, which gives us a very good chance, given the extended time we have to get it through—unfortunately my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester was unable to get it through in the last Session because of time constraints. It fits very neatly with the Government’s pledge to enhance rights and protections in the workplace, so it is exactly where we need to be. Making sure that every employer provides such protections for people in their time of loss is the least we can do.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester, for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) for their tremendous work in this area. Over the summer months, we have been working with employers, charities and unions to make sure that we get the legislation to the right place, as I am keen to do. The legislation will help bereaved parents not just of babies but of children all the way up to their 18th birthday.
I am sure that we all have touching stories from our own experience, or from constituents who have come to us. Some members of the all-party group will be familiar with Annika and James Dowson, and with Luke and Ruthie Heron. The Dowsons lost their little child, Gypsy, who was stillborn. The Herons lost Eli after 23 weeks and six days, but he managed to survive for another two and a half days. Had he not done so, their loss would have been classed as a miscarriage rather than a stillbirth. They are championing the need to look at the legislation in that regard, and Annika and James put all their efforts into raising money for a bereavement suite in Scarborough. There are some tremendous and touching stories of the hope that has come out of these tragedies. If the Bill eases the unimaginable pain of just one family, our collective efforts will be worthwhile.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I pay tribute to the bravery of the many people who have described very personal and moving experiences in the Chamber this evening. I have experienced this issue from a different angle, in a professional capacity. As a consultant paediatrician, I have been privileged to see many hundreds of babies come into the world. I can honestly say that the joy and the miracle of that event, in whatever circumstances, is not diminished by having seen it on numerous occasions.
As a junior doctor, one is fortunate to see many happy occasions when babies are born in good health and at full-term. As a consultant, one is called only when either the mum or the baby is in significant trouble. That might be when the baby is very premature, when the baby or mum is very sick—for example, following a road traffic accident or with sepsis, which we have heard about here before—or when the baby is, sadly, born without a heart rate.
I can remember occasions from my professional experience when I have had to give parents the news that nobody—I speak as a parent of three—ever wants to hear, and no doctor ever wants to give: that a baby or child is, sadly, going to die. I remember holding one particular infant in my arms, because his parents were not able to do so, as he passed away. There is no doubt that we need to do everything we can—NHS professionals work very hard every day—to make sure that that does not happen, but unfortunately it does. I welcome the Government’s target to reduce the incidence of stillbirth by 50% by 2030.
I want to talk about some of the changes that have been made during my career. I graduated as a doctor in 2001, and I worked as a consultant paediatrician in the NHS, particularly in neonatal care. A number of changes in neonatal care have led to improvements over this time. There has been an increasing centralisation of neonatal care, so that the smallest and sickest infants are cared for in areas of significant expertise. This has helped to reduce mortality, particularly for the smallest and sickest babies. It has also led to a need for transportation. A baby who is born in a small district general hospital may need to be transferred many miles—sometimes hundreds of miles—to a hospital that has the expertise to care for their particular problem. When I was a junior doctor, that meant the doctor who was on shift, such as me, getting into the back of a 999-called ambulance and taking the baby in an incubator to wherever they needed to go.
Over the past few years, that has changed considerably. We now have clinical networks and areas of the country are divided up into patches in which there is a dedicated clinical team, led by a consultant neonatologist, with nurses and doctors who have specialised in this area. In many cases, there is a dedicated ambulance, as well as helicopter transport, to come and retrieve babies from whichever hospital they are born in and to take them to such a centre of expertise. That has been a big improvement in the care we offer children during the time that I have been a doctor.
As was mentioned earlier, another thing we have done is to focus much more on the lessons that we can learn. As a doctor, the first infant I saw who died was a young boy whose death was, sadly, entirely preventable. There was an investigation and lessons have been learned, but that does not take away from the horror of the occasion. It was an awful experience for the family, and it was traumatic for everybody involved. As an introduction to being a junior doctor—although I took no responsibility for it all medically—it was very traumatic, as it was for everybody.
We now have regular meetings to look at the cases of children or infants who have died, suffered significant injury or become more unwell than we anticipated, and where any type of adverse event has occurred. Such cases are looked at in detail by a multidisciplinary team, which goes stepwise through the process from the child being conceived or being referred to hospital and asks what has happened, why it has happened, what could have been done better and what would have changed the outcome. Although we would like to prevent every case, the reality is that, while we will get closer to doing so, we will never prevent every death, in my view. We should, however, prevent every one that can be prevented, and I very much welcome the Minister’s statement about improving the way in which cases are reviewed and about making that a statutory requirement.
I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) in relation to child bereavement leave. He is right to say that most employers, like him, are very flexible in dealing with people whose infant may be very unwell in hospital for several months at a time, but some are not, and that places an enormous pressure on such people. I also welcome the national bereavement care pathway. All the hospitals in which I have worked have had bereavement rooms and I think they provided good care to bereaved parents and families, although I know that that is not accepted as a universal statement.
Will the Minister look in detail at the evidence on group B streptococcal infections, and at any evidence relating to whether women should be screened for that in pregnancy?
The centralisation of tertiary neonatal services has been a good thing in making the survival outcomes for babies better. We are now focusing not just on survival but on improving the quality of life, particularly for pre-term infants, such as by improving ventilator settings so that their vision is improved and their lung function is better as they grow up. However, centralisation also has an impact on families. For example, for a baby born in my constituency, the nearest tertiary neonatal centre is Nottingham, and if it does not have a bed, they might be sent further afield to Sheffield, Leicester or Norwich. For people looking after older children at home—having to take them to school, for instance—trying to manage having a baby several hours’ journey away will have a huge impact on the family. It also has significant cost implications, and I not infrequently see parents, particularly in working families on low incomes, who are struggling with the financial implications of travelling to visit their desperately sick baby who is several hours away.
Overall, I think there have been many welcome announcements in this field today.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
May I say how honoured and humbled I am to follow so many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have made moving speeches about their own experiences, and those with very deep professional knowledge, chief among whom are the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson)? May I also thank all the members of the all-party group—we have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Colchester (Will Quince), for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) and for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach)—whose passion for and commitment to this most important of all causes really shines through, as I am sure everybody on both sides of the House agrees? I thank all those who have spoken today through their own pain, as well as all those constituents who have written to all of us to enable us to raise in the Chamber a cause that matters so much to them. If they did not write and share those very difficult stories, we would not be able to do half as much to help.
In my brief comments today, I shall give voice to concerns that my constituents have raised, and I want to support all my colleagues, on both sides of the House, who are working so hard to make change, reducing the number of deaths in these most tragic circumstances and providing help to parents when, regrettably, deaths do occur. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for mentioning my little boy Henry. I am experiencing the joy of being a new father. I can only imagine the trauma that any parent would feel, having lost someone in those circumstances. There is no doubt that a greater trauma for a parent could not be imagined.
I shall take a brief look at the statistics. As has been said, this is a very human subject—not one for pie charts or statistics—but I think we ought to look at them, if only to consider how far we have to go, and how much more space we need to cover to get close to a situation where stillbirths, and births in labour and shortly afterwards, are reduced to the lowest possible level. One in four pregnancies will end in miscarriage; 200,000 mothers and their families are affected every year; 3,245 stillbirths were recorded in 2014 by MBRRACE-UK. In 46% of stillbirths, the causes are unknown. That is a horrifyingly high statistic, and it is vital that we continue—I am grateful for the Government’s efforts in this respect—to research, so that we can find out the causes of as many conditions as possible. It surely is not something we can be happy about, or be content to tolerate, that the rate of stillbirth in this country is higher than in so many European countries, including Germany, Sweden, Poland and Estonia.
It is a sad fact that in so many cases, the causes of death are potentially avoidable. Many who have spoken today have far greater experience and knowledge than I have, and I do not pretend to tell the House about those points, but it seems to me that the Government should consider mounting an education campaign so that mothers can, where possible, avoid any risks—the risks, for example, of smoking in pregnancy are well known, and they need to be made clear to everybody—and recognise the signs of an impending problem.
Antoinette Sandbach
The MAMA Academy creates some fantastic wallets. I suggest that my hon. Friend writes to his local hospital trust and urges them to provide those wallets to their mothers-to-be. I know that the Countess of Chester is doing that for mums served by that trust. Each wallet has a lot of information on the front, which helps parents know when they should start worrying, because it alerts them to the signs that mean they should go to hospital and get scanned.
Robert Courts
I am very grateful for that helpful intervention. I will almost certainly do that. [Interruption.] No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury will assist. That will be most welcome to mothers—and indeed fathers, who of course worry equally about such risk factors. That will be a great deal of help.
I wonder whether the Government would also consider the subject of scans. I am conscious that in this country we do not scan past 20 weeks, and that in Finland, which has one of the lowest rates of stillbirth in the world, there are much more frequent scans, continuing into the third trimester. Indeed, in that country, they also have regular checks on very young children. I appreciate that there are many important claims on resources, but ask the Government to continue to look at that because the causal link between Finland’s success and regular checks should be considered.
The theme of Baby Loss Awareness Week is support for bereaved parents and today, of all days, is World Mental Health Day. When tragic circumstances occur, all possible support must be available to parents. Nothing will ever make amends for the loss of a child and nothing will ever take them back to the day before that loss occurred. As anyone who has lost someone will realise, however, while the situation is never “better”, the realisation that you are not alone can and does help. We ought to bring that support to as many people as possible. I welcome the Government’s bereavement care pathway and the assistance provided for it by the all-party group.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who is in his place, is introducing a private Member’s Bill. One would like to think that employers would be sympathetic in such circumstances: that is a basic, human and natural reaction. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), who gave us a very clear example of when that is not always the case. If ever there were a clear example of why the Bill is necessary, we have heard it today—and of course I support it. Compassion, as well as the time and support to grieve, is vital for parents in such tragic circumstances.
I would like to end my brief comments on a local note. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury for mentioning Horton General hospital, and I support and echo everything she says. Her passion is clear to all. Like her, I remain of the view that downgrading Horton’s maternity services is unsafe. I remain of the view that asking mothers in the late stages of labour to travel on the very congested roads between Banbury and Oxford, or from the north of west Oxfordshire in my constituency to Oxford, is unsafe. I fear for the consequences if that situation is sustained. I deplore the way the consultation was handled: looking at maternity services at the hospital in phase one of a sustainability and transformation partnership, when the issue of maternity services across the whole of Oxfordshire, and particularly west Oxfordshire and my constituency, must be considered. It is not helpful to look at such services in isolation.
The people of Chipping Norton have equally valid concerns over the future of their midwifery-led unit. It is clearly critical in such an isolated rural area, where the weather has an effect on traffic on our congested roads, for expectant mothers and families to have access to full, high-quality midwifery and obstetrics care throughout the whole of Banbury and the north of west Oxfordshire. I will continue to work with my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury and others to ensure access throughout west Oxfordshire to the very highest quality maternity services.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
This has been a compelling debate, which has once again shown the House at its best. I welcome the fact that we are discussing these issues again in the Chamber as part of Baby Loss Awareness Week. I hope that these extremely valuable debates will become an annual fixture, because they provide us with a very valuable opportunity to raise awareness of the work of the 40 baby loss charities who work together as the Baby Loss Awareness Week Alliance. They also give us the opportunity to assess what progress has been made in meeting our shared ambitions to improve prevention, treatment and bereavement care.
I recognise the work of the all-party group on baby loss. It is true to say, as a number of Members have today, that it has played a key role in ensuring that this issue is kept at the top of the Government’s agenda, and that some of the taboos that have so often surrounded this subject are broken down. There have been a number of excellent contributions from Members on all sides and I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to draw attention to some of them.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) mentioned coroners’ inquests and fatal accident inquiries for stillbirths—an issue she has raised on a number of occasions. I pay tribute to her for her persistence in that campaign. She certainly made a compelling case that such inquiries would inform good practice and, more importantly, bereaved parents may get answers that they have not previously had.
The hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) spoke with great passion and personal experience, and in his capacity as the co-chair of the APPG. He touched on a range of issues and highlighted the importance of mental health. I was rather troubled by what the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) said. I certainly recognise her description of a culture of defensiveness in certain trusts. She was absolutely right that most parents want answers, not compensation. We need to do more about the way in which the NHS handles these issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) told us about her constituents, Jack and Sarah, who have recently spoken publicly about the tragic circumstances of the death of their daughter, Harriet. They felt that what they were told was not correct and want coroners’ inquests to be available for stillborn children. As my hon. Friend said, there seems to be growing cross-party support for such a move. I assure her that the Opposition Front Bench will do what we can to assist in making that campaign a reality.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who also co-chairs the APPG, was right to pay tribute to the NHS staff who have really taken up the challenge laid down by the APPG of improving the experience for parents. She rightly drew attention to the wider public health factors that we need an awful lot more work on, and raised an important point about the need for CCGs to commission bereavement counselling consistently across the board. It is often a concern that CCGs do not commission services consistently across the country, so more examination and accountability is required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) spoke about her constituent’s son, William, whose ashes were scattered without his family’s knowledge. She spoke about this in the debate last year, so I am sorry to hear that there are still many unanswered questions. I hope that she does not have to come back to this debate next year to raise the same issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) spoke about the terrible circumstances affecting one of his constituents and the need to improve awareness of group B strep. In last year’s debate, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) advised the House that one baby a day develops group B strep. We should be able to do a lot more about that, given that it is a largely preventable infection.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) highlighted well the gaps in the law on bereavement leave. I wish him success with his private Member’s Bill. He made the valid point that we are also employers, so it is probably worth us examining the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority terms and conditions following the debate to see whether there is anything more we can do to ensure that we are an exemplar.
We were privileged to hear from the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), given her professional experience. She conveyed well how difficult it is for staff in some of these situations. Her reflections on her last 16 years in practice were informative and positive, and she made some excellent points about areas in which we can do better. I hope the Minister will take those points on board.
As we have heard from many hon. Members’ contributions today and in previous debates, the efforts of people here and among the public have gone a long way towards breaking down taboos. I pay tribute to those who have done so and the efforts of others in the public eye to raise awareness. For example, “Coronation Street” had a storyline involving a stillbirth earlier this year. I am sure that such television programmes have an even greater reach than Parliament TV. What made that storyline so poignant was that Kim Marsh, whose character portrayed the stillbirth onscreen, herself suffered a bereavement eight years before. She said of the broadcast that
“sharing is absolutely imperative to being able to put the pieces of your jigsaw back together”.
That is incredibly sound advice.
Many parents have spoken of the isolation they can feel, and we have heard from hon. Members today about how that has been a taboo subject for a very long time and about the difficulty people can have in discussing the loss of their child for what seems like many years. A constituent of mine, Nicole Bowles, is in that situation. She has set up a campaign, called Our Missing Piece, to make it easier for parents to let other people know that their family is missing a loved one. She has designed a badge for bereaved parents to wear as a way of telling the world that they are dealing with child loss. Her ambition is very simple but could have a very positive impact. She says:
“I hope that by creating this badge it helps to show that: It’s OK to talk to us; It’s okay to ask if we’re alright; It’s okay to say their name.”
I commend her campaign and I hope that this debate has gone some way to conveying the sentiments she expresses about the need to talk about these issues and break down the barriers that have been there for too long.
We know from the recent review of stillbirths and neonatal deaths in the UK that of the 782,720 births in 2015, 3,032 were stillbirths and 1,360 were neonatal deaths. This amounts to about 12 stillbirths or neonatal deaths every day. That is a huge number of families each and every week experiencing one of the biggest, if not the biggest, tragedy of their lives. It is a difficult figure to process, particularly because, as the hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) said, sometimes these deaths could have been avoided.
It is of course positive that perinatal mortality has decreased in this country, but the level of progress has not been good enough. According to The Lancet, the annual rate of stillbirth reduction in the UK has been slower than that in the vast majority of high-income countries. One of the key reasons for that is the high level of variability in the services offered. This country offers some of the best neonatal care in the world, along with some exemplary psychological and bereavement support, but unfortunately that is not available equally to everyone. Last year, NHS England reported a 25% variation in stillbirth rates across England. That is a startling figure, but it demonstrates that we have the capability to meet and exceed the Government’s target to reduce the number of stillbirths by 20% before 2021 if we ensure that everyone has access to the very best care and treatment. I welcome the progress the Minister referred to earlier towards meeting that target, and I hope that he will be able to update us annually on progress. I also invite him to consider whether it would be appropriate to expand the scope of the Government’s ambitions to focus also on reducing the number of premature births, given that prematurity contributes to a significant number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths each year.
As well as variability, another area where we need to make significant progress is ensuring safe staffing levels at all times on all neonatal units. The 2015 Bliss report “Hanging in the Balance” found that 64% of neonatal units did not have enough nurses to meet the national standards on safe staffing and that 70% of neonatal intensive care units regularly looked after more babies than was considered safe. As we know from exchanges this morning in departmental questions, there are huge challenges in the workforce at the moment, and the Government have set out their strategy to deal with them, so I hope that we will see progress. It is certainly something that we will be monitoring closely.
Finally, I turn to the key theme of this year’s Baby Loss Awareness Week, which the hon. Member for Colchester referred to: bereavement care. This is an area that stretches from the level of support available immediately following a neonatal death to the medium and long-term support available to families. I welcome yesterday’s announcement on the national bereavement care pathway, which will see 11 sites in England trial the use of new materials, guidelines and training for professionals. The trial, leading to a full roll-out in a year’s time, has the potential to tackle long-standing and unacceptable variances in bereavement care and ensure that all bereaved parents are offered equal, high-quality, individualised, safe and sensitive care, which is something everyone in the House wants to see.
I suspect that the challenge of a successful roll-out will be ensuring that sufficient time is set aside for the training that staff will need. I welcome the news from the Minister about the funds and support that will be available for the delivery of that training, but we must recognise that training is a continuing process, and we must keep an eye on progress in the years to come. As I said earlier, another big challenge is ensuring that the workforce are in a position to deliver the pathway. Last year, Sands found that 38% of maternity units did not have a specialist bereavement midwife based there, while Bliss has found that 30% of neonatal units do not have access to any psychological support.
There is also a need for capital investment. We have heard from a number of Members today about the importance of bereavement suites, and we know that one in three trusts and health boards does not have a dedicated bereavement room in each maternity unit. I am aware that the Government have ambitious plans to release significant parts of the NHS estate, and I should be grateful if the Minister could reassure us that there will be consideration of the shortfall in the number of bereavement suites before any disposals proceed.
There is much more to be done, but I think the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) summed up the position well when she said that, for the first time, there was some hope. Let us continue to move forward in that spirit.
Mr Dunne
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been raised during this excellent debate. It is important to recognise and welcome the cross-party support from Members, including the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). We heard 14 contributions from other Members, including five, by my count, who have personally suffered—or their families have suffered—the loss or miscarriage of a baby, as well as two from experienced doctors: my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who brought their particular expertise to the debate. I am grateful for the support from Members on both sides of the House for the Government’s action plan—for what we have done in the 12 months since our last debate on this subject, and for what we are planning to do.
A number of issues have been raised today. I will not go into detail about Members’ constituency concerns, although I will say to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) that when, as a Shropshire Member, I was dealing with one of my constituents who suffered an inability to find out what had happened to the ashes of the baby they had lost, which was similar to what occurred in Hull, my experience was of talking to the local authority and persuading it that this was the right thing to do. I should be happy to help the hon. Lady, if she needs help from the Department, to emphasise again to her local authority that it is indeed the right thing to do.
Members have challenged me on a couple of issues, particularly that of coroners’ reports. We are introducing a perinatal mortality review tool to allow investigations to be undertaken, with information collated in a manner that can then inform and be learned from. We will watch with interest what happens in Scotland, but at this point I think we need to get the tool working and see how it goes. In my opening speech, I mentioned the health service safety investigations branch on which we are consulting. We envisage it as having a role in looking at some of the more extreme cases, but only if it decides to do so.
A number of colleagues talked about the use of private Members’ Bills to try to drive this agenda forward. I can confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that the Government will support his Bill on bereavement leave, which was also mentioned in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton). I cannot promise that we will support all the other measures that the all-party parliamentary group comes up with, but we will certainly look at them with interest.
Following last night’s launch of the national bereavement care pathway, I am particularly pleased, in Baby Loss Awareness Week, that that has received so much support from the APPG, the charities and the healthcare professionals who work in this field. Finally, let me say a big thank you to all the midwives, doctors and healthcare support workers who do such a fantastic job, delivering more than 700,000 babies successfully and also helping parents who, sadly, do not experience the happiness of a healthy baby.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Baby Loss Awareness week.
Business without Debate
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Devolution: Yorkshire
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
It is a particular pleasure to open this debate on Yorkshire devolution with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you have a distinguished record as a former Minister for Yorkshire, and at a time when Yorkshire needed a strong Minister, bringing together the world of politics, business and local authorities. I suggest that we are at a similar moment in our history. We need a strong elected voice to champion the whole of Yorkshire as our economy and our businesses face the challenges of Brexit.
All Yorkshiremen and women pride themselves on calling a spade a spade, and sometimes in our political lives we can fall victims to that. I retired from this House in 2010 and never expected to return. I quickly realised the trueness of the statement that there is nothing more ex than an ex-MP.
John Grogan
I am afraid so, Minister, as one day you might find out.
I returned to my former constituency to knock on doors in Heslington in support of a former council colleague. I wondered whether the resident at the first door I knocked on might recognise me. He opened the door, gave me one look and said, “The return of the living dead.” I want to be as frank as that former constituent in my comments to the House this evening, but I also want to suggest a way forward and possible compromises and conciliation. I will also speak about the Sheffield city region deal, much diminished though it now is.
Let me start by examining a proposal that has been signed by 17 Labour and Conservative councils—when last I checked, not one had withdrawn its name. They are proposing a single mayor and a single combined authority for the areas they represent, which is perfectly in line with the current law, as the Minister has agreed in a parliamentary answer. I want to consider not what might happen in future Parliaments, but what we can achieve in this Parliament, because, representing God’s own county, we all have a responsibility to do that.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman feel that we have a responsibility to consider all the options? He mentioned 17 local authority leaders. The nine across north Yorkshire, who did sign up to the One Yorkshire deal in principle, are keen to explore the option of Greater Yorkshire, which is a deal on the table that we could progress today. Does he not think that we should be exploring that option?
John Grogan
Interestingly, none of those nine local authorities has yet withdrawn its name from the 17 that signed up to explore the Yorkshire deal. Some have admitted to me that they have benefited from re-education at last week’s Conservative party conference and now better understand the Government’s position, but Councillor Carl Les, who is a very good friend of mine from my days in north Yorkshire, said today that he still favours the widest possible deal. He doubted whether he could persuade the Minister, but I am more confident that we can do so.
It is interesting to look at the geography, because it includes the north of the Humber but not the south, and I recognise that there would need to be strong links between the north and the south however this plays out. The proposed combined authority would control things such as transport. On the basis of deals elsewhere, it might have £150 million to spend that is currently spent by Whitehall. It would look after skills, and there are some imaginative proposals, including that the regional schools commissioner should report to the mayor because we need to improve the performance of Yorkshire’s academies. The mayor would also oversee the team that promotes international trade in Yorkshire.
There are lots of exciting ideas, but it is Yorkshire’s identity that matters to me. Whether at Keighley Cougars, Sheffield United, Sheffield Wednesday or Leeds United, people do not chant, “Sheffield city region!” or “South Yorkshire!”; they chant, “Yorkshire!” [Interruption.] Anytime that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) wants to intervene, I will obviously take that intervention.
John Grogan
I thought so.
One newspaper that comes out of this whole saga with credit is The Yorkshire Post, and I want to read just two sentences from its editorial this morning:
“This debate is a litmus test which will define the future relationship between Ministers and Yorkshire. While the city-region model is working elsewhere, a Yorkshire-wide devolution deal has the potential to be truly transformative and Ministers will not be thanked if they’re unable to recognise the once-in-a-generation opportunity that exists at long last.”
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent case for the Greater Yorkshire deal. Devolution is all about local people making choices about their future and controlling their destiny. Seventeen authorities have come together to say that they want this deal, so the Minister should meet them and the MPs involved to get the deal under way. We cannot lag behind.
John Grogan
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. All that the 17 councils are asking for is talks, which the Minister has not yet agreed to. This House quite rightly prides itself on the fact that we have had devolution through consent from both parties in more difficult places than Yorkshire, such as Northern Ireland, and we are now telling the Spanish Government that they must have talks with Catalonia. If they can do that, why cannot the Government have talks with 17 Yorkshire council leaders?
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, because we started with a proposal for a West Yorkshire mayor and then for a lesser Yorkshire mayor, and we now have one for a Greater Yorkshire mayor. This should be less about the political colour of the mayor and more about councillors and other politicians working together to make swift decisions so that the people of Yorkshire, and particularly Batley and Spen, can make the most of this opportunity to regenerate our glorious, wonderful Yorkshire.
John Grogan
I could not have put it better. This is not just about the councils, because business also backs the proposal. I saw Jonathan Oxley, the regional chairman of the Institute of Directors, on television this morning, and Bill Adams of the TUC is among the opinion formers in Yorkshire who are very much behind the proposal.
I share many things with the Minister, one of which is that neither of us wakes up on election morning knowing that we will win—we fight marginal seats. Some of my hon. Friends have argued that the Labour party should not propose something that we would not definitely win. Equally, I am sure that some civil servants in Westminster have that traditional metropolitan fear of too strong a body in Yorkshire, which perhaps dates back in folk memory to when York was the capital of Viking England. We need a strong political voice in Yorkshire to argue for things such as better transport. Transport spending in Yorkshire is only £1 per head compared with £10 per head in London. We in Yorkshire are also 20% more likely to die young than those in the south-east, so we need a strong political voice to change things in our society.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument. To bring him back to the sporting analogy, we had the grand final at the weekend—sadly, Keighley Cougars were not there, but Leeds and Castleford were—and it was played in Manchester. Is that not the point? While Manchester carries on with devolution and is moving forward, Yorkshire is not. Forget the politics, we have to move forward with devolution now.
John Grogan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, although I would say that Keighley Cougars will rise again. We are missing out in Yorkshire. Take the Commonwealth games. They are possibly going to Birmingham; Yorkshire was not even in the frame, and that is because we do not have a strong, powerful voice arguing that things such as the Commonwealth games should come to us. I would want a competitive election, which a devolution deal based on the whole of Yorkshire would bring.
John Grogan
I was about to move on to to the Sheffield city region deal, so this is the moment for me to give way.
John Grogan
Perhaps to encourage my hon. Friend to do so, let me say that I am afraid that the Sheffield city region deal is much diminished. Obviously, Barnsley and Doncaster signed up, and there was the hope that various authorities in Derbyshire would be involved. Sadly, that has now changed. Although the deal is about the same in terms of money—slightly more than Manchester, but quite a bit less than the west of England—if we look at the powers we can do better in the whole of Yorkshire. There is no housing investment fund in the Sheffield city region deal, no control of railway stations and no community infrastructure levy. All those things are held by the Mayor of Manchester, so why do we have to have second best in Yorkshire? We can negotiate better than that across the whole of Yorkshire.
Mr Betts
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene. He accuses the Government of not talking, but they have talked at great length to the leaders of councils and to councils in the Sheffield city region. When the deal was signed up to by the four council leaders in the South Yorkshire districts in 2014, that was before Chesterfield and Bassetlaw came in. They came in at a later stage and if they had not, the deal would have been agreed and an election would have been held this year for an elected mayor. That will now happen next year. All those four leaders signed up to the election and the statutory instrument is being put through. I ask my hon. Friend to do a deal for his constituency and the rest of Yorkshire, and not to let our deal be held up on that basis.
John Grogan
I am slightly disappointed, as I was hoping that my hon. Friend would announce his candidature for Sheffield city mayor, but I will give way if he decides to make such an announcement tonight. The plain fact of the matter for my hon. Friend and for the Government is whether they are seriously going to impose an expensive mayoral election on the people of South Yorkshire when two of the four authorities are opposed to it. Are they seriously going to do that for a mayor who will have no powers and no money?
I am all in favour of all-party talks and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East has been working closely with the Government on this, but I would ask him, the Government and John Mothersole, who is the chief executive of South Yorkshire and a distinguished public servant, but perhaps a little too associated with one deal, whether we could try another plan—the best chief executives always have a plan A, a plan B, a plan C and a plan D—which I will suggest in a spirit of compromise. Members of all parties at a local and national level have been ringing me up over the past few days. Some have suggested a staged approach if there was a commitment to all-Yorkshire devolution. My hon. Friend has said himself that he would not rule that out in the future. Our good colleague, and former MP, Richard Caborn, has said the same. He would not rule that out. Could we not do it now? We could bring it in very rapidly. Perhaps we could have that staged approach with a mayoral election in South Yorkshire followed by an all-Yorkshire election a couple of years later. Those are possibilities.
I have one more suggestion to make to the Minister in a moment, but I just want to look briefly at one other factor. I said yesterday that an idea is serious once people start betting on it, and I noted today that a book has been opened on the first Yorkshire mayor. I was rather surprised that I was at 4-1. I am not sure whether anybody, even a member of my family, has put a bet on today, but I am ruling myself out. Various other hon. Members are on the list, but I will not embarrass them. I will say only that Jessica Ennis-Hill is at 33-1 and it surprises me that she is the first woman on that list, because there are many, many strong candidates. I can think of four women council leaders in Yorkshire off the top of my head, and it would be something if Yorkshire were to have the first female major metropolitan mayor.
Kevin Hollinrake
When the Select Committee took evidence from Lord Kerslake about devolution, he made it clear that a stepping stone approach may well work in terms of different devolution deals. Why would the hon. Gentleman not now commit to moving ahead with Greater Yorkshire? What is it about Doncaster and Barnsley that is so attractive to Keighley that he needs those in a deal in order to move ahead with it? Why is that?
John Grogan
In direct response to that, let me conclude with a suggestion to the Minister. It is possible that he will not initiate talks tonight. I hope he will—I have great hope and faith—but he may just not do so. This Minister from a Lancashire constituency—I put it delicately —may tell us a lot about his three happy years as a student in Sheffield, and we are looking forward to hearing about that, but it is just possible that to solve this problem we need a higher authority than the Minister—the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister or even the Prime Minister’s hero, Geoffrey Boycott. I am secretary of the all-party group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire and I have written to the Archbishop of York asking him to consider calling a meeting of all those involved in the devolution process to try to make some progress, which the people of Yorkshire sorely need. The Archbishop of York’s office has told me that he is supportive of the process of Yorkshire devolution, and he will closely examine the proposals of the 17 councils involved and will be in contact with the bishops of Leeds and Sheffield about the most appropriate course of action to take.
So I leave the Minister with two questions. Are the Government against the principle of One Yorkshire devolution or, as various hon. Members have suggested, would they be prepared to accept it as the final destination on an agreed staged process over the next two or three years? Secondly, if it is forthcoming, would the Minister accept an invitation from the Archbishop of York, even if he will not initiate talks himself, to take part in talks on Yorkshire devolution and how the people of Yorkshire can get what many of the great cities of England already have?
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is great to have a Yorkshire woman MP in the Chair for this debate. Devolved decision making over the past 20 years has been like a game of snakes and ladders; we have been up ladders and down snakes. We have had Yorkshire Forward and the Yorkshire Assembly, as part of the regional settlement; it is worth noting that only two of the Government regions in England which are still in use for a number of functions are not points on a compass and reflect a geographic area. The first is London, which has had its devolution settlement with the Mayor and Assembly since 1999, and the second is Yorkshire. After the regional development agencies were abolished, Government policy moved on to the local enterprise partnerships and combined authorities, and now Government policy is for metro mayors and city regions.
In Yorkshire these structures are still opaque and confusing for most people. People in many of our towns and cities would not recognise themselves as being part of a city region, but they understand the idea of Yorkshire. Yorkshire people are proud of being part of Yorkshire, and it is time that our identity and regional uniqueness were acknowledged, and not dismissed by this Government. If our region could speak with a single voice, it would be a player on the world stage, rather than on the national stage. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan) said, both industry and the unions have backed the One Yorkshire model. They want to develop region-wide hubs around IT, tourism, food and advanced manufacturing, including low-carbon and renewable energy, helping to create 21st-century jobs and 21st-century solutions which can be the envy of the world and start to rebalance our economy away from London. That is the most important goal for our region and others.
Yorkshire’s cultural achievements are legion: the world’s first ever film was filmed in 1888 in Roundhay; the first ever football club, Sheffield FC, was founded in 1874; and, as hon. Members might recall, in the London 2012 Olympics if Yorkshire had been a country it would have finished 12th in the medals table. Obviously, that is not forgetting this weekend’s eighth super league grand final win by Leeds Rhinos from my constituency. Yorkshire pudding is an integral part of our national dish, the Sunday roast.
Our whole character is based on our regional cultural establishment. This year, we have had the UK city of culture in Hull, which has been a platform not just for Hull, great as it was, but for the whole of Yorkshire. Leeds is bidding to be the European capital of culture in 2023. How good would it be to be part of a One Yorkshire authority where we could all amplify that achievement globally? Furthermore, Yorkshire’s interconnectivity and transport issues need a single voice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Jake Berry)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) on securing such an important debate.
In May this year, just five months ago, six metro mayors were elected to the combined authorities in England. Those six mayors—three in the northern powerhouse—have the power to create jobs, improve skills, drive forward their local economy and improve transport. Already they are creating a single point of accountability for residents, and have become powerful advocates for their area. Let us consider two of them. Ben Houchen in the Tees Valley has created the first mayoral development corporation outside London and is already attracting not just national but international businesses to the Tees Valley so that he can turn around SSI—Sahaviriya Steel Industries—steelworks. One mayor, one point of accountability driving forward his economy.
Andy Burnham, who will be familiar to those on the Labour Benches, is the metro mayor for the great city of Manchester. In one of the most striking acts of leadership that I have seen, he stood strong, representing his city and our whole nation, against a terrorist outrage that took place in that city just days after he was elected. One city, one mayor standing together against terrorism.
As with all devolution settlements across the United Kingdom, the process of passing powers from central Government to our regions is a one-way street. Metro mayors are already asking the Government what happens once they have fully implemented their devolution deal. What is the next natural step to return power, money and influence to their region?
These early adopters, these mayors, are viewed with envy by the residents and the business communities around them. When people turn on their telly and see Ben Houchen, Steve Rotheram and Andy Burnham standing there with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as they did this summer, they naturally ask—as I have been asked in Yorkshire—why is my area being left behind?
The metro mayors, created by this Government, form a partnership of equals with Government. They sit at the top table to talk about housing, economic development and, crucially, Brexit. That is why this Government believe that the South Yorkshire devolution deal should proceed. There can be no devolution two without a devolution one going on in the first place.
The hon. Member for Keighley asked why Manchester has so many powers. Manchester and its mayor have currently negotiated four deals with the Government. The Sheffield city region deal is the start of devolution, not the end of it. As a Conservative Government, we are not making a narrow political point. We will not gain any advantage from having a South Yorkshire mayor. I guess that the people of Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield deserve the devolution that they have been promised.
Those areas came together in 2015 and asked this Government for the deal. We believed then—and still believe now—that passing power and money from Whitehall to those town halls can transform the lives of people in South Yorkshire. Then Barnsley, Rotherham, Doncaster and Sheffield reaffirmed their commitment to the deal—not once, not twice but on three separate occasions. At their request, not the Government’s request, we legislated on two occasions to put ourselves in the position that we are in today. It is the law of the land, debated in this House, passed by this House, and voted on by this House that the mayoral election in the Sheffield city region will take place on 3 May 2018. The Sheffield city region deal is by all measures a good deal. It will bring £30 million a year of new Government money into one of the most deprived regions of the UK. It is one of the most generous devolution deals the Government have agreed. It equates to £22 per person per year in the Sheffield city region, compared with just £11 in Manchester.
On 3 May 2018, when the new South Yorkshire mayor is elected, the people of South Yorkshire—not the politicians—will, just like the people of the Tees Valley, Manchester and Liverpool, have a strong local voice to represent them at the top table with the Government.
While it is unfortunate that two of the local authorities that signed up to that deal in its original form have not consented to proceed to consult on the powers of the mayor, I can confirm that, as far as the Conservative party is concerned, I spoke last night to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), who is the Conservative party chairman, and we are proceeding to select our candidate for this important election.
The reason I make that point is that I say this to the new mayor of South Yorkshire, whoever he or she may be: we understand the challenges South Yorkshire faces, we believe that an elected mayor can give South Yorkshire the leadership it clearly needs, and we will work with them, whoever they may be, to ensure that the nearly £1 billion of Government money that has been promised to South Yorkshire is delivered to the people of South Yorkshire.
It took my breath away when the leader of Sheffield City Council, Julie Dore, told me this summer that she never thought she would live to see the day in South Yorkshire when a Labour council—in fact, two Labour councils—egged on by local MPs, would reject £1 billion from a Tory Government because of factionalism and infighting in the Labour party in South Yorkshire.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I say to the Minister in good faith that he needs to be very careful about the tone of his comments. We have had a good-natured and constructive debate tonight about a very important subject, but the leaders of Barnsley and Doncaster have done what they have done because they genuinely believe it is in the best interests of the areas they represent.
Jake Berry
Well, I look forward in future debates to never hearing a whimper from the Labour Benches about supposed Government cuts. I have lived in South Yorkshire, and I know how deprived some of these areas are. People in Barnsley, Doncaster, Sheffield and Rotherham deserve the £1 billion the Government have brought forward for them.
Jake Berry
I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. All I can say is that the people who are trying to undermine this deal know exactly who they are, and it is shame on them, shame on them, shame on them.
Jake Berry
I will not take the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.
Let me turn to devolution in the rest of Yorkshire. We welcome the discussions that have taken place over the summer, with talks having restarted after a significant period of stalemate. It is absolutely clear that there is no agreement around what has been referred to as the One Yorkshire deal. A report in Sheffield’s The Star yesterday confirmed that 11 of the 20 councils in Yorkshire support this proposal. York, Hambleton, Harrogate, Scarborough, North Yorkshire, Ryedale and Wakefield have said that they will not proceed with it. Although some elements of the media may choose to ignore that inconvenient truth, it is simply not the case that the coalition of the willing has had or does have wide support for its proposal.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in his letter dated 15 September, he is happy to meet leaders to discuss a Greater Yorkshire deal, which could be an exciting and groundbreaking devolution deal, passing real power and real influence from the people in London back to the people of Greater Yorkshire. He has also confirmed that a Greater Yorkshire deal should not and cannot include any of the South Yorkshire boroughs. That is because to do so would undermine fundamentally the position of good faith that underpins both the Sheffield city region deal and all devolution deals that the Government seek to negotiate.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
If there were a desire from the northern Lincolnshire area to be involved in that process, would that be looked at by Ministers?
Jake Berry
Whoever is involved in the Greater Yorkshire deal, it is for Greater Yorkshire leaders to decide, perhaps with Lincolnshire, whether that should proceed.
In conclusion, if Yorkshire leaders come to Government with a widely supported, ground-up Greater Yorkshire deal involving—
Jake Berry
I am sorry, I cannot because I do not have time.
If Yorkshire leaders come to Government with a widely supported, ground-up Greater Yorkshire deal involving a single mayoral combined authority that does not in any way undermine the Sheffield city region deal, we will welcome that. We stand ready. We will meet with people, including John Sentamu, because we believe that that deal, together with the South Yorkshire deal, has the potential to drive forward devolution in Yorkshire.
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Aggressive Antisocial Behaviour
(6 years, 6 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
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tackling aggressive antisocial behaviour.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey. For seven years, the standard response of Ministers to any question or doubt about crime and antisocial behaviour has been an assurance that crime is falling. Those of us who ventured that police budgets were being cut too deep and too fast, exposing areas such as the west midlands to severe grant reductions, have been brushed aside. I have lost track of the number of Ministers who think that all is solved by the stock answer that crime is falling.
It is certainly true that the crime survey for England and Wales provides a valuable picture of long-term trends for certain types of offences, but it does not necessarily capture the picture on the ground for other types of crime, so it is wrong for Ministers to rely on those statistics to the exclusion of all else. The fear that dominates the daily lives of real people and their families is not addressed when Ministers issue such a stock reply.
Estimates are especially unreliable when it comes to particular types of offences and, as a consequence, we frequently underestimate certain crimes. Sexual offences and child sexual exploitation, about which we are beginning to learn much more, are good examples of underestimated crimes. Antisocial behaviour almost certainly also falls into that category. Until 2015, the headline figures also excluded fraud and computer misuse. When those figures are added, the number of crimes rises from around 5.9 million to around 11 million, which suggests that there is even less room for complacency.
Not that long ago there were major debates about the need to improve the quality of police recording of crime. When recording is done properly, we have a more reliable measure to assess recent or current trends. In the last year alone, police recorded crime increased by 10%—the biggest year-on-year rise in a decade—which includes a 20% surge in knife and gun crime. That rise is actually accelerating; a 3% increase in the year to March 2015 was followed by an 8% rise in 2016.
Turning to antisocial behaviour, most people think of their home as their sanctuary, their castle, and the place where the troubles of the external world can be set aside, if only for a short time. But what if home is not like that? What if, because of aggressive antisocial behaviour, intimidation, threats and harassment, a person’s home becomes just another place of risk and fear—a place where they can be subjected to deliberate and intolerable levels of noise, and where dangerous and uncontrolled dogs are allowed to run free, threatening children? What if walking a few hundred yards to or from their own front door risks a confrontation and potential assault? What if the immediate vicinity of their home is plagued by thugs with motorcycles, who constantly congregate outside or nearby?
According to some reports, there has been a 1% decrease in antisocial behaviour incidents. I find that impossible to believe. Try telling my constituents that antisocial behaviour is declining. As far back as 2012, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reported concerns about the wide variation in the quality of decision making associated with the recording of antisocial behaviour by police forces. That resulted in a review, but as budgets are increasingly stretched, I find it hard to believe that there has been a vastly improved focus on tackling antisocial behaviour. We are talking about offences including vehicle and bike-related crime, vandalism, criminal damage, graffiti, nuisance neighbours and extensive intimidation, involving threats, verbal abuse and domination of whole neighbourhoods.
Not only do Ministers say that crime is falling but they regularly tell us that they have protected police funding. That is simply not the case. The reality is that the central Government grant remains largely the same, and the shortfall in police budgets has been transferred to the council tax precept. Analysis by the Library tells us that since 2010, police expenditure from tax and grants has fallen by 5% in cash terms and 13% in real terms.
The National Audit Office has pointed out the effect of that sleight of hand: the force areas most affected by funding reductions are those that are most reliant on the police grant. Four of the five forces that are most dependent on the central Government grant—all, incidentally, in the midlands and the north—are those experiencing the worst overall budget reductions. I am sure that the Government understand perfectly well that economically depressed areas with a relatively low council tax base are not capable of making up for the loss of central grant, even if they raise the council tax precept to the maximum permitted level.
In the west midlands, which is one of the hardest hit areas, we have faced cuts of £130 million since 2010—the highest proportion in the whole country. In 2017-18, we have suffered a further £6 million budget cut. The chief constable has recently been forced to point out that policing will “break” unless forces are given “real terms protection”. In Northumbria, the chief constable has said that his force is close to no longer being able to provide a professional service. The chief constable of Avon and Somerset police said:
“We now face a tipping point. We cannot sustain further funding cuts without extremely serious consequences.”
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case on behalf of his constituents and the city of Birmingham. The West Midlands police service has suffered a real-terms cut of £18 million this year. The chief constable has warned that the force is stretched to the limit. The police and crime commissioner has said that call-out times are getting longer; they are now up to 24 hours for 999 calls about domestic violence, and the police often do not turn out at all to deal with antisocial behaviour, although it is said to be very serious. Does my hon. Friend agree that the first duty of any Government is to ensure the safety and security of their citizens, and that it is absolutely wrong that the Government have cut 2,000 police officers from the West Midlands police service, putting the public at risk?
Steve McCabe
I agree totally. Those reckless cuts and the Government’s refusal to recognise the consequences are the reason why we are experiencing such problems.
As well as giving us a hopelessly complacent message about crime falling, Ministers for far too long have tried to tell us that this is all about back-office savings—that the police are top heavy in administration and there is plenty of fat. As my hon. Friend says, the figures tell a different story. The number of police officers in the country has fallen for seven consecutive years, despite all those promises to protect the frontline. Since 2010, more than 20,000 police officers and 6,000 community support officers have been axed.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the falling numbers of police officers, and especially community police officers—in my region of Yorkshire, more than 400 have been lost—has a huge impact on antisocial behaviour, such as crimes committed on off-road bikes and mopeds, which plague communities like mine in Barnsley? Does he agree that more needs to be done to tackle it?
Steve McCabe
I do agree. It seems to me that one feature of policing, particularly in relation to antisocial behaviour, must be deterrence. If people feel that they will not be caught and there will be no consequences, there is nothing to inhibit their behaviour, and that is exactly what we see in communities right across the country at the present time.
Policing has now reached a historic low, with forces at their lowest strength per 100,000 of the population since records began back in 1979. In the west midlands, as we have heard, we have 2,000 fewer officers compared with 2010 and there are 50% fewer community support officers. Conversely, better-funded forces such as Surrey, which benefit from the perverse nature of police funding decisions, have managed to increase their numbers of police officers for their low-crime communities over that same period. That says something about priorities and attitudes to crime and antisocial behaviour.
All of this is having a profound effect on police morale. The Police Federation report for 2017 shows that 58% of officers have reported not having time to do the job to the standard they would be proud of; 57% report being single-crewed, which increases operational risk, and 39% report high job stress.
I was recently told of an incident by someone who works in community safety. There was a local neighbourhood disturbance, with about 40 youths with weapons roaming the area, threatening each other and carrying out attacks. After several members of the public made repeated calls, a police car eventually turned up, sirens blaring. The youths scattered, and naturally there were no arrests. It turned out that the occupant of the police car was the duty inspector for the area, who was the only officer available. He freely confessed that he had had no choice but to turn up sirens blaring in the hope that he might scatter the youths. Is that really the level of policing we should expect in this day and age when our neighbourhoods are under attack? Force-wide voluntary resignations increased by 11% last year, and long-term absence is at record levels. Our police are stretched to breaking point.
It is hard to see how any Minister could come to the House with a straight face and continue to argue that the impact of their cuts is not affecting operational performance. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary’s police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy report for 2016 talks of the risk that forces are struggling to meet demand and are resorting to artificial means of suppressing that demand. The report suggests that that might be done by downgrading the severity category of a call or by setting a quota for the number of cases that get referred for special assistance. For example, a number of forces are increasingly dealing with calls for service over the phone rather than deploying officers to visit the victim. That can be very inappropriate in certain types of cases—for example, assault or sexually related offences—and there can be no guarantee that the person charged with conducting the phone call has the correct skills to carry out such an interview.
Particular areas of concern are the large number of incidents in control rooms that do not receive an appropriate response, as referred to earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey). An immediate response should be within 15 to 20 minutes and a prompt response is usually within an hour. In either event, that is likely to be too long to prevent a crime or, in most cases, catch a perpetrator red-handed. However, in far too many cases, calls are not allocated for several days. That is consistent with the many examples of which Members will be aware from their constituents, saying that they phoned the police but did not hear back or that officers attended several days later but made no attempt to take finger prints or record any other significant details that might help identify the culprit. In too many circumstances, the response to a crime is a perfunctory police appearance, well after the event—that is if they turn up at all.
Across the United Kingdom, the number of abandoned 999 calls more than doubled in the 12 months from June 2016, rising from 8,000 to nearly 16,500 across 32 forces. The number of 101 calls abandoned over the same period also rose—by 116%. In total 230,000 calls were abandoned; 101 is the number that the police prefer the public to use to report antisocial behaviour. That is the reality of much police response in this day and age.
As I have said, we have to be careful about relying on ministerial fantasies that crime is falling. Half of police forces inspected since August 2016 have been rated as “inadequate” for failing to record hundreds of thousands of crimes reported to them—approximately 219,000 crimes a year. Only three forces were rated as “good”. West Midlands police were found to have failed to record an estimated 38,800 crimes. In 2015-16, no further action was taken in 74% of recorded offences and by 2016-17 that had increased to 76%. By far the largest category of “no further action” cases resulted from a failure even to identify a suspect. It is not hard to see why crime is rising if the fear of being caught is rapidly diminishing.
Perhaps I may take this opportunity to remind the Minister of the importance of those findings and the store the Government place on HMIC inspections. The former policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), told us that
“HMIC’s rolling programme of crime data integrity inspections will keep the spotlight on forces to improve the accuracy of their crime recording.”
That is exactly what HMIC is doing, and it is reporting an increasing number of forces unable to cope and, in many cases, opting to downgrade the reality of the crime people are experiencing.
There is little evidence of a robust Government response to those HMIC warnings. Ironically, even HMIC is seeing its budget cut, with a 14% reduction in cash terms since 2012. First the Government cut the police, and then they cut the agency charged with keeping track of police effectiveness. Is it really that surprising that there has not been an HMIC report on force handling of antisocial behaviour since 2012?
The Government have embarked on a dangerous road. It is important to remember that, as part of the incoming coalition Government’s efforts to diminish the Labour legacy, they put arguments about civil liberties ahead of issues of public safety. In everything from control orders, designed to protect us from would-be terrorists, to antisocial behaviour measures, Ministers set out to loosen existing legislation and controls. To some extent, the changes were cosmetic, but they had an impact, as can be seen from the reduction in the use of stop-and-search powers, and the corresponding increase in knife crime.
The then Home Secretary branded Labour’s antisocial behaviour measures “bureaucratic, expensive and ineffective”. She embarked on a series of changes that led to a loss of focus on bearing down on antisocial behaviour, as practitioners had to take time to learn new language and procedures for tackling existing issues for which powers were already proving quite effective. However, it was more than a rebrand. Abolishing ASBOs and introducing injunctions to prevent nuisance and annoyance was a weakening of the stance on antisocial behaviour. Breach of an ASBO was a criminal offence; breach of a civil injunction was a civil contempt, carrying a much lower maximum penalty. Significantly, under-18s can be dealt with only by the youth courts, where the penalties are lower.
Also, collapsing ASBOs and related measures into a civil injunction effectively removed the graduated response that Labour’s measures were designed to achieve. It is true that there was a fairly high breach rate for ASBOs, but acceptable behaviour contracts and antisocial behaviour injunctions were stepping stones prior to an ASBO. There were stages to be gone through, and warnings could be issued if the initial response failed to quell the unacceptable behaviour. The Government’s changes swept all that away, along with all efforts to monitor the effectiveness of the legislation.
The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice regularly respond to questions about the effectiveness of their policies with the standard defence that it would not be cost-effective to collect the information requested. Indeed, the Government have contrived to make it virtually impossible to measure the effectiveness of their response to antisocial behaviour. Not only do they fail to collect information centrally; county courts do not do it either. Consequently, the only way to obtain information on the Government’s injunction strategy would be to examine individual case files. In fact, the Government have no capacity to link arrests, recorded crime, and prosecution and conviction data. They have no idea of the effect their policies have on crime and antisocial behaviour.
Labour’s approach was not just about court orders. Family intervention projects were established to provide focused work on those families considered most likely to generate antisocial behaviour problems. In 2007, the Department for Communities and Local Government produced a report that found that both criminal and antisocial behaviour had declined markedly at the point when those families exited the programme. The risk that they would face eviction because of their behaviour had also considerably reduced. Once again, the incoming Government sought to change things, and introduced a decentralised troubled families programme, with a significantly broader focus and, of course, fewer resources. It coincided with huge cuts in local authority youth programmes and other social services spending.
Despite early positive claims about the troubled families programme, an independent evaluation found that there was no significant impact across its key objectives and that it was not possible to evaluate estimates of savings, despite Government attempts to argue that the policy had resulted in savings of £1.2 billion. That, of course, was at a time when Ministers were keen on arguing for payment by results. However, the independent evaluation noted:
“The financial framework could have been significantly improved if it had followed the model of other programmes, which included a requirement to demonstrate that results were attributable to the programme.”
It is my contention that those changes in legislation, and the loss of focus, have damaged our ability to tackle antisocial behaviour. I attended a recent meeting of a community safety panel covering my constituency. I was impressed by the commitment of those present—about 23 people, including a fire station commander, who chaired the meeting, a police inspector, two councillors, a community representative and several council officers. It was a two-and-a-half-hour meeting; they are bi-monthly. It was full of presentations, which I must say I found interesting. However, what I did not get was that CompStat feeling: where were the raw data and the demand to do better? Where, indeed, were the results, and demands for action? I fear that, without greater direction from the senior echelons of the various agencies, community safety panels will become another part of the local bureaucratic apparatus. They are well intentioned, but what issues will they resolve?
It was interesting to hear that the panel had noted an increase in gang activity in south Birmingham and was concerned about an emerging picture suggesting that children are getting involved in gangs at a much earlier age, and that membership is no longer confined to those from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds but embraces those from what we might regard as quite middle-class homes. It seems to me that that information supports my view that we are losing control of our neighbourhoods, and that we need Government-directed activity and local intelligence to come together to provide clear action plans to tackle the threat posed by that emerging gang culture.
Neither the Home Secretary nor the Prime Minister made a single reference in their conference speeches to antisocial behaviour. It is clearly not on their radar. Nor did they mention police resources. It is all very well the Home Secretary saying that she plans to keep the police safe, but how safe are they if there are not enough of them to do the job and they are exposed to risk every time there is a local incident? There was a passing reference in her speech to a review of moped crime—I hope that will also cover motorcycle crime. I welcome that, although my constituents would like a timescale and a promise of clear action. Perhaps the Minister can update us on what the Government intend. Also, where is the evidence that under-18s are the greatest offenders in acid attacks? If there is not such evidence, what exactly will be achieved by the Home Secretary’s announcement on the matter?
I reassure the Minister that I do not raise these issues for the sake of it. A recent analysis that received more than 1,000 responses in my constituency highlighted the priority that my constituents accord to such matters. More than 70% reported being very concerned about the rise in crime. With respect to the visibility of, and access to, police and community support officers, almost 90% reported experiencing a decrease; 92% regard it as a false economy that the Government have pursued a policy of reducing police numbers, especially when so much money can be found for other items. Nearly 40% of those I asked about the 101 non-emergency police number had never heard of it. Of those who had used it, nearly 30% reported that it was unsatisfactory. The chief complaint, which will be no surprise, is the time that it takes to get through. Too many people are left hanging on, and are forced to give up. Those who do get through often find the response unsatisfactory.
Bearing in mind that I am a Birmingham MP and that what happens in London does not reflect the whole country, the Minister may want to note the fact that nearly 75% of those responding to the survey thought that we might need to look again at the rules on stop-and-search. I remind you, Mr Bailey, that it was the present Prime Minister who championed curtailment of the use of stop-and-search. I wonder whether the increase in acid and knife attacks, gun crime and gang activity suggests we may need to listen to the majority of our constituents, who are asking about their civil rights.
Often in crime surveys it is argued that people’s fear of crime is a much bigger issue than their actual experience, so I asked how many of those responding had been a victim of crime or had someone close to them experience a crime in the past 12 months. Over 50% said that they had; that is not exactly a picture of crime falling or a situation that is under control. One of the few aspects of antisocial behaviour the Home Secretary acknowledged in her conference speech was the problem of moped and motorcycle crime and associated offences—94% of respondents said that it is time to come up with new ways of tackling that menace, as current methods are simply not working.
What should we do? Clearly, we need a greater uniform presence, and to that end I support Labour’s sensible and costed proposals for an extra 10,000 officers. I recognise that it takes time to recruit and train such numbers, so in the interim we can perhaps look at making better use of other personnel, such as transport police, council security staff and even some traffic wardens. I draw the line at suggestions that employees of private security organisations such as G4S should be given the power of arrest, and I hope that the Minister will knock that on the head today.
I advocate that we need to examine stop-and-search once more, particularly where there is evidence of a high risk of weapons being carried and increases in knife and gun crime and other violent assaults. Members will recall that the Prime Minister claimed in her 2014 conference speech that the number of black people being stopped and searched had fallen by two thirds as a result of her intervention. However, the figures show that although overall stop-and-search is down, the number of black people being stopped and searched as a percentage of the total has actually risen. It is a failed policy. Discrimination needs to be tackled, but not with red tape that ties the police in knots and puts the safety of whole communities at risk.
I do not understand why, in an age of high-quality cameras that are so small and relatively cheap, it is so difficult to mount more successful surveillance operations in areas where particular types of street crime such as theft, assault and carjacking are prevalent. When it comes to the pursuit of those on mopeds and motorcycles, why is more attention not given to drone technology, and where local communities are clearly being intimidated, why not make more use of professional witnesses to identify and prosecute prolific offenders?
We need to see a new energy in tackling aggressive antisocial behaviour, with guidance from the Home Office to chief constables, police and crime commissioners and local authority chief executives making it clear that it is a priority and must be tackled. That should be coupled with a reinvigoration of community safety panels, with a clear emphasis: their job is to collect and analyse data, so that they can demonstrate how they are getting on top of rising neighbourhood crime and aggressive antisocial behaviour. If the Government are determined to hide behind the cloak of localism, they must issue guidance on how data are collected and shared on the success of measures such as criminal behaviour orders and civil injunctions. We must be able to see reliable comparisons, so that there is proper evidence about the scale of the problem and the success and failure of existing strategies and policies.
I support the development of a national transformation fund to tackle some of the worst areas of deprivation, but we should also entertain the idea that such an approach should be coupled with a new family intervention programme, so that those who create the most problems are not simply left to enjoy state benefits without any obligations on their behaviour. We need to revisit their entitlement to enjoy rented tenancies in areas where they cause untold trouble.
In circumstances where the perpetrators are homeowners or responsible for those living at their abode, we need to be bold. Where the culprit or someone regularly living under the roof of that person is guilty of persistent aggressive antisocial behaviour, we need to change the law so that eviction is the end point. Local authorities should be given new powers with the police, so that those who persistently practise aggressive antisocial behaviour, or permit its practice from their dwelling, can have their property made subject to a compulsory purchase order—effectively forcing them to leave the area and preventing them from continuing to practise the evil that they have inflicted on innocent victims for too long.
The simple truth is that the last Labour Government picked up the challenge of aggressive antisocial behaviour in our neighbourhoods and did something about it after years of neglect. The present Prime Minister has failed us on that vital area of crime by cutting our police, ignoring the predicament of our constituents and allowing crime and antisocial behaviour to grow. It is time for a substantial change.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
I wish to bring in the Front-Bench spokespersons at 10.30 am. That gives Back-Bench speakers about four to five minutes each.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I will be considerate of your advice and the fact that there are other people who wish to speak, rather than just go on for a considerable time.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this debate. I know he will share my pleasure that he will be able to work with Andy Street, the new Mayor of the combined authority, to tackle many of the issues he raised in his speech. As he rightly pointed out towards the end of his quite long address, it is not only about the police arresting people, but about tackling a range of issues. It will be interesting, if we follow the pattern in the west midlands of the Mayor becoming the police and crime commissioner, to bring that work together to make a real difference on the issues that the hon. Gentleman has just outlined. I am sure that his constituents will appreciate that.
It was interesting to hear about drone usage. Devon and Cornwall police now have the first drone squad in the country. I am sure officers in Devon and Cornwall would be only too happy to share with West Midlands police their experience of the opportunities afforded by drones. In cases in which a force helicopter could not be used, a drone offers an aerial presence that is far safer than one on the ground.
My main reason for contributing to this debate is to discuss the issues that we have experienced over the summer in Torquay town centre and what can be done to tackle them. Things came to a head one day when six people had collapsed by lunchtime on the floor in Castle Circus as a result of using Spice. That put pressure on the police, as did the overspill from some aspects of antisocial behaviour that are inherent in the use of those substances and from the disputes about who can sell them in particular locations. People were putting their lives at risk, and that had an impact on businesses in the area.
Being homeless in itself is not criminal. However, too often, the two were conflated in reporting of the issues over the summer—the idea being that homeless people and antisocial behaviour went together. In fact, some people at the local homeless hostel were the very people targeted by the suppliers the police are now seeking to deal with. Although we have some great organisations making a difference, such as Humanity Torbay and Shekina, along with the Torbay End Street Homelessness campaign, which received £400,000 of Government funding, it is clear that some people were pretending to be homeless and are still doing so with fake begging operations. Lumping everyone together was not appropriate. Some of the most vulnerable people in our communities should have had the chance to be helped and should not just be lumped in with those who are causing problems.
It is worth complimenting Torquay police and its inspector, Si Jenkinson, who has been working to react to the situation after I said that enough was enough and we needed a crackdown. We have had action days where a number of people have been arrested and the law has been enforced. A number of people have been jailed for offences. Two people who recently pleaded guilty to the supply of new psychoactive substances will, I hope, join them, but I am conscious that that matter is still in the courts and I should not say too much more about it. A number of arrests have been made. Police drug dogs have been out in the night-time economy, tackling the problem. We are beginning to use proactively the criminal behaviour orders system, to ensure that those who are a constant nuisance can be dealt with.
However, this is not just about police enforcement. As I touched on in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, it is about tackling a range of issues. That is why I am pleased that traders are coming together to make a difference and to begin looking at how we can take our town centre forward. They are meeting this Friday to do so. What can the Government do? The purpose of this debate is to discuss that, rather than just reeling off statistics. For me, part of it is about looking at the rules in relation to the usage of new psychoactive substances. It is a great credit to the Government that they introduced the Bill—with cross-party support, to be fair—that finally made those substances illegal and closed down two shops in my area that, bluntly, were drug-dealing outfits that sold stuff that avoided the law. We need to look not so much at possession as at usage in public. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether the law could be taken slightly further. I can understand why we did not seek to criminalise users, as opposed to dealers, given the history of other legislation, but could some consideration be given to this point? Alcohol is not illegal, but being drunk and disorderly in a public place is an offence. Perhaps we could look at how the legislation could be tweaked to cover those who have used new psychoactive substances.
Likewise, on tackling fake beggars, we need to review the provisions of the Vagrancy Act 1824, which have clearly had their day. I am not seeking to target those who are vulnerable—there are charities doing that—but there is clear evidence of a group of people in Torbay who are exploiting the good will of others to get money, even though sometimes those people are sitting there in quite expensive designer gear.
This is also about the regeneration of our town centres. It is not just about using the law, but about ensuring that Torquay town centre is a pleasant place to be and about providing positive activities for young people. That is why I shall close by saying that I hope Paignton rugby club can soon use once more the park that its eight and nine-year-olds were playing in, as it seems absolutely bizarre that Torbay Council has decided to ban that.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
It is, as ever, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on a comprehensive analysis of the problems confronting many of our constituents.
I shall confine my remarks to the criminal, dangerous and antisocial use of motorcycles. Many Members of the House have raised concerns about that; indeed, the Prime Minister herself has acknowledged that it is a problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), on the Front Bench, has been campaigning alongside me and others on the issue.
It is a real problem in my constituency. The young people who ride the motorcycles often wear crash helmets, although they are unlicensed, or use some sort of head covering—a balaclava or scarf—to make it very difficult to recognise them. That poses challenges for the police. There is recognition on the part of Merseyside Police, to whom I am indebted for my briefing for this debate, that these scrambler bikes, as they are commonly called, although they are not necessarily scrambler bikes, are used in the pursuit of crime. We have heard examples of their being used in acid attacks and in ram-raids on shops, but more commonly in my constituency they are used to distribute drugs and, in some cases, firearms. Merseyside Police tell us that although there has been a sharp increase, in some parts of the Liverpool city region, in the discharge of firearms, the numbers of firearms have not necessarily gone up. The same firearms are being used repeatedly, and in some cases they are being ferried around by young people connected to so-called drug barons. They are almost like firearms for hire: the young people drive around, and whoever wants to hire a firearm for the day, that is how it is delivered to them.
There is real concern about this matter and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, at the same time as the problem is growing, police numbers have been reduced. On Merseyside, we have 1,000 fewer police officers than we had in 2010, and which creates challenges. This matter is covered by section 59 of the Police Reform Act 2002, which gives the police the power to seize vehicles, including motorbikes, if they are used in a “careless and inconsiderate” manner. In most circumstances, a warning is required, but in exceptional circumstances one need not be used. The legislation is suitable for dealing with very low-level antisocial behaviour—for example, people using a scrambler bike in a field or on wasteland who will engage with the police when stopped and spoken to—but not for dealing with riders who are intent on riding along public roads in a dangerous manner and have no intention of stopping for the police. We therefore need to revisit the legislation, and I would like to refer to a couple of case studies that illustrate why that is important.
The first case study involves an incident on Merseyside in 2015 in which police officers came across a scrambler bike rider travelling at excessive speed in the city of Liverpool. Eventually, after a lot of problems, an officer managed to detain the rider of the bike, because he considered that he was a real danger to the public. The rider was arrested and charged with dangerous driving, and was eventually sentenced to six months in prison, but that was not the end of the story. The incident was referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and thirteen months later the police officer involved ended up in court, and was acquitted, for the actions that he had taken to detain the young person. Dealing with the matter took 18 months, during which time that police officer was under a lot of pressure and, indeed, the threat of losing his job and his liberty.
I have other case studies, but I realise that we are short of time, so I shall skip them and just say that the Police Federation has concerns about this matter. It believes that the law needs to be clarified so that police officers in the situation described have some kind of exemption from prosecution. Obviously, their need to protect the public should override the civil libertarian concerns about people who are using what are often unlicensed and uninsured vehicles for criminal purposes. I hope that the Minister, who nodded when I made that point, will acknowledge, when she winds up the debate, that that is a problem and it needs to be addressed urgently.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on presenting a very comprehensive case. This issue affects us all, regardless of constituency or region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; it is a shared concern. We are all very aware of antisocial behaviour issues, such as drunkenness, noise pollution, vandalism, shoplifting and joyriding. In the past week alone, I have read about displays of antisocial behaviour among young people during freshers week in Belfast, and on Saturday a substantial number of fireworks and counterfeit goods were seized in Newtownabbey, a town just north of Belfast. Again, those were to be used for antisocial behaviour.
A quick Google search confirms that such behaviour is not confined to Northern Ireland. In the past week, police have launched an operation in Skegness to deal with antisocial behaviour. New orders have come into force in King’s Lynn, Downham Market and Hunstanton. In the broads, a new plan to tackle antisocial behaviour has come into force, and a zero-tolerance order has been passed in Walsall. That is a very quick synopsis of some of the issues. Across Northern Ireland, the incidence of antisocial behaviour incidents has decreased, although there has been a slight increase in the last three years. The Police Service of Northern Ireland releases monthly and annual figures, and while antisocial behaviour incidents seem to be falling they are still too high. We have to address that. Antisocial behaviour rates in Northern Ireland are consistently higher in July, August and October, while they fall between November and February or March. It could be said that that suggests the weather plays a role in how people behave. Anyone who has been to Northern Ireland can attest to the fact that we do cold weather better than most, but the fact is that the figures decrease in the colder months, whereas when the weather is good and the nights are longer, people tend to stay out for longer and consume an amount of alcohol. We all know those people who consume more alcohol and become very friendly, but most people who consume alcohol to excess become louder, rowdier and are prone to getting into arguments and even physical fights.
Like many of my colleagues, I have a fantastic relationship with the local police force of Northern Ireland. They continue to work alongside relevant organisations to address antisocial behaviour, particularly when it relates to the misuse of drugs or alcohol. We should give credit to the organisations that do fantastic work in Northern Ireland and across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For example, the SOS Bus operates in Belfast to ensure that people get home safely and receive any help that they require, whether that is medical or simply taking a seat and having a coffee to reduce the effects of alcohol. In 2015, street pastors, who are very active in my constituency—I am pleased to be their president—aimed to ensure that people got home safely; however, they also give out flip-flops, pick up bottles, and listen to people’s stories, helping those in distress and pointing people to further help if required. That is their role and what they do. They have a growing organisation in Newtownards that is now in Ballygowan and Comber, right down the Ards peninsula. The overall aim is to ensure that people remain safe when they are out socialising, and where possible to prevent people from getting into situations in which antisocial behaviour might arise. I would like to put on record my thanks to those organisations, which do such fantastic work for people throughout the United Kingdom.
One way to address antisocial behaviour is to encourage local authorities to introduce a zero-tolerance order for antisocial behaviour and perhaps more CBOs. Is that something that the Minister is considering? Some people see antisocial behaviour orders as a badge of honour. They should never be a badge of honour; they should be a discredit to the person who has one. We need to be strong on that. The stats for England and Wales show that some 1.8 million incidents of antisocial behaviour took place, but it has been a while since Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary did an inspection on antisocial behaviour. If she has the chance, would the Minister give us her thoughts on where we are with that? The crime survey for England and Wales showed an increase of respondents on the issue of antisocial behaviour in the last year.
I want to reiterate what the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) referred to: a growing problem with those on mopeds. Riders regularly mount pavements, swiping mobile phones, and they also use mopeds in acid attacks, and we need to look at that. We also need to look at the pursuit of criminals on mopeds. The death of Henry Hicks in London, who crashed his moped while being pursued by police officers, changed the way police officers have to work. Four officers are going to have hearings this month. It means that the police are unable to pursue citizens, but we must allow police officers to do their job, including pursuing and stopping criminals in a safe and responsible manner. In the last year, crimes involving vehicles have risen by 600%.
I will conclude, Mr Bailey, as I am conscious of time—I apologise. We must do more to tackle new types of antisocial behaviour, particularly crimes involving vehicles. Can the Minister say whether she is working with the police to identify the problem areas that we have outlined, and the times of year at which antisocial behaviour increases, with a view to improving police presence and in turn reducing the extent of such behaviour?
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on an excellent contribution and summary of some of the concerns relating to aggressive antisocial behaviour.
I want to start by saying very firmly that the police are trying to do a good job and want to reduce antisocial behaviour as much as my hon. Friend and other Members who have spoken do. However, the key issue boils down to policing numbers and the police’s ability to respond on a local level to concerns raised. There are many powers in place. Previous Labour Governments, the current Conservative Government, and previously the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government, introduced a number of measures to give powers to local councils and the police to tackle antisocial behaviour, but ultimately it is about having local, visible policing on the ground, engaged with the community, being seen, giving reassurance and dealing with issues at the first instance, before they escalate into what my hon. Friend described.
I mention that because just yesterday I received an email from a constituent, which puts the case more eloquently than I ever could. The constituent wrote to me regarding policing in one of the towns in my constituency, and she said:
“Can we ever expect to see the police walking again or PCSOs? Is this ever going to happen again. Their presence is immeasurable on so many levels i.e. reassurance, deterrents, role models, help when needed… the list is endless.”
It is important that we look at that summary of a real problem.
In my area, the North Wales force is small compared with that of the West Midlands, but it covers a geographical area from the borders of Chester through to Holyhead, a distance of nearly 100 miles as the crow flies. In my area, since I was Police Minister in 2010—we had 1,590 police officers in March 2010—we have seen a reduction to 1,441. That is 149 police officers lost, nearly 10% of the police force. In Wales as a whole, we have lost 682 officers over a similar period. That is at a time, particularly in the last 18 months to two years, when we have had increased demands on the police in terms of armed response units, prevention of terrorism and radicalisation on a range of fronts, from right-wing radicalisation through to potential terrorist threats elsewhere. The police are responding dramatically to those areas at a time when they are facing difficult cuts, and have lost thousands of staff and over 20,000 police frontline officers as a whole. If we add to that the 36% reduction in police and community support officers, who deal with the visible, frontline, intelligence gathering and reassurance issues, which my constituent referred to in her email yesterday, we find that the ability to respond to low-level aggressive antisocial behaviour is not as good as it was, despite the best efforts of the police.
My hon. Friend mentioned the partnership in relation to local councils. Local councils are facing severe cuts in their funding. Just looking this very morning at this month’s reports, we see that Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council in south Wales has said that it may have to turn off its CCTV cameras, because of a potential lack of funding. Denbighshire County Council, in the next authority to my own, has had the same problem. Councils are facing a squeeze on their resources and are having to take on statutory responsibilities more and more, making it difficult to do things that are important in helping to support the police on low-level antisocial behaviour.
There will always be pleas for more money—we know that. With the police draft grant coming up in November to December, and the police grant being formalised by this House in February next year, the Minister has an opportunity to recognise that policing is under pressure. It is under pressure for the reasons that my hon. Friend mentioned, but also because the increasing demands of this very dangerous world that we live in are dragging police resources away from the neighbourhood policing model. The challenges of mental health, antisocial behaviour, reductions in council budgets and reductions in CCTV are causing real difficulties at local level. The Minister and her colleagues, the Police Minister and the Home Secretary, have an opportunity to look at the police budget and not to palm it off, as my hon. Friend said, to those local ratepayers, who in many areas are facing difficulties anyway and whose rateable value base was not sufficient to generate the income. The Minister should use that opportunity and look at how she can uplift police funding to help to meet the challenges that we have described today, and in doing so help to reduce antisocial behaviour, protect communities, take stress off individuals and prevent the criminals of tomorrow from gaining confidence, growing in their potential and committing more serious crimes at a later age.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I commend the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) for securing this debate. I am pleased to see him in the Chamber leading on this issue after the incident that happened to him this summer; I am sure that all colleagues wish him well.
The debate so far has been good. We have heard contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), giving us a UK-wide picture. I am conscious that this matter is devolved in Scotland, but I will offer a couple of thoughts through a Scottish prism, as well as from a constituency point of view.
The backdrop to this debate is police cuts in England; when I saw it on the Order Paper, I thought it an excellent opportunity to talk about some of the things that we are doing north of the border, particularly on policing. The Scottish Government went into the 2007 elections with the commitment to put 1,000 extra police officers on Scotland’s streets. I am glad that 10 years on, we have managed to maintain that; the number of police officers in Scotland has gone from about 16,000 to 17,249 in June. As a result of ensuring that there are police officers on the streets, we now have the lowest levels of recorded crime since 1974, which was 42 years ago. That is welcome, but it is important that we do not rest on our laurels. Although there has been a reduction in the number of many crimes, I am disappointed to say that there has been an increase in the number of sex-related crimes, as there has across the board.
From my casework in surgeries and from going out door-knocking, I know that antisocial behaviour involves many issues. I will refer particularly to some antisocial behaviour issues in the Cranhill area, where I come from originally. Antisocial behaviour there comes from a group of young boys who think that it is absolutely acceptable to throw stones at both windows and people. I was disappointed to see a couple of weeks ago that a young girl in my constituency was injured when they threw a brick at a passing car. That is totally unacceptable, and we need to nip it in the bud straight away. There are also antisocial behaviour issues in the Baillieston and Garrowhill areas in my constituency, and I am working hard with Police Scotland and Community Safety Glasgow to address them. I pay tribute to Community Safety Glasgow, a joint initiative of Glasgow City Council and Police Scotland, led by Eileen Marshall, to tackle antisocial behaviour and crime. Since it was set up in 2006, there has been a remarkable transformation in our communities.
I also want to mention some of the local voluntary groups working to provide diversionary activities for young people. The first is Urban Fox, led by Michael McCourt and Debbie McGowan. It is a voluntary project based in Lilybank in my constituency that delivers a range of educational and diversionary activities including supervised sport, leisure programmes and health and social guidance. It promotes self-development and provides young people with skills, confidence and opportunities to develop self-esteem. I commend the work of Urban Fox to the House.
Andy Gilbert is a passionate community activist in my constituency who does a lot of work in the Glenburn centre. One issue that I plan to raise with the Employment Minister on Thursday involves the proposal to close three out of four of our local jobcentres, which is ridiculous given that territorialism and gang culture are still issues in my area. One example that I mention here regularly is Wellhouse and Easthall, which are literally separated by a road into two communities, both of which are small but have their own community centres and housing associations. The work that Andy Gilbert is doing in Easthall is to be commended; he is reaching out to attract young people to the Glenburn centre who might otherwise be at risk of offending.
I was delighted last week to meet Young Movers, also based in Easthall. The organisation does a lot of work on youth empowerment, and I was pleased to hear about its recent efforts in the park at Sandyhills, where about 20 young folk had been hanging about causing trouble and engaging in antisocial behaviour. Through youth empowerment, Young Movers has managed to get them to set up a youth club, which has removed the antisocial behaviour in that part of Sandyhills.
Another organisation is Street League, which is UK-wide; it has operations in 14 cities around the UK and is led in my constituency by Brian Lennox. It has had good outcomes in terms of reducing antisocial behaviour in Glasgow, particularly in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). It ran a programme that cut antisocial behaviour in the Carlton area by 80% through street football, which is to be commended. Another organisation, which the hon. Member for Strangford already discussed, is Street Pastors. It does excellent work, particularly in Glasgow city centre at chucking-out time for the nightclubs; he mentioned initiatives to hand out flip-flops and similar things. I commend Stuart Crawford, a good personal friend of mine, who leads that organisation.
To return to the point about police budgets, we in Scotland have committed to protecting revenue budgets in real terms for the entirety of the next Parliament, delivering £100 million in investment over the next five years. I would like to ask the Minister about VAT. Police Scotland is the only force in the UK subject to VAT; it has cost the Scottish Government £140 million since 2013. I hope that in the Budget next month, the UK Government will do the right thing and ensure that Police Scotland is not subject to VAT. Once we can release that money back into the police force, we can reduce antisocial behaviour in our constituencies.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on his tour de force describing the growing issue of antisocial behaviour in our communities, particularly the consequences of reckless and brutal police cuts.
It is common sense that we cannot tackle antisocial behaviour and crime without a well-resourced neighbourhood policing presence. It is an irreplaceable component of the battle to keep our communities safe, and it has been steadily undermined and eroded over the past seven years. The hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) discussed the use of police dogs to tackle drug abuse. That was excellent to hear, but there has also been a massive reduction in the number of dog handlers throughout the country. Ten years ago, South Yorkshire had 54; we now have 12. Furthermore, his own police force, Devon and Cornwall, is being forced to merge with Dorset amid significant funding challenges. We welcome collaboration and efficiencies, but it is alarming to see forces taking decisions that might be harmful to police accountability on the basis of funding challenges.
Kevin Foster
The shadow Minister says that the two forces are being forced to merge; they are not. They have had a strategic alliance for quite some time, and it now makes sense to bring the two forces together. She would have found that out if she had spoken to any of the Members for Devon or Cornwall.
Louise Haigh
The chief constables, in their press release, said that the merger was brought about amid significant funding challenges and was the only way forward for the police forces involved. It was disappointing not to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about those funding challenges in his speech.
Over the past seven years, 20,000 police officers and more than 30,000 police staff have been cut. The crimes that concern the public most—knife crime, gun crime, violent crime and acquisitive crime—are all on the rise. Demand across the board, especially on non-crime issues such as mental health, is soaring. At a time of unprecedented terrorist threats, the number of armed officers is down. Yet among all those competing demands, my hon. Friend the member for Birmingham, Selly Oak painted a compelling picture of why it is so important to take antisocial behaviour seriously. Time and again, it is an issue raised by our constituents. It blights lives and can make people prisoners in their own homes.
Undoubtedly, the reduction in neighbourhood policing has left our communities at risk. Alongside the incredible quotes read by my hon. Friend from a variety of chief constables, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary said earlier this year that the model of neighbourhood policing is being eroded. In calling for urgent action, HMIC warned that
“the position on crime prevention and local policing continues to deteriorate.”
The blame lies clearly and squarely with the Government.
The voices raising concerns do not stop there. Over the summer, one of the most senior police leaders in the country—Sara Thornton, who weighs her words carefully—said:
“We’re particularly concerned about the resilience of local neighbourhood policing...Withdrawal from communities risks undermining their trust in us, at a time when we need people to have the confidence to share information with us.”
The Government have been told time and again that police forces are increasingly unable to provide the service that the public expect. They are rationing their time, which is pushing reports of antisocial behaviour, among a host of other demands, to the back of the queue. At the Budget, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) said, the Government must get a grip. Forces urgently need a real-terms funding increase that matches their needs and that recognises the record demand they face, having lost 20,000 officers and £2.6 billion since 2010. The status quo is not an option.
If we are to tackle ASB effectively, the Government must get to grips not only with resources but with some crucial practical issues. As we have heard, people are incredibly frustrated with the performance of 101 across the country. They can wait for more than half an hour to report ASB or crime and they feel that the police will not act on the report and that it will fall into an intelligence black hole. The police can have all the evidence and intelligence they like, but that is useless without the analysts and officers to act on them. Will the Minister consider conducting an assessment of the performance of 101 and of which forces are demonstrating best practice in the area? Some forces have excellent online reporting mechanisms, but that is far from consistent across all forces.
On data analysis, I direct the Minister to the recent report by the Royal United Services Institute, “Big Data and Policing”. I recommend its suggestion for a national data strategy and policy for the police. It is deeply frustrating that expertise and practice have to be replicated across 43 forces, especially when they are struggling even to provide core response services.
On legislation, we have heard about the problems associated with the downgrading of ASBOs to civil injunctions. With CBOs, the same challenges persist that existed with ASBOs for police on the ground. A considerable amount of police work goes into preparing a CBO case but, from speaking to those on the frontline, it seems that CBOs are not respected in the round by the judiciary. I have heard many examples of the police working with councils and other services to provide individuals with interventions that have repeatedly failed. They have turned to a CBO as a last resort, only to have it thrown out of court almost immediately. Under the previous legislation under Labour, the judge or magistrates were required to explain why they would not grant an ASBO, but that is not the case for a CBO.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, we have no measure of the effectiveness of the Government’s ASB strategy. We certainly do not measure or hold to account the wider criminal justice system’s use and implementation of ASB legislation. Will the Minister consider raising with her Ministry of Justice colleagues the need for better training and awareness of ASB measures and for putting in place a review of how and when CBOs are granted by the courts to establish whether they are being used properly?
One of the positive things about CBOs is that they require some positive action from the offender. That is fantastic in theory, but in practice the third-sector and public providers either no longer exist or do not have the funding to work with and support offenders with CBOs. Will the Minister consider commissioning research to establish how that is working in practice? For example, Durham Constabulary is doing some excellent work through the programme Checkpoint, which I recommend to her. The problem, however, is that, although the cost savings from reducing reoffending and diverting from court are felt across the criminal justice system, the police are currently footing the entire bill. That is simply unsustainable.
We have heard about moped and bike-enabled crime from several hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who has conducted an excellent campaign on it. It is menacing communities nationwide. Bikes are used not just to plague residents with ASB, but for much more serious crime associated with drugs and violence. A significant part of the issue is the decimation of youth services, but an effective police response is a crucial part of the solution.
We have been calling for the Government to get a grip, not least through a review of police pursuit policy. In recent months, both the Minister and the Independent Police Complaints Commission were adamant that the current Crown Prosecution Service guidance was adequate for protecting the police. It was good to hear the Government think again and announce a review recently. Pursuit and response drivers across the country will be watching with interest. Many tell me that effectively they are forced to operate under a no-pursuit policy, as they do not have the confidence that if—God forbid—someone got hurt during that pursuit, they would not be prosecuted, even if they had followed their force pursuit policy to the letter.
Jim Shannon
There have been incidents across the United Kingdom in which people on mopeds have removed their helmets so that police following them feel they must pull back. There are so many conditions and restrictions on the police. As the hon. Lady says, it is important for the Minister to address that.
Louise Haigh
That is exactly the problem. The message is out there that the police are not able to pursue, and offenders are freely removing their helmets or carrying on under that impression.
The lack of protection for the police was amply demonstrated last week by the case of PC Simon Folwell, who was involved in February last year in the pursuit of a vehicle. The car crashed into a lamp post and, tragically, the driver died. The CPS ruled no further action on the case on two separate occasions, yet the IPCC still pressed for a gross misconduct hearing. The officer was finally cleared last week after an 18-month investigation.
No one is suggesting for a second that the police be given blanket licence to pursue, but if officers have followed their training, their force policy and the law, they should not be treated as suspects. Will the Minister confirm what the review’s terms of reference will be and when she expects it to report?
In conclusion, I beg the Minister to put our case to the Treasury in the strongest possible terms ahead of the Budget. Policing simply cannot continue in its current form with this level of demand and with no additional resource. Does she acknowledge the importance of neighbourhood policing and recognise that the rise in crime and antisocial behaviour is at least partly due to cuts to that important function? I reiterate our ask that the Government properly measure their ASB strategy and review the pursuit policy, to give the police the confidence to do their job and our constituents the confidence that their safety and fears are taken seriously.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) on securing this debate. Addressing antisocial behaviour is important not only to all Members present, but to so many Members across the House, because it is important to all the communities we represent.
I want to underline, as I was asked to confirm, that it is the first responsibility of Government to keep people safe. In doing so, we want to ensure that the police have the resources to deliver good neighbourhood community policing. That is the cornerstone of our policing, which makes it distinctive compared with police forces around the world. It plays a significant role in the public confidence that people have in our police force, which is actually increasing. There has been liberal use of statistics in this debate, but one thing that we cannot be in doubt of is the crime survey, a robust data set that is acclaimed throughout the world for its integrity. It looks at how people feel and their experiences of crime. It shows growing support for the police—up to 78%—and public perception that traditional crimes are falling.
We welcome the rise in police-recorded crime because, as the Office for National Statistics says, that is the result of better work by the police. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak recognised that as an improvement. We have also introduced lots of new offences for hidden crimes—sexual offences, domestic abuse and violence, stalking offences, revenge porn—that were not measured in the past because they were not crimes. I am proud of our record in government of facing up to these hidden crimes and encouraging victims to come forward who would have previously been too frightened.
I have listened carefully to the wide range of very good points made today. As hon. Members can see, I have very few minutes left to address such wide-ranging and detailed questions, but I will write back in detail responding to each request for further action or information.
I stress from the outset the importance I attach to how the Government and public services respond to antisocial behaviour. Noisy, inconsiderate neighbours, drunken and unruly behaviour on our streets, and nuisance in our public spaces undermine the pro-social values of the law-abiding majority. They can have a debilitating effect on the people subject to them, particularly when they happen day in, day out. I recognise that people can feel like prisoners in their own homes.
I also want to say how sorry I am that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak was recently the victim of a very nasty attack. That must have been a very frightening experience and I hope that he is feeling much better. I will do everything I can to support him and the work he is doing in his community to tackle what is clearly a spate of totally unacceptable antisocial behaviour that may be related to an increase in gang activity around drug use and county lines.
I have put a lot of effort into tackling that issue, and I have had a huge amount of support from police chiefs across the country. We have put extra investment into area-based reviews. As many people have said today, we need better intelligence, better data and more sharing of information among local agencies if we are going to bring together not only the police but all the other agencies that can make a difference in safeguarding vulnerable individuals and keeping communities safe. Following this debate, I will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to look at the particular circumstances he has mentioned and see what further resources and further support we can deliver in his community to help him to keep it safe.
Crime is antisocial by its very nature but one thing concerns me—it has been referred to in this debate. At one end of the spectrum, we have daily incidents of misbehaviour and nuisance. Unpleasant as they may be, they require a particular response and we have an effective regime to tackle them. However, a lot of what we have heard about today is actually criminal behaviour. Where Parliament has created offences and given police officers and the criminal justice system the powers to go after the perpetrators of those crimes, I expect the full force of the law to be used. Many of the examples of antisocial behaviour that we have heard about today are serious criminal offences. Parliament has created a range of new and flexible powers—six in total—that are designed to enable not only the police but local authorities to respond to antisocial behaviour, to nip the concerns in the bud and to prevent their escalation into more serious offences.
We recognise that antisocial behaviour happens in different communities and different parts of the country, and that it has several different features. We have heard lots of examples today. We need to empower professionals on the frontline to make decisions about what powers they want to take that will really keep their communities safe. Of course, they are responsible for how they use those powers. I reassure Members that those powers are kept under review. Part of HMIC’s PEEL inspections—the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy inspections—is to examine how police are using those powers locally. However, we do not want to tie the hands of police officers or tie them down with the red tape of daily reporting and reporting in great detail what is going on. We have set up a national advisory panel, which is made up of police officers, members of the local authority and, most importantly, victims and the Victims’ Commissioner. At the centre of all our work to tackle antisocial behaviour is the victim. The panel meets regularly. It gives us really good advice, which enables us to monitor how those powers are being used and to update any guidance or recommendations—
Mr Howarth
It is reassuring that all that work is going on, but at the end of the day it does not alter the fact that, even where powers already exist, if the police do not have the resources—they say that they often do not have the resources—to exercise those powers, the problem cannot be tackled.
Sarah Newton
I have carefully listened to the point that the right hon. Gentleman and all other colleagues have made about the capacity of the police to respond effectively to antisocial behaviour. Of course, the Government and I recognise that it is crucial that police have the right resources and capabilities and the powers that they need to keep the public safe. That is why we ensured that in the 2015 spending review the overall funding for the police was protected in real terms.
In addition to that funding, of course, there is the police transformation funding. We have heard today about the way in which the nature of crime is changing and it is important that we invest in new skills and new tools to enable the police to recognise those changes, take them into account and to go after the criminals effectively. There is £175 million in the police transformation funding alone.
Let us look at the west midlands. Following a public consultation, the police and crime commissioner put forward a budget for 2017-18, which was approved by the police and crime panel in early February. That budget is enabling the recruitment of 800 new police officers, 150 more police community support officers and 200 specialist police staff; those are all being recruited as we speak. Across England and Wales, in the last six months, the overall number of police officers has risen, and the number of officers joining is up by 60%, compared with this time last year. So more police officers are being recruited.
David Hanson
On that point about protecting the budget, can the Minister say how much of that is central Government funding and how much of it is allowing local precepts to be raised?
Sarah Newton
The vast majority of funding for the police comes from central Government, but the precept has always been an important part of funding policing. It ties police officers to their local communities in a very strong way. Police and crime commissioners, working with the public and the police, are responsible for deciding the local priorities and how they should be policed.
Everyone here has given examples from their own constituency of good partnership working. We know that there are complex challenges facing police officers, and they require the support of schools, social services and health services in their community. Like other colleagues here, I have the great privilege to go up and down the country to see excellent examples of partnership working, which enables smarter working and more people to be kept safe in our communities.
This debate has been important in many ways. We have not only talked about antisocial behaviour; we have also touched on some of the emerging crime areas. We have heard about the issues of moped and motorcycle-enabled crime; the use of acid as a weapon; the increases in knife crime; psychoactive substances and their effect, particularly on homeless communities around our country; and the increase in gangs in certain areas.
In the remaining few minutes that I have, I want to assure hon. Members that we are working with great pace, urgency and determination to tackle those threats. We know that, although crime in those areas, compared with 2010, has fallen, in the last 12 months or so, there have been real rises. Some of this is about better police recording, but I accept that we are seeing increases in violent crime.
That is why we have set up a series of taskforces to bring in industry, academics, the police themselves, NGOs and victims’ organisations to ensure that we leave no stone unturned and that we are considering how powers are exercised. We have talked about the pursuit power review and about the work that we are doing to ensure that police officers feel empowered to stop and search people in an appropriate way. We are looking at new offences of possession of acid. We are looking at what more we can do to prevent young people from getting hold of offensive weapons. However, what is probably more important than anything else is the work that we are doing to ensure that young people are resilient and receive a good education and support, so that they can make good choices that keep them away from gangs and the violence that not only blights their lives but blights their community.
Therefore, we are investing more new money into community-led area-based reviews and into providing support for grass-roots organisations that work with young people who are tempted into crime and who are being criminally exploited. We work with organisations that have a good track record of helping people to exit gangs. There is also work in schools to raise awareness of the harms of being drawn into violent crime and carrying knives. That is new funding; only recently £400,000 has been added to the funding for that locally.
In the final few moments that I have, I reassure the Members present that we absolutely understand that we must have a well-resourced police force, and we will continue to do everything we can to support the police in the incredibly good job they do to keep us safe, in challenging times, day in and day out.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
I thought not.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered tackling aggressive anti-social behaviour.
Catalan Independence Referendum
(6 years, 6 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
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the Catalan independence referendum on the EU.
I speak today as the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Catalonia and as someone who observed the referendum in Catalonia last Sunday. I was part of a parliamentary delegation from the European countries and beyond, which included my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and Lord Rennard from the other place.
This debate is about the effect of the independence referendum on the European Union. It is also our first brief opportunity, while staying in order I hope, Mr Bailey, to examine the referendum itself, the run-up to it, the events surrounding it and the consequent fallout, which continues. It is, indeed, a fast-changing situation. This evening the Catalan Parliament will debate the referendum, and it may declare independence, unilaterally, or some other status, postpone such a declaration or propose some other course—we just do not know. The Spanish Government may invoke article 155 of the Spanish constitution, taking power in Catalonia to themselves. Those are the events with which we may have to contend.
This debate is on the effect of the Catalan referendum on the EU. I should say that I applied for it some weeks ago, when I foresaw that the referendum could be contentious and was aware that the consequences for the EU had hardly broken the surface of political discourse here in the UK, and in most EU member states. That was well before the actions of the Central Government in Madrid and before the likely consequences had become clear.
Recently, we have only once been really close to a so-called internal enlargement of the EU, with the Scottish referendum. The debate then, in respect of the consequences for the EU, was passionate but, for many, inconclusive and unresolved. However, the issue will not go away. Thinking about the parts of Spain—Galicia, the Basque country perhaps—Belgium, and Scotland again perhaps, as far as I can see the EU is as queasy as ever about facing up to the reality.
We have a Minister here, so this is also an opportunity for the UK Government to make any comments they wish to MPs. As far as I know, the Government have chosen not to do so up to now, other than the reference by the Prime Minister yesterday, when questioned during her statement on the EU by the chair of the British-Spanish all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). The Foreign Secretary has, I think, at some point tweeted that the referendum is a matter for Spain, that its constitution should be respected and that Spain is a close ally and a good friend. He also said that he was worried about the violence, but he made no condemnation of it.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
In our experiences in Catalonia just last week, it struck all of us who attended, I think, that if that level of violence had been carried out by state police at a football match or a pop concert, the European Union and the Commission would have made a strong statement of condemnation, as would the British Government if a British team been involved in a game at which such violence had taken place.
Hywel Williams
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He makes a fair point. In fact, someone remarked to me that had events such as those in Catalonia occurred further away—perhaps not in an EU member state, perhaps in a poorer country—politicians throughout Europe would have been on their feet preaching democratic values. The silence from so many EU leaders is extremely concerning.
In the European Parliament, the European Commission’s First Vice-President, Frans Timmermans, condemned the efforts to hold an independence referendum as a violation of the Spanish constitution and therefore, significantly, as a threat to the rule of law in all EU countries. He said:
“violence does not solve anything in politics”,
and I agree. He continued:
“However, it is of course a duty of any government to uphold the rule of law and this does sometimes require the proportionate use of force”.
Those of us who witnessed the actions of the police on 1 October, could scarcely believe that he used the word “proportionate”. What we saw was far from proportionate.
President Juncker said that the vote in Catalonia was not legal and that the matter was an internal one for Spain, and he called on all the relevant players to move to dialogue. Those statements are just not good enough. They do not address the political reality, which is that 90% of those who voted were for independence. This is, essentially, a political question, and the fact that the Spanish Government resort to the law—which is, in many ways, feasible—but do not address the political issue other than, of course, their seeming move towards taking control in Catalonia again, is extremely concerning. The echoes from Spain’s history are very troubling.
Belatedly, Enric Millo, the Spanish Government’s representative in Catalonia, said in a television interview:
“When I see these images, and more so when I know people have been hit, pushed and even one person hospitalised, I can’t help but regret it and apologise on behalf of the officers that intervened.”
There is a great deal in that statement with which I could take issue, including the word “intervened”, because it was much more than an intervention. I welcome the fact that the Spanish Government’s representative said that, but it is belated, because we have waited many days for that sort of response. The Spanish Prime Minister initially said a great number of things, such as that there was no referendum in Catalonia on Sunday—a denial of reality that took my breath away. He also asserted—I paraphrase—that the actions of the Spanish police were a model to be admired throughout the world. There is a huge reluctance on his part and the part of his minority Government to face up to the political reality of what is happening in Catalonia.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman was genuinely prescient in applying for the debate when he did. Does he agree that the job of politicians is to talk to people they disagree with, to try to find ways of agreeing without resorting to violence? Given that Catalonia has submitted 19 formal requests to the Spanish state for talks on the constitution and to date 19 of them have been rejected, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the honourable and courageous thing for the Spanish state to do now would be to offer to talk to Catalonia, to find a solution that respects the will of the people of Catalonia but also respects the desire of the rest of Spain to maintain its constitutional integrity?
Hywel Williams
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The impression has been given, not least in the UK press, that Catalonia has moved to this position almost on a whim; that it is being deliberately obstructive and destructive. There is no time to go into the constitutional history of the matter, and I would probably not be in order if I did so, but suffice it to say that the status of Catalonia appeared to have been settled in 2006 with an agreement between Barcelona and Madrid. However, that agreement was overturned and then significantly eroded by the judgments of the constitutional court in 2010. A series of events led the Catalonian Government, almost in desperation, to move to a referendum.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I am going to speak very briefly. The events we have seen over recent days and weeks are essentially state-sanctioned police brutality and abuse. There cannot be any tolerance or space for that in Europe—or any other part of the world, for that matter. We saw young people, women, older people—innocent, well-mannered Spaniards—abused, bloodied and attacked for having their say and expressing their views. I welcome the exercise of democracy, and I will always defend people’s right to vote and play their part in the democratic process.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Gentleman can make an intervention, but not a speech.
Hugh Gaffney
I fully support this debate. I personally do not believe in independence, but I believe in democracy. Last week, we saw disgraceful scenes, and we should have condemned them earlier than we did. I will finish on this point. I have tabled early-day motion 333, and I hope hon. Members will support it.
Mr Adrian Bailey (in the Chair)
Order. That was a mini-speech. The hon. Gentleman has the right to make an intervention if the speaker is prepared to give way, but he does not have the right to make a speech.
Hywel Williams
I concur with the points that the hon. Gentleman made and those that he intended to make, which I suspect are similar to mine. He moves me on to my next point.
Mr Millo said:
“people have been hit, pushed and even one person…was hospitalised”.
In fact, 900 ordinary people trying to vote were injured, clubbed, stamped upon, pulled by the hair, shot at with rubber bullets and tear gassed. In addition—we must say this—about 30 police officers were injured. “Hit and pushed” does not begin to describe what was seen.
The European Union’s position on this political and, some might say, moral and democratic vacuum is wholly unsatisfactory. A symbol of that is the fact that one country has offered to mediate—Switzerland.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Nobody can condone any breaches of the rule of law, and we ask both sides to uphold it, but in this Parliament we must be very careful about taking sides. This is essentially a matter for the Spanish Government to resolve with the Catalans. It looks like there is a bit of good will on both sides, and we must urge them to come to a peaceful settlement.
Hywel Williams
I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his remarks.
Having witnessed what I saw in Catalonia on Sunday, I think it is incumbent on anyone who believes in the fundamental values of democracy to stand up, explain their views and act as honourable and honest witnesses, which is what I am trying to do.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I hope my hon. Friend will agree that if legislators are not allowed to legislate, democracy is hobbled.
Hywel Williams
Indeed. There is a philosophical argument, which we cannot go into today, about the competing legitimacies of the democratic mandate. The Catalan Government have a majority, which was properly established at an election. The Government in Madrid have a different view and, although they are a minority Government, are also elected. We could pursue that at length, but I will not do so now.
The fact that Switzerland has offered to mediate is indicative of the European Union’s failure to act, which is very troubling indeed, given that these events affect a very large EU partner—the eurozone’s fourth largest economy. Catalonia itself hosts large multinational companies and provides a large proportion of Spain’s tax take.
I believe that a line has been crossed in terms of how an EU member state believes it is proper to treat its citizens. That attitude may be dangerously contagious at the other end of the European Union, where there are growing concerns about right-wing authoritarianism. It is also disappointing, given that the UK has direct experience of an independence referendum in Scotland, which was held peacefully and largely within an agenda of respect. I am not going to ask the Minister a large number of questions, but did the Spanish Government solicit any views or advice from the UK Government about the Scottish experience? Was any such advice offered of the UK Government’s own volition? Clearly, we have relevant experience.
It would be impossible for me to close without referring directly to last week’s events and the background to them—I will do my best to stay in order. We were in Catalonia for five days as part of the international delegation. By now, people across the world will have seen pictures on television—or more likely on their computer screens—of the long queues of people standing for hours in the rain; of people trying to vote and being beaten back by the police; of ballot boxes being confiscated; of the police shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at the crowds; and of women and old people staggering, their heads streaming with blood. They will have also seen the counter-demonstrations—this relates to the point that the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) made—made up not just of the old supporters of Franco’s fascist party singing their anthem and giving straight-arm salutes, but of ordinary Spanish people in Madrid and other cities. In Barcelona, they included some of the people who did not turn out to vote, who are split between people who want no change, people who want change but not independence, and people who just want all concerned to sit down and talk, which is a commendable view.
Let me conclude by talking about what the delegation saw on the ground and what our report says. We concluded that on the day, the referendum was carried out as fairly as possible. Officials worked hard to enable people to vote. The police had taken down the Catalan Government’s website, so in many cases officials could not access the electoral roll. Despite all that, the vote was, as far as we could see, as fair and scrupulous as possible.
The police’s behaviour was, in many cases, violent, oppressive and wholly disproportionate. I witnessed the police breaking into a polling station in the face of wholly non-violent opposition by hundreds of ordinary local people—men, women and even youths and children—who streamed to the polling station when they heard that the Guardia Civil were on their way. The ballot boxes containing many cast votes were carried out and away in heavy police vehicles. The crowd shouted, “Votarem!”—“We want to vote!”—and that was it: there was no violence.
Many people slept in polling stations overnight to ensure they could be opened in the morning. People showed astonishing patience, queuing in the rain for hours and meeting the police batons with determined and unshakeable non-violence, but nearly 900 people and 30 police were injured. That so many turned out is significant—2.26 million voters on a turnout of 42.3%—in the face of huge hostility from the central Government, reflected in the media beforehand, disruption of the process and widely reported police violence from the start.
I do not know what will become of all this. Given the Spanish Government’s attitude, many have said that they had already lost the argument before the referendum was held and would still have lost the argument had there been a majority against independence, which there was not, because minds have been changed. It was clear to me that for many Catalans, this had become a vote not just on independence but on a sticking point—on the democratic right to have a say and on the core European values of democracy, openness and self-determination. It was impeded and, in places, thwarted violently by a central Government whom they saw as being of little or no relevance to them, at best. That has profound significance for all parts of Europe, and the response from Governments and the EU itself has been wholly wanting.
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) on securing this important debate and on all his work as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Catalonia. The Minister for Europe and the Americas is travelling on ministerial duties, which I am afraid is why I am responding on behalf of the Government. I am delighted to do so for a number of reasons. I have a holiday home in Majorca, in the Balearic Islands, where some of the issues are also playing out, so I am not entirely unaware of them.
Hon. Members, in the course of speechettes or interventions, have made several points and there is understandably strong feeling across various shades of opinion about what is happening in Catalonia. It is entirely right and understandable that this place should have a keen interest in Spain, which is after all one of our closest and strongest European friends and allies. As many hon. Members know, we have a significant expatriate population living in Spain, including a significant number in the Catalonian region.
To be clear, while we must defend important principles brought into question by developments in Catalonia, we should remember that Spain is a sovereign nation and that ultimately—as my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) rightly pointed out—the situation in Catalonia is a matter for Spain to resolve, in accordance with Spanish law and democratic principles.
Douglas Chapman
Tonight at 5 o’clock, the Catalan Government will make a statement on how they see their future and whether they are to go for independence or another way. That is a decision for them. Given that to date Spain has been unwilling to talk or to accept mediation, and indeed is still issuing threats to Catalan parliamentarians, how does the Minister think that the British Government will react this evening? What kind of discussions do the Government hope to have with the EU and the Spanish Government, to use our influence in the region to ensure that mediation takes place and that there is a peaceful settlement rather than anyone resorting to the recent levels of violence that were totally unacceptable?
Mark Field
It is important to recognise that this is a fast evolving situation, as everyone has said. Let me confirm, in answer to the direct question from the hon. Member for Arfon, that over the past year the Spanish Government have made no attempt to ask our advice, nor have we solicited to offer any advice, about the conduct of the referendum or anything else. The one thing we can do, as a member of the European Union and as a sovereign nation and friend of Spain, is to make the relevant point that we want to dampen down some of the high spirits and passions that are understandably being experienced on the issue.
In reality, as many will recognise, there is a risk that the Spanish Government will trigger article 155 of the 1978 constitution, to take away elements of Catalonian self-government. At the moment, that would not be a desirable state of affairs, so we all await the events of this evening. There is clear strength of feeling on both sides of the argument, as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Will the Minister give way?
Mark Field
I have a set text and am aware of the potential for running out of time, but if I can come back to the hon. Gentleman I will do so.
The Catalan regional Government are meeting today and, as has been pointed out, the possibility of some unilateral declaration of independence hangs in the air, despite the low turnout in last week’s vote and recent broader polling—if one believes opinion polling in politics these days—to suggest that a majority of Catalans would oppose independence. The decisions that the Catalan regional authorities take today and their consequences will affect the wellbeing and prosperity of not only all the people they represent, but all those throughout Spain. I hope, therefore, that they will consider very carefully the decisions that they take tonight, and the implications for the future.
As the hon. Member for Arfon rightly pointed out, the debate was initially to be about the effect of the Catalonia referendum on the EU, but events have moved on. President Juncker, in common with many European partners, shares the analysis that Catalonia is an internal matter for Spain. He has made clear the EU’s legal position that Catalonia would have to leave the EU if it became legally independent, which would have consequences for the people of the region, including visitors and businesses, some of whom are already considering their future, given the actions of the Catalan regional Government over the past couple of weeks.
Legal independence, however, is a hypothetical scenario not related to recent events, but where the hon. Gentleman is right—he recognises this—the sensitivities around the issue are profound in many European states, not only here in the UK but throughout Europe. That is one of the many reasons why it is probably sensible to look at the Swiss playing a mediating role, given the temptation for a number of separatist groups to draw a direct parallel with the situation in Catalonia that may not necessarily exist for their own part of Europe.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I know the Minister is running out of time, but may I caution him and anyone else about Swiss mediation, because we would not want them to mediate in the matter of Gibraltar?
Mark Field
That would obviously be an approved mediation in so far as both sides were keen and accepted that that should happen. Otherwise, as I said, it is an internal matter.
We should be clear that the purported referendum held on 1 October was illegal. On 7 September, almost a month before the vote took place, the Spanish constitutional court suspended the legislation calling for a referendum, making it clear that such an act would be illegal. None of the Opposition parties in the Catalan Parliament, which represent 51% of the Catalan electorate, considers that referendum to be valid. The vote was knowingly held in breach of the Spanish constitution and was therefore an attempt to undermine the rule of law. Not only that, it was a breach of the law of Catalonia itself, which is something that has been largely overlooked, but its importance must not be understated. The reason that that must not be understated is that the rule of law is the essential foundation of any democratic society. The issue is not hypothetical but of tremendous importance to the EU and to us all.
Mark Field
Forgive me, I will not, because I am running out of time.
The rule of law underpins all the values, rights and freedoms that are fundamental to our way of life. The UK Government feel strongly that it is in the interests of the UK and of the EU to defend that principle robustly. Failure to do so would diminish us all. What example would we be setting if we encouraged Governments around the world to embrace the rule of law, but did not uphold or defend it close to home?
For the people of Spain—there is a lot of history in this, as we all know about that country—the 1978 constitution has a particular significance. It was a key moment in the country’s peaceful transition to democracy after decades of dictatorship. The constitution was approved by the whole of Spain, including Catalonia, and it does not permit the Government to authorise the secession of any region of the country. That is the very basis on which the Spanish constitutional court deemed the referendum illegal. When supporters of the referendum speak of the democratic rights of or self-determination for the people of Catalonia, we should remember that the Spanish constitution has protected the rights of Catalans and all Spaniards for several decades in Spain’s modern democracy. Those are the very rights that the Catalan regional Government seek to flout.
I have said that developments in Catalonia are a matter for Spain and Spanish constitutional law and democracy. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on the UK, European partners and like-minded democracies—I accept this—to stand up for the principles on which our own liberty depends. That is why the UK Government will continue to make it clear that we support the rule of law and respect for the Spanish constitution. Failure to do so risks undermining the cornerstone of any functioning democracy and European values.
I very much appreciate the concern expressed by many hon. Members about the actions of the Spanish authorities and the alleged excessive use of force. All of us who watched the television coverage were shocked by the events. No one wants to see violence on the streets. The role of the police is to uphold the rule of law, which must be respected by us all. The Spanish Government have apologised for what took place, which I hope will be helpful in finding a constructive way forward.
Aside from matters of principle, it is important to say that Spain is a great friend and ally of the United Kingdom and a key player in the EU. Its strength and unity matter to all of us. In July this year, Her Majesty the Queen hosted King Felipe and Queen Letizia on the first state visit to the UK by a Spanish monarch in 30 years. That visit was a great success and showed off our deep economic, political, cultural and academic ties.
Democracy is about more than just voting. Every democracy has its own rules, laws and procedures, setting out both rights and responsibilities. The ability of the UK and the EU to promote fair and free societies elsewhere in the world would be significantly affected if we compromised our commitment to those principles here in Europe. This Government continue to support a strong and unified Spain as a key partner for the UK and an influential actor in the EU now and in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Leaving the EU: Consumer Protection
(6 years, 6 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
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on consumers and consumer protection.
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank the Minister for coming this afternoon, and the many consumer organisations, businesses and others with an interest in consumer affairs that have written to me in preparation for today’s debate.
Consumers are key to the country’s prosperity. Consumer spending is more than £100 billion every month. Consumer confidence is vital for our stability and growth, so consumers must be a central part of the Government’s plans as we negotiate our future relationship with Europe. Leaving the EU without an agreement on many consumer issues would risk causing real problems for many people in the UK and elsewhere in Europe.
I am glad that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union have spoken about putting businesses and consumers at the heart of the Brexit negotiations. We have not yet seen detailed policy papers from either side, so this is a welcome opportunity to look at some of the details. It is essential that the Government work with consumer organisations as well as businesses. I understand that the Minister has invited consumer organisations to join her in stakeholder meetings to consider the issues, and I am grateful for that.
Recent research by the consumer organisation Which? showed that consumers’ top priorities for Brexit negotiations relate to maintaining lower prices, especially in key sectors such as energy, food, fuel and consumer goods. Our consumers are used to shopping across borders, and nearly half of British trade is with Europe, so it is absolutely right that the Government seek a deal with Europe that maintains as much stability as possible, avoids unnecessary financial shocks and keeps trade as friction-free as possible, otherwise costs will increase.
Consumer protection is also vital for maintaining consumer confidence. The UK has more than 40 years’ experience of working with the EU on consumer protection. European directives and regulations give consumers protection on issues such as unfair terms, aggressive selling, and poor quality and unsafe products. Those bits of European legislation not only protect British consumers when we shop in our domestic market and in other EU markets but, importantly, give EU citizens rights when they come here to buy from British organisations. It is important that there is no regulatory cliff edge and that the relevant EU legislation is brought on to the British statute books using the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, so I was pleased to support that Bill in the recent vote. The Bill will mean that there is no change to the body of EU consumer protection law when Britain leaves the EU.
However, consumer protection is not provided by legislation alone; it is underpinned by product standards and market surveillance networks. In Europe, CE marking means that a product meets the safety standards required by law. It covers technical products, products used by children, electricals, building machinery, medical equipment and many other products. It has been suggested that the CE mark could be replaced by a more global standard, but global standard setting in many areas is still limited and lacking in detail. Given that nearly half of British trade is with the EU, any large-scale divergence on standards could lead to technical barriers for British businesses trading in Europe, which is why the vast majority of British manufactures want to keep a common marking scheme for standards, to avoid unnecessary costs.
However, we know that standards can be a tool for protectionism, to lock others out of a market, and it is important that British manufacturers retain a seat at the table where decisions are made. I hope that the Minister can update the House on the state of discussions regarding the future relationship between the British standards bodies and the European standard-setting bodies. Will we be able to retain our seat at those tables?
Changing the standard-setting regime would also raise questions about consumer safety. When I was a child, I lost my father in an accident that was caused by an electrical good. That would not happen today. The fire at Grenfell tower was started by an electrical good. This is not a time to drop safety standards. Consumers must be protected by strong safety standards, on our exit from the EU and afterwards. I am delighted that Ministers have said that we will not be responsible for lowering standards as a result of Brexit and have committed Britain to continuing to be a global leader on safety standards.
As well as those standards, we have the networks and authorities that are necessary for ensuring that the standards work and are enforced. The UK is part of the Rapex network—the rapid alert system for dangerous non-food products—which means that other countries are notified when dangerous toys and goods are found on the market. That makes it easy for trading standards across the country, in Essex and elsewhere, to take dangerous goods off the market quickly and keeps consumers safe. There is a similar system in the medical world; the pharmacovigilance network ensures that medical authorities and drugs companies across Britain are notified if a patient has an unexpected response to a drug, which helps to keep patients safe.
As part of Europe, we take part in the consumer protection co-operation network, which allows a British authority to ask an authority in another country to begin an investigation if it thinks that standards have been abused or consumer protection law has been broken. That is being used to help hundreds of British consumers involved in the French leaseback scandal, many of whom may have lost their life savings, and it helps to keep our financial products safe.
It is in the interests of consumers on both sides of the channel that we not only retain the European legislation but continue to be part of the co-operation networks that support it. It would be helpful if the Minister confirmed that the deep, special and bespoke partnership that the Prime Minister has mentioned will lead to exactly that type of co-operation.
I am not saying that EU consumer protection laws are perfect; in many areas, they are not, and Brexit will provide us with an opportunity to look again at burdensome areas. Anyone who listens to commercial radio stations will be used to the incredibly long terms and conditions that are read very quickly at the end of every radio advertisement for a mortgage or a financial services package. Apparently, less than 4% of consumers actually remember any of those details. That is all laid down in the consumer rights directive, and we may choose to diverge on such details. That is precisely why it is important that we have an ongoing mechanism for talking about future legislation and for enabling divergences.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an incredibly powerful speech that I think everyone in the Chamber is glad to be able to hear. She made the point that high product safety standards and consumer protection are good for customers, and obviously they are. Does she agree that they are also good for British businesses? When our businesses go to those high standards, that makes them competitive globally because of their reputation for providing goods of high quality.
Vicky Ford
I agree, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Interestingly, when the consumer organisation Which? surveyed British businesses, it found that those businesses, too, want to ensure that consumer interests are properly considered and maintained as part of the Brexit negotiation. That is precisely why British manufacturers say, “We want to continue to be part of the product-setting networks. We must have a seat at the table when they are agreed.” There are non-EU countries where manufacturers and standard-setting bodies are involved in the negotiations on the standards. It should be perfectly possible to maintain that in a deep and special relationship. It is in the interests of both parties.
It is also important to remember that consumer legislation continues to evolve. We need to ensure that legislation keeps up with the digital age. The digital world is increasingly borderless: our consumers are buying products not just from local retailers but, increasingly, from large global retailers, so it is important that we have international agreement on consumer issues. As I have said, the global forums for setting standards, particularly on digital consumer issues, often lack detail. Therefore, co-operation with Europe is necessary.
A key part of digital trade relates to the use of data. The ability of consumers to use comparison sites and to get consumer feedback means that they are increasingly empowered and informed. Our consumers need data.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)
As has already been said, my hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. She talks about consumers making informed decisions. Does she see an opportunity with Brexit to take things further? One of my campaigns is for the opportunity to expand country of origin food labelling to allow consumers to make a more informed choice. We could expand the products that country of origin food labelling could be applied to.
Vicky Ford
Consumer choice is key, and I will discuss food standards, especially when I talk about trade relationships with other parts of the world. Being able to make a consumer decision increasingly relies on being able to access data, to go on to a database and to work out where to make a purchase in a digital world. The free flow of data also underpins digital streaming services, retail loyalty cards and use of cloud computing services. Without the free flow of data, businesses—but also consumers—would find themselves at a disadvantage.
Later this week, we will debate the future of data post-Brexit in the main Chamber. I contend that it is extraordinarily important for British and European consumers that we continue to have a free flow of data post-Brexit. Without that, British consumers will find that they cannot access information or comparison sites in anything like the detail they can at the moment, and many European companies will find significant barriers to their own business. There is no world trade agreement on digital data flows, so it is important that a decision is made on that area.
Another area I want to speak about in detail is the travel sector, because unless agreements are made in favour of consumers on travel, they will face significant impacts. For many consumers, the main impact of Brexit will be what happens on their holidays. The rest of Europe remains the most popular destination for British travellers. In 2015, British citizens made 32 million trips to the rest of the EU on holiday; EU citizens made 9 million trips to Britain. Two hundred million passengers fly through British airports every year.
As we all know, unless negotiated, the UK will lose access to the EU common aviation area, which risks affecting both flights from Europe into Britain and flights in the UK. There are also the many aviation agreements—more than 50—that the EU has with the rest of the world on airspace issues. It is imperative that access to airspace and landing rights is negotiated. Last week, we saw 100,000 people having problems with flights when Monarch collapsed. If there is no agreement or action on flights, tens of millions of consumers will be affected. That is why it is so good that the Government have started work on the areas that will be most affected if there is not a deal.
Aviation safety is also really important. The UK is currently covered by the European Aviation Safety Authority and, unless we continue to be a member of that, the Civil Aviation Authority will have to set up an equivalent, which would take time. That is precisely the sort of issue that needs a decent, long, thought-through transition period so that safety is not risked due to a cliff edge of uncertainty. Furthermore, today under EU law when flights are delayed or cancelled, passengers have a right to reimbursement or repatriation. It is important that we know soon whether those rights will continue. Airline tickets go on sale about 10 months before the first flights, so from next summer the airline companies will be trying to offer flights in a post-Brexit world and they need to know what rights go with their tickets.
Furthermore, non-air transport issues need to be considered. Today, British drivers are covered by the motor insurance green card, which means that we can drive from our homes across to the continent using our own motor insurance and that, if we have an accident with someone from elsewhere in the EU, the insurance will cover claims and compensation. If the green card arrangements are no longer in place, drivers may need additional insurance cover, which is especially important not just to individual consumers but to the freight transport sector.
I was glad to hear in the Chamber yesterday that another issue for travellers seems to have been resolved: the European health insurance card. There are about 27 million EHICs in the UK and last year those cards would have been used by more than 200,000 British travellers. Both sides—Europe and the UK—have said that they wish that to remain. It needs to be agreed in detail, but that does show that progress is being made on these key issues.
The final issue for travellers I want to mention is mobile roaming. This summer, my children certainly cheered when they got on the plane and found out that they would be able to use their phones without additional costs. Abolishing roaming charges has been especially popular with younger people. I know how extraordinarily tricky it was to negotiate that, having played a part in the negotiations myself. A deal on roaming and other digital issues needs to be a key part of our future trade agreement with the EU—and indeed of all future trade agreements.
Brexit gives us the opportunity to create new consumer-focused trade policy. That brings many benefits. Trade agreements bring consumer choice, variety, lower prices and the right to be able to buy products from many different countries of origin, including our own, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Julian Sturdy) correctly pointed out. However, we know that consumer confidence cannot be taken for granted. There have been many recent reactions and protests by consumers against trade agreements, particularly the proposed EU-US trade agreement, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. As a member of the European Parliament, I remember receiving more than 10,000 emails over one weekend, nearly all of them different, about TTIP.
Consumers recognised the benefits of cheaper goods and services, but they also said firmly that this should not come at any cost. In particular, the public would be concerned about any drop in standards on food or animal welfare products. That is why the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer are both right to point out that it is in the interest of businesses to maintain standards, but also important that people know where their food especially is coming from.
The TTIP experience shows the problem of a disconnect between the public and the negotiators on trade issues and points to the need for transparency. It shows that the public and consumer organisations need to be involved in trade negotiations. It is important that those of us who want to continue to have a free market economy and free trade with the rest of the world prioritise the opportunities from the consumer’s perspective.
That is why it is important that we focus on issues such as mobile roaming and the real barriers that travellers face, so that they can see we are focused on the issues that consumers focus on. Brexit offers an opportunity for both the UK and EU to rethink and reset our approach to how we trade with each other and those across the world, but it will only retain the support of the public if consumers and consumer protection are put at the heart of the policy.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on securing the debate and on her obvious passion for consumer issues.
There is often a good deal of complacency in this country when it comes to consumer protection. We often take it for granted; we only really think about our rights when we need to enforce them or seek compensation, and we expect it to be there. This country has quite a good record when it comes to consumer protection law. After all, did we not invent it in the 1970s, at the same time that we established the Office of Fair Trading? That might be a bit of an exaggeration, but we are highly regarded internationally for our consumer protection initiatives and—most pertinently in this debate—we have had an important influence on the scope of EU consumer protection legislation over the decades of our membership.
On many occasions, we have gone even further than the EU has required, as with the right to reject a product. As the consumer body Which? has pointed out, the limit is 30 days here, while the EU directive requires only 14 days. That is all very good, but as investment advisers like to warn, “Past performance is not an indicator of future results.” Many people are worried that the post-Brexit era will give us less to crow about. Certainly, many consumer bodies are worried that we could see a real watering down of consumer rights. It is not just consumer bodies that are worried: the Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, in its ongoing inquiry on the subject, has observed that there is now a shadow hanging over consumer rights, with the Government’s approach to negotiation serving to
“cast doubt over the continued application of this significant body of EU law that protects the consumer rights of millions of people in the UK.”
Some observers have taken comfort from the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, which will transfer all directly applicable EU law on to the UK’s statute books. But what does this guarantee? The Government’s stated intention is that there will be no loss of protection while we remain in the EU, but that only gives us until March 2019, or a little longer if transitional arrangements are made, and what happens afterwards is uncertain. Will the various protections be unpicked over the coming years, perhaps to secure favourable bilateral trade agreements with countries that value consumer protection less highly than the EU? Or will they be reduced in a misguided belief that business simply regards consumer rights as barriers to trade and red tape? We must avoid that race to the bottom at all costs.
Ministers have not made enough effort to reassure us about their long-term aims. While a business forum has been established with the likes of the British Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and others, there is no such equivalent when it comes to consumers. There are many expert consumer bodies out there, including Which?, Citizens Advice and MoneySavingExpert, but they do not feel that they are being properly consulted on what is needed after Brexit. Will the Government now commit to establishing a working group with these bodies and with legal services groups such as the Law Society?
We need a real commitment to putting the consumer at the heart of the Brexit negotiations. That commitment is all the more necessary because it is a question not just of domestic rights, but of international ones, as we have heard. The critical issue for many consumers is how they will be protected when they buy goods from the EU, as they often do when they use internet sites such as Amazon—the 1974 protection is outdated on the credit card rule for internet purchases—or when they are travelling or holidaying abroad and want to hire a car or rent a hotel room.
What are the Government doing to ensure those reciprocal and cross-border rights? There is much discussion in the EU negotiations about people’s right to live and work in the EU and the right for EU residents to live and work here, but precious little about cross-border consumer rights. We have heard about mobile phone roaming fees, which were recently capped, and the EHIC. We have to secure these rights post-Brexit. They have been hard won. We cannot lose them.
The issue of reciprocity and cross-border rights must be an absolute priority, because this is the area where there is most uncertainty. At the moment, UK citizens are protected by various EU legislative measures when buying goods and services, such as the consumer rights and ecommerce directives, but after March 2019 that protection will not be automatic. I agree that we should look at these rights. We need to ensure they are updated to face the modern world. Unless agreements are reached with the EU, there is a real risk that consumers might not be able to enforce their rights in other member states. I hope we will not return to the days when the streets of Spain were more like the wild west, peopled by timeshare cowboys. When I was at the citizens advice bureau, I had a client who had bought three timeshares, one after the other, because the sellers of the first two had assured him that the agreements were cancellable. He ended up with three timeshares, having to negotiate Spanish law.
Some of these cross-border protections will depend on the UK’s continued co-operation with Europe-wide agencies, such as the European Food Safety Authority, the European Aviation Safety Authority, as well as the CPC, which is vital in detecting and stopping illegal commercial practices. We have collaborated well in the past: problems have been highlighted and enforcement has been co-ordinated. We must ensure that UK consumers continue to benefit from, and have confidence in, the high standards guaranteed by working with them. It would be good to know what the Government are doing to ensure that such collaborative work continues and whether they are working towards establishing a mutual recognition agreement on standards.
Enforcement is the watchword. Rights are of little use unless they can be enforced. Local trading standards officers are the foot soldiers when it comes to ensuring that unsafe counterfeit goods are stopped at the point of entry, but their vital work has been greatly undermined by funding cuts, as pinpointed in last year’s National Audit Office report. EU withdrawal will naturally add even greater complexity to their work. If they have to inspect every truck coming from the EU as well as those coming from outside, there will be a complete blockade of our ports. The Government must ensure that trading standards work is properly funded and that officers can continue to work closely with their international counterparts. For example, questions remain over the future of cross-border safety alerts via Rapex, which covers dangerous non-food products, and access to the CPC, which has already been mentioned. If nothing is done, we could be facing a genuine crisis as vital surveillance and enforcement are pared back.
As I said earlier, this country has a proud record on consumer protection law, but there is real danger that it could be weakened as we leave the EU. None of us would want to see those hard-won rights negotiated away. As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) said, it is not just about ethics; it is also good economics. Consumers spend £100 billion in the UK. They are the vital ingredient of business success. If they are not confident that the contracts will be fulfilled or that they can get redress if things go wrong, they will be far less willing to enter the market in the first place. After all, who are the end beneficiaries of trade agreements and fundamental to their success? Consumers. Unless they have the confidence to buy goods and services knowing that they are protected, any trade agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on securing this debate. I will keep my comments brief, but as this is the Brexit Parliament, I welcome this opportunity to debate this important issue.
It is entirely right that as we go through the process of exiting the EU we should legislate to protect UK consumers and consumer rights. Indeed, the UK already goes beyond the minimum standard required by the EU in a number of areas. For example, UK consumers can reject goods that do not conform to the contracted sale within 30 days and receive a refund, whereas in the EU a refund is available only after replacement or repair. That is just one example, but the principle that we hear espoused to support it is already enshrined in UK law, so we need to use that example to make sure that we continue to protect UK consumer rights.
I recognise some of the comments from my colleagues in opposition, but I think that we should try to focus on Brexit as a real opportunity to strengthen consumer rights in many areas where the UK leads the EU and leads internationally, rather than raising red flags and—I do not want to use the word “scaremongering”—always focusing on the negative things that could happen, rather than the positives that the UK could put forward by operating internationally.
A prime example is the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which I referenced earlier. Introduced by the Conservative-led Government, it resulted in a marked strengthening of consumer rights in legislation, and it provides the precedent Members may seek when looking for reassurances from Conservative-led Governments on consumer rights. Among the safeguards provided, some of which I mentioned earlier, is the increase from seven days to 14 days in which consumers can return any item bought in a shop, online or over the phone. More crucially, the Act ensured for the first time that consumers were protected on the purchase of digital content, such as online films, games and books, with the clear right to replacement or repair, which is important in an increasingly digital world. I am assured that the Government are focusing on the right policy, securing the right direction of travel and legislating accordingly to make sure that we are leading the EU, not following it.
Luke Graham
I would like a few more minutes to develop my point.
The other legislative bulwark to consider is the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill will convert all EU law into UK law wherever practicable when the UK leaves the EU. In practice, that means that wherever UK law does not already legislate beyond the existing EU minimum requirement, that minimum requirement will become UK law the moment we leave the EU. I think I speak for most of my colleagues when I say that there is little appetite for lowering standards once we leave the EU. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, in its current composition, is designed to provide consumers and businesses with continuity and to provide guarantees of consumer protections that are based on EU law and, as I mentioned earlier, UK law.
The UK leads not only in consumer rights and consumer protections, but in several international agreements where we are not in an official union. One example is the base erosion and profit shifting initiative that is being pursued through the OECD, where the UK has played a leading role in helping to strengthen tax avoidance measures around the globe. That proves to Opposition Members that we do not have to be in a formal union to do the right thing and promote consumer and institutional interests around the world.
Jo Swinson
I welcomed the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the Consumer Rights Act, which he rightly says was introduced during the 2010 to 15 Parliament. As the Liberal Democrat Minister who introduced that measure, in a Department led by a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, I gently say to him that it was not just a Conservative achievement.
Luke Graham
I did say Conservative-led, but quite right—the coalition did a number of good things.
Vicky Ford
I just want to point out that it is this Government who have been leading work on digital consumer rights, so we need to give some credit to the Conservative leadership during the 2015 to 17 Parliament.
Luke Graham
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I always support giving praise where it is due.
I would like to end by highlighting the position of the Prime Minister and the Government. Only last week that was highlighted at the Conservative party conference, when the Prime Minister said that
“while we are in favour of free markets, we will always take action to fix them when they’re broken. We will always take on monopolies and vested interests when they are holding people back.”
Furthermore, in the Conservative manifesto a specific commitment was given to make sure that markets will
“work for consumers, as well as producers—with competition keeping prices low and encouraging new product development”,
while tackling issues such as
“poor information, complex pricing and exploitative behaviour”,
which prevent all markets from
“operating efficiently for the benefit of all.”
We realise that that is far from complete. To achieve that, we have set out a range of steps that we intend to take to further strengthen our consumer protection, in addition to the progress that has already been made and which I outlined earlier. I hope to work with Ministers and colleagues across the House to ensure that, as we debate the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and then the substantive Bills that will follow on customs and trade, we prioritise strengthening the hands of regulators and online consumers, making terms and conditions clearer—an issue that is recognised by consumers and institutions across the United Kingdom—and strengthening the powers of consumer enforcement bodies to include fines against companies breaking consumer law, and delivering redress for wronged parties. The desire and intent to protect consumer rights is clear and we must ensure that we carry on in that manner as we go through and complete the process of leaving the EU.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on securing this debate and on her excellent opening remarks. I declare my interests, as in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: previously I was a legal counsel at BT responsible for, among other things, consumer law compliance.
The UK is a leader in consumer rights, exemplified, as the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) said, by the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in which we went above and beyond European requirements, but that direction of travel has been, in my view, driven by the European Union. As we prepare for Brexit, whatever that might mean, it is vital that we protect both our current legal framework and our future policy commitments to maintain strong consumer protections in the UK. If we maintain access to the European single market, as is my preference, ensuring equivalence in consumer law in the future will be vital.
In my previous role, I attended the annual consumer law conference in Brussels, hosted by the European Commission. I was there on behalf of not only business but consumer groups and other stakeholders. It was agreed, among a very large group of stakeholders, that the consumer law framework provided by the European Union and legislated for here in the UK was pretty good. The key issue, however, was enforcement of those consumer rights. It is vital that we keep that in mind in this Parliament too, not only through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, but in what we do next, after the date of Brexit.
I have had the pleasure, or misfortune depending on one’s viewpoint, of rewriting and simplifying consumer terms and conditions for TV, broadband, mobile services and such like, hence my declaration at the top. Having to take out liability clauses, disclaimers and warranties and trying to reach, as I did in that example, for Plain English Crystal Marks and simplifications for consumers brings us lawyers out in a bit of a cold sweat. We must call on businesses in a regulatory-friendly manner to innovate in the way they communicate with customers. We know that customers tend not to read even a short number of pages on terms and conditions, so how can we ensure that, where the law already provides, they are made aware of particularly onerous terms? I, for example, commissioned a short video explaining that in two minutes. Whether anybody watched the video, let alone read the terms and conditions, time will tell.
From my own experience, we must have two aims—first, that customers understand what it is they are signing up to, which is the law today, and secondly, that they know how to enforce their rights and that they choose to do so. Although this is an issue across many sectors, I will make some remarks today about the airline industry, which is topical because of the issues with Ryanair in recent weeks. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford said, millions of constituents across the country fly to the European Union every year. Although we must protect important safeguards on cancellations and flight delays through Brexit, we must also remember the enforcement of domestic consumer rights.
Many of our constituents suffer the annual annoyance of additional charges for printing boarding passes, booking seats, or getting a bag on to a flight when they thought those things were included. Many airlines market through comparison websites, which may require further regulation in future. They show the single fare-only price without the additional charges. So when customers think about getting the best deal for their flights, sometimes they are unaware that the airlines may be bulking out their revenues by stinging customers with additional charges at the point of service.
Additional charges in themselves are not unfair or a problem, but when many customers do not know about them until it is too late or have no idea how to enforce their rights when they have been subjected to unfair treatment, such charges become a problem. I myself have experienced that problem. On a recent flight to Iceland with WOW airlines, my wife and I were forced to pay £75 to get our on-board luggage through the departure gate. That was more than the price of the ticket itself. As a consumer rights lawyer, I said, “Don’t worry; let’s pay the fee. I’ll complain and get a refund. I know this consumer law business.” However, I faced a bit of a problem.
It transpired that the acceptable size for on-board baggage on WOW airlines is significantly smaller than for other budget airlines, but the online order journey did not make that clear. I have a penchant for terms and conditions and compliance with online order journeys and am particularly astute at watching out for such things, but I was unaware of that difference. I challenged WOW airlines when I returned from a lovely trip to Iceland, but the customer service was awful. I had copy and paste responses to my question. Clearly, other customers had challenged it because the company gave copy and paste answers. When I challenged the detail of the answer, I was told that the company would no longer speak to me.
I therefore complained to the ombudsman. The consumer ombudsman, which is a voluntary organisation for certain sectors and businesses, approached the airline, but it refused to take part in the voluntary scheme. I then drafted a letter before claim setting out in detail, on a lovely Sunday afternoon, how the airline had breached consumer law in the UK, and I sent it to the chief executive officer in Reykjavik. Normally at this point I get a response, but on this occasion I got no response. I still hold that the additional charges point on baggage, where WOW airlines does not make it clear that its size restrictions are smaller than for other budget airlines, is a breach of consumer law. I feel that I and my constituents and others are due a refund for an unenforceable charge. Having raised the issue with the airline’s customer services team, the ombudsman, the chief executive and now Parliament, I look forward to a response.
The issue is not just about my story. In advance of this debate I posted a survey online to ask my constituents to tell me their stories, which were broadly similar. Most of the affected customers who completed my survey were annoyed about the additional baggage charges and also about seat reservations. Of those charged for their baggage, 75% had used the bag that they used for on-board storage with other airlines, and they did not know they could not use that bag on the airline that imposed the additional charge. Some 60% did not know about the charges at the point of booking, or they might have measured the suitcase. Again, these are unenforceable additional charges under consumer law.
To make matters worse, nearly 60% of complainants paid the fee, but then did not complain. A clear majority had no idea that they could go to the Civil Aviation Authority or others for support. Of all the customers in my survey who did complain, only one received a refund. Everybody else was either fobbed off or ignored.
Behind the statistics are families going on their holidays. Many of my constituents who use budget airlines and rely on other similar services save up throughout the year for a special time with their families during the summer holidays. It is a major expense in the annual budget of those consumers. The way in which the families are being treated is unacceptable.
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passionate story about his holidays, but does he agree that it is in the consumer’s interest to have choice and opportunity? Although there may have been drawbacks in some of the budget airline experiences, to be able to fly at a cost they can afford is a huge benefit to consumers. We need good consumer protection and information, but not if the cost becomes unaffordable and consumers simply cannot afford the flights.
Darren Jones
But the issue with unaffordability comes at the departure gate when customers who use comparison websites and book flights they can afford based on the ticket price alone have no choice but to take the flight and go on their summer holiday with their children or go home. That is why additional charges need to be highlighted effectively and why families need the ability to enforce their rights.
One family told me a story about when they turned up at the airport in Bristol. They had not printed their boarding passes and were told they needed to pay £70 for them to be made available. If that was not bad enough, they then realised that they needed to pay an additional £75 for their children to sit next to them because they had not paid for the seat reservations. Why should families have to pay to make sure that their children can sit next to them and pay for the printed boarding pass when it is perhaps available on their phone? Again, those customers knew nothing about the charges and were stung as a consequence of the lack of compliance with consumer law.
Some sectors are better than others in their compliance with consumer law. The best brands, as we have heard this afternoon, understand that building consumer trust is good for businesses and that putting the customer first is therefore a sensible strategy. Under the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015, with the introduction of the concept of digital goods and services, we are making strides forward, but we must recognise that the law is already becoming out of date in the way in which the new digital economies are working.
To go to my original point, as we prepare for whatever Brexit means for the UK, it is vital that we not only protect our current framework of consumer law but that we work with our European colleagues to enhance the enforcement of consumer rights. We must continue to lead the debate as markets rapidly change and ensure that we protect our constituents not only under current law and in current markets but in future. I look to the Government to help us deliver that.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Streeter, and the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate.
When it comes to Brexit, discussions here and in the media have tended to focus on high-level questions on trade deals, investment or diplomatic treaties. Important as the Brexit questions are, and the consequences will of course ultimately be significant, they are questions that can sometimes seem a little removed from the day-to-day life of many of our constituents. Today’s debate matters because it concerns something that has an immediate and constant relationship with almost everything that individuals, families and businesses do in my constituency of Weaver Vale and elsewhere. There is little more important in day-to-day life than having confidence in the quality of the food we eat, the effectiveness of the medicines we rely on, or the safety of the toys our children play with.
I want to pay particular tribute to the work that one of our north-west MEPs, Theresa Griffin, has been doing on this issue. Theresa and colleagues work every day on the detail that matters—in stark contrast to what we heard only yesterday from the Prime Minister, who made it clear that, 15 months on, the Government are no further forward in dealing with the detail that every hon. Member requires. Indeed, I should acknowledge the work that the hon. Member for Chelmsford did on these matters as a Member of the European Parliament.
Of course this debate is vital not just for consumers, but for businesses. One of the many fantastic features of my constituency is the range of its economy and industry—things that affect everyone. The logistics and distribution companies in Weaver Vale need certainty about what Brexit means for cross-border transport of the parcels and goods that they deliver. Household names in the pharmaceutical industry rely on the research and innovation work at Daresbury, and their success and prosperity is dependent on consumers having confidence in their products. I have every confidence that the famous Roberts Bakery will continue to produce some of the best bread anyone will taste, but to continue to be successful it will, like every food manufacturer, need certainty about the frameworks that it is working with.
As to one of the biggest challenges—the safety and value of data in the digital age—my constituency is affected at almost every level. At one end of the spectrum, many individual householders in Weaver Vale are currently locked in dispute with broadband providers about the quality of their service—or in some cases the complete lack of it. The EU is committed to achieving speeds of 1 gigabit per second by 2025. By contrast, the UK’s ambition is a mere 10 megabits per second—a hundredth of that speed. We are told by some members of the Government that we need to be “ambitious” about Brexit, but my constituents are being given 1% of what they might otherwise have been entitled to.
Vicky Ford
On the point about inadequate broadband—and, indeed, the mis-selling of broadband—perhaps I may bring to the hon. Gentleman’s attention the fact that during negotiations on the telecoms directive the Brits pushed for stronger regulation, to make it against the law for anyone to mis-sell broadband and promise higher speeds than they could get. The Europeans refused to introduce that measure. Brexit gives us an opportunity to take new measures on behalf of consumers, especially on issues such as broadband.
Mike Amesbury
Of course, my point was about speed; I sincerely hope that we will go beyond the current Government’s snail’s pace ambition and not only match but, in time, exceed the ambition of the EU. On that point the hon. Lady and I probably agree.
I was talking about my constituents getting only 1% of what they were entitled to, but at the other end of the spectrum my constituency is also at the digital forefront. For example, Sci-Tech Daresbury is the home of the Hartree Centre, an initiative leading on the application of high-performance computing and big data. It also houses many leading digital and tech companies. Its ambition is to expand the data storage/archive capability at Hartree. Those organisations have made it clear to me that the UK cannot significantly differ from the EU in terms of future data protection laws while maintaining any kind of working relationship. It is welcome that the Government appear committed to incorporating the general data protection regulation into UK law. The lesson must be how that important aspect of EU law can be expanded into other protections. However, the risks to the UK’s position as the digital hub of Europe, from leaving the EU, remain profound. I will work closely with Daresbury and the many tech organisations based there to make sure that any adverse effects of Brexit on the services developed and provided there will be minimised.
My party is supportive of a Brexit that puts jobs first and protects the rights of workers and consumers. It is therefore vital that the Government take the issue seriously, every step of the way. It is comforting that the hon. Lady obtained the debate, as that shows that some members of the governing party realise how crucial the issue is. I commend her on doing so, and hope that her colleagues in government will respond appropriately. The safety and quality of the services and products consumed by my constituents in Weaver Vale depend on it.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I want to echo the thanks that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) expressed to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) for obtaining the debate. We must not underestimate, among the various aspects of Brexit, the importance of consumer protection. That vital matter is so wound around and ingrained into our daily lives that there is a danger that we may take the protections for granted but, as the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) has pointed out, that must not happen.
Currently, the rights of consumers are enshrined in EU law, so naturally there is bound to be concern and uncertainty about what will become of those rights and the responsibilities of businesses post-Brexit. We need clarity. At the moment, the UK has to comply with EU consumer policy and law, which is estimated to affect about 90 pieces of legislation, making a body of EU law designed to protect consumers. However, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill currently progressing through Parliament would repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and copy all EU legislation into UK law. The concern is that repeals, amendments and revisions could then be made to consumer law by any Government as they saw fit.
The lack of clarity and the uncertainty about Brexit is a cause of great concern, since we simply do not know what leaving the EU will mean for consumers or businesses. Will the UK stay in the single market? It looks as if that will not happen, so the rights of consumers in the UK will not be enhanced or keep pace with the rights of consumers in the EU. That could leave them exposed and lacking protection. Consumers are already feeling the Brexit pinch even though we have not yet left the EU. The devalued pound is pushing up inflation, and that alone has reduced purchasing power. Most consumers do not think too much about consumer protection until they need it. We need only look at the recent cancellation of Ryanair flights to find a good example of why consumers benefit from being part of the EU single market, and from sharing rights and protections across the EU. The personal example given by the hon. Member for Chelmsford brought that point home strongly. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) also touched on the issue, and outlined various sharp practices indulged in by some airlines.
Fundamentally, a lot of minds would be put at rest by an end to the uncertainty—by the knowledge on the part of consumers that the UK Government are willing absolutely to guarantee that consumer rights and protections will not be watered down post-Brexit, and to provide specific assurances of that in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. We need a cast-iron guarantee that current protections derived from EU legislation will remain in force. I fully understand the Government’s position that they do not want a
“black hole in our statute book”
and that they will convert EU laws into UK laws. However, no one can predict the longer-term impact of Brexit on consumers, since we do not know what the UK’s future relationship with the EU will look like, or even whether the UK will retain any access to the single market.
What can be said is that following our withdrawal from the European Union, EU consumer protection legislation and that of the UK are likely to drift apart over time. I fully concur with the hon. Member for Bristol North West and the hon. Member for Chelmsford, who discussed the evolution of consumer law. Even if the UK adopts autonomously all EU legislation in the field of consumer protection, the interpretation of such legislation will vary, as UK courts will not be subordinate to the European Court of Justice, despite what the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) said. We do not know what kind of divergence will take place.
Luke Graham
Does the hon. Lady recognise that the example that I used showed the UK going above and beyond what the EU was putting forward? If she would like to be “Stronger for Scotland”, perhaps she would begin by engaging positively with those details and looking at the opportunities we have, rather than always looking at the negative and trying to do the UK down.
Patricia Gibson
I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said, because I had this point in my head. He cannot negate the legitimate concerns that I have raised by simply saying, “We’ll always go one better.” I will give him a concrete example. There are fears in some quarters of a race to the bottom—for example, on food safety. The Secretary of State for International Trade has said that he is completely relaxed about a diminution in food safety. People cannot simply hide all the time behind the notion that the UK will always do something better than anything that is offered by the EU. That is asking us to take too much on trust.
Patricia Gibson
I will press on if the hon. Gentleman will permit me.
Consumers in the UK spend £1,160 billion each year on goods and services, and about £14.8 billion is the estimated value of consumer detriment that needs to be tackled by consumer protection bodies. That is with the current protections; diminution of any of those protections can only increase consumer detriment and undermine consumer confidence.
With increasingly complex and wide-ranging threats—in particular, a rise in e-commerce and scams—consumer protection needs to be as robust and match-fit for the modern world as it possibly can. The UK consumer cannot be left behind post-Brexit. I contend that remaining a member of the single market would guarantee that UK consumer protection law moved in line with that of the rest of the EU and would certainly reassure consumers and businesses that the current framework would continue to keep pace.
Regardless of what the future relations between the UK and the EU finally look like, the laws governing relations between consumers and businesses are vital to the future success of the UK as a whole. Consumers must have confidence in the purchases that they make, be confident about safety, and be confident of redress if anything goes wrong with the goods that they purchase; they must be confident that their rights as consumers are enforceable. My concern in relation to the uncertainty surrounding those rights, which will be subject to the whim of the Government of the day, is that the rights may be diluted or eroded over time as the EU moves ahead in this area, leaving the UK consumer rights agenda behind the curve, looking outdated and not fit for purpose in the modern world.
I hope that the Minister can provide cast-iron assurances that protecting and maintaining consumer rights is firmly on the Government’s agenda as Brexit unfolds, because consumers have a right to expect nothing less.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on securing this important debate and particularly her eloquence and passion in introducing it. I also thank hon. Members present for their thoughtful and constructive contributions, which have vividly highlighted the importance of consumers to the UK economy, but also raised serious questions about what Brexit means for consumers and consumer protections.
Each month, consumers in the UK spend £100 billion in the economy, supporting local businesses, our manufacturing services and employees. Many of the consumer rights that we enjoy are embedded in EU legislation and institutional arrangements. I am disappointed by the Government’s approach to consumer concerns and by their refusal to set out the foundations of consumer protections post-Brexit.
The Government failed to mention consumer protection in their Brexit White Paper in February. They did not dedicate one of their 12 negotiating principles to consumers and consumer rights, and that barely had a mention in the Prime Minister’s 5,357-word speech in Florence. In addition, the Government continue to threaten that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, which could mean the UK crashing out of the EU and being forced to accept World Trade Organisation rules, which dictate tariffs on food of up to 62%—that is for beef—and on other goods such as cars. It will come as no shock that one third of consumers think that they will not be represented in the Brexit negotiations.
The Minister will say that the UK has played an important role in consumer protections, and I agree. The UK has often been a beacon for consumer protections in the EU and also globally, with countries across the world looking to us for our consumer protection laws, and we should be proud of that. However, consumers have been left with little assurance about whether, beyond Brexit, they will continue to enjoy the same rights and protections, or what the Government’s Brexit agenda will mean in this regard. Constituents across the country are asking, “Will it result in the UK being forced to accept chlorinated chicken from the US? What will be the overall impact on food and safety standards? What enforcement structures will be in place to support consumer protections?” There is much more they are asking about, as they do not have any clarity on those critical issues.
To begin with, there is deep concern about the current drafting of the Government’s key legislation, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. That Bill—in particular, clause 7—goes beyond the ability of Ministers to make technical changes and enters the murky waters of giving Ministers carte blanche powers to “prevent, remedy or mitigate” any “deficiency” in EU law, with no clear criteria about what that means. In effect, they can make whatever changes they see fit behind closed doors without proper parliamentary scrutiny. If left unchanged, that could have a devastating impact on consumer protections, with Ministers effectively able to bring about wide-ranging change on consumer issues such as food, product safety standards, approval systems and oversight of financial services. The uncertainty about the direction of consumer protections after Brexit leaves consumers in limbo about their rights and protections. This is not a question of simply copying and pasting the legislation from the EU into UK law; it is far more complicated with regard to how we apply the law.
Once we leave the EU, the Government maintain, we will be leaving all the EU bodies, so from the point of our departure, the consumer protection legislation of the EU and that of the UK are likely to drift apart, as interpretations of such legislation will differ. As a result, there is little clarity about questions of jurisdiction, conflict of laws and enforceability after Brexit, with the Government making no effort to clarify those issues.
For example, it is crucial that we maintain cross-border consumer protection so that consumers have the confidence and security that the products they are purchasing are safe. Consumers no longer operate within geographical boundaries, so a key tenet of the Brexit negotiations should be to maintain current protections but also to maintain co-operation agreements to maintain the existing rights when people are dealing with companies based in other EU member states.
As the head of consumer policy at Citizens Advice said in evidence to the Justice Sub-Committee of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union,
“It is one thing to say that the rule of law applies, but if there is no right to compensation when travelling abroad, or purchasing from an EU trader, if the cross-border agreements are not there to back it up it is not worth as much as it would suggest.”
We have still not heard anything from the Government about what cross-border co-operation post-Brexit will look like. Will the Minister lay out the Government’s position? Furthermore, the current UK consumer protection regime is under severe strain after seven years of Tory budget cuts to local councils. For example, the current domestic products safety regime is not fit for purpose and needs urgent reform, yet at every opportunity the Government have dismissed calls for such changes. The Government’s working group report into product safety, published on 20 July, was disappointing and refused to acknowledge that real change was needed in the product safety regime. It offered no serious proposal to ensure that proper enforcement mechanisms were in place to remove faulty goods from the market. That raises serious questions about the robustness of current enforcement regimes and their ability to withstand the pressures from the weight of EU consumer rights laws, which would be transferred into UK law. We have had no clarity from the Government about what agencies they intend to establish, how much funding that will require, or what their roles and powers will be when breaches of consumer law are found.
Warm words will not cut it. We cannot trust this Government’s vague assurances that consumer protections will be safeguarded when they will not even properly engage with consumer groups. When I asked the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union how many times he had invited and met consumer groups to discuss negotiations on the UK leaving the EU and their implications for the consumer in the UK, his response was that Ministers and officials have met with consumer organisations such as Which?, MoneySavingExpert and Citizens Advice, and that they have plans to host a roundtable with consumer groups. All of those organisations have expressed frustration to me about the difference between engagement with businesses and with the consumer side, with the latter receiving very little attention from senior Government figures. Lip service has been paid to consumers, but there have not been any tangible outcomes in action from the Government, as no consumer and Secretary of State level roundtable or working group has been established. Finally, 16 months after the EU referendum we have yet to see a detailed plan about when this consumer roundtable, which the Secretary of State mentioned in his reply to my parliamentary question, will be held. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Order. I call the Minister to respond. If she could leave two to three minutes for the initiator of the debate to wind up, that would be great.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss the impact of the UK’s exit from the European Union on consumers.
First of all, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on tabling a debate on this very important issue. As the Prime Minister has made clear, most recently in her speech in Florence last month, the UK’s vote to leave the EU was not a vote to abandon our relationship with the EU. We want to maintain our deep and special partnership with it. We are leaving its institutions, but we remain a close ally, and we are committed to working with it to secure the best outcomes and to maintain strong consumer protections.
As hon. Members have made clear, consumers are crucial for UK prosperity. Household expenditure accounts for around 60% of our economy. In 2016, 83% of UK consumers used the internet to order goods or services, and 23% used it to order goods or services from another EU country. Engaged, confident consumers stimulate competition in markets and drive responsible business practices, benefiting businesses and consumers alike. This is crucial to ensuring that our economy works for everyone, which is a key objective of our industrial strategy, which will put the UK in a strong position for the future.
British people do not want shoddy goods or services and we will ensure consumers are protected from dangerous products and unfair trading practices. Making sure consumers are protected, wherever and however they purchase goods and services, is a top priority. As the hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) pointed out, the UK has a strong history in its own right of protecting consumers. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 updated the laws governing every business selling directly to consumers and gave consumers clear rights. UK consumers have also relied on domestic laws in advance of EU legislation; for example, laws outlawed unreasonable contract terms almost 20 years before the EU legislated to ban them.
We have demonstrated our commitment to high standards for consumers by going beyond EU minimum standards in a number of other areas. For example, the UK led the way in protecting consumers purchasing digital content in the 2015 Act, before the Commission brought forward its proposals on digital content later that year. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who played a key role in the development of that consumer protection framework as chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Her scrutiny of EU proposals has been crucial to ensuring the law works for citizens and businesses alike. As she knows, the UK has worked closely with the European Commission, and in the Council, to develop a robust regime.
While we remain an EU member, we are continuing to fulfil our obligations fully and in good faith. We are setting the agenda where we can, to ensure that our legislation remains fit for purpose in the digital age. For example, the Digital Economy Act 2017 includes important measures to protect consumers and the UK’s position as a world leader in the digital economy. It includes protections against spam mail, and against children easily accessing online pornography, just as protections exist offline.
At EU level, we have secured general approaches in the Council on two pieces of consumer legislation this year: the digital content directive and the consumer protection co-operation regulation. Both files will increase consumers’ protection when buying online and set clear obligations for traders and businesses. Those are just two examples of how we have achieved robust protections. We will seek to continue working closely with the European Union on issues such as information sharing and enforcement co-operation.
We have a proud history of protecting consumers, but I agree with hon. Members that that should not make us complacent, following our exit from the European Union. I turn to our plans to protect UK consumers through the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The Bill will ensure that we exit the EU with maximum stability and provide certainty for businesses and consumers. It will ensure that UK consumer protections based on EU legislation are clearly retained, and that when a consumer buys from a trader based in the UK after exit, they can rely on the same rights that they currently enjoy. The way consumer protections apply internationally in the future is a matter for negotiations. However, our starting point is that we must continue to have effective protection for consumers, particularly those buying across borders, and we will work with the EU to secure the best possible deal for consumers in that respect.
Hon. Members have raised the question of how well we are working with stakeholders. I am disappointed to hear that, according to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), stakeholders have been frustrated in their desire for ministerial attention, and I can assure her that I will do my best to put that right. It is essential that we work with stakeholders to understand the impacts on consumers of the UK’s exit from the EU. As the hon. Lady pointed out, Minsters and officials have met a range of stakeholders, including Money Saving Expert, Citizens Advice and Which?, and in April 2017, when he was in post, Lord Bridges of Headley opened the National Consumer Federation’s consumer congress, which explored how we can secure the best outcomes for consumers after Brexit. I am pleased that Which? has been conducting an in-depth analysis of the range of impacts that EU exit will have on citizens.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford mentioned some important areas for consumers, showing what a wide-ranging and integral issue this is. Flights, data roaming, insurance: it is vital that we have the complete picture of consumer concerns. That is why I agree that talking to consumer groups and businesses is vital. I have invited consumer groups and the devolved Administrations to meet me and the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, so that we can hear their views and discuss key EU-exit issues. I look forward to continuing that engagement.
A number of other issues were raised concerning travel protections. Consumer protection for flights based on EU law will be retained in the EU withdrawal Bill, meaning that British consumers will be able to rely on the same rights after we leave the EU as they have now. On advance booking, it is a high priority to identify new arrangements at least 12 months before we formally leave the EU, to ensure legal certainty for consumers.
More broadly, maintaining liberal access to EU markets is a high priority for the Government. We recognise the importance of air services to the health of the economy. The hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) spoke with great knowledge about that subject and others relevant to this debate, reminding us that we must ensure that our post-Brexit consumer protection is fit for the future. I hope that his justifiable complaint against WOW Air is resolved.
The hon. Member for Makerfield raised a valid point about the future of our connection with the Rapex rapid alert system for dangerous non-food products. Intelligence sharing will remain vital post-Brexit, and we are working already with the EU to explore options for maintaining information sharing across borders. I agree with her that it is vital.
Various hon. Members mentioned product safety. Maintaining high standards for product safety is a high priority for the Government. I was asked specifically about the state of discussions on whether the British Standards Institution will continue to be involved in European standards setting. The BSI, the UK’s national standards body, is independent of Government, but we are working with it to ensure that our future relationship with the European standard-setting bodies continues to support a productive and open competitive business environment in the UK. They are assisting us as we roll out improvements to the product safety and withdrawal regime. The European standard-setting bodies, such as the European Committee for Standardisation, are not EU bodies, although they have a special status in the EU.
We remain committed to securing the best deal for UK citizens during the Brexit negotiations. That is as true for citizens as consumers as it is of any other aspect of their lives. As I said, the UK’s framework already sets high standards, and the EU withdrawal Bill will ensure that EU-derived protections are enshrined in existing UK law. Our aim is no reduction in protections for UK consumers after EU exit. It behoves us all, and certainly me while I am responsible for consumer protection, to work hard after EU exit to ensure that our consumer protection regime continues to be an example to the rest of the world. That will be a responsibility for future parliamentarians, but I certainly sense from the remarks made in this debate that we are all concerned not only to put in place a regime that is as good as it has been throughout our membership of the European Union, but to work to continue to improve it and ensure that it is fit for the future environment.
We recognise that for protections that rely on co-operation with, or action by, EU member states, negotiation is needed, and we enter those negotiations with ambition and some optimism. We start from a strong position of trust in one other’s institutions, and a spirit of co-operation stretching back many decades. Through open and honest dialogue with our European partners, we remain committed to achieving strong outcomes for consumers through the Brexit negotiations, and to continued co-operation with EU consumer protection sources of information, and to sharing, post-Brexit. With that, I hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.
Vicky Ford
I thank all colleagues who have taken part in this debate, and especially the Minister for answering it. The UK has a strong history of consumer protection, and I am delighted that she has committed to its continuation with no reduction in consumer protection. I am also delighted to hear that we will continue to share intelligence with our neighbours to ensure that consumers are protected, and that we are committed to very high standards.
In this debate, food and animal welfare standards in particular were raised numerous times. Those are, of course, competencies of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The first time this Parliament when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs took questions from the House, I was honoured to be drawn to ask the first question. My question was whether we would maintain high standards for food and animal welfare post-Brexit; he said yes. It is a key part of consumer protection that we do not mislead our consumers. We should not mislead our voters. This Government are committed to maintaining high standards for consumer protection, animal welfare and food. I thank the Minister again for saying that those would remain priorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on consumers and consumer protection.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
We now move on to our next debate, as I see that the protagonists are here. Would Members leaving please do so quietly? This is a half-hour debate, which seems to be extremely popular; fortunately, I am not chairing it. If colleagues will take their positions, we will move swiftly on.
Supported Housing Funding
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered future funding of supported housing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am pleased to have secured this debate, which comes at an appropriate time, ahead of the Government’s publication of their response to the consultation that finished in February. I am aware that many colleagues want to take part in this debate. I shall do my best to accommodate them by taking interventions, but the pressure of time may mean that I have to disappoint some people, for which I apologise. Their presence, even if they do not get an opportunity to speak, says it all and sends out the right message. I confirm that I will support any application to the Backbench Business Committee for a longer debate.
[Sir Edward Leigh in the Chair]
This debate provides an opportunity to re-emphasise the vital importance of putting funding for the sector on a sustainable long-term footing and of the Minister providing a progress report on how the Government are getting on in formulating their plans. That is essential if we are not to let down a vulnerable group of people, whether they are elderly, young, physically disabled, fleeing domestic violence or facing mental health challenges. It is appropriate that this debate is taking place on World Mental Health Day. Housing is essential to securing parity of esteem with physical health treatment.
The case for supported housing is compelling. Demand is rising for care and support as a result of an ageing population and increased levels of mental illness and learning disabilities. Supported housing enables older people to retain their independence, allows young people to live securely and get their lives back on track and ensures that victims of domestic violence can find emergency refuge and stabilise their lives. It helps homeless people with complex and multiple needs make the transition from living on the street to having a settled home and providing education and training to prepare them for work. It ensures that those with mental health needs can stabilise their lives and live more independently. Supported housing assists ex-servicemen and women who are experiencing difficulties in readjusting to civilian life. It ensures that people with learning disabilities can maximise their independence and exercise choice and control over their lives. Investment in supported housing provides an alternative to more expensive residential care settings such as care and nursing homes. In that respect, it provides good value for money.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. In April, the Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee published the report of our joint inquiry into the future of supported housing. It detailed the evidence—some of which he has mentioned—of the value of supported housing to those who live in it. It also sets out the devastating impact that uncertainty about Government funding for supported housing is having on the sector. Subsequent research has confirmed that 85% of new supported housing schemes have been put on hold. We are now more than 18 months on from the Government’s announcement that they would review funding arrangements for supported housing, but there is still no clarity or certainty. Does he join me—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. This is only a half-hour debate. Speeches may be made only by permission of the mover and the Minister, and interventions should be as short as possible.
Peter Aldous
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) refers to the joint Select Committee report, which I will address in some length. It is part of the valuable work that Parliament has done.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I will be brief. I strongly support my hon. Friend’s leadership in this area. Does he agree that many faith-based organisations such as the YMCA, the Salvation Army and Emmaus need to know from the Minister that the system will be flexible enough to accommodate not just the need for shelter but the personal support that those organisations provide?
Peter Aldous
The three charities that my hon. Friend mentions have made that point to me. It is well made.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. He made the point that if supported housing becomes unsustainable—as many people say it already is—the cost of people going into residential care will be exponentially higher?
Several hon. Members rose—
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman has secured this debate at a timely moment. Does he agree that the lack of clarity from the Government is leading to a lack of investment in supported housing? The longer that goes on, the bigger the crisis will be in the future.
Peter Aldous
There is a need for the Government to come forward with their proposals and plans. My point is that Government, Parliament and the sector, working together, all have a role in addressing this problem.
Let me move on. The vital role that supported housing plays is recognised by all, as is the need for a sustainable long-term solution, not a short-term sticking plaster. This is not a straightforward challenge; it is vital for Government, Parliament and all those involved in the sector to work together to put in place the right funding framework. There are encouraging signs that that is happening, but there is still a great deal of work to do.
The Government made the correct first move by carrying out the first evidence review for 20 years. Its findings were published on 21 November last year—the same day the Government launched their consultation on their preliminary proposals, setting up four task and finish groups to address specific challenges. The preliminary proposals were announced on 15 September 2016 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. In brief, they provide for people living in supported accommodation to have their core rent and service charges funded through housing benefit or universal credit up to the local housing allowance rate, and for costs above that rate to be distributed by local authorities from ring-fenced top-up funding provided by the Government.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the top-up on the local supported housing allowance. In Hull, that would be only £69.73—well below the needs of the organisations that the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) mentioned, such as Emmaus and the Salvation Army. My fear is that the money coming from the local authority will not be ring-fenced, sustained or available beyond a certain period. Those organisations are seriously at risk of falling dramatically below the level of funding that they need to keep going and stay open.
Peter Aldous
I hope I can answer the hon. Lady’s question straight away. Two concerns have been expressed to me about these proposals. First, is a one-size-fits-all LHA rate an appropriate starting point for a new funding mechanism? Secondly, providers are concerned that discretionary local top-ups do not provide the long-term stability needed for investment in new facilities.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is it his understanding, as it is mine, that there is no correlation between LHA rates and the cost of providing supported housing across the country?
Peter Aldous
The right hon. Gentleman is spot on. There is a real worry that if we do not get this right, we will be creating a postcode lottery. The Communities and Local Government Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee published a unanimous joint report on 1 May in which they made three recommendations to complement the Government’s proposals. For the sake of timeliness, I will not outline them. I sense from the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), who chairs the Communities and Local Government Committee, that we know the answer.
The work by Government and by Parliament’s Select Committees provides the foundation stone for a new long-term funding framework in which housing associations, charities and social enterprises can invest and take up the significant amount of funding that the Government have made available over the past five years.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the funding that was incorporated in the revenue support grant in 2011—taken away from a specific grant—has decreased by 53% in just one part of my constituency?
Peter Aldous
I was not aware of that, but it illustrates the concern that if we do not get this right, we could have a postcode lottery.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the joint report by the two Select Committees, which were chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). Since then, five housing associations, in a meeting chaired by Lord Richard Best, have come forward with a proposal for small regional variations in a specific grant with small top-ups that would meet the Select Committees’ proposals and cost the Government no more money. Should not the Government carefully consider that?
Peter Aldous
The hon. Gentleman is stealing my thunder, because I will come to that point in my recommendations, but I accept that he has done the hard graft and I am just a mouthpiece.
In the month before this debate, I received many representations that confirmed not only a willingness to engage with Government and Parliament but a worry that the proposals in their current form do not achieve their objective. I am happy to share all those representations with the Minister. The National Housing Federation, which represents English housing associations, has expressed concerns. The Chartered Institute of Housing has emphasised that the stakes are very high and that if we get this wrong, the implications for the public purse—not to mention life chances—are frightening.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
From my experience of the supported housing provided for constituents with autism and learning difficulties, I know that the LHA rent cap will mean that they simply will not be able to afford the support that they get in their current setting. They will end up in institutions or hospitals, which will actually cost the taxpayer far more money.
Peter Aldous
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
One Housing, a major provider of affordable housing in London and the south-east, is extremely concerned about the plan for a cap on the housing benefit to the level of the local housing allowance. It believes that it will have a dramatic impact on older people’s housing with care schemes and could reduce new supply. The Home Group, which is active in the north-east, Cornwall and East Anglia, including in Lowestoft in my constituency, is concerned that reliance on LHA rates could lead to a postcode lottery. It has put on hold the development of 1,842 units across the country while it awaits clarification on the proposed system.
Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)
In my own constituency, one housing provider—Riverside—has informed me that all but one of its residents will be affected by these proposals, with the average resident’s rent at one project more than £100 per week above the proposed cap. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposed arbitrary cap will cause undue stress and anxiety to residents who may be forced to rely on the top-up funds?
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. It is quite clear from the feedback from organisations around the country such as Riverside—I have met Riverside staff—that there are serious problems.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The report that my hon. Friend referred to, which the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and I co-chaired, made recommendations that would deal with two or three of the comments that have been made by Members so far, particularly by having a new supported housing allowance with four relatively modestly differentiated regional bands, which would deal with the point about not needing local authority top-ups. Does he agree that, if the Government were to go ahead and accept those recommendations, it is also important that they hold to account housing associations and others to ensure that the provision is of a consistent quality throughout the country?
Peter Aldous
I agree with that point and I also thank my hon. Friend, because I am aware that he played a key role in the report from the joint Select Committees.
The Associated Retired Community Operators, which is the main trade body representing the retirement community sector, has also expressed concerns.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge the concerns of Community Housing Cymru, on behalf of housing associations in Wales, about the level of funding to be devolved under the new arrangements and the length of time that it is taking for the Green Paper to be published?
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. A lot of my emphasis has been on what is happening in England, but it is important that we remember the requirements of the devolved national Administrations; his point is well made in that respect.
Leonard Cheshire Disability has also expressed a concern to me. Rethink Mental Illness and Mencap have similar concerns. They highlight the important role played by supported housing in helping people affected by mental illness to recover, move on and live independently. They stress the need to think outside departmental silos and to engage with NHS England. It is worth bearing it in mind that a 30-day delayed discharge from a secure ward costs £16,890 and the same delay from an acute setting equates to £13,170. That compares with the cost of the most expensive forms of mental health supported housing, with added support costs, of around £2,000 per month.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
One of the providers in my constituency says that the shortfall in local health authority funding will be around £3.3 million, leaving the most vulnerable people without a roof over their heads. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is an intolerable situation for people to be in?
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It is quite clear from the research I have done that there are significant funding gaps. In fact, the YMCA, which is the largest charitable provider of supported housing for younger people, estimates that under the current arrangements there will be only 65% of the total funding that currently goes towards providing its 10,000 beds, which would leave the YMCA with an estimated £27 million funding gap.
Supported housing also has a vital role to play in ending rough sleeping, as St Mungo’s has highlighted in its “Save Hostels Rebuild Lives” report, which was also published last month. The Salvation Army has expressed concern that its 60 Lighthouses across the UK could be put at risk and it is calling on the Government to delay the introduction of any new funding system until 2022.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Bolton at Home supports 600 households, as well as providing 2,500 sheltered places. It says that the extra money it receives is used to provide support, assistance and advice to many elderly people who have a lot to deal with, such as mental health issues. In the long term, providing such housing saves loads of money as well. So, when money is being considered, Bolton at Home would like those things to be taken into account, too.
Peter Aldous
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention; she is illustrating that this is a nationwide problem.
Peter Aldous
I am conscious that my colleague to my right, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), wishes to intervene. I will allow him to intervene and then I will give way again to the hon. Gentleman.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I wanted to make a narrow point about Estuary Housing Association, as my constituency is affected by it. However, is he aware that, since he started his speech and said that half an hour for this debate was inadequate, about 60 or 70 Members have arrived, chairs have had to be brought in at the back and here on the Conservative Benches I am joined by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), the leader of the Liberal Democrats, or Labour as we now call them—[Interruption.]
Clearly, this issue has brought us all together. Can we say in the strongest possible terms to the Minister that we really need to sort this out, and if it is not sorted out we need to come back to the House and go into a lot more detail in another debate, in which I would like to make a speech in favour of Estuary Housing Association?
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; his points are well made.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. I have to say that the hon. Member has now been speaking for more than 15 minutes, so we now have less than 15 minutes left. These Adjournment debates are supposed to be a dialogue between the mover and the Minister, and not just a monologue interrupted by other Back Benchers. I know that the hon. Member will leave plenty of time for the Minister, because it is important that he replies on behalf of the Government.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful, Sir Edward, for that timely advice. I will now move on to my three suggestions for ways forward.
My first proposal is that the Government should give full and serious consideration to adopting the recommendations made by the Communities and Local Government and the Work and Pensions joint Select Committee; it has made its case well. Under the auspices of Lord Best, Housing and Care 21, Riverside, the Home Group and Hanover Housing have analysed data from approximately 43,000 supported housing and older people’s tenancies across the UK, and concluded that a supported housing allowance proposal represents a viable and workable approach. Although I recognise that the Government have to study that analysis closely, this proposal could be a sensible way forward.
Secondly, it is important that the Government examine very closely the impact of universal credit on the supported housing sector, particularly as the rollout is due to be ramped up in the next few weeks. Universal credit in its current form is in many respects incompatible with supported housing. The local housing allowance rate was designed for the private rental sector and bears no relation to costs in the supported housing sector. It also introduces levels of variation in funding through the benefits system across the country, which are greater than the variation in costs of delivering supported housing. This could leave parts of the country particularly exposed and it could skew development towards areas with higher funding rather than highest need.
Thirdly, there is a need for the Government to provide a revised timetable for working up the new funding framework with providers, road-testing it, carrying out an impact assessment and then introducing it. The general election has thrown the previous timetable somewhat off course. I anticipate that the Minister will advise us as to when the Government will respond to the consultation that closed in February, and whether they are still intending to introduce the new system on 1 April 2019. An early statement is required to address the concerns I have outlined, which have been echoed all across the Chamber, and to set out a clear direction of travel. It would be helpful to receive some indication as to whether a pilot or a shadow year—as the Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), suggested when she was Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—might also be considered.
In conclusion, Sir Edward, I am grateful to you for bearing with me. It is important that we get this matter right, as the lives of many vulnerable members of society depend on it. I acknowledge that this is not a straightforward task, but I sense that, by working together, a partnership of Government, Parliament and the supported housing sector can put in place a long-lasting framework that will provide dignity, peace of mind and hope to residents. They deserve no less.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I am grateful, Sir Edward, for the opportunity to speak. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
I will begin my response to the debate by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this important debate and for granting me the opportunity to outline the significance that the Government attach to supported housing. I know that he has been following the issue extremely closely and has been a great advocate for the sector and the people it supports. The importance of supported housing to right hon. and hon. Members is demonstrated by the number of them here in the Chamber today.
Supported housing plays an invaluable role in our society, helping some of our country’s most vulnerable people to live as independently as possible. Supported housing serves as an important lifeline for vulnerable older people, individuals with learning disabilities and physical impairments, those at risk of domestic abuse and many other vulnerable people. It is also an investment—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney—that brings savings to other parts of the public sector, such as health and social care. It is essential, therefore, that we introduce the funding model for supported housing and make sure that it is on a sustainable footing, ensuring that it works for providers, commissioners and vulnerable tenants, as well as for the taxpayer.
Mr Jones
I will make some more progress and then, bearing in mind that I do not have long to respond, I will see how many interventions I can take.
We recognise the value of local strategic planning, partnership working, commissioning and oversight, and we are keen to encourage local government, providers of supported housing and the wider public sector to continue to develop a joined-up, strategic, holistic approach with a greater local focus very much on outcomes, oversight and value for money.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney knows, our consultation on supported housing concluded earlier this year. We welcomed all the responses, of which there was a significant number—592—and we have been careful in taking stock of the views from the sector, local government, other stakeholders and Members of this House. We also welcomed the joint Committee inquiry, and its subsequent report, into the future funding of supported housing, and we have been considering its recommendations. I thank Members who served on that Committee for their work and their input into the process.
Let me assure the House that we have been taking all of this thoughtful and reflective input into account as we continue to develop our plans. This matter is a priority for the Government, and we will announce the next steps shortly—later this autumn. I believe that when those proposals are introduced, they will show that we have listened and have understood the important issues at hand and the important situation. What is at stake is helping and supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Peter Kyle
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. I want to place on record how first-rate the opening speech, by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), was. The Minister mentioned sustainable funding. If such funding is set at a very low level, does he not accept what the YMCA, whose supported housing I have visited in my constituency, believes? That organisation believes that reform could lead to a two-thirds reduction in its funding, and that, although it might be secure, it would be completely unsustainable and would lead to destitution for the people who need this kind of supported living the most.
Mr Jones
I entirely agree that we need to ensure that this is a sustainable source of funding, on which the YMCA and many other organisations that provide support and assistance to the most vulnerable in our society can rely to deliver their services. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned short-term accommodation, and I will address that very point in a moment.
We want the design of the reformed funding model to be flexible. We also want it to be responsive enough to meet the various demands placed on it by a diverse sector and client base. We have therefore been working closely across Government to understand and consider the needs of individuals who require long-term supported accommodation, such as people with learning disabilities, physical and sensory disabilities and mental health problems, and disabled older people. That is why we want to commit to supporting the most vulnerable in our society with £400 million of capital funding to deliver new specialist affordable homes, particularly for the elderly and people with learning disabilities.
Several hon. Members rose—
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister. I have counted 53 Members in the Chamber today, not including the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary. That number is unprecedented, in my experience, for a half-hour debate. The Minister talks about the “we” in Government. Will he press that fact, and the concern here in this room, to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Chancellor? Will he also press the point that the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) made, that there is a real job for Parliament, the sector and the Government to find—together—a good solution for the long term? Will he now get the Government to step up to do just that?
Mr Jones
I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s sentiment, but I can assure him that we are working across government, across the Departments that he mentions, because we want a sustainable funding solution to support the extremely vulnerable groups we all want to see supported in our society.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney on securing the debate and on his excellent opening remarks. Will the Minister confirm that he has read the report from Riverside, which was mentioned earlier, which builds on the Select Committees’ recommendations about a banded scheme and seems to solve the problem without it costing the Government extra money?
Mr Jones
Indeed I have, and I have met Riverside and a whole host of providers in the sector, including last week at the Conservative party conference, where I was involved in a roundtable event held by Reform. Although there were not as many seats around the table as we have here, there was a waiting list, which demonstrates the importance of the issue and of the Government’s getting it right.
I would now like to pick up the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made. Both he and other Members mentioned the work done by Lord Best and my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), and I have had sight of their proposal, which is about developing a bespoke supported housing allowance. I am most grateful for their recommendations and for the suggestion about maintaining funding from the welfare system and testing and developing a banding system to provide cost controls that reflect the costs of provision in a particular area and for a particular type of supported housing. That is something we are considering very carefully.
Richard Graham
Will the Minister say something about the timing of the Government response?
Mr Jones
I can assure the Chairman of the Select Committee of that.
In relation to the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney made about piloting and further consultations, we will work closely with the sector and listen to what is being said during consultation. There may well be a case for testing proposals in some way, and we expect to set out further details about how we will go about introducing our proposals. What I underline, again, is that we are listening to the sector.
Sir Edward, I think you are going to pull me up very soon for running out of time, so I would just like to reassure right hon. and hon. Members that the Government have considered the consultation very carefully and have considered the proposals—
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Education Funding (South Liverpool)
(6 years, 6 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
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered education funding in south Liverpool.
I am grateful to have obtained this debate about education funding in south Liverpool. I intend to discuss a situation in my part of the Liverpool City Council area and in Halewood, which is in the Garston and Halewood constituency but falls within the Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council area. Some of my Liverpool and Knowsley colleagues will talk a little about the experience of schools in their bits of south Liverpool, and I welcome the fact that they are here to do so.
In February, I began receiving correspondence from headteachers in my constituency about the dire financial situation they face. I sought to get a broader picture by contacting headteachers to see whether the complaints I was receiving were representative of all or most schools, and it soon became clear to me that the budgetary crunch of which those headteachers complained was a widespread concern for headteachers across my constituency. I have been seeking a meeting with Education Ministers to discuss this since the beginning of March, and I am grateful to say that I was finally granted my half-hour meeting with the Minister earlier today—well over seven months later. It took his Department 10 weeks even to reply to my request for a meeting, which I think is rather too long for an MP to have to wait to see a Minister about an urgent problem, although I am glad to see that he has decided to respond to this debate himself. I welcome him to his place.
Following the Conservative election victory in 2015, the then Chancellor decided to cut the schools budget as part of the never-ending policy of austerity and public expenditure cuts, which he was left with as a result of his failure to meet the Lib Dem-Tory coalition Government’s deficit reduction targets, and he duly did so. Despite assurances that core school budgets would be protected, figures showed a planned 8% real-terms reduction in per-pupil spending between 2015 and 2020, and the National Audit Office found that school budgets have been cut by more than £2.7 billion since then. The cost pressures that schools face in addition to those cuts were and are considerable. They include the removal of the education support grant, the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, increases to employer national insurance and pension contributions, the requirement to fund pay awards to staff without additional funds, and the prospect of having to pay for shared services and support services, which local authorities previously provided for free.
Cuts to local authority funding have hit particularly disadvantaged areas such as south Liverpool hard when it comes to shared services and support services for schools, because they have been much larger than those in more affluent parts of the country. Furthermore, the number of pupils who need such services is much higher in areas such as mine. Between 2010 and 2020, Liverpool City Council will have had to face a 68% cut to its available resource, and it still has to find a further £90 million from its already denuded budget over the current spending review period. That is a considerable challenge. Meanwhile, Knowsley’s budget will be slashed by 56% between 2010 and 2020, and it has to find a further £17 million in cuts over the current spending review period. That means that both authorities have been forced either to cut back completely or to charge schools for services and support that used to be provided for free. Unsurprisingly, schools have generally not budgeted for those charges in advance.
On top of those challenges, which were already causing headteachers to worry, there are the Government’s changes to the national funding formula. Although they have the stated aim of making funding fairer—I am sure the Minister will explain how they do that when he gets his chance to speak—they seem to disadvantage the vast majority of schools in my constituency.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. As she is outlining, this is a funding attack on schools not just in south Liverpool, but across our city and beyond. The education unions have calculated that, after the last revision of the funding formula and the extra money announced before recess, my constituency alone will lose £4 million, or £300 per pupil, by 2020. I hope she will push the Minister for a response to that.
Maria Eagle
I will indeed—and I think my hon. Friend has himself just pushed the Minister for a response. I am sure the Minister will want to make some points in reply and set out his understanding of the impact of the national funding formula, which seems not to advantage schools in our area as much as I would like.
Liverpool City Council told me that, according to its calculations, the Garston and Halewood constituency will lose £390 per pupil—a cut of more than £4.5 million between 2015 and 2020—which is not dissimilar to what my hon. Friend said is happening in his area. That is the equivalent of a cut of 125 teaching jobs. The local authority told me that across Liverpool as a whole the loss is £487 per pupil, or a 9% cut overall, and a cut of almost £28.5 million between 2015 and 2020, equivalent to 778 teaching jobs.
The Minister may well say that the revisions that were made to the national funding formula in July and September, with the finding of savings from his Department and the raiding of various capital budgets for £1.3 billion, will make a difference to that, but many of the schools in my constituency have reported to me that they have or are planning to cut teaching and support staff posts. One headteacher of a local primary school, which the Minister’s letter tells me will see an increase of 0.9%, told me that
“the current staffing levels are unsustainable due to the differentials between school income and school expenditure on staff… The Governors are currently planning a staffing review to identify how we can reduce staffing costs by making teachers and teaching assistants redundant. We need to lose three teachers by 2019 if we are to manage our school budget without going into deficit. This will mean we will not have a qualified teacher in each class, which by law we must have. We are looking ahead at troubled times in schools.”
That is not the only school to have told me it is planning staffing reductions. One school, which has already seen a significant cut in teaching and support staff and a narrowing of the breadth of its curriculum as a result, is now contemplating further reductions to the curriculum, to pastoral staffing and to the length of the school day and the school week.
Some of my schools have been hit particularly hard, according to Liverpool City Council figures. Springwood Heath Primary School in Allerton is a unique school. It is a mainstream primary with enhanced provision places, which integrates children with significant physical and medical needs into its community. The city council projects that it will lose more than £719 per pupil—a 14% cut. Although that may be ameliorated by the changes to the national funding formula, which the Minister will no doubt tell us about later, it is already losing teachers and support staff, and to lose support staff at Springwood Heath is to put at risk the ability of some pupils to continue to attend because they depend on those support staff, who enable them to attend that mainstream school. That would be a particular concern to me. It might be said, “Well, so you lose a few support staff,” but if those staff are ensuring that severely disabled children can attend a mainstream school, that is more than simply losing support staff; it is losing a richness and quality of education that no other school offers. If the Minister comes to Liverpool, which I invite him to do, I hope he visits Springwood Heath Primary School. Then he could tell me whether in his experience there is another school like it. I am not sure that there is.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
A few moments ago my hon. Friend made the point that the evidence is that the funding formula adjustments announced in the summer have not really resolved the problems in south Liverpool. As she is aware, my information is that all bar three of the schools in Knowsley—so this affects her constituency as well—will have either no change or further reduction to their funding. The sort of situations that she described in that one important school will then be played out across Knowsley, to the detriment of the education of the children concerned.
Maria Eagle
My right hon. Friend is correct. He and I, as representatives of the borough, know that there is an issue of attainment in Knowsley schools. It is a long-standing one, which we continue to try to tackle, as Governments of all stripes have tried to do. It is certainly not ameliorated and improved by taking money away from schools. That will just deepen and worsen the attainment gap that is already there. If that were to happen, it would be a very great worry.
Liverpool City Council figures also tell me that Stockton Wood Primary School in Speke, one of the most deprived wards in the country, will lose £659 per pupil, which is a 13% cut; Garston Church of England Primary School will lose £616 per pupil, a 12% cut; and Childwall Valley Primary School, in Belle Vale, will lose 12% or £671 per pupil.
Lest the Minister believe that only schools in the most deprived wards are being hit, I can tell him that St Julie’s Catholic High School in Woolton is facing a £555 per pupil cut, which is a 10% cut, and St Francis Xavier’s College—the school that first contacted me to express worries and about which I wrote to his Department in February—is facing a cut of £508 per pupil, or 10%. Given that the school told me at the time that its financial situation was unsustainable and that it has made 13 staff redundant, with a further six posts unfilled, I wonder what the Minister thinks will be the impact on it of the revision to the national funding formula. The revised figures from the National Education Union suggest that SFX will still lose 5% per pupil. His letter tells me that the school will have an increase, but since the new figures were produced no one has told me—certainly not the headteacher, to whom I have spoken—that it will be able to avoid painful decisions about what to do in respect of its provision.
I note that the Minister sent me a letter—as I am sure he did to many other Members—dated 14 September about the impact of his revisions to the national funding formula on schools in my constituency. For the life of me, I cannot work out how he has come to the conclusion that he came to, which is that every school on the list will have an increase in its funding. The Minister’s letter refers to “illustrative figures”, stressing that they are “not actual allocations”, which might provide some clue as to what is going on. There is also an assumption that the new formula is being implemented in full this financial year, without any transition. The baseline figure is from a year subsequent to the one in which the £2.7 billion cuts were implemented, so it is not clear how realistic the figures produced are. All that sounds like a way of saying that the table the Minister has produced contains fantasy figures that bear no relation to what is happening, and that those figures are all mysteriously going up, even though schools and headteachers still tell me that they are facing budget shortfalls that necessitate their cutting teachers and having to consider other painful decisions in order to balance their budgets.
The National Education Union has revised its own list of the impact of the new funding formula to take into account the extra, recycled £1.3 billion of Department for Education money that the Secretary of State announced in July she had found and expanded upon in her statement in September. The NEU figures at least have the merit of setting out their methodology in full: based on the core schools budget, which represents 75% of school spending, and using block funding allocations for 2015-16 as the baseline, the NEU figures compare the 2019-20 amounts for schools in the Government’s NFF document, apply the Office for Budget Responsibility estimate for inflation, and take pupil numbers from the most up-to-date school census. On that basis, 29 of the 31 schools in my constituency lose out, some seeing a cut of up to 12% and many of those with the highest number of pupils receiving free school meals losing the most.
To my mind, that is one of the most pernicious effects of the Government’s new way of funding schools. How can it be right that Middlefield Community Primary School, where 68% of pupils are entitled to free school meals, is set to lose £558 per pupil, a cut of 10%, and that even Enterprise South Liverpool Academy, where 81% of pupils are entitled to free school meals, is losing £61 per pupil, a cut of 1%? I do not call that fair funding; I call that hitting the most deprived communities the hardest.
Providing a good and rounded education for all citizens is one of our society’s greatest benefits and achievements. It also has the merit of being a great leveller, enabling people to make their way in life, to succeed and to make the most effective contribution they possibly can to our society, no matter what the circumstances of their birth. I want all my constituents to be able to benefit from an excellent education. That must start, however, by enabling those born with disadvantages to overcome them and to flourish.
In many of the schools I visit in my constituency, I see teachers and staff striving to deliver those life chances to children and young people who face significant barriers to learning. However, I increasingly see disadvantage being reinforced rather than eliminated. That is being exacerbated by the policies being implemented by this Government. In the Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council area no academic A-level provision is now available—none. That has happened because of funding arrangements that effectively require the same density of pupils who want to study academic A-levels in the most deprived areas as in the most affluent, when in reality there are likely to be fewer, at least until the attainment gap is closed, which in practice has proven stubbornly difficult to achieve.
Last year the last sixth form providing academic A-levels in the borough—Halewood Academy in my constituency—was closed because the school could not attract enough pupils to make it pay at a time when the forced academisation of the school meant that it had to balance its budget. I do not blame the headteacher or the governors for what happened, and I am glad that the academic achievements of the school improved this year—including, ironically, at A-level—but it is not right to make it harder for pupils from deprived areas to get easy access, in their local communities, to the opportunities that studying A-level subjects provide.
The barriers to success are already formidable, without making pupils travel out of area when they are less able to do so because of their families’ financial circumstances. In addition, I do not think it right that multi-academy trusts, all based and run from outside Knowsley MBC’s area, should be able in effect to choose which local pupils they wish to offer opportunities to with no accountability to local communities.
Mr Howarth
My hon. Friend is generous in giving way again. She, my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) and I have been pressing the Government to provide support for sixth-form A-level provision in the borough. Does she agree that if we do not get that, the effect on other secondary schools will also be detrimental?
Maria Eagle
I believe it will be—my right hon. Friend is correct. That is essential. I hope that we can make a difference and that the Government will come through to help us get academic A-level provision back in the borough, because if that does not happen, in due course—this will not take long—young families will not locate themselves in Knowsley. They will not think it is a place to bring up their kids unless there is a good chance of their staying in a school all the way through to do their A-levels and to go on to university from there.
Where is the accountability to local parents and communities in the existing arrangement? Knowsley no longer has any community secondary schools and all the academies are controlled by different MATs, all based outside the borough. The local council still has the obligation to provide for education in its area, but it has no levers whatever to pull to affect the provision, except for persuasion. The multi-academy trusts are all controlled elsewhere and will make decisions based on factors that may or may not matter to Knowsley communities but will certainly relate to the financial circumstances of their own organisations. In addition, when the council controlled schools, local people could vote out their councillors if they did not like developments. Now, there is no way for them to affect provision. The MATs have no accountability to the communities whose future they influence so greatly.
I worry that the school provision and funding structure developed by the Government can soon go wrong in areas where there is an attainment issue and can be hard to put right. I worry that provision is now being determined by financial considerations above all else. Communities such as those in my constituency need greater local provision to enable everyone to reach their potential, but that provision is in retreat. I worry that the phenomenon of the loss of sixth forms and academic A-level provision in Knowsley could continue to spread, and that young people soon will have less chance to go down that route if they do not live in a more affluent area that can easily meet the increasingly high numbers of pupils needed to provide academic A-levels.
I would like the Minister to assure me that he is aware of those problems and is determined to reverse those trends, so that young people from the communities of south Liverpool have no fewer chances to reach their potential than those who come from more advantaged areas. If he cannot do so, our education system will have lost one of its great features: the ability to facilitate social mobility and life chances for those whose family circumstances may not give them such opportunities. We will all be poorer for that.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on her excellent and powerful speech and on bringing this important issue to the House. I echo what she said about the risks to schools in Liverpool. On Saturday, we had a demonstration against school cuts in Liverpool, organised by Liverpool City Council cabinet member Nick Small, at which the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), spoke. The support there demonstrated the powerful sense in Liverpool that education is a priority for communities and families and that there is real concern about the impact of the proposed funding formula on Liverpool schools.
Let me talk about some of the schools in my constituency. According to schoolcuts.org, Croxteth Community Primary School stands to lose more than £100,000—£381 per pupil. Monksdown Primary School in Norris Green stands to lose £354 per pupil. St Edward’s College, the alma mater of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), stands to lose more than £200,000. St John Bosco, a fantastic school in Croxteth, which the Minister visited with me a few years ago, stands to lose more than £200,000. It is vital that factors such as deprivation, pupil mobility and prior attainment are given due weight when a national funding formula is devised. If they are not, schools in communities such as the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood and I serve in Liverpool risk losing out, which may set back the work that those schools do to improve standards.
Let me raise a separate issue, which has been raised before in this Chamber: the future of our nursery schools. Nursery schools play a critical role in early years. I am proud to have two nursery schools in constituency: East Prescot Road and Ellergreen. They are both rated outstanding by Ofsted, as are the majority of nursery schools across the country. Last month, a Sutton Trust report stated that the Government were too focused on providing quantity over quality in early years, and that social mobility will not improve because things are being implemented at the expense of quality early years education for the most disadvantaged. Nursery schools are the very best of that quality early years education. I hope that the Minister will update us on the Government’s plans for the funding of nursery schools, because that is an important part of the picture, alongside the issues that my hon. Friend rightly raised about the impact of the national funding formula.
Finally, funding is crucial, but high levels of funding—although necessary—are not sufficient to deliver improvement. That is why schools, the local authority and others in Liverpool have come together to launch the Liverpool promise, which is about how we can collaborate to raise standards. An ambition of the Liverpool promise is to provide world-class education and to improve rapidly against national performance indicators. We know, Liverpool schools know and the local authority knows that we need further improvement. A lot of work needs to be done. If we are to deliver that improvement, we need to share best practice and collaborate, and we need to understand why some schools do better than others in the basics of literacy and numeracy. That shared learning and collaboration is at the heart of why we launched the Liverpool promise.
None of us would ever argue that funding is the only solution to the challenges in our education system, but I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend’s powerful point that we need reliability of funding to ensure that schools across Liverpool and, indeed, other core cities are equipped to meet future challenges. I ask the Minister to give some reassurance that the factors that I have described—deprivation, pupil mobility and prior attainment—will feature in the finally agreed funding formula. If they are given due weight, the funding formula may not have the impact on Liverpool schools that we fear it will if it remains as proposed.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on securing this debate, and on her excellent speech. There is such a widespread onslaught on public services that it is often difficult to know which area to focus on, but it is very important that we look at education, because it is about giving young people opportunities. It matters particularly in areas of high deprivation, some of which are in my constituency.
The picture that my hon. Friend painted is reflected in my constituency, where the whole sector—nurseries, primary schools, secondary schools and the City of Liverpool College—is suffering in the same way. It is a great reflection of the ability and commitment of Liverpool City Council that, despite a 68% cut in its overall funding, it has managed to protect some of the education sector. For example, all the nursery schools have been protected, the council is running an extensive and important reading programme, and when the Government cut their building programme, the council raised its own funds to build and expand schools. Indeed, only last week, I was in an extension to Bellerive FCJ Catholic College, where excellent work is being done.
I would like to add my concerns about the impact of the national funding formula on schools in my constituency. The Government claimed originally that the formula meant that areas such as Liverpool would not lose out, and that it was all about giving more help to more deprived areas. That fallacy was exposed, and the Government had to look again at the situation. Although the new formula that they have brought forward is certainly not as bad as the previous one, it does not solve the problems. Indeed, at this very moment, Liverpool City Council is analysing what it really means.
The figures that have been put forward will mean cuts in many schools, and the extent of those cuts are still being looked at. The figures that were advocated and that are now proposed are in fact for only two years; we simply do not know what will happen beyond those two years. Money will be sent away from Liverpool to more prosperous areas of the country, and the money to deal with that will come from existing budgets, including the capital budget and others that have not yet been defined. We simply do not know what impact the formula will have on Liverpool’s schools, but we suspect that it will mean even more cuts.
We have had enough cuts in education; we do not want more. Education is about giving people the best chance for the future. I call on the Minister to spell out clearly what the national funding formula will mean for Liverpool’s schools, including those in my constituency, and to give a commitment that there will be no real-terms funding cuts to essential education services. We owe that to the young people in our areas.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on securing this important debate and setting out all the issues that our constituents face. I do not believe there is any issue more vital to the future of children in south Liverpool and constituencies such as mine than the quality of their education.
I hope we all understand that a good education, delivered by professional teachers and support staff in a safe, nurturing environment, is the key to future success and fulfilment. Education builds the ladder out of poverty and disadvantage. It provides the doorway to job opportunities, further education and training, and it is the window to a world of opportunities. The Prime Minister talks about a British dream in which each generation does better than the last; surely a decent education is vital to that, so why in our constituencies in south Liverpool is the ladder being pulled up?
In preparing for the debate, I spoke to all my primary and secondary schools about their experiences, and it is fair to say that I was deluged by responses. I visit all my schools weekly, but I was keen to get a snapshot of their current experience. The picture painted for me was alarming and distressing. I want to reflect on the responses I received from the leaders, the headteachers in my constituency. One primary school head wrote:
“My overriding concern talking to colleagues is that the education system is at breaking point. On an increasing number of occasions, it feels like we are the ‘last man standing’ when it comes to dealing with ever more complex social issues. I worry greatly that the whole system is in danger of collapse in the near future.”
Another primary head said:
“We are continually having additional services placed as the responsibility of the school with no extra funding or staff to oversee this…The teaching profession is at an all-time low.”
A third headteacher—this time of a secondary school—said:
“My school has been through two restructurings in recent years as a direct result of real-term budget cuts: in 2015 when 12 posts were cut and in 2017 when three posts were cut. We have had to cut both teaching posts and pastoral posts. We have one part-time counsellor in school whereas previously we had two. It is fair to say that we have no further capacity for reducing the number of teachers or the number of support staff without significantly compromising the education of the young people.”
Reflecting on all those contributions—I have many more—I find them to be incredibly stark representations, particularly on World Mental Health Day.
Our schools are contending with increased numbers of children who are suffering from mental health conditions. We heard from the Children’s Commissioner only yesterday about the experience of our young people. Our schools are really struggling. Many of us here attended a meeting of the Liverpool Association of Secondary Headteachers to hear at first hand their collective experience of trying to do the best by their students, but struggling to ensure that they are cared for and looked after. That is surely the point: the cuts are harming our children’s education in real and significant ways.
I will reflect briefly on points raised by two of my schools, one primary and one secondary, about the impact of the cuts so far—I am not touching on the cuts to come—on both the breadth of curriculum and the experience of our young people. One of my primary schools has had to cut support staff hours to basic levels, which has impacted on the availability of after-school clubs and is having a significant impact on the variety of opportunities and the curriculum for our young people. Music lessons have been cut for years 5 and 6. We often talk in the House about the value of creative education and music, but in my primary schools, that provision is being cut altogether. A native French speaker who supported children in years 3 to 6 with weekly lessons has also been cut. It is all very well teaching French, but we all benefit from hearing from someone who speaks it as their native language.
One of my secondary schools has cut four A-levels, one of which is computing. As a woman who is a keen advocate for improving access to science, technology, engineering and maths, I find that disheartening. I do not have the other subjects in front of me; I am sure they are equally important, but I am particularly concerned about computing. Equally, there has been a cut in posts at that school, which is one of the best secondary schools in the country. I will not name it—I gave my schools the opportunity to speak openly, but they were concerned that their representations might affect them in the future if they were named—but it has had to cut 4.5 teachers since 2015, impacting on young people’s education.
We have heard many representations about the impact of the Government’s plans and the proposed cuts to education, which in Liverpool will equate to £28 million. That is £488 per student. I will not run through the cuts to each of my schools, but they are significant and very, very worrying. As my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood outlined, those figures do not include the cuts to our local authority, which have been significant and had a massive impact on the additional services that we know make a difference, particularly in supporting schools in our area. In total, just under 4,000 primary schoolchildren in Liverpool are being taught in large classes of over 30, which is a rise of 60% since 2011. I could refer to many other elements.
That is the real picture of education in Britain today. We are seeing growing class sizes, fewer teachers, and fewer subjects on offer at A-level. Also, we are not seeing the right equipment in schools. Unbelievably, one school essentially had to sell all its sensory room equipment because it needed to raise funds. We are seeing more children taught by unqualified teachers, often—I pointed to the figures—in packed classrooms. That is what has happened to date; going forward, the national funding formula will take even more money away from the schools that need it the most—our schools are in constituencies with some of the highest levels of deprivation in the country. That is the essence of the debate.
We have seen the human cost of other Government policies in our constituencies. The bedroom tax comes to mind, and we are discussing universal credit at the moment. The national funding formula has the potential to be the latest addition to that list. We have only one chance to educate our children. My message to the Minister is: it is not too late to listen to the teachers, parents and children in our constituencies, and think again to ensure that all children in our area—and across the country—have the opportunities that will serve them well into the future.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on securing this timely debate and standing up for schools in Liverpool. If the Minister feels uncomfortable about the number of Labour MPs facing him, he should remember that I am a Mancunian and so just as uncomfortable.
My hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the problems facing not just south Liverpool but all schools. I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on his excellent speech. Sir Michael Wilshaw, the former chief inspector, talked about politicians standing up for schools in their area and raising standards, and my hon. Friend has admirably led the “Liverpool challenge” over the past couple of years by chairing that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) spoke passionately about education being children’s best chance in life. Those of us who represent working-class constituencies like we do know that it is the only silver bullet for advancement there is. If we deny children that, we are all worse off for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) talked about testimony after testimony from school after school and the impact that cuts are having. She has led in the House admirably on issues around mental health; nobody has done more on that.
There was an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth), who stood up for schools in Knowsley and its A-level provision, which is a long-running sore that was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood. We want to see that addressed. There was also an intervention from the Member for Anfield—sorry, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). I will be keeping half an eye on the game on Saturday, even though I come from the blue half of Manchester. I welcome him to his place and also welcome his intervention.
There has been a huge, high-profile campaign by parents, trade unions, teachers and support staff to ensure that our schools are properly funded, yet the Secretary of State has made another concession on the Government’s school funding policy and found £1.3 billion over the next two years from other parts of the Department’s education budget, because unfortunately she lost her fight with the Chancellor. However, schools, teachers, parents and pupils have yet to crack open the champagne. With the Secretary of State having sneaked out her backtrack the day before recess, we have now had the opportunity to examine the detail of her announcement. The £1.3 billion that she announced is nowhere near enough to reverse the £2.8 billion of cuts that schools have suffered since 2015, and the cuts that they are having to implement now because the Government keep pushing back the funding formula and the announcement on the new budget. We also know that none of the money announced so far is actually new money for education. Will the Minister therefore confirm today, in the interests of transparency and accountability, where he plans to cut funding from other areas to fill the black hole that the Secretary of State created just before the recess?
The overall level of education funding is totally inadequate, as has been marvellously and articulately explained by Opposition Members. The devastating cuts to our schools, sixth forms and colleges just carry on and on, and the impact of the real-terms cuts to funding are there for all to see. Schools are having to cut subjects. Children are being taught in super-sized classes. Schools are cutting staff at a time when they are facing a teacher recruitment crisis, with more than 24,000 unqualified teachers working in our state sector since the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), the former Education Secretary, stopped the rule that school teachers must be qualified. We now require qualified teachers only across the local education authority system, not in free schools and the multi-academy trusts. Schools also have to support vulnerable children, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, and there is not enough special educational needs provision. The strain is there to see.
There are two issues I will push on: the teacher recruitment and retention crisis, and the impact of the cuts on class sizes. It is widely accepted that falling pay levels and increased workload pressures for teachers have been causing problems in teacher recruitment and retention, and school cuts are making matters worse. The National Audit Office, for instance, has found that teacher recruitment is not keeping up. Teacher shortages are reaching crisis point, and the subjects that are vital to our country’s future, such as science and computing, are hardest hit.
What is interesting about the statistics—I will speak more about this on behalf of the shadow education team over the autumn—is that the Government have taken 10,000 to 15,000 teaching posts out of the system since 2010, yet we are still failing to recruit enough teachers. What does that say for the management of the system? As a former teacher, I know that there is no greater investment that Government can make in education than investment in the quality of the teaching. Up to 14,000 classrooms could be without a permanent teacher in this academic year, affecting around 300,000 pupils nationally. Let me get the statistics right: vacant teaching posts have increased by 24% over the past two years, with 9% more teaching vacancies this September than in the same month in 2016. Two thirds of teachers are looking to leave their current role within the next three years. Since 2011—on this Government’s watch—one quarter to one third of all teachers have left the profession since training.
Behind every good teacher is a network of teaching assistants, support staff, assistants, lunchtime organisers and more. They make the school run smoothly, giving teachers space and time for their pupils and lessons. However, the cuts that are ravaging education budgets have seen vital school support posts axed. The Minister might not value these jobs, but we know that parents and teachers do. How can schools provide a safe and secure environment for their children, prevent truancy and deal with pupil behaviour challenges with reduced staff numbers?
We have also seen the impact on class sizes. The first real-terms cuts to school budgets in a generation and reductions in teaching staff mean that pupils are being taught in super-sized classes. Analysis of overcrowding in English primary schools has revealed that more than half a million pupils are being taught in super-sized classes. The mounting pressure on school places is now starting to hit secondary schools, with figures showing an increase in the number of pupils in very large classes in the last year. The Local Government Association has shown that half of councils in England are at risk of being unable to meet the increasing demand for secondary school places within the next five years, and the Government are doing precious little about it.
The south-east and the north-west are two of the worst-hit areas, with the latest figures showing more than 90,000 primary school pupils in classes of more than 30. The number of infant schoolchildren between five and seven years of age in classes of more than 30 has almost trebled since 2010. This situation is unsustainable. If the Minister really wants to give every child the education they deserve, he needs to ensure that children are not being crammed into super-sized classes.
Our key education unions have done a magnificent job in highlighting the cuts to every school up and down the country—that has been credited with causing 750,000 people to switch their votes at the last general election. They have set out five tests for what is required for a fair funding settlement. The fact is that the Minister has failed on every one of them. School cuts have not been reversed; some 88% of schools still face real-terms budget cuts. There is no new money in the education budget, and we are yet to discover where the shortfalls will occur within the Department. High needs, early years and post-16 education will not, as promised, be fairly funded under the new proposals. The Minister has made no long-term funding commitments, so schools are still in limbo. What happens beyond 2020? When can our schools expect the information they need about longer-term funding, so that they can plan their budgets effectively? Yet again, historic underfunding for our schools is not being addressed.
Attainment has been pointed out already. If we draw a line from the Humber estuary to the Mersey estuary, the number of kids living above it on free schools meal achieving five good GCSEs is 34%. If we look at where Labour invested—right here in the capital city, with the London Challenge—50% of kids on free school meals achieve five good GCSEs. The budget cuts are damning everybody with the same outcomes. There are more than half a million children crammed in super-sized classes and more than 24,000 unqualified teachers in schools, up 52% from 2012. While I of course support the principle that schools should receive fair funding, the answer is not to take money away from existing schools and redistribute it when budgets in other areas are being cut. There should be fairness in the funding formula, but there is nothing fair about a proposal under which funding will be cut from high-performing schools in deprived areas. The solution is to invest in education, to help every child receive an excellent education.
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Edward. I congratulate the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) on securing this important debate. As she said, we recently met to discuss in detail the funding position of schools in her constituency, and I welcome this opportunity to continue that discussion.
Debating this issue is welcome at a time when the Government have recently announced an increase in school funding, as well as the details of the historic new national funding formula. The Government want to ensure that all children, regardless of where they live, receive a world-class education. Over the past seven years, we have made significant progress: more schools than ever before are rated by Ofsted as good or outstanding, and the attainment gap between those from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds is beginning to close.
That progress has been made despite an unfair national funding system that has failed to take account of significant changes in the challenges faced by schools in different parts of the country. For too long, the unfair distribution of funding between schools has acted, I believe, as a brake on the progress they have been able to make. That is why it is so important that we are delivering on our promise to reform the unfair, opaque and outdated school and high-needs funding systems and introduce a national funding formula.
Mr Howarth
I think it is agreed on both sides that the existing funding formula is unfair. Part of the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and I have made is that the recent adjustments somehow succeeded in making it even more unfair for some schools. That does not seem to be a sensible way to deal with this.
Nick Gibb
Under the recent adjustments, according to the national funding formula, all schools will gain funding: no school will lose money or face a cut in funding, despite what has been claimed by the National Education Union, and despite what hon. Members have said during the debate. In fact, funding for schools across Knowsley will increase on average by 7.1%. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman mention that in either of his interventions.
Nick Gibb
I will not give way because there is a very short amount of time left, but I will come to the hon. Lady’s comments shortly.
It cannot be right that local authorities with similar needs and characteristics receive very different levels of funding from central Government. Across the country, schools teaching children with the same needs get markedly different amounts of money for no good reason. At the heart of the problem is the fact that the data used to allocate funding to local authorities are over a decade out of date, leading to manifest unfairness in how funding is distributed. This year, Nottingham, for example, will receive £555 more per pupil than Halton, despite having equal proportions of pupils eligible for free school meals.
Funding for each area has been determined by simply rolling forward the previous year’s allocation, adjusting only for changes in the total number of pupils in each area and ignoring everything else. The proportion of secondary pupils eligible for free school meals in London, for example, fell from 22.4% in 2007 to 17% in 2017, compared with a decline nationally from 13.1% to 12.9%, but the funding system has paid no attention to that significant shift. That is not a rational, fair or efficient system for distributing money to our schools.
That is why the Government are reforming the existing system with the introduction of a national funding formula for schools and high needs. Informed by the consultation that we undertook, with 26,000 responses, we will introduce a national funding formula from April 2018, ending the current unfair postcode lottery system. For the first time, the funding system will deliver resources on a consistent and transparent basis, right across the country, reflecting local needs.
Last month, we published full details of both the school and high-needs national funding formulae and the impact they will have for every local authority. We have also published notional school-level allocations showing what each school would attract through the formula. It means that everyone can see what the national funding formula will mean for them and understand why. It is notional because we are taking the national funding formula as though it had been fully implemented in this financial year, 2017 to 2018, so that people and schools can see what the effects of that formula would be on their schools with those particular pupils this year. It is a very effective way of describing what will happen under the formula. The actual funding will depend on the actual pupils at that school next year, and we will make announcements nearer the time in the usual way.
To provide stability for schools through the transition to the national funding formula, for the next two years local authorities will continue to set their own local formulae in consultation with local schools and the schools forum. That element of flexibility will allow them to respond to changes as they come through and take account of local issues.
As well as a fairer distribution of funding, the total quantum available is also important. We want schools to have the resources they need to deliver a world-class education for their pupils. We understand that, just like other public services, schools are facing cost pressures. In recognition of those facts, the Secretary of State announced in July an additional £1.3 billion for schools and high needs across 2018-19 and 2019-20, in addition to the funding confirmed at the 2015 spending review.
The additional funding will be distributed across the next two years as we implement the national funding formula. Core funding for schools and high needs will rise from nearly £41 billion this financial year—itself a record high in school funding—to £42.4 billion in 2018-19 and to £43.5 billion in 2019-20. Overall, that means that the total schools budget will increase by over 6% between this year and 2019-20. That will mean that funding per pupil for schools and high needs will now be maintained in real terms for the remaining two years of the spending review.
The additional funding that we have announced means that we can provide a cash increase in respect of every school and every local authority area from April 2018. In the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood’s constituency, once the new formula is implemented in full, there will be an extra £1.3 million for block funding—an increase of 2.4%. Belle Vale Community Primary School will not face a cut in funding; it will have a 3% increase. Enterprise South Liverpool Academy will not face a cut in spending; it will have a 5.2% increase of £179,000. Gateacre School will not face a cut; it will have a 3.5% increase. Halewood Academy will not face a cut; it will have an 8.2% increase. Middlefield Community Primary School will have a 1.2% increase. St Francis Xavier’s College will have a 1% increase and Yew Tree Community Primary School will have a 5% increase in funding. None of the schools that I have not mentioned in the hon. Lady’s constituency will lose money; they will all gain about 1% or more.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) said that there will be cuts of £390 per pupil. In fact, in his constituency there will be a £1.1 million increase in funding, equal to 1.6%.
Nick Gibb
I will not give way, because we are very short of time now. As I said, across the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood’s constituency there will be a £3 million increase in funding. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) talked about cuts to funding in his schools. Croxteth Community Primary School will gain a 0.9% increase; Monksdown Primary, a 0.9% increase; St Edward’s College, a 1% increase; and St John Bosco Arts College—I enjoyed visiting that school—a 0.9% increase.
I can confirm that deprivation, mobility and low prior attainment are very significant factors in the funding formula. That is something that the Secretary of State was determined to have in the formula that we consulted on. Funding will increase by £0.6 million in schools in the constituency of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman)—some 1.2% according to the national funding formula.
The extra £1.3 billion that we are investing means we will be able to go over and above our manifesto commitment that no school should lose funding as a result of the introduction of the national funding formula. Now, every school will attract at least 0.5% more per pupil in 2018-19 and 1% more in 2019-20. That change will have a particularly positive impact in Garston and Halewood: 23 of the 32 schools will gain through the formula as a result of the decision to raise the funding floor. I trust that the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood will welcome those changes when she has a chance to consider them more reflectively.
Following the strong representations that we received during the consultation, the formula will also provide all secondary schools with minimum per-pupil funding of £4,800 in 2019-20 and all primary schools with £3,500. In 2018-19, as a step towards those minimum funding levels, secondary schools will attract at least £4,600 and primary schools will attract £3,300. That new minimum level will recognise the challenges of the very lowest funded schools, including 14 schools across Liverpool. The changes delivered by the national funding formula will mean both Liverpool and Knowsley will be among the 10 highest-funded local authorities per pupil outside London.
We are particularly focused on supporting children who face the greatest barriers to success. That is why we are also committed to reforming the funding for children and young people with high and special needs. We are finally moving towards a more rational basis for distributing funding for children and young people with high needs, taking into account an up-to-date assessment of the level of need in each area.
The additional investment we are putting in means that every local authority will see a minimum increase in high needs funding of 0.5% in 2018-19 and 1% in 2019-20, but for south Liverpool, a fair allocation of resources means an even more significant increase in funding. Once our formula is implemented in full, Liverpool will see an increase of 17.1%, compared with their planned high needs spending in 2017-18, with Knowsley gaining 4.5%.
Moving towards this full formula allocation, local authorities will receive up to 3% per head gains a year for the next two years. As important as the fair allocation of funding is how that funding is used in practice. We are committed to helping schools improve outcomes for pupils and to promote social mobility by ensuring that they get the best value from all their resources.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood and other Members from the Liverpool area for taking part in this important debate. The Government will continue to support England’s schools by providing more funding than ever before, by making sure that that funding is distributed fairly and to where it is needed most and by helping schools to achieve more with that funding. That will help schools to sustain and improve the rapid progress our children and young people are making under this Government.
Introducing fair funding is an historic and necessary reform—one that previous Governments have avoided for too long. Thanks to the commitment of this Government to addressing issues of unfairness in our society, for the first time we have a clear and transparent system that matches funding to children’s needs and the needs of the schools that they attend. It will help all schools to deliver the high-quality education that their pupils deserve and it will ensure that all pupils are able to fulfil their potential.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered education funding in south Liverpool.
Written Statements
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Double Taxation Convention: UK and Belarus
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
A Double Taxation Convention with Belarus was signed on 26 September 2017. The text of the convention has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and has been made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ pages of the gov.uk website. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS150]
ECOFIN and Informal ECOFIN
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Elizabeth Truss)
A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) will be held in Luxembourg on 10 October. EU Finance Ministers will discuss the following items:
Early morning session
The Eurogroup President will brief Ministers on the outcomes of the 9 October meeting of the Eurogroup, and Ministers will discuss the current economic situation. Ministers will also discuss the European Commission’s use of discretion in assessing member states’ compliance with the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP).
Current financial service legislative proposals
The Council presidency will provide an update on current legislative proposals in the field of financial services.
Definitive VAT system
The Commission will present their proposals for a definitive VAT system and the creation of a ‘single EU VAT area’.
European semester 2017
The Council will exchange views on a report evaluating the 2017 European semester process and reflect on lessons learnt.
Preparation of the G20 meeting of Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors and of the IMF annual meetings between 12 and 15 October in Washington
Minsters will agree the EU’s G20 terms of reference and International Monetary and Financial Committee (IMFC) statement, ahead of the annual meetings in Washington.
Climate finance for COP23
The Council will agree Council conclusions on climate finance in preparation for the COP23 UN climate change conference in November.
Digital taxation
The Commission will present its communication of 21 September on ‘a fair and efficient tax system in the EU for the digital single market’. As well as input from the presidency, the Commission will also provide a follow-up to the Tallinn digital summit that was held on 29 September.
Implementation of financial services legislation
Ministers will receive an update from the Commission on implementation of existing financial services legislation.
An informal meeting of The Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Tallinn on 15-16 September 2017. The UK was represented by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Philip Hammond). EU Finance Ministers discussed the following items:
Working lunch—deepening the economic and monetary union (EMU) and maximising the effectiveness of EU finances
Based on the European Commission reflection papers, Ministers discussed the interlinkages between future development of the economic and monetary union and the framework on EU finances.
Working session I
Ministers were joined by Central Bank Governors for the first Working Session. Two items were discussed.
(a) Deepening of the EMU: interaction of rules and institutions
Ministers and Central Bank Governors discussed the implications of the deepening of the economic and monetary union for the EU’s economic and fiscal policy framework.
(b) Capital markets union: Technological Innovation and Financial Regulation (FinTech)
Ministers and Central Bank Governors then focused on the implications of intensified technological innovations to the functioning, development and stability of banking and capital markets. The discussion drew on analysis by Bruegel and included participation from the European Parliament, the European Central Bank, the Commission, and the European Securities and Markets Authority.
Working session II
a) Corporate taxation challenges of the digital economy
Following a presentation by the Estonian presidency, Ministers discussed how to modernise the corporate income tax rules in a way that would take in to account the new business modes using digital technology. Commissioner Dombrovskis and José Ángel Gurria (Secretary-General of the OECD) also contributed to the discussion to set out their respective positions.
b) Cost efficiency and sustainability of customs IT systems
Ministers discussed the governance reform of the customs union, particularly considering customs IT infrastructure that would assure the sustainable and cost efficient electronic systems worthy of a digital single market. This builds on previous discussions regarding the development of an EU customs IT strategy and looks to proposals for a centrally developed customs IT system to be rolled out across Europe from 2025.
[HCWS149]
Royal Air Force Battle Honours
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mark Lancaster)
My right hon. Friend The Minister in the House of Lords (The right hon. The Earl Howe PC) has made the following written statement:
I am today announcing that Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the award of Battle Honours to squadrons of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force, for their participation in Operation TELIC during the period 1 May 2003 to 22 May 2011, Operation DEFERENCE during the period 22 February 2011 to 27 February 2011 and Operation ELLAMY during the period 19 March 2011 to 31 October 2011.
Battle Honours may be “awarded to commemorate any notable battle, action or engagement in which aircrew or Royal Air Force Regiment personnel played a memorable part”. There are two levels of Battle Honour within the Royal Air Force. The first is “mere entitlement, signifying only that a squadron took part in the campaign”. The second (higher) level confers the right to emblazon the Battle Honour on the Standard itself. This ultimate accolade is reserved for those squadrons which are involved in direct confrontation with an enemy, and demonstrate gallantry and spirit under fire.
Battle Honours were approved for 27 operational flying squadrons and eight Royal Air Force Regiment squadrons for their participation on Operation TELIC. Five operational flying squadrons and three Royal Air Force Regiment squadrons were awarded the highest honour of Battle Honour with Emblazonment.
For their part in Operation DEFERENCE and Operation ELLAMY, Battle Honours were approved for 13 operational flying squadrons with three being awarded the highest honour of Battle Honour with Emblazonment.
With the Right to Emblazon ‘IRAQ 2003-2011’ on Squadron Standards
No. 7 Squadron RAF
No. XXIV Squadron RAF
No. 33 Squadron RAF
No. 47 Squadron RAF
No. 230 Squadron RAF
No. 1 Squadron RAF Regiment
No. 26 Squadron RAF Regiment
No. 34 Squadron RAF Regiment
Without the Right to Emblazon ‘IRAQ 2003-2011’ on Squadron Standards
No. II (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF
No. IX (Bomber) Squadron RAF
No. 10 Squadron RAF
No. 12 (Bomber) Squadron RAF
No. XIII Squadron RAF
No. 14 Squadron RAF
No. 18 Squadron RAF
No. 27 Squadron RAF
No. XXVIII (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF
No. 30 Squadron RAF
No. 31 Squadron RAF
No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF
No. 39 (Photographic Reconnaissance) Squadron RAF
No. 51 Squadron RAF
No. LXX Squadron RAF
No. 99 Squadron RAF
No. 101 Squadron RAF
No. 120 Squadron RAF
No. 201 Squadron RAF
No. 206 Squadron RAF
No. 216 Squadron RAF
No. 617 Squadron RAF
No. II Squadron RAF Regiment
No. 3 Squadron RAF Regiment
No. 15 Squadron RAF Regiment
No. 51 Squadron RAF Regiment
No. 63 Squadron RAF Regiment
With the Right to Emblazon ‘LIBYA 2011’ on Squadron Standards
No. II (Army Co-operation) Squadron
RAF No. IX (Bomber) Squadron RAF
No. 47 Squadron RAF
Without the Right to Emblazon ‘LIBYA 2011’ on Squadron Standards
No. 3 (Fighter) Squadron RAF
No. V (Army Co-operation) Squadron RAF
No. VIII Squadron RAF
No. XI Squadron RAF
No. 30 Squadron RAF
No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron RAF
No. 51 Squadron RAF
No. 99 Squadron RAF
No. 101 Squadron RAF
No. 216 Squadron RAF
[HCWS148]
General Affairs Council
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
My right hon. Friend Baroness Anelay of St Johns DBE, Minister of State for Exiting the European Union, has made the following statement:
I represented the UK at the General Affairs Council (GAC) meeting in Brussels on Monday 25 September. This was the first meeting of the GAC under the Estonian presidency.
The main items on the agenda were: presentation of the priorities of the Estonian presidency; preparation of the European Council on 19-20 October 2017; June European Council follow-up; and legislative programming for 2018, letter of intent.
A provisional report of the meeting and the conclusions adopted can be found on the Council of the European Union’s website at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/meetings/gac/2017/09/25
Presentation of the priorities of the Estonian presidency
The presidency made a brief presentation of its priorities, namely: an open and innovative European economy; a safe and secure Europe; a digital Europe and the free movement of data; and an inclusive and sustainable Europe.
Preparation of the European Council on 19-20 October 2017
The presidency presented the draft October European Council agenda, which is due to cover migration, digital Europe, defence and external relations.
On the migration agenda item, GAC Ministers discussed external migration and returns, as well as reform of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS).
As part of the digital Europe item, delegates focused on implementation of the Digital Single Market (DSM), cyber security and digital taxation.
Regarding defence, the Council considered increasing EU autonomy, the admissions criteria for the Permanent Structured co-operation (PESCO) and EU-NATO co-operation. There were also discussions about the work on the industrial development programme and the Athena mechanism (which handles the financing of common costs relating to EU military operations under the EU’s common security) and the Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP).
Under external relations, Ministers discussed EU-Turkey relations and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Some member states also asked that trade should be added to the agenda, as well as the follow-up to the June European Council.
I intervened to highlight the UK’s on-going commitment to European security and reiterated our preference for counter-terrorism and internal security to be discussed at the European Council. I also welcomed the focus on the digital agenda, as well as the need to maintain momentum following the Tallinn summit on 29 September. Regarding EU-Turkey relations, I emphasised the importance of the accession process as an important tool for co-operation with Turkey. I also agreed that a unified EU position should be sought on the DPRK.
Legislative programming for 2018, letter of intent
GAC Ministers discussed the Commission’s priorities for the Commission Work Programme (CWP) 2018. Vice President Timmermans asked for a final mandate on the CWP and stressed the need to focus on delivery within the limited time available. I intervened to welcome the inclusion of certain aspects in the CWP, including the Single Market and DSM. I also spoke to advocate for open and free trade.
AOB
Vice President Timmermans updated Ministers on the state of play of its dialogue with Poland on the Rule of Law. I emphasised the importance the UK placed on the Rule of Law and urged both the Commission and Poland to avoid escalation and return to substantive, sustained and constructive dialogue.
[HCWS151]
Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lidington)
The EU Justice and Home Affairs Council of Ministers will meet on 12 and 13 October in Luxembourg. The Minister of State for Immigration, and I will represent the UK for Justice day. The Home Secretary will represent the UK for Interior day.
Justice day (12 October) will begin with the adoption of the Council Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO). No discussion is expected. We have always been clear that the UK will never participate in an EPPO.
This will be followed by a policy debate on the proposed Regulation on mutual recognition of freezing and confiscation orders. The focus of the discussion is expected to be on whether the scope of the legislation applies to such orders issued within the framework of criminal proceedings or criminal matters. Such a debate would have no specific impact on the UK’s position and so we would not need to intervene. The UK is supportive of improved co-operation in this area and has opted into this measure.
Ministers will also discuss the proposed Regulation on the exchange of information on third country nationals and as regards the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS). The UK supports the inclusion of third country nationals on ECRIS, including fingerprint exchange. The focus of this debate will be on the threshold for the seriousness of the crime above which fingerprints should be taken, and whether dual nationals should be included in the centralised identification system (ECRIS-TCN). The Immigration Minister will support a low fingerprint threshold, as well as the inclusion of dual nationals in ECRIS-TCN.
The next item will be an exchange of views with the Director of the Fundamental Rights Agency, which will cover the agency’s 2017 fundamental rights report and a range of fundamental rights issues. The Council will then adopt the draft Council conclusions following the EU’s annual report on the application of the EU charter on fundamental rights in 2016. The UK is content to support the Council conclusions.
There will be a working lunch discussion on the implementation of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). This discussion will be an exchange of views on readiness for implementation. The GDPR will apply in the UK from 25 May 2018.
In the afternoon, Interior and Justice Ministers will meet for a joint session. This will include a Commission update and discussion on criminal justice in cyberspace where the presidency will update member states on the progress of ongoing discussions around e-evidence and encryption. The UK is supportive of work in these areas and has been engaged in technical discussions. The UK is keen to ensure that any proposals do not jeopardise the existing good cooperation with service providers.
Finally on Justice day, as part of the presidency’s mid-term review of the JHA strategic guidelines, Ministers will be asked for their views on where progress has been made and where there are outstanding policy priorities. The Immigration Minister will highlight the UK’s ongoing policy priorities, including data retention for law enforcement purposes and improving the interoperability of EU systems.
Interior day (13 October) will begin with a discussion on reform of the Schengen Borders Code to change the rules applicable to the temporary reintroduction of border controls at internal borders. As the UK is not a part of the Schengen internal border free zone, the Home Secretary will not intervene on this item.
Interior day will continue with a discussion on counter-terrorism. There will be a presentation by the Counter Terrorism Group (CTG). The CTG will report their assessment of the threat, update on recent capability developments and feedback on work to improve co-operation with the law enforcement community. The Home Secretary is likely to intervene in support of recent of the recent developments of the group.
The Council will conclude with a working lunch at which Ministers will exchange views on the state of play of the migration crisis. The presidency will focus the debate on the resettlement of refugees. In line with the request of the European Commission, the UK will submit a revised resettlement pledge by 31 October 2017.
[HCWS152]
House of Lords
Hurricane Irma: Disaster Relief
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Naseby
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to undertake an urgent review of the anticipation, preparation, speed of response and chain of command for the United Kingdom’s disaster relief operations in the Caribbean, in the light of the United Kingdom’s response to Hurricane Irma; and if so, whether they will publish the results and any recommendations for change.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest in that I have family living in the Caymans.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we are conducting an internal review to identify the lessons learned from the Government’s response to Hurricane Irma, as indeed we do in response to all crisis situations. These findings will of course be incorporated into future crisis responses. The timing of this review will be considered alongside the ongoing recovery efforts in the Caribbean, including the overseas territories. Meanwhile, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will continue to co-ordinate a cross-government response to any new crisis which may arise.
Lord Naseby
The Minister’s Answer is very welcome, but in this review will he go back to the review after the tsunami in 2005, when it was clearly stated that the most vital part was for help to arrive in the first 24 hours, or, if that is not absolutely possible, in the first 36 hours? Against that background, will he make sure that the review looks at the date at which the FCO crisis committee met, on 5 September, and say why it did not meet in the previous week? Will that review look at the situation regarding the movement of aircraft from Brize Norton and say why they did not get into the air immediately after the hurricane had left the British Virgin Islands, instead going two days later? Finally, will the review look at why HMS “Ocean” was not moved at least a week earlier to somewhere nearer this side of the Atlantic rather than the middle of the Mediterranean, even though, sadly, it broke down en route in any case?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend raises a series of questions; in the interest of allowing more questions to be asked, I will write to him specifically to answer them. However, I will pick up on one or two of his points. The UK Government responded within 24 hours. My noble friend may well be aware that RFA “Mounts Bay” arrived within 24 hours of the storm’s impact and restored power supplies at Anguilla’s hospital, rebuilt the emergency operations centres and, importantly, cleared the runway to allow planes that were waiting to arrive at the airports to come in. It then followed on and delivered a similar response to BVI. However, I will respond to the issues my noble friend raised in his other questions.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the aid budget is 37% of the defence budget, and the defence budget is under immense pressure. Does the Minister not think that the fantastic work being done by HMS “Ocean” and RFA “Mounts Bay” out in the West Indies should be covered by the aid budget, because, quite clearly, that describes what they are doing?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important question, and it is necessary to put it in the context of the international rules to which we subscribe. As he may be aware, my right honourable friend the International Development Secretary has directly responded to the issue. She has raised it with the OECD and we are also raising the eligibility of ODA spending on the overseas territories and other countries to ensure that, when such crises hit, we are able to make funding available. That said, as the noble Lord may also be aware, we have already allocated £62 million to the aid effort. More is being done, and an additional £5 million was pledged to Dominica, which was recently hit by a hurricane.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, Hurricane Irma was tracked from the end of August and it hit the first of our overseas territories overnight from 5 to 6 September, but the first COBRA meeting was not until the 7th. Might the review conclude that the Government are distracted by something?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Perhaps the noble Baroness should have enlightened us on what she was alluding to in her question. The short answer is that the Government acted promptly. I have already alluded to the fact that RFA “Mounts Bay” responded. I think that we should take a step back and acknowledge the incredible efforts of our military, the FCO and DfID, as well as neighbouring states, including the assistance given by places such as the Cayman Islands, in responding to the tragedy which hit three of our territories and other regions of the Caribbean.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the information that the Minister has given, and I certainly welcomed the information given by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in briefing Members of this House. However, one thing that concerned me was the unsightly debate at the Conservative Party conference about where the money should come from. We have a responsibility to our overseas territories, whether they are in need of ODA support or not. It should not be a question of taking money out of Africa to put it into where our responsibilities should lie, and I hope that the noble Lord will reassure us on that.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord makes a very valid point about the commitment that the Government made to spending 0.7% of GDI—indeed, it was voted for in this Chamber—and that remains the position. I assure him that, in reviewing any spend, we will continue to prioritise the countries that need development assistance—for example, in the important area of education for girls. I repeat that that will continue to be reflected as a priority. However, at the same time I am sure that we all readily acknowledge the tragedy that has hit the overseas territories. I can tell noble Lords that I was not able to accompany my noble friend Lord Bates to that briefing because I went out to the Turks and Caicos Islands. Seeing the devastation first hand, as I did in Grand Turk, really puts the situation clearly into perspective.
Lord Palmer (CB)
My Lords, what is the very latest date that this review will be published? It will obviously be very important for future disasters such as this. I declare my interest in the Caribbean as according to the register.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I can tell the noble Lord that there is no specific date at this juncture because much of the information is still being collated. We are working very closely with the Governments of the overseas territories on their exact needs. Personnel from DfID, including a team led by a senior DfID official, are collating the current requirements of our overseas territories. I can also share with the noble Lord and the whole House that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has convened a senior meeting, chaired by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, to bring together all parts of government to ensure a full HMG response to this issue. When I have the final date for the review, I shall of course share it with the noble Lord and others in the Chamber.
Immigration: International Students
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Office for National Statistics’ Exit Check data released in August, whether they will consider the removal of international students from the net migration figures.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I refer to my interests in the register.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the recent publication of exit checks data shows that our reforms since 2010 to tackle abuse in the education sector have worked. Net migration statistics are produced by the independent Office for National Statistics. There is no limit on the number of international students who can come to the UK. As long as students are compliant with Immigration Rules, they should make a very limited contribution to net migration numbers.
Lord Holmes of Richmond
My Lords, since 2010, the number of international students coming to the UK has fallen by 6%, while the global market has increased by 7%, with an estimated cost to the UK economy of £9 billion. Does my noble friend agree that this summer’s statistics clearly evidence that there is no material issue with international students overstaying their visas, as 97.4% stayed within those terms? Does she also agree that we need to get out the message, through the FCO, the British Council and all channels and good offices: “Students of the world, you are so welcome here—come study in the UK and be part of our future”?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree totally with the points that my noble friend makes. It is very pleasing to see that students are in a very compliant environment. To the year ending June 2017, there was a 9% increase in Russell group universities, and a 17% increase in all student visas granted for Chinese nationals. To bring up a point made in a previous Question, I mention that the proportion of Indian students coming to study in the UK at a higher education institute has increased from around 50% in 2010 to around 93% in the year ending June 2017.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that citation of selective statistics is not terribly convincing—the Indian figure, for instance, being 50% down over recent years? She sits on the Government Bench, which continually tells us that we have to respect votes. Does she therefore recognise that it might be better if her reply respected the vote of this House by a majority of 94 that students should not be considered as economic migrants, which they are not? Will the Government’s White Paper on immigration, due in a few weeks, cover that issue?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I appreciate that within statistics we can say all sorts of things. However, it is not a myth about the Indian students. People who come here and use services and infrastructure for more than a year are counted as migrants.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, at present, the number of international students is clearly more than 100,000. If the Government persist in their commitment to keep immigration under the tens of thousands, does that mean that there is no scope for increasing the number of international students, for which there appears to be cross-party support as it would benefit the UK economy? I refer to my interests as recorded.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There are well over 100,000 students. In the 2015-16 academic year, 438,000 students enrolled—almost half a million—and visa applications sponsored by universities are 19% higher than they were in 2010. There is no limit on the number of international students who come to this country, and we welcome them all.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, what special characteristics do students have that mean that they do not use public services or public transport and do not need accommodation?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend points out precisely why they are included in the migration statistics.
Lord Watts (Lab)
Are not the figures the Minister gives for the Russell group distorted by the fact that some of those universities have a special visa system?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There has been a tier 4 visa pilot—that is possibly what the noble Lord is referring to—and we will evaluate its effectiveness. However, he actually makes a case for the fact that we welcome international students here.
Lord Gordon of Strathblane (Lab)
I jump back to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee: if we applied that logic, surely we would start to treat tourists as immigrants.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
A tourist should come here for a specified length of time, which is not usually a year and is generally under three months. When that stay becomes a year, that person becomes somebody who avails themselves of the infrastructure and public services of this country.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the students in the figures that she cited would have registered before there was any thought of Brexit and so forth? As someone who spent several years at the London School of Economics, I am very aware of the bond of respect and loyalty to the country where people study and live for sometimes four or five years; it is very well known. The benefits to that country whether in trade, political co-operation or security matters are immense. Can the Minister not say that students should be considered quite separately from other immigrants who come to this country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am afraid that I cannot say that. But my parents were immigrants to this country. They went to university in another country but certainly made this country their home. I agree that the bond that the student has with the country where they study often means that they stay here to work and contribute hugely to the economy of this country. In fact, the MAC is conducting a study on the effect of student migration and will report soon.
Lord Cormack (Con)
Cannot my noble friend accept that there is an overwhelming view in this House that it would be sensible and entirely prudent to treat students separately, particularly at this juncture in our national affairs?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am neither deaf nor blind to the views of noble Lords on student migration.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I hesitate to intervene in the sense that, frankly, I could not do a more effective demolition job on the Government’s policy than the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, did. But I still do not think that we have heard from the Minister why the Government apparently see the overriding need to keep international students in the net migration figures, bearing in mind that the evidence shows that their removal would not make any significant difference to those figures. Is she able to explain to us why the Government are not prepared to stand up now and say that they are about to change their policy? From the response that she gave, which appeared to be a glowing one on the number of students coming into the country, can I take it that the universities are still quite happy that international students are retained within the net migration figures?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
What the noble Lord said about high compliance lends credence to the fact that our reforms are working in this area. We wish to continue to attract international students to study in the UK and we absolutely recognise the cultural and financial contribution that they make to this country. That is why we have commissioned the study that I referred the noble Baroness to, and why we do not limit the number of genuine international students who come here to study and from whom UK businesses can recruit.
Stalking and Domestic Abuse
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to introduce a register of serial stalkers, including perpetrators of domestic abuse.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are fully committed to tackling domestic abuse and stalking and are doing all that we can to protect victims and robustly target perpetrators. Domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators can already be captured on the dangerous persons database and managed by police and probation under multiagency public protection arrangements, or MAPPA. The domestic violence disclosure scheme has also been rolled out nationally to inform and alert new partners about a perpetrator’s previous offending.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer and I know the Government are doing what they can. Does the Minister agree that lives would be saved if serial stalking perpetrators were indeed managed in exactly the same way as sex offenders by including them on ViSOR and MAPPA? I also ask her to assure me that the forthcoming consultation on the DV Bill will include something on this register, as promised by the Minister to my colleagues Laura Richards and Zoe Dronfield from Paladin at a meeting held several weeks ago.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Perhaps I may first pay tribute to the noble Baroness for all that she does with Paladin. I really valued being able to go to the Paladin evening, although we only just crossed paths because the noble Baroness was delayed. We are certainly working across Government to develop measures that are both legislative and non-legislative to ensure that we are able to do all we can to protect and support victims, and to bring the perpetrators of stalking and domestic violence to justice. Later this year we will consult voluntary sector partners, experts and parliamentarians on the proposals and we will bring forward a Bill following that consultation. I look forward to the submission by both the noble Baroness and by Paladin, whose representatives I know have had a meeting at the Home Office as well.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
In the light of that answer, would the Government consider putting the register to which the noble Baroness has alluded into the much-anticipated domestic abuse Bill? When is that Bill likely to be published, so that offenders can be punished?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We have signalled our intention to bring forward a Bill in this Session. On the register, of course, we have the domestic violence disclosure scheme, which is also known as Clare’s law. It provides a way of disclosing information about a partner’s previous convictions in this area. Also, perpetrators can be put on the ViSOR register for violent and sex offenders. It is important in this space to ensure that we have a register that is simple to use for those who need to use it, and not to over-complicate things by issuing too many registers, with cases potentially falling between the cracks. However, I will be very happy to work with noble Lords on this as we progress towards the Bill.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that cultural change is urgently needed to ensure that the serial perpetrators, rather than the victims, are placed at the centre of investigations and risk management plans? Paladin’s evidence and research show that this is not happening and that women are paying for that with their lives. What actions are the Government taking to ensure that such a cultural change takes place?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness is absolutely right to make the point that cultural change is essential in this area. Often, it is the women who are fleeing their homes and running away from often quite violent and wicked men. I pay tribute to the various groups such as SafeLives, which are providing perpetrator programmes to ensure that women actually remain safe in their homes and, where possible, men can be rehabilitated. I do talk about women and men here because women are most likely to be the victims of these offences.
Perhaps I may also talk about the police’s approach to vulnerability, which was brought up in a previous Question about training. We have awarded nearly £2 million to the College of Policing to transform the police’s approach. This will include a much-enhanced programme of training. I referred earlier to getting the voluntary sector to engage, as well, which would be all to the good since cultural change is sought across all agencies. Unfortunately, we are quite new to this process, although we have been trying to tackle this issue for decades. The noble Baroness has raised a very valid point.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, as the thinking develops about a register, will the Minister consider having a section devoted to highlighting families with vulnerable young children, who are also the victims of abuse?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am glad to be able to answer the noble Lord’s question. Of course, we have a register, but one of the things we are looking to acknowledge is that a child who experiences or witnesses just one episode of domestic abuse can be scarred for life. That should be reflected in sentencing. Hopefully, I will be leading on the Bill and I look forward in particular to discussing measures in that area with noble Lords.
National Health Service
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Walmsley
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of remarks by the Chief Inspector of Hospitals that the NHS is not fit for the 21st century.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government agree with Professor Baker’s statement that,
“we need a model of care that is fit for the 21st century and the population as it is now”.
That is why we are backing the NHS’s own plans for transformation with an extra £8 billion a year in real terms by 2020-21 and an extra £2 billion over the next three years for social care.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he also agree with Professor Ted Baker’s statement:
“The model of care we have got is still the model we had in the 1960s”,
and that this “needs to change”? Can the Minister say how many of the new models of care are up and running and how many of the sustainability and transformation plans are in special measures? On World Mental Health Day, will he look into how many clinical commissioning groups are failing to commission good and timely mental health care, especially for young people?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness asked a few questions that I will try to deal with. First, on new models of care and STPs: STPs are now being ranked in order to see their fitness for moving forward. The Chancellor announced in the Budget that we will invest £325 million initially, with more funding in the future to support the transformation that we all want to see. The noble Baroness is right to point out that our care model is still based around hospitals and curing infectious diseases, rather than dealing with chronic illnesses and comorbidities. That needs to change.
I echo, as the noble Baroness would, the Care Quality Commission’s report, which talked about staff dedication—nowhere is that more true than in mental health, where staff often deal with very difficult circumstances. It is important to talk about that on World Mental Health Day. She may be interested to know that the Cabinet was briefed today by mental health experts about training programmes going into schools, and so on. There is a lot of work going on, but these are the NHS’s own plans for change, which this Government are backing.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
I speak as Professor of Surgery at UCL and chairman of UCL Partners. It is widely accepted that innovation is essential to ensure NHS sustainability. Are Her Majesty’s Government satisfied that there is sufficient emphasis on and support for NHS England in driving types of innovation, such as therapeutic innovation—both in models of care and working practices—that will achieve long-term sustainability?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord makes an excellent point. It is true to say that in this country we are very good at creativity and innovation but not always very good at spreading it round. In a way, that is one of the biggest challenges the NHS faces. I would merely highlight a couple of areas where the NHS is working well. The first is the test beds programme, which is working with industry, taking new innovations and spreading them round. Secondly, we have committed to publishing our response to the accelerated access review by the end of the month on how to make sure the most transformative drugs, devices and therapies are taken up throughout the system.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, can I ask the Minister about the sustainability and transformation programmes? Has he seen the report issued by the King’s Fund last week that said we have fewer acute beds in this country than almost any comparable country? It also pointed out that the plan of many STPs is to reduce acute care numbers even further. I fully accept that we could use our beds and discharge patients more effectively, but the King’s Fund warns that STP plans to further cut acute beds are unsustainable. Will the Government consider that?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Simon Stevens, the head of the NHS, made an important point several months ago about reconfigurations. Any reconfiguration has to meet four criteria: clinical need, popular support and so on. He added a fifth, which was about taking out beds. Those STPs are judged on their ability to meet the changing needs of their population. If there are proposals to take out beds which mean that those needs will not be met, such reconfigurations will not be accepted.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the major problem in the NHS today is the enormous increase in demand? It is not old people getting older; it is not young people being couch potatoes, because inactivity does not cause obesity. The obesity epidemic is what is wrecking the NHS.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The NHS is seeing more people than ever—I think that some 1,500 more people a day are being seen in A&E. A lot more people are going through the service. The truth is that there are a number of factors: there are factors around lifestyle and around ageing. The point is that we have to change. At the heart of this Question is the comment made by the chief inspector about our not having new models of care. We need to change the way in which we provide care. That means integrated care, with much more of it based in the community. That means us all taking difficult political decisions about how care is configured so that it meets changing needs related to obesity and ageing.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, a major problem facing the NHS is the drastic shortage of nurses. As the Government have changed the funding of nurse training at universities and as those universities now have their students in place, can the Minister give us any figures on the number of nurses in training in this current year?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I know that the noble Lord has been concerned about this issue. I hope that he heard my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announce last week not only an increase in the number of nursing associate places, where qualification is through an apprenticeship route, but a 25% increase in the number of degree training places and funding for the clinical placements that they involve.
Lord Patel (CB)
Can the Minister say whether he found helpful the House of Lords Select Committee report on the long-term sustainability of the NHS and social care?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Lord knows that I found it extremely helpful. It has pride of place on the coffee table in my office, and we will of course respond to it in due course.
Adult Social Care in England
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Bakewell
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to respond to today’s Care Quality Commission report on the state of Adult Social Care in England in which it states that “some 1.2 million people are not receiving the help they need, an increase of 18% on last year”.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to improving the quality and availability of adult social care in England. That is why we passed the Care Act in 2014 to provide for the first time a national eligibility threshold for care. It is why we are investing £2 billion more in social care provision over the next three years and have plans to reform how care is funded for the long term.
Baroness Bakewell
My Lords, the situation in social care is deteriorating and the Government’s strategy to handle the challenge is inadequate. The situation is getting worse because of the fundamental change in the demographic of this country. Some 15,000 people are now 100 years old, and the size of that cohort is increasing. Surgeries are closing, hospitals are inadequate, and 1.2 million people are unpaid carers and themselves over the age of 65. This calls for a radical, fundamental response, rather than the usual Green Paper and sums of money. That is not enough. This country faces a crisis of demographic change.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I agree in part with what the noble Baroness said in the sense that demographic change represents a big challenge. She mentioned the over-100s. The population of over-85s will double between now and 2037. As the CQC report makes clear, many of those people will have difficulty with the basic behaviours and actions they need to be able to live independently. That is the big challenge that we face. The report provides a very honest exposure of strengths and weaknesses in the current system. The strengths are there, though the noble Baroness perhaps did not give them as much credit as they deserve. The report says:
“Overall, the quality of care remains relatively stable, with the majority of all care rated as good and improvements in some services”.
Indeed, only 1% of services are rated inadequate. Clearly we want that percentage to be zero but it is better than in other sectors. I do not disagree with the noble Baroness about the demographic challenges we face. As I said in my first Answer, we are trying to put more funding in, to recruit more staff and raise quality now that we have this national threshold. We hope to decrease variation and then look for a long-term solution that will solve this problem that we have all been wandering around for the last 20 years.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, as a care provider for the last 17 years I say humbly to my noble friend that we need to pay care staff a proper wage so that they can actually have a life that is not just about existing. I am told constantly that local councils are being given extra funding. It is not trickling down to the providers and there needs to be a really serious look at the level of funding and at what we are entitled to pay care staff, because with Brexit around the corner we are going to need ever more of our own homegrown talent to provide those places.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness speaks from experience here. On the point about paying care staff, one of the greatest beneficiaries from the new national living wage are and will be care staff. That will increase over time and is one of the reasons why increased funding needs to go into the system. She also talks about the interface with local authorities. She will know that it is a very fluid market, with providers registering and deregistering all the time. We are trying to make sure that there is a proper review of the quality of the interface between local authorities and the National Health Service. Some do it very well, with very few delayed transfers, while others have huge problems. We get people in beds who should be in a care setting, either in a nursing home, in community care or at home. Those reviews are taking place and should highlight some practice that is not good enough. The challenge will be to work with those councils to make sure they do something about it.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the CQC has drawn attention to the loss of 4,000 nursing home beds in the last year? Does he accept that this is a loss that the NHS could do without? What action are the Government taking to increase the number of nursing home beds in this country?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Lord is quite right that the CQC report highlights that. It also highlights a broadly stable residential care home situation. What is changing the nature of care provision is the increase in the amount of domiciliary and community-based care that is being provided; we are seeing a shift there. The CQC report also shows big discrepancies across the country in terms of the proportion of beds per head of population. That is one thing we are trying to address, to make sure there is much more evenness of care.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the CQC report emphasised the need to co-ordinate care by stating that in future it will report not only on the quality of care in individual providers but on the quality of co-ordination between services. It quotes examples of services working together using technology and innovation to share data and improve care. How do the Government plan to encourage this approach? Will they look at funding models to make sure that they encourage co-ordination rather than deter people from co-ordinating?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point. We will certainly look at those funding models. Co-ordination, as we have been saying, is the way forward, because if you are a user of care in your eighties, you may be visiting a GP, you may be based in a nursing home, and to you, it ought to be one system and you ought to be travelling through it smoothly. Of course, we know that that is not the case at the moment, and the noble Baroness is quite right to highlight that there are great gains to be made, whether from having pharmacists in nursing homes or from having GPs coming to visit. Her point about technology and data is a good one. We still have an argument to win in reassuring people that their data are safe within the NHS so that they can be confident that they are used wisely for their direct care. That is the policy area I am now responsible for, since the election, so I am focused on providing that reassurance so that we can unlock the kind of innovation she is talking about.
Baroness Pitkeathley (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister able to give us any idea about when we may see the Green Paper for which some of us feel we have been waiting 40 years? Will it contain any revisiting of the Government’s response to the so-called Dilnot proposals about a cap on social care costs, about which there was so much confusion in the general election?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness but I am not able to give her any more details on the timing of the consultation.
Lord Bichard (CB)
Will the Minister reassure the House that the long-delayed Green Paper will address not just resources but some of the other points that have already been raised, and maybe one or two others? For example, how do we recruit, retain and motivate a high-quality workforce? How do we provide urgent support for many small providers, which are struggling to survive, let alone improve the quality of the service? How do we make use of the digital potential that exists, which is currently not being realised? How do we get a real integration of health and social care services around the client? Will he reassure the House that these issues will be addressed explicitly?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The consultation is looking primarily at the funding situation but in doing so it will have to consider the shape of the market and making sure that the whole system is put on a sustainable basis for the future, which obviously will involve looking at some of the issues the noble Lord has highlighted.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on making £2 billion available to social care. That is very welcome, but there is great variation in social care across the country which needs to be tackled, as well as the need to focus and co-ordinate services between acute and social care. Can my noble friend the Minister say exactly how NHS England will be helped to ensure that this is tackled quite urgently?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness is quite right. In social care and the delayed transfers of care from hospitals, there is a huge amount of variation across the country. The additional money that was announced in the Budget comes with a variety of conditions, which has not been the case previously. One of these is to reduce the amount of variation in the quality of services available from local authority to local authority. For the first time, a set of reviews is taking place of local authorities—some of which will be facing challenges, others will not yet be—to make sure that that interface between the NHS and social care, which is one of the big problems where the system falls down, is looked at; that people are moving forward smoothly; that money is crossing those silos; and that the kind of service being provided is joined up and is actually providing for the needs of the people affected.
Race Disparity Audit
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the race disparity audit, which the Government are publishing today through a new website—Ethnicity Facts and Figures—and a summary report, which I have ordered to be placed in the Library of the House. The audit was announced just over a year ago by the Prime Minister as part of her commitment to tackling injustices in society. This exercise has been unprecedented in scale, scope and transparency. It covers detailed data on around 130 different topics, from 12 government departments.
The first product of the audit is the website, which is created to be used by all citizens. It has been developed through extensive engagement with members of the public from across the UK, public service workers, NGOs and academics. I hope honourable Members will agree, once they have had the chance to examine it, that the website is clear and user-friendly. Each section of the website includes simple headlines and charts, and allows users to download all the underlying data.
Although the past few decades have witnessed great leaps forward in equality and opportunity in British society, this audit shows that there is much more still to do if we are to end racial injustice. In itself, that will sound to honourable Members like an unsurprising conclusion. However, the audit adds a lot more clarity and depth to that single challenge. It tells us in which public services there are the largest disparities, whether those are increasing over time or diminishing, and about the influence of poverty and gender on the wider picture. For example, black people were more than three times more likely than white people to be arrested and more than six times more likely to be stopped and searched.
There are three issues that demonstrate the added complexity of the data. First, there are significant differences in how ethnic minorities are doing in different parts of the country. For example, while employment rates are generally higher for white people than for ethnic minorities, there is a larger gap in the north than in the south. Also, if people are expecting a report that is relentlessly negative about the situation for ethnic minorities in Britain today, I am pleased to say that it is simply not the case that ethnic minorities universally have worse outcomes. For example, people of Indian and Pakistani origin have similar levels of homeownership to white people, though this is not true of other ethnic minorities. Secondly, on some measures there are very significant differences between ethnic minority groups. Education attainment data show there are disparities in primary school which increase in secondary school, with Asian pupils tending to perform well and white and black pupils doing less well, particularly those eligible for free school meals. Finally, on other measures, it is white British people who are experiencing the worst outcomes, for example in relation to self-harm and suicide in custody or smoking in teenagers.
In terms of what happens next, the data set out on the website present a huge challenge, not just to government, but also to business, public services and wider society. We hope this website will contribute to a better-informed public debate about ethnicity in the UK and support local managers of public services to ask how they compare to other services.
On behalf of the Government, I have committed to maintaining and extending the ethnicity facts and figures website. More importantly, I commit that government will take action with partners to address the ethnic disparities highlighted by the audit. We have made a start through initiatives such as the Department for Work and Pensions taking action in 20 targeted hotspots. Measures in these areas will include mentoring schemes to help those in ethnic minorities into work and traineeships for 16 to 24 year-olds offering English, maths and vocational training alongside work placements.
In the criminal justice system, I want to thank the right honourable Member for Tottenham for his recent report, and I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Justice will be taking forward a number of recommendations made in the recent Lammy review. These will include developing performance indicators for prisons to assess the equality of outcomes for prisoners of all ethnicities, committing to publish all criminal justice datasets held on ethnicity by default and working to ensure that our prison workforce is more representative of the country as a whole.
In addition, the Department for Education will take forward an external review to improve practice in exclusions. This will share best practice nationwide and focus on the experiences of those groups who are disproportionately likely to be excluded. The House can expect further announcements on future government work to follow in the coming months.
The approach the Government are taking is “explain or change”. Where significant disparities between ethnic groups cannot be explained by wider factors, we will commit ourselves to working with partners to change them. The race disparity audit provides an unprecedented degree of transparency into how ethnicity affects the experiences of citizens. It will be a resource which tells us how well we are doing as a society in ensuring that all can thrive and prosper, and I commend it to the House”.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this Statement this afternoon. As he said, much more work needs to be done. It is good that we now have the Government’s race audit, although it is a shame it was delayed from its original release date in July. I am not sure why the Government made that decision to delay it.
The outcome of this race audit cannot come as a surprise to the Prime Minister. After all, in 2010 she wrote to the then Prime Minister that there is a real risk that women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people would be disproportionately affected by proposed cuts. But now, as Prime Minister, knowing full well the damage that would be caused by these cuts, she has said nothing to remedy the problems she foresaw as Home Secretary and has in fact made them worse.
We need solutions and a sustained effort to really tackle these injustices, and the Government are simply not yet providing those. I was pleased that the Minister mentioned the mentoring schemes. It is always good to have mentoring schemes for people, but we believe they are not ambitious enough. The closure of Sure Start centres and the closure of Connexions were mistakes made by this Government—knowing full well the disproportionate effect that these closures would have on groups with protected characteristics.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will he confirm how many groups and organisations were consulted as part of the race audit? Will he confirm whether there are plans to extend the audit’s analysis to devolved regions such as Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland? Can he confirm for the House what steps the Government will take to tackle the racial disparities exposed in this audit and other reports released recently? What is their timescale for taking action, and what framework will they be using to judge improvements?
In the last general election, Labour issued a manifesto to tackle problems of discrimination. We said we would introduce equal pay audit requirements on large employers, implement the Parker review recommendations to increase ethnic diversity on the boards of Britain’s largest companies, and enhance the powers and functions of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is what we plan to do when we are in government.
I hope the Minister is able to provide us with answers to these questions today. We need a Government willing to take decisive action to tackle racial inequalities and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about how this audit will be implemented.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, this audit shines a light on the prejudice and bias that continue to blight the lives of black and ethnic minority members of our communities. It lays out the challenges we face as a society, which cross party lines. Mrs May, our Prime Minister, commissioned this audit and she cannot now shy away from tackling the causes, which are cuts to public services and a shrinking state. This comes alongside another report, by the Runnymede Trust, on the impact of austerity on black and minority ethnic women in the United Kingdom. It shows that BME households are being hardest hit by austerity, with a drop in living standards of 19.2% for black households and 20% for Asian households.
I have some questions for the Minister. Will each department be required to put forward a plan setting out why these disparities exist and how they will close the gap? What are the next steps? For example, will there be a Cabinet committee looking at this? Given the Prime Minister’s commitment to this cause, perhaps she might chair it herself. Finally, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission’s budget has been cut by almost 70% since it was created, and its current budget will be cut by a further 25% over the next four years. The Government are talking the talk by publishing this audit—but will they walk the walk and make available the resources to tackle these terrible problems that we face?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to both noble Baronesses for their broad welcome of the publication of these statistics. On the question of the delay, no one has ever done this before and there was no template for us to follow. No other country has done this. It was a complicated exercise. We wanted to make sure that the data were of the right quality, and that has contributed to the delay from the hoped-for date earlier this year. We are taking steps to address some of the problems that have been mentioned, particularly the 20 hot spots, which we have not announced yet, where there will be special measures by the DWP to help those who find it difficult to get into work, such as mentoring, which the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, mentioned, traineeships and other steps to help people into work.
The noble Baroness asked a good question about the devolved regions. The Minister, my noble friend Lord Bourne, is meeting the devolved regions tomorrow. The initial indications are that the Welsh Assembly is quite anxious to participate but so far the Scottish Parliament has been somewhat more reluctant, as my right honourable friend said in another place. The devolved regions hold some of these statistics. We have provided only statistics for data that are reserved; the devolved Assembly and the Scottish Parliament have many of the local data. I very much hope that they will either join in this or take it forward in their own way. As I said, there is a meeting tomorrow to take this matter forward.
On the question of who was involved, the race disparity audit that was published at the same time said:
“Ongoing and wide-ranging consultation with potential users of data has helped identify questions of public interest and concern, and to understand how to present the data objectively and meaningfully in a way that makes sense to users and commands their confidence. This has included roundtable discussions with NGOs, public service providers and academics, and engagement with the public”.
So there was a fairly extensive consultation exercise before we published this.
In response to further questions that were asked, we expect there to be further announcements in due course from other government departments taking the agenda forward. In response to the noble Baroness from the Liberal Democrat Benches, there will be an interministerial group where all the departments involved will be represented to take it forward. The noble Baroness will be familiar with the Parker report, which looked at representation on executive boards, and we need to take that agenda forward. However, this is not just a matter for the Government; it also poses some difficult questions for those in the private sector.
“Explain or change” applies to the Government as much as to everyone else. We will have to explain why these figures are as they are. If there is not a good explanation then we will have to make changes, and we will come forward with those in due course.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, in the 1950s and 1960s it was perfectly legal to put adverts in shop windows saying, “No blacks or coloured people”. There has been a gradual improvement, but in the past few years here, in the United States and in much of Europe it has gone the other way. There is a lot of xenophobia, which was very evident in the Brexit debate. Does the Minister agree that to some extent that explains why we have this continuing problem?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord is right to say that we in this country have made enormous progress. I was looking at the Equality and Human Rights Commission report Is Britain Fairer?, which says:
“The reader will find that Britain has become fairer in many areas. We should be proud of and celebrate these advances. If we do not recognise the positives, we run the risk of feeding an untrue and excessively negative narrative that suggests everywhere you look we are becoming more divided and less fair as a nation”.
I think there has been enormous change and improvement in social attitudes, underpinned by relevant race equality legislation. The noble Lord is right that there was a spike—I hope it was just a spike—after the referendum result, and that poses a challenge to all those government departments with responsibility for promoting good relationships. There is particular responsibility for the police on the law and order front. In publishing this document, we recognise that we have progress to make in a wide number of areas.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my welcome for the publication of this report. Sunshine is often the best disinfectant, and bringing transparency to areas where more work needs to be done to tackle persistent inequality and prejudice is most welcome. I encourage the Government to develop a proactive agenda to tackle these issues. At the same time, there is some positive evidence in the report, particularly regarding the British Indian community, which comes top in a number of earnings and education indicators. For example, 35% of British Indians earn more than £1,000 a week, versus an average of 24% in that income bracket across the population; and 14% of British Indian children achieve three A grades or better at A-level. Does my noble friend agree that the British Indian community provides a role model for how a minority group can integrate successfully into British society and make a positive and outstanding contribution to this country?
Lord Young of Cookham
I agree with my noble friend. One positive fact that emerged from this audit was that 85% of ethnic minority people believe that they are British and identify very strongly with their community. That is a very positive sign. My noble friend is right that in many of these indicators, the Indian community does well; but, by contrast, they reveal that the Bangladeshi community does not do nearly so well on many of the same indicators. We need to understand the reasons, address them and see whether we can bring those members of the ethnic minorities who do not achieve quite as well as the Indian community in the respect that my noble friend mentioned up to the same standard.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, although, let me be clear, the Church of England has nothing to teach anyone else on this subject—our record is not a good one—in the diocese of Chelmsford, where I serve, which includes the east London boroughs, which have some of the most diverse communities in Europe, we have found that of course there is racism and xenophobia but there is also what has been explained to me as unconscious bias. It is not quite the same as racism; it is those things which prevent us from seeing each other as clearly as we need to. Both in the Church of England generally and in the diocese where I serve, we have done a lot of training over the past couple of years to help people to see their own unconscious bias towards people, and this is already bearing fruit in the church context with black and global majority people coming forward into positions. I wondered whether the Government had looked at that both for us and in wider society to try to move the debate on beyond the binary thing of, “Somebody is a racist or they are not”.
Lord Young of Cookham
I welcome the work which the right reverend Prelate has been doing in east London, in his diocese. If there is a template there, a model of working which can have wider application, of course the Government would be interested. One thing that I discovered from going on to the website this morning, which I had not appreciated before, is that black people are disproportionately more likely to engage in voluntary work than any other group. If one digs into the audit, there is a lot of good news there about ethnic minorities, which I hope we can now put in a wider domain. If we can build on the good work that the Church has done in east London and apply it to some other areas where there are big ethnic minority populations, the Government would be delighted.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, congratulations have already been received by the Government on publishing this race disparity audit. It has been well presented and the Prime Minister has done the country a good service. I understand from inside information that, of the 25 people around the Cabinet table this morning, there was only one under 40 years of age. It would be interesting to see the list of those who attended the Cabinet discussion this morning and to know why there was only one person under 40, given that some of the information made available to the newspapers reveals that many of the key factors affect those under 30. Does it indicate whether the Government’s relationships with people under the age of 30 may need a little enhancement and support to ensure that this race equality audit is put into place?
As the Minister referred to the fact that he looked at the audit this morning, perhaps he could also tell the House whether it says anything about the race profiling undertaken by customs officers, border control and police services. Although that may not necessarily relate to education or employment, it is infuriating, especially for black people, who find themselves consistently stopped, undermined and picked on. Sometimes it actually reverses their commitment to nationhood.
Lord Young of Cookham
In response to the last question posed by the noble Lord, I have looked at the website and I think I am right in saying that it does not contain the data to which he has referred about those who are stopped at border control or customs. I shall double check that and, if I am wrong, I shall write to him.
On the broader point, I was not sitting around the Cabinet table this morning but, if I had been, I would certainly not have scored as being under 40. I shall make some inquiries but, in the Statement made by my right honourable friend in the other place, he said that there were 12 representatives of NGOs at that meeting and that there was a universally positive response. The representative of Black Vote said that this was a real opportunity to make transformational change.
I take the noble Lord’s point about those under 40. My party has a challenge in that regard, which we need to address between now and the next general election. But one good thing about the audit data is that they break down by age, showing for example that those offenders most likely to reoffend are between the ages of 15 and 18. So there is a lot of information about age there—but it is also broken down by ethnicity, which will help us to tackle particular areas in the criminal justice field.
Baroness Howells of St Davids (Lab)
My Lords, I did not intend to say anything on race, because I have spoken for 60 years in this country. There have been many changes, but we are not talking about black people—this is about white people, and the Aryan myth of white superiority. I would be very grateful if somebody did some sort of exercise to bring forth that myth of white superiority. We forget that education came from Africa to the west; noble Lords can look that up and will find out that it is true. I have had 60 years in race relations—and I gave up a career to work in that field because I was fortunate to have had a good education early on in the Caribbean. We do not have people coming to universities here from the Caribbean who are unworthy of taking their place without getting an access course. That is happening in white Britain. Before I die, please show me that you will look at that myth of white superiority and, for God’s sake, end that discussion.
Lord Young of Cookham
I applaud the work that the noble Baroness has done over many years in the field of promoting better community relationships. One thing this audit does is to demolish the myth of white superiority. According to the indicators, white children leaving school do much worse than particular ethnic minority groups. As I said in the Statement, white children are more prone to smoke than children from other ethnic minorities. It helps to identify those areas in which ethnic minorities are outperforming the white British. If I refer to black people, that is the language used in the report, on the website and in the Statement. But I hope that when the noble Baroness has an opportunity to look at the website, she will find that some of her fears about promoting white superiority are allayed.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
The race disparity audit is very welcome. I have worked in the race equality field since the mid-1980s, and I was a commissioner on the Equality and Human Rights Commission when the report to which the Minister referred about how fair Britain is came out some years ago. It is depressing that there are still areas that have not improved, through discrimination, poverty or class—through a variety of factors. It cannot be right that black and ethnic minority children are more likely to be excluded and are less likely to go to a decent university; they are more likely to end up in prison, and they also, perhaps, may have to change their names on their CV to get an interview. Lots of research has been done; those are the stubborn areas that we need to tackle.
A lot of this is new, but an awful lot of it is not and has been around for many years—we have been talking about it for many years. Will the Government undertake to have a coherent race equality strategy which, as my noble friend Lady Burt said earlier, is cross departmental, and whereby Secretaries of State have responsibility in their own departments to tackle this issue and make a difference?
Lord Young of Cookham
I agree with much of what the noble Baroness has just said. If one looks at excluded children, which I did this morning, one sees that those most likely to be excluded are Traveller children and those in the Roma community. Publishing the figures highlights the fact that those children are more likely to be excluded. The noble Baroness is right that there are substantial discrepancies and differences between particular ethnic groups when it comes to exclusion. Now those who run our schools will have to explain or change—that is the whole purpose of the exercise.
On a coherent race equality strategy, again, I hear what the noble Baroness says. As I mentioned a moment ago, there will be an interministerial group to take this forward. I anticipate that there will be interest in both this House and another place now that we have published the report and the Government have explained how they are making progress in eliminating some of the discrimination that has appeared.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, in debating these matters, will my noble friend bear in mind the advice of the late Lord Bauer—the distinguished economist Professor Peter Bauer, at whose feet I was lucky enough to sit many years ago as an undergraduate—that sometimes the word “difference” is more enlightening than “inequality”?
Lord Young of Cookham
Yes—and, again, if my noble friend has time to look at this, he will see that often there are very good reasons why there are differences. But he has given me some good advice and I will stop there.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, the Runnymede Trust has found that 59% of black Caribbean children, 44% of black African-Caribbean children and 61% of mixed race children grow up in a single-parent family, compared with an average in this country of 22%. The figures highlight the fact that it needs to be understood that many Afro-Caribbean fathers are identified as not being with the family at birth but are found to be there when the child is five. I have worked with many young black boys—and, indeed, white working-class boys—who feel the lack of a father. Will the Minister and his colleagues think when they decide how much to fund local authorities in future how harmful it is to such vulnerable families as these when funding for children’s centres and family support groups is cut, as it has been in recent years? These are the families who pay the greatest cost. They need the most support to stay together and intact so that we do not continue the generational breakdown in families.
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Earl is quite right. Again, I looked at some of the figures this morning. Children who grow up in single-parent families are disproportionately likely to have Afro-Caribbean mothers. That, of course, has a knock-on effect on the income of the household, which in turn has a knock-on effect on expectations and in some cases achievement. The specific question of how one recognises these challenges in the formula for the revenue support grant is one that I will pass on to the Secretary of State at CLG to make sure that he takes it on board as we look at next year’s RSG.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to follow up on the previous comments of the noble Earl from the Cross Benches, which relate to what my noble friend Lady Howells said. We need to address busting the myths about one of the issues, which is the impact of families living with a single parent and the claim that there is always an impact. That myth is always about black parents. There are countless single-parent families in this country and many children have done well, so we should not continue to perpetrate this myth because it adds to the burden of racism that many families have to face. I welcome the audit and whatever it is going to deliver, but it would be very helpful if the Minister said what the timeframe is for explaining and for action. The noble Lord himself will know about some of the issues around disparity and discrimination—whatever we wish to call it—and the challenge of making ourselves a more equal and just society. He has many long-standing associations with Tower Hamlets. He knows all about this issue, as do other members of the Government. I want to be told about the parameters of action to be taken rather than about the audit or the changes envisaged, because change has obviously not taken place over a generation. Therefore, I would welcome a little more certainty about the timeline.
Lord Young of Cookham
Change will not happen overnight; this will take some time to put right. On the first part of the noble Baroness’s intervention, there need be no more myths about growing up in single-parent families because the figures are now clearly set out on the website. She can see that there are significant variations according to the ethnicity of the family. The figures are there and we have to respond to that. On the question of government responses, I announced in the Statement some action that is being taken by the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Work and Pensions. There will be other announcements in due course from other departments as they take the agenda forward.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I commend my right honourable friend the Prime Minister as she has been passionate about getting this issue on the agenda for as long as I have known her, which is a very long time. Could we start first with Whitehall? Many people of all ethnicities come into Whitehall but, when it comes to promotion, we seem to lose people of colour along the way and very few positions across Whitehall are held by people from ethnic minorities. I am not sure that mentoring is the answer, because I do not think you need it if you have an equal level of education.
Lord Young of Cookham
My noble friend is absolutely right. The statistics showing the percentage of those from ethnic minorities employed in the public sector are in the report. She is right to say that there is good representation at the lower levels but much less as one goes up the chain. Again, that is a question for the Government to explain or change. If one looks at the Armed Forces, the Army has a relatively good record with some 10% of personnel coming from ethnic minorities, but the RAF has a less good record. Therefore, there are challenges for the Civil Service and those in the public sector to look at the figures and establish why those from ethnic minorities are disproportionately represented in the less well-paid posts.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this report because it focuses on an issue that affects the whole of society, even more so than when I came here from Trinidad as a 10 year-old in 1960. I was born in Trinidad so I knew that I was worthy and I knew about my history, but a lot of young black and Asian minority children do not know about their history. It is Black History Month so I have visited schools, universities and prisons. Just this morning I visited a school in Bedfordshire to talk about Black History Month. When I visited prisons, I realised just how much black men did not know about their history and how they felt let down by the education system not focusing on who they are. To move forward you need to know where you have been and where you have come from. What are the Government doing to create a safety net and ensure that BAME children do not fall through it? We need a safety net to help and protect them and show them that they belong. We owe it to them and we owe it to our young people—not just black people but white people too—to teach them about black history and how we can all move forward to make our country, Great Britain, great again.
Lord Young of Cookham
Again, I commend the work that the noble Baroness has done in this field. If I may say so, she is an admirable role model for those in our country. The specific question she raises—the extent to which one wants to change this issue and inject into it the dimension to which she referred—is one for the Department for Education and the national curriculum. I very much hope that schools will teach not just British history but history more generally, particularly in those areas where they have children coming from a wide variety of different backgrounds. I will certainly pass that suggestion on to my noble friend.
Data Protection Bill [HL]
Tuesday 10th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection Act 2018 View all Data Protection Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to be moving the Second Reading today and look forward gratefully to the help of my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Home Office and my noble friends Lady Chisholm and Lady Vere.
New technologies have started innumerable economic revolutions, and the pace of change continues to accelerate. It is 20 years since we passed the last Data Protection Act, and since then we have seen the explosive growth of the world wide web, the rise of social media and faster and faster connectivity, powering new devices like the smartphone. The nature of developing technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning suggests that continuing transformation and change is the norm.
This has not escaped the notice of your Lordships’ House. Earlier this year we debated many of these issues in the new Digital Economy Act. We have a new Select Committee to examine artificial intelligence, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who is not able to be in his place today as the committee is hearing evidence this afternoon. In March, the Communications Committee published a timely report on growing up with the internet, and just before the Summer Recess the EU Select Committee gave us a very helpful report on data protection. Just yesterday I moved the Second Reading of the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill, which will help pave the way for a full-fibre future and 5G. Personal data is the fuel of all these developments. Data is not just a resource for better marketing, better service and delivery. Data is used to build products themselves. It has become a cliché that data is the new oil.
Twenty years ago data protection rights were used to obtain a copy of your credit record or to find out what information about you a public authority had collected. Today we worry daily about cyberattacks, identity theft and online crime. But we are fortunate that our existing laws have protected us well. For all the technological change I have described, we have successfully preserved our rights and freedoms, and we have strong oversight in the shape of an internationally respected Information Commissioner.
Looking ahead, we have three objectives. First, with all this change we need to maintain trust. Data must be secure, with transparency over how they are used and a proportionate but rigorous enforcement regime in place. Secondly, we must support future trading relationships. The free flow of data across international boundaries, subject to safeguards, must be allowed to continue. Thirdly, we must ensure that we can continue to tackle crime in all its guises and protect national security, making sure that our law enforcement agencies can work in partnership domestically as well as internationally.
The Data Protection Bill meets these objectives. It will empower people to take control of their data, support UK businesses and organisations through the change, ensure that the UK is prepared for the future after we have left the EU, and, most importantly, it will make our data protection laws fit for the digital age in which an ever increasing amount of data is being processed. The Bill meets and exceeds international standards, and, with its complete and comprehensive data protection system, will keep the UK at the front of the pack of modern digital economies.
The Bill makes bespoke provision for data processing in three very different situations: general data processing, which accounts for the vast majority of data processing across all sectors of the economy and the public sector; law enforcement data processing, which allows the effective investigation of crime and operation of the criminal justice system while ensuring that the rights of victims, witnesses and suspects are protected; and intelligence services data processing, which makes bespoke provision for data processed by the three intelligence agencies to protect our national security.
The reform of protections for the processing of general personal data will be of greatest interest to individuals and organisations. We are setting new standards for protecting this data in accordance with the general data protection regulation, known as the GDPR. Individuals will have greater control over and easier access to their data. They will be given new rights and those who control data will be more accountable.
In our manifesto at the general election we committed to provide people with the ability to require major social media platforms to delete information held about them, especially when that information related to their childhood. The new right to be forgotten will allow children to enjoy their childhood without having every personal event, achievement, failure, antic or prank that they posted online to be digitally recorded for ever more. Of course, as new rights like this are created, the Bill will ensure that they cannot be taken too far. It will ensure that libraries can continue to archive material, that journalists can continue to enjoy the freedoms that we cherish in this country, and that the criminal justice system can continue to keep us safe.
The new right to data portability—also a manifesto commitment—should bring significant economic benefits. This will allow individuals to transfer data from one place to another. When a consumer wants to move to a new energy supplier, they should be able to take their usage history with them rather than guess and pay over the odds. When we do the weekly supermarket shop online, we should be able to move our shopping list electronically. In the digital world that we are building, these are not just nice-to-haves; they are the changes that will drive innovation and quality, and keep our economy competitive.
The Bill will amend our law to bring us these new rights and will support businesses and others through the changes. We want businesses to ensure that their customers and future customers have consented to having their personal data processed, but we also need to ensure that the enormous potential for new data rights and freedoms does not open us up to new threats. Banks must still be allowed to process data to prevent fraud; regulators must still be allowed to process data to investigate malpractice and corruption; sports governing bodies must be allowed to process data to keep the cheats out; and journalists must still be able to investigate scandal and malpractice. The Bill, borrowing heavily from the Data Protection Act that has served us so well, will ensure that essential data processing can continue.
Having modernised our protections for general data, in Part 3 the Bill then updates our data protection laws governing the processing of personal data by the police, prosecutors and other criminal justice agencies. The Bill will strengthen the rights of data subjects while ensuring that criminal justice agencies can continue to use and share data to investigate crime, bring offenders to justice and keep communities safe. The Bill does not just implement the recent directive on law enforcement data protection; it ensures that there is a single domestic and transnational regime for the processing of personal data for law enforcement purposes across the whole of the law enforcement sector.
People will have the right to access information held about them, although there are carefully constructed exemptions to ensure that investigations, prosecutions and public safety are not compromised. People will always have the right to ensure that the data held about them is fair and accurate, and consistent with the data protection principles.
Part 4 protects personal data processed by our intelligence agencies. We live in a time of heightened and unprecedented terrorist threat. We are all grateful for the work done to protect us, especially by those whom we see every day protecting us in this House. The intelligence services already comply with robust data-handling obligations and, under the new Investigatory Powers Act, are subject to careful oversight. My noble friend Lady Williams signed the latest commencement order in August to bring into force provisions relating to the oversight of investigatory powers by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the other judicial commissioners.
Data processing by the intelligence agencies requires its own bespoke data protection regime, not least because the GDPR standards were not designed for this kind of processing and data processing for national security purposes is outside the scope of EU law. That is why this part of the Bill will instead be aligned with the internationally recognised data protection standards found in the draft modernised Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to the Processing of Personal Data.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the role of the Information Commissioner, whose role is to uphold information rights in the public interest, promoting openness by public bodies and data privacy for individuals. The Bill provides for her to continue to provide independent oversight, supervising our systems of data protection, but we are also significantly enhancing her powers. Where the Information Commissioner gives notices to data controllers, she can now secure compliance, with the power to issue substantial administrative penalties of up to 4% of global turnover. Where she finds criminality, she can prosecute.
The Bill modernises many of the offences currently contained in the Data Protection Act, as well as creating two new offences. First, as recommended by Dame Fiona Caldicott, the National Data Guardian for Health and Care, the Bill creates a new offence of the unlawful re-identification of de-identified personal data. To elaborate, huge datasets are used by researchers, as well as by those developing new methods of machine learning, and these are often pseudonymised to protect individual privacy. We need to ensure that those who seek to gain through re-identification are clear that we will not tolerate assaults on individual privacy, nor on the valuable data assets that are fuelling our innovative industries.
Secondly, the Bill creates a new offence of altering or destroying personal data to prevent individuals accessing it. Such an offence is already in place in relation to public authorities, but now it will apply to data controllers more generally. We are equipping the commissioner with the powers to deal with a wider range of offending behaviour.
Cybersecurity is not just a priority for the Government but a deep running concern of this House. Effective data protection relies on organisations adequately protecting their IT systems from malicious interference. Our new data protection law will require organisations that handle personal data to evaluate the risks of processing such data and implement appropriate measures to mitigate those risks. Generally, that means better cybersecurity controls.
Under the new data protection framework, if a data breach risks the rights and freedoms of an individual, data controllers—both for general data and law enforcement purposes—are required to notify the Information Commissioner within 72 hours of the breach taking place. In cases where there is a high risk, businesses must notify the individuals concerned. This landmark change in the law will put the need for serious cybersecurity at the top of every business priority list and ensure that we are safer as a nation.
As we move into the digital world of the future, the Data Protection Bill will both support innovation and provide assurance that our data is safe. It will upgrade our legislation, allowing the UK to maintain the gold standard in this important field. Of critical importance, strong protections of personal data are the key to allowing free flows of data to continue between the EU and UK as we build a new partnership. I look forward to hearing noble Lords’ comments on the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill. I look forward to working with him, in what seems to be a never-ending stream of legislation from the previously rather quiescent DCMS. This is our sixth Bill together, and long may it continue.
The Minister mentioned his talented team joining him on the Front Bench—this is a joint venture between the DCMS and the Home Office. On my side, I am joined by my noble friend Lord Kennedy and supported by my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lord Grantchester.
I congratulate the Bill team on the excellence of the paperwork that we have received—I am sure everybody has read it, word for word, all the way through; it is worth it. They are obviously ahead early in the “Bill team of the year” stakes, a prize which they won easily last time on the Digital Economy Bill, and they are building on that.
We also welcome the chance to debate the excellent House Of Lords EU Committee report, not least because of the substantial weight of evidence that it has brought to this debate, which I will refer to later.
This is a tricky Bill to get hold of, first because of its size and volume. It is a bulky package and it is not even complete because we are told to expect a large number of amendments still being processed and not yet available which may—who knows?—change it substantially. Even without that, it has 300 paragraphs and 18 schedules, one of which helpfully signposts the way that the Government intend to make changes to the Bill so that the GDPR becomes domestic law when we leave the EU, even though the amendments to make that happen will actually be made by secondary legislation. This is “Hamlet” without the prince.
The GDPR itself, which runs to 98 paragraphs—or articles, as it calls them—and which will be the new data-processing law that comes into force in May 2018 whether or not we in Parliament have agreed it, is not actually printed in the Bill. That therefore raises the concern that—post Brexit, courtesy of another, separate Bill, probably by secondary legislation—the regulations will become UK law without ever having been scrutinised by either House of Parliament. I wonder if other noble Lords share my feeling that this is a bad precedent and, if so, what we might do about it. I suspect that this decision might have made sense were we to stay in the EU but we are going to leave, so there is a gap in our procedures here. That is compounded by the fact that this is a Lords starter Bill that comes to us without the benefit of consideration in the other place, and particularly without the usual evidence-taking sessions that ensure that a Bill meets the needs of those affected by it.
I have a suggestion: given the expertise displayed in the EU Committee report HL Paper 7 that we are debating in parallel today, could the authorities arrange for that committee to look carefully at the Bill and at the GDPR in its printed form and arrange for that committee to bring forward either a report or simply a testimony about what the GDPR contains, how it is reflected in the Bill and how it works? It would help the House to do the job that we ought to be doing of scrutinising this legislation. I gather that the committee is due to meet shortly and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who speaks in a few minutes, might respond if he can. I am sorry for embarrassing him if he is not prepared for that.
The Government claim that the Bill,
“will bring our data protection laws up to date”,
and,
“ensure that we can remain assured that our data is safe as we move into a future digital world”.
We will probe that rather florid assertion in Committee over the next few weeks, paying particular reference to the needs of business to have certainty about the rules that will be applied in this key sector of our economy in the medium and long term and the need for consumers, particularly vulnerable people and children, to be better supported and protected in this brave new digital world. What we are embarking on here is the precursor to the legislative nightmare that will accompany all our Brexit discussions. As we will hear from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and others from the EU Committee who considered this, the key issues are what will happen if we leave the Common Market and the customs union, and whether there are any ways in which the Government can secure unhindered and uninterrupted flows of data between the UK and EU post Brexit. The report concludes that,
“any arrangement that resulted in greater friction around data transfers between the UK and the EU post-Brexit could hinder police and security cooperation. It could also present a non-tariff barrier to trade, particularly in services, putting companies operating out of the UK at a competitive disadvantage”.
In his opening remarks, the Minister said all the right things about the Government’s commitment to unhindered and uninterrupted flows of data post Brexit, but the Bill comprehensively fails to set out how they plan to deliver that outcome. Worse, it may contain measures in Parts 3 and 4 that make it impossible to achieve the “adequacy” agreement, which is the only card that they have left to play post Brexit. You could not make it up.
Some 43% of EU tech companies are based in the UK and 75% of the UK’s data transfers are with EU member states. Even if the Bill successfully aligns UK law with the EU data protection framework as at 25 May 2018, that does not mean that the Bill makes proper provision for the future. On the UK’s exit from the EU, the UK will need to satisfy the European Commission that our legislative framework ensures an “adequate level of protection”, but achieving a positive adequacy decision for the UK is not as uncontentious as the Government think. Under article 45, the GDPR requires the European Commission to consider a wide array of issues such as the rule of law, respect for fundamental rights, and legislation on national security, public security and criminal law when it makes its decision. As has already been pointed out by several commentators, the current surveillance practices of the UK intelligence services may jeopardise a positive adequacy decision, as the UK’s data protection rules do not offer an equivalent standard of protection to that available in the rest of the EU. We will need to pursue this disjuncture in Committee.
The Government seem to have lost sight of the need to ensure continuity during the transition period and afterwards. Surely they must have measures in place to reassure businesses that they will pass the adequacy test and ensure “stability and certainty”, particularly for SMEs, as pointed out by the European Union Committee. If there was any doubt about the importance of this, I draw the attention of your Lordships to a briefing from the ABI which states that the ability to transfer data between firms in different jurisdictions is of particular importance to our insurance and long-term saving providers, who rely on data to provide their customers with the best products at the best price. The association goes on to say that:
“Losing the ability to access, and make use of, European and international data flows risks isolating the UK from the increasingly globalised market. Creating a system where UK insurers have to abide by dual or multiple regulatory systems in order to transfer data internationally will create inefficiencies, legal uncertainty, and risks damaging the global competitiveness of UK insurance”.
My second point was also raised by the European Union Committee. It is about how to establish sustainable longer-term arrangements, about which the Bill is remarkably silent. Even if the UK’s data protection rules are aligned with the EU regime to the maximum extent possible at the point of Brexit, once we leave the EU, policies will be developed within the EU 27 without our input. The EU will inevitably amend or update its rules either by new regulations or by case law derived from ECJ/EU decisions. This is of course a toxic issue for Brexiteers, but it needs to be addressed in the Bill and, no doubt, in many other areas. Perhaps a way forward here would be for the Information Commissioner to have a duty placed on her to make regulations which reflect the changes taking place in the EU, or the Bill could provide for some form of lock-step arrangement under which statutory instruments would be triggered when UK laws need to be amended. We will look at this again in Committee.
I turn now to data protection. Effective, modern data protection laws with robust safeguards are central to securing the public’s trust and confidence in the use of personal information within the digital economy, the delivery of public services and the fight against crime. Ensuring that the public can trust that their data is handled safely, whether in the public or the private sector, is important for everyone. If we cannot get this right in the Bill, people will not benefit to the fullest extent possible from the new data-handling services which are coming on stream now and in the future. We welcome the Government’s decision—a rather surprising one—to gold-plate some of the requirements of the legal enforcement directive, particularly the fact that the Bill will ensure that for the first time the data protection regime applies to the intelligence services. Indeed, as the Information Commissioner has observed, including these provisions in a single piece of primary legislation is welcome, although there is a need for much more detail about how this will work in practice.
My point on this is that there seems to be an imbalance in the Bill, with much more consideration being given to the rights of data subjects. At a time of increasing concern about the use and misuse of personal data, is there not a need for a broader and far more ambitious set of regulatory structures for data capitalism, as it is now called? The big tech companies have for far too long got away with the conceit that they are simply neutral platforms. They are not; they are active media and information companies, and their stock market valuations are based on the data flows they generate and how they can be monetised. With that role surely should come broader societal responsibilities, but the Bill does not go into this area at all. There is nothing about regulating fake news, no attempt has been made to ensure that data companies are covered by competition and other regimes which apply to media companies, and there are no proposals to deal with the allegations being made about undue influence by social media companies and others on politics and elections both here and in the US. We will certainly table amendments in this area.
On more concrete issues about the rights of data subjects, we have a number of issues to pursue, although today I shall concentrate on only three: children and the “age of consent”, the rights of data subjects in relation to third-party use of their data, and the proper representation of data subjects. I shall end with some thoughts on the Leveson report and its implications for this Bill.
The Bill proposes to set the age at which children can consent to the processing of their data through “information society services” which include websites and social media platforms at 13 years. That is a surprising decision and no credible evidence has been adduced to support it. Understandably, there is much concern about this low age limit, particularly as the general data protection regulation gives discretion in a range up to 16 years of age. Last month, the Children’s Commissioner for England said:
“The social media giants have … not done enough to make children aware of what they are signing up to when they install an app or open an account”.
These are often the first contracts a child signs in their life, yet,
“terms and conditions are impenetrable, even to most adults”.
I think we can all say “Hear, hear” to that. The commissioner also said:
“Children have absolutely no idea that they are giving away the right to privacy or the ownership of their data or the material they post online”.
Setting an age limit of 13, or even 16, would almost certainly be illegal under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the UK is a signatory. Perhaps the Government could respond on that point.
The Children’s Society argues that if companies continue to rely on their current practices—whereby they allow only over-13s to have an account but have no age verification process to check that children who are consenting are the age they state themselves to be—then there will continue to be widespread breaches of both the companies’ own rules and this new Data Protection Act. In the Bill, it is unclear how breaches will be handled by the Information Commissioner and what penalties will be put in place for those companies failing to verify age properly.
There is also no consideration in the Bill about capacity, rather than simply age, or protection for vulnerable children. Although there are arguments for setting the age limit higher—or indeed lower—there is surely a need both for proper evidence to be gathered and for a minimum requirement for companies to have robust age verification systems and other safeguards in place before any such legislation is passed. We will pursue that. There is also the question of the overlap this derogation has with the right to be forgotten, which the Minister mentioned. That right kicks in only at age 18; we need to probe why that is the case and how that will work in practice.
During Committee, we want to check that the current rules affecting data subjects’ personal data are unchanged by the new laws. Taking the data of workers and prospective workers as an example, there are concerns about where personal data has been collected: it should be gathered, used and shared by employers only following affirmative, meaningful consent. The recent disgraceful cases of blacklisting come to mind in that respect, and we are also concerned about whistleblowers’ rights. The House has been very strong on that point.
Concern about the increasing use of algorithms and automatic data processing needs to be addressed, perhaps requiring recording, testing and some level of disclosure about the use of algorithms and data analysis, particularly when algorithms might affect employment or are used in a public policy context. Related to that is the question of the restriction on data subjects’ rights in relation to processing data contained in documents relating to criminal investigations. Here, we agree with the Information Commissioner that the provision, as drafted, restricts not just access rights but the right to rectification, the right to erasure and the restriction of processing. We welcome greater clarification on the policy intent behind this as we go into Committee.
We welcome the Government’s proposal for an offence of knowingly or recklessly re-identifying de-identified personal data without the data controller’s consent. The rapid evolution of technology and growth in the digital economy has led to a vast increase in the availability and value of data. There is a clear need for robust safeguards against misuse in this area.
On representation, we welcome the provision in article 80(1) of the GDPR which gives greater ability for civil society and other representative bodies to act on behalf of citizens and mirrors consumer rights in goods and services. However, article 80(2) contains a provision that the Government have chosen not to implement, under which consumer groups that operate in the privacy field can act on behalf of data subjects without a particular complainant. We think that this super-complainant system would help to protect anonymity and create a stronger enforcement framework. We know we are supported in that belief by the Information Commissioner.
The wider question here is perhaps whether data subjects in general, particularly vulnerable ones, have sufficient support in relation to the power of media companies that want to access and use their data. Does any of us know what really happens to our data? The Information Commissioner’s Office already has a huge area of work to cover and may struggle to cover all its new responsibilities. Having a better system for dealing with complaints submitted by civil society bodies may be a good first step, but I wonder whether we might think harder about how this will be organised—perhaps modelled on the Caldicott data guardians.
Finally, there has been a lot of debate since the publication of the Leveson report on the cultural practices and ethics of the press, particularly on the role of a future regulatory framework. There has been far less discussion on Lord Leveson’s recommendations to extend data protection regulation. I reassure the Government that we do not see this Bill as an opportunity to rerun many of the excellent debates or table amendments that we have already considered in your Lordships’ House in recent years. Of course, much remains to be done in this field, and the Government’s lack of action is a national disgrace and a flagrant betrayal of the victims who trusted them and gave them a once-in-a-generation chance to sort out the situation, which they have comprehensively failed to take. However, if amendments of this type come forward, we will consider them on their merits, although a better approach would be for an all-party consensus to try to bridge the gap once and for all between the press and Parliament. I hope to have further discussions on this point.
I give notice that we will table amendments which probe why the Government have decided not to bring forward the Leveson recommendations covering: exemptions from the Data Protection Act 1998, available for investigative newsgathering by journalists; extending the scope for statutory intervention over the press by the Information Commissioner; and changes to the power, structure, functions and duties of the ICO relevant to the press. We will also probe whether the Government intend to implement amendments previously made to Section 55 of the Data Protection Act by virtue of Section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, which would allow terms of imprisonment of up to two years to be imposed for offences of unlawfully obtaining disclosure of personal data. As the Information Commissioner has previously noted, this has much wider application than just to the press, because there is an increasing number of cases of blagging and unauthorised use of personal data which must be stopped.
The Government have set themselves a very tight timetable to pass this Bill into law before the end of April 2018. We will support the main principles of the Bill, but, as indicated above, many areas need to be scrutinised in depth before we can agree to them. I hope that we can gather more evidence and find a way of bringing Hamlet back into the play by looking in detail at the GDPR before it becomes the law of the land. If data is the new oil, we owe it to the country and particularly our children to get this right and to get our laws fit for the digital age.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, in this debate. I am a little puzzled, because some months ago I took part in a rather emotional debate where we said farewell to him on the Front Bench and, since then, they seem to have been working him harder than ever. As the Minister will already have gathered from his intervention, although he can look to the noble Lord’s support for the Bill, in many parts it will be like Lenin’s support for the social democrats: like a rope supports the hanging man. We will look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on many of the points that he has raised, not least on part 2 of Leveson.
I open this debate for the Liberal Democrats because, as the Minister has already explained, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones is chairing the Committee on Artificial Intelligence this afternoon. He will return to the fray later in the Bill’s passage to do a lot of the heavy lifting with my noble friend Lord Paddick.
While wishing the Bill well, our approach will be to try to ensure that individuals have to the maximum extent possible control of their own data and that data are used responsibly and ethically by individuals and by both public and private bodies. This will be of particular concern in law enforcement areas where, for example, the use of algorithms throws up concerns about profiling and related matters.
It is clear that the Brexit decision and timetable will cast a long shadow as we debate the Bill. The Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, has already warned that data adequacy status with the EU will be difficult to achieve within the Government’s Brexit timetable and a major obstacle has been erected by the Government themselves. The European withdrawal Bill makes it clear that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will not become part of UK law as part of the replication process, yet Article 8 of the charter relating to personal data underpins the GDPR. How then will we secure adequacy without adhering to the charter?
As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated, there are many other issues relating to the GDPR and Brexit, particularly the need to examine and test the derogations in the Bill, which I am sure will be raised by colleagues and others and which we will probe further in Committee.
While referring to the Information Commissioner, I put on record our view that the Information Commissioner’s Office must continue to be adequately funded and staffed during this period of great uncertainty. The biggest changes since our debates on the Data Protection Act 1998, or even the early stages of the GDPR, which I was involved in as a Minister at the MoJ from 2010 to 2013, is that the threat to civil liberties and personal freedoms now comes not only from agencies of the state but from corporate power as well.
A week today, on 17 October, the Royal Society of Arts will host a discussion entitled “The Existential Threat of Big Tech”. The promotion for this event says:
“The early 21st century has seen a revolution in terms of who controls knowledge and information. This rapid change has profound consequences for the way we think. Within a few short decades the world has rushed to embrace the products and services of four giant corporations: Amazon, Facebook, Apple and Google. But at what cost?”.
That question prompts an even more fundamental question. We have become accustomed to the idea that some financial institutions are too big to fail. Are we approaching a situation where these global tech giants are too big to regulate? As a parliamentarian and democrat, every fibre of my being tells me that that cannot be so. We have to devise legislation and have the political courage to bring the global tech giants within the compass of the rule of law, not least in their roles as media operators, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated.
These modern tech giants operate in a world where the sense of privacy which was almost part of the DNA of my own and my parents’ generation is ignored with gay abandon by a generation quite willing to trade their privacy for the benefits, material and social, that the new technology provides. That is why we are so indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. Her speech in the debate she initiated in this House on 7 September is required reading in approaching the Bill. That speech contains her oft-repeated warning about sleepwalking to digital disaster, but it also robustly champions the opportunities open to a digitally literate society. I know that she will have an ally in my noble friend Lord Storey in championing better and earlier digital education in schools. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, recently pointed out that Ofcom already has an existing statutory duty to promote digital education. It will be interesting to learn how Ofcom intends to fulfil that obligation.
The elephant in the room always in discussing a Bill such as this is how we get the balance right between protecting the freedoms and civil liberties that underpin our functioning liberal democracy while protecting that democracy from the various threats to our safety and well-being. The sophisticated use of new technologies by terrorist groups and organised crime means that we have to make a sober assessment of exactly what powers our police and security services need to combat the terrorist attack and disrupt the drug or people trafficker or the money launderer. The fact that those threats are often overlapping and interconnected makes granting powers and achieving appropriate checks and balances ever more difficult.
On the issue of crime fighting, I recently attended a conference in the Guildhall, sponsored by the City of London Corporation, the Atlantic Council and Thomson Reuters. Its title was “Big Data: A Twenty-First Century Arms Race”. It could have been called “Apocalypse Now”, as the threat to business, the state and the individual was outlined, from existing technologies and from those fast approaching and identified. I was encouraged that there seemed to be an appetite in the private sector to co-operate with the police and government to ensure that big data can be effectively tamed to ensure better compliance, improve monitoring and reporting and prevent illicit financial flows. I will be interested to know whether the Government have a similar appetite for public/private co-operation in this area.
One point was made with particular vigour by Thomson Reuters. With offerings such as World-Check, it plays a key role in Europe and globally in helping many private sector firms and public authorities identify potential risks in their supply chains, customers and business relationships. It made it clear that it will be needing a number of clarifications in the Bill so that it will be able to continue to provide its important services, and we will probe those concerns and the concerns of others in the private sector in Committee.
In Committee we will also seek to raise concerns brought to us by Imperial College London and others about the efficacy of Clause 162 on the re-identification of de-identified personal data. We will need to probe whether the clause is the best way of dealing with the problem it seeks to address. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, gave it his approval, as did the Information Commissioner, but it is a legitimate question.
There is no doubt that the greater transparency and availability of data provided by government has contributed to citizens’ better understanding of and access to government information and services, but public concerns remain about the use of data in certain sectors. For example, although there are clear benefits to medical research from giving researchers access to anonymised medical data, it remains a matter of concern to the public, the media and the profession itself. Your Lordships will have received a briefing from the BMA on the matter and I am sure probing amendments will be required in Committee.
I am by nature an optimist, so I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, when she tells us, as she did in this House a month ago, that,
“we can harness the power of these technologies to address the other great challenges we face”.—[Official Report, 7/9/17; col. 2110.]
In my youth I read Robert Tressell’s The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, a parable about how working men were complicit in their own exploitation. We are in danger of becoming the 21st century’s ragged trousered philanthropists if we do not have a framework of law by which we can constrain big data from misusing the information we so profligately provide every day in every way.
I do not believe that sprinkling Bills with Henry VIII clauses is an answer to the challenge of future-proofing. Perhaps there is a case for expanding the remit of the National Data Guardian to act as an early warning system on wider data abuse—or that of the Information Commissioner or our own Select Committee—but there is a need. I fear that without some permanent mechanism in place, we will be for ever running up the down escalator trying to match legal protections to technical capacity. But that is no excuse for not trying to improve the Bill before us. We will work with others so to do. Looking at the speaking list, the Minister is not going to be short of good and expert advice on how to do that.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McNally. It is always a good thing when one optimist follows another. As chairman of the EU Home Affairs Sub-Committee, I will speak mainly about the EU Committee’s report on the EU data protection package, which we are debating alongside the Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill.
I understand that it is unusual procedure to debate a committee report alongside a Bill but I believe that it makes sense on this occasion. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, the committee meets shortly—indeed, tomorrow—and I am sure it will consider his proposal, but taking into account how that would fit in with the traditional role of the committee and the programme we already have before us, I am sure the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not go further than that at this stage. We have not yet received a response to our report from the Government, which we await with keen anticipation, but we are pleased that this Second Reading debate has given us an opportunity to bring the EU Committee’s findings to the attention of the House.
In their recent Brexit position paper, The Exchange and Protection of Personal Data—A Future Partnership Paper, the Government said that they wanted to maintain free and uninterrupted data flows with the EU after we leave; and in proposing a new security and criminal justice treaty between the UK and the EU in her recent Florence speech, the Prime Minister laid out her ambition for a model underpinned by, among other things, high standards of data protection. Our report supports this objective: free and uninterrupted data flows matter to us all. But the committee was struck by the absence of clear and concrete proposals for how the Government plan to deliver that objective. The stakes are high, not least because the introduction of greater friction in data transfers could present a real barrier to future trade. It is hard to overstate the importance of cross-border data flows to the UK economy. Getting on for half of all large EU digital companies are based in the UK, and three-quarters of the UK’s cross-border data flows are with EU countries. What is more, any impediments to data flows following our withdrawal from the EU could seriously hinder police and security co-operation, and that means that lives, not just money, are at stake.
In our report, we considered four elements of the EU’s data protection package: the general data protection regulation—the GDPR—which the Data Protection Bill seeks to transpose into UK law; the police and criminal justice directive; the EU-US privacy shield, and the EU-US umbrella agreement. Both the regulation and the directive will enter into force in May 2018, while we are still a member of the EU. The agreements with the US are already in force, but will cease to apply to the UK after our withdrawal. Our report considers the Government’s policy options both short and long term.
The committee wanted first to look at possible data protection arrangements once the UK becomes a third country outside the EU, and we heard evidence on two broad options. The first option is for the UK Government to secure a so-called adequacy decision from the European Commission which would certify that the UK offered a standard of protection that was “essentially equivalent” to EU data protection standards. To date, the Commission has adopted 12 such decisions. The second option would be for individual data controllers and processors to adopt their own safeguards using tools such as standard contractual clauses and binding corporate rules. Our report comes to a clear conclusion that this second option would be less effective. The tools available to individual data controllers, including small businesses, are bureaucratic and would be vulnerable to legal challenges. We therefore agree with the Information Commissioner that the Government should seek an adequacy decision for the UK as a whole. This should offer certainty for businesses, particularly SMEs. It would also follow the approach taken by Switzerland, which has secured an adequacy decision from the EU. I am therefore pleased that the Government’s position paper also calls for a future relationship that builds on the adequacy model.
But there is a fly in this particular ointment. The general data protection regulation only provides for adequacy decisions for third countries, not countries leaving the EU. Decisions also follow a lengthy procedure, so the chances of having an adequacy decision in place by March 2019 are small. So to avoid a cliff edge, we will need transitional arrangements. The Government’s position paper acknowledges this but lacks detail. I hope that in responding to this debate the Minister will update us on the Government’s thinking on transition and perhaps provide some more of that detail. In particular, I hope that as a Home Office Minister she can comment on the risks facing law enforcement. One of the most striking findings in our inquiry was that as a third country the UK could find itself held to higher standards of data protection than as a member state. This will be the case both when the European Commission considers an adequacy decision and when the UK’s data retention and surveillance regime is tested before the Court of Justice, at which point we will no longer be able to rely on the national security exemption enjoyed by member states under the EU treaties. The United States has fallen foul of EU data protection law in the past, and it is not impossible that the United Kingdom will do the same when it is no longer a member state.
On a related theme, the committee also considered whether the UK’s data protection regime would continue to be influenced by EU legislation after withdrawal. What we found was that the general data protection regulation will continue to apply to transfers of personal data from the EU to the UK, significantly affecting UK businesses that handle EU data. If we obtain an adequacy decision, the rulings of the new European Data Protection Board and the Court of Justice will have an effect, albeit indirectly, by altering the standards that the UK will need to maintain an adequate level of protection. This means that there will be no clean break. We will also continue to be affected by EU rules on the onward transfer of personal data to third countries. This could be a particular problem in the field of security, whereby our approach to sharing personal data with, say, the United States could put any adequacy decision at risk. In summary, it seems likely that EU and UK data protection practices will need to remain alive long after we leave the EU.
The Bill that we are debating today reflects a comprehensive EU data protection regime which has been heavily influenced over the years by the United Kingdom. Withdrawal from the EU means that we stand to lose the institutional platform from which we have exercised that influence. The committee’s report therefore concludes that the Government must aim to retain the UK’s influence wherever possible, starting by securing a continuing role for the Information Commissioner’s Office on the European Data Protection Board. I am glad that the Government’s data protection position paper spells out our aim to do just that, but in the longer term, the Government will also need to find a way to work in partnership with the EU to influence the development of data protection standards at both the EU and the global level. The continued success of our commercial and security relations with the EU will depend on that.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for enabling us to discuss the EU data protection package alongside the Data Protection Bill, but I will address my comments to the Bill.
Although I also welcome the rights and protections for children that the Bill offers, not least the right to be forgotten, there is one very important point of detail where reconsideration is urgently needed, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, namely the age of consent for children to give their personal information away online in exchange for products and services without a parent or guardian needing to give their permission. The proposals in Clause 8, as we have already heard, set this age of consent at 13. However, a recent YouGov survey of the public commissioned by the BCS, the Chartered Institute for IT, shows very little support for this. Indeed, a whopping majority of 81% thought the age should be set at either 16 or 18. The Bill’s Explanatory Notes state that the Government have chosen this age—the youngest possible allowed under the incoming GDPR rules—because it is,
“in line with the minimum age set as a matter of contract by some of the most popular information society services which currently offer services to children (e.g. Facebook, Whatsapp, Instagram)”.
In other words, a de facto standard age of consent for children providing their personal information online has emerged, and that age has been set by the very companies that profit from providing these services to children. It might be that 13 is an appropriate age for consent by children to give their information away online, but surely that should be decided in other ways and with much greater reference to the public, and I do not think this has happened. It is certainly at odds with the results of this recent survey.
Moreover, Growing Up with the Internet, the recently published report of the Select Committee on Communications, on which I am privileged to serve, examined the different ways in which children use the internet through the different stages of childhood. We received lots of evidence that lumping together all young people between the ages of 13 and 18 was really not helpful, and that much more research was needed. To bow to the commercial interests of Facebook and others therefore feels at the very least premature, and the example of its usefulness given in the Explanatory Notes—that this would somehow ease access to,
“educational websites and research resources”,
so that children could “complete their homework”—somewhat naïve, particularly in the light of other conclusions and recommendations from the Growing Up with the Internet report, not least that digital literacy, alongside reading, writing and arithmetic, should be considered a “fourth R”; that the Government should establish the post of a children’s digital champion at the centre of government; that children must be treated online with the same rights, respect and care that has been established through regulation offline; and that all too often commercial considerations seem to be put first. So 13 might be the right age but it might not, and at the very least, further consultation with the public and with parents is needed.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate, who has touched on one of the points that have attracted most attention since the Bill was published and began to generate comment. I also hope that the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, might be able to give us some kind of report and assessment on GDPR because, while I think the Bill is important in its own right, it is quite awkward to discuss it in the absence of a very important part of the regulations that will apply in this country or any assessment of the linkages or potential disparities that may exist between the two. I beg that the committee might consider this a priority.
I think the House will agree that this is an important use of legislation, and its scope is—necessarily, I think—very large. There is no real activity in society these days that does not generate data that is processed in some way. Because of the scale of data creation—the figures are extraordinary—usage continues to grow exponentially and personal data is extremely bound up in all that. All of us are affected by the data world. It is increasingly obvious that the functioning of the economy and of public services depends on the availability, accuracy and security of data. It is also key to wealth creation. It has become very clear in the series of strategies that the Government are producing at the moment that data lies absolutely at the heart of the way in which this country will be able to make its way forward and remain a prosperous society, and therefore that we have to get the regulation of data right. It is the basis on which we will advance general knowledge and welfare in society.
The Government have produced a Bill that enables us to tackle detail, and it is the detail on which this House will focus in later stages. It is impossible in a discussion of this kind to do justice to all the angles. I shall in later stages want to focus on the cyber and national security elements, but today I shall focus on what I regard as a potential opportunity, provided we get the regulatory framework right. That is research, which has not featured much so far in our deliberations.
The abundance of datasets that society simply has not had before opens up to us the possibility of types of research which can lead us to enormous discovery and greater beneficial activity and welfare. For instance, it will enable medicine to be put on an essentially personalised rather than generic basis, and the UK should have a huge advantage in the longitudinal data that the NHS possesses, which no other country can rival. It ought to be something where we can make a real pitch for both advancing welfare and increasing wisdom, knowledge and wealth in our society. Obviously, that depends on the use of data being proper and the regulation of it not getting in the way, which is not a theoretical issue. Existing legislation, which comes largely from the EU, combined with the way in which the precautionary principle has sometimes been applied, means that some kinds of trials in some fields in this country have now become so difficult to conduct within the EU that companies engaging in them have decamped elsewhere—often to the United States—to the intellectual and commercial impoverishment of Europe. That is a practical illustration of how important it is to get the balance between trying to regulate against abuse and the opportunities that you should leave open.
As the UK leaves the EU, it will be essential—I use the word “essential”—for the UK to be able to demonstrate adequacy. I hope the Government will assure us on that point and produce the necessary regulatory framework to enable it to happen. Some very big issues here have already been mentioned and I will not repeat them. Adequacy does not mean that the UK should simply cut and paste all EU legal provisions where reliance on national law and derogations are real options in front of us. There are some where we should be availing themselves of them. Nor do we need to make privacy safeguards—which are very important—so demanding that they become self-defeating, standing in the way of benefiting patients, in the case of medicine, and the community more generally.
The Government have made it clear that they want the Bill to support research, which is extraordinarily welcome. I hope that when she replies, the Minister will be able to say something about how the Government will approach the changes that will be needed to deal with research issues in the UK. The Bill classes universities as public bodies, and universities lie at the core of the research community. It is fair enough for universities to be classed as public bodies—that is what they are—but the legislation then denies them the right to invoke public interest, or even legitimate interest, as a basis for their research, and thus obliges them to seek explicit consent when using data at every stage of processing. This becomes very onerous if you are doing a long study. That may on the face of it seem reasonable but, in practice, it can do real harm. The whole point of research is that often at the outset it cannot be 100% certain where it may lead or whether further processing or trials may be necessary. You can get a situation in which unexpected and unplanned-for research is available and could yield real dividends. That is especially true of interventional research. If, as a result of wanting to take it to a further stage, the data processing demands that there should be another round of explicit consent, you get into a situation whereby universities—unlike some of the public bodies in government, which do not have to follow this procedure—have to go round again to all those who offered their personal data in the first place. Seeking the consent of holders of the data anew may simply not be possible, especially in long-term research projects. People move house or become incapable; they also die.
Even if those problems can be overcome—and I think they are real—there is a question of proportionality. Why make consent so onerous that it makes research too difficult in practice and too costly to engage in? There needs to be greater proportionality on this issue and greater alignment between the various bodies that use data in this way, and there needs to be some alternative to consent as the basis for engaging in some kinds of research. Numerous government mechanisms are available, not least ethics committees, which are a key component of modern research and could provide the necessary safeguards against abuse. I recognise that there need to be safeguards, but I suggest that we should use some imagination in how they could be brought about.
In this country, we are very rich in research conducted by voluntary, not-for-profit and charitable bodies. They often supplement what the public sector and universities are unable or unwilling to do, but they do not find a place in this legislation, which posits that all research of value is conducted by “professional bodies”—a definition that excludes many organisations doing valuable work under the terms of the existing law. That law is to be tightened up, which may create difficulties. I am associated with one such organisation, and I want to give a tiny illustration of the problems that arise as a result of being outside the field of professional bodies.
I am involved with an organisation called Unique, which deals with rare genetic disorders, whereby datasets to be useful have to be gathered globally. The number of people with those afflictions is so tiny in any given population that you have to go across the globe to connect useful datasets, which means in turn that you come up against some of the provisions that govern transnational transmission of data. However, the rarity of such individual disorders also makes every patient’s data precious to other affected individuals, because it is potentially a very tight community. No other organisation is dealing with that affliction in that way, and Unique can give support and advice to otherwise lonely parents and their equally isolated medics, who turn to Unique for information about alike cases. There is a network there.
By insisting on onerous consent regimes, we are in danger of disabling such organisations from continuing their pioneering work. In Unique, it is not uncommon for parents who have not been in touch for a long time suddenly to turn to it with a request for help. Try telling families, many of whom are not in the UK but are in third countries, who are coping with the daily stress of caring for a disabled child or adult, that they must be sure to keep up online with the stringent requirements of UK data legislation and that failing to do so will mean that they run the severe risk of no longer being able to get the kind of individualised attention and support that they seek from the very organisations set up to help them. The problem is that the law will lay down the need for the regular reconsultation and re-consent of individuals in very precise ways, and that such individuals might not reply, not understanding the potential hazards involved in failing to do so. One might say that data anonymisation might solve the problem. It solves some problems, but it creates new ones in an organisation set up for certain purposes where the idea is that one fellow sufferer can help another. So piling difficulties on small organisations—there are other difficulties that I have not even mentioned—might lead ultimately to an unwanted outcome, which will be a reduction in effectiveness.
I am not pleading for essential provisions on privacy to be disregarded. That would not be a sensible plea. However, I suggest that we are still in the foothills of the data-driven world and, while it is right to demand rigorous standards and strict enforcement, that is not the same as passing narrow and inflexible legislation that will have unwanted and unnecessary side-effects. The research base of this country needs a wider base for lawful consent and this legislation should recognise that not all valuable research fits into normal categories. I would like the Government to think about the possibility that they should allow for the creation of governance and accountability regimes that will fit special circumstances—and I am sure that we will come across others as we go through this legislation. The existence of the Information Commissioner should not result just in enforcing the law effectively and well; it should provide an opportunity for creativity under her auspices and the ability to create variations on governance regimes where they are needed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the modernisation of data protection law that the Bill represents and the intention to comply with EU law in the regulation and directive—which of course we must do while we are still in the EU. I am particularly concerned with the future and the prospects for an adequacy decision from the Commission if we find ourselves outside both the EU and the EEA. A failure to get such a decision would be extremely harmful for both businesses and other organisations and for law enforcement.
I will look briefly at the past. In 2013 in the European Parliament I was one of the lead MEPs establishing the Parliament’s position on the regulation. I believe that we did a decent job—that was before the negotiations with the Council, which watered it down somewhat. The Government rightly acknowledge that the new system will build accountability with less bureaucracy, alleviating administrative and financial burdens while holding data controllers more accountable for data being processed—backed up by the possibility of remedies for abuse including notable fines. But the purpose is to provide incentives to build in privacy from the beginning through such instruments as data protection impact assessments and having a data protection officer, through data protection by design and default—thereby avoiding getting to the point of redress being necessary. As an aside, the routine registration with the Information Commissioner’s Office will be abolished, and I am not aware of how the ICO will be funded in future, because that was a revenue stream.
I will say briefly that the new rights that are in the regulation include tougher rules on consent, so we should see the end of default opt-ins or pre-selected tick boxes. That will probably be one of the most visible things for consumers; I hope that it does not become like the cookies directive, which has become a bit of a joke. The need for explicit consent for processing sensitive data is important, as is the tightening of conditions for invoking legitimate interests.
There are several matters which will give improved control over one’s own data, which is very important. There is also the right to be told if your data has been hacked or lost—so-called data breach notification—and a strengthened ability to take legal action to enforce rights. All these are considerable improvements. However, I am rather concerned about the clarity of this very substantial Bill. It is explained that the format is chosen to provide continuity with the Data Protection Act 1998, but whether or not as a result of this innocent, no doubt valuable, choice, it seems to me that some confusion is thereby created.
First, there is the fact that the GDPR is the elephant in the room—unseen and yet the main show in town. You could call it Macavity the cat. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, dubbed the Bill Hamlet without the Prince. Traces exist without the GDPR being visible. Is the consequent cross-referencing to an absent document the best that can be done? I realise that there are constraints while we are in the EU, but it detracts from the aims of simplicity and coherence. Apparently, things are predicted to be simpler post Brexit, at least in this regard, when the GDPR will be incorporated into domestic law under the withdrawal Bill in a “single domestic legal basis”, according to the Explanatory Memorandum. Does that mean that this Bill—by then it will be an Act—will be amended to incorporate the regulation? It seems odd to have more clarity post Brexit than pre-Brexit. It would no doubt be totally unfair to suggest any smoke-and-mirrors exercise to confuse the fact of the centrality of EU law now and in the future.
Secondly, we seem to have some verbal gymnastics regarding what “apply” means. The departmental briefing says that the Bill will apply GDPR standards, but then we have the so-called “applied GDPR” scheme, which is an extension of the regulation in part 2, chapter III. Can the Minister elaborate on precisely what activities part 2, chapter III covers? The Bill says that manual unstructured files come within that category. I do not know how “structured” and “unstructured” are defined, but what other data processing activities or sectors are outside the scope of EU law and the regulation, and are they significant enough to justify putting them in a different part?
Looking forward, I want to mention some of what I see as the possible weaknesses in the Bill which might undermine the potential for an adequacy decision for data transfers to the EU and the EEA. The future partnership paper published in August, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, referred to a UK-EU model which could build on the existing adequacy model. Can the Minister explain what that really means? As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said, while national security is outside EU law, when it comes to assessing the adequacy of our level of data protection as a third country, we could find ourselves held to a higher standard because the factors to be taken into account include the rule of law and respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and relevant legislation, including concerning public security, defence, national security, criminal law and rules for the onward transfer of personal data to another third country. Therefore, our data retention and surveillance regime, such as the bulk collection of data under the Investigatory Powers Act, will be exposed to full, not partial, assessment by EU authorities. This will include data transfers, for instance to the United States, which I would expect to be very much under the spotlight, and could potentially lead to the same furore as other transatlantic transfers. I lived through a lot of that. I remember that in 2013 there was a lot of flak about the actions of the UK, but nothing could be done about it because we are inside the EU. However, in the future it could.
There are also a number of aspects in the Bill in which the bespoke standards applied to intelligence agencies are less protective than for general processing, such as data breach reporting and redress for infringement of rights. We will need to give serious thought to the wisdom of these, looking to the future. This will not just be a snapshot on Brexit day or even on future relationship day, because at issue will be how our standards are kept up to scratch with EU ones. The fact that with another part of their brain the Government intend to decline to incorporate the European Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK domestic law, with its Article 8 on data protection, will not help the part of the governmental brain which looks forward to the free flow of data exchange with the EU. Our Government seem to be somewhat at cross purposes on what their future intentions are.
I will highlight, rather at random, some other examples which need reflection. We may need seriously to look at the lack of definition of “substantial public interest” as a basis for processing sensitive data, or even of public interest. I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned the failure or the non-taking-up of the option under Article 80(2) of the regulation to confer on non-profit organisations the right to take action pursuing infringements with the regulator or court. This omission is rather surprising given that a similar right exists for NGOs, for instance, for breach of other consumer rights, including financial rights. Perhaps the Minister could explain that omission.
There is also concern that the safeguards for profiling and other forms of automated decision-making in the Bill are not strong enough to reflect the provisions of Article 22 of the GDPR. There is no mention of “similar effects” to a legal decision, which is the wording in the regulation, or of remedies such as the right of complaint or judicial redress.
Very significant is the power for the Government under Clause 15 to confer exemptions from the GDPR by regulation rather than put them in primary legislation. That will need to be examined very carefully, not only for domestic reasons but also because it could undermine significantly an adequacy assessment in the future.
I will make one or two points in the health and research area. The Conservative manifesto commitment to,
“put the National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care on a statutory footing”,
is not fulfilled in the Bill; perhaps the Minister could explain why not. I would also expect clarification as the Bill proceeds on whether Clauses 162 and 172 sufficiently protect patients’ rights in the use or abuse of medical records. We know this is a sensitive issue given the history in this area, particularly of care data and other attempts to inform patients.
As a final point, I am glad that the research community was broadly positive about the compromises reached in the GDPR, although they were less explicit than the Parliament’s position. That leads to some uncertainty. I took note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said. Therefore, close examination will be merited of whether the Bill provides a good legal framework with sufficient legal basis for research, which many of us have all sorts of interests in promoting, balanced with a respect for individual rights. I very much hope this will be explored carefully at future stages.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, many of my comments on the Bill are about data collection, usage and storage, particularly as it applies to research and, in particular, health research. In that respect, I will reference many of the comments on research made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, including health research generally and health research for people with rare conditions and how that data might be collected.
Given the rapid advances of data science and our capacity to collect, process and store vast quantities of data, such as genomic data for individuals, ensuring that data subjects have clear rights regarding how their data is used is vital. The recently published life sciences industrial strategy acknowledges both that fact and the significant potential of the data held within the healthcare system, especially for delivering better care and for the research sector.
The importance of getting the governance of personal data right is increasingly being recognised. The Royal Society and the British Academy recently published a report on data governance, calling for careful stewardship of data to ensure that the power and value of data are harnessed in such a way as to promote better human health and human benefit.
The Government have indicated that they recognise the importance of maintaining data flows across borders post Brexit, and that is positive. For instance, three-quarters of the health-related data flow from the UK is to the EU. As far as research is concerned, the relevant provisions of the Data Protection Bill mirror the GDPR and so should not generate problems for international collaborative research as it stands. However, it is imperative that international research that requires the transfer of personal data can continue without disruption post Brexit, and the example of rare diseases used by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, is absolutely appropriate. In such situations, research often has to be co-ordinated and conducted across many countries, as there are few individuals with a particular condition in each country. My noble friend Lord Jay referred to the need for adequacy arrangements, and I think that that applies particularly in this area. Therefore, my question to the Minister is: will the UK, as a third country, seek an adequacy decision from the EU for data transfers in this respect?
I now come to Clause 7, which refers to alternatives to consent. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, referred briefly to the problems that arise. For many uses of personal data, explicit consent is absolutely the right legal basis for processing that data, and it is positive that, with the GDPR, data subjects’ rights have been strengthened. Medical research will usually rely on a person providing informed consent for ethical reasons, but it is essential that there are alternatives to consent as a legal basis. That is because GDPR-compliant explicit consent sets a high bar for information provision that it may not always be feasible to meet. In many research resources, such as biobanks—I hope that my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller will refer to that as the chairman of the Wellcome Trust, which is responsible for initiating the UK Biobank—the participants give consent for their pseudonymised data to be used.
In some studies it is not possible to seek consent, either because a very large sample size is needed to generate a robust result, and that would be practically difficult to obtain, or because seeking consent would introduce bias. The use of personal health data without specific explicit consent is sometimes essential for research for the health of the population. If researchers could not process medical records for research without specific explicit patient consent, they could not run cancer registries, which are extremely important in recording all cases of cancer; they could not monitor the hazards of medical procedures, such as the recently discovered implications of CT scans for long-term disease development; they could not assess the unexpected side-effects of routinely prescribed medicines; and they could not identify sufficiently large numbers of people with a particular disease to invite them to take part in trials for the treatment of that disease. The example I would give is the recruitment of 20,000 suitable people for the Heart Protection Study on statins, which has helped transform medical practice throughout the world. I am sure that many noble Lords use statins. This began with the identification of 400,000 patients with a hospital record of arterial disease and that information could not have been accessed without their permission. There are good examples of how this provision would cause a problem as it is enunciated in Clause 7.
We have a well-established, robust system of governance and oversight for non-consensual medical research in the UK; for example, through the Health Research Authority, a confidentiality advisory group, advising on Section 251 approvals to override the common law duty of confidentiality. Patient groups actively advocated for research exemptions during the passage of the GDPR—for example, through the Data Saves Lives campaign. I hope that, in Committee, we might get an opportunity to explore this further to see whether we can somehow modify the Bill to make this possible.
I come now to the public interest issues in the same clause. I understand that the Government intend the functions listed in Clause 7 not to be exhaustive, and to allow, for example, research conducted by universities or NHS trusts to use the public interest legal basis. Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, briefly touched on that. It would provide much-needed clarity and assurance to the research community, particularly to those in the universities, if this could be made explicit in the Bill. A huge amount of research will rely on public interest as a legal basis. The Government have recognised the value of making better use of data for research, and the recent life sciences industrial strategy confirms the tremendous potential benefits for patients and the public if we can unlock the value of data held by public authorities and promote its use in the public interest.
There is currently a highly risk-averse culture in data protection, driven in part because people are unclear about the rules and what they can or cannot do with data for their purposes—hence I referred to the need for better governance of the data. This is why the public interest legal basis matters so much for research. The DP Bill is an opportunity to set out very clearly what the legitimate basis for processing personal data can be. Setting out a clear public interest function for research will give researchers confidence to know when they are operating within the law. If necessary, any specification of research in Clause 7 could be qualified by safeguards to ensure that the legal basis is used only when appropriate.
Can the Minister confirm that research conducted by, for example, universities or hospitals could use the public interest legal basis for processing personal data? Again, we may have an opportunity to explore this further in Committee.
I come now briefly to Clause 18 and the issue of safeguards. Where exemptions from data subject rights exist for research, robust safeguards to protect data subjects’ rights and interests are essential. Clause 18 transposes Section 33 of the Data Protection Act into the new Bill, but it will have wider application than it did in the Data Protection Act. Under the Data Protection Bill, all medical research undertaken without consent as the legal basis will be subject to the safeguards of Clause 18. Clause 18 prohibits the processing of personal data to support measures or decisions with respect to particular individuals. This is clearly problematic for any research that involves an intervention for an individual, which forms the bedrock of our understanding of a vast range of treatment for diseases.
Let me give the House some brief examples. Clinical trials and other interventional research will be undertaken with the consent of patients, which is ethically essential. However, the standard of consent may not be GDPR compliant as it is not always possible to specify how the data might be used beyond the purpose of the trial itself. Consent is therefore not the appropriate legal basis for much interventional research. This means that the safeguards built into the Data Protection Bill for processing or research purposes will apply. Clause 18 should not apply to interventional research. That research requires the processing of personal data to make decisions about the data subject as that is part of the necessary research design and oversight. If researchers cannot process data in that way, they will not be able to process information about a patient’s condition to assess whether they are eligible to participate in a clinical trial. They will not be able to process information about a patient’s condition to determine to which arm of the trial they should be allocated. They will not be able to remove individuals from a clinical trial if evidence arises of potential adverse effects during the course of the trial. There are significant implications.
A potential solution to this problem would be to modify Clause 18 to exempt research that has been approved by an ethics committee or some other such established safeguard. Implementation of the GDPR through the Data Protection Bill is an opportunity to provide clarity for researchers about the legal basis for processing personal data and the requirements of accountability, transparency and safeguards. At present, there is a great deal of conflicting advice about the implications of the GDPR and there is a risk that organisations will adopt an unnecessarily conservative approach to data protection for fear of committing breaches.
I should like to make two minor points. The Government have committed themselves in their response to Caldicott 3 to putting the National Data Guardian on a statutory footing by 2019. Do the Government intend to table an amendment to do that in this Bill? If they do not, the opportunity will be lost.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, mentioned the age of consent for children. The age of 13 seems a ridiculously low age for consent and I would support any amendments that he might introduce.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord and listen to his important comments on health data and particularly consent. I thought how brave he was with his data machine. I would worry that my pearls of wisdom would disappear somewhere into the ether, but luckily that did not happen to him.
This is a welcome and necessary Bill. It is not perfect, but I leap to its defence in at least one respect—namely; the absence of the GDPR regulations themselves from the Bill. On the Government’s website, there is a truly helpful document, the Keeling schedule, which sets out how the GDPR intersects with the text of this Bill. After noble Lords have read it a few times, it comes close to being comprehensible.
I will touch on one or two of the imperfections of the Bill that have been drawn to noble Lords’ attention by bodies such as ISACA, techUK, Citibank, Imperial College and others, and I am grateful to them for doing that. I declare my interest as chairman of the Information Assurance Advisory Council and my other interests as in the register. While the Bill has its flaws, I am sure that in Committee and on Report we shall be able to see whether improvements might be made.
The Commission says that the aim of the new rules is to,
“give citizens back control over their personal data, and to simplify the regulatory environment for business”.
The Commission has estimated that this would lead to savings of around €2.3 billion a year for businesses. But while the rules might make things simpler for businesses in that respect, it is possible that they will also make it easier for citizens to demand to know what information is held on them in paper form as well as in digital form. In fact, that is one of the main purposes of the Bill. So we might find that businesses have more rather than less to do. I wonder whether that has been costed. It is a good thing that citizens should find out what information people hold on them, but we should not pretend that the exercise will be free of cost to businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses estimates an additional cost of £75,000 per year for small businesses, and obviously much more for larger ones.
The Bill contains a bespoke regime for the processing of personal data by the police, prosecutors and other criminal justice agencies for law enforcement purposes. The aim of this, which is laudable, is to,
“ensure that there is a single domestic and trans-national regime for the processing of personal data for law enforcement purposes across the whole of the law enforcement sector”,
but what is the law enforcement sector? To what extent do banks, for example, fall into the law enforcement sector? They have obligations under the anti-money laundering rules to pull suspicions together and to share those across borders—not just across European borders but globally. How are those obligations tied in with the GDPR obligations in the Bill? Businesses, especially banks, will need to understand the interplay between the GDPR regulations, the anti-money laundering regulations and all of the others. The Government would not, I know, want to create the smallest risk that by obeying one set of laws you disobey another.
That sort of legal understanding and pulling things together will take time. It will take money and training for all organisations. There is a real concern that too many organisations are simply hoping for the best and thinking that they will muddle through if they behave sensibly. But that is not behaving sensibly. They need to start now if they have not started already. The Federation of Small Businesses says that:
“For almost all smaller firms, the scope of the changes have not even registered on their radar. They simply aren’t aware of what they will need to do”.
Yet it goes on to say that,
“full guidance for businesses will not be available until next year, potentially as late as spring. The regulator cannot issue their guidance until the European Data Protection Board issue theirs”,
so there is a lot of work to be done.
I shall touch on three other issues at this stage of the Bill. The first is Clause 15, which would allow the alteration of the application of the GDPR by regulations subject to affirmative resolution and that could include the amendment or repeal of any of the derogations contained in the Bill. I share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on that and we will need to look at it.
Secondly, there are various issues around consent. The only one that I will mention is that the Bill provides that the age of consent for children using information society services should be 13. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford mentioned the YouGov survey about that. I actually believe that the Government have this right. It recognises the reality of today’s social media and the opportunities that the digital world brings, and the Bill also protects young people to some extent by the right to have information deleted at the age of 18. TechUK agrees and so does the Information Commissioner. But if the public do not—and from the sounds of the YouGov survey they do not—there is a lot of work to be done in explaining to people why the age of 13 is the right one.
There is a technical issue that I simply do not understand. The GDPR rules state that the minimum age a Government can set for such consent is 13, and in this Bill, as we know, the Government have gone for the minimum, except in Scotland. Scotland is dealt with in Clause 187 of the Bill and there it seems that the minimum age is 12, unless I have this completely wrong. How do the Government square that with the GDPR minimum of 13?
My final point echoes one raised by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, relating to the issue of the re-identification of personal data which has been de-identified, as set out in Clause 162. The clause makes it a crime to work out to whom the data is referring. The very fact that this clause exists tells us something: namely, that whatever you do online creates some sort of risk. If you think that your data has been anonymised, according to the computational privacy group at Imperial College, you will be wrong. It says:
“We have currently no reason to believe that an efficient enough, yet general, anonymization method will ever exist for high-dimensional data, as all the evidence so far points to the contrary”.
If that is right, and I believe it is, then de-identification does not really exist. And if that is right, what is it in terms of re-identification that we are criminalising under this clause? In a sense, it is an oxymoron which I think needs very careful consideration. The group at Imperial College goes on to suggest that making re-identification a criminal offence would make things worse because those working to anonymise data will feel that they do not have to do a particularly good job. After all, re-identifying it would be a criminal offence, so no one will do it. Unfortunately, in my experience that is not entirely the way the world works.
We can come back to all of these issues in Committee and consider them further, and I look forward to the opportunity of doing so. This is not just a worthwhile Bill; it is an essential and timely one, and I wish it well.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I have spoken extensively about the imperative to maximise online safety for children and of the need to provide the right tools to empower parents to help keep their children safe online. This will continue to be my priority as we discuss the Data Protection Bill at all its stages. Parents often feel that their children know rather more about accessing the technology than they do, but they still have a role and responsibility to guide their children, and this extends to the topic before us today—the child’s personal data.
During the extensive debates in this House on the Digital Economy Bill, we discussed what young people below the age of 18 should and should not see, and we voted to require a code of practice for the providers of online social media platforms, which is now Section 103 of the Act. In all our discussions about children during those debates, we were referring to individuals under the age of 18, and there was no dispute on the point. I am disappointed that nowhere in the Data Protection Bill’s 208 pages is a child defined as a person under the age of 18.
This Bill puts before us another dividing line between childhood and the influence of parents, the effect of which is nothing if not confusing. Clause 8 states that a child of 13 years can consent to providing data to information services; that is, they can sign up to social media sites and so on. By contrast, the default in the European General Data Protection Regulation is that a child should be 16 years old to be able to give “digital consent”.
The Explanatory Notes state of the age of 13:
“This is in line with the minimum age set as a matter of contract by some of the most popular information society services which currently offer services to children”.
These are contracts driven by decisions under United States federal law in the form of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998. However, the world of technology and what is at our children’s fingertips has changed significantly since 1998. What might have seemed good then does not mean that it is now.
Furthermore, given all the concerns expressed over recent months about the actions of social media sites, the current contracts of these sites should not be driving government policy; rather, the primary factor should be what is best for children and young people, and what is best should be established through a solid evidence base. I hope that the Minister will set out the Government’s evidence-based reasoning for using the age of 13 and tell us what evidence has been collected by the DCMS from children’s charities and those representing parents and others with an interest in these matters.
Choosing the right age for children to consent to signing up to these websites is far from a straightforward issue. I am aware that there is concern among children’s charities that setting the age of digital consent at 16 could lead to an increase in the grooming of young people by abusers, something that none of us in this House would wish to see. The Children’s Society has said that, if Parliament sets the age in Clause 8 at 16, significant changes should be made to the grooming and sexual offences legislation.
I have also received briefing material from BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT, which suggests that there is significant public support for the age being 16 or 18 and very little support for the age being 13. I understand that parents favour firmly the age of 18, so clearly there is a lot of room for discussion, and no doubt we will have it during Committee. In this context, I would like to suggest that the Government should launch an immediate public consultation on this point so that the House can make a fully informed decision before the Bill moves to the other place. Right now, either end of the age spectrum looks like it has dangers.
I also hope that the Minister will set out some clarification of the intentions of the Bill in relation to the consent of children. Paragraph (6) in Clause 8 includes an exemption for “preventive or counselling services”. Does that mean that a child could give their consent to these websites before the age of 13 or not at all? What is defined as a “preventive or counselling service”?
Clause 187 gives further criteria for the consent of children, but only children in Scotland, where a child’s capacity to exercise their consent should be taken into account, with the expectation that a child aged 12 or over is,
“presumed to be of sufficient age and maturity to have such an understanding”.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that this clause must be read with Clause 8, which provides that the age limit is 13. Is Clause 187 intended to say that the age of digital consent cannot go below 13, which is the position of Article 8(1) of the GDPR, or that there might be circumstances when a child who is 13 cannot consent for genuine reasons? Either of these scenarios seems to give rise to confusion for children, parents and the websites that children access.
After all the detailed discussions about age verification that we had earlier in the year, there is an argument for age verification to apply to Clause 8. How will websites that require a child to verify that they are 13 years old ensure that the child is the age that they say they are without some requirement for the site to prove the age of the child? This is surely a meaningless provision. I hope that when the Minister comes to reply, he will set out the Government’s position on this matter and explain what penalties a website which breaches this age requirement will face.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will give us an update on the publication of the Green Paper on internet safety and how the digital charter that was announced in the Queen’s Speech will play into this Bill during its passage through this House and on to the other place.
Baroness Jay of Paddington (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and to recognise her expertise in discussing the issues around children’s protection. I share many of her ideas. I welcome the Bill, and echo other noble Lords in recognising that it has enormous significance and is very timely. I am grateful for the clear explanation of the EU Committee’s report, which showed the complexities of the continuing interrelationships between this country’s legislation and that of Europe and the way in which we will have to deal with that for many years to come.
At this stage, it is worth reminding ourselves—or at least reminding myself—that we are talking about so many areas of our society today and so many aspects of 21st century life which we are aware that not all of us understand. I know there are many experts in this field. I refer in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who will speak after me, when I say that there are people who clearly understand all the implications of the wider digital economy. However, I put myself among the majority of the population when I say that, although I am aware of the vast number of ways in which the digital revolution impacts on and, perhaps somewhat frighteningly, dominates our everyday lives, it is almost impossible for most of us to know how and by whom our personal data is being collected, with whom it is shared and to whom it is probably sold. Therefore, robust protection of privacy and the ethical regulation of data are essential if we are to continue with our democratic principles.
My noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Stevenson, has already referred to some of the gaps that he sees in this legislation; no doubt those will be referred to and returned to at a later stage. I am concerned that the way some of the Bill is drafted already suggests that we are once again moving into that area where the role of this House and the other place is diminished by so much secondary legislation being proposed. I do not apologise for raising yet again, as I have in previous debates, what I see as a paradox: so much of the support for Brexit depended on the restoration of parliamentary sovereignty to Westminster, yet when we come to look at the detail of some of the Bills to implement some of the implications of Brexit—particularly in this kind of complex area—we find that the presentation is often based on secondary legislation where the role of this House, particularly in scrutinising and revising, and that of the other place, is somewhat diminished. It seems an extraordinary paradox to me.
Noble Lords have already referred to Clause 15, which is particularly worrisome in this area. It would clearly permit alterations by the affirmative action procedure. It will be important, when we debate the detail of the Bill, to recognise that professional bodies are already mentioning that as a concern. As was mentioned briefly by a previous speaker—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord McNally—I draw the attention of the House to the British Medical Association having drawn particular attention to the potential problem of regulations being altered in this way. Noble Lords will be aware that the security of sensitive healthcare information is clearly essential to good medical practice. The BMA is now concerned that the centrally important trust in doctor/patient relationships may be threatened in future if changes in data sharing can be fast-tracked without proper scrutiny through the secondary legislation process. Again, the House will be aware that, as the law stands, healthcare information has special protection through the common-law duty of confidentiality. I hope it will be possible for the Government to assure the House, at the earliest opportunity, that the proposed regulatory powers will not be overridden in that way, and in particular that that crucial safeguard will continue to exist. It may be possible to give a general assurance on the general procedures on regulation.
I turn to some of the questions which arise from what I describe as general ignorance about the uses and abuses of personal data in the global digital economy. My noble friend Lord Puttnam, who is unavoidably away today—and who is a greater expert and far more authoritative in this field than me—wanted to contribute to the debate by suggesting some ways of improving the situation of so-called digital literacy by means of the Bill. With his permission, I will mention his proposals, which I am sure he will return to at the later stages. It is, of course, completely extraordinary to me that when my noble friend Lord Puttnam and I worked together in 2003 on the Communications Bill, that Act contained no reference to the internet. In the 14 years since, we have all become familiar with so many digital concepts: standardised algorithms, bots, big data and what is increasingly referred to as “data capitalism”. We are familiar with the words, but I am not sure that we all understand their implications for privacy and personal data.
It has been said this afternoon that national Governments now face the legal and technical challenge of trying to regulate international communication and information flows, which are largely controlled by a handful of American-based internet corporations. In this parliamentary Session, I have the privilege of sitting on your Lordships’ Select Committee on Political Polling and Digital Media. We are investigating the questions of accuracy and transparency thrown up by using internet data in politics. We are only beginning to uncover the complexities and threats that the new systems create. Again, in this context, in the last year we have all heard about so-called fake news and possibly even Kremlin-inspired online intervention in western democracies. Only yesterday, there were reports of operatives using individual Facebook accounts to generate support for President Trump; but is it possible to influence effectively, or control, any of that in the public interest? As a good democrat, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, remains optimistic, but I find it very hard to see how an individual Government can act legislatively to moderate the growing tsunami of online data exchange—and how through the law we can protect individuals from manipulation and exploitation.
A possible route that, optimistically, could influence behaviour and protect citizens from the most egregious breaches of their privacy is through public education. That is obviously a long-term project. Creating better-informed consumers who understand how their shared personal data may be used, and what may happen to data when it is passed on, would clearly be an advantage. That is important when we are talking—as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and other contributors did before me—about young people growing up with the internet. They are the greatest users of every type of social media but, although they may be technically adept, they are often the most ignorant about what they are signing up to or giving away when they use seductive sites or post so much information online.
I welcome the provision in the Bill that allows young people to remove content—the right to be forgotten. However, I share the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the right reverend Prelate and others about the age of consent being 13. As a grandmother, as they say, I would be very happy to see that age raised. As referred to by the right revered Prelate, who is not in his place, it is interesting that, when surveyed, 81% of the general public wanted to try to raise that age. I hope we will return to this issue at a later stage.
It is important to look at some of the fundamental issues about how we can achieve better public education in this field. Do we need to think again about how to achieve a digitally literate population in the true sense, which in turn could hopefully influence the attitudes and actions of the big tech companies and change the opinion of the world? That may be a more sensible way to proceed than continuing to make what may be vain attempts to regulate the ever-expanding web. The House will remember, as the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has already said, that in the original Communications Act 2003, Ofcom was given the specific duty of promoting “media literacy”. In that Act—perhaps I may quote from it—the duty is very broadly based. First, it is,
“to bring about, or to encourage others to bring about, a better public understanding of the nature and characteristics of material published by means of the electronic media”.
Secondly, it is,
“to bring about, or to encourage others to bring about, a better public awareness and understanding of the processes by which such material is selected, or made available, for publication by such means”.
However, since the passage of the Bill, Ofcom seems largely to have interpreted these responsibilities in rather a narrow and perhaps pragmatic way. For example, it has asked how we can ensure that the elderly population has appropriate access to digital technology and how internet drop-out areas, or areas where it is difficult to achieve broadband, can be improved?
My noble friend Lord Puttnam is therefore proposing that in Part 5 of the Bill, which covers the Information Commissioner, a wider duty be placed on the commissioner to act with Ofcom, and indeed with the Department for Education and the DCMS, on the use and abuse of personal data. He sees this as something that could be included by amendment in the “general functions” of the commissioner or established under a separate code of practice. He suggests that a code of practice could, for example, confer special responsibilities on the big technology giants to engage in the collaborative development of digital media skills. It does not seem naively optimistic to think that this type of statutory leverage could be influential. It could be a useful exercise of “soft power” to achieve more informed and responsible internet use by both providers and consumers. Effective and proper digital literacy is an approach that would avoid the continuing search for a national regulatory solution to some of the problems of the global digital economy—it may be long-term but it seems worth undertaking. I am sure my noble friend Lord Puttnam will table amendments in Committee.
I welcome the Government’s intention to update and strengthen a robust system of data protection. It is certainly an ambition that has recently been made more difficult both by corporately owned global technology giants which transcend the authority of national Governments and by the huge expansion of internet technology. I am glad that the Bill has started in this House, as I am sure it will, as always, be improved by your Lordships’ scrutiny and revision.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, happy Ada Lovelace Day. How prescient of the Whips and the Minister to pick today for Second Reading. To remind colleagues who might be wondering: she was one of the great innovators of computing in the 19th century. She worked with Charles Babbage on his computational engine, she was the first to recognise that the machine had applications beyond pure calculation, and, in fact, she probably created the first algorithm intended to be carried out by that machine. As part of that, she is often regarded as the first to recognise the full potential of computing, so it could hardly be more apt to pick today for this Second Reading debate, in which we are probably looking at the consequences of the work that she started all those years ago.
The Government’s ambition is to,
“make Britain the best place to start and run a digital business; and … the safest place in the world to be online”,
as detailed in the Conservative manifesto. This Bill is intended to,
“ensure that our data protection framework is suitable for our new digital age, and cement the UK’s position at the forefront of technological innovation, international data sharing and protection of personal data”.
This aspiration to be the best, to make the UK a world leader and set a precedent for good regulation of our digital worlds, is admirable, but that means that the Bill must set the bar high. It must be the very best it can be, especially as we head towards Brexit, where having the highest standards around the collection and use of data will be vital not just to digital businesses but to our continued ability to trade. This Bill must be the foundation for that. There is much that is good in the Bill, but I do not believe that it is yet the best that it can be.
I must start with a confession. Despite the kind references today to my career and supposed expertise, I found this Bill incredibly hard to read and even harder to understand. I fear that we will not do enough to stop the notion, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that we are sleepwalking into a dystopian future if we do not work hard to simplify the Bill and make it accessible to more people, the people to whom I feel sure the Government must want to give power in this updated legislation. Let us ensure that the Bill is a step forward for individual power in the rapidly changing landscape in which we sit, a power that people understand and, importantly, use. Let us make it an indicator to the world that the UK balances the importance of tech start-ups, innovation, foreign investment and big businesses with consumer and citizen rights.
The Government should be commended for getting ahead of movements that are growing all over the world to free our data from the tech giants of our age. As data becomes one of our most valuable resources—as we have heard, the new oil—individuals have begun to want a stake in determining for themselves when, how and to what extent information about them is held and communicated to others. So I welcome the clear data frameworks, which are important not only for the best digital economy but for the best digital society.
I agree with much that has been said today but want to make three specific points on the Bill. First, from any perspective, the GDPR is difficult to comprehend, comprising sweeping regulations with 99 articles and 173 recitals. The Bill contains some wonderful provisions, of which my favourite is:
“Chapter 2 of this Part applies for the purposes of the applied GDPR as it applies for the purposes of the GDPR … In this Chapter, “the applied Chapter 2” means Chapter 2 of this Part as applied by this Chapter”.
Giving people rights is meaningful only if they know that they have them, what they mean, how to exercise them, what infringement looks like and how to seek redress for it. There are questions about the practical workability of a lot of these rights. For example, on the right to portability, how would the average person know what to do with their ported data? How would they get it? Where would they keep it? There was a funny example in a newspaper recently where a journalist asked Facebook to send them all the data that it had collected over the previous eight years and received a printed copy of 800 pages of data—extremely useful, as I think you will agree. What about your right to erase your social media history? I should declare my interest as a director of Twitter at this point. How can you remove content featuring you that you did not post and in which people may have mentioned you? What happens as the complexity of the algorithm becomes so sophisticated that it is hard to separate out your data? How does the immense amount of machine learning deployed already affect your rights, let alone in the future?
Awareness among the public about the GDPR is very low—the Open Data Institute has done a lot of work on this which is soon to be published. It is very unlikely that ordinary people understand this legislation. They will have no understanding of how their rights affect them. A lot of education work needs to be done.
For businesses, too, the learning curve is steep, especially for foreign investors in European companies. Some are betting that the sheer scope of the GDPR means that the European regulators will struggle to enforce it. When the GDPR came up at a recent industry start-up event, one industry source said that none of the people to whom they had spoken could confidently say that they had a plan. Every online publisher and advertiser should ensure that they do, but none of them is taking steps to prepare.
So much has been done by this Government on building a strong digital economy that it is important to ensure that small and start-up businesses do not feel overwhelmed by the changes. What substantial help could be planned and what education offered? What help is there with compliance? By way of example, under Clause 13, companies have 21 days to show bias from algorithms, but what does this mean for a small AI start-up which may be using anonymised intelligence data to build a new transport or health app? What do they have to think about to make good legal decisions? As my noble friend Lord Jay so brilliantly argued, how can we ensure post-Brexit legislative certainty for them in building global successful businesses?
This brings me to my second question: why has the right of civil groups to take action on behalf of individuals been removed from the UK context for the GDPR? Instead, the Bill places a huge onus on individuals, who may lack the know-how and the ability to fight for their rights. As has been mentioned, article 80(1) of the GDPR allows for representative bodies—for example, consumer groups—to bring complaints at the initiation of data subjects. Article 80(2) allows those groups to bring complaints where they see infringements of data rights without an individual having to bring the case themselves. These give consumers power. It supports their rights without them having to specifically understand that the rights exist, or how to exercise them. Unfortunately, article 80(2) is an optional clause and the UK has omitted it. This omission is worrying, given how stretched the ICO’s resources are and the impact this could have on its support for the public. Granting rights over data to individuals is meaningless if individuals lack the understanding to exercise those rights and there is no infrastructure within civic society to help them exercise those rights. However, we have many organisations in this country—Citizens Advice, Which?—which have these kinds of rights of free-standing action in relation to other regulations. There does not seem to be any good reason why the UK has chosen not to take up the option in EU law to allow consumer privacy groups to lodge independent data protection complaints as they can currently do under consumer rights laws.
Citizens face complex data trails. It is impossible for the average person to be able to know which organisations hold their personal data. Enabling privacy groups to take independent action will ensure these rights are enforced. As it stands, under the Bill the ICO is currently the main recourse for this.
Resourcing the ICO, Part 5 of the Bill, is essential and my third main area of interest. The ICO has considerable responsibilities and duties under the Bill towards both business and individuals: upholding rights, investigating reactively, informing and educating to improve standards, educating people and consumer groups, and maintaining international relationships. I feel exhausted thinking about it. The ICO’s workload is vast and increasing. It lacks sufficient resources currently. In March 2017, the Information Commissioner asked Parliament if it could recruit 200 more staff but the salaries it offers are significantly below those offered by the private sector for roles requiring extremely high levels of skills and experience. These staff are going to become ever more important and more difficult to recruit in the future.
The ICO currently funds its data protection work by charging fees to data controllers. It receives ring-fenced funding for its freedom of information request work from the Government. This income can increase the number of data controllers only as it increases: it is not in line with the volume or complexity of work, and certainly not with that in the Bill. Perhaps it is time for another method of funding, such as statutory funding.
Finally, I would like briefly to add my thoughts on how the Bill affects children. As many noble Lords have said, the YouGov poll does indeed say that 80% of the public support raising the age to 18—currently it is 13, as detailed by the Government. However, there are many other surveys, particularly one by the Children’s Society, which show that 80% of 13 year-olds currently have a social media account and 80% of people under 13 have lied or twisted their age in order to establish one. This is the realpolitik in the war of understanding the internet with our children. I respectfully disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and others in the Chamber: I feel strongly that it is wrong to place policing at the heart of how we deal with relationships between children and the internet. We need to take a systems-based approach. I have seen my godchildren set up fake accounts and whizz around the internet at a speed I find alarming. We have to deal on their terms. We have to help educators, parents and people supporting children, not use the long arm of the law.
There are many anomalies, as has already been detailed, as well as discrepancies with Scotland, differences between parental oversight and explicit giving of consent, problems with data collection and how the digital charter will work, and so on, and those are all important. However, I am optimistic too—I always am—and there is much to welcome in the Bill. I am particularly optimistic if we can work in tandem on the wider digital understanding of our society, as so brilliantly detailed by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. I wish I could discuss the important themes in the Bill with Ada Lovelace, but in her absence I will have many good discussions with people in this Chamber so that we can all work hard to ensure that citizens and consumers reap the benefits of the Bill.
Bombardier
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I want to update the House on the trade dispute brought by Boeing against Bombardier. The case has serious implications for the workers at Bombardier Aerostructures & Engineering Services—Short Brothers—in Belfast, where the wings for the C Series aircraft are manufactured. Following a complaint by Boeing Inc, the US Department of Commerce has made two provisional determinations in the case, calculating duties of 220% in relation to alleged subsidies for Bombardier and of nearly 80% in relation to alleged mis-selling by Bombardier into the US market. These initial determinations are bitterly disappointing, but they are only the first step in the process: a final ruling in the investigation is due in February and would be subject to further appeal. This Government have been working tirelessly to bring the case to a satisfactory resolution.
In filing its petition, Boeing asserted three claims: first, that without Canadian and UK Government subsidies Bombardier would have been unable to develop the C Series; secondly, that Bombardier is selling at or below production cost its C Series aircraft in the US; and thirdly, as a result, that this is causing the threat of imminent material injury to the US domestic aerospace industry. This action followed Bombardier securing an order from Delta Airlines for 75 aircraft. The Boeing petition makes allegations about funding support from the Canadian federal Government and the Government of the Province of Quebec for the Bombardier C Series. It also alleges that the UK Government’s provision of £113 million of repayable launch investment funding, committed to Bombardier Short Brothers in 2009 to support the development of the composite wings, contravened trade rules. We strongly and robustly refute this accusation.
I want to make the Government’s position very clear: we consider this action by Boeing to be totally unjustified, unwarranted and incompatible with the conduct we would expect of a company with a long-term business relationship with the United Kingdom. Boeing does not manufacture a competing aircraft, so although Boeing claims harm in respect of the Delta aircraft order, it has no product in the 100 to 125-seat sector. Furthermore, this system of launch investment for the development of new aircraft reflects that of all major commercial aircraft programmes in their early years, including the Boeing 787. We refute entirely any suggestion that our support contravenes international rules.
The Shorts factory in Belfast employs more than 4,200 skilled workers, with almost a quarter of those working on the C Series. It also supports a supply chain of hundreds of companies and many more jobs in the UK, as well as supporting nearly 23,000 workers in the US, where 53% of the content of the C Series is produced by US-based companies. We will continue to work tirelessly to safeguard jobs, innovation and livelihoods in Northern Ireland.
From the outset this has been a dispute that joins Canada and the UK, and we have been assiduous in working closely with the Government of Canada in our response. The Prime Minister has discussed the case with Prime Minister Trudeau, and I have been in regular contact with Canadian Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland, to co-ordinate our response and actions. We have had intensive engagement from across government at the highest levels. The Prime Minister has discussed the matter twice with President Trump, stressing the crucial importance of Bombardier’s operations in Belfast and asking the US Government to do all they can to encourage Boeing to drop its complaint. My Cabinet colleagues, my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Trade Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary, and myself have reinforced our serious concerns with the US Secretary of Commerce, the US Secretary of State, the US Treasury Secretary, the US Trade Representative and other members of the Administration, as well as with the EU Trade Commissioner. The Minister for Energy and Industry has met Boeing International’s president, and I travelled to Chicago to meet Boeing’s president and chief executive to make clear the impact of this on our future relationship with the company.
I am grateful for the consistent and indefatigable efforts of the honourable Member for Belfast East and the whole community in Northern Ireland, who are united in opposition to this action. We will continue vigorously and robustly to defend UK interests in support of Bombardier, its workforce in Belfast and those in its UK supply chain. We will continue to work jointly and collectively with the Canadian Government. We will work closely with Bombardier, its workforce and its trade unions, and we will do everything we can to bring about a credible, early resolution of this totally unjustified case. The initial determinations are the first step in the process, but we completely understand the worry and uncertainty facing the workforce, which means that the earlier this issue can be resolved, the better. To that end, I expect to have further discussions with Boeing, Bombardier, the Canadian Government and the US Government in the days ahead. The House should be aware that neither the Government nor our counterpart in Canada will rest until this groundless action is ended. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in the other place. It sets out the case very well indeed. I am sure the whole House welcomes the Government’s commitment to resolve this trade dispute between Boeing and Bombardier as swiftly as possible.
Indeed, this dispute is of great concern to the 4,200 Bombardier employees in Northern Ireland, their families and the communities in East Belfast, Newtownabbey, Dunmurry and Newtownards. For so many jobs at one of Northern Ireland’s largest employers to be placed at risk is a matter of real concern, as are the wider potential economic impact and, in the case of Northern Ireland, the potential political repercussions. Bombardier represents 8% of Northern Ireland’s GDP and 40% of its manufacturing base and supports 20,000 more jobs in the wider supply chain across the country. There is a great deal at risk. Bombardier acquired the Shorts facility in 1989. The Shorts heritage goes back over 100 years and the Belfast base was established in 1948. It is a centre of excellence and many other leading businesses in the aviation and defence sectors owe their excellent performance and existence to the Shorts—now Bombardier—facility.
The aviation sector is important to our country and it has great potential. We have Airbus facilities, a Boeing facility in Sheffield and the Bombardier facility. Aviation expertise, world-leading engineers and an experienced and seasoned workforce create the potential for this sector to be a real opportunity for us. This dispute and recent news regarding BAE and Monarch do not represent the collapse of the aviation industry but do not bode well for those of us who want to see it thrive in the years ahead. Does the Minister agree that a sector deal, with a particular focus on supply-chain issues and infrastructure requirements, would be helpful in this context?
I want to make it very clear that we on these Benches unreservedly take the view that Bombardier is being challenged on a case that has no merits and that the US Department of Commerce’s initial determinations are flawed and without justifiable foundation. It is clearly specious to suggest that there is harm or potential harm to Boeing in a sector where it does not have a competitor product; nor can there be any doubt that the UK’s vigorous adherence to state aid rules means that any support provided to the Bombardier facility does not contravene trade rules.
We hope that the key actors in this see sense and either withdraw the complaint or abandon the US Government’s flawed process, and that this is resolved as quickly as possible to ensure that any harm is minimised. But hope is not enough and we need to be steadfast in our action. We offer the Government our support and help and we recognise that there has been some considerable effort: 24 interactions with the US Government, including two with the President, as well as 12 with Boeing and 10 with other key actors, including the EU. But we have concerns about the effectiveness of the approach and would like some assessment from the Government of whether they feel that anyone is listening or even that the process itself is fair. We acknowledge the role of Canada, as well as the help of the trade unions, but we would be grateful if the Minister could also tell us how much support, and to what level, the Government are seeking from the European institutions. Have the Government asked the EU to consider taking steps in relation to its trade with the US?
We recognise that Boeing is a very welcome inward investor to the UK and we have a significant and long-standing relationship. We would like it to increase the size, scale and scope of its Sheffield facility, and to see it flourish. But the conduct we have seen from it is not what we would expect of a supplier. We would be grateful if we could understand from the Minister what further interactions we have had with Boeing and when the most recent ones were.
In relation to the US Government, have the Government taken a view on whether or not this process has been used because of the weakness of the merits of the case? It is noticeable that unlike most disputes in the aviation sector, which take place at the WTO, this one is a US government approach. Surely the US Commerce Secretary’s recent comments in support of the action and the determination of the tariffs suggest that this process may have been used for a reason. In discussions with the US Government, have Ministers seen any evidence of US government encouragement of Boeing? Can the Minister tell us, in the case of such disputes, on how many occasions, either by number or percentage, has the final decision overturned a provisional decision? Can the Government suggest what their plan would be if the final decision confirmed the provisional declaration? What would be the strategy in the United States? Have the Government sought the advice of expert US trade lawyers or advisers?
Does the Minister agree with me that actually, the fundamental problem here is one of market structure? Boeing has such a large market share that it prices on the basis of monopolistic control, actively supported by eye-watering subsidies from the US Government— a rather familiar tale of locking everyone out to favour the dominant incumbent. This country has benefited from a more open market, with Airbus, Boeing and Bombardier having meaningful facilities here, and this US-led action demonstrates not only its determination in defending its interests but how quickly it can sometimes apply protectionism. It raises questions about its commitment to a new, fair and reasonable trade deal. Finally, can the Minister confirm that this point has been forcefully made to the US Government during the discussions?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my declared interests. I thank the Minister for repeating the comprehensive Statement, which I think has support right across the House. There is a danger that this is a bellwether moment for Bombardier, Northern Ireland’s industry and, perhaps, Britain’s future trading relationships. It is an important example and possibly a glimpse of what life outside the European Union might look like.
As the Statement rightly says, this unilateral and disproportionate response by the US Department of Commerce is over a variety of plane that Boeing itself does not manufacture. Does the Minister agree that this is perhaps a more symbolic gesture, with an eye on other manufacturers in other places—a warning shot, perhaps—with Bombardier as the innocent victim of a larger global power play in plane manufacturing? It also demonstrates in style how the US is going to administer multilateral organisations. It sets out in stark contrast what life could be like after Brexit as we adopt WTO rules, just as the Trump Administration step up their attack on that institution, not least through the vetoing of appointments to the WTO’s appellate body, denying it the ability to deal with such trade disputes.
Canada has long demonstrated through its actions that it views Bombardier as a strategic Canadian resource. In Northern Ireland, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, stated, it has a very important economic as well as symbolic position within the community. I will not repeat what he has just said, except to reaffirm that its loss would be a savage blow to the drive for economic development that is absolutely essential to support the Good Friday agreement and everything that has gone before. But it is also strategic to the UK aerospace industry. We have to remember that wings are a very important part of what we do in this country, and that is what Bombardier does, so there is a very strong need to defend that technology as well.
Of course, the US action is at an early stage. In due course, as it progresses through the courts and winds its way towards the WTO, I dare say—largely because it has no merit—that Bombardier may have success in overturning the ruling. But these things take years—years and years. What kind of shape would this business be in after going through this process? No company Bombardier’s size could withstand a process of that length. Can the Minister tell us the status of the Delta sales? Are they on hold or do they go ahead as normal until the appeals process is complete? The Minister set out the co-operation that is coming from Canada but we should remember that the parent company is Canadian and if it starts to seek to preserve the overall concern, where will it cut first—in Canada or in Northern Ireland? It is very important that the Government seek assurances from Bombardier that it will continue to support the Belfast operation.
Finally on this point, we can expect the Chinese to heat up their bid for Bombardier. What line do Her Majesty’s Government have into that process? What advance warning are they likely to get in the event that a bid from the Chinese or someone else comes along?
I welcome the seriousness with which the Government are taking this; it is imperative that that seriousness continue. I am sure the Government will take the time to explain to Boeing the caustic effect it is having on what has been a burgeoning relationship in this country. I am sure the Government are reminding it about the Apache and Chinook helicopters and Poseidon aircraft that are currently on order from the MoD. Will the Minister say what contingency plans are being put in place to ring-fence the skills we have in Belfast in the event that they start to leech out? We are glad to hear that the Minister is working tirelessly, but what exactly is he now doing? We have heard that he talked to a wide variety of opposite partners in Canada and the US, but what levers does he have to pull? Can the Minister assure us that while we are cosying up, trying to negotiate a trade deal with the US, we will not ease back or soften our approach to the defence of Bombardier? The Minister has a long list of people he has talked to, so far to no effect. What is the next step?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Fox, for their contributions and for their general support for the Government’s approach in what I think the House will acknowledge is a challenging situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, emphasised the importance of the operation in Northern Ireland, particularly the Bombardier—formerly Shorts—factory. It is important for Northern Ireland. I think I mentioned that 1,000 or so jobs out of a total of 4,000 are particularly focused on making the wings for the C Series. The noble Lord made a valuable point about the importance of the supply chain. It is not just the 1,000 workers in the aircraft factory itself. It goes well beyond that. We are well aware of that and are focusing on all the jobs that could be affected down the line if the issue went further.
I want to give a little more information about what the Government are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, mentioned a few figures. Greg Clark and the Minister for Aerospace, Richard Harrington, have been tireless in contacting a number of people across government, particularly in the US. There have been 24 calls or meetings with US administrators, Members of Congress and other US politicians, 15 calls or meetings with Bombardier in the UK and Canada and 12 calls or meetings with Boeing—that answers one of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. Keeping a line in with Boeing and keeping pressure up to ask it to overturn its decision is very important. There have also been 20 calls or meetings with the Canadian Government or officials.
The noble Lord asked about the EU. I think I mentioned in the Statement that in addition to the EU Commissioner, who is being kept fully involved, other levels within the EU are also being kept involved within the same area. I think that is a good approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, asked what might happen with the final decision. We want this decision to be withdrawn by Boeing. That is what we expect. It is unjustified, and I think I have made it quite clear that we are going to work very hard to ensure that that happens. The final decision will be undertaken in February, if it gets that far, and then it is subject to appeal, so there is a process to be undergone, and I should say again that the unfortunate, disappointing decision that has just been made is the first step of the process. We will continue to press Boeing. The amount of meetings that have been had up to date will continue.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke about plane manufacturing. As he will know from his role, aerospace manufacturing in the UK is incredibly important. Boeing’s strategy is most disappointing. We should point out that Boeing has a considerable interest in the UK, and we want to be sure that the long-term relationships and partnerships we have with Boeing continue. No doubt they will, with what we are currently working on, but its action does not help with potential future deals. We want that to work out.
We see this as a specific issue between the US, Canada and the UK Government, not broader than that, so I do not think there is any mileage in extending it to the EU, which the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned.
I do not want to comment on Delta’s thinking; that is for Delta to comment on. I can only assume that it will continue to commit to its order for the CS100. I understand that they are due to be delivered in the spring of 2018, and as far as I know, that will continue. We will do all we can to support Bombardier and all the workers in Northern Ireland—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Every effort will be made, and we have some very strong lines in to those running the factory and those on the trade union side. I pay tribute to those in Northern Ireland, particularly the Northern Ireland politicians, who are working assiduously with us and with others involved in Northern Ireland.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the robust position in the Minister’s Statement. I particularly welcome the fact that this position has been endorsed by all sides of the House. I have a personal interest in this because I went to Seattle and met the board of Boeing when they worked very closely with Shorts, so they have no excuse for saying they do not know much about the situation in Northern Ireland. There is a long history of collaboration. In my time as Secretary of State, I also arranged the sale of Shorts to Bombardier, and I am very proud indeed of the success it has been over the years, the employment it has given and the importance it has for the Northern Ireland economy.
I take very well the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that this could drag on for a long time and be extremely damaging. We are told that President Trump is very keen on US jobs. I was interested to hear in the Statement that there are 23,000 US jobs involved in the Bombardier aeroplane, if the Statement is correct, so there is that defence, as presumably those people could lose their jobs.
I think that at last Boeing is beginning to realise the damage this is doing to its reputation. Anybody who looks at today’s Evening Standard will find a four-page wrap-round paid for by Boeing about its importance to the UK and what it is doing. I think the PR advisers in Boeing have just woken up to the damage that this is doing to Boeing. The earlier that Boeing can use its influence on the various authorities—it has some influence there—the better. Boeing did not quote for this plane. No US jobs are put at risk by Delta buying these planes. There is no evidence that they could come from an alternative American supplier, as far as I am aware. Against that background, I strongly hope that we can put this behind us. Boeing is a wonderful company. It does a lot of good work, and it has made a very silly move on this occasion, and the sooner it withdraws it, the better.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I tend to agree with my noble friend. It is interesting to hear about his direct involvement in Shorts going back a number of years. He is right that it is perhaps rather ironic that there are so many jobs—23,000 is the correct figure—in the US. I would argue that Boeing taking this view is an own goal.
However, Boeing remains very important to us in the UK. Its contribution to the UK is considerable. There are 2,200 people directly employed by Boeing, and that figure is expected to rise to 4,000 by 2025. The annual supply chain spend is £2.1 billion and the annual UK R&D spend is £11 million per annum. The House may know that Boeing has a new civil aerospace manufacturing facility in Sheffield. It is Boeing’s first civil factory in Europe. There is also a hangar in Gatwick and a repair facility in Lossiemouth. It is important for us to continue to develop the long-term partnership with Boeing, and as I said earlier, its action, which is inexplicable, must be overturned. I hope, as my noble friend said, that Boeing will see sense and withdraw its petition.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, so far in this matter the Government do not seem to have had much or indeed any influence with Boeing, despite the billions of pounds that we spend every year from our defence procurement budget on its excellent products. The Prime Minister does not seem to have had much or indeed any influence with President Trump, and the government proposal for her to go to Beijing does not seem to be much of a priority for Xi Jinping. The Government’s main priority at the moment seems to be to split up with the European Union, turning 27 countries that have traditionally been friends and partners of ours into opposite numbers in an increasingly divisive negotiation. The whole picture is not a very encouraging one, is it, from the point of view of British influence in the world?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I completely disagree with the noble Lord. He is not right to put it in this way. I have made it clear that the Prime Minister has been in touch twice with President Trump and have highlighted all the calls and meetings so far. Her Majesty’s Government are working tirelessly, and will continue to do so, in conjunction with counterparts in the Canadian Government, to encourage Boeing to withdraw its complaint and to seek a negotiated settlement with Bombardier. The Prime Minister, as I mentioned earlier, has been discussing the issue constantly with Prime Minister Trudeau, and Greg Clark has also had a number of conversations with Canada’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, Chrystia Freeland. An enormous amount is going on, and I refute what the noble Lord is saying about alleged inaction from our side.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I welcome the Statement by the Minister concerning the future of Bombardier in Northern Ireland. Indeed, the robust efforts being made by the Government on its behalf should be commended. The company is the biggest private sector manufacturing employer in Northern Ireland, and we have heard that 4,000 jobs, directly and indirectly, depend on the parent factory in Belfast. This is an important matter and it is a worrying time for the employees in Northern Ireland. The United States Government have recently imposed a further import tax of 80%, and negotiations do not appear to be proceeding in a spirit of compromise. Given these circumstances, would the Minister agree that it might be appropriate for the Government to adopt the position taken by the Canadian Government, who have stated that they will not do business with Boeing unless the matter is satisfactorily resolved?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord for his input. I understand his point of view, but we do not see that as being the way forward. I should say again that the interim statement we heard is bitterly disappointing but it is only the first step. We will continue to strongly defend UK interests in support of Bombardier at the very highest level, because, as the noble Lord has said, the adverse outcome risks jobs and livelihoods among the 4,000 or so skilled workers in Belfast. I can only say that we will continue urgently to work hard at resolving this important matter.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I wholeheartedly support the attitude of the Government, as I think does every noble Lord who has contributed to this short debate, but will the Government take into account three important elements? First, Boeing enjoys very considerable influence both on Capitol Hill and in the White House. Secondly, traditionally, consecutive United States Governments have been assiduous in their defence of the American aerospace industry. Thirdly, even if the United States Government were well disposed to a trade deal, might the action of Boeing not be illustrative of the attitude of American industry towards such a deal, if Brexit ever takes place?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
On the noble Lord’s third point, I do not agree with what he said to the extent that, as I said earlier, I see this as being a challenging issue between the US, Canadian and UK Governments that is specific to the Boeing/Bombardier matter. It is right to ring-fence that and to look at it and work on it as assiduously as we are. We will continue to do that. I would not want to comment on the influence of Boeing on Capitol Hill. I suspect that it is quite strong over there; equally, we know that and we will continue to work very hard on contacting US congressmen to work through and convince them to convince Boeing to withdraw its petition.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, I also welcome the Minister’s Statement, in which he outlined the extent of the contact that had taken place between the UK and Canadian Governments. It cannot be stated too often that this company is absolutely essential to the Northern Ireland economy and that the threat to Bombardier could have simply devastating consequences for this part of the United Kingdom. It is essential that concerted efforts continue to be made to ensure that Bombardier’s future in Belfast building wings for the C Series aircraft is secured. I trust that the Boeing directors will note the Minister’s words when he stated that,
“we consider this action by Boeing to be totally unjustified, unwarranted and incompatible with the conduct we would expect of a company with a long-term business relationship with the United Kingdom”.
The Government have the complete support of the Ulster Unionist Party in these endeavours to resolve this dispute.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank the noble Lord for his unconditional support for our approach. He is absolutely right that the Bombardier factory and all the attached supply-chain jobs are very important to Northern Ireland. I hope I have been able to make that clear to the House; others have said the same. For example, the £530 million put into the C Series facility in Belfast represented Northern Ireland’s largest ever inward investment, and this must be protected. The C Series is a fantastic plane from what I have understood in the last few hours, and a great product. We must protect the jobs and ensure that the factory and Bombardier continue there. As an aside, I would say that Bombardier is of course very active in Derby. It is obviously a different sector, but it is making carriages for the East Anglian franchise, and I think that it has won a contract with South West Trains. It will be constructing trains for Crossrail, I hope, and there is HS2. That side is also important, although I realise we are talking about Northern Ireland in this Statement.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to my entry in the register of interests as leader of Wiltshire Council. Could the Minister confirm the Government’s continued support for the important project between Boeing and QinetiQ at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will have to write to my noble friend about that specific point, as it is not in my brief. I will certainly write and give her a full briefing on that.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s strong approach, but it is very optimistic to say that this is a ring-fenced issue. If the Government are speaking to the United States Administration, will they also raise the matter of the American challenge to tariff-rate quotas and the breaking-up of the agreement that has been made between the UK and Europe over tariff-rate quotas on agricultural agreements? This too could be very detrimental to this country in our Brexit negotiations, but is something that the United States Government have taken to the WTO quite aggressively.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
We are talking here about the aerospace sector, but as the noble Lord has broadened this debate, I will say more generally that of course what we are looking for is a tariff-free global trading area. There is no sense in having tariffs put on, because a market is thereby skewed, so we are looking in the future to have a tariff-free approach. Coming back to Boeing, I hope that we can persuade it to withdraw. The US needs to understand too that a tariff-free approach to trade is the way forward.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to the House this afternoon. I thank the Government, Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Liberal Democrats for their support for Bombardier—all-party support in our national Parliament. More interestingly, in Northern Ireland not only have the unionist parties supported Bombardier but Sinn Fein has done so as well. As one who negotiated the Belfast agreement, I am concerned that if thousands of people lose their jobs at Bombardier, that will have an unsettling impact on the ground in Northern Ireland. That should be taken into account.
I noticed that the Foreign Minister for the Republic of Ireland raised the issue of Bombardier when he was in the US last week. Have we had any feedback from the southern Irish Government as to what he achieved or what was said? Has it been encouraging or discouraging, or does it not exist at all? Since we are still in the EU for another few years, and since it controls all trading matters, I ask: has the EU really spoken out for Bombardier in Belfast?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It is good that the noble Lord has reiterated the fact that there is all-party support. I take his point. It is interesting, bearing in mind the political challenges in Northern Ireland, that unionists and Sinn Fein are also behind our efforts to find a resolution to this problem. He is right, as I said before, that the impact on the ground if Boeing were not to withdraw its petition would be profound indeed, but I say again that we are at the first stage of this difficult process and we will work as hard as possible to ensure that it is overturned. Again, we say it is unjustified and we do not think it is right, and we will continue to work at all levels to resolve it. On the noble Lord’s point about feedback from the southern Irish Government, there is nothing specific to mention. We continue our engagement with the southern Irish Government but there is nothing to give feedback on.
Data Protection Bill [HL]
Tuesday 10th October 2017
(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Data Protection Act 2018 View all Data Protection Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am particularly interested in how the Bill enhances the lives of young people and how in Committee we could add to the opportunities that the Bill provides. The word “protection” is immensely important in this digital age, and young people probably need more protection than at any other time in our recent history. They should have control over their own data.
Like your Lordships, I have been sent a large number of briefings on the Data Protection Bill. I was particularly taken with the joint briefing from the Children’s Society and YoungMinds. As we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, they found that almost three in four children and young people have a social media account before the age of 13. The same survey also revealed that four in 10 young people had experienced online bullying. For young people affected by this form of bullying, the right to have contact removed will be very welcome. I have seen first-hand how young people’s lives can be seriously harmed, and I welcome having a longer debate on this issue in Committee.
I was very taken with the noble Baroness’s comments, although they did not quite match my personal experience. As a head teacher of a large 600-place primary school, I would find children who had been seriously bullied and were in meltdown. When we saw the children and talked to their parents, it turned out that the bullying came from social media. This raises the question: how did children as young as eight years old get signed up to Facebook? By their brothers and sisters. Why did their parents not know about this? This is a very serious problem. I do not know if it is about the long arm of the police, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, suggested was not the way, whether it is about young children knowing their rights, or, as I suspect, whether it is a bit of both, including parental education as well.
In the 1960s a baby named Graham Gaskin was put into care by Liverpool local authority after his mother, a local beauty queen, committed suicide by jumping into the River Mersey. Graham was passed from one institution to another; he was sent to over 20 institutions, including 14 different foster homes, over an 18-year period. He claimed that he suffered neglect, mismanagement and sexual abuse. He tried to understand what had happened to him, the family circumstances and the family connections—his back story, if you like. He was prevented from seeing his social services file but managed somehow to purloin it. In those confidential papers he found out about the secrets of his shocking life in care.
Three remarkable people stand out in the Graham Gaskin story: the local solicitor, Mr Rex Makin, who represented Graham and fought to get justice for him; a local journalist, Mr Ian Craig, who spent months checking and cross-checking the details and wrote a series of devastating articles about what had happened to Graham in the Liverpool Echo; and the chair of the social services committee, Mr Paul Clark, who struggled against the legal system to allow his officers to open up the file and had a fiat, which I am told is a type of injunction, issued against him, preventing him releasing those files. In November 1981, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, then my honourable friend and MP for the Edge Hill constituency in Liverpool, spoke in the Commons about the Graham Gaskin case. He said:
“Graham Gaskin is just another name still locked away in a filing cabinet … I hope that encouragement will be given to local authorities to humanise their services so that the tragedy of Graham Gaskin’s lost youth will never happen again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/11/81; col. 284.]
Had the files of Graham Gaskin and thousands of other children been allowed to have been opened, they would have revealed a scandal as shocking as the revelations that have come to light about some of our residential homes and might have prevented the abuse of children that was so prevalent at the time.
We have come a long way since those days, and of course the law allows access to files under the Data Protection Act 1998. Since the noble Lord, Lord Alton, made his comments about humanising social services, we have done that very thing. However, opening the files and making them accessible to young people is very different from the sort of legal problems that, for example, solicitors often face. It is of fundamental importance that everyone has the right to their personal data, and the legislation does not restrict or inhibit that right, but I shall talk about it from a practitioner’s point of view. This issue is beyond my comprehension but I have spent several moments talking to solicitors about it, so the language that I use is not of my immediate understanding but it gives some flavour of how we should have not only the spirit of making these files available but the practicalities as well.
If someone makes a request for data a year after making a previous request, and in the intervening period there has been further activity about the requester by the data controller, it will be argued that the substance of previous requests is being repeated. Is not the substance of any request to obtain the relevant data then held by the data controller? It will be argued that if someone has made a previous request, they will not be able to make a subsequent one. I think I understand that and I hope noble Lords do too.
Terminology needs to be clearly defined, not left open to later judicial interpretation. For example, if a right is to be denied on the basis that complying with it would involve disproportionate effort, there needs to be a definition of “proportionate”. More effort is needed for supplying data to someone who has had a lot of dealings with a data controller, especially government departments and numerous agencies because such are regarded as one data controller. We need to ensure that each separate agency has its own data controller. Will it be argued in the courts that it is manifestly unfounded or excessive for someone with a lot of personal data about them to request it? The current law requires all data controllers, with some minor exceptions, to register with the ICO. If they do not, they are acting unlawfully by processing personal data, and the provisions of the criminal law apply.
When the Bill which became the Data Protection Act 1998 was introduced to Parliament, the drafting instructions to parliamentary counsel were as follows: “We regard it as essential that there be a clear sanction for failure to make a mandatory notification. The obligation to notify is itself a cornerstone of the notification regime, and we wish to place a distinct onus on controllers to take responsibility for ascertaining and discharging their obligations in this respect”. Huge numbers have not done so, with a massive loss to the public purse. The law will not be strengthened by removing the cornerstone of the current law.
The Bill is long and detailed, and the devil, as always, is in the detail. The detail needs most careful scrutiny to ensure that the fundamental rights of the citizen are paramount, not those of officialdom. In any balance concerning the rights of the individual, there should be a presumption that those acting in any official capacity should have the official records disclosed. The balancing exercise introduced in the 1998 Act following the Graham Gaskin case, effectively replicated in the Bill, has not worked in practice, and Parliament can and should give further guidance. I look forward to finding out how we may improve some of these detailed issues for people who find themselves in the same situation as the Graham Gaskins of the 1980s.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, with all his experience of providing care and support for children and families. It was very troubling to hear of the case of Graham Gaskin.
I hesitate to speak. I do so because I am very interested in child development and issues of age of consent within the development of children. For instance, I very much oppose the lowering of the age of franchise to 16, which many have argued for, because my understanding and experience is that adolescence is hugely challenging and we should not put additional burdens on young people. Reading a survey in which 81% of adults thought that the age of consent for sharing personal information should be at 16 or 18, with the majority of parents thinking that the age should be 18, I was very concerned and wanted to take part in this debate and learn more.
I was recalling our history with access to the internet and pornography. My recollection was that we did not think about those things from the perspective of children and young people. Thanks to the noble efforts of my noble friend Lady Howe, we are now getting on top of that issue, but a report yesterday pointed to a marked rise in sexual assaults by children on children in the past year. Of course it is speculative to say so, but I would not be at all surprised if access by children to the internet has helped to fuel that rise.
We really need to give these issues deep and considered thought and, looking at the briefings, my sense is that it has not been given to the age of consent. It seems to be the default position because that is what Facebook and the other big companies offer. Even the European Union directive did not seem to involve a deep consultation among parents, children—ensuring that children’s voices could be heard—and experts to determine that the age should be between 13 and 16. I join my noble friend Lady Howe’s request for an urgent consultation by the Government with parents, children—in an effective way—and experts on this issue.
I will try to think through what might be the implications. Please forgive my naiveté, but this might be an opportunity for people to market products to 13 year-olds. My experience and research suggests that where children come from family backgrounds of breakdown or depression, that is reflected in the child’s relationships with other children in school. They can find it difficult to relate to others and become isolated. What do they turn to in those circumstances? The research points to the fact that they will be the children with the most expensive articles of clothes. The most expensive trainers will belong to the children who find it most difficult to make relationships with other children. I suppose that we see the same thing in the adult world: often those who are least sociable spend more money on articles of clothing to compensate for that. One concern might be that marketeers will be particularly effective at reaching out to more vulnerable children and encouraging them to pester their parents to buy more products. There will be more pressure on households to go into debt. In our debate on another Bill at the moment, we are seeing that far too many households are experiencing debt. Perhaps that is not a likely eventuality, but it needs to be explored.
Another eventuality might be political lobbying groups seeking to develop a youth wing to reach out to 13, 14 and 15 year-olds and disseminate information to prepare them to join the party later on. All around the world we see hateful political groups gaining ascendance. That is another risk that we need to take into account: how vulnerable are our young people to such groups?
I should be most grateful if the Minister would make clear what is a child in the Bill. Will he ensure that the Bill is clear that anyone under the age of 18 is a child? On the age of consent, what about children with developmental delays or special educational needs? Obviously, chronological age may not be appropriate, so how does one deal with those children? Finally on verification, how do we know that a child who says he is 13 is really 13 and not several years younger?
I share the concern voiced by many Peers about the age of consent. I was to some extent reassured by my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox but, given the history and concern about access to pornography and the lack of consideration for the impact on children and young people, it is our duty to give the Bill the thorough consideration that it needs. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Earl, who has brought so much wisdom and passion to the issue of child protection, which is rapidly becoming the leitmotiv of this debate—and rightly so. My comments will be about something slightly different: the impact of the Bill on journalism and the right to freedom of expression. I declare my interest accordingly as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group and draw attention to my other media interests in the register.
I first had the dubious pleasure of becoming involved in the issue of data protection more than 20 years ago, when the EU data protection directive was introduced in 1996. During the passage of the Data Protection Bill which implemented it, my noble friend Lord Wakeham, then chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, set out in his customary cogent fashion why that directive was potentially so grave for press and media freedom. He identified two key issues with the directive, and it is worth repeating what he had to say, because those issues are, if anything, more relevant today than they were then:
“The first is that the directive’s definition of ‘personal data’ is extremely wide, covering virtually any information relating to an individual, including details of political opinion, trade union membership, racial or ethnic origin and philosophical beliefs. The second is that the definition of processing specifically includes, for the first time, the use of material for journalistic purposes; and in turn journalism, of course, relies on the use of all the information covered by the directive. The very real danger in the combination”,
of the two is that it,
“could be used to introduce a regime that would gravely damage the freedom of the press, undermine investigative journalism”.—[Official Report, 2/2/1998; col. 462.]
What became the Data Protection Act 1998 avoided such a dismal fate, and indeed through Section 32 struck an appropriate, clever and enduring balance at the time between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. That was in so many ways down to the guiding hand of Lord Williams of Mostyn, who is still much missed in this House. He went out of his way to consult the industry and respond to its concerns. I remember with affection many meetings with him, not least as he was able to make the issue of data protection amusing, which is no small feat. To pick up on the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, I do not know whether he would have been able to make it comprehensible—that may have been a challenge too far. But at the end of the day, he succeeded in ensuring that the legislation balanced the right to privacy with the right to free expression, which he treasured so much. We have heard a bit about that in today’s debate.
This Government have been equally as determined as Gareth Williams was to ensure that freedom of expression is protected and have consulted widely all the interested parties. I am particularly grateful to the DCMS Ministers Karen Bradley and Matt Hancock for their understanding and patience in this area of protection not just for journalism but for literary, artistic and academic activities. Great credit is due to all those who were involved in the long and often deeply tortuous negotiations over the general data protection regulation, who ensured that it makes absolutely clear that member states must provide for exemptions and derogations carried out not only for journalistic purposes, but for the purposes of academic, artistic and literary expression as well. Recital 153 of the GDPR is particularly welcome and important as it explicitly recognises how protections for freedom of expression,
“should apply in particular to the processing of personal data in the audiovisual field and in news archives and press libraries”,
and ought to be reflected in the Bill.
The Government have gone to considerable lengths to consult widely on the UK’s implementation of the exemptions and derogations in the directive and have clearly stated, as I am sure the Minister will reiterate again today, that:
“Processing of personal data by journalists for freedom of expression and to expose wrongdoing is to be safeguarded”.
That is what Part 5 of Schedule 2, relating to the exemptions for freedom of expression and information, alongside other clauses in the Bill, seeks to do.
Such protections are vital for us as citizens, who depend on a free press to hold those in positions of power to account. As importantly, particularly in a post-Brexit world—and we have heard a lot about that world today—proper implementation of the exemptions is essential to the continuation of the UK’s shining role as a world leader in the creative, cultural and communications sphere. For all those reasons, it is imperative that the existing protections in the 1998 Act are not just maintained in this legislation but enhanced, and applied consistently throughout the Bill.
I specifically use the word “enhanced” because, through no fault of the existing legislation, which was extremely well crafted, the defences inherent in Section 32 of the 1998 Act have begun to erode. That is mainly an unintended consequence of the Defamation Act 2013, with the passage of which many noble Lords here today were involved. That legislation, so carefully scrutinised in this House, has done much to stop trivial and vexatious libel claims in the courts, but regrettably some people, who are now no longer able to bring libel proceedings, have begun to stretch the boundaries of other laws to do so. Data protection is fast becoming an alternative remedy for those who wish to blunt investigative journalism or seek to launder a justly bad reputation by removing articles from the online record. That is something that we have heard a bit about today.
One issue that we should consider is whether the carefully sculpted defences set out in the Defamation Act 2013 could somehow be replicated in this legislation and applied to data protection claims. It also cannot be right for the Information Commissioner to have the power, set out in Clause 165, to fund legal claims against those pursuing literary, artistic, academic and journalistic activities; that power runs counter to the aims of the Defamation Act. No other sector of activity is singled out in that way, and there is no case for it.
Inevitably as the Bill is scrutinised, much of the devil will be in the detail, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said. A number of specific issues—many of them, I suspect, inadvertent or unintended—ought to be addressed if the Bill is not to have a restrictive and damaging impact on freedom of expression, and particularly on the media’s operations, all the way from the initial investigation of a story to the eventual archiving of material. For example, we need to ensure that the investigation and enforcement powers of the Information Commissioner, particularly in the area of pre-publication activities, are not extended, and that the existing checks and balances, which have worked extraordinarily well in the current regime, are rigorously maintained in this legislation, not reduced. If not, there is a danger that the commissioner could become some form of statutory press regulator, which is not what I believe the Government intend, and which most of us would believe to be abhorrent in a free society. Similarly, there needs to be explicit protection for academic, literary and media archives, including a transparent and effective regime for the assessment of “right to be forgotten” requests relating to internet search records. Those records are not just the “first draft of history”; they often now comprise the only record of significant events, which will be essential to historians and others in future, and they must be protected.
We also need to remember that, far more so even than was the case back in 1996, the media today, as with all artistic activities, are completely global. All those processing data for special purposes need to be able to receive and share certain personal data rights across the world. That is particularly true in relation to the protection of sources, and contact or email exchanges with them. We should never forget in this House that in some parts of the world, even partial release of sensitive information can have the most appalling repercussions, putting the lives of sources and reporters in grave, often mortal, danger. The protections and exemptions in this area need to be put in place and be absolutely watertight. Quite apart from the personal risks involved, investigative journalism such as that on the Panama papers could become quite impossible if we did not get this balance right.
I am conscious that I have been talking specifically about Article 10 rights on freedom of expression, but I absolutely understand that those have carefully to be balanced with other rights. My noble friend the Minister in his opening remarks made that point extremely well. It is important to underline that none of the points that I have raised here would in any way undermine an individual’s right to privacy, safeguarded by Article 8 of the convention. These limited changes would continue fully to protect that right, while providing much greater clarity and certainty for those processing data for the special purposes. Therein lies the effective balance which characterised the 1998 Act and which should, I believe, be the guiding principle and hallmark of what will inevitably become the Data Protection Act 2018.
I spoke earlier about the Government’s commitment to consultation on the detail of this Bill, and the constructive and open way in which they have worked with all those impacted in this area. I very much hope that the Minister will continue to undertake such work with all those who have an interest in this vital issue and that we can, during the passage of the Bill, make further amendments to protect what at the end of the day is the foundation stone of our democracy.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his careful introduction of the Bill, and the organisations and individuals who have briefed us, including the individual who wrote, “It does your head in”. I was glad to hear the assurance that the Bill may—I hope I have this right—with repeated readings come close to comprehension.
At later stages, I hope to focus on Parts 3 and 4 of the Bill, but this evening I make some points about young people and the age of consent. I have to say—I may be out of step with other noble Lords—that I am not entirely convinced that the age of 16 would provide more effective protection than 13. I was struck by the recent launch of a report by the Children’s Commissioner for England. The report contains a jargon-busting guide,
“to give kids more power in digital world”.
The commissioner’s launch paper remarked:
“For children, there is no difference between online and offline life. To them, it’s just life … You wouldn’t drop a 12-year-old in the middle of a big city and expect them to fend for themselves. The same should be true online”.
The jargon-busting guide is intended to help children and teachers negotiate and understand what they are signing up to when they use Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Snapchat, WhatsApp and so on. It uses simplified terms and conditions—it is acknowledged that it is not a legal document but is designed to be an accessible and child-friendly tool to help children understand their digital rights and make informed choices.
Noble Lords will have received a briefing from the Carnegie UK Trust on digital skills. Among other things, it reminds us that so many young people— I think actually that should be “so many people”—are unaware that “delete” does not actually mean “delete”.
I do not think that achieving the age of 14, 15 or 16 would address this. The route of information and education is much more important than a diktat in legislation. I suspect that we could be in danger of being unrealistic about what life is like for children and young people these days. We should not ignore public opinion but, quite honestly, times have changed. We will debate both the age threshold and age verification, which is clearly inseparable from this, during the course of the Bill.
Like other noble Lords, I am concerned about public trust and confidence in the system. At the moment there is a need for guidance on preparation for the new regime. I visited a charity last week and asked about the availability and accessibility of advice. The immediate, almost knee-jerk response was, “It’s pretty dire”—followed by comments that most of what is available is about fundraising and that there is a particular lack of advice on how to deal with data relating to children. The comment was made, too, that the legislation is tougher on charities than on the private sector. I have not pinned down whether that is the case, but I do not disbelieve it. The Federation of Small Businesses has made similar points about support for small businesses.
On confidence and trust, my view is that the use of algorithms undermines confidence. This is not an algorithm but perhaps an analogy: we have been made aware recently—“reminded” would be a better term—of the requirement on banks to check the immigration status of account holders. I took part recently in a panel discussion on immigration. The participants’ names were Gambaccini, Siddiq, Qureshi and Hamwee. With those names, although we are all British citizens, I should think that we are pretty suspect. Algorithms will be used by the policing and intelligence communities, among others. My specific question is: have the Government considered independent oversight of this?
My confidence in the system is also not helped by the fact that the data protection principles applied to law enforcement do not include transparency. I am prepared to be told that this is because of the detail of the GDPR, but I find it difficult to understand why there is not transparency subject to some qualifications, given that transparency is within the principles applying in the case of the intelligence services.
“User notification” is another way of talking about transparency and is a significant human rights issue in the context of the right not only to privacy but to effective remedy and a fair trial. I am sure that we will question some of the exemptions and seek more specificity during the course of the Bill.
We are of course accustomed to greater restrictions—or “protections”, depending on your point of view—where national security is concerned, but that does not mean that no information can be released, even if it is broad brush. I wonder whether there is a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee here—not that I would suggest that that would be a complete answer. Again, this is something we might want to explore.
Part of our job is to ensure that the Bill is as clear as possible. I was interested that the report of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, referred to “white space” and language. It quoted the Information Commissioner, who noted trigger terms such as “high-risk”, “large scale” and “systematic”. Her evidence was that until the new European Data Protection Board and the courts start interpreting the terms,
“it is not clear what the GDPR will look like in practice”.
I found that some of the language of the Bill raised questions in my mind. For instance—I am not asking for a response now; we can do this by way of an amendment later—the term “legitimate” is used in a couple of clauses. Is that wider than “legal”? What is the difference between “necessary” and “strictly necessary”? I do not think that I have ever come across “strictly necessary” in legislation. There are also judgment calls implicit in many of the provisions, including the “appropriate” level of security and processing that is “unwarranted”. By the by, I am intrigued by the airtime given to exams—and by the use of the term “exams”. Back in the day there would certainly have been an amendment to change it to “examinations”; I am not going to table that one.
Finally, I return to the committee report, which has not had as much attention as the Bill. That is a shame, but I am sure we will come back to it as source material. I noted the observation that, post Brexit, there is a risk that, in the Information Commissioner’s words, the UK could find itself,
“outside, pressing our faces on the glass … without influence”,
and yet having,
“adopted fulsomely the GDPR”.
That image could be applied more widely.
Do the Government accept the committee’s recommendation in paragraph 166 that they should start to address retaining UK influence by,
“seeking to secure a continuing role for the Information Commissioner’s Office on the European Data Protection Board”?
My noble friend Lord McNally referred to running up the down escalator, and his alternatives to the Henry VIII clauses are well worth considering—I hope that that does not sound patronising.
This is one of those Bills that is like a forest in the points of principle that it raises. Some of us, I am afraid, will look closely at a lot of the twigs in that forest.
Baroness Manningham-Buller (CB)
My Lords, I will be brief, as the late Lord Walton always said at the start of his speeches. However, I actually mean it. That is because many of the points I want to make have been made by either the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Jones or Lady Ludford, or my noble friend Lord Patel, who declared my interest as chair of the Wellcome Trust for me. For those noble Lords who are not familiar with the organisation, we spend about £1 billion a year on improving human health, largely through funding medical research, primarily in this country but also in 16 other countries overseas. We welcome the Bill, although we think it needs improvement. Before Committee, we look for answers to the questions laid out by my noble friend Lord Patel on the need for universities to have real clarity about how they process data.
For the public interest, terminology should be extended so that we can look at issues of safeguards beyond consent and make sure that it is possible to do clinical trials and interventional work. Why is that the case? It is because health data offers the most exciting opportunities to do things which we have only recently been able to do, understand the causes of disease in detail over populations and have a much better chance of getting to diagnosis early. We could deal with many things if we could only diagnose them far earlier and develop treatments for them—indeed, prevent some of them ever materialising. Health data also helps us to measure the efficacy of treatment. We all know of plenty of treatments that over years have proved to be useless, or unexpected ones that have proved to be outstanding. Looking at big-scale data helps us to do that. That data helps in precision medicine, which we are all moving towards having, where the drugs we receive are for us, not our neighbour, although we apparently both have the same illness. Health data can also help with safety as you can collect the side-effects that people are suffering from for particular drugs. It helps us evaluate policy and, of course, should help the NHS in planning.
I know that the Government want to support scientists to process data with confidence and safety. The industrial strategy comments that data should be “appropriately accessed by researchers”. “Appropriate” is a hopeless word; we do not know what it means, but still. The document also states that access for researchers to,
“currently available national datasets should be accelerated by streamlining legal and ethical approvals”.
We are not there yet.
I want to say a word about public support. The Wellcome Trust commissioned an Ipsos MORI poll last year before the Caldicott review to assess public support for the collection of data. In many cases, there is significant public support for that provided it is anonymised—although I know there are questions about that—but what people are fussed about is that their data is sold on for commercial purposes, that it is used for marketing or, worst of all, that it is used to affect their insurance policies and life insurance. Therefore, we need to give reassurance on that. However, it has certainly been the case in our experience, and that of many universities, that you can recruit many people for trials and studies if they believe that their data will help others with similar diseases or indeed themselves.
My noble friend Lord Patel trailed that I would mention the UK Biobank, as this will face real problems if this legislation is not amended. For noble Lords who are not aware of it, the UK Biobank is funded partly by the Wellcome Trust and partly by the Government through the Medical Research Council. Between 2006 and 2010, it recruited half a million people who gave body samples, details about their lifestyles, economic environments and genomes. Some of these details have been accessed but not all. This has produced the most fantastic amount of data, which is helping us to discover causes of cancer, heart disease—there is a long list, and I will read them all out as they are all important—stroke, diabetes, arthritis, osteoporosis, eye disorders, depression and dementia. Other subjects will be added. The conclusions of this data are open to anybody in the world because health has no frontier. There is no other biobank like this in the world. The Chinese have started one called the Kadoorie, but it is neither as extensive nor profound; it will become invaluable, but it is not yet. The UK Biobank is a unique resource for the world. It is based in Oxford and funded by a major British charity and the taxpayer. We must make that data useful and do nothing to damage the way in which it contributes to helping save lives.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I have enjoyed the debate very much so far. I hope that the same can be said of my noble friend the Minister, who will clearly find support from all around the House for a large number of amendments. I found myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on several points, not least on the question of adequacy, which seems to me absolutely fundamental to getting this Bill right. I hope that my noble friend will be able to be very clear on how the Government intend to tackle this key aspect.
I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, too, and his worries about standing up to the tech giants. They are not our friends. They are big, powerful companies that are not citizens of this country. They pay as little tax here as possible and several of them actively help tax evaders in order that they can make more profits out of the transactions that that involves. They control what we see on the internet through algorithms and extract vast quantities of data and know more about us than we know ourselves. In the interests of democracy we really must stand up to them and say, “No, we are the people who matter. It is great you are doing well, but we are the people who matter”. Bills like this are part of that, and it is important that we stand up for ourselves and our citizens.
I agreed very much with my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones that research is crucial. In my context as editor of the Good Schools Guide we use a fair bit of government data and do research with it. I will pick my noble friend’s brain afterwards on what her worries are about the use of data by non-standard researchers because I certainly qualify as that.
My noble friend Lord Arbuthnot referred to a Keeling schedule. It would be wonderful to receive it. For some reason I cannot pick it up on the email. It is not in the documents listed on the Parliament website, not in any location, and it does not Google or come up on GOV.UK. One way or another, I think the simplest thing to ask is: please can we put it on the parliamentary website in the list of documents related to the Bill? I know that it exists, but I just cannot find it. It would be nice if it appeared on the departmental website too.
It seems to me that bits are missing in a number of areas. Where are Articles 3, 27, 22(2)(b) and 35(4) to 35(6)? Where is Article 80(2), as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, mentioned? That is an absolutely crucial article. Why has it gone missing? How exactly is recital 71 implemented? I cannot see how the protections for children in that recital are picked up in the Bill. There are a lot of things that Keeling schedules are important for. In a detailed Bill like this, they help us to understand how the underlying European legislation will be reflected, which will be crucial for the acceptance of this Bill by the European Union—I pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—and what bits are missing.
And what has been added? Where does paragraph 8 of Schedule 11 come from? It is a very large, loose power. Where are its edges? What is an example of that? I would be very grateful if my noble friend could drop me a note on that before we reach Committee. What is an arguable point under that provision? Where are the limits of our economic interest so far as its influence on this Bill is concerned?
Paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 is another place that worries me. We all make our personal data public, but a lot of the time we do it in a particular context. If I take a photograph with my parliamentary-supplied iPhone, on which there is an app that I have granted the power to look at my photographs for some purpose that I use that app for, I have made that photograph and all the metadata public. That is not what I intended; I made it public for a particular purpose in a particular context—that of social media. A lot of people use things like dating websites. They do not put information on there which is intended to be totally public. Therefore, the wording of paragraph 4 of Schedule 10 seems to be far too wide in the context of the way people use the internet. Principle 2 of the Data Protection Act covers this. It gives us protection against the use of information for purposes which it clearly has not been released for. There does not appear to be any equivalent in the Bill—although I have not picked up the Keeling schedule, so perhaps it is there. However, I would like to know where it is.
On other little bits and pieces, I would like to see the public policy documents under Clause 33(4) and Clause 33(5) made public; at the moment they are not. How is age verification supposed to work? Does it involve the release of data by parents to prove that the child is the necessary age to permit the child access, and if so, what happens to that data? Paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 addresses exam scripts. Why are these suddenly being made things that you cannot retrieve? What are the Government up to here? Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2, on immigration, takes away rights immigrants have at the moment under the Data Protection Act. Why? What is going on?
There are lots of bits and pieces which I hope we can pick up in Committee. I look forward to going through the Bill with a very fine-toothed comb—it is an important piece of legislation.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this Second Reading debate. It is always slightly daunting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. We were colleagues on the Digital Skills Committee a few years back, and he was pretty daunting on that too, being a great fund of knowledge on this subject. I mention at the outset my interests as set out in the register, including as a trustee of the British Library and as a member of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee in the last Parliament. I too welcome this important piece of legislation. I will be brief and confine myself to some general remarks.
There is no doubt that data, big data, data processing and data innovation are all absolutely essential ingredients in the digital revolution which is changing the world around us. However, as we have discussed in debates in this House, advances in technology inevitably risk outstripping our capacity to think through some of the social, ethical and regulatory challenges posed by these advances. This is probably true of questions of data protection.
The last key legislation, the Data Protection Act 1998, was ground-breaking in its time. But it was designed in a different age, when the internet was in its infancy, smartphones did not exist and the digital universe was microscopic compared to today. As the Government have said, we desperately need a regulatory framework which is comprehensive and fit for purpose for the present digital age.
As has been mentioned by other noble Lords, the Bill is also necessary to ensure that our legislation is compatible with the GDPR, which comes into force next year. It is absolutely clear that however Brexit unfolds, our ability to retain an accepted common regulatory framework for handling data is essential; the ability to move data across borders is central to our trading future. I was much struck by the lucid explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, of some of the challenges which lie ahead in achieving this goal of a common regulatory framework for the future.
The Bill before us is undoubtedly a major advance on our earlier legislation. It is inevitably complex, and as today’s debate makes absolutely clear, there are areas which this House will wish to scrutinise carefully and in depth, including issues of consent and the new rights such as the right to be forgotten and to know when personal data has been hacked, and so on. The two areas which will be of particular interest to me as a member of the board of the British Library and as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee in the last Parliament will be, first and foremost, archiving in the public interest, and secondly, Part 4, on data processing by the intelligence services.
In order to support archiving activities, as was made clear in the British Library’s submission during the DCMS consultation earlier this year, it is essential that this legislation provide a strong and robust legal basis to support public and private organisations which are undertaking archiving in the public interest. As I understand it, this new legislation confirms the exemptions currently available in the UK Data Protection Act 1998: safeguarding data processing necessary for archiving purposes in the public interest and archiving for scientific, historical and statistical purposes. This is welcome, but there may perhaps be issues around definitions of who and what is covered by the phrase “archiving in the public interest”. I look forward to further discussion and, hopefully, further reassurances on whether the work of public archiving institutions such as our libraries and museums is adequately safeguarded in the Bill.
On Part 4, data processing by the intelligence services does not fall within scope of the GDPR, and this part of the Bill provides a regime based on the Council of Europe’s modernised—but not yet finally agreed—Convention 108. The intelligence services already comply with data-handling obligations within the regulatory structures found in a range of existing legislation. This includes the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which, as was debated in this Chamber this time last year, creates a number of new offences if agencies wrongly disclose data using the powers in that Act.
The new Bill seeks to replicate the approach of the Data Protection Act 1998, whereby there have been well-established exemptions to safeguard national security. It is obviously vital that the intelligence services be able to continue to operate effectively at home and with our European and other partners, and I look forward to our further discussion during the passage of the Bill on whether this draft legislation gives the intelligence services the safeguards they require to operate effectively.
In sum, this is a most important piece of legislation. If, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, suggests, we can set the bar high, it will be a most significant step forward. First, it will redefine the crucial balance between, on the one hand, the freedom to grasp the extraordinary opportunities offered by the new data world we are in and, on the other, the need to protect sensitive personal data. Secondly, and very importantly, it will put the United Kingdom at the forefront of wider efforts to regulate sensibly and pragmatically the digital revolution which is changing the way we run our lives.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, as the economy becomes more digitised, the politics of data become centrally important. As the Minister himself said, data is the fuel of the digital economy, and public policy now needs an agile framework around which to balance the forces at play. We need to power the economy and innovation with data while protecting the rights of the individual and of wider society from exploitation by those who hold our data. The recent theft of the personal details of 143 million Americans in the hack of Equifax or the unfolding story of abuse of social media in the US elections by Russian agents make the obvious case for data protection.
This Bill attempts to help us tackle some big moral and ethical dilemmas, and we as parliamentarians have a real struggle to be sufficiently informed in a rapidly changing and innovative environment. I welcome the certainty that the Bill gives us in implementing the GDPR in this country in a form that anticipates Brexit and the need to continue to comply with EU data law regardless of membership of the EU in the future.
However, we need e-privacy alongside the GDPR. For example, access to a website being conditional on accepting tracking cookies should be outlawed; we need stricter rules on wi-fi location tracking; browsers should have privacy high by default; and we need to look at extending the protections around personal data to metadata derived from personal data.
But ultimately I believe that the GDPR is an answer to the past. It is a long-overdue response to past and current data practice, but it is a long way from what the Information Commissioner’s briefing describes as,
“one of the final pieces of much needed data protection reform”.
I am grateful to Nicholas Oliver, the founder of people.io, and to Gi Fernando from Freeformers for helping my thinking on these very difficult issues.
The Bill addresses issues of consent, erasure and portability to help protect us as citizens. I shall start with consent. A tougher consent regime is important but how do we make it informed? Even if 13 is the right age for consent, how do we inform that consent with young people, with parents, with adults generally, with vulnerable people and with small businesses which have to comply with this law? Which education campaigns will cut through in a nation where 11 million of us are already digitally excluded and where digital exclusion does not exclude significant amounts of personal data being held about you? And what is the extent of that consent?
As an early adopter of Facebook 10 years ago, I would have blindly agreed to its terms and conditions that required its users to grant it,
“a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content”.
I posted on the site. It effectively required me to give it the right to use my family photos and videos for marketing purposes and to resell them to anybody. Thanks to this Bill, it will be easier for me to ask it to delete that personal data and it will make it easier for me to take it away and put it goodness knows where else with whatever level of security I deem fit, if I can trust it. That is welcome, although I still quite like Facebook, so I will not do it just yet.
But what about the artificial intelligence generated from that data? If, in an outrageous conflagration of issues around fake news and election-fixing by a foreign power to enable a reality TV star with a narcissistic personality disorder to occupy the most powerful executive office in the free world, I take against Facebook, can I withdraw consent for my data to be used to inform artificial intelligences that Facebook can go on to use for profit and for whatever ethical use they see fit? No, I cannot.
What if, say, Google DeepMind got hold of NHS data and its algorithms were used with bias? What if Google gets away with breaking data protection as part of its innovation and maybe starts its own ethics group, marking its own ethics homework? Where is my consent and where do I get a share of the revenue generated by Google selling the intelligence derived in part from my data? And if it sells that AI to a health company which sells a resulting product back to the NHS, how do I ensure that the patients are advantaged because their data was at the source of the product?
No consent regime can anticipate future use or the generation of intelligent products by aggregating my data with that of others. The new reality is that consent in its current form is dead. Users can no longer reasonably comprehend the risk associated with data sharing, and so cannot reasonably be asked to give consent.
The individual as a data controller also becomes central. I have plenty of names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses, and even the birthdays of my contacts in my phone. Some are even Members of your Lordships’ House. If I then, say, hire a car and connect my phone to the car over Bluetooth so that I can have hands-free driving and music from my phone, I may then end up sharing that personal contact data with the car and thereby all subsequent hirers of the car. Perhaps I should be accountable with the car owner for that breach.
Then, thanks to AI, in the future we will also have to resolve the paradox of consent. If AI determines that you have heart disease by facial recognition or by reading your pulse, it starts to make inference outside the context of consent. The AI knows something about you, but how can you give consent for it to tell you when you do not know what it knows? Here, we will probably need to find an intermediary to represent the interests of the individual, not the state or wider society. If the AI determines that you are in love with someone based on text messages, does the AI have the right to tell you or your partner? What if the AI is linked to your virtual assistant—to Siri or Google Now—and your partner asks Siri whether you are in love with someone else? What is the consent regime around that? Clause 13, which deals with a “significant decision”, may help with that, but machine learning means that some of these technologies are effectively a black box where the creators themselves do not even know the potential outcomes.
The final thing I want to say on consent concerns the sensitive area of children. Schools routinely use commercial apps for things such as recording behaviour, profiling children, cashless payments, reporting and so on. I am an advocate of the uses of these technologies. Many have seamless integration with the school management information systems that thereby expose children’s personal data to third parties based on digital contracts. Schools desperately need advice on GDPR compliance to allow them to comply with this Bill when it becomes law.
Then there is the collection of data by schools to populate the national pupil database held by the Department for Education. This database contains highly sensitive data about more than 8 million children in England and is routinely shared with academic researchers and other government departments. The justification for this data collection is not made clear by the DfE and causes a big workload problem in schools. Incidentally, this is the same data about pupils that was shared with the Home Office for it to pursue deportation investigations. I am talking about data collected by teachers for learning being used for deportation. Where is the consent in that?
I have here a letter from a Lewisham school advising parents of its privacy policy. It advises parents to go to a government website to get more information about how the DfE stores and uses the data, if they are interested. That site then advises that the Government,
“won’t share your information with any other organisations for marketing, market research or commercial purposes”.
That claim does not survive any scrutiny. For example, Tutor Hunt, a commercial tutoring company, was granted access to the postcode, date of birth and unique school reference number of all pupils. This was granted for two years up to the end of March this year to give parents advice on school choice. Similar data releases have been given to journalists and others. It may be argued that this data is still anonymous, but it is laughable to suggest that identity cannot then be re-engineered, or engineered in the first place, from birth date, postal code and school. The Government need to get their own house in order to comply with the Bill.
That leads me to erasure, which normally means removing all data that relates to an individual, such as name, address and so on. The remaining data survives with a unique numeric token as an identifier. Conflicting legislation will continue to require companies to keep data for accounting purposes. If that includes transactions, there will normally be enough data to re-engineer identity from an identity token number. There is a clause in the Bill to punish that re-engineering, which needs debating to legitimise benign attempts to test research and data security, as discussed by the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller.
The fact that the Bill acknowledges how easy it is to re-identify from anonymous data points to a problem. The examples of malign hacking from overseas are countless. How do we prevent that with UK law? What are the Government’s plans, especially post Brexit, to address this risk? How do we deal with the risk of a benign UK company collecting data with consent—perhaps Tutor Hunt, which I referred to earlier—that is then acquired by an overseas company, which then uses that data free from the constraints of this legislation?
In the context of erasure, let me come to an end by saying that the Bill also allows for the right to be forgotten for children as they become 18. This is positive, as long as the individual can choose what they want to keep for him or herself. Otherwise, it would be like suggesting you burn your photo albums to stop an employer judging you.
Could the Minister tell me how the right to be forgotten works with the blockchain? These decentralised encrypted trust networks are attractive to those who do not trust big databases for privacy reasons. By design, data is stored in a billion different tokens and synced across countless devices. That data is immutable. Blockchain is heavily used in fintech, and London is a centre for fintech. But the erasure of blockchain data is impossible. How does that work in this Bill?
There is more to be said about portability, law enforcement and the intelligence services, but thinking about this Bill makes my head hurt. Let me close on a final thought. The use of data to fuel our economy is critical. The technology and artificial intelligence it generates have a huge power to enhance us as humans and to do good. That is the utopia we must pursue. Doing nothing heralds a dystopian outcome, but the pace of change is too fast for us legislators, and too complex for most of us to fathom. We therefore need to devise a catch-all for automated or intelligent decisioning by future data systems. Ethical and moral clauses could and should, I argue, be forced into terms of use and privacy policies. That is the only feasible way to ensure that the intelligence resulting from the use of one’s data is not subsequently used against us as individuals or society as a whole. This needs urgent consideration by the Minister.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, many noble Lords will know that my particular interests, clearly stated on the register, are concerned with making the digital world fit for children and young people, and so the greater part of my comments concern that. However, I wanted to say at the outset that dealing with this Bill without having had the opportunity to scrutinise the GDPR or understand the ambition and scope of the Government’s digital charter, their internet safety strategy or even some of the details that we still await on the Digital Economy Act made my head hurt also.
I start with the age of consent. Like others, I am concerned that the age of 13 was a decision reached not on the advice of child development experts, child campaigners or parents. Perhaps most importantly of all, the decision lacks the voice of young people. They are key players in this: the early adopters of emerging technologies, the first to spot its problems and, so very often, the last to be consulted or, indeed, not consulted at all. Also, like others, I was bewildered when I saw Clause 187. Are Scottish children especially mature or are their southern counterparts universally less so? More importantly, it seems that we have to comply with the GDPR, except when we do not.
As the right reverend Prelate has outlined, the age of 13 is really an age of convenience. We have simply chosen to align UK standards with COPPA, a piece of US legislation that its own authors once described to me as a “terrible compromise”, and which dates from 2000, when the notion of every child carrying a smartphone with the processing power of “Apollo 11” and consulting it every few minutes, hundreds of times day and night, was not even in our imagination, let alone our reality.
Before considering whether 13 is the right age, we should understand what plans the Government have to require tech companies to make any provisions for those aged 13 to 17, or whether it is the considered opinion of the UK Government that in the digital environment a 13 year-old is a de facto adult. Will the Government require tech companies to publish data risk assessments setting out how children are likely to engage with their service at different ages and the steps they have taken to support them, including transparent reporting data? Are we to have minimum design standards in parts of the digital environment that children frequent, and that includes those places that they are not supposed to be? Will the ICO have powers to enforce against ISS providers which do not take steps to prevent very young children accessing services designed for people twice their age? My understanding is that age compliance will continue to be monitored and enforced by the ISS companies themselves.
As Ofcom pointed out, in 2016 in the UK, 21% of 10 year-olds, 43% of 11 year-olds and half of all 12 year-olds had a social media profile, in spite of COPPA. Are the Government planning to adequately resource and train all front-line workers with children, teachers, parents and children in a programme of digital literacy as the House of Lords Communications Committee called for, and in doing so inform all concerned—those 13 and under and those between the ages of 13 and 18—on the impact for young people of inhabiting what is increasingly a commercial environment? Until these questions are answered positively, the argument for a hard age of consent seems weak.
In contrast, in its current code of practice on processing personal data online, the ICO recommends a nuanced approach, advising would-be data collectors that:
“Assessing understanding, rather than merely determining age, is the key to ensuring that personal data about children is collected and used fairly”.
The current system places the obligation on the data controller to consider the context of the child user, and requires them to frame and direct the request appropriately. It underpins what we know about childhood: that it is a journey from dependence to autonomy, from infancy to maturity. Different ages require different privileges and levels of support.
If being GDPR compliant requires a hard age limit, how do we intend to verify the age of the child in any meaningful way without, perversely, collecting more data from children than we do from adults? Given that the age of consent is to vary from country to country—16 in the Netherlands, Germany and Hungary; 14 in Austria—data controllers will also need to know the location of a child so that the right rules can be applied. Arguably, that creates more risk for children, but definitely it will create more data.
In all of this we must acknowledge a child’s right to access the digital world knowledgeably, creatively and fearlessly. Excluding children is not the answer, but providing a digital environment fit for them to flourish in must be. There is not enough in this Bill to fundamentally realign young people’s relationship with tech companies when it comes to their data.
Much like the noble Lord, Lord Knight, my view is that we have got this all wrong. In the future, the user will be the owner of their own data, with our preferences attached to our individual online identity. Companies and services will sign up to our bespoke terms and conditions, which will encompass our interests and tolerances, rather than the other way round. If that sounds a little far-fetched, I refer noble Lords to the IEEE, where this proposal is laid out in considerable detail. For those who do not know the IEEE, it is the pre-eminent global organisation of the electrical engineering professions.
While this rather better option is not before us today, it must inform our understanding that the Bill is effectively supporting an uncomfortable status quo. Challenging the status quo means putting children first, for example by putting the code of practice promised in the Digital Economy Act on a statutory footing so that it is enforceable; by imposing minimum design standards where the end-user is likely or may be a child; by publishing guidance to the tech companies on privacy settings, tracking, GPS and so forth; by demanding that they meet the rights of young people in the digital environment; and by a much tougher, altogether more appropriate, regime for children’s data.
All that could and should be achieved by May, because it comes down to the small print and the culture of a few very powerful businesses for which our children are no match. The GDPR offers warm words on consumer rights, automated profiling and data minimisation, but with terms and conditions as long as “Hamlet”, it is disingenuous to believe that plain English or any number of tick boxes for informed or specific consent will materially protect young people from the real-life consequences of data harvesting, which are intrusive, especially when we have left the data poachers in charge of the rules of engagement.
We could do better—a lot better. I agree wholeheartedly with other noble Lords who are looking for structures and principles that will serve us into the future. Those principles should not only serve us in terms of other EU member states but be bold enough to give us a voice in Silicon Valley. In the meantime, the Government can and should enact the derogation under article 80(2) and in the case of complainants under the age of 18, it should not only be a right but a requirement. We cannot endorse a system where we create poster children on front-line battles with tech companies. We are told that this Bill is about data protection for individuals—a Bill that favours users over business and children over the bottom line. But the absence of Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights is an inexcusable omission. The Bill in front of us is simply not robust enough to replace Article 8. I call on the Government to insert that crucial principle into UK legislation. It must be wrong for our post-Brexit legislation to be deliberately absent of underlying principles. It is simply not adequate.
I had a laundry list of issues to bring to Committee, but I think I will overlook them. During the debate, a couple of noble Lords asked whether it was possible to regulate the internet. We should acknowledge that the GDPR shows that it can be done, kicking and screaming. It is in itself a victory for a legislative body—the EU. My understanding is that it will set a new benchmark for data-processing standards and will be adopted worldwide to achieve a harmonised global framework. As imperfect as it is, it proves that regulating the digital environment, which is entirely man and woman-made and entirely privately owned, is not an impossibility but a battle of societal need versus corporate will.
As I said at the beginning, my central concern is children. A child is a child until they reach maturity, not until they reach for their smart phone. Until Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, Tim Cook, Jack Dorsey and the rest, with all their resources and creativity, proactively design a digital environment that encompasses the needs of children and refers to the concept of childhood, I am afraid that it falls to us to insist. The Bill as it stands, even in conjunction with the GDPR, is not insistent enough, which I hope as we follow its passage is something that we can address together.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I very much agreed with those who said that the regulation must certainly apply to the big boys in the computer and digital world. I shuddered when the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, quoted from that wholly incomprehensible Brussels jargon from the regulations.
I received last week a letter as chair of Marlesford Parish Council. We have seven members and only 230 people live in Marlesford. Our precept is only £1,000 a year. A letter from the National Association of Local Councils warned me that the GDPR will impose,
“a legal obligation to appoint a Digital Protection Officer … this appointment may not be as straightforward as you may be assuming, as while it may be possible to appoint an existing member of staff”—
we have no staff, just a part-time parish clerk who is basically a volunteer. It continues:
“They must by requirement of regulations possess ‘expert knowledge of data protection law and practices’”.
I am afraid that will not be found in most small villages in the country, so I hope that one result of this Bill will be to introduce an element of proportionality in how it is to apply, otherwise the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who was so right to draw our attention to the threat of incomprehensibility, will be right and we will all lose the plot.
The time has come to have a reliable and secure link between the state and its citizens, and the capabilities of the digital world that underlie this Bill give us that opportunity. There are good reasons for that. First, apart from the excellent national census which was founded in 1841, with the latest information having been collected in the 2011 census, Governments have an imperfect knowledge of their customers, paymasters or stakeholders—whatever you would like to call the rest of us. The various links have many defects which result in serious failures in the duties and obligations of the state. The first of those is to ensure that those who need financial help or support get it and do not go short as a result of funds going to those who do not need them or are not entitled to them. In this, the national insurance system has been incredibly difficult to organise properly. Again and again people have tried, and again and again they have failed.
Secondly, the National Health Service, which many of us believe to be a pillar of our British way of life, is chronically short of funds. Large sums are spent on free medical treatment for those who are not entitled to it. For example, under the reciprocal healthcare scheme within the EU, which is based on repayments made by each EU Government, we pay more than 10 times as much to other EU Governments for their treatment of our citizens as we collect for treating theirs. That is a gap of £500 million. In the case of the NHS treatment of non-EU citizens, the failure to collect charges now costs £1 billion a year.
Thirdly, control of our borders is inadequate, largely due to the failure of our passport system, an issue I have raised many times in your Lordships’ House.
Fourthly, there are serious defects in policing, combating digital crime and other aspects of law and order. To give just two examples, there are problems for our security services in protecting us from terrorism and identity theft, which is a growing problem. My proposal involves giving every citizen a unique identification number that would be backed by centrally held biometrics to confirm the identity of the citizen. The UIN would supplement and eventually replace the plethora of other state numbers, which include those for national insurance, the registry of births and deaths, national health, HMRC, passports, driving licences, the police national computer, the national firearms register and custodial sentences. Citizens would be required to know their own UIN and to give it to those with a legitimate reason to ask for it. The UIN would be printed on passports, driving licences and so on. To assist those without such documents, it might be helpful to make available a plastic card with the person’s name and UIN. Such a card would not be mandatory and it would have no validity in and of itself. It would not of course be an identity card, any more than a credit card or business card would be. Needless to say, it would have no biometrics of any sort on it.
Access to the biometrics would be carefully restricted to those on a need-to-use basis, and those with such access would have data relevant only to their need to know. The verification process would be based on real-time use of the biometrics. The authority would take the biometrics from an individual when necessary, and such action would be limited to appropriate members of government agencies. They would include the police, immigration officers, security people and so on. The biometrics could then be compared with the central record. Important decisions to be made would include which biometrics should be used, such as facial recognition techniques, fingerprints and so forth. The introduction of the UIN would be gradual, depending on the logistics of collecting the biometrics. Existing numbers would continue to be used for a while. Proper data protection would be key to the viability, security, integrity and public acceptability of the UIN. All I am asking is for Her Majesty’s Government to set up a study of what I propose. I am afraid I am not very confident that they will.
In 1997, I tabled an amendment to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill to set up a national electronic record of all firearms, similar to the excellent one that had long been in use by the DVLA. The amendment was passed and became part of the Act, but for the next 10 years the Home Office used every technique from the “Yes Minister” book to resist implementing it. Thanks to widespread support in this House—including from, if I may so, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in his ministerial position—the amendment was eventually accepted and it has been in useful operation for the past 10 years.
However, I am worried about whether the Government always move as fast as they should on these computer matters. Sometimes they seem rather out of their depth. I remember, in 1966, as a keen young member of the Conservative Research Department, I was sent to carry the bag and take notes for Ernest Marples, a great political figure, around the world, to America and Japan, to see how we could use new techniques—electronic techniques and all the rest—to run the Government better. When I came back, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, I met a very senior official, a charming Under-Secretary from the Ministry of Health. I said to him, “You know, I’ve just been in America and Conrad Hilton has this wonderful system. He tracks everything that happens in his hotels: where the money goes, what the clients do and all the rest of it. Your hospitals are really rather like hotels—couldn’t you start doing the same?” He looked at me and shook his head and said, “Mark, before we spend government money on computers, we have to be sure they are here to stay”.
The Earl of Lytton (CB)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for the opportunity to meet him and officials earlier today.
I welcome the stated purpose of the Bill. In my mind, it must be sensible to unify and consolidate the law in this area, and to update its application to more recent technologies. Bringing the GDPR into UK law is unquestionably desirable. I have been impressed by the GDPR’s elegance and sense of purpose, following, as it does—or claims to do—the European Charter of Fundamental Rights in 88 pages of self-reinforcing statements of principles.
I cannot go on without welcoming the EU Select Committee’s report, so ably spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who I see is not in his place. I think it is a pity that the report did not have its own slot. Despite acknowledging that the Bill fleshes out the regulation to make it member-state applicable, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I worry about a Bill of 218 pages and an explanatory note of 112 pages, plus a departmental pack of 247 pages to deal with it all. That all adds to the complexity. I admit that the GDPR conceals its highly challenging requirements in wording of beguiling simplicity under the flag of private rights, but it is no wonder that the European Parliament did not want its handiwork contextualised by inclusion in what we have before us. It is not a particularly encouraging start to bringing 40 years of EU legislation into domestic law.
In what I felt was an inspirational contribution, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox—I am sorry she is not in her place—referred to the tortuous use of language in parts of the Bill. I agree with her—parts of it are gobbledygook that deny transparency to ordinary mortals. She referred also to my direct ancestor, Ada Lovelace, some of whose expressions of mathematical principles, even for a non-mathematician such as me, make a good deal more sense than parts of the Bill.
The Bill sets out to replace the 1998 Act with new GDPR provisions, meaning new and enhanced rights of data subjects for access, portability and transparency, and duties on controllers on specific consent—not by default, it should be noted—procedural audit trails, a more clearly defined regulatory and supervisory framework, and potential for substantially increased fines for infractions. There is enough that is new, apart from public expectations and the revised geometry as between data subject and data controller, which will naturally give rise to a fresh view of precedent and practice.
Consistency of the Bill with the GDPR core principles, as well as the fundamental rights upon which it is based, will be our focus at the Bill proceeds. A lot of organisations will need to review the way in which they are authorised, in their logging of the origins and possible destinations of personal data they hold, as well as the protocols for responding to requests for information from data subjects. I do not doubt that there will be some pitfalls for the unwary. It may no longer be possible to rely on the continuing acceptability and lawfulness of the previous arrangements under which they have operated, nor to second guess with accuracy how regulation and enforcement will unfold henceforward.
So there may be something going well beyond the more benign narrative of updating, modernising and extending the application on its own. There seem to be some particularly uncharted waters here, with the burden of proof as to compliance and adequacy of arrangements being firmly in the lap of the controller on what looks very like a strict liability basis. That alters the geometry of what will be dealt with.
As regards international cross-jurisdictional data— I am thinking of beyond the EU—I wonder how successfully the proposed arrangements will carry forward in the longer term, bearing in mind that the world market contains numerous players who for their own purposes and advantage might not be that keen to match the standards we claim to set for ourselves. Indeed, the construct of ethical data comes to mind, with all the usual caveats previously associated with ethical foreign policy—the noble Lord, Lord Knight, referred to the ethics; I agree with him that there is a strong threat. That would follow a global principle that sits behind GDPR.
The GDPR is hypothecated on the principle of individual compliance of each processor enterprise, so in a data-processing daisy chain across continents the continued tying in to the tenets of the GDPR is an obvious practical problem with some limitations and it should give us cause for reflection, although I have some admiration for the algorithm that the GDPR sets out to create.
I question how the Government view the ongoing processing of more historical personal data, referred to by other noble Lords, when the purpose for collecting it or the basis for any implied or deemed consent either had not been met or should long since have been refreshed or treated as expired. We all know that old data is still sloshing around in the ether, some of it potentially of dubious accuracy, but I merely point to the fact that this is often an ongoing processing operation without beginning or end point or any apparent possibility of amending or deleting records, as mentioned by other noble Lords. The amount of screening needed to ensure accuracy would be vast. I am entirely unclear that this Bill or the GDPR will improve things for those data subjects for whom this sort of thing can be harmful. I am not thinking just of social media. How will legacy data be dealt with, especially as it does not seem to have been entirely successfully corralled by the 1998 Act or by all other member states under the 1995 data protection directive? I see the correction of that as one of the fundamental principles behind the GDPR—it is the trip wire which has been put there deliberately.
I have concerns about some of the “get out” provisions included in the Bill. The first is the “too difficult” excuse; businesses already use this as a blocking measure. How does one get round the argument that it is too difficult to extract the individual personal data despite knowing that it is the targeted agglomeration of such data, relating to a natural individual, that is the outcome of the processing? The second is that the request is regarded as vexatious. This of course can be concocted by the simple expedient of being evasive towards the first two requests and from the third onwards treating it as repetitive or vexatious—it already happens. I would like reassurance from the Minister that the basic individual rights promised under the GDPR cannot be so circumvented.
The third excuse is “too much data”, referred to by other noble Lords; in other words, there is a lot of personal data held on an individual data subject. Here, there is a provision that the data controller may decline to give information if the precise nature of the data sought is not specified. My impression is that failure of a data subject to specify allows the controller to become unresponsive. If that is the intention, it seems to me to fail the broader test of article 14 of the GDPR, the basic premise of which is that the data subject is entitled to accurate and intelligible information.
It cannot be assumed that the data subject already knows what the scale and nature of the data held actually are or precisely who holds it, although it is clear that the GDPR gives an entitlement to this information. It must follow that, at very least, the controller, in making his “too much data” response, has to identify the general nature, categories and type of data held about that person. I invite the Minister to comment on what is intended. I concur very much with the point so eloquently made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on the asymmetry of technical knowledge, resource and political clout as between the data subject and the controller, particularly when set against the practical challenge of extracting individual personal data in response to a formal request.
I was reminded of something only yesterday, as a result of a question as to whether a person was or was not at a certain place at a certain time, which was averred by a complainant in a harassment case who used CCTV footage they had created themselves. It was pointed out that the person against whom the complaint was made said they were somewhere else, in a retail premises covered by other CCTV footage. However, it appeared that the retail premises operator would not release the data because it also contained images of other people and there were, accordingly, privacy issues. What is the balance of rights and protections to be in such a case, where somebody faces prosecution?
That leads me to the issue of data collected by public bodies and agencies. I do not think it is generally understood what personal data is shared by police, social services, health bodies and others, some of them mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. Indeed, I am clear that I do not know either, but I believe that many of these agencies hold data in a number of different forms and on a variety of platforms, many of which are bespoke and do not readily talk to other systems. The data are collected for one purpose and used for other purposes, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, rightly observed. It is on record in debates in this House that some of these bodies do not actually know how many data systems they have, even less what data—whether usable, personal, relevant or accurate, as the case may be—they actually contain. How does one enforce that situation? Some of these databases may not even be operating with the knowledge of the Information Commissioner. There will be an expectation that that is going to be tightened up.
A considerable measure of latitude is afforded to the processing of personal data in the public interest. I will be very brief on this point. I would not rest easy that we have an adequate separation of genuine public interest from administrative convenience and I looked in vain for clarification as to what public interest would amount to in this context. I have to say that I am even more confused than I was when I started. In the longer term it remains to be seen how the GDPR will work, incorporated into UK law, interpreted and enforced firstly through our domestic courts under the aegis of the EU but subsequently on a twin-track basis, when we will be dealing with it ourselves through the precedents of our own judicial system and the same GDPR will be being looked at in a European context elsewhere.
I want the Bill to work; I want to enable proper business use of data and to empower data subjects, as the GDPR promises, with a minimum of obfuscation, prevarication and deceit. Transparency has not been the hallmark of UK data businesses or government administration in this respect, but without it there is no justice, due process or citizen confidence in the rule of law and it will be corrosive if we do not get this right. However, I do not see any fundamental mismatch between this and best business practice, so I look forward to further debates on the Bill as we proceed.
Lord Mitchell (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the Data Protection Act was introduced in 1998. In those days, Facebook, Google and Uber did not exist, Amazon was barely four years old, Apple was tottering under the imminent threat of bankruptcy, search engines were rudimentary, as was the internet itself, and it would be another nine years until the iPhone would be launched. It was, indeed, a very different world. While I welcome the Bill, it remains a fact that when it becomes an Act next year it will be 20 years since its predecessor was enacted. Information and digital technology are growing exponentially. No other industry in the history of the world has even come close to this rate of growth. Legislation needs to match and anticipate the speed of these developments. Certainly, we cannot wait until 2037 for the next Data Protection Act.
Today I am going to raise three issues, which I would like the Minister to respond to. They all centre on the dominant and predatory behaviour of the American big tech giants. I will give your Lordships a striking example of such behaviour from one of them: Apple. In an ideal world, I would like every Member here who has an iPhone to take it out and turn it on, but that probably contravenes the Standing Orders of your Lordships’ House. So I will do the next best thing: I will set out five iPhone directions and, in the cool of the evening, when noble Lords have Hansard in front of them, they can replicate what I am now going to demonstrate.
Click on Settings, then Privacy, then Location Services. Then scroll all the way down until you see System Services, and then scroll halfway down and click on something called Significant Locations. If you are a little behind the times and do not have iOS 11, it is called Frequent Locations. You will probably be asked for a password. Then you will see History and a list of locations. Click on any one of them. Your Lordships will be staggered by what is revealed: every single location that you have visited in the past month—when you arrived, when you left, how long you stayed—all this very private and confidential information is starkly displayed. Who gave Apple permission to store this information about me on my iPhone? It is the default setting, but Apple never asked me. It will argue, of course, that it is private information and it has no access to it—maybe. If you think about it, the opportunities for snooping on people very close to you are endless and dangerous. Now the latest iPhone, the iPhone 8, has facial recognition. It does not take much imagination to work out how somebody could get access to a close member of your family and find out where they have been for the past month, without their permission to do it.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who spoke about Apple and its terms and conditions. She said that they were longer than “Hamlet”. I read that the iTunes terms and conditions were longer than “Macbeth”. Well, “Macbeth” or “Hamlet”, whatever it is, it is an awful lot of words. Of course, you have no opportunity to change those terms and conditions. You either agree or disagree. If you disagree, you cannot use the phone. So what choice do you have?
I see this as typical big tech behaviour. These companies run the world according to their rules, not ours. I have long campaigned against the cavalier approach of big tech companies in all aspects of business and personal life. These include Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Google and, of course, Apple. I was going to make some quip about the west-coast climate and the breezes of the west coast, but I guess with the news of the past two days that is probably not a good thing to be doing. Big tech companies have become mega-libertarians, positioning themselves above Governments and other regulators. They say they are good citizens and abide by the law. They have corporate mantras which say, “Do no evil”, but they stash away hundreds of billions of stateless, untaxed dollars. They promote end-to-end encryption. They are disingenuous when foreign Governments try to influence democratic elections. Perhaps they do no evil, but neither are they the model citizens they say they are.
So full marks to EU Commissioner Margrethe Vestager for bringing Apple, Google and Amazon to task, and full marks to President Macron for his efforts to set up an EU-wide equalisation tax to ensure that corporation tax is based on revenue, not creative accounting. I know that this is a DCMS Bill and international taxation is outside the Minister’s brief, but I have heard the Prime Minister criticise these tax dodges by big tech so I ask him or his colleagues in the Treasury: will the Government support the French President in this campaign?
I now turn to another area which is giving me great concern, which is digital health and health information in general. One of the great treasures we have in this country concerns our population’s health records. The NHS has been in existence since 1948 and in those 70 years the data of tens of millions of patients have been amassed. They are called longitudinal data, and they are a treasure trove. Such data can be instrumental in developing drugs and advanced medical treatment. Few other countries have aggregated such comprehensive health data. It puts us in pole position. However, in 2016 Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust sold its rights to its data to a company called DeepMind, a subsidiary of—yes, noble Lords have guessed it—Google. The records of 1.6 million people were handed over. In June this year, Taunton and Somerset NHS Foundation Trust signed a similar deal with DeepMind. The data are being used to create a healthcare app called Streams, an alert, diagnosis and detection system for acute kidney injury, and who can object to that? However, patients have not consented to their personal data being used in this way.
Ms Elizabeth Denham, the Information Commissioner, has said that the Royal Free should have been more transparent and that DeepMind failed to comply with the existing Data Protection Act, but the issue is much graver than not complying with the Act. I do not know this for sure, but if I had to bet on who negotiated the better deal, Google or the Royal Free, I know where my money would be. DeepMind will make a fortune. I put this to the Minister: does he agree that NHS patient data are a massive national asset that should be protected? Does he agree that this mass of patient data should not be sold outright in an uncontrolled form to third parties? I know the NHS is strapped for cash, but there are many better ways of maximising returns. One way would be for NHS records to be anonymised and then licensed rather than sold outright, as is common with much intellectual property. I also believe that the NHS should have equity participation in the profits generated by the application of this information. After all, to use the vernacular of venture capital, it, too, has skin in the game.
As today’s debate has shown, there are fundamental questions that need to be answered. I have posed three. First, what protection will we have to stop companies such as Apple storing private data without our express permission? Secondly, will the UK support the French President in his quest for an equalisation tax aimed at big tech? Finally, how can we protect key strategic data, such as digital health, from being acquired without our permission by the likes of Google?
Viscount Eccles (Con)
My Lords, I think I should introduce my wife to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell. She has some worries about Apple and, come to think of it, she has probably been snooping on me.
I shall spend my time on the European Union Committee’s third report. I very much welcome the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the very measured way he introduced the report. I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones that we want the committee to go on studying these matters so that we come to understand them better than we do. That seems very important because an aspect of this Bill is that it is a pre-Brexit negotiation Bill. All the things in the Bill are of massive interest, as has been illustrated, but, as I understand it, in the Government’s mind it is a preparation for the negotiations that will inevitably follow, given the timing of the introduction of the GDPR and the triggering of Article 50. Of course, the provisions of the GDPR come under the single market in the systems of the European Union, which makes it even more important that we think very carefully about where we are and how we can make the best of it.
I have to admit that I do not think the starting point is a very good one. It seems to me that we used to understand that the European Union method of negotiation was that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, but it has thrown that out of the window and this is not the way this negotiation is going. If nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, you have to have discussed everything before you come to the conclusion, but this is not where we are. The Commission keeps saying, “You are bad boys and have not offered us enough”, so the starting point is not very good, which raises the question of where data protection will come in to these negotiations.
I admire the Explanatory Notes—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, did—which are a pretty good document compared to other Explanatory Notes that I have seen in the past. I was also interested in the August statement of intent, which was full of good intentions. But I think I rely more on the evidence that was given to the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and on that committee’s conclusions. Its central conclusion was that we should seek to achieve an “adequacy” decision. The report goes on, positively, to make recommendations on other difficulties such as the arrangements with the United States, as well as on the maintenance of adequacy, how it might be achieved and the continuance of shared policy.
I will offer just a word about “adequacy” and the use of language. The word “fairly”, which has no meaning in a court, has been used this afternoon. The word “adequacy” is pretty subjective. It has always been the Commission’s tendency to want to use words that are difficult to understand and have no clear meaning in English, such as “subsidiarity”—although that has not come into this part of our campaigning. Common sense tells us that both we and the European Union would be sensible to want to maintain data flows, with adequate protection. That is to say, although the present regime is not perfect, we would want it to continue and to improve.
However, unfortunately, our Brexit vote of no confidence in the Commission and in the project that it pursues has left us in an embarrassing and, it must be said, unfriendly negotiating atmosphere. What is more, our previous contributions following the Council of Europe’s Convention 108 have been very considerable. We not only started the ball rolling, together with many other members of the European Union—Germany, Austria, France and so on—with legislation in 1984, but we assisted a great deal in the run-up to the directive of 1995, when the European Union came into the action, somewhat after it had started; 10 years in fact. Then we had the 1998 Act, on which people have commented. With its 74 clauses and 16 schedules, it has done rather well in the circumstances of a changing world. However, that now seems not to help us with the Commission. We have been very helpful but now we have decided to walk off the pitch, and I think people do not like it if you leave in the middle of the game.
What we need from the Commission, as we have had on other occasions, is a flexibility of response, but I am afraid that is not the Commission’s strong point. Nor is its attitude to the Council of Europe, which started the process of Convention 108. I am not convinced that it will be full of joy at the Council of Europe modernising Convention 108. The EU has made an effort to become a member of the Council of Europe, so far unsuccessful. A personal reflection: if it were to be successful, with 27 or 28 votes out of 47, I suppose it would hope to take charge.
We are the defaulters, seen as obstinate, self-interested and unable to recognise the need for ever-closer union. And so we have this Bill. It is a sensible effort to get and remain in line with EU regulation—to show and share equivalence—even if in two places, I suspect much to the parliamentary draftsman’s distress, we qualify it with the adverb “broadly”. I am also sure we are right that we should be looking for an adequacy decision but, despite the excellent report and its very clear and admirable conclusions, will the Commission reciprocate? It will always be easy to quibble with third-country adequacy. It is a very complex subject and there will never be any difficulty in disagreeing with something; your Lordships have demonstrated that very clearly this afternoon. There is no perfect answer, certainly not one that will withstand the changes that make even a very good answer not such a good one later. So I am afraid my conclusion is that, unless things change, the Commission will continue to find fault with however manfully we try to satisfy its requirements. Is there then a chance that there will be some political intervention, some repetition of the statesmanlike behaviour of European politicians in 1949, the starting year of the Council of Europe? We have about a year to find out. Maybe, but I would not bet on it. No deal on this matter by default seems increasingly likely.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, I am going to deal with my concerns about how the Bill might affect journalism and free speech. I declare my interest as a series producer at ITN Productions.
In the fast-changing world of the digital revolution, it is beholden on noble Lords to be vigilant about the way in which our personal data is now so readily available to so many people to be processed in so many ways, more than many of us ever conceived. I am glad that the GDPR has been brought forward and that this Bill protects further the availability and use of personal information. However, I am concerned that these new privacy rights will be balanced with further limitations on the freedom of the press and the ability of journalists to carry out investigative journalism in the public interest, which I believe was one of the original aims of the Data Protection Act 1998.
At the moment, data protection legislation is being used to control unwelcome exposure of incriminating personal information by journalists. We have seen cases such as that of Prince Moulay v Elaph Publishing, in which the original case for defamation was thrown out as not libellous, only for the Prince to instigate proceedings for the incriminating information against him to be removed from the public sphere using data protection law, despite the intention of the original Act being that there should be an exemption for journalism.
I understand the sentiment behind the “right to be forgotten” clause. Of course, many people want their youthful indiscretions to be forgotten and, for most, it is important that they should be. This concept is based on the Costeja v Google Spain case, which stopped links being made to personal information in search results. However, the courts are now being tested to see whether the original information itself can be suppressed.
In the age of fake news, it has never been more important to be able to go back to source material to check original data against more recent updates and deletions. Noble Lords will have heard of click bait, where sites are specifically set up to shock with false information to attract eyeballs—as they call them in the industry—and make money from the resultant advertising. Noble Lords must not suppress the means to refute such fake news and ascertain the truth.
So I am very pleased that GDPR article 17 has an exemption for publication of data for free speech and the holding of archives in the public interest, further safeguarded in article 89. However, Clause 18, which indeed provides welcome protection for many archives held in the public interest—for instance, those for historical, scientific and statistical purposes—does give protection to cover media archives.
My concern is that past media articles are an important source for verifying information. They might hold reports of criminal convictions of the person or information about a politician’s past which, years later, when they are trying to stand for office, might prove embarrassing but informative for voters. Surely business people, voters and many others should have full access to the information in those archives, whether it is embarrassing or not. This information helps them to shape a fuller profile of the person whose reputation they are trying to assess.
In the digital age, there are millions of opinions, but refuting falsehoods or discovering the truth has never been more difficult. The only way to do that is through source material on trusted websites or archives, where the information has been mediated and checked. I suggest that websites holding archives of trusted media organisations should be protected by and covered in the Bill. The inherent public interest in such archives should be explicitly recognised, as provided in the GDPR.
I am pleased that there is an exemption for data processing for journalism in Schedule 2, part 5, paragraph 24. However, in sub-paragraph (2), there is concern that the exemption applies only when the processing of data is used for journalism. If this information, once it has been gathered for journalism, is subsequently used by the regulators or the police, the use of the word “only” will negate that exemption. I ask the Minister to look at that again.
I am also concerned about the extension of the powers of the ICO prior to publication to examine whether information is exempt from data protection provisions because it is being processed for journalism. GDPR article 6 contains an obligation to consult the Information Commissioner, but Clause 164 goes much further. It enhances the power of the ICO to examine the application of the exemptions for journalism prior to publication and unilaterally second-guess editorial decisions made in respect of the provisions in the Bill.
This means that if a journalist is investigating, for instance, people smugglers, involving undercover filming or subterfuge which is deemed to create a high risk to data subjects, the ICO can intervene prior to publication. The commissioner has the power to apply their objective view to the claim, which might overwrite and disregard the reasonable view of an editor. The ICO might, for example, call for the individual being investigated to be notified in advance that their data is being used, or that they should be given access to additional data being held about them as part of the journalistic investigation.
In my view, this is not even consistent with the terms of journalistic exemption. It would result in investigative journalism being delayed or even stopped until the ICO has examined it for compliance with part of the Act prior to publication. The provision could act as a form of censorship. The existing right of the editor to decide whether the story should go ahead in the public interest will therefore be eroded. I suggest that Clause 164 should be amended to ensure that investigative journalism is not chilled by the extension of powers of intervention by the ICO prior to publication.
Finally, I am concerned that there is no time limit on the right to sue in respect of information processed for special purposes, which continues to be retained or published in the media archive. Under the Defamation Act, that limitation was one year from the date of publication. Under this Bill, there is no limitation. Surely, if information is inaccurate, the complainant should sue within a specific period. The longer the case is delayed from the original publication date, the more difficult it is to refute the allegations. The journalist could move on, contact with the original source material might be lost, memories blurred and notes, even those held digitally, mislaid. Complainants must have the right to complain, but there must be a balance with the time period when that can be done. A failure to have a period of limitation will surely be a chilling effect on the publication of information.
I welcome this Bill as an important advance in protecting privacy in the digital age, but I am concerned that some of its provisions do not yet strike the right balance between privacy and free speech. I ask the Minister to take my concerns seriously.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate our Ministers and the Government on bringing this Bill to our House in this timely way. It is extremely technical—and herein lies a danger, because it is also very important and covers matters that can be expected to become even more important over time. We must therefore put aside the temptation to think that technical matters are somehow of lesser importance, simply because we do not fully understand them. I declare an interest as the Minister responsible when the EU parent of this Bill, the GDPR, was adopted. While I saw it as a necessary single market measure and a modernising one, there were a number of provisions that we could have done without, mostly introduced by the European Parliament, such as requiring a specific age of consent, which the Government have now proposed should be 13 in the UK, in line with the United States.
In contrast, as always, our UK approach is market opening. We want a competitive, growing Europe, and we want the digital revolution, with its subset artificial intelligence, to continue to stoke growth. But some in the EU have always been most concerned with giving citizens back control over their personal data, an issues that assumed particular importance following the release of documents involving Chancellor Merkel by WikiLeaks. To be fair, the UK has also in this case stated its wish to simplify the regulatory environment for business, and we need to make sure that that actually happens here in the UK. Committee will give us the chance to talk about the merits of the digital revolution and its darker side, which we touched on during the excellent debate led by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. I shall not go over that ground again now, but I add one point to the story told by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell: my Google Maps app now highlights the location of future engagements in my diary. So that is pretty challenging.
I shall touch as others have done on three concerns. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, the measures represent a significant step up in the scope of data protection obligations. High-risk undertakings could phase additional costs of £75,000 a year from the GDPR. The MoJ did an impact assessment in 2012, which is no doubt an underestimate, since it did not take account of the changes made by the European Parliament, which estimated the cost at £260 million in 2018-19 and £310 million by 2025-26. I am not even sure if that covers charities or public organisations or others who have expressed concerns to me about the costs and the duties imposed. Then there are the costs of the various provisions in the Bill, many levelling up data protection measures outside the scope of the GDPR. It is less confusing, I accept, but also more costly to all concerned.
The truth is that overregulation is a plague that hits productivity. Small businesses are suffering already from a combination of measures that are justified individually—pension auto-enrolment, business rates and the living wage—but together can threaten viability at a time of Brexit uncertainty. We must do all we can to come to an honest estimate of the costs and minimise the burden of the new measures in this legislation.
Also, I know that CACI, one of our leading market analysis companies working for top brands such as John Lewis and Vodafone, thinks that the provisions in the Bill are needlessly gold-plated. Imperial College has contacted me about the criminalisation of the re-identification of anonymised data, which it thinks will needlessly make more difficult the vital security work that it and others do.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, were concerned about being able to contact people at risk where scientific advance made new treatments available—a provision that surely should be covered by the research exemption.
The second issue is complication. It is a long and complicated Bill. We need good guidance for business on its duties—old and new, GDPR and Data Protection Bill—in a simple new form and made available in the best modern way: online. I suggest that—unlike the current ICO site—it should be written by a journalist who is an expert in social media. The Minister might also consider the merits of online training and testing in the new rules. I should probably declare an interest: we used it in 2011 at Tesco for the Bribery Act and at the IPO for a simple explanation of compliance with intellectual property legislation.
The third issue is scrutiny. I am afraid that, as is usual with modern legislation, there are wide enabling powers in the Bill that will allow much burdensome and contentious subordinate detail to be introduced without much scrutiny. The British Medical Association is very concerned about this in relation to patient confidentiality. Clause 15, according to the excellent Library Note, would allow the amendment or repeal of derogations in the Bill by an affirmative resolution SI, thereby shifting control over the legal basis for processing personal data from Parliament to the Executive. Since the overall approach to the Bill is consensual, this is the moment to take a stand on the issue of powers and take time to provide for better scrutiny and to limit the delegated powers in the Bill. Such a model could be useful elsewhere—not least in the Brexit process.
There are two other things I must mention on which my noble friend may be able to provide some reassurance. First, I now sit on the European Union Committee. I am sorry that duties there prevented me sitting through some of this important debate; we were taking important evidence on “no deal”. As the House knows, the committee is much concerned with the detail of Brexit. Data protection comes up a lot—almost as much as the other business concern, which is securing the continued flow of international talent. I would like some reassurance from my noble friend Lady Williams about the risks of Brexit in the data area. If there is no Brexit deal, will the measures that we are taking achieve equivalence—“adequacy”, in the jargon—so that we can continue to move data around? What international agreements on data are in place to protect us in the UK and our third-country investors? Under an agreed exit, which is my preference, is there a way that our regulator could continue to be part of the European data protection supervisory structure and attend the European Data Protection Board, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, the esteemed interim chairman of our European Union Committee—or is that pie in the sky?
Secondly, there is a move among NGOs to add a provision for independent organisations to bring collective redress actions for data protection breaches. I am against this proposal. In 2015 we added such a provision to competition legislation—with some hesitation on my part. This provision needs to demonstrate its value before we add parallel provisions elsewhere. It is in everyone’s interests to have a vibrant economy, but business is already facing headwinds in many areas, notably because of the uncertainty surrounding Brexit. In future it will be subject to a much fiercer data protection enforcement regime under our proposals.
I have talked about the costs and others have mentioned the new duties and there will be maximum fines of up to 4% of turnover for data breaches, compared with £0.5 million at present. We certainly do not need yet another addition to the compensation culture. This could reduce sensible risk taking and perversely deter the good attitudes and timely actions to put things right that you see in responsible companies when they make a mistake. There is a real danger that the lawyers would get to take over in business and elsewhere and give the Bill a bad name. That would be unfortunate.
However, in conclusion, I welcome the positive aspects of this important Bill and the helpful attitude of our Ministers. I look forward to the opportunity of helping to improve it in its course through the House.
Baroness O’Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, as the last speaker before the winding speeches, I think it is my duty to be extremely brief, so I will try. We have had nearly 20 years of the Data Protection Act. We need this legislation because, if nothing else were the case, the United Kingdom will remain in the European Union on 18 May next year, which is the date of implementation of the new regulation, so we have to do something.
I will make a few rather sceptical remarks about the long-term viability of data protection approaches to protecting privacy. They have, of course, worked, or people have made great efforts to make them work, but I think the context in which they worked, at least up to a point, has become more difficult and they are less likely to work. The definition of personal data used in data protection approaches, and retained here, is data relating to a living individual who is identified, or can be identified, from the data. It is that modal idea of who can be identified that has caused persistent problems. Twenty years ago it was pretty reasonable to assume that identification could be prevented provided one could prevent either inadvertent or malicious disclosure, so the focus was on wrongful disclosure. However, today identification is much more often by inference and it is very difficult to see how inference is to be regulated.
The first time each of us read a detective story, he or she enjoyed the business of looking at the clues and suddenly realising, “Ah, I know whodunnit”. That inference is the way in which persons can be identified from data and, let us admit it, not merely from data that are within the control of some data controller. Data protection is after all in the end a system for regulating data controllers, combined with a requirement that institutions of a certain size have a data controller, so there is a lot that is outside it. However, if we are to protect privacy, there is, of course, reason to think about what is not within the control of any data controller. Today, vast amounts of data are outwith the control of any data controller: they are open data. Open data, as has been shown—a proof of concept from several years ago—can be fully anonymised and yet a process of inference can lead to the identification of persons. This is something we will have to consider in the future in thinking about privacy.
Moreover, throughout the period of data protection, one of the central requirements for the acceptable use of otherwise personal data has been that consent should be sought, yet the concepts of consent used in this area are deeply divisive and various. In commercial contexts, consent requirements are usually interpreted in fairly trivial ways. When we all download new software, we are asked to accept terms and conditions. This is called an end-user licence agreement. You tick and you click and you have consented to 45 pages of quite complicated prose that you did not bother to read and probably would not have understood if you had maintained attention for 45 pages. It does not much matter, because we have rather good consumer protection legislation, but there is this fiction of consent. However, at the other end of the spectrum, and in particular in a medical context, we have quite serious concepts of consent. For example, to name one medical document, the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association contains the delicious thought that the researcher must ensure that the research participant has understood—then there is a whole list of things they have to understand, which includes the financial arrangements for the research. This is a fiction of consent of a completely different sort.
We should be aware that, deep down in this legislation, there is no level playing field at all. There are sectoral regimes with entirely different understandings of consent. We have, in effect, a plurality of regimes for privacy protection. Could we do otherwise or do better? I will not use any time, but I note that legislation that built on the principle of confidentiality, which is a principle that relates to the transfer of data from one party to another, might be more effective in the long run. It would of course have to be a revised account of confidentiality that was not tied to particular conceptions of professional or commercial confidentiality. We have to go ahead with this legislation now, but it may not be where we can stay for the long run.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this has been an interesting, and for me at times a rather confusing, debate on the issues associated with the Bill. The Bill is complex, but I understand that it is necessarily complex. For example, under European law it is not allowed to reproduce the GDPR in domestic legislation. The incorporation of the GDPR into British law is happening under the repeal Bill, not under this legislation. Therefore, the elephant and the prints are in the other place rather than here.
We on these Benches welcome the Bill. It provides the technical underpinnings that will allow the GDPR to operate in the UK both before and after Brexit, together with the permitted derogations from the GDPR available to all EU member states. For that reason it is an enabling piece of legislation, together with the GDPR, which is absolutely necessary to allow the UK to continue to exchange data, whether it is done by businesses for commercial purposes or by law enforcement or for other reasons, once we are considered to be a third-party nation rather than a member of the European Union.
We also welcome the extension of the effect of the GDPR—the rules and regulations that the GDPR provides—to other areas that are currently covered by the Data Protection Act 1998 but which are outside the scope of the GDPR, thus, as far as I understand it, providing a consistent approach to data protection across the piece. This leaves law enforcement and national security issues outside of the scope of GDPR and the “applied GDPR”, which are covered in Parts 3 and 4.
The enforcement regime, the Information Commissioner, is covered in Part 5, because we will repeal the Data Protection Act 1998 and so we need to restate the role of the Information Commissioner as the person who will enforce, and we will need to explore concerns that we have in each part of the Bill as we go through Committee. However, generally speaking, we welcome the Bill and its provisions.
Of course, what the Government, very sensibly, are trying to do but do not want to admit, is to ensure that the UK complies with EU laws and regulations—in this case in relation to data protection—so that it can continue to exchange data with the EU both before and after Brexit. All this government hype about no longer being subject to EU law after Brexit is merely the difference between having to be subject to EU law because we are a member of the EU and having to be subject to EU law because, if we do not, we will not be able to trade freely with the EU or exchange crime prevention and detection intelligence, and counterterrorism intelligence, with the EU. That is the only difference.
For most aspects of data exchange, compliance with the GDPR is required. The GDPR is directly applicable, so it cannot simply be transposed into this Bill. Coupled with the derogations and applying the GDPR to other aspects of data processing not covered by the GDPR makes this part of the Bill complex—and, as I suggest, probably necessarily so.
For law enforcement purposes, data exchange is covered by an EU law enforcement directive, which can be, and has been, transposed to form Part 3 of the Bill as far as I understand it. A data protection regime for the processing of personal data by the intelligence services—in the case of the UK, MI5, MI6 and GCHQ —is covered by Council of Europe Convention 108. Part 4 of the Bill is based on a modernised draft of Convention 108, which has yet to be formally agreed, but this puts the UK in effect slightly ahead of the curve on that aspect of regulation.
Clearly, we need to probe and test the derogations allowed under the GDPR that are proposed in the Bill, particularly when hearing about the potential consequences, as outlined by, for example, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. We also need to examine whether applying GDPR rules and regulations to other areas of data processing provides equivalent or enhanced safeguards compared with those provided by the Data Protection Act, and we need to ensure that the safeguards provided by the law enforcement directive and Council of Europe Convention 108 are provided by the Bill.
As regards our specific concerns, as my noble friend Lord McNally mentioned in his opening remarks and as reinforced by my noble friend Lady Ludford, if the Bill results in a refusal to allow not-for-profit bodies to exercise Articles 77 to 79 to pursue data protection infringements on their own accord, we will have to challenge that, but perhaps the Minister can clarify whether that is the case.
As my noble friend Lady Ludford also mentioned, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, various provisions to allow Ministers to alter the application of the GDPR by regulation is something that we need much further scrutiny of, albeit that Ministers’ hands are likely to be tied by the requirement to comply with changing EU law after Brexit—de facto even if not de jure. Could it be—perhaps the Minister can help us here—that the purpose of these powers, put into secondary legislation, is to enable the UK to keep pace with changes in EU law after Brexit?
Although we welcome the ability of individuals to challenge important wholly automated decisions, requiring human intervention at the request of the data subject, research shows that the application of algorithms and artificial intelligence, even in machine learning of language, can result in unfair discrimination. Even when human decision-making is informed by automated processes, safeguards still need to be in place to ensure fairness, such as transparency around what the automated processes involve. While decisions around personal finance, such as credit scoring and the assessment of insurance risk, are important, in the United States the application of algorithms in the criminal justice arena has resulted in unfair discrimination that has even more serious consequences for individuals. Even if such automated processes are yet to apply to the UK criminal justice system, the Bill must safeguard against future developments that may have unintended negative consequences.
As other noble Lords have said, we have concerns about the creation of a criminal offence of re-identification of individuals. As the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, said, criminalising re-identification could allow businesses to relax the methods that they use to try to anonymise data on the basis that people will not try to re-identify individuals because it is a criminal offence.
Despite what is contained in this Bill, we have serious concerns that there are likely to be delays to being granted data adequacy status by the European Commission when we leave the EU. That means that there would not be a seamless continuation of data exchange with the EU 27 after Brexit. We also have serious concerns, as does the Information Commissioner, that there are likely to be objections to being granted data adequacy status because of the bulk collection of data allowed for under the Investigatory Powers Act, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said in his opening remarks. We also intend to revisit the issue of the requirement under international human rights law, and upheld by the European Court of Human Rights in 2007, that as soon as notification can be made without prejudicing the purpose of surveillance after its termination, information should be provided to the persons concerned.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, mentioned, it is essential that the Information Commissioner is provided with adequate resources. My understanding is that there has been a considerable loss of staff in recent times, not least because commercial organisations want to recruit knowledgeable staff to help them with the implementation of GDPR, plus the 1% cap on public sector pay has diminished the number of people working for the Information Commissioner. It is absolutely essential that she has the resources she needs, bearing in mind the additional responsibilities that will be placed upon her.
The age of consent will clearly be an interesting topic for discussion. What we are talking about here is at what age young people should be allowed to sign up to Facebook or other social media. Most of us would acknowledge that children have a greater knowledge and are more computer literate than their parents and grandparents. As one of the surveys mentioned this evening showed, it would be very easy for young people to circumvent rules around the age of consent as set in legislation. For example, any teenager would know how to make the internet believe that they were in the United States when they were physically in the United Kingdom, and therefore they would have to comply only with any age of consent set in America. While I understand the burning desire for people to protect children and ensure that they are not exploited through social media, one has to live in the real world and look for solutions that are actually going to work: for example, educating young people on how to avoid being groomed online and the dangers of social media, and informing parents about how they can keep an eye on their children’s activities, rather than trying to set an unrealistic target for the age at which someone could sign up.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, talked about the data privately stored on iPhones, which was informative. Last week, I was rather shocked when, in California, I went to a gym that was rather busy. I looked on Google Maps, which very helpfully informed me when the busiest times were in that particular gym on that particular day. I found that very useful, but I found it very frightening that it also told me that I had been at that gym three hours before.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, we welcome the Bill generally and support the main principles, but that is not to say that we do not have issues that we intend to raise during the passage of the Bill where we believe that improvements could be made. We will certainly test the Government’s assertion that the Bill will ensure that we can be confident that our data is safe as we make the transition into a future digital world.
My noble friend Lord Knight of Weymouth highlighted some of the challenges that we face in the use of data, the consent that we give and how we can have greater control—or, in fact, any control at all—as data and the use of data grow exponentially. In his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, highlighted the complexity of these matters. That is the problem—the constant growth in complexity and our ability to understand the changes as they run away with themselves. We are aware that there will be a number of government amendments to the Bill. When we see those, we will be able to take a view on them. But the fact that we can expect such a large number at this early stage of the Bill makes one wonder how prepared the Government are for this new challenge.
The broad aim of the Bill is to update the UK’s data protection regime in accordance with the new rules, as agreed at European level. It is important as we prepare to leave the European Union that we have strong, robust laws on data protection that ensure that we have up-to-date legislation that is on a par with the best in the world to protect individuals, businesses and the UK as a whole and to play our part in ensuring that the UK remains a place where it is difficult for criminals to operate. As the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said in his contribution covering the report of the European Union Home Affairs Sub-Committee, the amount of cross-border data flows to the UK cannot be overstated, with services accounting for 44% of the UK’s total global exports and three-quarters of the UK’s cross-border data flows being with other EU countries. The UK must remain a place where people and organisations all over the world want to do business and a place that has safety and robust protection at its heart.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, made important points about the need for the UK to be the best and safest place in the world to trade online. Her contribution to debates in your Lordships’ House to make the Bill the best it can be will be of vital importance as the Bill makes progress. The noble Baroness is right that a lot of education is needed to prepare the public and business for the changes.
The concerns of business must be taken into account. When the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, responds to the debate, I hope she will refer to the concerns expressed by small businesses. In particular, will she explain what plans the Government have to ensure that small businesses are aware of the changes and the action that they need to take? These are the sorts of businesses that are the backbone of the country. They are not able to employ expensive lawyers or have compliance departments to advise them on the action that needs to be taken. We need a targeted awareness campaign from the Government and the regulator and small-business-friendly support and guidance rolled out in good time so that the necessary changes can be made. I fully understand the concerns that businesses have in this regard and the Government must respond to those positively.
The Bill implements the general data protection regulation—GDPR—standards across all general data processing and the Opposition support that. As we have heard in the debate, the UK will need to satisfy the European Commission that our legislative framework ensures an adequate level of protection. The Commission will need to be satisfied on a wide variety of issues to give a positive advocacy decision, and when we leave the European Union we will still have to satisfy the high adequacy standards to ensure that we can trade with the European Union and the world. Those too are matters that we will test in Committee.
Important principles of lawfulness in obtaining data and the consent of individuals to their data being held are set out in the Bill. My noble friend Lady Jay of Paddington made important points about how to achieve a better-educated public about the use of their data, the media and online literacy, and the risks to them of the abuse of their data.
The additional GDPR rights which strengthen and add to an individual’s rights, as set out in the Data Protection Act 1998, are a positive step forward. We have all seen examples of people’s data being held unlawfully and the measures in this Bill should help in that respect. There is also the issue of data held about all of us that is confidential, such as medical and health data, and ensuring that it is processed in a confidential way is something we would all support, alongside the proper use of health data to combat disease and improve healthcare through proper research. A number of noble Lords have made reference to that, and certainly nothing should be done which would endanger research that saves lives.
The right to be forgotten is an important concept, particularly where the consent was given as a child, although we will want to probe why the right of erasure of personal data is restricted to 18 years and above, particularly when the consent may have been given when the individual was 13 years of age. Cyberbullying is a dreadful experience for anyone and it is important that we are very clear during the passage of the legislation on how people are able to protect themselves from this abuse. The Bill will formalise the age at which a child can consent to the processing of data at 13 years in the UK, which is the lowest possible age in the EU. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford referred to this point in his contribution and I agree with him about the need for further consultation with parents and the public, a point also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made an excellent contribution and she is right to say that children are no match for a number of the very powerful tech companies. I too read carefully the briefings from the Children’s Society and YoungMinds on this matter. All the major online platforms have a minimum user age of 13, although the vast majority of young people—some 73% according to the survey—have their first social media account before they are 13. This is an issue that will rightly get a lot of attention from noble Lords. On reading the briefing note I could see the point being made that setting the age at 16 could have an adverse effect in tackling grooming, sexual exploitation and abuse. If we wanted to go down the route of increasing the age when someone can consent to the use of their personal data, we must at the same time make significant changes to the grooming and sexual offences legislation, again a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, in her remarks. It would be wrong to make this change in isolation because it actually risks making the online world more dangerous for young people.
In responding to the debate, will the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, set out how the Government decided that 13 was the appropriate age of consent for children to access social media and does she believe, as I do, that the social media companies need to do much more to protect children when they are online? What consultation did the Government undertake before deciding that 13 years was the correct age, a question put by many noble Lords in the debate?
There are also the important issues of protecting vulnerable people in general, not only children but the elderly as well. As my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara said, the Government have an opportunity to allow independent organisations acting in the public interest to bring collective redress actions or super-complaints for breaches in data protection rules. They have not done so, and this may be an error on their part as the super-complaint system works well in other fields. It would enable an effective system of redress for consumers to be put in place. It could also be contended that just having such a system in place would have a positive effect in terms of organisations making sure that they are compliant and not tempted to cut corners, and generally make for a stronger framework.
The Opposition support the approach of transposing the law enforcement directive into UK law through this Bill. It is important that we have consistent standards across specific law enforcement activities. In the briefing, the Information Commissioner raised the issue of overview and scope as detailed in Clause 41. It would be helpful, when responding to the debate, if the Minister could provide further clarification in respect of the policy intention behind the restriction on individuals being able to approach the Information Commissioner to exercise their rights.
The processing of personal data by the intelligence services is of the utmost importance. Keeping their citizens safe is the number one priority of the Government. We need to ensure that our intelligence services have the right tools and are able to work within modern international standards, including the required safeguards, so that existing, new and emerging threats to the safety and security of the country are met. These are fine lines and it is important that we get them right.
The point made by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that our position as a third country on leaving the EU may leave us subject to meeting a higher threshold is a matter for concern. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, will respond to that specific point when she replies to the debate.
The Information Commissioner having an independent authority responsible for regulating the GDPR—which will also act as the supervisory authority in respect of the law enforcement provisions as set out in Part 3 of the Bill—is welcome, as is the designation of the commissioner as the authority under Convention 108. I welcome the proposal to consult the commissioner on legislation and other measures that relate to data processing. The commissioner has an important international role and I fully support her playing a role in the various EU bodies she engages with, up until the point when we leave the EU. We must also be satisfied in this House that we have sufficiently robust procedures in place so that we will work closely with our EU partners after we have left the EU. Failure to do so could have serious repercussions for the UK as a whole, our businesses and our citizens. Data flows in and out of the UK are a complex matter and the regulator needs authority when dealing with others beyond the UK. That is something we will have to test carefully as the Bill passes through your Lordships’ House.
The clauses of the Bill in respect of enforcement are generally to be welcomed. It is important that the commissioner retains the power to ensure data is properly protected. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the importance of ensuring that the Information Commissioner remains adequately funded. It is right that those powers are used proportionally in relation to the specific matters at hand, using, where appropriate, non-criminal enforcement, financial penalties and, where necessary, criminal prosecution. As I said, we need a proper programme of information to ensure that small businesses in particular are ready for the changes and new responsibilities they will take on.
One of the issues we have to address is the challenge that technology brings and how our legislation will remain fit for purpose and accepted by other competent authorities outside our jurisdiction—particularly by the European Union after we leave it.
In conclusion, this in an important Bill. As the Opposition, we can support its general direction, but we have concerns about the robustness of what is proposed. We will seek to probe, challenge and amend the Bill to ensure that it really does give us the legalisation the UK needs to protect its citizens’ data and its lawful use.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, this has been a lengthy but excellent debate. I very much welcome the broad support from across the House for the Bill’s objectives; namely, that we have a data protection framework that is fit for the digital age, supports the needs of businesses, law enforcement agencies and other public sector bodies, and—as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said—safeguards the rights of individuals in the use of their personal data.
In bringing the Bill before your Lordships’ House at this time, it is fortunate that we have the benefit of two recent and very pertinent reports from the Communications Committee and the European Union Committee. Today’s debate is all the better for the insightful contributions we have heard from a number of members of those committees, namely the noble Lord, Lord Jay, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe.
In its report Growing Up with the Internet, the Communications Committee noted with approval the enhanced rights that the GDPR would confer on children, including the right to be forgotten, and asked for those rights to be enshrined in UK law as a minimum standard. I am pleased to say the Bill does just that. The European Union Committee supported the Government’s objective to maintain the unhindered and uninterrupted flow of data with other member states following the UK’s exit from the EU. Understandably, the committee pressed the Government to provide further details of how that outcome will be achieved.
With the provisions in the Bill, the UK starts from an unprecedented point of alignment with the EU in terms of the legal framework underpinning the exchange and protection of personal data. In August, the Government set out options for the model for protecting and exchanging personal data. That model would allow free flows of data to continue between the EU and the UK and provide for ongoing regulatory co-operation and certainty for businesses, public authorities and individuals. Such an approach is made possible by the strong foundations laid by the provisions in the Bill.
In other contributions to this debate, we have had the benefit of a wide range of experiences, including from noble Lords who are able to draw on distinguished careers in business, education, policing or the Security Service. In doing so, noble Lords raised a number of issues. I will try to respond to as many of those as I can in the time available, but if there are specific points, as I am sure there will be, that I cannot do justice to now, both my noble friend Lord Ashton and I will of course follow up this debate with a letter.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked whether the Bill was too complex. It was suggested that data controllers would struggle to understand the obligations placed on them and data subjects to understand and access their rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, the Bill is necessarily so, because it provides a complete data protection framework for all personal data. Most data controllers will need to understand only the scheme for general data, allowing them to focus just on Part 2. As now, the Information Commissioner will continue to provide guidance tailored to data controllers and data subjects to help them understand the obligations placed on them and exercise their rights respectively. Indeed, she has already published a number of relevant guidance documents, including—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, will be interested to know this—a guide called Preparing for the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR): 12 Steps to Take Now. It sounds like my type of publication.
Other noble Lords rightly questioned what they saw as unnecessary costs on businesses. My noble friends Lord Arbuthnot and Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, expressed concern that the Bill would impose a new layer of unnecessary regulation on businesses—for example, in requiring them to respond to subject access requests. Businesses are currently required to adhere to the Data Protection Act, which makes similar provision. The step up to the new standards should not be a disproportionate burden. Indeed, embracing good cybersecurity and data protection practices will help businesses to win new customers both in the UK and abroad.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked how the Government would ensure that businesses and criminal justice agencies could continue, uninterrupted, to share data with other member states following the UK’s exit from the EU. The Government published a “future partnership” paper on data protection in August setting out the UK’s position on how to ensure the continued protection and exchange of personal data between the UK and the EU. That drew on the recommendations of the very helpful and timely report of the European Union Committee, to which the noble Lord referred. For example, as set out in the position paper, the Government believe that it would be in our shared interest to agree early to recognise each other’s data protection frameworks as the basis for continued flow of data between the EU and the UK from the point of exit until such time as new and more permanent arrangements came into force. While the final arrangements governing data flows are a matter for the negotiations—I regret that I cannot give a fuller update at this time—I hope that the paper goes some way towards assuring noble Lords of the importance that the Government attach to this issue.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, queried the status of Article 8 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, which states:
“Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her”.
The Bill will ensure that the UK continues to provide a world-class standard of data protection both before and after we leave the European Union.
Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in welcoming the Bill asked whether the Information Commissioner would have the resource she needs to help businesses and others prepare for the GDPR and LED and to ensure that the new legislation is properly enforced, especially once compulsory notification has ended. The Government are committed to ensuring that the Information Commissioner is adequately resourced to fulfil both her current functions under the Data Protection Act 1998 and her new ones. Noble Lords will note that the Bill replicates relevant provisions of the Digital Economy Act 2017, which ensures that the Information Commissioner’s functions in relation to data protection continue to be funded through charges on data controllers. An initial proposal on what those changes might look like is currently being consulted upon. The resulting regulations will rightly be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in due course.
Almost every noble Lord spoke in one way or another about protecting children online, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who referred to the Select Committee on Communications report Growing Up with the Internet. The focus of that report was on addressing concerns about the risk to children from the internet. The Government believe that Britain should be the safest place in the world to go online and we are determined to make that a reality. I am happy to confirm that the Government will publish an internet safety strategy Green Paper imminently. This will be an important step forward in tackling this crucial issue. Among other things, the Green Paper will set out plans for an online code of practice that we want to see all social media companies sign up to, and a plan to ensure that every child is taught the skills they need to be safe online.
The other point that was brought up widely, including by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was whether it was appropriate for 13 year-olds to be able to hand over their personal data to social media companies without parental consent. We heard alternative perspectives from my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. Addressing the same clause, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford questioned the extent to which the Government had consulted on this important issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made a similar point. In answer to their specific questions, 170 organisations and numerous individuals responded to the Government’s call for views, published in April, which addressed this issue directly. The Government’s position reflects the responses received. Importantly, it recognises the fundamental role that the internet already plays in the lives of teenagers. While we need to educate children on the risks and to work with internet companies to keep them safe, online platforms and communities provide children and young people with an enormous educational and social resource, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, pointed out. It is not an easy balance to strike, but I am convinced that, in selecting 13, the Government has made the right choice and one fully compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referred.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Jay and Lady Hamwee, stressed the importance of adequate understanding of digital issues, particularly among children. Improving digital skills is a priority of the Government’s digital strategy, published earlier this year. As noble Lords will be aware, the Digital Economy Act created a new statutory entitlement to digitals skills training, which is certainly an important piece of the puzzle. As I have already said, the Government will publish a comprehensive Green Paper on internet safety imminently which will explore further how to develop children’s digital literacy and provide support for parents and carers.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I think it was, asked about the Government choosing not to exercise the derogation in article 80 of the GDPR to allow not-for-profit organisations to take action on behalf of data subjects without their consent. This is a very important point. It is important to note that not-for-profit organisations will be able to take action on behalf of data subjects where the individuals concerned have mandated them to do so. This is an important new right for data subjects and should not be underestimated.
The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Patel, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones all expressed concern about the effect that safeguards provided in the Bill might have on certain types of long-term medical research, such as clinical trials and interventional research. My noble friend pointed out that such research can lead to measures or decisions being taken about individuals but it might not be possible to seek their consent in every case. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, raised a number of related issues, including the extent of Clause 7. I assure noble Lords that the Government recognise the importance of these issues. I would be very happy to meet noble Lords and noble Baronesses to discuss them further.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel, noted that the Bill is not going to be used to place the National Data Guardian for Health and Social Care on a statutory footing. I assure them that the Government are committed to giving the National Data Guardian statutory force. A Bill to this end was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 September by my honourable friend Peter Bone MP, and the Government look forward to working with him and parliamentary colleagues over the coming months.
My noble friend Lord Arbuthnot and others questioned the breadth of delegated powers provided for in Clause 15, which allows the Secretary of State to use regulations to permit organisations to process personal data in a wider range of circumstances where needed to comply with a legal obligation, to perform a task in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority. Given how quickly technology evolves and the use of data can change, there may be occasions when it is necessary to act relatively quickly to provide organisations with a legal basis for a particular processing operation. The Government believe that the use of regulations, rightly subject to the affirmative procedure, is entirely appropriate to achieve that. But we will of course consider very carefully any recommendations made on this or any other regulation-making power in the Bill by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and I look forward to seeing its report in due course.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, queried the role of the Information Commissioner in relation to special purposes processing, including in relation to journalism. In keeping with the approach taken in the 1998 Act, the Bill provides for broad exemptions when data is being processed for journalism, where the controller reasonably believes that publication is in the public interest. I reassure noble Lords that the Information Commissioner’s powers, as set out in Clause 164, are tightly focused on compliance with these requirements and not on media conduct more generally. There is a right of appeal to ensure that the commissioner’s determination can be challenged. This is an established process which the Bill simply builds upon.
The noble Lord, Lord Black, questioned the power given to the Information Commissioner to assist a party or prospective party in special purposes proceedings. In this sense, “special purposes” refers to journalistic, literary, artistic or academic purposes. The clause in question, Clause 165, replicates the existing provision in Section 53 of the 1998 Act. It simply reflects the potential public importance of a misuse of the otherwise vital exemptions granted to those processing personal data for special purposes. In practice, I am not aware of the commissioner having provided such assistance but the safeguard is rightly there.
The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, spoke eloquently about the potential impact of the Bill on museums and archives. The Government agree about the importance of this public function. It is important to note that the Data Protection Act 1998 made no express provision relating to the processing of personal data for archiving purposes. In contrast, the Bill recognises that archives may need to process sensitive personal data, and there is a specific condition to allow for this. The Bill also provides archives with specific exemptions from certain rights of data subjects, such as rights to access and rectify data, where this would prevent them fulfilling their purposes.
The noble Lord, Lord Knight, queried the safeguards in place to prevent the mining of corporate databases for other, perhaps quite distinct, purposes, and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, made a similar point. I can reassure them that any use of personal data must comply with the relevant legal requirements. This would include compliance with the necessary data protection principles, including purpose limitation. These principles will be backed by tough new rules on transparency and consent that will ensure that once personal data is obtained for one purpose it cannot generally be used for other purposes without the data subject’s consent.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford raised the desirability of a central system of unique identifying numbers. The Bill will ensure that personal data is collected only for a specific purpose, that it is processed only where there is a legal basis for so doing and that it is always used proportionately. It is not clear to me that setting out to identify everybody in the same way in every context, with all records held centrally, is compatible with these principles. Rather, this Government believe that identity policy is context-specific, that people should be asked to provide only what is necessary, and that only those with a specific need to access data should be able to do so. The Bill is consistent with that vision.
I look forward to exploring all the issues that we have discussed as we move to the next stage. As the Information Commissioner said in her briefing paper, it is vital that the Bill reaches the statute book, and I look forward to working with noble Lords to achieve that as expeditiously as possible. Noble Lords will rightly want to probe the detailed provisions in the Bill and subject them to proper scrutiny, as noble Lords always do, but I am pleased that we can approach this task on the basis of a shared vision; namely, that of a world-leading Data Protection Bill that is good for business, good for the law enforcement community and good for the citizen. I commend the Bill to the House.
Brexit: Data Protection (EU Committee Report)
Lord Jay of Ewelme
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: EU Data Protection Package (3rd Report, HL Paper 7)
Motion agreed.