House of Commons
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
The Prime Minister’s trade envoys do a great job engaging with countries where trade and investment opportunities have been identified. Last year, trade envoys helped contribute to export wins of more than £15.5 billion in their markets. Based on an outlay of just under £250,000 for the programme over the same period, each trade envoy, on average, supported £700 million in exports.
Chris Davies
Does my right hon. Friend plan to appoint any further trade envoys beyond those already appointed?
Dr Fox
That is the least disguised job application that I have heard in some time. There are 30 trade envoys covering 60 markets around the world. The programme is reviewed regularly in consultation with our overseas team and any new suggestions are put to the Prime Minister. I will let my hon. Friend know as soon as possible if any vacancies occur.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Before these trade envoys do anything else, will the Secretary of State bring them all together and allow them to have the same briefing from the CBI that many Members from all parties had this week? That CBI briefing on the impact of leaving the EU says that it will be a disaster for working men and women, industry and manufacturing up and down the country.
Dr Fox
As I often point out to the hon. Gentleman, the working men and women of his constituency had a very different view about the reasons for leaving the European Union. I make sure that our trade envoys get a much wider range of briefings than simply one—a highly suspect one in that case.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
As the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Brazil, I have been immensely impressed by the UK companies already operating there, but frankly there are not enough of them. May I urge the Secretary of State to challenge business membership organisations, including the CBI, to ensure that they put exporting at the heart of their work?
Mr Speaker
There is more than one Field in the House, but there is only one Prisk.
Dr Fox
First, I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done. We have a growing and increasingly improving trade relationship with Brazil, but he is absolutely right that we require business to put exporting at its heart. The positive signs in recent times are that that is happening and we will export more than 30% of our GDP this year for the first time in a considerable while.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
What parliamentary scrutiny is there of this programme?
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
As trade envoy to Ethiopia, last week I had a meeting at the African Union about the continental free trade area agreement, which is incredibly important for the future of all countries in Africa and for the United Kingdom. Does my right hon. Friend see roles for the trade envoy programme in engaging with these free trade areas, which cover more than one country?
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
The Government are committed to seeking continuity in our trading arrangements to minimise disruption to businesses, consumers and our trading partners. We will ensure that the institutional provisions of existing agreements are met as the UK begins to operate its independent trade policy.
Catherine West
What parliamentary shared goals do the Government have in mind for the new arrangements that will come into place?
Greg Hands
To be absolutely clear, if the hon. Lady is referring to the Trade Bill, what we are looking at is the transitioning of existing trading arrangements with the EU. All those agreements have already been through parliamentary scrutiny. If she is referring to future trade agreements, we will bring that subject back to this House in due course.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
One of the new institutions we shall need to set up as we leave the EU is a trade remedies authority. I recently travelled to Canada and the US with the International Trade Committee. They are two countries that have robust trade remedies authorities whose impartiality can be critical in reaching economically sound judgments. What assurances can the Minister offer the House that the UK Government are similarly committed to an independent TRA that will be free from undue political interference?
Greg Hands
I congratulate my hon. Friend and the other members of the Committee on their recent visit to the United States and Canada. Those are two of the countries whose trade remedy systems we have studied, along with Australia and, in fact, the European Union system itself. As my hon. Friend says, it is common, although not universal, for the investigation process to be independent of the Government, but there is still a political decision at the end of the process by a Minister who is accountable to Parliament. It is worth pointing out, by the way, that all the Opposition parties voted against the creation of the trade remedies authority in the first place.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I do not know whether a bridge counts as an institution, but I wonder whether the policy of the Department for International Trade, like that of the Foreign Office, is that a new fixed link between Britain and France is required to continue to improve trade after Brexit.
Greg Hands
We have been absolutely clear throughout this process about the importance of maintaining our trading relations with the European Union. That is why we are seeking to ensure that trade is as frictionless as possible, and why we are seeking a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The EU does not have comprehensive free trade agreements with some of the world’s major economies. Does the Minister believe that the United Kingdom is likely to strike such deals more quickly than the European Union?
Greg Hands
We remain supportive of the European Union’s negotiations with some of those trade partners while we are still a member of the EU, because we are strong believers in free trade. We have also set up 14 trade working groups with many of the leading economies, including China, India and the United States, and we look forward to making further progress with those arrangements in due course.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Our current trading relationships with many partners ranging from Switzerland to Mexico are overseen by joint committees of the EU and those other states. Will the Minister tell us how many of the committees will be replaced by UK equivalents after Brexit, and what progress his Department has made in establishing those institutions? Will he also tell us where the staff and expertise will be sourced from, and at what cost to the taxpayer?
Greg Hands
Let me say first that the UK played a leading role in establishing the European Union arrangements with countries such as Mexico and Switzerland in the first place. As for the question of where we go from here, our priority is to maintain continuity in our trading relations, ensuring that all the 40-plus trading agreements we have with 70-plus countries become UK arrangements as we leave the European Union. The precise format of the further discussions that we will have with those partners will be a matter for future arrangements.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
As we leave the EU, the Government intend as far as possible to maintain the effects of existing EU free trade agreements and other EU preferential arrangements. That includes agreements with Switzerland, Norway and Turkey.
Ruth Cadbury
I am going to pursue the questions asked by my hon. Friends the Members for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) and for Bradford South (Judith Cummins), which the Minister for Trade Policy did not answer. In 2016, the Secretary of State told the International Trade Committee that he would prioritise securing an agreement with Switzerland. The current relationship between the EU and Switzerland is overseen by some 20 joint committees. Very specifically, how many of those committees will be replaced by UK-Swiss committees, and how far along in the process of setting up those institutions is his Department?
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
We do not need trade agreements to trade, do we?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has told us that he plans to replicate all the provisions of the trade agreements that the UK has, as a member of the EU, with Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. Those provisions include free movement of people in the cases of Norway and Switzerland, and a customs union with Turkey. Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is the Government’s policy to replicate all of them?
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
We have the opportunity to enhance our global trading relationships, including those with the countries with which we share bonds of history and friendship. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State travelled to Australia and New Zealand in November to promote free trade and deepen those trading relationships. The April Commonwealth summit here in London will provide an opportunity for us to continue that work with all member states.
Colin Clark
Has my right hon. Friend considered how UK agriculture will compete with our Commonwealth cousins when we agree a free trade deal after leaving the customs union?
Greg Hands
I praise my hon. Friend for his distinguished business career in the sector before coming to this House; it means he brings real expertise to the House. He will know that we have established trade working groups with both Australia and New Zealand to explore possibilities in trade and investment. They will include agriculture, but it is too early to be sure how it will be covered in those and other future trading arrangements. The New Zealanders are very interested in this—the New Zealand High Commission recently wrote to the International Trade Committee saying:
“Given the complementarity of our two economies and our deep bilateral ties,”
they want to do something with us, and we very much agree.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
On negotiations with New Zealand, the Minister will be aware that Wales has a large lamb industry—it is one of the great prides of the United Kingdom—so can he give an absolute assurance that in his negotiations with New Zealand he will not put any Welsh farms and the Welsh lamb industry at risk?
Greg Hands
I am keenly aware, as are my right hon. Friend the Secretaries of State for International Trade and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of the importance of British agriculture in all parts of the United Kingdom and of making sure we have the necessary protections in place on animal welfare standards and so on, and also of promoting the opportunity to export our excellent British goods. Food and drink is one of our fastest-growing export sectors, and we want people to take advantage of opportunities across the UK.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
What importance does the Minister attach to deepening and broadening our trade relationships with countries such as India, which has a widening middle class among its population of 1.25 billion?
Greg Hands
The Prime Minister’s first bilateral trade visit in November 2016 was to India, accompanied by the Secretary of State and myself. We have recently completed a trade audit with India that looks at all the barriers. India is at times a difficult market for British exporters to crack. We have a lot of advantages in doing business there, and the trade audit and the joint economic trade committee talks led by the Secretary of State last month are taking us in the right direction.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
By leaving the customs union and establishing a new ambitious arrangement with the EU, we will be seeking to maintain as frictionless as possible trade in goods between the UK and the EU, and the freedom to forge trade relations with partners around the world.
Joanna Cherry
The Norwegians have a saying: “Nothing is in as much of a hurry as a dead fish on the back of a lorry.” Like Norway, Scotland exports most of the fish it catches to the EU, which is why Norway has chosen to be a member of the single market, in particular to avoid non-tariff barriers so the fish can cross borders quickly. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact of leaving the single market on the Scottish fishing industry?
Dr Fox
Of course, the majority of Scotland’s exports go to the rest of the UK, not the EU. The hon. and learned Lady talks about the value of the single market; it is just worth pointing out that, despite our membership of the single market, we have had a growing trade deficit with the EU at a time when we have had a growing trade surplus with the rest of the world. We want to establish the conditions for all our exports from all parts of the UK to be able to access the growing markets of the world, and, as the International Monetary Fund has pointed out, 90% of global growth in the next 10 to 15 years will be outside Europe.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
What is the Secretary of State’s preferred method of ensuring frictionless trade between the Republic and the north of Ireland?
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
The GREAT festival will be held in Hong Kong from 21 to 24 March 2018. With more than 70 confirmed speakers, the festival will showcase the best of British innovation, the potential of the UK economy and the strength of our world-class service sector.
Alan Mak
Britain is becoming a world leader in artificial intelligence, big data and the fourth industrial revolution technologies that will power future export growth. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that those technologies will be widely promoted at next month’s festival?
Dr Fox
They will indeed be widely represented. For example, UtterBerry, an AI-based infrastructure monitoring technology that has been used in this country in projects such as the Thames tideway and Crossrail, will be showcased. The festival will be an opportunity for us to show off the best of British innovation in general.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
We are making great progress on supporting UK businesses to invest overseas, as this can have a substantial positive effect on the UK economy. The Department for International Trade has developed a suite of products and services that address market failures, to support British businesses.
Gillian Keegan
What update can the Minister provide on his Department’s overseas direct investment pilots? Will he also explain what opportunities ODI offers to British businesses?
Graham Stuart
My Department’s ODI support pilots have successfully demonstrated the impact that the Government can have in supporting UK businesses to overcome barriers to market access and to expand overseas. By harnessing the private sector wherever possible and focusing Government interventions only on market failures, my Department has successfully supported overseas investment for a range of UK businesses in six global markets.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
In 2016, the UK had a trade deficit with the EU of £70.97 billion, and a trade surplus of £39 billion with non-EU countries, up from £33.6 billion in 2015. The latest trade figures show that in 2017, the UK’s trade deficit in goods and services narrowed by £7 billion to £33.7 billion.
Mr Hayes
Balance of trade figures were once regarded as pivotal. They were even thought to win or lose elections. Given that we are now going to escape from the constraining clutches of the European Union, will my right hon. Friend invest again in old friends and rejuvenate our relationships in the realm with allies such as Australia and New Zealand? What steps has he taken to ensure preferential arrangements with such old allies?
Greg Hands
My right hon. Friend asks a very good question. First, I should like to put on record my thanks to him for leading various Government trade delegations in recent years, including one to Colombia. I know that he takes a strong interest in this subject. As I said earlier, we have set up trade working groups with Canada, the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and, unlike Opposition Front Benchers, we also voted for the comprehensive economic and trade agreement, the EU’s free trade agreement with Canada. The Secretary of State has been in all four of those markets in the past year, leading efforts to break down trade barriers and to seek new trade agreements.
Mr Speaker
I am sure that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) enjoyed going to Colombia. Quite what Colombia made of the right hon. Gentleman is not recorded.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
The creative sector in Bristol West—particularly the music industry—is important, and trade in that sector is a service industry. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the creative industries, particularly the music industry, are supported as we leave the EU?
Greg Hands
The hon. Lady is quite right to point out the importance of services to our trade. Overall, services represent 80% of our economy and 79% of jobs. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the whole team are working closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we continue to grow exports from our creative sector and that investment from abroad continues to come into the sector. We often visit places such as Tech City UK and techUK, and we are working closely with them to ensure that we have a flourishing future for our creative industries.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Last week, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Kosovo, I visited a British company in Pristina that has a £20 million investment there. What opportunities does the Minister foresee for widening our trade in goods and services with Kosovo and the neighbouring western Balkan countries?
Greg Hands
This is a very good opportunity. That is a part of the world that I know well, and I think that the company to which my hon. Friend refers is called Fox Marble—a highly appropriate name for this particular Question Time. It finds top-quality marble in Kosovo for export, and it should be congratulated. In regard to the wider region, we work closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to promote trading opportunities throughout the region.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
My Department has responsibility for export promotion, foreign and outward direct investment, and trade policy. I am delighted to inform the House that my Department has appointed the first three of our network of Her Majesty’s trade commissioners, and Richard Burn, Antony Phillipson and Crispin Simon will serve as trade commissioners for China, North America and south Asia respectively. They will develop and deliver strategies to ensure that we can take full advantage of leaving the European Union, the single market and the customs union.
Rehman Chishti
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. What evidence is he seeing for growth in UK manufacturing exports to the wider world? I have just returned from a visit to Pakistan with leading British companies in my role as trade envoy to enhance trading between our two great countries; will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to Elin Burns and Matt Lister, our trade experts in Pakistan?
Dr Fox
I pay tribute to all those people. We are seeing a big rise in our manufacturing order books, not least on the back of our strong export performance. In recent times, we have seen the biggest growth in consistent monthly manufacturing numbers for some 30 years. The figures produced by the Office for National Statistics suggest that our exports now represent 30.3% of our exported GDP—the second highest figure on record.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Given the Government Front-Bench team’s uncharacteristic failure to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) to the Opposition Front Bench, I know that you would want me to do so, Mr Speaker.
Is the Secretary of State aware that the Food Standards Agency recently detained large quantities of out-of-date meat in a company called Norish Cold Storage? The meat is believed to have come from Ireland and South America. Given that Norish is the parent company of Town View Foods, one of the directors of which, Plunkett Matthews, was also a director of Freeza Meats, a company implicated in the Irish horsemeat scandal in 2013 and found guilty of meat-labelling fraud, will the Secretary of State urgently liaise with Ministers in the Republic of Ireland, the FSA here and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland to ensure the supply chain for this illegal meat is identified, that our sanitary and phytosanitary regulations are properly enforced and that those behind the illegal trade—
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that if the meat was previously hot, it would certainly be freezing cold by now.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Graham Stuart)
Britain’s relationship with Israel is stronger than ever, with record levels of bilateral co-operation in trade, investment, science and technology. As my hon. Friend rightly says, the UK-Israel trade working group is making good progress in ensuring continuity in our trading relationships as we leave the EU.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Graham Stuart
We strongly welcome our ties with Israel, as does the hon. Gentleman. As has just been said, the Department has established a joint trade working group, and we continue to liaise closely with the Israeli Government to strengthen trade, investment and other ties between this country and Israel.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Graham Stuart
We work in collaboration with the Heart of the South West local enterprise partnership to attract foreign direct investment into Devon. More widely, the Department works with local enterprise partnerships and local authorities across the south-west to promote inward investment opportunities to foreign-owned companies. In 2016-17, DIT recorded 101 inward investment projects in the south-west, creating 3,402 new jobs.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Although my party does not want to leave the single market or the customs union, a properly planned and managed transition period is always top of the agenda for businesses across Scotland, particularly in our thriving food and drink sector. Does the Secretary of State agree with his own Government that a sensible transition period is required, or is he sticking to his cliff-edge position, which will have a devastating impact for businesses across Scotland and the UK?
Several hon. Members rose—
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
Dr Fox
We have four working groups with the United States at the present time, and at the last one we announced a UK-US small and medium-sized enterprise dialogue. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the first dialogue on SMEs will take place next month and will involve more than 100 businesses as part of a very constructive process.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Remoteness of location in the UK is no constraint on the success of some of our malt whisky distilleries in Scotland. Can I tempt the Secretary of State or his Ministers to come and visit Old Pulteney in Wick or Glenmorangie in Tain? Will they do everything to secure the future prosperity of the distilleries in my constituency?
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. I mentioned the India trade audit that has just been published. The Secretary of State met his Indian counterpart, Minister Prabhu, during our Joint Economic and Trade Committee meetings in January, and they agreed that bilateral work will now explore addressing barriers in four recommended sectors: food and drink, life sciences, information technology and services.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The UK remains a major transit hub for illegal wildlife trafficking, and we rely on Border Force to prevent that trade. Will the Minister tell his colleagues in the Home Office to ditch their dangerous plan to replace Border Force staff with volunteers?
Greg Hands
Actually, this Government have made enormous efforts to stop wildlife trafficking. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs made it a major part of his visit to south-east Asia last week, and he made particular reference to the pangolin, which at the moment is the world’s most trafficked animal. This Government are leading global efforts in combating this horrendous trade.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Dr Fox
At the WTO this week, I again made the case for free trade, and the UK is a global champion of free trade. We tend to discuss our trade in terms of producers, but we must always remember that free trade is an enormous benefit to consumers in lowering prices, improving choice and increasing quality. Free trade has also been the route by which we have taken more than 1 billion people on this planet out of abject poverty in the past generation, which we should celebrate.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
With no prosecutions leading to convictions since 2011, with no register of arms brokers—as the USA, Canada, Germany and France have—and with the Government selling weapons and spy equipment to eight human rights abusers, how can the Government continue to claim that we have the strongest arms export regime in the world, or are they just not implementing the rules?
Mr Speaker
I do not know whether colleagues are aware of it, but they rather ruin their questions when they try to pack too much in. Topical questions are supposed to be brief. I understand the temptation—I used to feel it myself—but it ends up being a worse and a lesser question than something shorter and more pithy. It is such an obvious point that the hon. Gentleman must be extraordinarily clever not to be able to grasp it.
Graham Stuart
All export licence applications are considered on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria, based on the most up-to-date information and analysis available. I would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) to discuss these issues further.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is a fine and upstanding voice for the Black country. He will know that manufacturing experienced a 2.8% growth rate over the past year. Leaving the customs union provides an opportunity to enhance that growth, particularly as manufacturing exports outside the EU are growing so fast.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Amber Rudd)
The centenary fund has paid out about £2.5 million so far; £1.2 million was given to Bolton, Bristol, Leeds, Leicester, London, Manchester and Nottingham, which are working with women’s organisations to deliver their suffrage centenary programmes. We are also funding the first ever statue of a women in Parliament Square—it will be of Millicent Fawcett.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for her answer. She will know that the Sheffield Female Political Association, founded in February 1851, was the first women’s suffrage organisation in the UK. Will she therefore join me in supporting the bid prepared by women across the voluntary, arts and education sectors to the fund? Will she wish them well in their ambition to use the centenary to encourage opportunities for civic engagement by women who feel disengaged and disempowered?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am delighted to congratulate him and to welcome the women of Sheffield in their bid to the centenary fund. I hope it will do exactly as he says: encourage more women to engage in political life in general.
Stephen Morgan
Will the Minister confirm what level of support the Government or their contracted company are providing to smaller women’s groups to encourage them to take up this funding?
Amber Rudd
Yes, I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have a website that will set all that out. If he wants to go on it himself, it is womensvotecentenaryfund.co.uk . The bidding process is set out there. Two types of grants are available. The larger one is up to £125,000 and the smaller one starts at £2,000. I hope that will give him and his constituents the information they need to apply for the grants.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Are we not in danger of rather missing the point that the best way to celebrate the centenary of women’s suffrage is to get more women to register and actually to vote when elections turn up?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is right, in that it is imperative that more women participate in political life, both by voting and by participating in this place. I think we can do both things: we can celebrate the centenary and, in our celebrations, make that point repeatedly so that we get more women involved.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Fernandes)
The UK Government’s record on equalities is one of the best in the world, and leaving the EU will not change that. The equality Acts and equivalent legislation in Northern Ireland provide the cornerstone of equalities protections in the UK and in some places go much further than EU requirements, for example, in our world-leading approach to gender pay gap reporting. We do not need to be part of the EU to sustain our record in this area.
Chris Law
A recent study published in Social Policy and Society has found that the UK’s voting record in the EU has historically placed business interests over women’s rights. What steps are this Government taking to ensure that post-Brexit Britain will not place business interests above ensuring equality?
Suella Fernandes
This Government have a proud record of protecting and enhancing women’s rights, and that record of action predates our membership of the EU, as seen, for example, in the Equal Pay Act 1970. The EU’s own gender equality index places us sixth out of 28, and our gender pay gap reporting requirements and our public sector equality duty are world-leading initiatives that go beyond EU law in many ways.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
As on employment rights, the UK has a been right at the forefront of advancing equality across the world. Will the Minister confirm that that simply is not going to change?
Suella Fernandes
Yes, we have a proud record, history and tradition in the UK of supporting workers, protecting civil liberties and championing human rights. Leaving the EU will in no way affect that historical tradition, of which we can all be proud.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
The Equality Act 2010 provides protection from harassment for employees, whether committed by their employer, co-workers or a third party. The coalition Government repealed the third party harassment provisions in section 40 of the Equality Act because they were unnecessary and overcomplicated. Employers have a legal obligation to protect their workers, and may be liable if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment of workers by third parties.
Rachael Maskell
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Unite’s campaign “Not on the menu” in the hospitality sector, and its research with cabin crew showing that the majority experience sexual harassment, demonstrate emphatically why section 40 of the Equality Act 2010 is vital. Will the Minister commit to implementing it, but with intervention after one episode not three, and focus on a zero-tolerance approach to any form of sexual harassment in the workplace?
Victoria Atkins
I am most concerned to hear about those incidents of harassment, and the hon. Lady should be reassured that they are covered already by the Equality Act. The reason those provisions in section 40 were repealed was that, as she has identified, they required not one but three occasions of harassment, and we know that, in the three years those provisions were in place, they were used only once. We have tried to improve the law, and I would encourage her to encourage people to use it.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
It is really encouraging to hear my hon. Friend’s response, but does she not agree that it is not just about getting the law right? We have to get the remedies within the law right. We have to encourage anonymised reporting in the workplace. We must also make sure that the unethical use of non-disclosure agreements does not work to stop people bringing forward claims of sexual harassment in the first place.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. With her expertise on the Women and Equalities Committee, she knows only too well the challenge we have in advertising the rights that people have in the workplace. I am particularly concerned with non-disclosure agreements. We know that they can be used for lawful reasons—for example, to protect client confidentiality—but they cannot be used to shield employers from claims of harassment or discrimination, and any work that her Committee can do to help the Government in advertising that, I would very much welcome.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I know from my many battles in the coalition Government—some successful, some not—that the Conservatives’ obsession with deregulation often gets in the way of protecting vulnerable workers. It is that obsession, I say to the Minister, that is the real reason why the provisions in the Equality Act were repealed—I know because I was in the discussions at the time. Surely, in the light of the Presidents Club and all the other evidence that is now in the public domain, it is time to look again at the issue and, by all means, to improve on the original provisions, as suggested by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).
Victoria Atkins
I very much pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the work that she did as a Minister and that she continues to do now in the House. We of course keep this matter under review, but on the point I made about the section 40 amendments, general protection exists under the Act. However, we will continue to look at the evidence, and we are very, very clear: discrimination and harassment in the workplace is simply not on and is against the law.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
We have to be very clear about this. Because the Government repealed section 40 of the Equality Act 2010, there is now no statutory protection over third party harassment. If the Government are committed to protecting women and girls, will they show this by either reinstating section 40 or, at the very least, introducing stronger legislation to ensure protection against third party harassment?
Victoria Atkins
I hesitate to correct the hon. Lady, but that is simply not true: there is a general protection against harassment in the workplace; it is in the 2010 statue—it is a general protection against harassment. Of course, if there are any instances that Members on both sides of the House have of particular types of harassment or discrimination, I and the Home Secretary will always be willing to listen. However, the Equality Act protects workers, the general protection is there and, what is more, it is better than the section 40 protections, because it does not require three occasions of harassment; it requires just one.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
No girl or woman should be held back because of her gender or her background. This is why the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has identified period poverty as a priority for the tampon tax fund, which, in 2018 and 2019, totals £15 million. We have encouraged bids to address this issue.
Dr Williams
In Stockton South and across Teesside, residents led a “free period” campaign, which persuaded local authorities to provide free sanitary protection for women and girls living in poverty. Will the Minister meet me to work out how that might be replicated in other parts of the country?
Victoria Atkins
I am delighted to hear that Stockton-on-Tees Council has started that innovative project, and, in fairness to our Scottish colleagues, the same is happening in Aberdeen as well. I look forward very much to hearing the results of that pilot, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss them.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
Victoria Atkins
I am also glad that our county university is leading the way on this, but the hon. Lady knows that we are constrained by our membership of the European Union.
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady shakes her head, but I am afraid that that is the law. We have lowered the rate to the lowest possible level—5%—and, what is more, we are using that money specifically for funds that help women and girls. We are waiting for the moment that we leave the European Union. I know that my Treasury colleagues are looking at exactly that issue.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
It is a stain on our society that there are young girls and women who are experiencing period poverty, and, frankly, it is tragic that our Government appear to have such ambivalence towards period poverty, although I welcome the latest announcement. Will the Minister agree to work with me on an innovative scheme, which is currently in its infancy, that I am running with a local supermarket to see how we can work towards the elimination of period poverty?
Victoria Atkins
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this issue, because it is important. We know that we do not have a substantial basis of evidence on period poverty, but we are trying to gather that evidence, particularly with schools. We do want to address the issue of the VAT charged on tampons and other sanitary products, and the moment that we leave the European Union we can do so. In the meantime, we are using the money raised by that low rate of VAT to help women and girls, particularly using those funds that deal with violence against women and girls. We have a general programme with 12 sub-themes, including period poverty. I very much hope that that money will be of good use.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
Last week, the Minister asked us to remember the suffragettes chained to the grilles. I ask the Minister today to remember those women chained to the house because of period poverty, those women chained to poor housing because of universal credit, and those women chained to an abusive partner because of the closure of refuges. Will the Minister work with me to develop and implement policies to help tackle those issues?
Victoria Atkins
The Government are led, if I may say, by a female Prime Minister—I just mention that as a small detail because Labour members have never managed to entrust the leadership of their party to a woman. We are proud of our record of helping women, which is precisely why we are bringing forward a ground-breaking piece of legislation this year to tackle domestic abuse, which will help both the victims of domestic abuse and their children. It is one measure in a long programme that we are carrying out to try to help women—not just women who are victims of crime, but women in the economy. We have more women in the workplace than ever before, and we all know that financial independence is a key indicator when it comes to ensuring that women are not stuck in those terrible relationships that the hon. Lady has described.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)
So far, more than 7,500 employers have registered their intention to report, and around 1,000 have published their data. The most recent data published by employers are publicly available via the Government viewing service on the gov.uk website. There is still more than a month until the public and private sector deadlines, and we expect reporting activity to increase significantly in the run-up to those dates.
Stella Creasy
One challenge that we face is that employers sometimes deliberately conflate fair pay with equal pay to avoid scrutiny of their conduct. A prime offender is the BBC. Seventy MPs wrote to the Secretary of State for Culture to ask him to use his power to ensure an equal opportunity for both men and women at the corporation to be heard on this subject. Given that he has refused to do so, will the right hon. Lady exercise her freedom of speech and have a word?
Amber Rudd
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important matter. It has been instructive to see how the BBC has responded. I am happy to confirm that I will take forward her advice and indeed have a word.
Bambos Charalambous
What sanctions will be put in place for those companies that do not meet their obligations to publish their gender pay data by the deadline?
Amber Rudd
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question. We have put in place ground-breaking legislation to ensure that we close the gender pay gap. The Equality and Human Rights Commission will oversee any sorts of sanctions that are necessary. I hope that it will be its intention, as it is ours, to use persuasion and demonstration of the law to get participation, but of course it can use the full force of the law if it finds that the legislation is not being complied with.
Alex Sobel
What measures are the Government undertaking to work with private sector business, civil society and others to close the gender pay gap?
Amber Rudd
It is incredibly important that we do address closing the gender pay gap. Transparency is one of the key ways that we will achieve that. Having this compulsion of reporting on gender pay is an important first step, but we will take it further. We will engage with businesses to see what measures they will be putting in place to address the gender pay gap. My experience, when I talk to businesses about this, is that when they realise that they have such a gender pay gap—to some, it is a revelation—they are moving to put in training and other measures to address it.
Daniel Zeichner
Only three universities have so far reported on this. On a day when academics are bravely standing up to defend their pensions, will the Minister tell us when she expects that the gender pay gap will be eliminated in our universities?
Amber Rudd
I urge all universities to address reporting their gender pay gap. It is the law; they need to do so. I will say a word on the other matter, if I may. It is important that this dispute between students, effectively, the universities and their staff is resolved, because people need to get their degrees. I would urge the striking lecturers to get back to work.
Mr Sweeney
So far, only 1,000 out of 9,000 companies that are obliged to publish gender pay gap data have done so. What are the Government going to do to up that figure and ensure that companies are meeting their obligations to publish this vital data, so that we have the full picture?
Amber Rudd
It is vital data, and Conservative Members are proud of it because it has been introduced by a Conservative Government. We will be contacting private sector companies, and public sector organisations, to make sure that they do report. This is an important first step, with 1,000 so far and more to go until the deadline. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to make perfect the enemy of the good.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
When the Minister has a word with the BBC, will it be her contention that it is the men who are overpaid or the women who are underpaid?
Amber Rudd
That is almost a philosophical question from my hon. Friend. My priority is equality: that is the point I will be making.
Mr Speaker
Amongst other things, I have always thought of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) as a philosopher—[Interruption]—of some distinction.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Amber Rudd)
I am proud to be part of the most diverse Parliament in history. My hon. Friend is of course making his own contribution by being the first British-Chinese Member of Parliament, for which I welcome him. We are commissioning evidence to identify strategies to overcome barriers to participation. Through our centenary fund, we are supporting projects to get more women involved in all levels of governance and ultimately to stand for elected office.
Alan Mak
I thank the Minister for her answer and for her kind words. Twelve women Conservative councillors currently serve on Havant Borough Council, giving over 100 years of collective service. Will my right hon. Friend continue to support women into elected office at local government level and congratulate my friends locally on their service?
Amber Rudd
That is such a good question from my hon. Friend. It is so important that we also encourage women to participate more in local councils. Only 33% of local councillors are women, and I would like to see that number rise. I echo his thanks to his local councillors. I pay particular tribute to Councillor Gwen Blackett, who is soon to retire from Havant Borough Council following 45 years of service. I congratulate her on that, and congratulate the other women who have served as well.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The first woman to be elected to this Parliament was, of course, Countess Markievicz, an Irish nationalist. Is the Home Secretary, like me, looking forward to the presentation of a portrait of the countess next week by the Irish Speaker in the Irish Parliament to Mr Speaker in this Parliament?
Amber Rudd
Yes, I am looking forward to that, and I will make sure it is in my diary, so that I can join the hon. and learned Lady for the event.
Mr Speaker
Splendid. I look forward to the presence of the Minister for Women and Equalities. That will confer some additional glitter on our proceedings.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Amber Rudd)
I would like to update the House on the work we are doing to support people back into paid work after time spent caring for others, of whom 90% are women. We know that too often, people with skills and experience struggle to get back into jobs after taking time out of the labour market to care for children or other family members, and that is a huge loss for the economy, employers and those individuals. That is why we committed £5 million to support people back into work in last year’s spring Budget.
In the summer, we also announced new public sector programmes for returners, and I am pleased to inform the House that programmes for people wanting to return to jobs in social work and the health professions and a programme for people wanting to join the civil service after a break are all up and running. Next month, we will be launching practical guidance to help private sector employers get more returners back at the right skill level. I will continue to expand opportunities for people who want to return to employment, and I look forward to giving the House further updates.
Anna McMorrin
Tomorrow in my constituency of Cardiff North, I am hosting a pensions inequality meeting for women born in the 1950s. When will this Government be prepared to support these women all over the country who are being shamelessly exploited and robbed of their pensions?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
This legislation was passed in 1995 to create an equality between men and women. Those who seek to change the legislation would be effectively creating an inequality between men and women on an ongoing basis that has a dubious nature in law and an inequality between 1950s-born women and 1960s-born women.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Amber Rudd
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. It is so important to protect women particularly, who get the largest share of abuse, from the type of attacks that can put them off participating in public life. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a review that the Law Commission will do to ensure that what we say—what is illegal offline is illegal online—is actually the case and that the law is following that guidance. We will come back to the House with further updates.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
I welcome the draft Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill. As well as looking at new initiatives, I hope that it will consider the impact of Government policy on domestic violence. Will the Minister give a commitment that the child maintenance reform will include the abolition of the 4% tax on survivors of domestic violence? Will she ensure that that is included in the draft Bill?
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I will refer to colleagues who are working on specific matters in relation to child maintenance, and we will make sure we write to her with a response on that important point within a week.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Some 89% of those who take time out of work to fulfil caring responsibilities are women, and employers, as my right hon. Friend has identified, have a huge role to play in helping women to return to work when they wish to. Can she set out more detail about the plans to publish guidance on best practice for private sector employers?
Amber Rudd
I completely agree with my hon. Friend that this is a priority. It is a priority for individuals, employers, families and the economy, which is why we allocated £5 million in the last spring Budget to make sure that we set up programmes for training, guidance and supporting businesses and employers in achieving exactly that. I will have further announcements on this and look forward to making them to the House.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
The Department for Education is currently reviewing relationships and sex education. Has the Minister taken the opportunity to emphasise to her Education colleagues how important it is to identify female genital mutilation and child, early and forced marriage as a priority area in the curriculum?
Amber Rudd
I am incredibly proud that this Government have made that commitment, and we are going to consult on it to ensure that we get it right. It is important to distinguish between relationships education, which is going to be compulsory in primary schools, and sex and relationships education in secondary schools. The areas the hon. Lady highlights will of course be considered as part of that, but this Government have actually done a lot to address the scourge, unpleasantness and horror of forced marriage and FGM.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Will the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to improve female eligibility for auto-enrolment both nationally and in my constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed?
Guy Opperman
In 2012, the overall participation of female employees in workplace pensions was 58%, but this has now increased to 80%, which is above the figure for men. In my hon. Friend’s constituency of Berwick-upon-Tweed, 1,020 employers have enrolled 6,000 employees into an auto-enrolled pension, including a very large proportion of women. I will update the House with the number of auto-enrolled employees in every constituency very shortly.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Amber Rudd
I think I can honestly say to the hon. Lady that I was as shocked as she no doubt was to hear about that. I will be discussing it with the Equality and Human Rights Commission and finding out what further communication to employers is needed to ensure that that does not take place, because it is clearly not allowed.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Businesses have just two weeks to file their gender pay gap reports. It is clear from some excellent investigative journalism by the Financial Times that some businesses have filed incorrect data. If this is done deliberately, what will my right hon. Friend do?
Amber Rudd
I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that issue. This is incredibly important to get right. The reporting on the gender pay gap will be a vital tool in ensuring that we close it. I will be discussing it with the EHRC, which is the group that will follow up with enforcement. It is sufficiently funded to do exactly that, and I will be turning to it to ensure that this is handled properly.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Amber Rudd
It looks as though I will have a few things to take forward with the BBC, and I look forward to coming back to set out what those conversations have revealed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Following the consultation that ended last September, when will my hon. Friend bring forward proposals to remove caste as a protected characteristic from the Equality Act 2010?
The Minister for Women (Victoria Atkins)
My hon. Friend has of course done so much work on this issue. We are very clear that discrimination on the basis of caste is not acceptable, which is why we consulted on it last year. We are considering the results of the consultation as we speak, and the Government will respond shortly.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Ind)
Amber Rudd
I have had a number of conversations with minority communities women’s groups. When I go out to discuss issues to do with integration, I always make a special point of engaging with women’s groups and finding out what else we can do to help them. Their concerns are often those that the hon. Gentleman and I might have about our own families—access to jobs, language courses and general public services—and my right hon. Friend the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary will shortly bring forward an integration strategy that will address some of those concerns.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
May I urge the Home Secretary, when she has her excellent ongoing conversations with social media companies on the west coast, to don her ministerial hat as the Minister for Women and Equalities and look at what those companies can do proactively to ensure that women in particular are not put off from going into public life?
Amber Rudd
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the abuse of women online does put women off, and we need to make sure that less takes place in order to encourage them. The experience of my recent visit to the west coast to discuss high levels of crime online with the communications service providers—the internet companies—was productive. We have got them to agree to a number of additional measures that I think will persist.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Victoria Atkins
Upskirting is a modern phenomenon, and it is fair to say that the law has not quite kept up with modern habits. It is an issue of which I am aware, not least because my police and crime commissioner campaigns on it thoroughly. The Government are considering the issue, and perhaps in due course I could meet the hon. Lady to discuss it with her.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
What ongoing work are the Government doing to tackle domestic violence?
Amber Rudd
I reassure my hon. Friend that we take domestic violence very seriously. We will shortly bring forward a consultation ahead of a new domestic violence Bill that will address that heinous crime and, I believe, start to reduce the amount of domestic abuse and violence that exists in this country.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
There is strong anecdotal evidence to suggest that girls are missing days of school due to period poverty. During my Westminster Hall debate, the then Minister for Women said that she wanted to commission research, and in her answer earlier today, the Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) suggested that that has happened. May I ask what has been commissioned, what research is being considered, and when it will be published before the House?
Victoria Atkins
We have sought to establish whether there has been any rigorous national assessment of the prevalence of period poverty and its impact on attendance, but none appears to be available. Last summer, we asked for help from the Association of School and College Leaders forum, and we received a limited response. We are trying to produce an analysis of our absence data to look for evidence of period poverty, and we will publish the findings of that in due course.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Further to the Minister’s earlier answer, if the state pension ages of men and women were to be different, would that infringe equality legislation?
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
Will the Minister explain what plans the Government will introduce to protect the 200 women and children who are turned away from refuges every single day?
Amber Rudd
I am proud that the Government have more beds available to victims of domestic violence than there were in 2010, and we take very seriously the issue of refuge for those victims. I am not entirely sure that the statistics used by the hon. Gentleman are correct, because sometimes when a woman is not accepted at one refuge and goes on to apply to a second or third, each application counts as one person being turned away. However, I share his view that we want to live in a country where women are not turned away and always have a place to go when they need it.
Air Quality
(6 years, 9 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
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what steps his Department will take to improve air quality after the High Court ruling on 21 February 2018.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
In July last year, we published the UK plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Yesterday, the High Court handed down its judgment following a challenge to that plan, and the judge dismissed two of the three complaints that were considered in relation to England. Specifically, he found that there is no error in the Government’s approach to tackling NO2 concentration exceedances in areas with some of the worst air quality problems, and that the national air quality modelling and monitoring that underpin the plan fulfil our legal requirements. On the five cities identified in 2015 as having particularly marked air quality challenges—Birmingham, Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Leeds—the judge found that the Government’s approach to tackling their exceedances was “sensible, rational and lawful.”
The Court has asked us to go further in areas with less severe air quality problems. We previously considered that it was sufficient to take a pragmatic, less formal approach to such areas. I wrote to several councils in November, and that was followed up by officials who asked them to provide initial information on the action they were taking by 28 February. However, in view of the Court’s judgment, we are happy to take a more formal approach, and I have already written to the local authorities, asking them to attend a meeting on 28 February to discuss that information and their plans, and whether they can take any additional action to accelerate achieving compliance with legal limits of NO2 concentrations. We will follow that up in March by issuing legally binding directions that require those councils to undertake studies to identify any such measures. As required by the Court order, we will publish a supplement to the 2017 plan by 5 October, drawing on the outcome of the authorities’ feasibility studies and plans.
As we set out in the 2017 plan, the Government are absolutely committed to improving air quality. We have pledged to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it. Later this year, we will be publishing a comprehensive clean air strategy, which will set out further steps to tackle air pollution more broadly.
Neil Parish
Minister, I believe that you are working very hard to improve air quality. This is not just about legislation; it is about practical actions to improve air quality. Are you, as Minister, getting enough co-operation from other Departments, including enough money from the Treasury, to address this serious issue? A Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs report found that particulate matter pollution costs some £16 billion a year and dramatically affects people’s lives. Does the Minister agree that preventive action would be far more cost-effective?
The High Court did find that the Secretary of State’s approach to the timetable is “sensible, lawful and rational” but not enough leadership is being provided in respect of all the local authorities with illegally high air pollution levels. Does the Minister agree that a new clean air Act will provide proper leadership, while allowing local authorities real autonomy to address the pollution levels they face at a targeted local level?
I welcome that the Government can be held to account through the courts and through Parliament, but does the Minister agree that the judgment is too focused on compliance when what we need is a much more detailed, wide-ranging and practical air quality plan? Clean air should be a right, not a privilege. I believe we need to hear much more from the Government now and we need to speed up the whole operation of cleaning our air.
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that. It is important, as he points out, to remember what we have already achieved on air quality, as well as what we are doing with local authorities. To remind the House, air pollution has improved significantly since 2010: nitrogen oxide emissions are down 27%, sulphur dioxide emissions are down 60%, particulate matter emissions are down by about 11%, and volatile organic compounds emissions are down by 9%. That is why we are investing £3.5 billion to improve air quality and reduce harmful emissions. Some of that is £1 billion to support the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles. Specifically with regard to the air quality plan, we set aside nearly half a billion pounds to help local authorities to develop and implement their local air quality plans. About £90 million has been given through the Green Bus fund and we continue to try to reduce emissions in other ways.
I remind my hon. Friend that we intend to end the sale of all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. He talked about a wide-ranging plan. I have been working on that for a while. He knows that we will be bringing forward a comprehensive clean air strategy. In particular, I am absolutely focused on particulate matter. That is why we issued a call for evidence on domestic burning with regard to smoky coal and wet wood. We are looking forward to receiving more responses to that. On money from the Treasury, we have been given substantial funds to try to work this through. I agree with him about prevention in relation to issues such as particulate matter.
With regard to powers in a clean air Act, we need clean air action. Councils and the Government already have a lot of powers. It is about being prepared to make very difficult decisions at times. That is why I urge the leaders of councils, including those I wrote to yesterday, to really grip this issue on behalf of the people they represent and we represent. It really matters that we take direct, effective local action to ensure the future health of our citizens.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
This matter warrants the urgent attention of the House, which is, of course, why I granted the application for the urgent question. However, I am keen that we make timely progress, as the Back-Bench debates are heavily subscribed. There is, therefore, a premium on observation of time limits from the Front Bench and on very pithy inquiries from the back. I know that that will be reflected in succinct replies from the Minister.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I have heard the response from the Minister, but the reality is that yesterday the Government’s plan was ruled unlawful for the third time in three years. Here we find ourselves once again having to take the Government to court and having to summon them to the Dispatch Box for them to take any action on this serious issue of public health.
We know that air pollution is responsible for about 40,000 premature deaths each year, with cardiovascular disease accounting for an estimated 80% of all such premature deaths. Research by the British Heart Foundation found premature deaths and diseases attributable to air pollution in the UK result in over £20 billion in economic costs every year. The UK is currently routinely exceeding the legal pollution limits set out in the 2008 EU ambient air quality directive. That poses the serious question of whether this Conservative Government can be trusted with our environment and to deal with illegal air pollution after the UK leaves the EU, given the kind of ducking and diving we are witnessing now.
As the Select Committee on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has stated, this situation has escalated into a public health emergency, yet the Government’s attitude and actions do not appear in any way to reflect the severity and urgency of the situation. A press statement released by the Government yesterday appeared to try to spin the Court ruling—we have heard it again today—as some sort of win for the Government and played down responsibility for this incredibly serious failure. It is typical of a Government who provide high talk on the environment but are not capable of demonstrating the leadership and action necessary to make changes on the ground when it really counts.
Given that the matter has effectively been taken out of the Government’s hands, through what is an unprecedented step, does the Minister recognise her Department’s chronic failure to grasp the nettle on this issue? Will she confirm whether the Government plan to appeal the latest Court ruling? I understand that leaders of the affected local authorities have been invited to a workshop on 28 February. Will the Minister outline the purpose of the workshop and, crucially, what support will be made available to support those cash-strapped local authorities in delivering the action we now need?
Dr Coffey
As I have said before, I take this issue very seriously. I am not surprised that the hon. Lady failed to mention that the Welsh Labour Government were also a defendant in the judicial review. Welsh Ministers admitted that the Welsh element of the air quality plan last year did not satisfy the legal requirements, which is why they have undertaken to publish a supplemental plan. Frankly, therefore, the issue is not confined to the Minister at the Dispatch Box today.
Present problems with air quality in the UK are a direct result of the EU’s failed emissions testing regime, the actions of certain irresponsible car manufacturers and the rapid increase in the number of diesel cars on the roads since 2001. I should also point out that 21 other EU member states are also breaching legal air quality limits. I try not to take a partisan approach on this, but I am fed up with the Opposition simply not accepting their part of the responsibility. It was the last Labour Government who incentivised diesel cars. Between 2000 and 2010, the sale of diesel cars shot up from 15% to nearly half of all vehicles sold. I am not saying that previous Labour Ministers did not act in good faith, but as we have found out through a freedom of information request, Labour ignored advice that diesel fumes were toxic and pushed on, on the basis of lowering CO2 emissions.
We do not intend to appeal the ruling because, in essence, the judgment turned on a narrow issue: that areas with shorter-term exceedances ought to be mandated to take action. We had already asked local authorities to do that and are more than happy to say that we will now issue legally binding directions stating that they need to take action. We will work with them. We had already asked them to provide initial information and plans, and we are now asking them to come to London next week so that we can go through those in detail and talk through the kinds of resources they need to ensure better air quality for the citizens we all represent.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend impress upon colleagues across the Government that this is not only an issue of fundamental social justice for many of our poorer citizens but about strengthening the UK economy, given that clean air is a business advantage? We do not want to fall behind Norway, the Netherlands and Scotland, which are looking to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2025, 2030 and 2032 respectively. Let us make sure that England is at the forefront, socially just and globally competitive on this issue.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government are working together to try to improve air quality. He will recognise that air pollution has already improved significantly since 2010. That is why we are working with local authorities to devise local solutions to make this happen. He mentions Scotland. Yes, the Scottish Government are also working on the introduction of a low emissions zone, but I can assure him that the situation in Glasgow is very serious, and I am sure that the Scottish Government, with the support of SNP MPs, will work to ensure they have effective solutions for their citizens, too.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
With three High Court cases lost, how critical does this situation need to get before the Government act? I appreciate the Minister’s words, and she mentioned Scotland, where all local authorities with air quality management areas now have action plans. We have set more stringent air quality targets than the rest of the UK and are the first country in Europe to legislate for particulate matter 2.5—a pollutant of special concern for human health. Perhaps I can help her out and meet her, because she will know the work that I have been doing on the aviation noise authority and making sure that it is independent. I wonder whether she would consider ensuring that pollution is taken into consideration and is part of its remit. In my Livingston constituency, I have set up a local noise authority, which ensures that the community can engage meaningfully with airports, airlines and government. Will she commit to ensuring that the aviation noise authority is truly independent and that the monitoring and management of pollution is also within its remit?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady now has the opportunity to breathe, and I am sure that she will find it a most welcome opportunity.
Dr Coffey
We all have the opportunity to breathe clean air in here, thanks to the excellent work of the House. The hon. Lady talked about the aviation noise authority. I am not a Transport Minister, so I am not aware of the issues that she raised, but there is no doubt that we want to continue to want to reduce emissions from aviation. That is why we are already working with other countries; I have instigated some elements on that. With regard to what is happening in Scotland, she will be aware that, in the Glasgow area, compliance with the legal limits is not predicted until 2026, so yet again, the money that we are investing in England has consequences for the Barnett formula. That will help the Scottish Government to achieve some of the outcomes that she wants. I will have to ask her to contact Transport Ministers to discuss the other matters that she deliberated on.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s proactive work on air quality, including in Dudley, and I urge her to work closely with local authorities to ensure that our air is clean and safe.
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Dudley is one of the areas that has been named. I have already been in conversation with Andy Street, the Mayor for the west midlands. He is very ambitious on the plans to make these improvements and I look forward to meeting the leader of Dudley Council next week to discuss further specific issues.
Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)
If the UK leaves the EU, the Commission and the European Court of Justice lose their role in monitoring and enforcing air pollution standards. Back in November, the Environment Secretary told my Committee—the Environmental Audit Committee —that he would consult on a new body to fill that governance gap very early in the new year. When will we see that consultation? Will that body be in place before exit day? Will it have higher environmental standards, which is what the Environment Secretary says he wants, lower standards, which is what the Brexit brigade wants, or full regulatory alignment with the EU, which is what the Prime Minister has promised her EU colleagues?
Dr Coffey
The good news is that the House has put legislation in place—we brought this forward—on the targets for 2020 and 2030 on the key pollutants. This Government have already acted and laid the legislation. I am pleased that the House endorsed that approach.
The consultation will be forthcoming soon. I am conscious that people are eager to see it, but, in the meantime, we are not relying on the EU to help with air quality. The hon. Lady will be aware of many measures that we are undertaking, including the new bypass in her constituency, which I and my officials believe will be the solution to improving air quality for the people of Wakefield.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
The A6 corridor in my constituency is among the most congested and worst-polluted roads in the country. What conversations has my hon. Friend had with the Department for Transport on road building to alleviate congestion and therefore improve air quality?
Dr Coffey
The Department for Transport has been active. The Government have one of the largest transport investment programmes that there has been for many decades. I am not particularly aware of the road to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am confident that my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport will be. One thing that we have done with the clean air fund is make sure that air quality is a key criterion in assessing particular grants in the future.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
In Greater Manchester, as in many other areas, the real issue with nitrogen oxides is from heavy goods vehicles and old buses. We have to begin to think about a bus scrappage scheme and incentives to get old lorries off the roads. How would the Minister respond to that?
Dr Coffey
The good news is that we had already invested £89 million in helping authorities to convert their buses, and another £40 million was added. When I visited the councillors involved in Manchester some time ago, they indicated that they are likely to use the powers under the Bus Services Act 2017 to ensure that they can do more on scheduling and requiring buses to be Euro 6 compliant in future. That is why we have been funding local councils right around the country to make that transition.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How much will air pollution be cut by the ban on the sale of petrol and diesel vehicles by 2040?
Dr Coffey
The expectation from the targets that we have legislated for is that the impacts of air pollution will be halved by 2030. One reason for saying that we will end the sale of conventional petrol and diesel cars by 2040 is to give a strong message to the manufacturers. We have seen a response already in that a number of manufacturers are saying that they will stop the production of such cars by the end of this decade. That is good news for people not only in the United Kingdom, but across Europe and the wider world.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
For the last seven years, the UK has been in breach of EU limits on toxic pollutants linked to respiratory and cardiovascular conditions and stunted lung growth in young children. It is no use telling the parents of a seven-year-old that things will improve by 2030. Can we see greater urgency, more resources, more action now, and those responsible holding up their hands and admitting when they have got it wrong?
Dr Coffey
I am sure the hon. Lady will be talking to Lesley Griffiths and the Welsh Labour Government, because it is a devolved issue. They contributed a part of the 2017 air quality plan. Just a few months later, they recognised that it was not good enough and said they were going to do more. That is why we have been working with the Welsh Government to make improvements, and why at a national level we are taking measures regarding fleet turnover and incentives to move to the cleanest diesel possible for those people who still want to use diesel cars in the interim. That is also why we are taking measures such as increasing company car taxation on diesel cars. We are taking measures, but it is not usual practice for the UK Government to order the Welsh Government to do something that is devolved. I am sure that the hon. Lady will work with her colleagues in Cardiff to ensure that her citizens are better represented in making the case for air quality with the Welsh Government.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Older vehicles are the most polluting, and they tend to be owned by small and medium-sized enterprises or by people on low incomes. Will my hon. Friend look at the potential for a vehicle scrappage scheme for not only buses, but cars and lorries, so that we get the worst-polluting vehicles off the road more quickly?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Yesterday I sat here listening to the Prime Minister’s response to my question, and I was very surprised at the gap between the briefing that she had been given by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—albeit, I accept, at short notice—and what I was reading through the news feeds. Will the Minister apologise to me and to the House for the briefing given to the Prime Minister that implied that the judgment was more a win than a loss, given that, as we now know very clearly, the Government have been found to be acting unlawfully, and so badly that the court is taking over DEFRA’s role in implementing the legislation?
Dr Coffey
I am afraid the hon. Lady is simply incorrect. The judge dismissed challenges about our approach to air quality. I wrote to councils last November asking them about how we can help to improve air quality in those 45 local authorities, and the judge said that urging and encouraging was not sufficient, but that we should issue legally binding directions. That was reflected in what the Prime Minister said to the House yesterday, and that is what we will do. I encourage the hon. Lady to work with the Mayor of London, who has already had a substantial amount of funding, which he is using to start deploying cleaner buses and other aspects of modal shift in London. Frankly, he needs to accelerate his programme, and I encourage her to work with him in doing that and building on the plans of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome the energy and resources that the Government are applying to this issue, particularly the clean bus funds, which will see a fleet of electric vehicles serving Harrogate and Knaresborough. Are all the local authorities that my hon. Friend is dealing with as committed and enthusiastic as she is about solving this issue? That has not been my experience so far.
Dr Coffey
My hon. Friend was a Treasury Minister when we were working on the air quality plan, and I know that he is as committed as I am to these improvements. I fully recognise that some of the issues involved are politically difficult, which is why I have been meeting councillors from those authorities to tell them that time cannot wait for effective local solutions. My hon. Friend ensured that we had Government finances with which to tackle the issue, and those finances will be deployed.
Layla Moran
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I am very grateful to the Minister for her letter and her offer to meet me to discuss the plan for Oxford, which I intend to take up. Will she confirm, however, that it is not just a meeting that she is having with the councils, and that there is also extra money? I know that they have already been trying.
Dr Coffey
I did not mention this earlier, but yesterday I wrote to all Members affected by the impact of yesterday’s legal ruling, which binds the councils legally to co-operate with what we were already doing. I have engaged in correspondence with the leader of Oxford City Council, and look forward to meeting her next week. The council is looking at certain proposals, which include widening the pedestrianised area in the city centre, to tackle the challenges. I want to know what resources or powers it may need, but I think that it has powers already, and it may just be a case of working through the details of the plan.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give us more details about what the Government are doing to support renewable technology to secure the future of clean energy in the United Kingdom?
Dr Coffey
In addition to the £3.5 billion that we are investing to tackle, in particular, air quality in the context of a modal shift, we are massively increasing the incentives for councils to help to deploy the infrastructure that is needed to support the growth in the use of electric vehicles. There is already a reasonably generous grant for people who wish to buy such vehicles—about £1 billion has been allocated—and, as my hon. Friend will know, legislation that is currently before Parliament will require fuel stations to provide the electric infrastructure that enables people to charge their cars, rather than just filling them with petrol and diesel.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As chair of my party’s Back-Bench environment, food and rural affairs committee, may I say to the Minister that this is not good enough? We are talking about a national health emergency: according to recent estimates, a million people could probably die by 2040. The Minister must act now, with the manufacturers, with local authorities, and with everyone else.
Dr Coffey
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the effort to get local authorities working on this. He will, I hope, be aware from the letter that I sent him yesterday that we have been in correspondence. We recently funded a significant number of buses—350, I think—in the West Yorkshire combined authority, and there is clearly an opportunity for those new buses to be deployed in the worst traffic hotspots, so that we can work on air pollution. I look forward to meeting the leader of Kirklees Council and other West Yorkshire authorities next week.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Minister for meeting me a couple of weeks ago to discuss specific Bath issues. She was helpful and pragmatic. I agree that local leadership is needed.
The Minister mentioned the new legislation earlier. I do not think that it goes far enough. May I ask again whether she will consider introducing regulations requiring owners of public facilities such as supermarkets and public car parks to provide electric car charging points?
Dr Coffey
I did have a very constructive meeting with the hon. Lady recently. I also visited Bath last year to see at first hand the challenges that it is facing. The hon. Lady will know of the grants that have already been provided to increase electric vehicle take-up. However, I take her point, and I will discuss it with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman).
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
Oxford was excluded from the mandated list because only 3% of our monitoring sites were included. Do the Government now accept that that decision was wrong and that, as the first British city to commit itself to a zero-emission zone, we really need the powers and resources that she mentioned?
Dr Coffey
Oxford City Council already has those powers. It could have done this years ago. The powers were granted some time ago in the Transport Act 2000. The judge yesterday upheld the fact that our modelling had fulfilled our legal requirements, although I am conscious that the local air monitoring does not comply with the legislation by which we are bound. I am pleased that Oxford is considering wider pedestrianisation in its city centre, and I look forward to discussing that in detail next week. However, it has those powers already. It can get on with this, and I encourage it to do so as quickly as possible.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Although I am grateful to the Minister for the funding she has given to cash-strapped authorities such as Bristol for consultations on clean-air zones, I would like her to move a little further and think of the children who are at school in one of the worst-polluted areas in the centre of Bristol, St Michael on the Mount Without. Will she urgently consider a scrappage scheme for cars and other vehicles, such as taxis and buses?
Dr Coffey
I have discussed air quality with the hon. Lady before. She will be aware that I have had direct discussions with Bristol City Council. She will also be aware of the funding that has already gone in to help the uptake of electric vehicles and the buses that are being provided from transport funds. Bristol is making good progress. It is one of the councils that we mandated last year to come forward with action; I believe that it is on track, mainly, with its process and I look forward to receiving its final considerations later this year.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
After eight years of court cases, I find the Minister’s minimalistic approach quite staggering. Why are her Government investing in a new generation of dirty diesel trains, which are a major issue in my constituency, as they idle outside residential areas?
Dr Coffey
As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), the Rail Minister, said, we are going to end the use of diesel-only trains by 2040. That has given a clear steer to the procurers and operators, on the basis that they tend to invest in 15-year cycles. Our rail electrification programme is considerably greater than that of the Labour Government, who, when in power for 13 years between 1997 and 2010, achieved 13 miles, so frankly, it is not for Labour Members to lecture us today about these issues. Since 2010, we have been investing to fix the problems that they left behind.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Three years after the Volkswagen story broke, how are the Government holding the company to account for its emissions scandal?
Dr Coffey
We have been holding Volkswagen to account. One of the challenges of how the EU operates in this regard is that it is for the German Government to be the regulator of Volkswagen, and we hold Volkswagen directly to account through the European Commission. I am pleased that Volkswagen has come forward with its wider group to do some of the retrofitting of vehicles in terms of software updates to correct what it did, and I am pleased that that is now being fixed, but frankly, the behaviour of Volkswagen and its chief executives was a disgrace. The way they used money to fund research into the effects of diesel fumes on primates and humans is frankly disgusting. They should hang their heads in shame, but we are now fixing the problems that they created.
Business of the House
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week will include:
Monday 26 February—Estimates day (1st allotted day). Debate on Ministry of Defence estimates followed by a debate on the estimates of the Department for Exiting the European Union.
Tuesday 27 February—Estimates day (2nd allotted day). Debate on the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government estimates so far as they relate to homelessness, followed by a debate on the estimates of the Department for Transport.
At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Wednesday 28 February—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by debate on a motion on the independent complaints and grievance policy. The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
Thursday 1 March—Debate on a Backbench Business Committee subject to be confirmed, followed by general debate on St David’s day. The subject of this debate was nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 2 March—The House will not be sitting.
The business for the week commencing 5 March will include:
Monday 5 March—Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill [Lords].
Mr Speaker, colleagues will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the summer recess at the end of business on Tuesday 24 July and return on Tuesday 4 September. For the conference recess, the House will rise at the close of business on Thursday 13 September and return on Tuesday 9 October. The House will also rise on Tuesday 6 November and return on Monday 12 November and finally, for the Christmas recess, the House will rise at the conclusion of business on Thursday 20 December and return on Monday 7 January 2019.
This week, the very best of British has truly been on display. A number of Sunday’s British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards went to Brits, including the awards for best cinematographer and for rising star, and of course Gary Oldman won an award for playing none other than Winston Churchill in “Darkest Hour”. We have all been glued to our televisions watching our best-ever winter Olympics performance. We won three medals in one day, with Lizzy Yarnold successfully defending her gold in the skeleton. Sports and the arts are not just of huge value to British culture; they are also of huge value to our economy, and they have been showcased superbly this week.
This has also been a week of important firsts for women. Congratulations to the first Lady Usher of the Black Rod as she takes up her role, and to Minette Batters, who has been selected as the first female president of the National Farmers Union. Finally, Her Majesty was still achieving firsts as she appeared on the front row at London fashion week and presented an inaugural award in her name.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for next week. However, I must echo what Marin Alsop said: it is the 21st century, yet we are still celebrating firsts for women. That must change.
It is helpful to have next week’s business, and I am sure that Members and staff of the House will be pleased to have the recess dates. I note that the business stops on 5 March. Can the right hon. Lady tell us what is going to happen after that, or will the Government continue to announce just one week plus a Monday in advance? If they are looking for something to fill the time, perhaps the Leader of the House could provide us with another Opposition day. I think the last one that was allocated was on 24 January.
Obviously, there is time available as the Government do not have any business, so could we consider two statutory instruments that have been prayed against by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner)? The first relates to early-day motion 936, on changing the eligibility of free school meals for those on universal credit.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Free School Lunches and Milk, and School and Early Years Finance (Amendments Relating to Universal Credit) (England) Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 148), dated 6 February 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7 February, be annulled.]
The second relates to early-day motion 937, which deals with regulations abolishing nursing bursaries for postgraduate nursing students.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 136), dated 5 February 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 6 February, be annulled.]
Could the Leader of the House honour the convention and allow time to debate those matters on the Floor of the House, so that we can have a vote on them before the 40-day period expires?
Will the Leader of the House tell us what news she has of the Trade Bill and the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill? I am sure that the Government will want to scotch rumours that they are being pushed away.
I thank the Leader of the House for her letter—which I received at eight minutes past 8 yesterday—responding to some of the queries that I had raised. It was a bit like the Morecambe and Wise joke in which Eric tells André Previn that he is playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order. In her letter, she answered questions, but they were not necessarily the ones that I asked. On the east coast railway line, for example, I did not ask her to tell me how wonderful Virgin was. I asked her a question about the Secretary of State taking back the contract. I asked her to write to me to tell me what costs were associated with the privatisation in the first place and with taking the contract back. I also asked whether the Secretary of State had made the decision to privatise a commercially viable service against the advice that had been given to him.
The Leader of the House also did not answer my question about the inspector looking into Northamptonshire County Council. I asked her let me know how long the inspection would take and what the terms of reference were. We also know that Buckinghamshire might be setting an illegal budget—this will be of interest to you, Mr Speaker—and I think that that might be happening today. Over the past five years, its Government support has been reduced from £61 million to £8 million. The Leader of the House needs to respond to that. I ask her this as a matter of courtesy: I know that she has a very able civil service staff, because I meet them on occasions, and I wonder whether she could sign her letters off slightly earlier—perhaps on a Tuesday?
We know from the book by Tim Shipman how the Government used to make their policy, with the two advisers walking in St James’s Park batting policy ideas back and forth. Now that they have lost their jobs, however, it seems that the Government are raiding the Labour manifesto. They are now having a review of tuition fees. It is irrelevant that more young people are going to university—they have been told that if they go to university and get a degree, they will get a better job, but students do not want to start off in life with a debt of £56,000. However, they receive invoices yearly telling them that they have to pay back that amount.
The matter of high pay rises for vice-chancellors was raised during the Education Committee hearing on value for money in higher education, and MPs told a panel of vice-chancellors that the high rate of pay enjoyed by some university leaders is immoral given taxpayer subsidies and rising levels of debt. Will the Government therefore consider that issue in their review of post-18 education? If they will not—we do not know the full terms of reference—may we have a debate on the possibility of further regulation of vice-chancellors’ pay, or will that be parked for another year?
It is almost a year since article 50 was triggered, and at the end of the weekend we may know exactly what the Government’s position will be. I do not know whether you received a copy of the letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Speaker, but although it is marked private and confidential it seems that everyone has seen it. If you have not received it, I am quite happy to give it you. It is actually disrespectful to the Prime Minister. It begins, “Dear Prime Minister,” but it was sent to her at the House of Commons, not Downing Street—her place of work. I am not even going to go into the grammar or anything else, but I want to highlight one thing. It states that leaving the customs union and single market
“isn’t a question of ideology, but practicality”.
There is absolutely no mention of what is in the best interests of the citizens of this country or the interests of Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) was right to say that it reads like a ransom note. It might as well have had a bullet point at the end saying, “Don’t forget to do this,” or, “Do this, or else.” It was signed by 63 Members—well over that magic number of 40.
It is World Thinking Day, which is a day of international friendship. We want to stand by our international friends and with the young people in Florida who decided to remember the 17 people who were murdered last week by walking out of school and into their state capitol to demand change.
The Leader of the House and I could not be at the Brit awards yesterday—I was reading my letter from her at 8.8 pm—but I am sure that she will echo the Leader of the Opposition’s words about a young man who has changed the music industry. He encouraged everyone to vote, pray and speak out about mental health issues, and he won best album and best male artist. Stormzy, congratulations.
Andrea Leadsom
I start by sharing in the hon. Lady’s tribute to those who were tragically murdered before even reaching their prime in the appalling killings in Florida. We were all beyond shocked, and we are all slightly in despair that such things happen time and again. We desperately hope that action will now be taken to fulfil the wishes of those young people, who should be able to grow up in peace and security.
I am always happy to pay tribute to people who speak out about the importance of resolving the nation’s mental health issues. On Tuesday evening, I had the great pleasure of speaking at an event run by MQ, a charity that looks at research into mental health. I met some fantastic people who are doing everything they can to promote good mental health, and I am proud of the Government’s achievements in that area.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady is grumpy about my letter to her. I do my absolute best to be nothing but courteous to the hon. Lady, whom I respect enormously and for whom I have the greatest regard. I share her tribute to my civil service team, but she will recognise that there are only a handful of them, and the questions that she asks sometimes require answers from Departments. With specific regard to her detailed questions on Department for Transport matters, she will know that Transport Question Time happens often in this Chamber, and she is also at liberty to ask detailed questions of the Secretary of State for Transport, instead of being slightly churlish towards my team, who are doing their best on her behalf. I thank my tiny Department for its excellent turnaround rate on letters.
The hon. Lady talked about some things that I did not include in my response, such as the inspection at Northamptonshire County Council. The inspector’s report is due by 16 March, and I am sorry if that was omitted from my letter. The hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who is sitting next to the shadow Leader of the House, has gone on Twitter criticising things that I failed to say in my very courteous and timely response to her. Mr Speaker, perhaps you might like to give your thoughts on how appropriate it is, when one tries to be courteous to colleagues, that they simply go on Twitter accusing me of not saying things that they would have liked me to have said. It is a little discourteous.
The shadow Leader of the House talks about tuition fees and says that the Government are taking a leaf out of Labour’s manifesto. I do not think we ever said that we would scrap tuition fees and deal with all the outstanding debt, which even the Opposition agree would have an appalling impact on our economy. We are seeking to look very seriously at what is the best combination for delivering excellence in post-18 education at an affordable price.
Finally, the shadow Leader of the House raises the issue of a letter from a number of Conservative MPs, and all I can say, as the Prime Minister’s spokesman made very clear, is that all contributions from Members on both sides of the House to our position on Brexit are very welcome, and all are taken into account.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on support for women with endometriosis? An inspirational constituent, Ms Carla Cressy, suffers from this crippling condition, and she is leading a local and national campaign to raise awareness, which I hope the House will support.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a serious matter, and I certainly congratulate his constituent on her campaign. Statistics suggest that endometriosis is the second most common gynaecological condition in the United Kingdom, affecting one in 10 women. I encourage him to apply for an Adjournment debate to raise awareness of this condition further.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I am not sure whether she is going to the Brexit bonding/war session later this afternoon, but can we have a debate on what other dystopian nightmares Brexit will not be quite like? Maybe “Apocalypse Now”— apocalypse in a couple of years?—or “Children of Men”. My favourite would have to be “The Matrix”, as we have a bunch of clueless fantasists living in an alternative world and believing that they can impose their version of reality on everyone else—it could not be more apt than that.
On alternative realities, we had English votes for English laws in all its absurd glory yesterday. Bells go on, bells go off; Mace comes down, Mace goes up. Nothing ever happens. There is no debate and no consideration of all these weighty English-only issues; nothing goes on at all. It is now becoming profoundly embarrassing for this House. EVEL now seems to be designed only to get in the way of the workings and procedures of this House, and it is a psychological barrier to the unity of the membership of this House based on nationality and geography. For goodness’ sake, Leader of the House, get shot of this absurd system.
Lastly, I had the good fortune of being at the Brits last night to see the cream of British musical talent on show. Before you ask, Mr Speaker, MP4 were once again shamefully passed over for the parliamentary rock band of the year. It has taken our musicians to remind this Government to do the right thing, and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) is right to mention Stormzy and his tour-de-force performance last night in which he asked, “Where’s the money for Grenfell? You thought we were all going to forget about Grenfell? Well, we are not.” It is great that our actors, our young people and our musicians are reminding this Government to do the right thing.
Andrea Leadsom
On Grenfell, the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that resolving the appalling tragedy to enable people to carry on with their lives and to turn around the appalling physical and mental scars from that awful, awful night is an absolute priority for the Government, and it will remain so.
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to enjoy the Brits—the best of British, which is important for someone such as himself—and I am sure MP4 will have their day.
The hon. Gentleman talks about EVEL. He will appreciate that under the devolution settlement it is important that those directly affected should be able to hold the majority on votes affecting only English or English and Welsh situations. Finally, he talks about our life outside the EU, which in my opinion is much less “Mad Max” and far more “Love Actually”.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I am not even going to try to follow that one, Mr Speaker.
I have just received a report from Data Diligence, which my right hon. Friend will know about, because it pointed out the wrongdoings of Northamptonshire County Council. It has just sent me a report to prove that Taunton Deane Borough Council has been hiding money for years, in financial misprudence. May we please have a debate on this matter? It is important, as it shows that local government is sometimes not worthy of the trust we put in it.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has referred on this occasion to the council. May I just ask him whether he has notified the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) of his intention to raise this matter today?
Mr Liddell-Grainger
I wrote to my hon. Friend, in line with your guidance in your letter. I thank you very much for your guidance, which I followed to the letter.
Mr Speaker
This is becoming rather tiresome. I did try gently to exhort the hon. Gentleman to pursue other lines of inquiry. I have permitted this today, but my patience is not unlimited.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend will be aware that business questions are about business of this House, and he would be advised to speak to the Department for Communities and Local Government directly about his concerns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Let me help the Leader of the House by saying that it has just been determined this morning that the other item of business on Thursday 1 March will be a debate on a motion on seasonal migrant workers. That has been settled this morning.
The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is backing the great exhibition of the north, which is being hosted in Gateshead and Newcastle from 22 June until 9 September. May we have a debate in Government time to promote the great exhibition of the north? I know that the Leader of the House would normally exhort a Member making such a request to go to the Backbench Business Committee, but that would hardly seem appropriate in my circumstances.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman could always go and chat to himself in the mirror, but that might appear a little odd to anyone watching. I pay tribute to that great exhibition of the north, which I hope will be a huge success. I am sure he will find, as he just has, great ways to promote it.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
May I tell the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee that there is a famous scene in “Iolanthe” where the Lord Chancellor persuades himself of the merits of his own cause?
May we have a debate on the working practices and procedures of the Education and Skills Funding Agency? There is a particular issue in my constituency with Bullers Wood School for Boys. The Secretary of State for Education is very much on the case, but there is an underlying picture of an organisation whose procurement processes are top-heavy, slow, hierarchical and very process-driven. This body is sometimes resistant to advice from external partners, who can often bring greater local knowledge to bear on its procurement processes.
Mr Speaker
Order. I must just say to the hon. Gentleman that I gather that he was spotted in a prominent place at the first night of the said performance. We hope he richly enjoyed himself.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a big champion for his constituency and for education, and I encourage him to take this up directly with Ministers or through an Adjournment debate.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
TransPennine Express has recently downgraded the vital rail link from Hull to Leeds and Manchester to a stopping service, which means that trains now stop at an additional six places along the way. Although it is important to have a stopping service to link together smaller towns, it is really important to have an express service, too. Please may we therefore have a debate in Government time on rail connectivity for northern cities?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point. She will be aware that there will be Transport questions on Thursday 1 March, when she might well like to raise that issue directly with Ministers.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Leader of the House will be aware of the retail giant Tesco hungrily taking over the wholesaler Booker. She will also be aware of the concerns about that on the part of farmers, growers and food producers: it would create an extraordinary distortion of the food chain at the expense of all those important people. Will she encourage those in the Government responsible for agriculture and business to let this House know what their feelings are about such market distortion?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are clear processes for looking at significant takeovers and at mergers and whether they are in the public interest, but he may well wish to raise that directly with Ministers or to seek an Adjournment debate, so that he can talk about the particular interests of his constituency, which has a heavy reliance on the agricultural sector.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My constituents in Bridge of Weir have told me that universal credit claimants there are instructed to attend initial appointments in Greenock—nearly 12 miles away—despite the jobcentre in Johnstone being only 3 miles away. I have heard of claimants walking to and from Greenock, as the return bus fare of nearly £8 represents up to 14% of their benefit payment. Can we have a debate on how claimants from rural and semi-rural areas are affected by universal credit roll-out?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. He will be aware that the Government are fully committed to the roll-out of universal credit as a good way to help more people back into work and have the security of a job and a pay packet. With regard to the specific points he raises about access to jobcentres to sign up for universal credit, if he wants to write to me, I can take them up directly with the Department on his behalf.
Mrs Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Please may we have a debate on the communication strategy and responsibilities of Highways England? Two weeks ago, Highways England announced the total closure of a key part of the A1 through my constituency for three weeks in March, but it entirely failed to consult, or indeed communicate at all, with vital local businesses such as Purdy Lodge services and with local residents who will be heavily affected by this necessary work. The confusion and the lack of communication have been a real crisis for the area.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. I think a number of hon. Members have had problems with lack of communication about significant road closures, so I am glad she has raised the issue in the Chamber. She may well want to take it up at Transport questions next Thursday, 1 March.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
When can we have an urgent debate in Government time to discuss the state of our roads and particularly the number of potholes not just on our local roads but on motorways? Anyone who drives on the motorways will see many potholes, which are very dangerous.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of potholes. It is a big frustration for all of us as individuals and in our constituency surgeries—there are lots of complaints about potholes. The Government have invested significant sums in dealing with potholes. There have been improvements in recent years, but the hon. Gentleman might like to talk to the Backbench Business Committee, so that Members can share their particular frustrations.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
My question follows that from my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) about the work of Highways England. The A180 into Grimsby and Cleethorpes is our major route, and it is vital to the local economy. It is undergoing unexpected roadworks at the moment, and there was very little consultation. I acknowledge that I could raise this at Transport questions, but in view of the concern among other Members, perhaps we could find time for a Government debate on the issue.
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that my hon. Friend is speaking up for his constituency, as always. Again, at least in the first instance, he might want to raise the issue at Transport questions next week.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I mention the sad death yesterday of the great American evangelist Billy Graham? He was a great influence on many of us in this House. He was very saddened by the killing of children in schools in America, but he would also have been appalled by the daily death toll of children in Syria caused by this ghastly Syrian Government, backed by the Russians, day after day. Can we have an early statement to the House next week on any progress towards a halt in that awful, awful tragedy?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to Billy Graham who really was quite a life-changing character for many people during his long life. I also share the hon. Gentleman’s grave concern about what is happening in Syria. The Government have condemned the appalling loss of life, and we will do everything that we can to ensure that there is a ceasefire and that we make progress in finding a resolution in Syria.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Last week, in partnership with Disability Action Yorkshire, we brought together leaders from across my constituency —business leaders, service providers and transport providers—to discuss how to make Harrogate and Knaresborough even more friendly for disabled people. It was a very good session, with practical ideas put forward and helpful connections made. Can we have a debate, to build on the debate later today, to look at how we can make the UK more disability friendly?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his huge efforts in this area and commend him for the meeting that he called. He might be aware of the Backbench Business debate that takes place later today on the role of disabled people in economic growth. The Government spend more than £50 billion a year on benefits that support disabled people and people with health conditions. That is more than ever before—in fact, it is up £7 billion since 2010—with the result that there are now 3.5 million disabled people in work, which is an increase of nearly 600,000 in the past four years. He is right that there is still a lot more to do, and a lot more that can be done, but we are making some good progress.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Last year, a 13-year-old boy with a dairy allergy died after allegedly having cheese forced on him at school. Next month, children at the cinema will watch the much-loved character Peter Rabbit forcing a child to undergo an anaphylactic reaction, which can be fatal. Sony has apologised but has refused to cut the scene, and the film certificate classifies the film as having mild threat and comic violence. Food allergy is no laughing matter; it can be life or death. Can we have a debate on the bullying of children with allergies, which is clearly not taken seriously enough?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point, and she is absolutely right to highlight the seriousness of food allergies. We should do everything that we can to raise the importance and the awareness of the potential life-threatening impact of food allergies. She may well want to seek an Adjournment debate, so that she can talk to Ministers directly on that point.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
With the lambing season now upon us and domestic dog attacks on livestock at an all-time high, can we have a debate on what more the Government can do to limit the devastating effect that irresponsible dog owners have on both our rural communities and our rural economy?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that matter. We have all seen photographs of the appalling effect of a dog attack on a field of sheep. It is hugely distressing for the animals, obviously, as well as for the farmers who look after them, and it has serious financial implications. It is already a criminal offence for a dog to worry livestock; dog owners can be fined up to £1,000. Farmers are being encouraged to report any incidents, so that action can be taken. Furthermore, the dog welfare code highlights for owners the importance of keeping their dogs on leads when they are near livestock.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
University lecturers and staff are currently involved in a strike—the largest ever in higher education—owing to changes in their terms and conditions, particularly in their pensions. Can we have a statement, or an urgent debate, in this House about how we can resolve this impasse, so that the terms and conditions of our lecturers can be protected?
Andrea Leadsom
I must declare an interest, as my eldest son is about to study for his finals and now has no lecturers. At a very personal level, I cannot say that I support innocent students, who have paid their fees and worked very hard, being punished for the resolution of this challenge. Talks are ongoing, and the Universities Minister is engaging with Universities UK and the University and College Union to make it clear to all parties that there is a need to find a solution that avoids disruption to students.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Under this Government, the UK is leading international efforts to tackle tax avoidance. Can we have a debate on the impact that tax avoidance has on our vital public services and on what more can be done to make sure that everybody pays their fair share?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a really important point. He will be pleased, as I am, that the Government have a strong record on tackling tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. Since 2010, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has secured and protected over £175 billion in additional tax revenues through its compliance activities—more than the entire annual budget of the NHS. The UK’s tax gap is now down to 6%—its lowest level ever, and one of the lowest in the world.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
We still await the Government’s response to the independent review of S4C that was launched last year. In recent years, the channel’s budget has suffered successive real-terms cuts. What is more, the Wales-specific content broadcast in the English language on other channels has also decreased. May we have an urgent debate on the perilous position of broadcasting in Wales and the merits of devolving responsibility for it to the National Assembly for Wales?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm and support for the Welsh broadcasting service. He may well wish to seek an Adjournment debate, so that he can take up his specific concerns directly with Ministers.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
May we have a debate on local news sites? Next Wednesday, Stuart Crowther, the editor of InsideMoray, will be publishing his final stories before taking a well-earned retirement. Since that site started in June 2013, it has been a valuable resource for local people and those further afield, and it complements our local print media. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Stuart on his efforts over the years and share my hope that someone will take over this successful site to ensure that it can continue in future?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a real champion for all things in Moray. I can assure him that the Government are committed to supporting an independent, vibrant and plural press industry. In particular, the local press is vital to this country’s democracy. I know that InsideMoray has published thousands of stories since 2013. I am happy to join him in congratulating Stuart on his amazing efforts and wishing him a very happy retirement.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Year 6 pupils Ella and George from Thornhill Junior and Infant School in my constituency wrote to me regarding their concerns about our dependence on fossil fuels and the harm caused by litter and plastics to our environment. Will the Leader of the House consider, further to today’s urgent question, giving more time for a debate about building a green economy based on clean, renewable energy?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate the hon. Lady’s constituents on the really worthwhile campaign that they have started to run. I am sure that she will be delighted to hear of the number of MPs who have taken up the “give up plastic for Lent” challenge. I am not sure whether she has done so herself, but it is surprisingly difficult to stop using plastic. The Government are taking great steps forward through the 5p charge for plastic bags. We are reducing the number of plastic bags in circulation by about 9 billion, or some extraordinary number. There is a huge amount more to do to reduce our use of fossil fuels. We have announced the intention to get coal off the system by 2025. There is a lot more to be done, so the efforts of her constituents are greatly appreciated.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In the past two months alone, 25 civilians and at least seven service personnel have been murdered by terrorists in Jammu, Kashmir. In Kashmir, illegally occupied by Pakistan, 162 terrorist training bases have been identified. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what we can do in this country to help and support our great ally, India, in combating this terrorism?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly serious point. He will be aware that we work very closely with all our allies to try to stamp out terrorism and all terror attacks. He will, I am sure, want to raise this directly with Foreign Office Ministers, or perhaps through an Adjournment debate, so that he can get specific detail on what we are doing to address his point.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
One of my constituents, Ian Ackley, was the initial whistleblower on, and a victim of, the prolific serial child sex abuser and paedophile Barry Bennell. There has been no Government statement or debate about this historical child sexual abuse and what is being done to make sure that it never happens again. Will the Leader of the House make time available for this important issue to be debated?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very harrowing issue. I think that everyone in this House would want to send their deepest condolences and thoughts to the many victims of that paedophile. Some of the things that have happened to them are appalling. The hon. Gentleman may want to take it up, in the first instance, at Home Office questions next Monday.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
According to Persecution Relief, an ecumenical focus group, attacks on Christians in India have doubled in the past year to 736. Worryingly, it has also recorded a growing trend of attackers filing police complaints that accuse Christians of crimes such as sedition or even inviting attacks by offending local people and their religious sentiments. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on that matter?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises, as he often does, the issue of religious freedom. He will be pleased to know that there is a Backbench debate on 1 March on freedom of religion or belief, so he will have the opportunity—
Andrea Leadsom
Okay. I am delighted on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, and I am sure it will be a great success.
Mr Speaker
It is very heartening to know that the hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that the debate is taking place and that it is his. That is a good start.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I and a number of other Members have been raising with the Government the 1984 Cammell Laird strike. That campaign is currently undertaken by the GMB trade union. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as a GMB member and sponsored MP. We have been raising that for a year, including in the House at Justice questions last April and October. We have been waiting for meetings that have now been withdrawn. How on earth can we hold the Government to account when they refuse to answer questions in this place, offer meetings and then withdraw them and have us going round the houses for nearly a year?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sorry that I am unaware of the problem that the hon. Gentleman is raising with the Justice Department, but if he emails me, I can certainly look into that on his behalf.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Can we have an urgent debate on the future of the children’s centre network? That was one of the last Labour Government’s proudest achievements, but it has been cut back drastically on the basis that there would be streamlining of the service. In Gloucestershire, we are now facing the potential closure of the few remaining children’s centres. It is vital for the future of our children that we know what provision will be available.
Andrea Leadsom
I am an enormous fan of children’s centres. They were a fantastic initiative and have certainly provided a huge amount of support for children. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this Government have invested enormously in nurseries and childcare, enabling many more parents to benefit from up to £5,000 a year of tax-free childcare. More nursery care and qualified childcare is enabling more families to go back to work with the reassurance of knowing that their children are well cared for.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will be well aware of legislation passed last year to prevent the mass farming of tickets by ticket touts, but when we read that tickets for “Hamilton”, for example, are now being retailed at £6,000, which is absolutely outrageous and ridiculous, is it not time that we had more comprehensive legislation dealing with ticket touting? Can we have an early statement from the relevant Department on that?
Andrea Leadsom
Having tried to get “Hamilton” tickets recently, I know that they are at a premium; I completely agree. The hon. Gentleman seems to offer me some tickets from his inside pocket. He is right that ticket touting is an enormous problem, and I certainly encourage him in the first instance to seek an Adjournment debate, so that he can raise his concerns.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
My constituent has faced 10 years of harassment and antisocial behaviour due to their neighbours using CCTV to track their movements in and out of their home. The constituent has raised with the police concerns about the surveillance camera code of practice. Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary or a Home Office Minister to make a statement on the code and its success rate five years after it was published by the Government?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a very concerning issue. It must be horrible for his constituent to have to be harassed in that way. He will be aware that there are Home Office questions on Monday, and I encourage him to raise that directly with Ministers.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
NatWest bank is 73% publicly owned, and in my constituency, as in other communities across this country, it is closing many of its high street banking facilities. What responsibility do the Government accept for the damage caused to these local communities, and will they hold a debate on that issue and the justification for it?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady that access to banking is absolutely vital. She will be aware that banks’ decisions on whether to close are commercial decisions made by them. There is an agreement with the banking sector that they will consult widely and ensure that closures take place only where volumes and footfall justify such a closure. She will also be aware that the Government have invested heavily in the post office network, and that post offices now provide basic banking services for about 98% of all personal and business customers. Those customers can carry out basic banking transactions within the post office network.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that employment tribunal fees were unlawful and that all claimants should receive back their fees as a refund. The latest figures show that only about 6% of people have actually received such refunds, and I am at a loss to understand why that figure is so low, given that the tribunals service has the details of every single person who has made a claim. May we have a statement from the relevant Minister on what the Government will do to make sure that people get back the money to which they are legally entitled?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is clearly one for the Ministry of Justice. If he writes to me, I will take it up with the Department, but I encourage him to raise it directly with Ministers at the next Justice oral questions.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
May we have a statement on the role and responsibilities of the UK Government in supporting families of UK citizens missing abroad? Liam Colgan from Inverness went missing in Hamburg on 10 February. His family are worried that he is injured or suffering from memory loss, and they are very concerned about the level of help they are getting. They are desperate to find him, and they want to bring him home.
Andrea Leadsom
I am really sorry to hear about that. It must be an incredibly worrying time for Liam Colgan’s family, and I am quite sure that they are desperate to hear news of him. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to contact Ministers directly, so that he can seek their support.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Helen & Douglas House hospice in Oxford is having to close one of its two centres due to lack of funding, which means that it cannot now provide end-of-life care for 18 to 35-year-olds. Just under 47,000 people have signed a petition asking the Government to intervene on the closure. May we have a debate on hospice funding, so that colleagues can debate this and other hospices?
Andrea Leadsom
I share the hon. Lady’s gratitude to Helen & Douglas House, which delivers amazing end-of-life care not just to her constituents, but to some of mine, and I am a huge enthusiast for the hospice movement. The hon. Lady will be aware that local NHS commissioners determine the number of NHS funded hospices in their area, but I would like to reassure her that NHS England awarded £11 million for children’s hospices through the children’s hospice grant in 2017-18. She is right to raise this case, and she may well want to seek an Adjournment debate to discuss with a Minister what more can be done.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Why are the Government dodging the timetabling of Opposition day debates?
Andrea Leadsom
I just do not accept that the Government are dodging anything. Ever since I became Leader of the House of Commons following the general election, we have been absolutely clear that we are providing exactly the right and appropriate number of Opposition days, in accordance with the Standing Orders. We are continuing to do that, and we will continue to abide by the conventions and the Standing Orders of this House.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Many Members will have noted the recent case of Dr Hadiza Bawa-Garba, who was struck off after being convicted of gross negligence and manslaughter, despite its being an evident case of the institutional failure in the NHS that could have an impact on any junior doctor. This has led to an unprecedented loss of confidence in the General Medical Council among the medical profession. Will the Leader of the House call a debate on improving the governance of the GMC, so that we can restore confidence in it?
Andrea Leadsom
We were all very concerned to hear about that case. There is obviously a balance between transparency and enabling lessons to be learned from awful outcomes and situations. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the case, and I encourage him to take it up directly with Ministers at the next Health and Social Care questions.
Point of Order
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know this issue has been raised with you before, but I wish to raise it now while the Leader of the House is in her place. Many constituents come to Parliament to meet Ministers and raise significant issues. Many of my constituents have to travel from Edinburgh to London, but no facility is in place to assist them with travel expenses. Jennifer Stewart and Robert Ure came to see a Health Minister after my Adjournment debate about their son who is dying of a brain tumour, and they had to come to London at their own expense this week. Is there any mechanism to look at this issue again, so that those constituents who live furthest from London are not disenfranchised from meeting Ministers and participating in that process?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, but I am not aware of any current plan to make such provision. However, I have heard what he said, and I am conscious that in a different context the House does provide support—for example, for schoolchildren who visit this place from considerable distances away—and that a subsidy is in place to enable people who might not otherwise come to do so.
Off the top of my head, my sense is that a generalised provision might not find favour among my colleagues on the relevant Committees, and it is likely to be very expensive. However, where there are particular, pressing reasons for someone to come, and where it could be financially prohibitive or cause considerable disadvantage for them to come without assistance, perhaps my colleagues and I could look at that. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to write to me about the matter, I make a commitment that the relevant body in the House, whether that is the Administration Committee, the Finance Committee or, potentially, the House of Commons Commission, will consider the matter. I hope that is helpful and as much as the hon. Gentleman would reasonably expect me to say today. He has raised an important point, and I thank him for doing so.
If there are no further points of order, we come to the first Select Committee statement. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who is poised and perched like a panther ready to pounce, will speak on his subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, the Chair will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and the hon. Gentleman will respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. Interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front-Bench Members may take part in questions. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
Kurdish Aspirations and UK Interests
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Foreign Affairs Committee
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
When you do those introductions, Mr Speaker, I keep waiting for you to say “No hesitation, repetition or deviation”, but I am afraid I cannot make that commitment today.
This is the third report by the Foreign Affairs Committee this Parliament, and I am proud to present it to the House. I think it addresses an important aspect of our foreign policy that, sadly, has often been overlooked by the United Kingdom for many years: the aspiration of the Kurdish people.
Britain has a long and historic connection to the Kurdish people that goes back well over a century. Our relationship with them during our period of governing Iraq, and later with the air policing role that we conducted over Iraq in the ’90s, demonstrates that we have recognised and on many occasions had an appropriate commitment to the Kurdish people. That is made particularly relevant by Turkey’s recent attacks on Kurdish positions near Afrin, which in recent weeks have been deeply concerning. Those attacks are a continuation of a long struggle between Ankara and the various Kurdish groups, but they are also a new departure. On one side is NATO’s second largest army, and on the other, a militia that is backed by the alliance’s largest.
Those recent events have highlighted the relevance of the Committee’s work, and I thank all those who were key to this inquiry, especially all right hon. and hon. Members of the Committee. Those included—they deserve a mention—my hon. Friends the Members for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi). Their elevation to ministerial greatness has removed them from citation in the report, but they were very important to many elements of its production and it would be wrong to overlook their contributions.
Our inquiry considered the aftermath of the war against Daesh, during which those fighting the extremists shared an enemy but often held competing visions for what should follow its defeat. Kurdish groups were among those fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria. They played their part in the military victory and were supported by a global coalition, including us here in the United Kingdom. Their success led them to significantly expand their territory in both countries. That expansion has, in turn, raised tensions with regional Governments. In October last year, after Iraqi Kurds held a referendum that voted in favour of independence, the federal forces re-took most of the territory that the Kurds had taken off ISIS. In January, Turkey began the ongoing offensive against predominantly Kurdish forces in the Afrin region of northern Syria. Our report warned that new fighting, or a complication of the conflicts already under way, was indeed probable, and the Kurdish elements empowered by the war against Daesh are likely to be involved. Yesterday’s victories risk causing tomorrow’s wars.
These tensions have pitted some of the UK’s leading allies against each other, not only the Turks and the Americans, who are so intimately involved on both sides, but the forces on the ground. Moreover, they have caused new suffering for the people of the regions, whose severe humanitarian situation the UK has worked with partners to relieve. They have given another cause for fighting in the region, whose instability threatens the United Kingdom through a proliferation of weapons and violent ideologies. The Kurdish groups told us that they shared the democratic and inclusive values of the United Kingdom, but national Governments frequently described those Kurdish groups as a danger to the region. The United Kingdom’s military support for the Kurdish fighters opposing ISIS emphasises the stake we have in these conflicts and the role we play in helping to resolve them.
Our report examined the aspirations of specific Kurdish elements in Iraq and Syria, and suggested what the response of the United Kingdom should be. In Iraq, Kurdish elements held a referendum in September 2017. They voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence. They did so in the face of opposition from Baghdad, regional states and the international community. They unilaterally included territories that the Kurds had taken from Daesh, but whose governance was disputed by Baghdad. That left them open to accusations of a land-grab.
We praised the work of the Foreign Office in trying to avert the referendum and in seeking to find an alternative way of fulfilling Kurdish aspirations. The FCO told us that, while it could potentially accept any outcome—including independence for the Kurds—that was negotiated consensually with the Government of Iraq, its preference would be for the Kurdistan region to remain in a united Iraq. But the overwhelming vote in favour of independence showed deep frustration and dissatisfaction with the region’s place in Iraq. Many Kurds feel imprisoned in a country that they see as not implementing its commitments of equality to them.
The deep differences between the sides have raised the risk of war. We recommended that the FCO should write to the Government of Iraq, formally offering itself in an enhanced role of facilitating dialogue. We asked that it be prepared to criticise both sides when criticism was due, because it had little to say to us about some of the issues underpinning the tensions. We said that the FCO should press the Government of Iraq to lift the restrictions placed on the Kurdistan region of Iraq after the referendum, most notably on air travel. It should also set out its assessment of the role of Shi’a militias in the reacquisition of the disputed territories and whether reports of crimes being committed by them are credible. It should explain whether it sees Iran as supporting or controlling the militias. For the Kurdistan region, the FCO should speak out against signs of corruption, the monopolisation of power or the curtailment of democracy. It should encourage political reform and economic diversification. These are issues that affect the whole of Iraq, undermining its reconstruction and threatening the viability of its future as a diverse but united country.
For Syria, our report focused on the People’s Protection Units—the so-called YPG—the armed group that is the target of Turkey’s current operation in Afrin. Its role as the armed wing of the Democratic Union party—the PYD—means that the two are often referred to as the PYD/YPG, a single, predominantly Kurdish entity. Since 2015, it has operated as part of a coalition called the Syrian Democratic Forces, or—ready for another one?—the SDF. The SDF includes non-Kurdish elements, but the PYD/YPG is the pre-eminent component.
Behind these TLAs—sorry, I mean three-letter acronyms —lie significant policy challenges with deep implications for the United Kingdom. The YPG, PYD and SDF are not just names—or letters—but an armed force and a political project that now encompasses more than a quarter of Syria. Their rise to that position was rapid, occurring in just over four years, as they led to the defeat of ISIS on the ground. That defeat was achieved with military support from the UK, the United States and others. The Americans provided weapons to the SDF and the YPG. The UK Government say they did not, but the RAF did carry out airstrikes to clear ISIS from its way. As such, we concluded that the expansion of the same group that Turkey is now attacking was likely assisted by the UK.
The PYD says that it does not seek independence from Syria, but it has helped to declare and administer a self-governing region in the areas of the country it now controls. The group described this region as being based on values of democracy and inclusivity that the UK should support, but Turkey’s account of the group and its self-declared region could not be more different. This leaves the UK caught between its two leading NATO allies. The US sees the SDF, of which the YPG is the main part, as its leading local ally against Daesh, but Turkey regards the YPG not only as an abuser of human rights but as an extension of the Kurdistan Workers’ party, or PKK. It therefore sees the PYD and the YPG as a threat to its national security.
We asked the Foreign Office to explain its position and policy regarding the serious differences in approach between two of the UK’s leading allies. Like Turkey, the UK defines the PKK as a terrorist organisation; unlike Turkey, it does not apply that designation to the PYD or YPG. The evidence to our inquiry clearly argued that these organisations were linked, with the nature and extent of those links being debatable—some claimed they were remote, others that they were indeed the same organisation. The FCO’s view, however, was incoherent. Its statements referred to reported links between them, as though it had no clear view of its own, which is simply not credible. The UK is providing military might to one party in this conflict, and the Foreign Office should be clear on the nature of the group receiving military air support. It cannot have a clear policy unless it has a clear view on this fundamental dispute.
The extent to which the UK engages diplomatically with the PYD and supports the group’s inclusion in the Geneva peace talks will have deep implications for relations with the UK’s leading allies in the region. It will also have implications for whether a negotiated end can be brought to Syria’s conflict or whether the war will become yet more complicated and prolonged. Having supported the SDF, and therefore the YPG, militarily during the war against Daesh, the Foreign Office should now clarify whether it will continue to do so and whether it will engage diplomatically with the territory that the UK has helped the group to win.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The events in Afrin kicked off only very late into our inquiry and so get only a fleeting mention in the report. Will he tell the House, therefore, what he thinks the Foreign Office should be doing to try to resolve that dispute between Turkey and northern Syria, and how can it help to get the Geneva peace talks back on track?
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome the contribution of my hon. Friend, which he is, to the report—it was a full Committee effort to which everyone contributed enormously—and thank him for reminding me of an area I have not covered. The Foreign Office, of course, has an important role to play. We have supported one of the parties militarily and are an extremely close ally of the Turkish Republic. It is incumbent on us and our excellent Foreign Office staff in the region to seek to help that dialogue progress. Only through dialogue can this conflict be ended and a peace process begun, and Her Majesty’s Government are extremely well placed to make sure that happens.
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
I put on record our thanks to the Committee for its hard work in preparing the report. Thanks to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the team, the statement has come to the Floor of the House. I thank you for ensuring that that has happened—it is both timely and extremely informative. I reassure the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee that I will pass on the comments made by him and others to the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Middle East, and that the Foreign Office commits to responding to the report in due course.
Tom Tugendhat
I welcome the Minister’s words. Very few of us here do not respect enormously the work of the Minister for the Middle East. His work, influence and knowledge of the region is second to none.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Is it not about time that we made stronger representations through the NATO Parliamentary Assembly that one of our allies is spending huge resource in attacking potentially one of our other allies in the battle against Daesh?
Tom Tugendhat
I very much welcome the NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s work, and the hon. Gentleman is right that that is an excellent forum for discussion. However, I should say that the Turkish Government have not only the right, but the duty to protect their population against terrorist attacks and, if they feel threatened, it is incumbent on them to take action. I would much rather see both parties separating, so that we do not see conflict and the peace process can begin, with different groups not engaged in immediate battles.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I praise my hon. Friend for his statement and commend his Committee for its report. He is setting a very good example to other Chairs of Select Committees, who really ought to come to the House on Thursdays to present their reports. Is not the truth about the Kurds that British foreign policy towards them has been wrong for about 100 years? They were abandoned by us in 1918; we ignored them in the treaty of Versailles; and the problem has persisted ever since. Is it not true that, without the Kurds, ISIS would not have been defeated? We now face the extraordinary scenario where the Assad regime is backing the Kurds against the Turks in northern Syria. Given the fact that Turkey has an enormous border with Syria, will this not be an enormous problem for the international community to solve?
Tom Tugendhat
I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words. I have been clear since the time that I was elected to chair the Committee that I answer to the whole House, not just the Committee. I therefore feel that it is my responsibility and not a choice—it is simply a duty—to respond to the House and to be available to respond on anything that we have covered.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Britain’s history has not been good. We must not forget the air policing, as it was then called. The then Colonial Secretary, one Winston Churchill, was the first person to use chemical weapons against the Kurds. Indeed, it was the RAF that dropped them. One reason that the RAF still exists is that it cut the cost of colonial policing by reducing the number of battalions required. I am afraid that that is true—we do not always have a glorious history.
The truth is that our role today is as a peacemaker and as an engaged friend of the whole region. In that, we should recognise that the Kurdish people have the right to self-determination, and we do recognise that, but we should encourage them to stay as part of the Republic of Iraq in the areas where they are within Iraq. Many witnesses we spoke to said that, although the referendum had called for independence, they were looking for greater autonomy within the Republic of Iraq, so there is more tension within the Kurdish position than appears immediately obvious. It is, of course, a tragedy that Syria remains governed by such a barbarous dictator and it is a great shame that he is being supported by so many around the world. The fact that he is now supporting Kurds to take on another NATO ally does not make us any happier.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the Chair of the Committee and its members for their comprehensive report. On page 5, paragraph 3, it states:
“The evidence given to us was clear: future conflicts were probable, and Kurdish groups would likely be involved.”
Political events in Kurdistan-controlled areas and Turkey’s interactions have clearly cast a spell over the whole area. Did the Committee consider that Kurdish regional autonomy may be obstructed by Turkey, which is very obvious? However, is it possible that Iraq and Syria may consider it an option? Is it too late to give the Kurdish people the hope, vision and goal that they seek and deserve? Is it possible to move Kurdish regional autonomy from being aspirational to being practical?
Tom Tugendhat
Part of the evidence that we received was that Kurdish regional autonomy has been a matter of great debate even within the Kurdistan region itself, and it is not absolutely clear that full independence is sought. There has been an enormous amount of debate about that and indeed some evidence pointed to the fact that greater autonomy in the Republic of Iraq was indeed what most were looking for. We did not look specifically into further details of that, so I will not go much further. I merely repeat that supporting the autonomy of the people of the Kurdish region is important, but so is supporting the Iraqi Government’s right to territorial integrity.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
We now come to the second Select Committee statement. Robert Neill will speak on this subject for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken, and I shall then call Members to ask him questions in the usual way. I call the Chair of the Justice Committee, Robert Neill.
HMP Liverpool
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
This report results from what was described by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons as one of the worst inspection reports of a prison that he had ever seen. It was certainly the worst inspection report that our Committee had ever seen, and because of the gravity of the situation, we took the unique step of holding a specific evidence session on that individual inquiry. It highlighted conditions at Liverpool prison that the chief inspector described as “squalid”, a history of deterioration over a two-year period, and a history of management failure at local, national and regional level over time. It also highlighted a number of systemic problems that we believe need to be addressed by the Ministry of Justice and Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service, and the need for approaching afresh the way in which we deal with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons itself.
I pay tribute to my Committee colleagues, a number of whom are present today, for their work on this report, and I also welcome the Minister to his place. I particularly appreciated that he came to give evidence to our inquiry so early on after being appointed to the post in which he now serves.
I will briefly give an outline of the report against that grave background. Liverpool prison was inspected in 2015, and it was failing then. It was re-inspected in 2017, and it had got worse. Some of the conditions—a man with mental health problems was in a cell that was not fit for habitation; there was a serious maintenance backlog, which had doubled from 1,000 to 2,000 over that period; and the prison’s markings against various tests had gone backwards—indicate that there was not only a gross failure of management locally and of regional and national oversight, but that the detailed recommendations of Her Majesty’s inspectorate that were made in 2015 had not properly been addressed. That is the first systemic matter that we deal with.
It is pretty clear that the national leadership was not alert to the situation on the ground. The head of the Prison Service, Mr Spurr, told us that he had been informed by the local management that some 60% of the recommendations in 2015 were on track to be met. That was wrong. In fact, only 25% or so were met, and 60% were not met. The leadership nationally was out of touch. What was the role of the deputy director of corrections, who is supposed to have oversight of 12 prisons in that region? Clearly, there was not just a failure of communication, but a breakdown in how the system operates there.
This is not unique. Her Majesty’s chief inspectorate indicated to us that it is a regular occurrence for its recommendations not to be acted on. The Minister rightly said to us that much greater use should be made of the inspectorate’s recommendations to drive changes in behaviour. He is right. We recommend therefore two specific matters to effect that.
First, at the moment, the Prison Service marks its own homework. That is not satisfactory and it can breed complacency. We therefore recommend that HM inspectorate of prisons be given additional resource so that it can follow up on the implementation of its recommendations and hold the prisons to account. This is not a large sum in the overall scheme of things; perhaps one inspection team would be sufficient to do that task and probably the overall saving would mean that that would be offset. Secondly, Ministers should take personal responsibility for seeing that inspections reports are acted on and should account to the House for that, perhaps through a letter to the Justice Committee. That is the first of our practical recommendations, which we believe would offer a way forward.
There is also the whole question of the oversight itself. Given that there were these failings, we believe that greater work should be done to ensure the transparency and accountability of the above-establishment teams in the Department. There was also a clear problem with the facilities management contract. Not only had the backlog got worse, but it is pretty clear that basic issues that should have been picked up in the contract were not. The fact that there were rat and cockroach infestations shows the level of the problem. We are not satisfied with the explanations we were given for the failures in that contract and we therefore believe that there is a need for greater transparency, so we recommend that major contracts—this is a national contract with Amey—should be subject to a public framework outlining the expectations, performance and penalties levied against a provider for failure. If there are penalties, there should be a system of naming and shaming, frankly. There should be a public notification of where failures occur and how much of a penalty is levied against the provider as a percentage of the contract. That is the whole point of outsourcing—to drive changes in behaviour—but we need transparency and openness to do that.
We also noted that part of the problem derives from persistent overcrowding. Liverpool prison was not understaffed—it was up to establishment—but it was nevertheless pressed for numbers. We therefore recommend that the Ministry and the Prison Service publish a plan to resolve the persistent overcrowding of the estate to take some of the pressure off governors. The new governor at Liverpool is clearly doing a very good job under difficult circumstances, but we need an overall plan to deal with overcrowding and that must aim to reduce the prison population and/or increase safe and decent capacity. We cannot have it both ways.
We were also concerned about the poor situation with healthcare that was discovered. We were glad to see commitments from the Prison Service and NHS England to publish a partnership agreement on how they are working together. However, the last partnership agreement expired in April 2017 and the new one will not be in place until 2018. The gap of a year is not satisfactory in that regard and we need steps to be taken to ensure that that does not happen again.
Finally, we need a commitment to ensuring that there is decent healthcare. It was explained to us that the overcrowding and the nature of the regime meant frequently that prisoners could not be brought from their cells to healthcare appointments. We need a much more joined-up approach to that.
Those are the principal recommendations of our report, which I commend to the House. At the end of the day, the decency of a society is judged by how it treats those who offend against it as much as by how it treats those who do well by it. Liverpool failed in that regard. We did not house prisoners in the decent conditions that common humanity and our international and domestic legal obligations order that we should. That failure cannot be allowed to happen again. Making greater use of the inspectorate and its tools and adopting our recommendations will, I hope, be a constructive way forward in assisting the Minister in what I entirely believe is his intention to get back to getting the basics right and improving the Prison Service. It is in that spirit that we put the report before the House and commend it to the Minister.
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
I welcome the Committee’s report and thank the Chair for his quick decision to hold an evidence session specifically on HMP Liverpool following the publication of the original inspectorate report. I further welcome his commitment, as stated here, to hold the Government to account when prisons fail. We have lost another life inside the prison this week. Anthony Paine, 35, who suffered with mental health problems, was found in his cell and died in hospital on Monday.
The report does not mention in detail the failure to invest in infrastructure and renovate wings or the loss and replacement of experienced prison officers and, critically, resources. Having seen the prison with my own eyes, I have no doubt that these are basic but expensive requirements, but in a written answer to me the Minister says that there is no plan to publish the costs or programme of urgent works at HMP Liverpool. Does the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) agree that it is vital that we have transparency across our prison network and the improvements that are necessary if we are to see real change?
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I know that he knows Liverpool Walton jail, as it is often called locally, very well. I entirely understand the point of his remarks and I hope that the Ministry will reflect on that. The whole thrust of our report is that we need to shine the light of transparency and publicity on these matters. We also, in a separate piece of work, have in hand an inquiry into the shape of the prison population by 2020. Part of that, again, is this need to deal with overcrowding. Our recommendation on persistent overcrowding is part of that. Getting the fabric right is necessary. Walton jail—Liverpool prison—is one of the old Victorian prisons and there is a real need for work to be done there. If we are publishing the public framework on facilities maintenance, I do not see why we should not be able to have similar publicity about the capital works that are required.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Rory Stewart)
This is an historic opportunity. I think that this is the first time in more than 200 years of our Prison Service that we have had an individual prison debated on the Floor of the House. I pay tribute to the Justice Committee for bringing the matter forward.
The situation in Liverpool prison was, as the Chairman of the Select Committee has pointed out, genuinely shocking. It is very disturbing and it is unbelievably important that Select Committees, inspectors and Members of Parliament hold us accountable for prisoners. These are closed communities. They are often hidden away from the public. In many areas, they can be forgotten, and without scrutiny standards can drop. They dropped very seriously in Liverpool prison.
The condition in the cells was unacceptable; how prisoners were treated was unacceptable, and the lack of purposeful activity was unacceptable. We are now addressing this hard and quickly, but there are still huge lessons to be learned through the system. I pay tribute to the new governor, Pia Sinha, who has come in, taken cells out of commission and made it clear that she has cleaned the prison and that her objective over the next six months is to get those cells into a smart, good condition. We now have the money in place to put in the new windows and she is focused on ensuring that the education and employment activity is good.
More generally, there are lessons right the way through the prison system. We need to get the basics right. There is no point talking about rehabilitation or dealing with reoffending unless we have clean, decent and safe spaces for all prisoners. We want our prisons to be smart and well-functioning. We are bringing in more than 2,000 more prison officers, and that will relieve some of the pressures on the prison estate, but these are new prison officers and will need training and support until they have the prisoncraft to deliver what we require. We also need to invest a lot more in training. Because prisons are unbelievably complex environments, the governor needs the support and training—this could mean months of training—to ensure that they are in a position to turn around the prison. That training should also apply to the uniformed staff. Finally, the role of the inspector and the Select Committee will be vital in improving performance.
Robert Neill
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. He is very much on the case in recognising that we must get basic things: cleanliness, decency, the maintenance of the establishment, and the ability to run a regime where people can get out to healthcare appointments and rehabilitative work. All that is critical. Unless we turn the existing problems around, we will face a real crisis in our prisons.
I look forward to working with the Minister on those matters. In particular, I hope that he will take up our recommendations on the inspectorate and the constructive role that it can play. I can honestly say that this is a case of a small investment being likely to pay off in the long term.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
As co-chair of the justice unions and family courts parliamentary group, I welcome the report, but it is amiss that the Justice Committee did not take evidence from unions representing frontline professionals. I understand from the Professional Trades Union for Prison, Correctional and Secure Psychiatric Workers that the maintenance contractor, Amey, refused to undertake pest control at HMP Liverpool, and the previous governor—who was also not called to give evidence—had to use his already hard-pressed budget. I wonder whether the Chair would agree that governors’ autonomy is convenient cover for the Government’s failure to be accountable for the dire condition of the prison estate.
Robert Neill
Let me say first that the Committee engaged with the POA on a number of occasions, and on an ongoing basis. Secondly, the issues relating to facilities maintenance were examined in some detail. We said in our report that we were not satisfied with the outcomes and intended to return to the issue. Thirdly, it was specifically not our role to examine the position of the previous governor in terms of the future. We heard evidence from the inspectorate about the position at that stage, and we heard evidence from the current governor about what is happening now, which is an improvement, but we did not think that going into further past history would be constructive. Our recommendations are for ways to try to ensure that this state of affairs does not occur again.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
One of the most distressing aspects of the report relates to healthcare. My hon. Friend has already spoken briefly about that. Does he feel, as I do, that we can have no confidence in the partnership agreement? One thing that it will not do is get prisoners out of their cells to attend appointments.
Robert Neill
I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for his work in the Committee on this and many other reports. He is absolutely right. We are calling for the partnership agreement to be published, so that we can examine it, because we cannot be satisfied that it is yet fit for purpose. Previous partnership agreements have broken down, so we need to know how this will be different—in terms of both its structure and the way in which it will operate—to be reassured that there will be no repetition of what went wrong in the past.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the Committee on an excellent, timely and important report. However, while it does move us forward, if we are to change our prisons from being simply places of detention in various outrageous conditions to being places where rehabilitation is central—which is what they ought to be—we still have an awfully long journey to travel. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons should be given the resources that it needs for re-inspection, but we also need to be able to establish whether we are delivering the quality of healthcare, education and all the other things that are necessary in prisons that will allow—mainly—our young men to come out and become acceptable citizens.
Robert Neill
I know how closely the hon. Gentleman followed this issue during his time as a police and crime commissioner and as the interim mayor in his part of the world. He is absolutely right. The report is a useful step forward, but I do not pretend it can be more than that. It has to be part of a systemic change, and I hope that it will help to drive that, but we must think about the systems and about a long-term strategy that relates to the real purpose of our prisons.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for his statement and his Committee for its report.
When the Care Quality Commission investigates local hospitals and makes recommendations, it returns to those hospitals at a later date to see whether they have been implemented. I do not understand why the same system cannot be introduced for Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons.
Is it not extremely alarming that the information given by Liverpool prison to the head of the Prison Service was so inaccurate? Given the speed with which the Committee’s report was produced, will my hon. Friend encourage the Minister to be equally quick in responding to its findings?
Robert Neill
The quick answers are yes, yes, yes and yes. My hon. Friend is right on those points, and I am sure that the Minister will respond quickly. It would be bizarre if recommendations from the Care Quality Commission or Ofsted were ignored in the wholesale way in which those of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons have been ignored in the past, and that absolutely needs to change.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the Chair of the Justice Committee, which I have recently rejoined. I also pay tribute to the Minister for the quick actions that he has reported. However, we must not forget why we find ourselves in this situation.
I am pleased about the announcement—made some time ago—of the recruitment of an extra 2,500 prison officers, but we must bear in mind that we lost 7,000, so there is still a gap of 4,500. The prison population figures are falling now, but they did go up. The nature of the inmates changed somewhat. The health needs of those imprisoned for historical sexual abuse, for instance, were obviously different from those of the other, existing prisoners, but the budget was not increased to deal with such differences. There has been a drain on resources. At the same time as the loss of the 7,000 prison officers, the drug Spice appeared, and became big business. There were fewer resources with which to manage the inmates, and morale went down with the loss of those prison officers. When recruitment did begin, a baggage handler could be paid more than one of the new recruits. It is important that when we do recruit—and we are recruiting now—those people are trained properly, not for a week but for months. Resources are what is needed. Of course money is important, but there is also the issue of how that money is used. As far as I can see, there has been absolutely no contract management. When I initiated a debate on mental health in prisons, I noted that there appeared to be no communication between the prisons and the health service. Contracts were awarded and money was given, but there was no monitoring of those contracts.
As the Justice Committee said, and as its Chair has said today, this is about systems and about getting them right. However, it is also about resources. It is about recruiting the right people, training and valuing them.
Robert Neill
I welcome the hon. Lady—in fact, I will call her my hon. Friend, because that is what she is—back to the Committee. I am very glad that she is with us once more.
It is true that we must look at all the issues. There is no single silver bullet. We need a comprehensive plan, and I urge the Government to work on that. I take the Minister’s assurances at face value, because I believe that he does have a desire to achieve what is needed. I look forward to working with him, on behalf of the Committee, to ensure that that happens. Staffing, resources, training, morale, the fabric of the establishment, facilities management and proper contract management are all part of the mix that we need to address.
Estimates (Liaison Committee Recommendation)
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Backbench Business
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Disabled People and Economic Growth
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Dr Lisa Cameron to speak for up to 15 minutes.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises the potential talent pool within the disabled community; notes that there will be an employment gap after the UK leaves the EU and that there is ample opportunity to include disabled workers in economic growth; calls on the Government to act immediately on its commitment to get one million more disabled people into employment by 2027; and further calls on the Government to increase awareness within the business community of the benefits of employing an inclusive workforce.
I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the debate to take place. I also pay tribute to the many organisations that continuously champion the rights of people with disabilities throughout the United Kingdom. Without their enduring commitment, we would not be debating his important issue today. I pay special tribute to Leonard Cheshire Disability, to Disability Rights UK—which acts as secretariat to the all-party parliamentary group for disability, which I chair—and to the Disability@Work group. That group consists of dedicated academics from Cardiff University, Warwick business school and Cass business school, and it contributed to the APPG’s inquiry report “Ahead of the Arc”. Since commissioning the report, the all-party group for disability has been pressing the Government urgently to address the disability employment gap, and I know the Minister is open and willing to listen to the report’s suggestions.
This Backbench Business Committee debate is a significant step forward in the fight for equal rights for disabled people. To my knowledge, this is the first time that people with disabilities will be debated in the main Chamber with a focus on their abilities and as contributors to our economy, and not just as employees but as entrepreneurs and as business leaders.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that many employers need education, particularly about those who suffer from mental health difficulties, as many employers are scared or reluctant to take on somebody as they do not understand some of the issues such people face?
Dr Cameron
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and only yesterday I was contacted by a number of people and organisations reminding me to highlight that very point. People with mental health difficulties, and often people with hidden disabilities or disabilities that are not always apparent, can find it a struggle to explain and raise awareness about their difficulties and the adjustments they require. We need heightened awareness among employers—and in Parliament, too, I would suggest. We must continue along that path to raise awareness, to make sure we can harness the skills and potential of everyone for our economy.
All too often, people with disabilities are portrayed as passive and unwilling to work, but that could not be further from the truth. I want to use this debate to change the narrative. I want to see meaningful action, rather than research and rhetoric. I want to see a welfare system that treats people with disabilities as a willing and able workforce. I want to see improvements to current access routes and the development of new workplace cultures that reflect a genuine appreciation on the part of employers of the positive contributions that people with disabilities make, and I want to see accredited business schemes that go further than ticking boxes. While I might not be able to cover all these points in my speech, I know that colleagues across the parties will be passionately advocating similar policy and attitudinal change, which is much needed. I hope the Minister will take on board all Members’ suggestions here today and that we will make progress moving forward.
I want to start on a positive, uplifting note. I have been greatly heartened over the past few weeks by hearing accounts of disabled entrepreneurs, employees and businesses that are champions of their fields. I would like to share but a few examples.
Hannah Chamberlain is a successful tech entrepreneur who recently won the £30,000 Stelios award for disabled entrepreneurs, which is run in conjunction with Leonard Cheshire Disability, after creating a video diary app that supports people to manage their mental health, called MentalSnapp. The app allows users to record short video diaries, rate their mood and name their feelings. It is an example of innovation at its finest, and I applaud Hannah for creating an app that will help so many.
John Cronin is an entrepreneur and now business leader who owns and runs his own sock company, which has made £1.4 million in its first year. John has Down’s syndrome. He runs the company in conjunction with his father and is the face of the brand. John is a business leader and manager, and nearly a third of his staff have a disability. John says his social and retail missions go hand in hand. He is a businessman and therefore is looking for good, reliable workers, and he believes the disabled community has a vast, untapped pool of great workers.
A number of larger corporations also understand the benefits of a diverse workforce. Corporations such as Channel 4 and Sainsbury’s are good examples of inclusive employers. Sainsbury’s and Channel 4’s workplace adjustment guides are second to none; both companies choose to focus on positive aspects of making adjustments, rather than their legal duty and minimal requirements to do so. Most importantly, these policies are distributed to all line managers, so everyone is aware of the adjustments they are entitled to, creating an open and inclusive environment and workforce in which both employees and company outputs can thrive. Channel 4 goes a step further by issuing “passports” for employees after receiving a workplace adjustment, so when the employee moves into a new role, or their line manager changes, the “passport” can be referred to and used in all future discussions with new line managers.
There are many other great examples of disabled business owners and entrepreneurs, and of inclusive employers, but I wanted to highlight those three, because each shows that in every corner of our economy, and in every type and size of business, inclusivity should be championed not just for ethical reasons, but because it makes good business and economic sense.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate and for the examples she has given of good practices in certain organisations, but is she aware that only 16% of people with autism are in full-time employment and only 32% of autistic adults are in any kind of employment at all? Does she agree that much more needs to be done to close the autism employment gap?
Dr Cameron
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important intervention highlighting the autism employment gap, which is far too large—much larger even than the disability employment gap. We must take extra strides to support people with autism into work, because they have great skills and abilities and they will be fantastic contributors to our economy given the appropriate opportunities.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate and salute the work she does on the all-party group for disability. I serve on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and we are currently looking at how employers, work coaches and people with disability can better understand the assistive technology that is emerging. Does the hon. Lady think we can do more to bring those three interested parties together to help people enter and stay in the workforce?
Dr Cameron
The hon. Gentleman makes an important intervention. I am not a tech buff, but I am always heartened when we can see technology assisting people to achieve their potential and get into work. We need collaboration and to take those issues forward.
Examples of best practice are exactly that: they are examples to aspire to, and, as uplifting as they are, they are not a true reflection of the lived experiences of many disabled people. They do not reflect the systemic problems and barriers faced by many people with disabilities in looking for work or trying to retain it. It is time for Parliament to question why these practices, which move us forward and develop inclusivity, are not more commonplace.
In 2017, Scope published a report that found that one in two people with disabilities had experienced bullying and harassment at work and felt they could no longer take part in the workplace comfortably, and over half—58%—felt at risk of losing their job. So this is not just about getting people into work; it is about ensuring there is an environment that maintains people in work and helps them to aspire to and achieve their potential. Disabled people also have to apply for more jobs than non-disabled people before finding one; research shows that almost 60% more jobs have to be applied for. Lauren Pitt reported to The Independent in 2017 that she had to apply for over 250 jobs before securing one, so something is clearly not working correctly. We must ensure that employers are open to employing people with disabilities and to seeing their skills, abilities and value to the workplace and the economy.
The disability employment gap is large and enduring. The most recent figures from 2017 show that the gap currently stands at 31.4%. About 80% of non-disabled people of working age are in work, but the figure for people with disabilities is just 49%. This has been routinely recognised by the Government, and in their 2015 manifesto the Conservatives committed to halving the gap. However, research from the all-party parliamentary group for disability shows that, on the basis of progress to September 2016, that would have taken 49 years to achieve. Their 2017 manifesto replaced that commitment with a new commitment to get 1 million more disabled people into work in the next 10 years. Analysis suggests that this new target is weaker and is likely to be met simply because the number of disabled people within the working-age population is increasing. Even though the Government might well meet their new target, the size of the disability employment gap might not actually shrink. We must take account of that.
Most of the Government’s proposals for reaching their more attainable commitment are published in the Command Paper “Improving Lives”. A brief look at the paper shows that almost all the policies are dependent on further research or pilot schemes and cost very little to run, so I would ask that we have adequate resourcing and prioritisation. We cannot afford to sit and wait. Unemployed people with disabilities are entitled to the same opportunities as everyone else—now. Our economy cannot afford to sit and wait either. Scope has estimated that reducing the disability employment gap by just 10% would generate a further £12 billion for the Exchequer by 2030, so it makes absolute economic sense.
Finding a solution to the problem will involve going significantly beyond the Government’s current focus on welfare and benefits. We will not see significant increases in the number of disabled people in employment unless employers can be encouraged to up their game, to acknowledge the positive contribution that people with disabilities make in the workplace and to develop new workplace cultures and practices that are more accommodating. Reasonable adjustments are key.
Alex Burghart
I support what the hon. Lady is saying about businesses. Does she think that there could be a case for having larger employers report on the proportion of their workforce who have a disability, so that we could see which large employers were not pulling their weight and not taking advantage of the high-quality disabled employees who are in the market?
Dr Cameron
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman on that point. It is particularly concerning that the Office for National Statistics has suspended publication of disability statistics from the labour force survey. We should ensure that that matter is addressed.
It is in employers’ self-interest to make a difference in this area, not least because it presents a solution to the labour market problems that this country is likely to face in the event of tighter controls on the free movement of people. The UK currently has a skills shortage, and it will become more profound once we leave the European Union. Indeed, KPMG recently published figures indicating that almost 1 million EU citizens, many of whom are highly qualified, are planning to leave following Brexit. We already have a willing workforce of people with disabilities whose skills are undervalued, and they should be trained in sectors that are developing and that will be much needed in the future. As has been mentioned, the health and tech sectors are extremely important.
This is fundamentally a labour supply issue. The Government will not be able to deliver on their industrial strategy if they do not have the capacity to do so, so we need to train our ready-and-waiting workforces across the UK. We need to see more investment in apprenticeships, as well as the targeted, widespread advertisement of current Access to Work schemes, to encourage the business community to utilise our workforce. The new commitment in the industrial strategy to increase the proportion of apprenticeships started by people with disabilities by 20% is an excellent start, and I commend the Minister for that, but it is not enough. It will form only part of the solution.
The Government acknowledge this critical role for employers, but their main policy in this area is to encourage more employers to sign up to the Disability Confident scheme. As I have argued previously in Parliament, the evidence on Disability Confident is varied. It shows that the scheme does not go far enough, and that it does not result in enough people being employed. It is particularly worrying, therefore, that the “Improving Lives” Command Paper uses the scheme as one of its central policies for achieving the Government’s target.
The all-party parliamentary group’s “Ahead of the Arc” report sets out a number of bold new alternative policy initiatives that the Government should pursue. These include using public procurement contracts as leverage by stipulating that such contracts will only go to firms that monitor disabled people’s employment and commit to adopting an inclusive approach to their recruitment and retention policies. To that end, Government initiatives should think of people with disabilities not just as employees but as entrepreneurs and business leaders. The Government must ensure that disabled entrepreneurs receive the support they need from business advisory networks such as the Federation of Small Businesses and local chambers of commerce, as well as the financial support they need from bodies such as Innovate UK and the British Business Bank.
I referred earlier to two great examples of disabled entrepreneurs. The notion that disabled people can be business owners and entrepreneurs as well as employees was completely missed by the “Improving Lives” paper. We must ensure that disabled people are not pigeonholed into one sector and that they have the opportunity to choose their own future and be masters of their own lives. That is why the Access to Work scheme should also apply to start-ups, to accommodate the talent and innovation of people with disabilities. The Government must also go further and fund specialist advice services on taxation and benefits for people with disabilities who want to explore the opportunities of self-employment.
As I have laid out today, the solutions are there in every corner of the economy, and if action is taken, the benefits could be felt by all in society immediately. But for this to happen, we need to change the current narrative and put good policy into practice, so that my constituents and those of other hon. Members throughout the land recognise that we need to tap into the under-utilised and important human resource of people with disabilities who are willing and able to work. The workforce are there and ready to fill the skills gap that will only grow once we leave the European Union. It is in the self-interest of employers and the Government to engage with this agenda and accommodate a diverse and inclusive workforce, but the reality is that far too many disabled people are facing no real prospects in today’s job market. That is simply unsustainable and, quite frankly, bad economics. I am pleased to have been able to bring this debate to the Chamber today, and I look forward to hearing other colleagues’ experiences. I also look forward to working together as part of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, and across the House, to take this extremely important issue forward.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall try to be better behaved today. I am truly grateful to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for leading this afternoon’s debate, for the tone that she has struck and for her constructive ideas. This follows a valuable Westminster Hall debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) on the Government’s Disability Confident scheme, to which she also made a thoughtful contribution. During that debate, Members highlighted some of the economic opportunities that would result if we increased the participation of disabled people in the workplace. We also focused on barriers to employment, the disability employment gap and the Access to Work scheme. I shall therefore not go into those subjects again, beyond suggesting that the disability employment gap is an issue every bit as urgent as other workforce diversity challenges. In so far as it results from a lack of employer awareness of the support available, we as MPs ought to take the lead in publicising the Government assistance offered. In that vein, I have now signed up as a Disability Confident employer, and I have discussed with my local jobcentre the possibility of offering a work placement for local disabled jobseekers with an interest in politics.
This afternoon, however, I wish to focus on the economic cost that we will face if we fail to unlock the potential of disabled people of all ages, as well as on the economic power of disabled people both as an active consumer group and as a motivation to develop new assistive technologies with broader application to our growing elderly population. I have previously highlighted the cases of two autistic constituents who desperately want to work but who struggle with the initial stage of any new job. In the past few weeks, I have met the families of autistic children who believe that we must focus our attention on earlier support and intervention. I recently visited First Step, a local charity that provides intensive developmental support to pre-school children. It can be an enormous shock to parents to discover that their child has a disability, and First Step assists not only with the child’s development, but in supporting parents in a non-judgmental environment. Caring for a child with disabilities can place a huge financial strain on a family, particularly if parents need to take time off work or do not have the right support network in place. However, as one local parent said,
“A failure to develop a child is not only a moral mistake, it is also a very expensive financial one. With proper, dedicated support these children could learn to talk and make a decent contribution to society. With no support, they will be left in adult day care centres or worse.”
Too often, local authority support is either entirely absent or limited and patchy. Early investment in the development and schooling of disabled children can lift the strain on parents, helping them return to the workplace, but it also increases the chances of economic participation when a child reaches adulthood and reduces the need for costly adult services later in life.
We also need to continue the steady improvements in accessibility to our transport system. The less daunting it is to leave the home, the more disabled people will be able to participate in the economy by working and spending. I commend the Government for their Access for All scheme, I support the Changing Places campaign, and I would be grateful if the Minister applied pressure on the Mayor of London to prioritise transport accessibility and facilities for disabled Londoners. Last week, Mr Khan found £6 million for new toilets for bus drivers. I wonder if he might make those facilities available to disabled transport users and also improve lift access to the District line, which runs through my constituency and is one of the most practical routes for disabled users to access.
With the advent of new assistive technologies, there is greater scope than ever for disabled people to contribute to growth, as well as colossal opportunities for UK tech and medical firms. As the Financial Times suggested in a recent article, 1 billion people across the world
“have some form of disability. As people live longer, often with conditions that reduce their ability to use their hands or to co-ordinate, the market will grow sharply. Accessibility makes good business sense”.
British businesses are developing more sophisticated prosthetic limbs, accelerating stem cell technology, improving websites for disabled consumers and building the Canute, which is like a braille Kindle for blind readers. Such technologies will be vital not just to quality of life, but to making it easier for disabled people to participate fully in the workplace.
In recent years, disability sport has been critical in changing perceptions of those with disabilities, and I hope that technological developments will continue that positive trajectory. Our role as politicians must be to create an environment that not only facilitates technological development, but embeds it in everything we do—whether that is the setting of new buildings standards, the design of public buildings and information delivery, or the integration of public services with technology. I shall be most grateful to the Minister if she will update the House on how the Government are encouraging accessibility and nurturing firms and charities that are developing assistive technologies, and I would appreciate her views on the points raised about the importance of early investment and transport.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability. I have been working on this issue on and off for over 20 years, so it is interesting that, despite all the efforts made by many people over the years, we still have just under 4 million people with disabilities who are called economically inactive, which means that they are of working age but not employed.
There has been some progress, however, and I remember working with others many years ago to support the then Conservative Prime Minister John Major in getting the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 passed. The DDA was an absolute game changer and created a regulatory framework to ensure that people could not discriminate against disabled people in goods and services or in employment. The reason why that was such a game changer is that disability discrimination is rather peculiar in that it is quite often tacit, quiet or nuanced. It could be what I call the “poor you” model. People may say, “You poor, brave disabled person. Here, have a benefit and do not worry about working.” We do not mean to do that—it is partly based on human nature and partly on a lack of understanding—but it can be incredibly difficult to break through. It was that way many years ago, and it can still be like that, although there has been some progress over the years.
The DDA worked well around goods and services. For example, if I have a restaurant and do not put a ramp outside, the disabled person in a wheelchair who cannot get in can sue me. It is very straightforward, and the situation is easy to fix. There may be cost implications, but most businesses got over that quickly, and as the chair of the APPG will know, when a business makes itself accessible, it often makes more than enough money to pay for the costs of improving accessibility.
Things are much harder, though, with employment, particularly if someone who is disabled is applying for job. If someone works for a company and acquires a disability, the DDA and broader knowledge in general mean that businesses, whether in the public sector or the private sector, are much more likely to make the necessary effort to keep them in a job. It is much harder for someone with a disability—they could be blind, visually impaired, deaf or have autism—to get over the threshold and get a job. I struggled with that issue many years ago with some good disability consultants, and I will mention them in the House because they have done so much over the years: Phil Friend, Simon Minty and James Partridge, a former chief executive of Changing Faces, which is a charity for those with a facial disfigurement. The four of us worked for many years in this area with the Business Disability Forum to try to break through, and it was difficult.
After losing my seat at the 2015 election, I went away and have now come back, and the APPG is still going great guns under the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow. However, when I read the Government’s “Improving Lives” report, I still feel a little downhearted, which is not my nature. Anyone who is a Liberal and downhearted is in the wrong party, because we need to be optimistic, but progress is hard. However, I want to offer a little story of when things work, which can be game-changing for both disabled people and businesses. About 10 years ago, I was working with one of the big utility companies, and it had a large call centre in north London. I am sure that Members know that the turnover in call centres is always high, because it is a difficult job. The utility company had about 100 staff and, along with several others, I worked with the company to persuade it to take on 15 people with disabilities as call centre agents. It was hard work, but, to give the company its due, it did agree.
As I said earlier, the difficulty is not about people being anti-disabled; it is about fear, anxiety and people not knowing how to deal with circumstances that they do not understand. People often just lift the carpet and sweep people with disabilities under it, which I have always found frustrating. It makes me angry, and I know that other Members share that view.
Going back to the call centre, the company did finally agree, we found the right number of disabled staff to be interviewed, and 15 or so were hired. A year later, 14 of them were still there. Two years later, there were still 14 there. The point is that one of the fundamental advantages of hiring disabled staff is that they are often much more reliable than non-disabled staff for several different reasons, some of which are plainly evident. That makes the business case for hiring disabled people very strong, but they will need some guidance and support, not least because of their disability. My disability is hearing loss, so I need an induction loop, which I use in the Chamber, and a phone with a special volume control. It is just a matter of providing the right facilities, which is where Access to Work often comes in, to allow disabled people to shine.
Quiet discrimination is the much bigger issue. Disabled people may be viewed as not really capable, or employers may not know how to deal with a situation, so they may again sweep such things under the carpet. All those sorts of things are incredibly difficult to change, so where are we at? The Government’s Green Paper on improving lives was good because it highlighted some of the figures: 3.7 million disabled people are economically inactive. Another figure I have read is that if 1% of disabled employment and support allowance claimants gain employment, it would save the Exchequer £250 million and boost the economy by a further £260 million—that is £0.5 billion—which seems an awful lot of money from making an extra little effort to help people get jobs.
Every Government face disability challenges. It is hard for people to get back into work if they have been out of work for many years, but with the right levels of support, work is transformational for those individuals and families. A 2016 report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that half of all households in poverty have at least one disabled member.
One of the reasons why many of us are MPs is that we know that helping people to get a job breaks the cycle of poverty, and that is certainly one of the main reasons why I got involved in politics. It just takes something focused. It is not enough just to say well-meaning things. I have been involved in this for years, probably more than anyone in the House, and well-meaning is not enough; regulation is needed.
I am tremendously appreciative of the fact that the Conservative Prime Minister John Major and his Government introduced the DDA—I do not often stand up in the House and compliment Conservatives—because it forced people to change. People with emotional attitudes often do not realise that they could be wrong or that they could be discriminating, which is why, even as a Liberal, there are certain times when I believe that we need to legislate. The DDA was one, and seatbelts was another. I am old enough to remember the uproar when seatbelts became compulsory—people said it was the end of the world as we know it. What happened is that people had to wear seatbelts, and they got busted by the law if they did not. Since then, as we all know, the number of people dying in car accidents has plummeted. It is the same with disability.
What needs to be done now, further to the DDA? All these years later, we still have not made enough progress. There need to be specific incentives for businesses to recruit disabled people. As the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow mentioned, there needs to be specific action on procurement. We need to be that prescriptive to break the logjam. The need is greater than ever because with Brexit, whatever side of the divide we sit on, we know that there will be substantial staff shortages over the coming years. In fact, a recent report identified that there will be 32 areas of staff shortages in tier 2 occupations. It has become ever more relevant to try to square this circle.
I will not let the Government off the hook completely. It was not the decision of the current Disabilities Minister—this is not personal—but this Government’s decision to change the work-related activity group of ESA so that people receive a lot less money is foolish and short-sighted. There are three areas of ESA: the support group, which is for people with a disability such that they cannot work; basic ESA, at the front end; and, in the middle, for many years there has been WRAG.
WRAG recognises that a claimant has a disability and pays them a bit of extra money, above and beyond the normal jobseeker’s allowance, because those claimants face extra costs due to their disability, but WRAG also recognises that those claimants are ready to work with support. That is really important, because it got people into the frame of mind of being ready to take a risk and leave the structure of the support group of ESA.
After the coalition, after the Liberals were defenestrated, George Osborne quickly cut WRAG by 30%. I was really depressed about it when the change came into effect in April 2017, because I knew what would happen. It is human nature. We should never underestimate the strength of fear for a person in the support group who has been disabled for years and who has been outside work but who is ready, with a little encouragement, to step into WRAG and to try to go for a job.
If I were that person, having been promptly told that my allowance is being cut by 30%, I would do whatever it takes to stay in the support group, because that is human nature. It is not rocket science. It is not bad. It is what people would do. It is what I would do. Even someone as intrepid as you, Mr Deputy Speaker, would do it because at least they would then be secure, with money for the roof over their head, for their children, for food and the rest. Reducing WRAG was such a foolish idea, and I am bitterly disappointed that the Government did it. It is a classic case of the Government cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Since being re-elected, I have had shedloads of post from disabled people trying frantically to get back into the support group, and I am supporting them. I would like the Minister to address that, and perhaps to take back to the Chancellor the fact that reducing WRAG was a bad idea. Perhaps we can change it.
Finally, where are we at? Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow for securing this important debate that affects hundreds of thousands of people across the country. There is not an MP in this House who does not have hundreds, if not thousands, of disabled constituents. This is so important, as we know from our casework and from how many people with disabilities come to see us for help and support.
I would love to see this Government, or a Government, step up and do a DDA part 2 on employment that says businesses, the private and public sectors, organisations and charities across the piece have to do x to employ x number of disabled people, or at least to show that they have systems and processes and that they have interviewed the requisite number of people with disabilities for every job. I do not want it to be tokenistic, as a lot of people with disabilities have tremendous skills—they just need the opportunity. If that happens, it will transform the employment opportunities for disabled people and it will transform many millions of families living in poverty in which one or both parents are disabled. It will be the game changer that this nation deserves, and it might just possibly be something positive to come out of Brexit.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this Backbench Business debate. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), who is not just an hon. Friend but an actual friend.
Bim Afolami
We are all friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster made a powerful speech and stole at least half the things I was going to say.
People often ask, “Why did you go into politics?” I am sure we are all asked that, and we all have many reasons for going into politics, not just one. The most important reason I am in politics is to enable everybody to use their God-given talents, whatever they are, in the best way they can to contribute for themselves, for their family, for society and for the country. That is why I am in politics. People with disabilities are fully included in that, which is why this debate and this subject are of critical importance.
There will be those who say that many disability benefits should be more generous, and in some ways they probably should be. I know that the Minister, who truly and strongly believes in this brief, and Treasury Ministers will always do whatever they can to make sure appropriate resources are in place to help those who need them. But let us not kid ourselves. The subject of this debate is economic growth. What is important for people’s well-being and their lives is the opportunity to make the most of themselves in a professional, work, career capacity. That is crucial. Although benefits are important, we also need to do everything we can to get everybody who has a disability into appropriate work, where possible. That is what I regard as the heart of social mobility.
We often talk about social mobility in this House, in many different ways; we talk about it in debates about education, higher education, the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. We talk about it all over the place. The way we usually talk about it is by discussing an individual who has come from a poor background but overcome the odds to achieve something fantastic and get to the top of a profession. We should celebrate that—it is what Britain is about—but social mobility is more fundamental: it is about ensuring that our society uses the skills and innate talents of those with and those without disabilities to their fullest. That is true social mobility. It allows everybody the ability to use their God-given talents and make the most of their lives.
Where are we now from a policy perspective—from a governmental perspective? The Conservative party manifesto in 2017, which I read carefully—that is a good thing for a new candidate to do—stated:
“We will get 1 million more people with disabilities into employment in the next ten years.”
By my calculations, we need to raise the number of people with disabilities in employment to about 4.5 million over the next 10 years to achieve that target. That would mean a growth of almost 30% on the current level. I think we would all agree in this House that that is a big task. The Government and my party are very focused on that—indeed, I suspect we will find that Members from across the House agree on it.
In November 2017, the Government set out a 10-year plan to improve the situation and to deliver on that manifesto pledge. I am sure the Minister will elucidate further on the plan and where the Government are with it. Its main thrust appeared to be linking up the welfare system, the workplace and healthcare. As has been alluded to in the debate, it was particularly about bringing in new technologies, especially assistive ones, to help to turbocharge the growth we have been gradually seeing, so that people with disabilities can enter the workplace.
A 5% rise in employment among people with disabilities would bring an increase in GDP of £23 billion, with tax revenues up by about £5 billion to £6 billion. That is a considerable amount. Research by Scope, the disabled charity, has found that 58% of disabled people have felt at risk of losing their job because of their impairment or condition. It is clear to me, and probably to most, if not all, Members of this House, that we need to work much more closely and intensively with employers to drive change.
Several decades ago, many employers did not like to employ women. What happened over time was that this House, working with employers and through legislation, helped to drive change. A few decades ago, we did not find people who looked like me or like the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), in this place or in the other place, and several employers did not like to employ people of ethnic minorities. What happened was that this House, through legislation and by working closely with employers, helped to drive change. Now the time has come for those with disabilities to get much better access to employment opportunities. The Government need to work with employers, along with the legislation that is already in place, to help to drive change.
Disability Confident is a good scheme, which is welcomed generally across the business community, in government and in civil society, but we can go further. The Government should bear in mind the huge gains to be made—not only the economic ones, but the gains in terms of the life chances and economic potential of this huge group of people.
The Government need to work further on two main things to help to drive this change and this turbocharge. The first is to financially incentivise, perhaps through the tax system or in another way, employers to take on more people with disabilities, especially in industries where today they may not typically be found. For that to happen appropriately—businesses tell me this when I have the discussion with them—we need to be able to have a much better understanding of the different capabilities of different people with disabilities, so that we can make sure that we match the right employment opportunities with the right people. That is critical. If we do that properly, in combination with proper incentives for business, we will be able to see a huge increase in this area.
Once more people with disabilities not only get into the workplace, but progress within it—through promotion and by getting to the top of their businesses—they will show what they can do. They will show what they can contribute. That will send a powerful message, not only to them, to society and to this House, but to the country as a whole.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this debate on an extraordinarily important subject. It is a shame more Members are not here today, but perhaps there are competing things to do. However, we have some of the best here in the Chamber; as Miss Jean Brodie would have said, we can consider ourselves the crème de la crème.
I have a personal interest in this matter, which I make known to the House: my wife has been disabled since 1999, and that has featured large in our lives. As some Members may be aware, once upon a time I was a Member of another place—I do not mean down the Corridor; I mean in Scotland. As my wife was disabled, I quickly realised that the temporary Scottish Parliament at the top of the royal mile was completely unsuitable for anyone who was disabled, which was why I volunteered to serve on the small committee that was given the responsibility of building the new building. We put in place complete disabled access, including in the Chamber of Holyrood itself. That job very nearly cost me my seat at my second election, such was the controversy attached to the Scottish Parliament at the time. But that was then and this is now, and for the record, I must say that I am proud to have been involved in building such a disabled-friendly place.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow talked about examples, which are ultra-important. I wish to make two points on that. First, this summer’s May games—one of the northernmost highland games, which the Prince of Wales likes to attend, as Duke of Rothesay, and he will do so again in the summer—will have disabled servicemen taking part in the events for the first time. That is an historic first for the highland games in Scotland and for my part of the world, the far north.
The other example that will stay with me to my dying day involved a former Member of this place, Dame Anne Begg, who graced the Labour Benches for a number of years. I knew Dame Anne because she was in a cross-party group dealing with oil and gas; I was in the Scottish Parliament and she was in Westminster. I will never forget going to visit an oil installation in a fjord in Norway. We were in a semi-open boat with a noisy diesel engine, and Anne was there in her wheelchair. The weather can change very fast in the Atlantic, and in this particular Norwegian fjord, a storm came. The boat was going backwards and forwards, and lashing about. We had to lash Anne’s wheelchair to a thwart to prevent her from going overboard, but such was her courage and good humour that she never blinked once. That is an example of somebody who is disabled who faced adversity in life and yet got on with things. I will never forget that example of somebody who was very brave indeed. Based on those examples, the ambition is there, and I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) for bringing that point out; it is hugely important.
Today, my wife volunteers for the local museum in my home town, and she is involved in raising money for Marie Curie. The point is that these unpaid involvements enrich her life; I can assure hon. Members that they make everything much more worth while. If we can broaden these things out into employment, we can see the great gift that can be given.
The points that have been made about taxation and benefits are absolutely right. I was intrigued yesterday. I have an Irish son-in-law, who, perhaps not surprisingly, has the name of Paddy. He came by Westminster yesterday evening in search, I think, of a small refreshment in the Strangers Bar. He asked me what I would be talking about today, and I said it would be this issue of disability and using resources. He said that he is mixed up in a textile business in the Republic of Ireland and that there is a Government incentive scheme to encourage businesses such as the one he works in to employ people in the situation we are talking about. That struck me. I did not get into more detail, but I will do in the future. I think we could learn something from the Republic on that. I sincerely hope we can.
The point has been made by the hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow and for Hitchin and Harpenden and by others that we are mugs if we do not utilise the skills, ability, ambition and enthusiasm that is out there. Goodness knows, in the next few years, we are going to have to mobilise everything we have in the UK, because it will be an ever more difficult and competitive world. Be it Brexit or be it remain, that will be the reality, and we will have to use every single person we have to do the best we can. People will relish that opportunity—I have absolutely no doubt about that.
I look forward with great interest to hearing what the Minister has to say. I think we are as one in this Chamber. As a not so new Member now—I have been here seven and a bit months, not unlike the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden—I think that what Westminster does best is get on to issues such as this. I am astonished that this issue has not been debated in the Chamber before, but never mind—here we are today. As I said, to quote Jean Brodie again, we are the crème de la crème.
It is as simple as this: there is a bargain to be struck here. Disabled people are offering to keep their half of the bargain, and it is up to the Government—not just the Government, but all of us in society in the UK—to grasp their hand, honour our half of the bargain and make their lives better.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this important debate.
I am delighted to speak in today’s debate on the role of disabled people in economic growth. Economic growth is built on investment, development and progress but most of all on people. People are the essential building block—manual workers, service workers, foremen or managers, entrepreneurs and innovators, females and males, all ethnicities, and the able bodied and the disabled.
I would like to stress today not only that disabled people should and do play an essential role in economic growth but that the wording of this motion is a little too crude. This is not just about needing disabled people to be in jobs to boost economic growth; most importantly, they deserve the same career opportunities, so this is a question of not just economics but equality.
Only half of working-age people in the UK who are disabled or who have a health condition are in work, while the employment rate for people without disabilities is 80.6%. We must rectify this inequality and ensure that employers see the benefits of diverse workforces and of hiring those who have overcome obstacles. We must empower and assist the disabled, so that they have the confidence and the tools to work on an even playing field.
That is why I fully back the Government’s commitment and strategy to get 1 million more disabled people into employment by 2027. I am delighted that 100,000 more people with disabilities were in work last year than in 2016. Working with employers is key to reaching this target, which is why the Government’s pledge to work with industry, alongside improved mental health training for work coaches, is so important.
Disabled people have overcome adversity and challenge and can often offer workplaces essential skills, such as determination. They also generally stay in roles for longer and have lower rates of absenteeism. However, studies show that, still, only half of employers have reported that they recognise the benefits for their organisation of employing somebody with a disability or health condition.
This is therefore about changing attitudes and cultures, especially in certain sectors. For example, the rate of employment for disabled people in science, technology, engineering and maths-related roles is severely low. The problem is twofold. It is about encouraging disabled people to believe they can do these jobs, but, crucially, it is also about ensuring that the jobs exist, so working with employers is essential.
The Disability Confident scheme, which has been mentioned today in the House, has done great work in this area, helping organisations to improve how they attract, recruit and retain disabled workers. As of 16 November last year, there were 5,359 employers signed up to the scheme, so we need to do work to ensure that more follow. Like many MPs, I am proud to be a Disability Confident employer.
One of the biggest hurdles in encouraging businesses to hire disabled people is the adaptations needed to their offices. Those hurdles are perceived to be high, as a Mencap review recently highlighted. There is also a lack of awareness that the Equality Act 2010 means that employers are under a statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments. I am keen to hear from the Minister about how we plan to challenge these perceptions and this lack of awareness.
Adapting businesses is also important when a staff member has an accident or becomes ill. Creating a suitable and welcoming environment for them to return to is essential. In fact, the Centre for Social Justice “Rethinking Disability at Work” report found that the disability employment gap is partly driven by the large number of disabled people who fall out of employment, with one in 10 disabled people in work falling out each year, compared with only one in 20 in the non-disabled work population. Retention is therefore key. That is why I welcome the proposed sophistication of the fit note scheme, which will enable employers to better understand and support their employees’ needs.
It is important to note that there are Access to Work grants that can pay for special equipment, adaptations or support worker services, and I am delighted that these are now being rolled out to the self-employed. However, we need to raise awareness of them. Access to Work grants have been taken up by 25,000 people on average per year, but the figures have stagnated for the last three years, indicating that we really need to promote awareness. In addition, 65% of the grants given are to people aged over 40, implying that we really need to reach a younger age group.
I have spoken a lot about employers, but it is also crucial to give disabled individuals the confidence and support to apply for jobs. Mind stresses the point that physically disabled people also need emotional and mental health support when re-entering the workplace, and it is important not to forget that physical disabilities and mental health challenges are not mutually exclusive.
Jamie Stone
Does the hon. Lady agree that a disabled person in rewarding employment could be encouraged or paid to take time to act as a mentor to people who might follow in his or her footsteps, to show how it can be done?
Michelle Donelan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that excellent point, and I completely agree. Encouraging, inspiring and being role models for other people, and acting as mentors, is a wonderful idea, which we should pursue to encourage more people to have the self-belief and determination to progress their dreams and explore opportunities.
We should not treat physical disabilities and mental disabilities in silos; we need to treat them together to develop the best outcomes. I am delighted that the key focus of the White Paper, “The Future of work, health and disability”, includes that area and the roll-out of personal support packages with the recruitment of 200 community partners, 300 disability employment advisers, 100 small employers advisers and an extra 1,000 places in mental support services.
In conclusion, over the past two years, the disability employment gap has reduced by 1.9%, so we are on the right track. Finding work for an additional 1% of eligible employment and support allowance claimants in 2018-19 would save £240 million and provide a boost to the economy of £260 million. Therefore, getting more people with disabilities into jobs is essential. It would obviously be of great financial benefit to our country, but the main benefit would be to the disabled people themselves, and, in turn, it would make our society more equal. I shall end where I began and stress that it is an issue not just of economics, but of equality.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), and I thank her for her contribution. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron)—I hope that I pronounced her constituency correctly. [Interruption.] Ah, almost right. I will have to practise it. She is very clearly a champion for those with disabilities, and I am very pleased to be part of the all-party group for disability, which she chairs. Yesterday, I was able to participate in some of those things that she mentioned and give a Northern Ireland perspective on them. I will probably also give a Northern Ireland perspective today on where we are with this matter.
It is also nice to see the Minister in her place. We had an expression of her interest in this subject yesterday when we had the opportunity to take part in the disability confident campaign that the hon. Lady and the Minister organised. It was good to be able to support what the Minister was doing, but it also gave me the opportunity to increase my knowledge of the subject. The one thing about being an MP—in fact, the one thing about being any person—is that we can learn every day if we want to. Of course I want to extend my knowledge, and yesterday gave me a chance to do just that. I was also able to interact with those who were there and explain to them what we were doing. For example, we are doing a number of things in my constituency in relation to this matter—I mean that private business is doing a number of things. There are also policies and strategies in place. I wish the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), well and I look forward to her contribution.
It is a privilege to stand in this Chamber to represent and speak out for the many disabled people in our communities. We get our knowledge of this subject from our constituents, from our advice centres and from our everyday interaction in our communities. The briefing that the House of Commons Library so helpfully supplied said:
“Over 7 million people of working age (16-64) in the UK are disabled or have a health condition, and 3.5 million of these are in work.”
That is good news. It also stated that
“350,000 are unemployed (meaning that they are not in work but are actively looking for work)”.
I hope that this debate will provide us with the opportunity to see how we can achieve our goal. The briefing goes on to say that
“3.3 million are economically inactive (meaning they are not in work and are not looking for work).”
The fact is that some disabled people cannot work. That is a fact of life and must be accepted as such. However, for those who want to work, we should do our best to make that happen.
The employment rate of people who are disabled is 49.2%; the employment rate for people without disabilities is 80.6%. The employment rate for people with disabilities was 1.3 percentage points higher in April and June 2017 than in the same period of 2016. Over that same period, the number of people with disabilities in employment rose by 104,000. Clearly, a strategy is in place to try to address the issue, because more people with disabilities are in employment now than a year ago, so that must be good news.
Between July 2016 and June 2017, the employment rate—at 58.5%—was highest for people who were disabled in the south-west, and lowest in Northern Ireland at 36.7%. It is not often said, but the Library provides excellent information for us when we are preparing for these debates, which gives us a chance to do things well. I read the Disability Action report, “Hard at Work”, which was very interesting reading. As opposed to just citing the fact that there are only 33% of disabled people in work in Northern Ireland, it asks the question why, and I am going to ask that question in the Chamber today. I am very conscious that the Minister has no responsibility for Northern Ireland—I understand that—but to give some depth to this debate with facts and details, I want to add in the Northern Ireland perspective. Some things that have been done in Northern Ireland—or have not been done—can be put into practice on the mainland.
The overall employment rate in Northern Ireland is 5 percentage points lower than in Great Britain. For some groups, the gap is much wider—15 percentage points lower for disabled people in Northern Ireland compared with Great Britain. Thirty-three per cent of disabled people are in employment, which is less than half the rate of non-disabled people, and 50% of disabled applicants did not feel comfortable about disclosing their disability—I want to stress that point to the Minister because I am sure that it also applies to the UK mainland. This is something that we must address. I ask Members to forgive me for saying this, but we are all aware of the story that was in the press yesterday—I know that it is slightly different from what we are discussing today—about people having to disclose when they go for a job whether they are pregnant or intending to have a child. I think that it is wrong to ask that of anyone going for a job. The same thing applies to those with a disability. If a person does not say that they are disabled, they have a better chance of getting the job. If they say that they are disabled, will a wee box be ticked saying that they are not the right person for the job? Once in employment, disabled employees often do not feel confident about being open about their disability. Even when there is a problem in their job, they tend to keep it to themselves.
Research findings vary, estimating that between 20% and 50% of people with a disability feel that they face discrimination in employment, and less than half the respondents to one survey had asked for “reasonable adjustments”. Again, I say to the Minister that if people feel discriminated against, or if they are afraid to ask for reasonable adjustments, perhaps there is a big role for businesses to carry out. The reasons given for not asking for reasonable adjustments were
“not wanting to draw attention to their disability”
or because “it would be embarrassing” to do so. Of those who did ask, nearly a third said that they received little or no help following their requests. Perhaps that underlines the other issue. When people ask for something, they are not even sure whether they will get it, or whether it will be done. Again, that is something that we need to look at. Perhaps sometimes we have to enforce such things through legislation and through Government intervention. It is small wonder that many people with so much to offer feel like they are a burden and unwanted in the workplace. Those concerns have been referred to by other Members today.
Concerns among employers in relation to employing disabled people included perceived risks to productivity; financial and other implications of making workplace adjustments; and confusion or negative perceptions around legislation. Perhaps people need to be more aware of what the legislation means and what it means for business as well. Despite employers’ concerns about perceived financial implications, a survey of more than 1,000 employers found that the majority provided adjustments. Let us be clear about this: the majority of businesses try to do the right thing. I am talking here about flexible working patterns and hours with no associated cost increase. I would like to ask the Minister a question and perhaps she can respond when she has the opportunity to do so. Can she tell me whether financial incentives are available for businesses to make those changes? I think that, sometimes, the cost factor does concern some businesses. If there is some help for them to make those adjustments, it would be helpful.
A recent survey highlighted the fact that 40% of respondents said that the option of modified hours—such as flexible or part-time working—would be an important factor in enabling them to enter and to stay in work. Over the years, I have had the opportunity to look at what happens with the disability living allowance, which has now moved to the personal independence payment. Even if people are on DLA, they need therapeutic work. We must understand that, sometimes, people are not fully able to carry out their duties because of their disablement, but, therapeutically, it is good for them to have some work for a certain period of time. Perhaps the Minister could give us her thoughts on that in her response this afternoon.
Perhaps most worrying for this place is that we must get our own house in order. Let me just illustrate the problem by way of an example from the civil service, but I will not name the person involved. Disabled people in the public sector still report being passed over for development and promotion opportunities, and that their performance is unfairly assessed. This suggests that talent is being wasted and a culture of discontent is being fostered. If we have not got our own house in order in government—at all levels, wherever it may be: at this level, at regional level, at council level, and so on—that is the first step that we must address in this place.
I always say, with regard to expecting people with illnesses to be in work, that it is up to the Government to set the example. I often use the example, as I do now, of a young constituent of mine who worked in the civil service. She had her DDA form filled in, so her employer—the civil service—was aware that she had ulcerative colitis. She applied for a transfer to a Department closer to home to avoid the almost two-hour long rush-hour jaunt that she had to go through every day. She was not accommodated. She went to occupational health service meetings and was told numerous times that, yes, she should be off sick and should not return to work until the flare-up had settled down. She was then medically retired from work, as her employer felt she was unfit to work. She applied for benefits and was told that she was not entitled to ESA or DLA and that she should seek employment. This is the Catch-22 or chicken-and-egg situation—which comes first? The civil service expected someone to hire her, according to the ESA decision, just not itself.
Let us look at the process that she went through. At the age of 28, she was classified by the civil service as not fit to work but made to feel like a scrounger for feeling that if the civil service, with its hundreds of offices and roles and positions, could not facilitate her illness, then she would have no chance in the private sector. Thankfully, we were able to help with getting her ESA and DLA. Both claims went to appeals and reviews, but they were ultimately won. Every time she applied, we had to go through the same ritual because nobody believed that this girl could not work, despite the fact that she had been paid off because she was medically unfit. That makes absolutely no sense. We must lead by example. We must put into place initiatives that help disabled people to be confident in their abilities instead of feeling that only their disabilities are important. It is hard to expect small businesses to understand that a disability does not mean an inability to be a vital player in a team when we—I use the royal we, in terms of the civil service—are not able to do that, despite putting in place so-called protocols and schemes to prevent that from happening. This House is one place where I most certainly advocate that we get our house in order and do so quickly.
I look to my constituency and see the potential in our young people in Longstone School, which is one of the behavioural units where young people with disabilities as well as those with educational challenges are trained to work in what is sometimes, for them, a big, bad world. However, it is a world of opportunity, with so much more to offer, and we should be trying to move them towards it. Should we consider apprenticeships with financial support for those who have learning disabilities? I look to the Minister again. I have been looking to her for lots of answers; we are all doing so, because we respect her greatly. Would that help employers to think of employing disabled people as less of a gamble and to give them an opportunity? I am certain that many such apprenticeships would turn into employment.
What can we do to help those who want to work and have skills to offer, yet feel there is no place for them in the modern workplace? To me, that is what this debate is about. It is about giving them hope, vision and opportunity. If we can do that, we are moving in the right direction. I do not have the answers. My wife thinks that I have lots of answers, but I do not have answers to everything in the world. However, I try to seek out the answers, and that is the great advantage of this debate. I ask the Minister and her Department to consider this issue really seriously—I know that she will—and to come back to the House with more than a simple pledge to get disabled people into work. We need a plan to make this happen, starting with our own civil service.
I again commend the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow for her compassion and for her interest in disability. I also commend all the other Members who have come along here on a Thursday afternoon—the graveyard shift—to participate in a really important debate.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
As another Member with a four-barrelled constituency name, I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on bringing this debate to the Chamber. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for also attempting to pronounce her constituency; he did very well indeed. We heard from my hon. Friend a speech that was rich in detail, understanding and empathy. She really, truly understands the subject. I fully commend her for this very positively titled debate about the role of disabled people in economic growth. It is somewhat scandalous that we have not had the opportunity to debate this before, but that wrong has been righted today.
We in the SNP know that disabled people continue to make a fantastic contribution to our economy. All the words that we have heard here today show our empathy and the joint approach that we are taking to these issues, but comments that come from the Government themselves can do a lot of harm. Our approach to disabled people—the approach we have taken today—is in stark contrast to the UK Government’s Chancellor, who recently said that he thinks that disabled people are reducing productivity.
I would like to quote my hon. Friend, not from her speech today but from an excellent article she wrote recently:
“The answer is simple, invest in improving the pathways to work. Invest in disabled entrepreneurs, improve reasonable adjustment guidelines and encourage businesses to diversify their workforce. Create incentives rather than enforce sanctions. If the £108 million spent by the Government to deny disabled people the benefits they are entitled to was redirected to creating an apprenticeship schemes, entrepreneurship and training opportunities for example, then perhaps the narrative of people with disabilities could change.”
Those are very wise words.
I am most grateful to Scope for the briefing that it has sent along for this debate. Scope says of the Chancellor’s comments:
“We found the Chancellor’s statements before the Treasury Select Committee…on the negative impact of disabled employees on UK productivity levels to be entirely untrue and unacceptable.”
It underlines a fact that was brought out by my hon. Friend, saying:
“In fact, a 10-percentage point rise in the employment rate amongst disabled people would increase GDP by £45 billion by 2030 and result in a £12 billion gain to the Exchequer.”
I hope that the Minister, who I know to be a thoughtful person, will reflect on the Chancellor’s remarks and take the opportunity today to distance herself from them.
There is a real opportunity to make a positive impact on tackling the disability employment gap in the economy, delivering the reforms needed to support more people to enter, remain and advance in work, but progress up until now has been slow. Government and employers need to do more if we are to harness the economic benefits that an increased disabled employment rate will bring. Tackling the disability employment gap would mean, as I have said, that economic growth and productivity would increase.
Employing disabled people is an opportunity for employers, delivering significant benefits to business and the economy. It is important to underline the calls from the all-party parliamentary group on disability. They are all relevant, but I mention especially tailored and targeted support for self-employed disabled people from such bodies as the Business Bank, funding for reasonable adjustments for disabled recipients of tech start-up support from Innovate UK, and bringing forward requirements for sectors to plan for recruitment.
It is also vital to recognise the additional challenges that are faced by disabled people. My hon. Friend talked about the high numbers of applications required simply to get a job interview, let alone a job. She said that we cannot afford to sit and wait. Throughout this debate, we have heard many people agreeing on the need for action, and that is what disabled people now want to see.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions the challenges and difficulties that disabled people face. One of those, depending on the form of disability, is that the fatigue element as the day progresses can be quite critical to the person. It would be best if employment opportunities could be tailored with specific reference to this fatigue, which can kick in after two or three hours of concentrated work.
Drew Hendry
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is important to take into account the size and scale of the challenges people face, to make sure we are able to take full advantage.
As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow said, the UK already has a skills shortage, and the Brexit exodus of skilled labour means that the opportunity of training and apprenticeships must be embraced. As we have heard, the Government at the moment are not going far enough. Specialist advice services on self-employment are required, and we need to avoid stereotypes in these debates and the action that follows.
The additional challenges for disabled people also come down to hard cash and the extra costs that they have to cope with. New research from Scope shows that on average, disabled people have to find an additional £750 per month related to their condition, on top of any social security payments designed to meet those costs. The financial penalty locks disabled people out of being able to make a positive contribution to the economy. They need practical help, and the Government can help now. For example, the Government can help with motability, an issue that my hon. Friend is keen to bring up. Many people have seen their ability to move around or take part in employment and the economy hampered by motability issues.
It also comes down to the issue of PIP assessments. I was interested to hear from the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and agree with him that more money should be spent on disability payments. There should be more social security to support disabled people, particularly given their disadvantage. The recent Work and Pensions Committee report on claimant experiences of PIP and ESA assessments presented clear evidence that the assessments are failing a substantial minority of claimants, with claimant stories highlighting clear errors made in assessments, crucial information being omitted and assessors lacking knowledge and expertise. It is not just about putting more money into the system; it is about making the system work for disabled people, which too often it does not at the moment.
Jim Shannon
Friday a week ago, I had the chance to meet Capita officials in Northern Ireland. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and other Members that if it is possible to have such a meeting, it might be helpful. We were able to get a hotline to the people who can make the changes and to ensure that the people doing the assessments are up to speed, as he said. Capita needs to change some of the things it is doing. We are going to have a change in Northern Ireland, and Capita has committed to that. I suggest that others do the same in their own regions.
Drew Hendry
That is an important comment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, having listened to me speak on universal credit, PIP and ESA on many occasions, can be reassured that I have indeed made that visit and gone through that process, and I know what is involved. I think his substantive point is that it is a good thing to do. It does not iron out the difficulties that people have had over years and continue to have, but it can help, and wherever it can help, we must do that.
Between April 2016 and March 2017, the Scope helpline saw a 542% rise in calls related to PIP payments, and 65% of claimants who challenge a PIP decision at tribunal are successful. There is much more that the Government can do to help.
I want to finish with some criticisms, but given that I know the Minister will be listening carefully and looking for ways to take action, I will also talk about how we are doing things back in our own constituencies, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, and how we are doing things differently in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully and take the opportunity to learn or think about how things might be done differently.
We have seen the impact that the UK Government’s system has had on disabled people in Scotland. In October this year, the Scottish Government found that between 7,000 and 10,000 disabled people per year are being affected by the removal of the work-related activity component of employment and support allowance. That is completely appalling and simply unacceptable. They also found that 40,000 disabled people claiming ESA have been affected by the bedroom tax. ESA is supposed to support disabled people into employment. The Government have said that the £30-a-week cut was to remove incentives to be out of work. That is an outrageous thing to do. It is pushing people into poverty and into crisis.
The Government’s PIP assessment process is failing disabled people. According to the DWP figures from December 2017, one in five claimants who had gone through mandatory reconsideration for PIP had their reward changed, meaning that 20% of those initial decisions were judged as wrong. I hope that the Minister will consider some of the actions that have been taken in Scotland, with the very limited powers that have been transferred to Scotland.
Disabled people should have equal access to employment opportunities in Scotland, and the Scottish National party Government are committed to reducing the employment gap by at least half. Disabled people’s skills, hard work and commitment are valuable to any employer, and practical and financial support must be available to businesses. It makes sense to recruit from the widest pool of talent possible.
Disabled people account for 20% of Scotland’s population, and at the moment they make up just 11% of the private sector workforce and 11.7% of the public sector workforce. The Scottish Government will work with both sectors to look at target setting and how to redress the imbalance. In April 2017, the Scottish Government introduced employability programmes delivered by a new service, Work First Scotland, including employment support for up to 3,300 disabled people. In July last year, a campaign was launched to boost awareness among businesses of the benefits of employing people with disabilities, specifically targeting small and medium-sized enterprises.
From April 2018, a new devolved programme will take a voluntary and person-led approach to ensure that disabled people are offered support that is appropriate and built on guaranteed service expectations from providers. Disabled people engaging with the programme will receive high-quality pre-employment support that identifies and develops their strengths and assets, while focusing on sustainable employment outcomes. Only today, the Scottish Government announced that people will no longer see a reduction in their benefit payments during the appeal process. In the Minister’s response, she might say whether the UK Government will consider taking that action, too.
I think the message from both sides of the Chamber today has been crystal clear: let us do all that can be done to realise and release the potential of disabled people for economic growth.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this important and timely debate. I commend her for the work she has led on the all-party parliamentary group for disability.
I would like to extend my thanks to a number of disability organisations, including Disability Rights UK, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Scope, Leonard Cheshire Disability and Action on Hearing Loss, for all the work they have done on improving employment opportunities for disabled people and for the important briefings they have provided for today’s very important debate.
There are currently around 11.6 million disabled people in this country—people like me, who have factors that could act as a barrier to engaging in a wide range of valued activities, and not just economic activity, which is the focus of our debate. Disabled people make up around 16% of the working-age population, yet we face barriers in all aspects of life, including in education, transport, access to justice, access to voting, housing, health and, most importantly, employment.
Almost eight years of Tory austerity have had a disproportionate impact on disabled people. We know that half of those who live in poverty are disabled or live with someone who is disabled, in part because of the additional cost of their disability, but also because the labour market does not work well for disabled people who are able to work.
The duty to make reasonable adjustments to support disabled people in accessing education, employment, housing, and goods and services is a key feature of the Equality Act 2010. However, we know from the 2015-16 House of Lords report on the Equality Act and disabled people that the legislation needs firm Government action to ensure that it is strongly upheld and to remove the barriers in society faced by disabled people who have a condition and/or an impairment.
It is a matter of serious concern that we have a Government who barely speak about removing barriers, while actually creating new ones through their austerity cuts and their punitive social security system. In their 2015 manifesto, the Tories pledged to halve the disability employment gap by 2020, but the TUC has found the Government to be years behind on that commitment. They have since dropped the pledge, and replaced it with a reduced commitment to getting 1 million more disabled people into work.
As we have heard, the rate of employment for disabled people stands at 49.2%, compared with 80.6% for the rest of the population in the most recent period for which figures are available, meaning that the disability employment gap lies at 31.3%. We know that the gap is even wider for specific disability groups. For registered blind and partially sighted individuals, only one in four people of working age is in work, and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) mentioned the employment gap for those living with autism.
The Office for National Statistics recently announced that it was suspending publication of the disability employment rate indefinitely. The motion notes the fact that there will be a disability employment gap after Brexit, and the current gap in the UK is considerably above the European Union average of 21%. That illustrates the extent of the Government’s failure to take meaningful and serious action. In the light of this, why have the Government weakened their commitment to reducing the disability employment gap? It would be helpful if the Minister set out the measures she is taking to improve the ability of disabled people to enter work and—on retention—their ability to stay in work?
Many barriers faced by disabled people are shaped by false perceptions about the role they play in the workplace. Research by the Scope charity found that almost half of disabled people have worried about making employers aware of their impairment or their condition. We know that one of the key barriers that has been highlighted is how we shape employer attitudes to employing people with a disability. What are the Government going to do to support employers—especially small businesses, given that they make up nearly half the workforce—to employ disabled people? How can small businesses access affordable and timely occupational health support, and how can best practice be shared?
I must say I was surprised that disability and disabled people were not mentioned in the Budget, giving a very negative message to the population about the role of disabled people in the economy and giving the regrettable impression that their contribution to the economy is not being championed or prioritised by this Government. Will the Minister offer an explanation for this omission? Opposition Members will build an economy that includes everybody, because that is how we can develop an economy that truly works for everybody, not just for a few.
I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box speaking on this subject without mentioning the comments made last December by the Chancellor of the Exchequer during Treasury Committee questioning, when he linked low productivity growth with the employment of disabled people. Unfortunately, there has been no apology for those comments, and his lack of remorse following the scapegoating of disabled people for a productivity crisis created by this Government’s failed economic policy speaks volumes. Does the Minister agree that there is a need for a clear and coherent message from the Government that employing disabled people can enhance productivity and make a real contribution to organisations and businesses across the UK?
Despite that, the Government finally managed to publish their long-awaited “Improving Lives” paper late last year. Some 90% of disability and long-term health conditions are acquired, so it is absolutely right to examine how employers can make reasonable adjustments to support an employee to stay in work if they become disabled. However, the paper did not set out how the Government intend to achieve or fund this aim.
To date, the Disability Confident campaign, launched in 2014, has been a dismal failure. It has made a negligible impact on the disability employment gap and has yet to produce any concrete evidence of results. Will the Minister confirm how many additional disabled people have found work as a direct result of the Disability Confident campaign?
The Access to Work programme, when it works well, provides invaluable support, but too often I hear about problems in relation to the administration and timeliness of payments, the cap on individual awards and the assessments. Ms French is a visually impaired person. Her experience of seeking employment is that when the subject of Access to Work came up, recruiters said that the employer was in too much of a hurry and would not be able to wait for an Access to Work assessment to be completed. As we all know, Access to Work is probably the best kept secret—it helps far too few people—and it will need significantly more resources if the Government are to get anywhere near the aim of getting 1 million more disabled people into work by 2027.
In the case of a deaf person, Mr Will, he was offered a job by a Disability Confident employer. However, once the employer realised that the Access to Work support would be capped and that they would have to meet the rest of the costs, the job offer was withdrawn. Will the Minister set out what substantive action the Government are taking to support people in work? What work have they done with disabled people to ensure that this support is flexible and responsive to need? More importantly, what additional funding will the Government make available, especially for Access to Work?
We have concerns about the language used in the Government’s “Improving Lives” paper, which centres on the idea that employment can “promote recovery”—the familiar sounding phrase, which says that disabled people and people with chronic conditions would recover if only they tried a bit harder, or were subject to an even tougher system. Will the Minister reassure people with disabilities limiting their ability to work and those actually unable to work that this is not the intended message her Government are trying to convey or that they believe in?
For nearly eight years, disabled people have borne the brunt of the cuts inflicted on them by this Government and the previous coalition Government. The cuts have had a detrimental impact on the lives of disabled people, cutting living standards and undermining their access to education, social care and justice. In 2016, the United Nations convened a committee to investigate state violations of the UN convention of the rights of persons with disabilities. Its report concluded that the Government had committed
“grave, systematic violations of the rights of persons with disabilities.”
That is a damning indictment of the treatment of disabled people by this Government—it shames us as a country—yet the Government have failed to act. We believe in a social model of disability and a society that removes the barriers restricting opportunities and choices for disabled people. We will incorporate the UN convention of the rights of persons with disabilities into law. I ask the Minister: why do the Government refuse to do the same?
Currently, 4.2 million disabled people live in poverty, and new evidence indicates that this number is increasing as a result of cuts in support. According to Scope, the Welfare Reform Act 2012 has cut nearly £28 billion in social security support from 3.7 million disabled people. Cuts contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2016 are adding to the suffering experienced by many disabled people, and that does not include cuts to social care, the NHS, education or transport—all of which have had a direct effect on disabled people.
Research by Scope that was published this week revealed that on average, disabled people face extra costs of £570 a month due to their impairment or condition, and that is on top of social security payments that are designed to help meet these costs. Extra costs mean that disabled people’s money simply does not go as far—£100 for a non-disabled person is equivalent to just £67 for a disabled person.
In addition to the four-year freeze in social security support, the 2016 Act cut financial support by £1,500 a year to half a million disabled people who had been found not fit for work, but who may in the future be in the ESA work-related activity group. Will the Minister provide the House with an assessment of the impact of social security cuts on disabled people and their ability to stay in work? The current social security system is not working for disabled people. Analysis this week by Demos into the treatment of unemployed disabled claimants revealed that they are up to 53% more likely to be docked money than claimants who are not disabled, and disabled people have been hit by 1 million sanctions since 2010.
Under this Government, the social security system has penalised people with disabilities by cutting much needed support and making it harder for them to access what support is available. The assessment processes for ESA and PIP are not fit for purpose, and trust in the system has been completely undermined. The widespread distrust of the assessment process by sick and disabled people is no surprise, with a record 68% of PIP decisions that are taken to tribunal being overturned by judges. Under private contractors, the assessment process is getting worse, not better. Why will the Government not act to end privatisation and replace the current system with a more holistic process?
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate all Members on their contributions. However, the Government must understand that for too many disabled people, the reality is a social security system that punishes rather than supports them and a labour market that shuts them out rather than being open to their potential and skills. It is incumbent on the Government to harness the potential of everyone and to create a truly inclusive society that works for the many, not just the few.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
I add my congratulations to those already offered to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). I will not go through the names of everybody’s constituencies because I have so little time left, but she did a magnificent job in introducing this debate. I echo words from Members across the House about her commitment to this important issue, her sincerity, and the way that she opened the debate in such a positive way—sadly, that was in marked contrast to some of the later contributions. I praise the work of the all-party group for disability and all voluntary sector organisations that, in myriad ways, do so much to support its work.
It is important to hear voices from across the House, and we heard powerful, personal testimony from the hon. Members for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), and for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) about their lived experience of disability. They have all made significant contributions to improving opportunities for disabled people to play their full part in society. The hon. Member for Battersea raised some individual cases, and I would appreciate her providing me with the specific details so that I can resolve those matters.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) on becoming a Disability Confident employer. Yesterday she joined 78 Members of Parliament who have already done that, and there will be further such opportunities in the weeks and months ahead for those who have yet to take up the scheme. I praise her for and encourage her in the work that she will do in her constituency with Jobcentre Plus. Such work that we can do in our constituencies, by helping local employers to take seriously our desire to see more disabled people in employment, is important and powerful. She raised an important point about enabling disabled children to develop their employment skills and have the same opportunities as all other young people to gain work experience. She will be pleased to know that the Department for Education completely agrees with her, and it is increasing its commitment and funding to enable young people to have supported internships.
My hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) and for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) made powerful speeches about the level of ambition that we all share to close the disability employment gap. They stressed the importance of working closely with employers on culture change, and I completely agree. We are considering the issues they raised about improving the Disability Confident scheme, although I refute what was said by the hon. Member for Battersea—this is not a failing scheme; it is a growing scheme. We are looking at what more we can do to incentivise businesses, and at publishing levels of disability employment, especially for large employers. We are also considering what more we can do to communicate the wide range of help that is available to support businesses and public sector organisations to employ disabled people.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on becoming a Disability Confident employer yesterday. He said how important it is that people feel confident enough to disclose their disability and for employers to feel confident in hearing that news, and he asked how we can work together to ensure that happens. Financial support is available to a disabled person through the Access to Work programme, as well as to employers who employ them.
I assure the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) that each and every year we increase our investment in benefits for disabled people and those with health conditions. This year alone we are spending more than £50 billion—more than the defence budget—and I am proud to be part of a Government who prioritise supporting disabled people. That is an increase of £7 billion since 2010. We are determined continuously to improve the processes and operation of the system that administers our disability benefits.
Drew Hendry
I hope that the Minister will also address the comments made by the Chancellor and distance herself from those. On her specific point, what does she say to those who have lost the severe disability allowance from their payments?
Sarah Newton
I was not going to dignify the hon. Gentleman’s remarks with a response, but since he has intervened on me I will not leave that point without comment. It is irresponsible of him deliberately to misrepresent what the Chancellor said at the Select Committee. We in this House all have a huge responsibility to be careful about what we say. We must honour the truth, and we must not make comments that scaremonger and will frighten some of the most vulnerable people.
Sarah Newton
I will not give way. I have been generous in giving way, and I will not indulge the hon. Gentleman any more in pursuing things that he has misrepresented and quoted out of context.
Let me return to the spirit of the debate, which the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow set so well. The House came together to speak to disabled people outside the Chamber, to show how much we value them and to say how much more we want to do to enable them to play their part in society and to enable employers to take people on. I will return to the tone so ably set by the hon. Lady. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will respect his colleague and the tone that she set.
Last week, I visited North Devon District Hospital with the excellent local Member of Parliament. We met some young people who are doing really valued jobs in the hospital wards with patients and in vital support services, such as the engineering department. All those excellent young people had been supported by their local college and by Pluss through a Government-funded scheme. They were supported through work experience and placements in the hospital. The programme has been working for some five years. All the young people have learning disabilities, but their employers told me how valued they are. They were being employed not as an act of charity, but because of who they were.
I have the privilege, as Minister for Disabled People, to meet disabled people every week who do extraordinarily good work in every sort of workplace across the country. Just this morning, I was at Channel 4, which kindly hosted the first anniversary of our sector champions. Each sector champion is a leader in their industry and is working to improve access for disabled people to their industry, from financial services to retail, tourism, media and transport. Each sector leader is an inspirational leader in their field, driving real change in access for disabled people. They are doing that not just because it is the right thing to do, but because it makes good business sense.
There are an estimated 13 million disabled people in our country. Each year they spend an estimated £250 billion —the purple pound—so if businesses are not accessible they are missing out on a great deal of business. Accessibility, as Members have said, does not have to be expensive. Our sector champions are sharing best practice and information, so that more people are confident about employing disabled people. Disabled people are making huge contributions not only as consumers, but, as we have heard today, in all aspects of our society, including employment.
The Government are building a Britain fit for a future where no one is left behind. We have been very clear that we want our economy to harness the skills, talents and contributions of every person in society. We have made significant progress—there are now 600,000 more disabled people in work than there were four years ago—but we want to go further and faster. At the moment, even though our labour market is the strongest it has been for many years, with employment rates at record highs, we know that only half of all disabled people who would like to work are in work. New analysis shows that, over the course of a year, disabled people are twice as likely to fall out of work and almost three times less likely to move into work compared with non-disabled people. That is simply not acceptable.
Jamie Stone
Apropos of what the Minister has just said, does she agree that being disabled in a very remote area, such as my constituency, means that travelling to work poses very special and difficult challenges? The Government will have to think very carefully about that, so that my constituents are not disadvantaged.
Sarah Newton
The hon. Gentleman makes a really good point. I represent a constituency in Cornwall, so I completely empathise with the issue he raises. Access to work funding is available, including for transport to enable people to get to their place of employment. It is also very important that local enterprise partnerships work with local authorities to look at what more can be done to join up community transport with public transport. In areas such as the ones we represent, public transport is not as good a service as it is in urban areas, so there is more work to be done.
With more than one in six people of working age reporting a disability, it is really important that we do everything we can to make sure that their talents do not go to waste. That is why we have an urgent and comprehensive set of plans and actions. For example, we have a personal support package, some £330 million of funding, to arrange new interventions and initiatives for those in the WRAG, so that they can have tailor-made personal support to enable them to take the steps to work. We have already recruited over 300 additional disability employment advisers, bringing special advice and support into the jobcentre. We have begun introducing 200 new community partners who are able to share their lived experience of disability across our jobcentre network.
Sarah Newton
I am not going to take any more interventions, because I can see from the Chair a slight impatience. There is a second debate this afternoon and there are some points hon. Members have raised that I really need to address.
Our Work and Health programme has now launched. It has a contracted value of over £500 million to provide specialist support, including to disabled people. A very important point was raised this afternoon about the entrepreneurial spirit of disabled people. Our new enterprise allowance has helped nearly 20,000 disabled people to start up businesses. More than one in five of all businesses set up under the scheme are led by disabled people. We also have a small employer offer to help more disabled people into employment.
I encourage Members to read the “Improving Lives” Green Paper on the future of health and work, which sets out a very ambitious plan of detailed actions and investments the Government are taking, including in assistive technology. It is absolutely not what the hon. Member for Battersea said it was. We are not saying those things, which I am not going to repeat in this House because they are so fundamentally wrong. What we are about is recognising the talents of disabled people and making sure there are no barriers and no limits, so that their talents can take them as far as they possibly can.
I am absolutely delighted to say that the devolved Administrations are taking all sorts of different actions in different parts of the country. We are working very closely with the Scottish Government. We are jointly funding the Single Gateway project in Dundee and Fife, which is a really good and innovative programme. I am looking forward to working closely with it to see what lessons we can learn so that we can roll it out. It provides a single point of contact between the jobcentre, employers and disabled people. We will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to see what more we can do.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow on bringing this issue to the House. Achieving our ambition of seeing at least 1 million more disabled people in work requires all of us to work together. The Government of course have a role to play, but so too do employers, the health service, local authorities, charities and the voluntary sector. MPs have convening powers and the power of championing in their local community. All have vital roles to play. I hope they will support me and the Government in delivering our very ambitious vision for a society in which disabled people can play their full part and go as far as their talents will take them.
Dr Cameron
I thank all Members, from across the House, who have taken part in this extremely important debate. We have done it justice, but this is just a starting point for the work ahead that we take together. I am extremely keen that people become Disability Confident employers. I encourage MPs to do that and to hold Disability Confident events in their constituencies to encourage local employers. I pay particular tribute to Mr Speaker, who has created an internship scheme, to run over the next five years, for people with disabilities to come and work in Parliament with MPs. It is extremely important that Parliament is a role model that leads the way and that we do not just talk the talk but walk the walk. He is a shining example in that regard. We are, as we have heard today, in politics to make a difference to enable. Together we can create the inclusive society that everyone deserves.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the potential talent pool within the disabled community; notes that there will be an employment gap after the UK leaves the EU and that there is ample opportunity to include disabled workers in economic growth; calls on the Government to act immediately on its commitment to get one million more disabled people into employment by 2027; and further calls on the Government to increase awareness within the business community of the benefits of employing an inclusive workforce.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the Back-Bench debate on cancer strategy. Before we begin, I remind hon. Members—some of the offenders have just left the Chamber—that we do not have unlimited time in this place. I did not impose a time limit in the last debate because I thought it would run naturally to finish about 15 minutes ago. It did not; it overran. The mover of the motion, all three Front-Bench speakers and two other Members significantly exceeded the time they ought to have taken. I was hoping that in a good-natured debate we might have some self-regulation, but that did not happen. In the next debate, therefore, I may have to impose time limits. Members in the next debate will have less time to speak because their colleagues in the last debate took longer than they ought to have. I will leave it to hon. Members—some of the offenders have left the Chamber, but I will find them later—to act honourably. As I call Dr Lisa Cameron, who is working very hard this afternoon, to move the next motion, I hope that she will do so in 15 minutes or less.
Cancer Strategy
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Cancer Strategy.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I will try to behave much better timewise in this debate, which it is an honour and a privilege to introduce. I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling the debate, to the all-party parliamentary group on cancer for its timely and extremely important report and, in particular, to the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who could not be with us today but deserves our thanks for the extraordinary amount of work he has done on this issue.
We in the House are all on the same side against cancer and in our ambition to achieve world-class cancer outcomes. My speech will address—briefly, according to your instructions, Madam Deputy Speaker—the recommendations of the all-party group’s recent report, “Progress of the England Cancer Strategy”. The report received more than 80 contributions from charities and bodies and truly reflects the passion in the sector, but it is also a cry for help, progress and a positive way forward. My speech will address the report’s four main areas of concern: workforce strategy, data, transparency and funding. It is open to colleagues to raise all aspects of cancer care and treatment, but, on behalf of the all-party group and the hon. Gentleman, I will stick to the recommendations in the report.
The report considers progress as we reach the halfway point of the NHS cancer strategy 2015-20 and is the result of an inquiry that the all-party group held last summer and autumn. The inquiry was formally launched at a summer reception last July and the number of written submissions was far larger than anticipated, showing the dedication of those working in the field. Many submissions came from cancer alliances and others on the frontline of the services being provided and identified many pressures and challenges. The evidence from frontline services in particular seemed to amount to a call for help. In its report, the all-party group concluded that although progress had been made since the launch of the strategy, the NHS
“will struggle to achieve the objectives set out in the Cancer Strategy unless corrective action is immediately taken.”
To this end, the all-party group has listed recommendations, a copy of which will shortly be sent to all MPs. The lack of workforce planning emerged as a key concern. The cancer workforce is constantly recognised as the biggest barrier to implementing our strategy. We are all pleased that Health Education England published its report into the cancer workforce in December 2017, but it was originally promised for December 2016. According to written evidence from Breast Cancer Now, the workforce is the greatest challenge in delivering the cancer strategy. The all-party group also heard that transformation funding is being withheld from cancer alliances because of their performance against the 62-day waiting-time target—a new conditionality of funding that emerged only after the bidding process had closed.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I appreciate the hon. Lady acknowledging the cancer organisations, such as Macmillan, which often rely on subscriptions. Does she agree—I am sure she does—that the public should be encouraged to give more subscriptions where possible?
Dr Cameron
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. These agencies are working on the frontline with people and families at their most vulnerable and deserve all our encouragement, praise and, of course, funding.
In addition to setting out how cancer alliances are to be funded and supported for the duration of the strategy and into the future, the all-party group strongly recommends that the 62-day waiting-time target be immediately decoupled from any release of funding to the alliances. The previously mentioned issues prevent progress in improving cancer care and treatment, which is not our collective vision. The all-party group also heard that improving transparency in priorities and accountability would help to support the delivery of the strategy. At the moment, a lack of clarity and lines of communication are delaying its implementation. Publishing a detailed progress update on each of the strategy’s 96 recommendations would be a positive step forward.
It is generally accepted that the 62-day waiting-time target has been treated as a higher priority among clinical commissioning groups and cancer alliance leaders than survival or stage at diagnosis, as shown by the linkage between funding and performance against the measure. Decoupling funding from process and target performance in favour of a greater focus on outcomes would strongly be in the interests of patients, not least because, if outcomes are good and survival rates increasing, processes will also be functioning efficiently and correctly.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The 62-day target has not been met since 2014, so the issue has been around for a while. Does the hon. Lady agree that more funding is needed if the target is to be met as soon as possible?
Dr Cameron
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is essential that the target be met and that resources be put in to ensure that it is.
The all-party group also found that access to detailed and timely data is critical for the strategy’s success, particularly in relation to data for rare and less common cancers. Strong concerns were also raised about how future data protection regulations might affect surveys, such as the cancer patient experience survey. The value of the cancer patient experience survey should be emphasised, along with outcomes from patients. We must hear from those who are experiencing services; they know how to improve things. In addition, the ageing UK population cannot be left out of the conversation. The cancer patient experience survey suggests that older people are less likely to have access to a clinical nurse specialist. Additionally, older patients are less likely to know the full extent of their illness. Age discrimination must come to an end, especially in cancer care.
The all-party group recommends that the NHS and Public Health England’s data team work to produce more timely cancer data and make them publicly available. It advocates that the Government ensure that the cancer patient experience survey and other such surveys can continue in a way that allows patient experience to be considered on a par with clinical effectiveness, rather than leaving patients without sufficient information regarding their cancer and care.
Furthermore, for specific cancers such as breast cancer, there are key priorities for delivery in the cancer strategy. It must ensure that data are collected for people living with incurable secondary cancer; that everyone with secondary breast cancer has a specialist nurse with the right skills and expertise; and that everyone has access to the right support after finishing treatment for primary cancer, so that they are able to live well after breast cancer. We should not ignore the fact that the strategy has had positive effects. In the last year, 16 cancer alliances and three vanguards have been established, and £200 million has been made available to them for earlier diagnosis and post-diagnosis support. In addition, 23 NHS trusts have now received new and upgraded radiotherapy machines. However, as the report makes clear, much more work still needs to be done.
In the few minutes that I have left, I want to speak a bit more about less survivable cancers. The Less Survivable Cancers Taskforce was in touch with me prior to today’s debate. It is made up of Pancreatic Cancer UK, the British Liver Trust, the Brain Tumour Charity and Action Against Heartburn, covering oesophageal cancer, and Core, covering all digestive diseases. The staggering 55% gap in morbidity is absolutely unacceptable. Much, much more must be done. Recently, I lost a very dear uncle to pancreatic cancer. As a family going through that experience, we know that we need much more research and much more specialist understanding. We need investment in those areas—it is absolutely crucial. I want to ensure that other families have a better chance of an improved survival rate, and I pay tribute to my own uncle for his courage in coping with that condition right to the end.
Hospice care is also absolutely essential. We must ensure that families and patients have dignity at the end of life. That is imperative. I have watched far too many family members die in hospital beds, surrounded by other patients with the curtain screens drawn, to know that that is not dignified and that where possible, we must improve services and access to hospice care.
I pay tribute to the Teenage Cancer Trust—we often think of cancer as an illness that affects older people, but young people are also diagnosed with cancer—which does fantastic work. Vanessa Todd in my constituency is an absolute advocate for the Teenage Cancer Trust. Although GPs may not expect a young person to come with such symptoms, which are perhaps not easily identifiable, it is something that we can increase awareness of to make sure that diagnosis is very quick and timely for young people to improve their prognosis.
I thank everybody and, again, I thank the all-party group. It has been a privilege to open the debate for the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, who leads the group on these issues so well.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the next speaker, I say to hon. Members that I am going to try to continue my experiment of seeing whether people will self-regulate and behave in a decent, honourable fashion. That means taking eight to nine minutes, and not 13, 14 or 15 minutes. I trust the well experienced Mr David Tredinnick to do so first.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
It is an honour to be called to speak first from the Government Benches, Madam Deputy Speaker. I heard what you said about time and intend to respect it.
On 25 January, in the other place—the House of Lords as we tend to call it now—a very distinguished former Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and former Minister for the Olympics, someone who did much to bring the Olympics to London, Tessa Jowell, now Baroness Jowell, made an impassioned speech about the brain tumour from which she is suffering. That is something with which I can identify. I do not usually talk about family matters, but I will share with the House that my sister died of a brain tumour.
What Baroness Jowell said in her speech should be marked well by the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who has, I know, a strong interest in cancer. She said:
“For what would every cancer patient want? First, to know that the best, the latest science was being used and available for them…What else would they want? They need to know that they have a community around them, supporting and caring, being practical and kind. While doctors look at the big picture, we can all be a part of the human-sized picture.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 January 2018; Vol. 788, c. 1170.]
Yesterday at the all-party group on cancer, of which I have the honour of being a vice-chair, one of the things we looked at was recovery packages, which are very dear to my heart as the Member who has chaired the all-party group for integrated healthcare for much of the 30 years for which I have been in this House. My researcher, who has worked with me for 20 years, told me today that I have chaired more than 120 meetings of that group. Over the years, among other things, we have tried to look at how to support cancer patients in a broader way.
Let me share a figure with the House straight away. In the United Kingdom, according to Cancer Research UK, 33% of those who have cancer use some sort of additional support therapy, often complimentary therapy. For some types of cancer, such as breast cancer, this number is even higher, at almost 50%. People use these treatments because when used alongside conventional cancer treatments such as radiotherapy or chemotherapy, they make it easier for them to cope with the cancer and to feel that they play a part in how they cope. Such treatments help them relax, reduce stress, enable them to take a more active role in their treatment and recovery in partnership with their therapist, and enable them to feel more in control of their feelings and emotions. There is very strong evidence that these therapies work effectively, although more research is always welcome. The use of acupuncture to relieve sickness caused by some chemotherapy drugs is now well established, as well as to relieve a sore mouth after having treatment for head and neck cancer.
Not far from here, there are three good examples of how these additional therapies have helped. At Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, the outpatient clinic offers aromatherapy, massage, reflexology and reiki. Quantitative data analysis shows a statistically significant improvement. At the Royal Marsden, a world-renowned hospital not far from here, aromatherapy massage has been used on 1,000 patients to date. At the Full Circle Fund Therapies clinic at St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, they are using reflexology, massage therapy and relaxation training. Professor Ted Gordon-Smith, professor of haematology there, said that the
“Full Circle Fund therapy team has made a fantastic difference to the wellbeing of our patients.”
There are other citations.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I know, having been a Health Minister, of my hon. Friend’s assiduous commitment to this cause. He mentioned the noble Baroness Jowell. Does he agree that, with the sight of her and the Prime Minister together embracing, the Prime Minister’s announcement of £40 million for brain cancer is good news and that that is being done in the spirit of cross-party commitment to tackling disease? It will give a lot of hope to that community.
On the point about alternative therapies, does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that the medical community and, through the Government, the National Institute for Health Research do the research to examine those therapies? Although they might not be rooted in a tradition of empirical science, if there is data that shows that they help patients’ recovery time, that is worthy of consideration.
David Tredinnick
My hon. Friend has helped me on my path. Various trials have taken place: randomised control trials, observational studies and quality-of-life studies. The person who came up with the notion of evidence-based medicine, Professor Sackett, said:
“The practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence”.
In plain language, that means, “You have to look at the patient and see what the patient thinks and what the patient’s experience is.” We are often told by Ministers and others that we need more evidence—that there must be evidence. The trouble is that when evidence is produced on the basis of proper trials, it is often ignored.
The subject on which I have chosen to focus this afternoon is healing—therapeutic touch; call it what you like. There is very good evidence that people are able to use their hands to transfer some kind of energy. I have studied reiki myself—I have done it twice—as well as another Japanese tradition. I once ended up speaking to 5,000 therapists at a conference in Japan, believe it or not, many years ago.
According to Cancer Research UK, a study conducted in 2007 found that up to 40% of people in America used some kind of what they termed spiritual healing. In this country, there is good evidence to suggest that seeing a healer helps people. In the UK, long-term hormone therapy for women with breast cancer can be enhanced and patients can be helped if they are given healing therapy for the side-effects of their treatment. A study showed that a number of women who were given the therapy for 10 weeks experienced fewer side-effects.
In the national health service, there was a two-year trial involving 200 hospital patients with long-standing illnesses. It was the largest clinical trial of its kind, and was funded by the national lottery and supervised by the University of Birmingham, a Russell Group university known for its first-rate research. The methodology was used to assess the effectiveness of healing in dealing with irritable bowel system and inflammatory bowel disease in 200 patients. After the assessment, the Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile showed a significant improvement after six, 12 and 24 weeks.
That trial was scientific and properly carried out, and I think that if healing worked for those problems, it would almost certainly work for cancer. I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that if a drug showed the same results, especially at such minimal costs, it would be recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. More research and trials are needed.
Some of the Government’s efforts to bring about more rigorous assessments of therapies have involved the Professional Standards Authority, which was set up to oversee the UK’s nine health and care professional regulatory bodies. It was previously known as the Council for Healthcare Regulatory Excellence. In February 2013, it launched a Government-backed accredited register scheme. There are now 24 accredited registers covering 31 occupations and 80,000 practitioners. They include the Association of Child Psychotherapists, the British Acupuncture Council, the British Association of Sport Rehabilitators and Trainers, the Federation of Holistic Therapists, the National Hypnotherapy Society, and many others. In its summary, Harry Clayton, chief executive of the Professional Standards Authority, said that
“a key recommendation is for practitioners”
whom the PSA is regulating
“to have the authority to make direct NHS referrals—in appropriate cases—thereby reducing the administrative burden on GP surgeries.”
I ask the Minister to take note of that: it is saying that practitioners on that PSA register should have the authority to make direct NHS referrals. If that were possible, we would bring into the service 30,000 practitioners.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to figure out how long I have been speaking for; perhaps you can guide me.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I can guide the hon. Gentleman: about 11 minutes to date, but he has taken a few interventions. Therefore, I am not compelling him to sit down, but I am sure he will conclude quite soon.
David Tredinnick
I conclude by saying that I am encouraged that Leicester’s hospitals have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Affiliated Hospital of Nantong University in China. The agreement intends to promote co-operation on medical research, training and education between the institutions.
I have used Chinese medicine for 20 years, and I believe—from that and from the testimonials I have received—that the use of acupuncture to increase the flow of energy in the body and the use of herbal medicine dramatically increase the sense of wellbeing of those who suffer from cancer and frequently extend their lifespan. I commend the hospitals of Leicestershire for discussing this with the authorities in China, to look at the possibility of training therapists in Chinese therapy. I rest my case.
Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), who made an interesting speech. I also thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this important debate.
We all know someone who has had, or has been affected by, cancer. My family is no exception: both my parents had cancer and my husband lives with cancer every day of his life, and I could talk about cancer forever—but, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will try to limit myself to the recommended time.
The cancer strategy sets out strategic priorities and recommendations that aim to improve radically the outcomes that the NHS delivers for people affected by cancer, yet we also know that the specific needs of blood cancer patients are not being fully met by the cancer strategy. That is primarily because the experience of blood cancer patients is different from that of solid tumour cancer patients, so general cancer services are not always effective in meeting their needs.
These unmet needs occur in a number of priority areas identified in the cancer strategy, including awareness and early diagnosis, patient experience, living with and beyond cancer, access to new treatments and research, and NHS commissioning. Today, I want to focus on one particular issue: the need to improve post stem cell transplant care for blood cancer patients. This issue overlaps with a number of the aforementioned priority areas: patient experience, living with and beyond cancer, and NHS commissioning.
It is estimated that by 2020 there will be more than 16,000 people in the UK living post transplant, many of whom will be experiencing both physical and psychological side-effects from their treatment which can last for months or even years. The side-effects can include graft versus host disease, second cancers, infertility, depression, isolation and post-traumatic stress disorder.
Unfortunately, we know that there are worrying gaps in the care and support available to stem cell transplant patients after treatment. It is particularly concerning that only half of those who need psychological support actually receive it. The same is true for practical support: one in five are not offered any specialist care to help with elements of their physical recovery. These statistics are reflected in the experiences of many blood cancer patients, who feel that the level of support available to them falls away when they are sent home after their transplant. They feel that they have no one to talk to about the effects of the transplant, the challenges of late complications, the psychological burden of living with and beyond cancer and its treatment, their dietary needs, their infertility problems or practical issues such as when they can start to resume the everyday activities that they enjoyed before their treatment started.
This is happening because the commissioning of post transplant services is simply not working for every patient. After 100 days, responsibility transfers from NHS England to the clinical commissioning groups, but evidence suggests that this arbitrary cut-off can lead to fragmentation and gaps in the care and support offered to patients. To remedy this situation, there must be a review of the 100-day cut-off, as well as of the care currently provided to patients after a stem cell transplant, to ensure that all patients can access the support they need. This includes ensuring that all patients have access to appropriate emotional and psychological support services and to a clinical nurse specialist or the equivalent model of support, both of which are pledges in the cancer strategy.
This issue very much ties into what the cancer strategy says about the commissioning of cancer services being “highly fragmented”. The strategy recommended
“setting clearer expectations, by the end of 2015, for how cancer services should be commissioned”,
and as we head rapidly towards 2020, it is important that we continue to work hard to resolve the confusion that still exists. I hope that the Minister will be able to update us on how work in that area is progressing. I have outlined just a few of the priority areas where much more needs to be done to ensure that blood cancers and the needs of blood cancer patients are appropriately addressed by the cancer strategy. I believe that thorough and robust action in these and a number of other key areas will have a significant impact on outcomes for blood cancer patients, improving care on their journey from diagnosis to treatment and through to recovery.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I am delighted to be taking part in today’s debate. I know that this is an important area for the Government. I congratulate the members of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer on securing time for the debate today. Since 2010, the Government have recognised the need to improve cancer services offered by the NHS and to make the UK a world leader in cancer research, diagnosis, treatment and care. Many innovations have been introduced, including the cancer drugs fund and the implementation of the independent cancer taskforce’s strategy. Cancer survival rates are at a record high, and access to the world’s leading cancer drugs continues to improve. It is clear that a lot of great work is already being done.
I would like to focus specifically on breast cancer. It has been a real honour for me to be co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer for the past three years. This has given me the chance to meet and work with a range of really inspirational people, from patients through to clinicians. It is great to see two former chairs of the group representing both Front Benches here today. During his time as chair, the Minister in particular did some really good work on age-related risk, and it is good to see that he is carrying that on. I hope that we will be able to tempt him to talk about some of the work he is doing when he speaks later.
As we know, breast cancer is the UK’s most common cancer, with 11,500 women and 80 men dying from the disease every year. That said, great strides are being made in diagnosis and treatment, leading to survival rates doubling in the past 40 years. One of the key recommendations in the cancer strategy is on early diagnosis, with a target that, by 2020, 95% of patients will be diagnosed and receive results within four weeks. I want to concentrate my remarks on an area that is critical to achieving that ambition and that is often referred to as the biggest breast cancer risk that women are not aware of—namely, breast density.
During my work with the APPG, issues surrounding breast density have become clear, particularly the increased risk and the masking of cancers in mammography. Mammograms are obviously the main method of national screening and, while considered the gold standard, evidence shows that they are not as effective for women with dense breasts. Before I move on, it is important to understand the implications of breast density. It is not uncommon, with 40% of women aged over 40 having dense breast tissue. Although it is completely normal to have, it is also a well-established predictor of developing breast cancer. Women with the highest density are between four and six times more likely to develop the disease than those with less dense breasts.
The challenge is that tumours show up as white on a mammogram, but so does the dense tissue, meaning that the cancer is missed in more than 50% of cases. To illustrate the significance of that, it is useful to recount a couple of examples given to me by patients that highlight the importance of the issue and the differences in approach by country. One lady living in the UK underwent mammogram screening from 2004 to 2012, receiving a clean bill of health each time. Shortly after her fourth mammogram, she found a lump, which was later found to be 7 cm in size and had been missed for over 10 years due to her breast tissue being 75% dense. She underwent a mastectomy and, as a result of her illness, was forced to give up her business. Six years later, she continues to undergo breast construction surgery. Compare that experience with that of another patient I met who lives in France. In 2016, her first ever mammogram was clear. However, as she was also diagnosed as having dense tissue, she was immediately referred for an ultrasound scan, which revealed an 8 mm invasive tumour. As a result of the early detection, she received minimal treatment and an extremely positive outcome. Sadly, the first experience is not unusual, with 3,500 breast cancers going undetected each year in the UK alone.
I am aware that there is a global movement to educate not only women, but also health professionals about the implications of density, with a view to ultimately saving lives by promoting earlier diagnosis, so that tumours can be found when they are small. In the USA, 30 states have passed legislation to provide women with some level of information on breast density, detailing the increased risk they face and how effective mammograms are likely to be for them. Having raised it with the Minister previously, I know that he has a great deal of interest in this area, and it is pleasing that some action is already being taken in the UK, with the Government commissioning research from the University of Warwick. However, clear evidence shows that high breast density eclipses family history as a risk factor for actually developing breast cancer.
What are the solutions? In an ideal world, the answer would be to change screening guidelines and offer further screening to those women at risk. For changes on this scale, I appreciate that we need to await the outcome of the research so that long-term decisions can be reached, but a relatively straightforward solution can be achieved right now. We should not ignore the breast cancer experts in the UK, who are already educating about breast density, as there is a definite need to promote awareness not only to women, but health professionals, including GPs, who are the usual first port of call for women concerned about their health. The simple task of educating about breast density can potentially promote more positive health outcomes, lead to less harsh treatments, reduce mastectomies, avoid secondary cancers and, ultimately, save lives.
In conclusion, I have learned an awful lot about breast density over the past two years, and I would like to think that more people will be informed about its potential impact as a result of today’s debate. However, the following questions remain. Do the women in your family or among your friends know the risk from breast density? Does your mother, wife, sister or daughter know that a clear mammogram may not actually be clear? Those potentially life-saving pieces of information should be available to every single woman to ensure that the Government’s excellent ambition to deliver world class cancer outcomes and even better cancer survival rates can be achieved.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), who reminds us of the importance of using the expertise and knowledge we have in the system to accelerate improvements in outcomes.
I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who I know is disappointed not to be here, for securing the debate and for his time and dedication in chairing the all-party parliamentary group on cancer so well and so impressively over the past nine years.
This debate focuses on the cancer strategy and the current challenges it faces. It is important to reflect on the positives, too. In the space of my lifetime, the progress on understanding, diagnosing and treating cancer has been remarkable. In the 1950s, there was limited knowledge of cancer and of the associated risk factors, the NHS had only recently emerged and there was no co-ordinated plan to treat cancer. We have come a very long way since those early days.
Cancer survival rates have doubled in the UK since the 1970s, which is a real credit to the countless health professionals, researchers, volunteers, charities and, of course, patients who have pioneered progress and who continue to do so every day. It is because of them that we are where we are today, where a person in the UK is more likely to survive cancer than to die from it.
However, massive challenges remain. My constituent Maggie Watts came to see me after losing her husband, Kevin, to pancreatic cancer in 2009. It is her fault that I have ended up as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pancreatic cancer—thank you, Maggie. Kevin’s mother died of pancreatic cancer 40 years earlier, and the shocking thing is that Kevin’s chances of survival were no better than his mother’s. In most parts of life, the world has moved on rapidly in 40 years, but it has not done so in that part. In fact, at less than 7% in the UK, pancreatic cancer has the worst five-year survival rate of the 20 most common cancers, with the UK ranked 26th out of the 27 EU countries, according to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Sadly, pancreatic cancer is on course to become the fourth biggest cancer killer by 2026, so action is needed now.
George Freeman
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we are to tackle such cancer outliers, it is vital that, as well as the great research we do in the UK, we make sure that the NHS is better at adopting and taking up innovative medicines? A large part of the accelerated access review, the genomics programme and the informatics programme is about making sure that the NHS is capable not just of doing the research but of enlightened procurement to take up more quickly the drugs that work.
Nic Dakin
Absolutely, and I will come on to that later.
As the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who introduced the debate so well, pointed out, we are now almost halfway into the five-year implementation plan of the Government’s cancer strategy for England. At this mid-point, there are concerns about the rate of progress being made, and the workforce plan is not yet as effective as we would wish.
For example, as the Royal College of Pathologists has said, it can take up to 15 years to train a pathologist. Pathology services are unable to recruit to vacant posts today, and it is anticipated that a third of consultant histopathologists will retire in the next five years, which is just one example of the challenges we face.
The lack of workforce capacity must be addressed to change survival outcomes for pancreatic cancer patients. It would be good if the Minister were able to update us on what his Department is doing to prioritise workforce planning and to provide the funding needed, based on England’s cancer workforce plan.
Fast access to quick and accurate diagnostic tests is also crucial. Many pancreatic cancer patients are diagnosed too late, when surgery—the only curative option—is no longer available. The early diagnosis inquiry by the all-party parliamentary group on pancreatic cancer, “Time to Change the Story,” heard anecdotal evidence from a healthcare professional that a CT scan can be done quite quickly but that the report can sometimes take 10 weeks. It would be helpful if the Department were able to respond to the recommendations of the all-party group’s report and to update us on the progress being made in that area.
The diagnosis of not only pancreatic cancer but other cancers, such as blood cancer, can be complex because symptoms such as back pain or tiredness are often misunderstood or misdiagnosed. Delays in blood cancer diagnosis can have a major impact on a patient’s quality of life and overall outcome, and earlier diagnosis would make a difference for many, but not all, blood cancers. To change this, recommendations for early diagnosis in the cancer strategy should be reviewed to ensure that all people with blood cancer are benefiting from early, accurate diagnosis. GPs could be encouraged to ask for a simple blood test for people displaying one or more blood cancer symptoms.
Diagnostic techniques also have the potential to guide what treatment options are likely to be effective. Last month, NICE provisionally rejected the use of five tumour profiling tests to guide treatment decisions on whether patients with a particular type of early breast cancer should also receive chemotherapy following surgery, reversing its previous guidance recommending Oncotype DX as an option. This goes to the heart of the point made by the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) about using genomics effectively and precisely. Breast Cancer Now is concerned that this could be a backwards step for some breast cancer patients, especially in the context of the current cancer strategy’s welcome ambition to enable more personalised treatment.
George Freeman
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that on this subject of accelerated, earlier diagnosis and treatment, the work of the Institute of Translational Medicine in Birmingham, led by Professor Charlie Craddock, and the Cure Leukaemia team, working on blood cancers, has written the playbook on how we do early diagnosis? They have pulled in £200 million of free drugs for NHS patients by doing accelerated access.
Nic Dakin
There is some wonderful work going on, and this goes back to what the hon. Member for North Warwickshire said about the need to grab this wonderful work and move it forward, and not be held back by frameworks that are not quick enough to move with the times.
The ability to personalise treatment based on tumour profiling, which would allow many women to avoid the gruelling side effects of chemotherapy, is an essential part of improving patient care and has the potential to reduce costs associated with chemotherapy—that is a win-win. It can also give both clinicians and patients invaluable reassurance that they may safely not have chemotherapy, thus reducing overtreatment. NICE has not communicated clearly enough the reasons behind provisionally rejecting the future use of the Oncotype DX tumour profiling test, as it is unclear whether this is a result of additional clinical evidence, the cost or a combination of both. Will the Minister ask NICE to clarify the clinical and economic drivers behind the recent provisional rejection of tumour profiling tests to guide treatment decisions in a specific group of breast cancer patients?
The cancer strategy calls on Public Health England to continue to invest in “Be Clear on Cancer” campaigns to raise awareness of possible symptoms of cancer. Symptom awareness is a big challenge in terms of pancreatic cancer, as well as other cancers. A ComRes poll carried out by Pancreatic Cancer UK in 2017 found that 35% of adults in the UK would not be worried if they had a few of the potential symptoms of pancreatic cancer. Last year, Public Health England launched an exciting regional pilot on vague abdominal symptoms, including persistent diarrhoea, bloating and discomfort. Although the results for the campaign were positive, it has not yet been rolled out nationally. I would be keen to know when the Minister plans a national roll-out of the vague abdominal symptoms “Be Clear on Cancer” campaign.
In conclusion, much has been done and much is happening, but there is much more to do. Cancer alliances have a significant role to play in delivering effective change, and many are clearly making a difference. Workforce planning, early diagnosis and greater symptom awareness are key areas where we need to up our game as we move into the second half of this five-year cancer strategy.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I, too, thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this debate. I would like to take this opportunity to discuss blood cancer in particular.
As many will know, there are different types of blood cancer, ranging from leukaemia, lymphoma and myeloma to the rarest blood cancers, which affect just a few people. Blood cancer is a complex and much misunderstood disease. According to Cancer Research UK, blood cancer is the third biggest cancer killer in the UK and the fifth most common cancer overall, with more than 230,000 people living with blood cancer. Compared with patients suffering from other cancers, those blood cancer patients had to see their GP significantly more times before being referred to hospital. More than 35% had to see their GP three or more times before referral, which compares with only 6% for breast cancer and 23% for other solid tumour types. According to the Office for National Statistics, blood cancer is by far the most common cancer among people aged under 30. Despite that, a number of issues with blood cancer still need to be addressed.
As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) said, diagnosing can be very complex at times. Symptoms such as back pain or tiredness are often misunderstood and diagnosed as other conditions. Delays can lead to major problems for patients in terms of not only their quality of life but the overall outcome. Recommendations in the cancer strategy for early diagnosis should be reviewed to ensure that all people with blood cancer benefit from early and accurate diagnosis. GPs should be encouraged to ask for simple blood tests for people displaying one or more blood cancer symptoms.
The cancer strategy says that all cancer patients will have had access to the recovery package by 2020. The package helps people, once their treatment has ended, to return to their normal lives. It includes a health needs assessment, care planning, health and wellbeing events, and a review of cancer care. However, the package is based around the needs of people with solid tumour cancers. In recent survey responses, people with chronic leukaemia, relapsing myeloma or lymphoma have said that terms such as “beyond cancer” and “post treatment” are not applicable to them. To ensure that people with blood cancer receive sufficient ongoing support, will my hon. Friend the Minister consider how all blood cancer patients can benefit from aftercare support, including by ensuring that the recovery package takes account of the unique characteristics of blood cancer?
Five thousand people a year with some slow-growing blood cancers are put on a regime of watch and wait instead of starting treatment straightaway. Their cancer is monitored for potentially many years before it has progressed to a point where treatment needs to start. Being monitored in this way can be difficult for many patients, and it can lead to psychological distress. Tailored psychological support must be made available to those patients on watch and wait.
Unlike with the treatment of solid tumour cancers, blood cancers are often not treatable through the use of surgery or radiotherapy. This means that blood cancer is more dependent on the development of new drugs and the ability to access them, and those things are very important if we are to continue improving patient outcomes. Continued Government investment in blood cancer research, including in clinical trials infrastructure, is required to capitalise on the UK’s position as a leader in blood cancer research. That will deliver benefits for patients, but it will also help the Government to reach the ambitions outlined in the UK life sciences industrial strategy.
The cancer strategy sets out how clinical leaders should work together in cancer alliances with those affected by cancer to decide how local care and services should be delivered. Despite this ambition, patients often find that services are fragmented, which adds stress to their experience. That can be a particular problem with blood cancer, because patients are often treated in haematology rather than oncology units. Cancer alliances should reduce fragmentation between the different stages of care for blood cancer patients by acknowledging and bridging the recognised gaps between oncology and haematology departments and between primary and secondary care.
To conclude, the cancer dashboard has been developed following a recommendation in the cancer strategy. It allows clinicians and others to compare performance of clinical commissioning groups and to identify areas for improvement. However, it covers only the four most common solid tumour types: lung, breast, prostate and colorectal. That equates to less than half of all cancer cases. Will the Minister provide an assurance that the health service will actively work to include blood cancer in the cancer dashboard, as the fifth most common cancer, and to ensure that decisions about future services do not disregard these patients?
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), who spoke so passionately and knowledgeably for better understanding, treatment and diagnosis of blood cancer.
Like everyone in the House, I could speak about many aspects of cancer, including my own experience. I could speak about the very moving speech made by Baroness Jowell in the other place—a very special moment in Parliament’s history, and one I will always be glad to have been there for, although I am very sad that she had to be there. I could speak about how horrible chemotherapy is and about how deeply a girl can feel the loss of her eyelashes, for example. I could speak about my support for health labelling for alcohol, as so few people are aware of the connections between alcohol and breast, bowel and other cancers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
indicated assent.
Thangam Debbonaire
The Minister is nodding vigorously from a sedentary position, and I hope that means he will support better labelling.
I could speak about how important healthy habits are generally for reducing cancer, and again I ask the Minister to do more to urge people to take up those healthy habits from an early age. I could speak about how all women should learn how to check their breasts properly, because so many have told me that they do not how to do that. I could talk about what I learned last week in CERN, of all places, where the Large Hadron Collider is, about the contribution that that scientific institute has made to improving diagnoses of cancer. I could mention, for instance, the development of the MRI—the magnetic resonance imaging—machine. I spoke to scientists there who, I am glad to say, are doing what they can to reduce the very frightening knocking that happens when a person is inside the machine. However, today, I am going to speak about the patient experience of a very specific group—children and young people with cancer and their families.
I say to those children and young people, their parents, their brothers and sisters, their clinicians and the charities supporting them, who may be listening, that this speech is for you. I pay tribute in particular to CLIC Sargent and the Teenage Cancer Trust and thank them and all the other charities, too numerous to mention, that help children and young people with cancer every day. I want to give a very personal thanks to my sister-in-law Emilie, whose volunteering, fundraising and work for CLIC Sargent is an inspiration to so many and whose personal knowledge has taught me so much.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I am a parent of a child who has had the support of CLIC Sargent. It is not only that the charity supports you from a medical point of view—the people you talk to actually understand what your child and you are going through.
Thangam Debbonaire
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right: these specialist organisations understand not just what the patient is going through, but what the families are going through and how devastating a diagnosis can be. They also know what can be done to help people through it.
I set up the all-party parliamentary group on childhood and teenage cancer last year with the help of CLIC Sargent and the Teenage Cancer Trust, which provide the secretariat, because children and young people living with cancer and their parents told me that they want to have their voices heard in Parliament. I thank the officers, almost all of whom are here, for their work. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami), for High Peak (Ruth George), the hon. Members for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for their support.
Childhood cancers are, thankfully, rare. Just 4,000 children and young people under 25 are diagnosed with cancer each year in the UK, but this rarity means that they are very often difficult to diagnose and, therefore, much more likely than older patients to be diagnosed at emergency at a later stage. That also means that the treatment can be difficult and that children, young people and their parents have to travel a long way for specialist treatment. It can mean that treatment can be particularly and unpleasantly aggressive. There are consequences for children’s education and their future employment. The treatment may also affect their fertility—something that they may not even be thinking about at the time of diagnosis. It may cause a disability. It may set them apart from their friends at exactly the moment when they are just finding out who they are.
In Bristol, the Teenage Cancer Trust provides a specialist ward for teenage cancer patients—I thank everyone who works there. It is able to help teenagers and their parents to get through this difficult time with services that are tailored to their specific needs. CLIC Sargent provides specialist support, which, in Bristol, includes a home—not a house—for children and their families to live in and have care from while they are having treatment for cancer. Indeed, a parent I met when visiting the CLIC Sargent house told me of arriving in Bristol in the morning with nothing—apart from them and their child—expecting just a check-up, and by the evening discovering that their child had cancer and that the treatment was due to start immediately. The CLIC Sargent social worker in that case can explain what the house does and what the facilities are and help to guide people who are suddenly dealing with not only a really traumatising experience, but having no food, no clothes and no supplies for the next few days.
Two years ago, the “Cancer costs” report, the parliamentary launch of which I had the honour of hosting in autumn 2016, identified specific costs for families affected by childhood cancer. I urge the Minister to relook at that—I am sure that he has already seen it. Young people and parents at that launch told me that they wanted a voice, hence the formation of the all-party group. We are launching our first inquiry on Monday, looking at patient experience, and I know that the Minister will want to engage with that process as we go forward.
We want Parliament to better understand the really specific experience of children and young people with cancer and their families and to identify whether their needs are being met and where improvements can be made. For example, there might be suggestions for improvements to cancer diagnosis, post-treatment support, or help with the specific issue of the impact of the diagnosis that my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside mentioned, as well as all the other areas that I have listed.
Many of us here may have had contact with children with cancer or their parents in our constituency work. I say to those people: this inquiry is for you, but it is also about you and with you. Young people, parents and professionals can get involved from Monday by filling in the short online survey on the all-party group’s Twitter feed and website. They can find out more about the inquiry on the webpage if they just google “APPG young cancer”. Our lines of inquiry are also informed by what children, young people and parents have already told us, and we have young people involved in hearing and analysing evidence as well as giving it.
The Government have committed to collecting patient experience data for the under-16s, and research into how that can be undertaken is progressing. We are pleased to hear about that data collection, but I would like the Minister to consider how it might be improved and tell us a bit more about that.
Mark Tami
A few years ago, CLIC Sargent produced a report about children with cancer returning to school. That really highlighted some of the major problems and the lack of guidelines to give teachers a proper understanding. Particularly for children who are very young, it is difficult not only for the child with cancer but for the other children at the school, particularly girls who have seen their friend, who looked perfectly normal, without hair, or something like that. It is a very difficult situation. We need a proper system in place so that those children can be properly included rather than excluded.
Thangam Debbonaire
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know from my experience in my own circle exactly how that can affect not only the young person but their educators. Young people have spoken to me of really different experiences. Some have said that they had good support from their school, while others have been told, rather sadly, that they were upsetting their peers with their hairlessness. I find that really challenging, because a child or a young person with cancer is actually an opportunity for schoolteachers to work with young people on how they can not only support their friends but reduce their own risk through making healthy choices at that point.
I reiterate to all hon. Members in the House and beyond that, if they would like to get involved with the all-party group or this inquiry, they should please get in touch with me. If children, young people, parents or other family members also want their voice heard in the inquiry or in Parliament, they can contact the group or me, or their own MPs. I hope that the Government, and Parliament generally, will be willing to hear the voices, needs and experiences of children and young people with cancer, and their families. I am sure that everyone here is committed to that, but we really must actually do it.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for securing this debate. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) in her passionate and very well-informed speech.
We all have loved ones who have been affected by cancer. I lost my maternal grandparents to breast cancer and oesophageal cancer. Many in my family have suffered from melanoma, including my mother, and one of my friends is currently battling cancer. We have all heard harrowing stories from constituents. Cancer is indiscriminate: it does not care whether you are young or old, or someone’s mother or brother. Yes, we can make dietary and lifestyle changes to try to avoid it, and be aware of the symptoms, but advances in medicine mean that we can fight it more effectively and detect it earlier to increase the odds of survival, although there are still no guarantees.
Cancer survival rates are at a record high, with about 7,000 people alive today who would have not have been had mortality rates been the same as in 2010. This is a fantastic step in the right direction, but we are not at our destination. That is the point that I want to labour. For all those who lose their mother or child or friend today and hear of this debate, I want them to know that the Government, and all MPs, do “get it”. We get that we are on the right track, but equally that there is a long way to go, because cancer is still the most dangerous serial killer that remains at large in our communities. That is why we must continue to prioritise this area.
The formation of the £1.2 billion cancer drugs fund in 2010 was a massive step forward and has helped more than 95,000 people to access the life-extending drugs that they need, as was the implementation of the independent cancer taskforce’s strategy, seeking to save a further 30,000 lives by 2020. As I said, we are on the right track. In 2010, we had some of the worst survival rates in Europe, but we are now closing that gap. Last year, there were 7 million more diagnostic tests than in 2010, and 57,000 more patients started cancer treatment.
When it comes to cancer, prevention is key. I welcome the increased investment in cancer research by the National Institute for Health Research since 2010 and the work that the Government have done with Cancer Research UK, including a jointly funded network of 18 experimental cancer medicine centres aimed at driving the development and testing of new anti-cancer treatments.
I would like to draw attention to the high uptake of the HPV vaccination among teenage girls, which can prevent around 600 cancers per year and 99% of cervical cancer cases. I have spoken before in the Chamber on Public Health England’s tobacco control plan, which aims to usher in the first smoke-free generation by 2022.
Improving diagnosis is equally essential. Public health campaigns such as “Be Clear on Cancer” are vital to raise awareness of early symptoms, especially of less common cancers. Crucially, the £200 million that has been invested to ensure that patients receive a diagnosis or the all-clear within 28 days by 2020 will make a huge difference.
That would have benefited my constituent, whose symptoms were initially dismissed as irritable bowel syndrome. She then waited a long time for testing. She is now terminally ill with bowel cancer, but inspiringly, she is trying to work hard every day to raise awareness and help others to get diagnosed quickly. Nearly everyone will survive bowel cancer if diagnosed early—in fact, nine in 10 people—yet shockingly and sadly, only 15% of people are diagnosed at that stage.
George Freeman
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is making a powerful point. On early diagnosis, prevention and screening, the 100,000 Genomes Project that we launched here in the UK, focused on cancer and rare diseases, is seeking volunteers for genome sequencing to combine with patient data, to identify people at risk. That is a brilliant way for people to get involved, and if anyone is concerned, they should contact the NHS and enrol. We still need another 50,000 patients, and that is a marvellous way of getting access to early diagnosis. Does she agree?
Michelle Donelan
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to cover that, so I am delighted that he has.
I welcome the new bowel cancer test, the faecal immunochemical test, known as FIT, which will be rolled out in April. It is more sensitive and accurate and can detect twice as many cancers as the current test. Currently only half of those invited to take part in bowel cancer testing do, but FIT is proven scientifically to increase the number participating in the programme, especially as it is easier and more hygienic to post than the current test.
However, new awareness of symptoms, coupled with the new test and the ageing population, is leading charities within the sector to voice concerns of a looming endoscopy workforce crisis. Bowel Cancer UK and Beating Bowel Cancer question the realism of getting 400 non-medical clinical staff by 2020 to carry out the 450,000 procedures, especially as only 48 have been trained so far. I would like to hear more from the Minister in response to that, so that my constituent can be assured that others may be diagnosed earlier than she was.
A key issue when it comes to beating cancer and preventing cancer is getting screened regularly when applicable. That is especially the case with cervical cancer. The NHS cervical screening programme in England offers screening to women aged 25 to 49 every three years and women aged 50 to 64 every five years. Every year in the UK, around 3,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer, but research shows that the number of women using the service has dropped to a 20-year low, with more than 1.2 million not attending their screening in the last year. A recent report by Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust showed that embarrassment is a key barrier to attendance for between a third and a half of all women, as is the desire not to miss work. There is also a severe lack of understanding about the importance of screening. Shockingly, one in three women aged between 25 and 29 miss their smear, yet cervical cancer is the most common cancer for women under 35. We must address this.
I note that Imperial College has conducted a trial to assess the effectiveness of texting non-responders to improve coverage, but I think that we should just do this—it can only help. I also welcome the fact that the Department of Health and Social Care’s behavioural insight team has undertaken a trial to investigate the use of behavioural insights to optimise the content of the invitation letter for cervical screenings.
I must admit that I was one of these women: I put off my screening for years. I left it at the bottom of my to-do list until I could fit it in around my job, and it just kept slipping year on year. I must admit, if I am honest, that I really did not realise that cervical cancer is most common in women under the age of 35. When I did have my screening, I had to go through the processes necessary after abnormal cells show up. As my results showed high-grade abnormalities, I am extremely thankful that I went when I did. I want to take this opportunity to praise the work of Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, which provides women with information and support, which I found extremely helpful.
We seem to be very British about cervical smear tests. We do not really like to talk much about them, and that does not promote women going for them. Yes, it is not nice—it hurts a little, it is awkward and a bit embarrassing —but it could save your life. That is the message we need to get out. We need to promote cervical screening from school age, so that women recognise all the risks and the importance of going from the age of 25.
In September and October 2017, Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust sent freedom of information requests to all upper-tier and unitary local authorities and clinical commissioning groups in England to ask what activities they had undertaken to increase cervical screening coverage from August 2016 to August 2017, along with the outcomes of those activities. Of the 149 local authorities that responded, 32% had not undertaken any activities at all. I ask the Minister to commission a review—and to adopt a strategy to increase the falling rate of cervical screenings—looking at availability and the challenges of reaching all women and at the need for awareness of cervical cancer.
To conclude, Macmillan claims that, by 2020, 47% of people will get cancer at some point in their life, which is almost one in two. That is the scale of the problem we face. While we have come so far since 2010 in terms of diagnosis and treatment, there is still so far to go.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for bringing about this debate, which matters hugely to a lot of people.
Most of the speakers today will talk about the facts, figures and statistics, but I will talk about the impact of cancer on people behind the statistics. A lot of us in the Chamber have been affected by cancer. My daughter died at just 35 of breast cancer, and I will talk about cancer from a patient’s perspective. One in eight women develop breast cancer in their lifetime, and 80% survive for five years or more. About 95% of women will survive for one year, and my daughter survived for 13 months. Recent data show that 11,500 women and 80 men in the UK still die from breast cancer every year.
My Lynsey was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer in April 2010, and she died just 13 months later. She was a very bright girl, with a degree in politics and a degree in social work, and she worked with underprivileged children. She had a husband and three small children, who were two, four and seven when she died. She was treated at Nottingham City Hospital under Dr Steve Chan—she had chemotherapy, radiotherapy and a mastectomy—and her treatment was just amazing. The staff just could not have been better. She came home for the final three weeks of her life to die, and the unqualified team that came in to support me and her husband, Mike, were just amazing as well. I can never thank them enough.
I want to talk a little about the information that Breast Cancer Now, a charity, has made available to me. I am an ambassador for it, because I decided that one of the things I wanted to do when I got elected was to be an ambassador for a breast cancer charity. It has said that
“it will be challenging to meet the objectives set out in the Cancer Strategy unless corrective action is immediately taken”.
My Lynsey’s cancer was advanced—it was stage 3 when diagnosed, so screening probably would not have helped her. The Breast Cancer Now report states:
“Breast screening is a key initiative to ensure the early detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Although controversy still exists around over-diagnosis, its benefits are recognised to outweigh its risks in the Cancer Strategy, in detecting 30% of breast cancers and saving 1,300 lives a year from breast cancer.”
The report also talks about a shortage of staff—32% of radiologists are expected to retire between 2015 and 2025.
My daughter developed a brain tumour—a common secondary effect of breast cancer—and she had to go for radiotherapy. It is truly traumatic. She used to see flashing blue and white lights; she had to wear a mask. The really upsetting thing was that because of staff shortages, she often had to lie around on a trolley waiting for things. Imagine what it is like laying on a hospital trolley with cancer in your bone and metastasis—it is just so distressing. That is the effect on patients of short staffing. It is just a phrase in a report, but that is what it really means.
Breast Cancer Now’s report states:
“We are also concerned about the lack of access to Clinical Nurse Specialists for secondary breast cancer patients: only 21% of organisations in England, Scotland and Wales report having one or more CNS dedicated to secondary breast cancer. We know that access to a CNS can make a big difference to the way people with cancer experience their care, providing patients with support and helping them manage their symptoms. This is especially important for patients—
those like my Lynsey—
“with incurable secondary breast cancer who have particularly complex needs.”
Finally, Breast Cancer Now also said:
“We have serious concerns about the future of the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey as a result of the introduction of a new opt-out model scheduled in May 2018. The CPES has been a key driver of the improvements in cancer patient outcomes and experience since 2010.”
It is the aspiration of Breast Cancer Now that by 2050, everybody who develops breast cancer will live. I used to say to my daughter, “I’ve had so much of my life, more than you. I wish it could be me.” She used to say, “Mum, I wish it could be no one.” As parliamentarians we have power to influence things and change them, so perhaps we can join together across the House and make Breast Cancer Now’s vision a reality, so that by 2050, nobody need die of breast cancer.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for opening this debate on behalf of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), and I pay tribute to his excellent work over many years as chair of the all-party group on cancer. I am delighted to support this debate, and as someone who has always taken a key interest in cancer strategy, I wish to highlight three issues. Pancreatic cancer has been well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), so I will refer to it only briefly. I also want to mention transformation funding and make a plea to the Minister, and I will say something about advance radiotherapy—a hobbyhorse of mine.
As hon. Members may be aware, I have recently recovered from a reoccurrence of lymphatic cancer, so I have first-hand knowledge of the importance of getting the cancer strategy right, not least in terms of early diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Delivering the recommendations set out in the cancer strategy is crucial to improving care and support for thousands of people affected by cancer. I do not seek to make a party political point about the nature of that policy, but essentially it requires resources, a plan, a strategy and commitment.
Sadly, pancreatic cancer has taken friends of mine, and it is particularly nasty. It has the worst five-year survival rate of the 20 most common cancers at less than 7% across the UK—a figure that has hardly changed over the past 40 years. In most other types of cancer, survivability has gone up. For pancreatic cancer, however, it has remained fairly flat. We urgently need investment and action, because pancreatic cancer is set, on current trajectory, to become the fourth biggest cancer killer by 2026. Currently, 80% of pancreatic cancer patients are diagnosed at the stage where the disease is advanced. Surgery is the only potential curative treatment, but sadly it is not an option when the disease is at an advanced stage. As far as I am aware, pancreas transplants are not an option. Early diagnosis is therefore absolutely key to improving the appalling survival rates and ensuring that patients are able to live longer following diagnosis.
I looked up the figures for my own area. Between 2010 and 2014, pancreatic cancer took the lives of 188 people in the Easington, Durham dales and Sedgefield clinical commissioning group area. It is clear that much more work is needed to deliver the kind of change we must see for the people affected, and their families, so we can achieve the improvements in survival rates that are so desperately needed.
Not long ago, I had the pleasure of visiting a local National Citizen Service group of young volunteers in my constituency—I think many Members have taken similar opportunities. The House might be interested to note that one group of young people were raising money for a chemotherapy ward because of their personal and family experiences. They thought that the facilities available were inadequate. This was because the ward, although filled with excellent and committed staff, was grappling with an increase in demand and a lack of funds. These young people raised enough money to buy an assortment of things, including floor fans to keep the patients cool. It is an indictment that, when we are putting additional money into the recovery fund and encouraging people to get through the treatment and to go on, we are relying on charitable donations.
At the Britain against Cancer conference 2016, the chief executive of NHS England announced £200 million of funding for treating cancer, along with improving early diagnosis and funding stratified pathways. The money was intended to support the roll-out of the recovery package. However, since this transformation funding was announced, there have been significant delays in its reaching cancer alliances, with only nine of 16 alliances having received funding. At the Britain against Cancer conference in December 2017, the Secretary of State for Health said that the release of funding to cancer alliances would be delayed in areas that were unable to demonstrate an improvement in their 62-day waiting time standard. That was an additional requirement that had not been included as part of the original criteria set during the bidding process.
Every person diagnosed with cancer—it does not matter where they live—should be able to rely on timely diagnosis and treatment when they are told they have cancer. However, as the final report from the all-party group on cancer’s inquiry concluded, the delayed release of funding to the cancer alliances has had a significant impact on their ability to make progress. I hope the Minister is paying attention, because I want to ask him a question.
Grahame Morris
I am very glad to hear it, because this is a serious point. The Department of Health and Social Care must decouple the release of transformation funding to cancer alliances from progress against the 62-day waiting time standard. I hope the Minister will address that point in his remarks. [Interruption.] I look forward with anticipation to his remarks.
It would not be a contribution on health from me if I did not mention advanced radiotherapy. I have raised regularly its benefits and advocated further investment in its research. Investment and research, given the cost, should be evidence-based, but there are some really quite exciting areas: in particular, proton beam therapy—I visited University College Hospital in London for part of my treatment and saw the installation of the proton beam therapy bunker and equipment there; stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy; adaptive radiotherapy based on advanced imaging—a kind of magnetic resonance linear accelerator; combinations of radiotherapy and novel drugs; biomarkers with selections for altered radiotherapy strategies so that radiotherapy can precisely target the cancer cells; and molecular radiotherapy. It is necessary that we evaluate the use of these new radiotherapy techniques and compare them with conventional radiotherapy and some surgical techniques, as radiotherapy is sometimes more effective than surgery and pharmaceutical products. I am advocating that they be used not instead of, but alongside other treatments and following considerable evaluation. This could result in better outcomes and reduced treatment costs.
Finally, I would like to thank all my colleagues on the all-party group on cancer, the cancer charities that continue to do excellent work and all those in our national health service working in cancer prevention and treatment.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing this debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members for their extremely touching, wonderful and very personal contributions. As everyone here can testify, cancer has touched everyone—no family will not be aware of it. In fact, it is said that by 2020 one in every two people will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. My father had cancer three times and each time survived, owing to the skill of the surgeon, the care of the nurses and the prayers he clearly believed in.
We have many problems in Northern Ireland—we all know about the political process—and I am conscious that health is a devolved matter, but I wonder if the Minister could have discussions and co-ordinate with the permanent secretary in the Department of Health, Richard Pengelly, to see if he can help and encourage his Department with the problems facing it. The incidence of cancer in Northern Ireland has increased by 25% in the past 10 years, such that the number of cancer cases each year has reached 9,000 for the first time. That is an indication of the problems.
I thank the many organisations, particularly Macmillan Cancer Support, for the information they have provided to us. There are 2.5 million people living with or beyond cancer in the UK today. The issue is that not all of them are living well: many experience physical, emotional and financial consequences as a result of their treatment. One in four face disability or poor health following their treatment that can persist for many years after treatment has ended, despite the NHS being set up to meet the changing needs of cancer patients and to enable access to the best treatment that is right for patients.
Macmillan is even more conscious of, and concerned about, the financial implications. According to projections in the “Five Year Forward View”, expenditure on cancer services is set to grow by 9% each year, which gives us an idea of some of the issues and takes us back to some of what was said earlier about prevention—I think that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and others referred to prevention. We have had cancer patient experience surveys in Northern Ireland for a while now, and it is important that we are able to see what the trusts and CCGs are doing, what the cancer types are and the different aspects of the cancer journey. In England, the cancer patient experience survey has been happening since 2010 and has been proven to encourage hospitals to implement changes, to improve results. That is very important.
I would be very pleased if the Minister came back to us on the following point. Macmillan is concerned that the NCPES will not continue to deliver the same high-quality data, as the current survey model is not likely to be viable under the terms of the national data opt-out model that is scheduled to be introduced in May 2018. It is clear that Macmillan care has concerns. We have collected all the data and all this information through the clinical commissioning groups. The continuation of the cancer patient experience survey in its current format with high-quality, robust data is vital across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Again, will the Minister provide the clarity that is needed on the issues that have been outlined on the NCPES to ensure the continued delivery of this essential and robust patient survey? The benefits are there in the data. I thank him for that.
About one in eight people diagnosed with cancer face mental health problems, such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Planning is needed to ensure that everyone living with cancer across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can access the right care and support, whether that means information, financial assistance, vocational rehabilitation or emotional support. Families can give so much of that emotional support, and they do so gladly, but at the same time we need to reach outside that.
Just 68% of people with cancer in Northern Ireland started treatment within 62 days of referral. Again, I am very much in the early diagnosis category and we need that in place. Cancer deaths in Northern Ireland are at the highest level that they have ever been. My party is totally committed to improving the five-year survival rates and believes in targeting resources to tackle deprivation, which is another issue. Cancer incidence rates are higher where there is deprivation.
More needs to be done to provide good continuity of care and to ensure that all patients have supported access to key information about their condition, treatment options and the types of support that are available. Macmillan is funding a second Northern Ireland survey that will be launched in spring 2018. It has invested £7 million in the Northern Ireland specialist cancer nursing plan, because this vital segment of the cancer workforce is not keeping pace with demand. Macmillan recognises that there are shortcomings and it has tried to introduce finance where it can to ensure that things go the right way.
Cancer is the most common cause of death in Northern Ireland. The end-of-life choice is very important. The Northern Ireland cancer registry found that 75% of patients would prefer to die at home. That subject matter is not easy to speak about, but the fact is that this needs to be looked at. Macmillan’s research found that people are more likely to die in the place of their choice when their wishes are recorded and known by their healthcare team. We believe that a new cancer strategy should include commitments to improving end-of-life care and giving everyone who is diagnosed with cancer the opportunity to have advance care planning discussions.
Macmillan has made a number of recommendations, which I will conclude with—it is referred to as the “Delivering Together” strategy. I totally support Macmillan’s reforms, such as producing a detailed implementation plan, including specific actions to improve care and support for people living with cancer and to enhance the patient experience in all trusts and CCGs. It recommends making the recovery package available to everyone living with and beyond cancer, the timely adoption and implementation of NICE guidelines to improve cancer detection, treatment and support, and close working with GP federations to ensure that care is provided closer to home.
The recommendations include long-term cancer workforce planning, integrating health and social care with higher education to attain a more knowledgeable and skilled workforce—it is important to have that—and with effective recruitment and succession across disciplines and settings. They include the better integration and co-ordination of all those things as well, including signposting to the non-clinical support that patients need at each stage of their cancer journey and providing high-quality palliative end-of-life care in all settings on a 24/7 basis. That should begin with cancer patients having the option of advance care planning conversations at the earliest possible stage. The recommendations also include increasing the involvement of people affected by cancer in the development, redesign and delivery of services and a commitment to the ongoing routine use of data collection tools, including the cancer patient experience survey and the peer review programme, to identify any gaps or inequalities in cancer care and pinpoint areas for improvement locally and benchmarking across the UK.
I ask the Minister to take on board all the issues we have all referred to and to do what can be done to help the massive amount of cancer sufferers across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so that they have a better journey, a better outcome and better support.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who cannot be with us today, for being proactive in securing the debate this afternoon. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) who stepped in to open the debate in his absence. She raised concerns about targets not being met and the resources available to meet those targets, and reminded us all that those in receipt of treatment must be involved in the ongoing conversations. Their experience is vital in improving the process as we go forward. It is imperative that we improve end-of-life care to offer the dignity that is appropriate at that time.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) spoke eloquently about alternative therapies and the role they can play. I would include in that category—although I am not putting words into his mouth—the investigation into the use of medicinal cannabis. The hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) focused on post-stem cell transplant care and the practical support that is required and asked whether we could review the 100 day cut-off date.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey) spoke about breast cancer, the UK’s most common cancer, with a survival rate that has doubled in the past 20 years. He went on to highlight the question of dense tissue, something that was new to me, and the need for early diagnosis, and he called for better education in this area.
The hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) put out challenges about pancreatic cancer. Although progress has been made, this seems to be an area in which minimal progress has been made over the years. He drew attention to the workforce programme and asked whether NICE could possibly clarify some of its decisions.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) focused on blood cancer and the complexities around diagnosis, and called for continued clinical research. The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) spoke about young people and cancer, and the role played by CLIC Sargent. Today I am proudly wearing my Glow Gold ribbon, given to me by a young man in my constituency this time last year.
The hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) highlighted the desire that the Government prioritise cancer research. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go. She also highlighted the need for early diagnosis, a recurring theme this afternoon. The hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee) spoke movingly about the people behind the statistics, including her own daughter. She also highlighted the reality of staff shortages and what they mean for patients.
The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) spoke of his first-hand knowledge of overcoming cancer, and as many speakers have said, survivors’ experiences should be hugely influential when developing better treatments. Who could possibly have a better understanding?
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned that every family is struck in some way by cancer. He also mentioned the financial implications, and I shall take up that topic later.
Despite our progress cancer remains a lingering, stubborn foe and as policy makers we have to support our respective health services as they seek to improve the treatment that patients receive. We have undoubtedly taken great strides and our progress from a historical perspective is one of steady improvement, but for individuals, months, weeks and even days become precious as they grapple with the uncertainties that this illness brings to their life.
While patients come to terms with the emotional and physical impact of their diagnosis, they must also continue to manage the everyday practicalities of life. Chief amongst these is finances, and research commissioned by Macmillan Cancer Support shows that four out of five people with cancer are, on average, £570 a month worse off as a result of their diagnosis. I believe we can improve that situation by introducing a duty of care for financial services, as that would allow cancer patients to have increased flexibility when dealing with organisations such as their bank.
It is clear that more needs to be done to give cancer sufferers greater security. The introduction of flexibility of mortgage payments, interest freezes on credit cards or signposted financial advice to avoid problem debts are just some of the ways in which banks may be able to assist. I would therefore encourage the UK Government to strongly consider the introduction of a legal duty of care as a matter of urgency, so that those recovering from cancer are afforded greater support.
I hope that, where possible, the different health services across the United Kingdom have satisfactory measures in place for the sharing of best practice. The Nuffield Trust, for example, concluded in a 2017 report that Scotland had a unique system for improving the quality and safety of patient care and that other health authorities in the UK could benefit from the approaches used in Scotland. Mark Dayan, the lead author of the report, stated that Scotland had
“worked on getting its healthcare services to co-operate for longer than the other nations of the UK. So we’re urging healthcare leaders from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to think about what elements they might want to import from Scotland.”
I am sure that those in the Scottish NHS will be watching with interest as the NHS in England continues to implement the Cancer Taskforce’s five-year strategy for cancer care. Shared knowledge is a vital tool for future progress.
Earlier this year, I hosted the world cancer day drop-in event, along with the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It was heartening to listen to Cancer Research UK’s ambassadors and to reflect on the many unsung heroes who assist cancer sufferers or have experienced cancer themselves. I hope that the Government are listening to those in the third sector, because through their effort and commitment they have gathered a huge amount of valuable knowledge.
The hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway talked about blood cancer, and the hon. Member for Bristol West talked about cancer in children. I want to combine the two by telling a story about a young man from my constituency—a very brave young man called Nathan Mowat. Nathan is now at the ripe old age of seven. With the love and support of his mum Gillian, dad Paul and sister Annabel, he has completed three years of treatment for lymphoblastic leukaemia, which he can pronounce a lot better than I can. He has experienced 10 different cocktails of chemotherapy, six bone marrow procedures, three surgeries, 22 lumber punctures, and 16 blood and platelet transfusions. Nathan earns a “bead of courage” for every procedure that he goes through. He has earned 1,500 “beads of courage”. Where Nathan and other brave children have led, others will follow.
I hope that all Members will join me in reaffirming our commitment to three actions: considering legislation that will help to support cancer patients in different aspects of their life, including their personal finances, giving our health services the financial support that they require, and ensuring that the expertise and knowledge of academia around the globe are fully utilised to formulate Government policy.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for leading the debate and for her excellent speech, and I thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing the debate. He is not in the Chamber, but I also want to thank him for the excellent contribution that he has made to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer for many years. His expertise and passion about this matter are what has made the APPG so successful.
I also thank the other Members who have made excellent speeches about this important issue. I thank the hon. Members for Bosworth (David Tredinnick), the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey), with whom I co-chaired the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer—he raised the important issue of breast density, which, as he said, is an issue on which we really do need to make progress—the hon. Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), the Scottish National party spokesman. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher), for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), and for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee). She is no longer in the Chamber, but she made a powerful and emotional speech about her daughter, who would be so proud of her bravery today—as, I am sure, her grandchildren will be. I hope that the whole family were watching the debate today. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), who, I think, has fought cancer twice.
Mrs Hodgson
It is an absolute pleasure to see my hon. Friend in his place. Long may he stay there.
Cancer is, understandably, a very emotional topic. One in two people in the UK will be affected by cancer in their lifetimes, and, as we have heard from almost everyone who has spoken today, we have all been affected in some way ourselves. When my children were very small, I lost my mother-in-law to breast cancer. That is one of the reasons why I joined the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, and I am vice-chair of the group to this day. It is this emotion that encourages us and gets us all to come together to tackle cancer.
Over the years, there has been a steady improvement in cancer survival rates in England. However, we still lag behind the improvements of our European counterparts, and the number of new cancer cases continues to rise year on year. If these trends continue, it is estimated that by 2020 some 2.4 million people in England will have had a cancer diagnosis at some point in their life. That is why the Government must take urgent steps so that cancer diagnosis care and outcomes in England can be improved.
The cancer strategy was a welcome step forward to achieving the best cancer care and outcomes in the world, and Labour is fully committed to delivering, and helping to deliver, that strategy in full. However, as has been mentioned, there are some concerns across the House about the progress of the strategy. I am pleased that some of the targets have already been met, but I am under no illusions—many are no closer to being reached than they were almost three years ago. Will the Minister today commit to publishing a detailed progress update on each of the 97 cancer strategy recommendations by the end of this financial year, so we are all able to celebrate success but also focus our attention on more pressing challenges where needed? There are many challenges that the Government must face before achieving world-class cancer outcomes, but I will touch on only a few today: early diagnosis; waiting times; the workforce; and prevention.
On early diagnosis, we know that if a cancer is diagnosed early, treatment is more likely to be successful, but for cancers such as ovarian cancer and lung cancer it is often too late. The National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service found that over a quarter of women with ovarian cancer are diagnosed through an emergency presentation. Of those women, just 45% survive a year or more, compared with over 80% of women diagnosed following a referral by their GP. I should state at this point that I am chair of the all-party group on ovarian cancer. Similarly, research by the British Lung Foundation found that more than a third of lung cancer cases in England are diagnosed after presenting as an emergency. As a result, the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation found that, if caught early, a person has up to a 73% chance of surviving five years or more. However, the current five-year survival rate for lung cancer is just 10% and, sadly, one in 20 lung cancer sufferers was not diagnosed until they had died. Cancer survival rates have doubled over the last 40 years, but those are shocking statistics. I therefore ask the Minister what his Department will be doing to ensure that cancers are detected even earlier, so that patients are no longer pushed from pillar to post trying to find a diagnosis.
Unfortunately, we know that once a patient has been diagnosed, they then have an agonising wait for treatment. Even if it was a wait of just a week, it would be agonising, but the 62-day target between urgent GP referral and treatment has not been met now for two years, meaning that patients are having to wait much longer than they should for treatment. Since the target was first breached in January 2014, over 95,000 people have waited for more than two months for treatment to start. Cancer patients should not be expected to wait so long. I therefore ask the Minister what his Department is doing to address this issue.
It is no secret that the NHS and the NHS workforce are under extreme pressure due to underfunding and understaffing by this Government. I want to place on record the fact that Labour Members do not take the NHS workforce for granted. We are incredibly grateful to them for their hard work, support and kindness to patients and their families. They are doing an incredible job despite the circumstances we currently find ourselves in, and we should never stop thanking them for the work they do to diagnose, treat and care for patients. The cancer workforce really are the backbone of the cancer strategy.
The improvement of early diagnosis and waiting times relies on an efficient cancer workforce, so the Minister must make these concerns a top priority if the targets in the cancer strategy are to be fulfilled. A report by Macmillan Cancer Support found that more than half the GPs and nurses surveyed in the UK say that, given current pressures on the NHS workforce, they are not confident that the workforce are able to provide adequate care to cancer patients. That is deeply worrying. The NHS workforce should be suitably equipped to diagnose, support and care for cancer patients, during and beyond cancer.
Through my work with the all-party parliamentary group on breast cancer, I have heard—as I am sure the Minister did during his time as the group’s co-chair—of the overwhelming support that a cancer nurse specialist can bring to breast cancer patients and their families. As we have heard, however, patients with secondary breast cancer are unlikely to have access to a cancer nurse specialist. Research from Breast Cancer Care shows that 42% of hospital trusts and health boards in England, Scotland and Wales do not provide dedicated, specialist nursing care for people with secondary breast cancer, even though they often have complex emotional and supportive care needs. Patients with secondary breast cancer are subject to a postcode lottery when it comes to having a cancer nurse specialist. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that every cancer patient has access to a clinical nurse specialist?
There is no doubt that, if the cancer workforce had the time, resources and support they so desperately need, the recommendations in the cancer strategy would be achieved. I know that that is something the cancer workforce plan, published in December last year, aimed to address. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the plan and outline how much funding the Government will be granting to ensure that the proposals in the plan soon become a reality? The NHS cancer workforce care for and support their patients every day, and we really need the Government to support the workforce, too.
Finally, I move on to the first issue raised in the cancer strategy: prevention. The World Health Organisation estimates that a third of deaths due to a cancer are the result of the five leading behavioural and dietary risks: high body mass index; low fruit and vegetable intake; lack of physical activity; tobacco; and alcohol. The subject of alcohol was raised by my amazing hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West. Tobacco was identified as the most important risk factor, responsible for approximately 22% of cancer deaths. Taking all five risk factors into account, it is estimated that between 30% and 50% of cancers could be prevented.
The Government’s tobacco control plan—which the Minister thankfully pushed to be published in his first weeks in the job—and the childhood obesity plan are welcome steps towards reducing the high rate of preventable cancers, but they will not go far enough if the Government continue to slash public health budgets. Will the Minister therefore commit to strengthening public health budgets, so that fit and healthy lifestyles can be encouraged across all our communities and help to contribute to cancer prevention? I know that, like me, he is passionate about making sure that England is one of the world leaders when it comes to cancer outcomes, but we are currently lagging behind. However, with the right funding and support from the Government, the cancer strategy has the potential to achieve that. I hope that he will take on board all that we have heard today and go back to his Department with an action plan of how best to move forward, so that we can really achieve world-class cancer outcomes in 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Steve Brine)
I should like to thank my friend the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), for her remarks. I congratulate the members of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer on securing the debate, in particular the hon. Members for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) and for East Kilbride (Dr Cameron)—I shall leave it at that in describing the hon. Lady’s constituency, lest I make a total fool of myself. As the cancer Minister—Members will know that that is the job I always wanted to do—I thank them for the constant work they do on the all-party group and on the Britain Against Cancer conference. Linked to that, I want to extend my appreciation to the Members on both sides of the House who chair the all-party parliamentary groups on different kinds of cancer for the work they do. Some of them are here today. As has been mentioned, I was a co-chair alongside the shadow Minister and the previous Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole and we were quite a team. We were often referred to as Steve and the girls—I found my inner girl. We chaired the group together for five years and I was so proud to do that. We met some amazing people and I think we did some good.
With the shadow Minister, I was also vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on ovarian cancer—she still chairs that group—so I know how important it is that Parliament allocates time for this subject, both upstairs in the APPGs and here in the Chamber. Looking at how many people are in the Public Gallery and around the Chamber, this is about quality more than quantity. I say to those watching today who may say, “This is a debate on the cancer strategy. This is so important. Why isn’t the House as full as it is for PMQs?”—this is not all about what goes on in here. This is about what goes on in government, what goes on upstairs in the APPGs and Select Committees and, for so many Members, what goes on within ourselves. I did not know the shadow Minister’s motivation for chairing the APPG. I have never said my motivation—I will one day—but I realise now why she was so passionate.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride pretty much summed things up in the first line of the first speech of this debate when she said that we are all “on the same side” when it comes to cancer—what a brilliant way of putting it. The hon. Member for Coventry North East (Colleen Fletcher) talked about her husband, who lives with cancer. Macmillan has been brilliant with some of its communications, and we have all seen the television adverts saying that a mum with cancer is still a mum. There are so many people who are living with and beyond cancer—they call it “survivorship” in America—and we should always remember that.
Let me start by reassuring the House, if I need to, that cancer is a huge priority for me, for the Secretary of State and for this Government. As several Members have said, cancer survival rates have never been higher, and the latest survival figures show an estimated 7,000 more people surviving cancer after successful NHS cancer treatment compared with three years prior. Our aim is to save 30,000 more lives by 2020 through the cancer strategy that we are debating.
However, I know more than anybody that there is still so much more to do and so much potential, which is why we accepted all 96 recommendations in the cancer strategy. We have backed that commitment with over £600 million of additional funding up to 2021. We are now just two years into the implementation of the strategy, and the fantastic NHS cancer doctors and nurses supporting us to achieve our vision have made tremendous progress in many areas. I echo what many Members have said in their support.
The shadow Minister and others asked whether I will report back on how we are doing on all this. In October, NHS England published its “two years on” report on the day that I gave evidence to the all-party parliamentary group on cancer’s inquiry, which led to its report and to this debate. That was our latest progress report, and I hope that we will be doing something again later this year. NHS England’s national cancer director, Cally Palmer, who is based at the Royal Marsden Hospital and is an incredible lady with whom I enjoy working, is leading the implementation of the strategy. She agrees with me that there are many areas where we agree with the APPG’s report. We do not shy away from scrutiny, which is exactly why we are here. However, progress in many areas was not given sufficient prominence in the APPG’s analysis of progress. We said that at the inquiry. It is important that I put that on the record.
The measure of the strategy’s success will of course be about significant improvements in early diagnosis, which I will come on to, and obviously treatment and research. However, I am increasingly aware in this job that we need to make cancer services even better beyond 2020 and that there needs to be a greater focus on a fourth pillar—the “fourth Beatle”, if you like—which is prevention. Of course, we want to be the best in the world at delivering positive outcomes for patients after a diagnosis, but we have to understand the position. Earlier this week, I responded to a Westminster Hall debate attended by Members from Oxfordshire. There has been a 120% increase in the number of people presenting with cancer in Oxfordshire alone in recent years.
The number of people presenting with cancer continues to rise. We can do very well on the first three pillars, and we are, but prevention is where we will really move the dial. That is why my whole mission as the Minister for primary care and public health, a role created by this Health Secretary, has been to put in place a comprehensive system of measures to reduce the risk of cancer, as well as to treat cancer when it occurs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) and the shadow Minister mentioned, one of my first acts as Minister was to launch the tobacco control plan. Why was I so keen to get it out there? Because we promised we would, but also because tobacco is the biggest preventable killer in our country today. The previous Labour Government and this Government have done well with the legislative framework. It is now about supporting local areas to continue bringing down the number of people who smoke from what are already record lows and to ensure that people do not start smoking in the first place.
Last year, we also launched a cross-Government air quality plan, which has been in the news and in the House this week. That plan is important, too, because it will significantly reduce the carcinogens in the air we breathe, which we know has a big impact on the development of disease. Furthermore, in 2016 we published our child obesity strategy, which was just the start of a conversation about how we will reduce child obesity over the next decade. Our overarching focus in all that work is to ensure that our children are supported to live healthy, active and happy lives, so that they grow into healthy, active adults who are less likely to develop cancer. We have always said that the child obesity strategy is constantly under review—it is part one—and we will go further, if needed, to build on that.
As has been mentioned a few times in this debate, perhaps the biggest game changer in preventing cancer is the world-leading work on genomics happening in our country. The chief medical officer’s 2016 annual report, “Generation Genome,” which was published the year before I was appointed, set out the huge potential for genomics in helping us to understand the inherited and acquired genomic causes of cancer and in shaping future research and future personalised cancer treatment, which is so important—it is something we should talk more about, as we should the whole prevention agenda.
Many subjects have been raised today and I am grateful to you, Madame Deputy Speaker, and to Members for giving me time to respond to them. As I suspect she would like me to do, I will give a couple of minutes to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, who opened the debate.
As I have already said, the workforce is key to our strategy. We have already committed to investing in and expanding our diagnostic workforce to improve survival rates by diagnosing cancer earlier. The first ever cancer workforce plan, which Health Education England published in December, set out how we will expand our workforce, how we will continue to invest in the skills of the staff we have, and how we will use their time and expertise where it is most needed.
HEE has already committed to training 746 more cancer consultants and 1,890 more diagnostic and therapeutic radiographers, which we know are in short supply, by 2021. The plan further commits to the expansion of capacity and skills, including 200 additional clinical endoscopists and 300 reporting radiographers by 2021. HEE will also expand the number of clinical nurse specialists, as the shadow Minister rightly mentioned, and develop common and consistent CNS competences, with a clear route into training, to ensure that every cancer patient has access to a CNS or other support worker by 2021—that subject was constantly raised when I chaired the all-party group. HEE will follow the plan later this year with a longer-term strategy looking at the workforce needs beyond 2021.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride and others, including the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), talked about the link between the 62-day standard and the performance and phasing in of transformation funding. Cancer alliances, as the House knows, are an important mechanism for improving performance on the 62-day standard from urgent referral through to treatment. They bring together clinicians from primary and secondary care, as is right—one NHS. They ensure collective responsibility for the cancer services they provide, and they provide the necessary leadership for the transformation of services. So £76 million of funding has already been allocated to the cancer alliances.
It is imperative that the alliances have the operational rigour and readiness to achieve the transformation that we need. After all, our constituents’ money is being allocated. So it is only right and proper, as the Secretary of State made clear in the question and answer session at Britain against Cancer, that the alliances demonstrate their preparedness for this funding. That is not to say that the 62-day standard is a requirement, but it does give a basis on which NHS England and NHS Improvement, along with other senior clinical advisers, can assess an alliance’s readiness to transform services. Transforming services is what we want to do.
Grahame Morris
What happens when cancer alliances do not achieve the 62-day target? It seems completely perverse that individuals suffering from cancer in those areas are penalised by lack of funds from the transformation fund. Is the Minister saying that those cancer alliances can still apply for that funding and measures will be put in place to ensure that they do reach that target?
Steve Brine
Yes, this is not hard and fast. I noted that NHS England has written to me as a constituency MP and to all other MPs today with details of the cancer alliances that they have in their individual areas. I bang on about this every time, as the shadow Minister knows, but I implore Members to engage with their local cancer alliances. I suspect that the people in this debate do that, but I would hazard a guess that many other Members do not. Members should know who the cancer alliances are in their areas and should have a relationship with them.
Let me now discuss CPES, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned, as did the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee). On her speech, let me just say, wow. I said to my officials before this debate that there is always one speech in these debates—the shadow Minister was that person a few weeks ago—who leaves not a dry eye in the House, and today it was the hon. Member for Lincoln. I know she is not in her place now and I do not blame her for that. I think the whole House wanted to run over to give her a hug—many Labour Members did, and bless them for doing that. I think that the House, in its own way, gave her a collective hug, and I say well done to her for an amazing speech.
We totally recognise how important CPES is in our continued drive to improve cancer treatment and care, and to monitor that progress. I have always been clear that I want any future survey to continue to deliver the high-quality data that CPES does. I can tell the House that CPES will continue in its current form in 2018-19. We will engage with the cancer community to ensure that any decisions about future delivery and the model to be adopted, should the commissioning arrangements be revised, are informed by all parties and ultimately protect the integrity of the survey and quality of the data. I saw Dame Fiona Caldicott last week in Oxford and discussed the subject with her. Obviously, her work as the patient data guardian led to the challenge we now have—it was necessary work, but it certainly left us with a challenge. Cally Palmer, the national cancer director, and I will meet all the major cancer charities next week at my second roundtable, and this is on the agenda and we will be discussing it with them. I hope Members know that CPES remains very much at the top of my agenda.
Let me touch on early diagnosis, because everybody else has and because it is one of the most important shows in town. In every conversation I have ever had about how we can beat cancer, I have been told, “Early diagnosis”. Historically, our cancer survival rates have lagged behind the best-performing countries in Europe and around the world. The primary reason for that is, without question, late diagnosis. Sir Harpal Kumar will stand down as chief executive officer at Cancer Research UK shortly, but I had the privilege of having lunch with him a few weeks ago, when I asked him what we should think about in terms of the next cancer strategy. He said, “The rock upon which you build your church is early diagnosis.” I will not forget that, which is why one of the key priorities of the strategy is to diagnose cancer earlier, when the disease is more treatable.
How are we doing that? As part of our drive to ensure early diagnosis, we are also introducing the new 28-day faster diagnostic standard from GP referral to diagnosis or the all-clear. I have often said, and I repeat now, that 28 days is not a target; it is a maximum. I well know that when people have a cancer worry, 28 minutes seems like a lifetime, let alone 28 days. However, the 28-day standard is really important. It will be introduced from April 2020. Five pilot sites have started testing the new clinical pathways to ensure that patients find out within 28 days whether they have cancer or the all-clear.
Today, Public Health England, for which I have ministerial responsibility, has launched its 14th “Be Clear on Cancer” campaign, which focuses on breast cancer in women aged over 70, something monitored by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Craig Tracey)—my excellent successor chair of the all-party group on breast cancer—mentioned. That campaign will run until the end of March. It focuses on age-related risk, encouraging older women to be breast aware, and particularly to be aware of non-lump symptoms, which, understandably, have lower levels of awareness.
The other point I want to make on early diagnosis is that we know that the hardest cancers to detect are those where early symptoms can be vague and often symptomatic of less serious illnesses. Patients often see their GP multiple times before that all-important referral. That is why we are piloting 10 multidisciplinary diagnostic centres as part of wave 2 of what we call the ACE— accelerate, co-ordinate and evaluate—programme. Patients presenting to their GP with vague symptoms can be referred to an ACE centre for multiple tests, one after the other, and receive a diagnosis or the all-clear on the same day. The initial findings are incredibly exciting; I do not get easily excited, but I am excited about this. I had the pleasure of visiting one of the ACE pilots at the Churchill Hospital in Oxford last Tuesday, during recess, and I have to say that the enthusiasm and feedback I got from clinicians and patients about the potential of the ACE centres were really quite incredible. I look forward to seeing the analysis on that work in the coming months.
The shadow Minister talked about emergency room presentations, which are something I was quite shocked by as a Back Bencher when I went to all-party group meetings. It is true that emergency room presentations for cancer are horrible, but that is why the 28-day standard and the ACE centres are so important. When I talk to GPs, they tell me that they will refer and that there will then be a wait. Patients who are, understandably, worried and terrified may then present themselves at an A&E, at which point they may be diagnosed with a primary cancer. That then hits the stats around emergency room presentations for cancer. It does not mean that those people have been carried in; they have often walked in. That all explains why we need to grip early diagnosis better than ever.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) talked about Baroness Jowell’s speech in the other place last month. The Secretary of State was there to listen to the speech, and it was incredibly powerful. Baroness Jowell met the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister this morning. Investment in brain cancer research has been limited by a pretty low volume of research proposals focused on the topic in recent years, and we have been working with charities, academics and the pharmaceutical industry to address that over the last 12 months.
To accelerate our efforts in brain tumour research, the Secretary of State has today announced, alongside Cancer Research UK and Brain Tumour Research, a package to boost research and investment into this most harrowing form of cancer. We have announced £20 million through the National Institute for Health Research over the next five years, with the aim of doubling this amount once new high-quality research proposals become available. CRUK has confirmed it will provide £25 million of its money over five years in major research centres and programmes dedicated to brain tumours. Today’s announcement is incredibly positive.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have listened patiently and, unfortunately, I was not here at the beginning. However, my constituent has a very rare form of cancer. He has had to self-fund his treatment in Germany and Southampton, but he has run out of money. The treatment meant he did not die within the weeks he was given and is now living. However, he needs top-up therapy, and his individual funding request has been refused. Without his treatment, he will not live. Could the Minister look into this case?
Steve Brine
Obviously, I will not comment on the case. I was going to suggest that the hon. Lady gets the clinicians to make an IFR, but she can by all means bring the case to me.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire talked about breast density. The UK National Screening Committee commissioned a Warwick University study to investigate the link between breast density and breast cancer. Once complete, if the review suggests that there should be changes to the national breast screening programme, the UK National Screening Committee, which we work with, will consider that under its modification programme. I am in touch with Breast Density Matters, which is a small charity—small but perfectly formed.
The hon. Member for Coventry North East and others talked about blood cancer. We had a very good Westminster Hall debate last month led by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). As has been said, many patients with blood cancer diagnosis will sadly never be cured; they will be on the regime of watch and wait, often over many years, to see whether the cancer has progressed to a point where treatment needs to begin. That can take a huge psychological toll, which Members have mentioned, on the patient and their families.
By 2020, every patient will receive a holistic needs assessment as part of the recovery package, which is excellent. For the blood cancer patient, their recovery plan will be personalised to take account of the unique characteristics of blood cancer and will include their mental health needs. That is why the Secretary of State announced the additional £1.3 billion last July to expand the mental health workforce. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) made that point very well in his speech—I say this as I am passed a note. I love the notes from the Whips.
Steve Brine
No, I will not, because I want to finish.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway touched on the cancer dashboard, including, yes, rarer cancers. NHS England and Public Health England are currently considering next steps on how we can expand the dashboard. They know that I am frustrated about its being limited to the top four, and I want to see us expand it and do better, and they have had a very clear direction from me on that.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire), as always, spoke brilliantly. What a brilliant advertisement for her all-party group and its inquiry. If there is anything that I can do to help—I do not know about the cost of cancer report, but if she sends it to me, I would love to see it—she knows that she only needs to ask.
The hon. Members for Scunthorpe and for Easington talked about pancreatic cancer. NHS services for pancreatic cancer have significantly improved in recent years, with clearer diagnostic pathways, decision making by specialist multi-disciplinary teams and the centralisation of pancreatic surgery with specialised teams. On 7 February, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence published the final guidance on the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer in adults. This will ensure quicker, I think, and more accurate diagnosis referred to specialist MDTs and better access to psychological support. The hon. Member for Scunthorpe mentioned tumour profiling tests. NICE has made a decision on that. I will get it to write to me with an explanation of that decision, as he has asked, and I will share that with him.
Let me conclude by paying tribute to the staff who do so much, the patient groups and the charities that are working so hard as part of team cancer—we are all on the same team when it comes to cancer—to implement the cancer strategy and to save lives. We are on track to deliver, we think, but we need to make more progress, especially on early diagnosis and looking further forward on the subject of prevention, as I have said. I thank all Members for speaking today. The fight goes on.
Dr Cameron
Today’s debate has been so profound and amazing, with so many personal contributions. I have been absolutely astounded by the breadth and depth of knowledge across the House and the absolute dedication to the cancer strategy right across these Benches. I am assured that we will work together, taking things forward very positively and making a difference.
It is important that we have discussed the fact that cancer cuts across the lifespan and recognise the serious issues for young people and their experience of cancer. We also looked at not just the physical aspects, but the mental health aspects and the support that is required. We talked about the fact that treatment has to be holistic and evidence-based.
I wish to commend the valuable contributions from charities and our NHS staff. To be honest, their support is invaluable because they are on the frontline. I also wish to mention the very personal contribution of the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee). She made such an amazing speech today. I am sure that, given her experience, she will go on to support and assist so many people, and I am delighted that she is a cancer ambassador. I am sure that many people will benefit from that in the future. Once again, I thank her and everybody here today, and I look forward to working with them on this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cancer strategy.
City of London Corporation: Pensions
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I would rather not be here this evening speaking in this Adjournment debate, not because I do not care about the issue very much, and particularly about my constituent, Mr Clifford Bell, but because I believe that it is such a simple matter that it should have been resolved years ago. It has not been, and I gave a commitment to my constituent that I would bring it to the House in an Adjournment debate.
I want to begin by setting out the facts of my constituent’s case before moving on to the problems that I have faced in seeking to resolve it and the relevant basic policy concerned. My constituent Mr Clifford Bell worked for the City of London Corporation as a security and services assistant from December 1989 until he suffered an injury on 6 November 2000. He slipped on a metal screw while walking down some marble stairs, fell, hitting his head, and was knocked unconscious. Mr Bell’s health deteriorated while he was on subsequent ill-health leave, as he went on to suffer from loss of hearing in his right ear, incessantly loud tinnitus, dizziness, loss of balance and a series of blackouts that occurred without warning, four of which led to his hospitalisation.
On 10 December 2001, the City of London Corporation made a claim on his behalf to the Department of Work and Pensions to pay him industrial injury benefits, and he was then assessed by a DWP doctor. In February 2002, he was notified that he had been diagnosed with
“loss of mental equilibrium and loss of neurological function”,
and awarded industrial injury benefits for 12 months before a further examination. He continued to be awarded annual industrial injury benefits until 8 December 2008, when he was adjudged to be qualified to receive industrial injury benefits for life.
On 10 June 2002, Mr Bell met the City of London Corporation about his long-term absence from work and submitted a written application for an early retirement ill-health pension, but he was informed two days later that this was being turned down because the City of London Corporation’s in-house doctor could not say that Mr Bell’s injuries were permanent. He informed them that their two options of either early retirement on a basic pension or alternative work were not acceptable to him, and the City of London Corporation deemed him no longer to be an employee from 24 September 2002.
After months of resistance, Mr Bell was finally provided with a copy of an additional accident report that the City of London Corporation had sent to the Health and Safety Executive 17 months after his accident spelling out that it found
“it difficult to believe that he could have slipped on a screw whilst wearing Dr Martens safety shoes”
and that
“there are a number of staff…who suspect that the incident, if it really happened as Mr Bell describes it, may have been exaggerated.”
Not only do vague beliefs and suspicions have no place in an accident report, but I reiterate that he was diagnosed annually by the DWP for eight years before being awarded lifetime industrial injury benefits in 2008.
In June 2004, Mr Bell filed a grievance against the City of London Corporation for its handling of this case, and in 2005 he signed a compromise agreement for the City of London Corporation’s insurers, Chubb insurance Ltd, to consider his case under the Local Government (Discretionary Payments) Regulations 1996. The insurers found in his favour and awarded him a termination package of about £50,000, but not an ill-health pension.
That is the timeline so far of Mr Bell’s case. So far as he was aware, these were the relevant facts, until in 2012 he discovered the local government pensions committee’s circular 252, which noted that the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 1997 should have been relevant in his case. Regulation 97(9) states:
“Before making a decision as to whether a member may be entitled under regulation 27 or under regulation 31 on the grounds of ill-health, the Scheme employer must obtain”—
must obtain—
“a certificate from an independent registered medical practitioner as to whether in his opinion the member is permanently incapable of discharging efficiently the duties of the relevant local government employment because of ill-health or infirmity of mind or body.”
Regulation 98 sets out that he should have received a written notification of the decision by the IRMP as soon as possible, giving the reasons for the decision and setting out his appeal rights to the Secretary of State under regulation 102.
The Local Government Pension Scheme (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2001 further specified, in sub-paragraph 9A:
“The independent registered medical practitioner must be in a position to certify, and must include in his certification a statement, that—
(a) he has not previously advised, or given an opinion on, or otherwise been involved in the particular case for which the certificate has been requested; and
(b) he is not acting, and has not at any time acted, as the representative of the member, the Scheme employer or any other party in relation to the same case.”
None of those regulations—not one—was followed.
In Mr Bell’s research at that time, he discovered two relevant appeals, 869 and S00495, which saw the Secretary of State emphasise the importance of the opinion of the independent registered medical practitioner, including one judgment against the City of London in 2008. By the time Mr Bell discovered that those requirements had not been followed, he was well out of time for consideration by the pensions ombudsman.
Mr Bell first contacted me in September 2014, and I wrote my first of many letters to the City of London Corporation seeking to understand why the rules had not been followed in his case. I wrote to the City of London on 20 October 2014, 26 May 2015, 6 July 2015, 12 October 2015 and 4 November 2015, on each time to the head of the human resources department who had dealt with his case. On each occasion they responded by stating that Mr Bell was not eligible for an ill health pension, making reference to the Local Government Pensions Committee’s circular 252 in 2011 and the details of the compromise agreement he had signed in ignorance of his actual rights. Despite my repeatedly asking why the 1997 and 2001 regulations had not been followed in his case, those questions were not answered.
On 27 January 2016, I wrote to the town clerk and chief executive of the City of London, quoting regulation 97(9) of the 1997 regulations and simply asking why those and the similar 2001 regulations should not apply in this case. In his answer of 26 February, the town clerk, John Barradell, stated:
“In May 2002 the Corporation’s Occupational Health Team advised that there was ‘no evidence of permanent incapacity due to ill health so medical retirement is not an option at this point’. This view was confirmed on 11th June 2002 when Dr Copeman”—
the corporation’s internal doctor—
“advised that he was unable to state that Mr Bell had any form of medical condition or illness which would result in his permanent inability to work for the Corporation in his current position. This medical opinion meant that it was not possible under the LGPS for Mr Bell to be retired on the grounds of ill health.
It appears that Mr Bell has misunderstood the application of Rule 97(9) referred to in your letter. Rule 97 was not engaged and there was no requirement for an IRMP because Dr Copeman’s advice was that Mr Bell did not come within the requirements for ill health retirement.”
I admit that I became very frustrated at that point. The suggestion was that because the internal doctor did not give approval, the independent doctor need not be asked for their opinion, which strikes me as the whole point of the protections set out in those regulations.
In seeking to make sense of that, I wrote to the then Minister for Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), in July 2016, setting out the case and stating that Mr Barradell’s answer was
“as clear as mud, since the rule clearly states that independent analysis must be obtained before such a decision is made.”
I asked him to confirm first that the legal position remained as I stated in the letter, secondly whether there would be any exemption to the requirement that independent analysis be obtained before a decision would be taken on an individual’s eligibility, and thirdly what course Mr Bell could follow to get what he is entitled to. As expected, the Minister did not—quite rightly—go into detail about my constituent’s individual case, but he confirmed that the regulations were in effect at the time and did not indicate any scope for exemptions.
I wrote again to Mr Barradell on 12 December 2016, asking him to review his decision based on the confirmation given by the then Minister. He did not reply to this letter, and so I had to chase him—not literally—and he eventually replied on 30 May 2017, stating that
“the City’s position as set out in previous correspondence…remains unchanged”,
and that it did not believe it had had any obligation to inform Mr Bell of his rights at the time. He concluded:
“The City Corporation remains of the view that it has acted properly and fairly in its handling of this case and believes there are no grounds for it to consider this matter further.”
Mr Bell has tried to pursue this down many avenues over the many years since the original injury in 2000, but because he did not discover the details of the 1997 LGPS regulations until 2012, he had by that point already exhausted his appeal options. I had stated to the City of London Corporation on several occasions that if it could not satisfactorily explain why the rules should not apply in this case, I would have to raise this matter in the House. That is why I believe I have no option but to do so now.
There are two alternatives: either the City of London is refusing to apply the rules properly, or the regulations as they exist do not work as they should to provide the assurance of an independent assessment. Industrial injuries are by their nature unexpected, disturbing and painful events. If they are of the severity to lead to an ill-health retirement, it is quite right that this should follow assessment by an independent doctor as soon as possible and that it should follow a process that sets out the details clearly. Surely such a process cannot and should not be short-circuited by the decision of an organisation—particularly an organisation such as the City of London Corporation—to use an in-house doctor, and not allow the worker to have their injuries certified by an independent practitioner.
I apologise to the Minister and to the House for this very detailed tale, but I wanted to put it on the record. Fundamentally, is the Minister happy with the way in which these regulations operate? Is he aware of other cases where organisations have used the decision of an in-house doctor to override the need, as laid down by the regulations, to get the opinion of an IRMP? If he is aware of such cases, does he intend to tighten the process to prevent this from happening? Is he also concerned about organisations—particularly an organisation such as the City of London Corporation—not giving workers details of their rights in such instances? Is he aware of other complaints about the City of London Corporation in particular not fulfilling its obligations under these regulations? It has not been forthcoming with details to me. Possibly most difficult, can he recommend any further steps that my constituent Mr Bell can follow to have his case finally considered by an independent medical professional? He is even willing to pay for that independent medical professional to get an opportunity to have his case looked at.
For over 17 years, Mr Bell and his family have relentlessly pursued what seems to me to be a grave injustice. In my view, the fact that that grave injustice has been perpetrated by one of the richest local authorities in the country makes it even more disgraceful. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some assurance for me to give my constituent that this will change and that he will get justice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) on securing this debate. I had the pleasure of fighting alongside her in the referendum campaign, and I can see that she has for many years applied the same tireless and tenacious campaigning instincts to this case on behalf of her constituent, and I commend her for those efforts. I particularly welcome the chance to respond to the points that she has made and, indeed, I share her regret that we have had to debate this on the Floor of the House.
Pensions are not just about regulations and procedures; they are about security and peace of mind. We all want to retire on a decent income, and as we live longer and healthier lives, we want to be able to save more and make the most of our retirement. Public sector schemes such as the local government pension scheme include insurance-style benefits that help to cushion us against the most unfortunate events. There are protections when staff are made redundant, and provision for their dependants if they die in service, as well as ill-health benefits such as those at issue in this debate.
Throughout the past 100 years, the LGPS developed as a national scheme to become a valuable and integral part of local government, valued by millions. That said, as the recently ensconced Minister responsible for local government pensions, I can attest that it is not a simple scheme. Some of that complexity comes from the need to cover a wide range of possible scenarios. The provisions dealing with injuries at work—such as those suffered by Mr Bell—will interact with statutory schemes of compensation, employers’ sickness procedures and employment law. Injuries can lead to periods of sickness and to permanent or temporary incapacity. Justice comes from treating like cases alike, but also from making fine judgments and distinctions between cases where appropriate. I want the best possible administration of the scheme. It has been a key aim of the Government to improve transparency and accountability in decision making by such public bodies.
The LGPS is a national scheme set out in regulations, but it is important to note that it is administered locally. That has been a long-standing feature of the scheme, and often one of its strengths. As the hon. Lady will know, local authorities are independent bodies and, first and foremost, they are accountable to their electorates through the ballot box, rather than to central Government. That said, there are routes for independent redress where local authorities fail in their obligations—for example, through the council’s complaints procedure, the local government ombudsman or, when appropriate, the pensions ombudsman. Potentially, and finally, the case can be considered by the courts by judicial review.
It is a feature of any legal system of redress that administrative deadlines and statutes of limitation are associated with each of those, and I am sure the hon. Lady will recognise that all sides in a dispute often benefit from the certainty and closure that those afford. I also believe, however, that if local authorities are to retain the trust of the people they serve, they should always seek to act honourably and correct mistakes, even if they are under no legal obligation to do so. Where I feel a need to call out mistakes, I will do so, from the Dispatch Box if necessary. I hope that my voice in these matters will not be without some moral force.
It gives me comfort that in general the LGPS is well-administered, and the vast majority of complaints received about it are resolved internally. It pays out £9.5 billion in benefits each year, and despite that I am told that there were fewer than 91 complaints to the pensions ombudsman, and of those, fewer than 15% were upheld. Clearly some mistakes will be made, and the impact of those mistakes could be hugely significant for vulnerable people or those of limited means who rely on their pension to sustain their dignity and standard of living in old age.
Let me turn to the details of Mr Bell’s case. The hon. Lady forcefully made her case that the City of London has not complied with its statutory obligations or delivered justice to Mr Bell. As she would expect, my officials have been in touch with the City of London to hear their explanation of events.
It is worth stressing at the outset the obvious difficulty of understanding in precise detail events that happened almost 20 years ago. However, from hearing both sides, it strikes me as common ground that as a consequence of the accident on 6 November 2000, Mr Bell suffered some degree of incapacity. The question appears to be about the degree of severity and the permanence of that incapacity. I expect it is difficult for any medical expert to give a very definite answer to those questions. It is for that very reason that I would expect this to be settled as a question of fact by someone that both parties can have confidence in. That is the plain meaning and intent of regulation 97.
I can see no good reason why the City of London Corporation chose not to instruct an independent registered medical practitioner who could have either confirmed or corrected the judgment that was reached, no doubt in good faith, by the corporation’s occupational health team. Not only was an IRMP not instructed, other consequences followed the failure to consider that a decision of any kind was due in respect of Mr Bell’s application for ill-health retirement. The protections and regulations 98 to 102, whereby a member is informed of his rights of appeal and a reference to the Pensions Advisory Service, appear also not to have kicked in as one might reasonably have expected.
Of course, I cannot say what conclusions the IRMP would have reached, or whether indeed an appeal would have been successful. What I can say is that Mr Bell does seem to have suffered an injustice by being denied an independent assessment of this case. However, I must note that Mr Bell did receive legal advice from a reputable firm of lawyers in settling the terms of his dismissal, for limited efficiency, in 2002. In coming to a decision on how best to pursue his case and whether to accept those terms of settlement, I would hope that the advice he received was complete and accurate.
Let me now address directly the questions the hon. Lady put to me in her closing. First, I am very happy to place on record my concern that the regulations do not seem to have been followed in this case. My clear view is that on the facts available to me at this time an IRMP ought to have been engaged in 2002. If the hon. Lady believes it may serve some purpose, I would be very happy to write formally to the corporation and ask it to justify this omission to me.
On the hon. Lady’s other questions more generally, I personally am not aware and the Department is not aware of any other such cases where this practice was followed, nor of any other specific complaints about the corporation’s administration practices. I would hope that if there were cases similar to Mr Bell’s, they would have found their way, correctly and appropriately, to the pensions ombudsman. There, I believe, the arguments advanced would have received a strong hearing.
The hon. Lady asked if I wish to tighten the rules in this area. Having reviewed it, to my mind the regulations then, as now, are clear about the process to be followed. The regulations then, as now, place the correct emphasis on the need for decisions to be taken in a timely way, based on independent advice and with further avenues for advice or appeal clearly signposted. Having reflected on it, the issue at stake here is not that the regulations themselves were at fault, but whether they were properly adhered to and followed. If they were not, however, then at this point, sadly, I cannot see any specific further steps I can take to pursue this case on behalf of the hon. Lady and Mr Bell.
If we were having this conversation at the time of the incident in question, Mr Bell would have had the avenue of appeal and redress through the council’s own two-stage appeal process. Following that, we could have gone to the pensions ombudsman, the Secretary of State or the courts through judicial review. As I said earlier, however, there are good and necessary reasons why we have time limits and limitations in the determination of rights and liabilities. Statutes of limitation are common across civil and criminal law in this country and across the world. Parties must be allowed to know when a matter has finally been settled. Given where we are now, 18 years after the incident in question, unfortunately the ability to access any of those avenues has obviously expired.
At the time, Mr Bell did receive legal advice and sought a settlement with his employers. I very much hope that his solicitors at the time discussed with him these various avenues that may well still have been available at that time and provided advice to him on the best course of action. It may well be worth Mr Bell or the hon. Lady discussing the matter again with the solicitors to make sure that all the correct procedures and avenues were explored. Owing to the separation of powers between central and local government, I cannot intervene in the day-to-day activities of local authorities, except where specific provision is made by Parliament, and I am not aware of any specific basis on which I could intervene directly in this case.
Kate Hoey
I thank the Minister for giving way—I know he is coming to the end of his speech—and for his thoughtful response. Does he accept that it should have been up to the City of London Corporation, a council hugely rich in personnel, to inform Mr Bell of his rights? It should not have been up to a solicitor a few years later. Surely there was a moral duty if not a legal duty—I think there is a legal duty; I think the regulations give a legal duty—to inform him of his rights and to allow that independent medical practitioner. That was where it all went wrong—something so, so simple. Does he agree that there is a moral case in respect of the City of London Corporation? I should add also that I would welcome his writing to it on my and Mr Bell’s behalf.
Rishi Sunak
Not only is there a moral duty; but—the hon. Lady is right—there is a legal duty both to have used an independent medical practitioner and to have informed Mr Bell of his rights at the time. Mr Bell would, I hope, have been aware of those rights through many of the other communications he would have received as a member of the scheme, but at the point when it became relevant, under articles and provisions 98 to 102, he should have been made aware of them again. It will be of limited comfort to Mr Bell and the hon. Lady, but the pension scheme’s statutory advisory board is currently reviewing the means of resolving disputes locally and looking at simplifying the rules around ill-health retirement. I expect recommendations from the board in due course, and obviously this matter will weigh on my mind as I review those recommendations.
In conclusion, though we have discussed process, I do not want to lose sight of the individual at the centre of this, Mr Bell. The accident that caused him to lose his job seems such a small and random piece of bad luck. That we are still talking about it today shows how unfairness of any kind—of fate or in administration—can be very hard to accept and live with. I do not know whether he is adequately supported today and leading a fulfilling and satisfying life, but I sincerely hope that he is. I commend the hon. Lady again for her tireless work in advocating so forcefully on behalf of her constituent. I know that she will keep pushing the City of London Corporation to examine afresh whether it acted fairly and in good conscience, and I will support her in those efforts. I wish her and Mr Bell every success as she pursues this case.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2018
(6 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. As the Committee will be aware, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs continues to review extra-statutory concessions. This order is another step in that process, and it will put on a statutory footing four concessions that will simplify the administration of the tax system but ensure that minor reliefs continue to be available as before. I am grateful to those who took the time to help the Government to improve the legislation.
The first concession allows directors’ fees received by partnerships and companies to be treated for tax purposes as trading rather than employment income. That simplifies the accounting process of those fees for both the payer and the recipient.
The second concession is similar, in that it allows professional practitioners, such as doctors, dentists and solicitors, to treat incidental income from an office or employment as part of their trading or professional income. That, again, simplifies accounting processes for taxpayers.
The third concession exempts from tax certain compensatory payments made to volunteers and voluntary office holders of public bodies. The fourth concession concerns payments from local medical committees to part-time committee members. The order does not make explicit reference to that, but it is covered by the legislation for the other three concessions. The last two concessions mean that public bodies do not have to act as employers for tax purposes when making such compensatory payments.
I hope the Committee can see how valuable the concessions are in simplifying the tax system for employers and for individuals who provide their services and expertise to others. There is no issue of tax loss here, as the sums paid under the concessions are either taxed as part of trading profits or do no more than compensate for loss of income in undertaking public service.
The draft order will come into force on 6 April 2018. I commend the order to the Committee.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Minister has said, provision for extra-statutory concessions is a well-established part of our legislative proceedings. Although it is always important that we review and discuss such concessions as we are doing today, particularly as they concern the tax process, cross-party support has always been a feature. That has been referred to in previous discussions, and we do not intend to depart from that broadly supportive approach today.
I note in the explanatory memorandum that the Government’s consultation, which was held in September 2017, drew no major objections from stakeholders and the draft order has been updated to reflect the contributions that were received. There are two points that I wish to raise with the Minister pursuant to that consultation. First, might he shed any light on the process for determining the impact of the order on national insurance contributions and the regulation of directors’ fees and professional remuneration? Secondly, what monitoring will be in place to ensure that the scope of the concessions remains as proposed? In particular, are the Government confident that the change in wording from “small” to “insubstantial”, as decided in the consultation, will be sufficient?
I have no further comments or objections to make on the remaining three concessions. I would be happy to receive clarity from the Minister either in his closing remarks or in writing at a later date.
Mel Stride
I thank the shadow Minister for his contribution, for his support for the order and for his two questions. He is quite right. We consulted fully on this measure between 14 September and 9 November last year.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
The consultation received only four responses. Is that normal? What were the processes for publicising the consultation?
Mel Stride
On those specific questions, which are very relevant and pertinent, I would be very happy to come back to the hon. Lady, if some information does not wing its way to me in the next moment or two. I intend to cogitate on the important point that she has raised.
In the meantime, I shall return to the shadow Minister’s two questions. I await some information on NICs and directors’ fees. [Interruption.] That information has arrived: there is no impact on NICs in respect of his question. He also raised the scope of the concessions, and the change from “small” to “insubstantial”. I am fairly confident that that rests in the guidance that HMRC operates on those matters, but I am happy to come back to him on that.
Having answered those two questions, I return to the question that the hon. Member for Rotherham asked. Is it normal to get just four responses? The answer is that that is not unusual, given that the consultation was a very technical one. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will agree to the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(6 years, 9 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
Backbench Business
(6 years, 9 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
Refugee Children: Family Reunion in the UK
(6 years, 9 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
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered reunion for refugee children with family in the UK.
I am grateful to colleagues for joining me this Thursday afternoon to discuss issues affecting some of the most vulnerable people on our planet. I also thank you, Dame Cheryl, for permitting me to make a personal comment before I turn to the main thrust of my speech.
I would like to apologise to this House for the inappropriate words that I used in a speech in Edinburgh at a Labour event to mark Burns night. I unreservedly apologise for the offence caused. I used inappropriate and offensive words, and I was wrong to do so. I will be working to restore my relationship with the communities concerned over the coming months, making a positive change, and to ensure that society is as tolerant and inclusive as it should be. Thank you for letting me make that apology, Dame Cheryl.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this important debate. I want to mention the Members who have sponsored and supported this debate: the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and for North Down (Lady Hermon), my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), my hon. Friends the Members for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) and for Easington (Grahame Morris), the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen), my hon. Friends the Members for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) and for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), the hon. Members for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) and for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi). They represent all parts of our United Kingdom, and that is evidence of the importance of this issue. I thank all the humanitarian and international development fields for their support in preparing this brief.
Thanks to Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat and our computer and television screens, our world gets smaller every day. What happens in far-flung parts of the world affects us all; it is made clear and obvious to us and it provides us with a moral responsibility to act. Few people in my constituency, Scotland or indeed the rest of the United Kingdom can say that they have not seen or been affected by the humanitarian crisis that blights our world today.
Some of the context of this debate is very scary. It is criminal that more than half of the 22.5 million refugees across the world are children. In 2010-11, there were about 66,000 children moving across borders. Five years later there was a fivefold increase. At least 300,000 unaccompanied and separated children were registered moving across borders in more than 80 countries during 2015-16.
In a debate in the main Chamber on refugees and human rights on 24 January 2018, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), said:
“Our global leadership is needed now more than ever, not least because the five challenges that currently leave 65 million people in our world internally displaced or as refugees are getting only worse.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 285.]
There are challenges at home, in all communities across the United Kingdom, but there are challenges abroad too, which the shadow Foreign Secretary went on to highlight in that debate and we all know very well.
On 15 December 2017, the noble Baroness Trafford, Minister of State at the Home Office, announced that the Home Office is currently considering a new resettlement and asylum strategy. The Government say that the new strategy will make “improvements” and “changes” to the United Kingdom’s policies on refugee family reunification.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to amend the UK’s immigration rules on refugee family reunion, to reduce the dangerous journeys that many refugees are forced to take and to provide safe and legal routes for vulnerable children to reach family members in the UK? That has unfortunately been left out of the upcoming private Member’s Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) on refugee family reunion, and that omission ought surely to be rectified urgently.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate, which was long overdue. To follow on from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney), the present system is purely bureaucratic and has to be broadened out, so any review should look at that and make the rules a lot simpler and easier. More important is the fact that legal aid has been stopped since 2013. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) agree that that is significant?
Hugh Gaffney
I agree and will ask the Minister about that at the end of my speech.
Many Members across this House will agree that improvements need to be made to the way in which we support refugees and honour our responsibilities to the most vulnerable. I pay tribute to the important speech given yesterday by the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), on how we can provide the support required by those in need. For me, as a human and an elected representative, the fact that children are still being forced to take life-threatening and dangerous journeys to their families in the United Kingdom is unforgivable and heartbreaking.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that if a child with family in the UK is fleeing war, threats of trafficking or forced marriage, those family members should be able to sponsor them and take them away from those horrors?
Hugh Gaffney
Yes. That is the reason we see these images on TV. These kids do not want to do it; they are running scared and they are walking millions of miles.
The European Union’s Dublin III regulation determines which EU state decides a person’s asylum application. Under the Dublin III regulation, an unaccompanied child who has made an asylum application has the right to have their application transferred to another EU state where they have a relative. It is a way of reuniting children with their families in the United Kingdom, and that is the right thing to do. I note the agreements signed between the French and British Governments to speed up the Dublin III transfers. That seeks to help children reach the safety of their families in the UK, which is welcome and should be a given. They should not have been forced to take those journeys in the first place.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will remember that the Conservative party used to be known as the party of the family. In autumn 2017, some 52 of its peers and MPs produced “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families” and called for leadership from Government. Does he agree that should apply to child refugees who risk the perilous journey across Europe?
Hugh Gaffney
Yes, I agree. That is the whole point of what we are trying to achieve.
Many Members will remember the horrific and devastating image of that lifeless little boy, Alan Kurdi. He was a child, three years old, who was found lying down on a beach in Turkey. Why? Because he was attempting to reach Greece. Why? Because he was trying to be part of the European Union. He was trying to reach a safe and secure home. This was in the 21st century; it should shame and disgrace us all.
The decision of the British people in 2016 to leave the European Union is one that I regret, but I respect it none the less. I mention it because our membership encouraged us to play a role, on a pan-European level, in doing the right thing. I do not want us to stop doing the right thing when we leave the EU. It is important to note that the Government’s announcement of a new strategy comes after an amendment in Committee to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that sought to ensure that refugee children could continue to be reunited with their families after we leave the European Union. For me, that is a given.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Even if we leave the European Union on the Government’s own terms, we could still be covered under Dublin III. Under Dublin III and through the work that Lord Dubs has done, we have committed to taking 480 children. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not bringing those children over quickly enough, and that for a country of nearly 70 million people, 480 children is just not enough?
Hugh Gaffney
I respect those words, and that is exactly my fear—that if we leave the EU, we will forget that we still have a job to do as world leaders. I am an internationalist. The border does not stop at Carlisle for me, and it does not stop at Calais. I do not want us to become little Britain over the coming years, which is why that role is important.
I would like to share a brief story from back home in North Lanarkshire. In 2015, before I became an MP, my friend Angela Feeney and her daughter Maria were at home, drinking a glass of wine and watching the horrific news of the refugee crisis unfold on the TV. Sitting there, they decided to do something; they decided to be good citizens and act. Their original idea was to fill a car with clothes and drive from Wishaw to Calais to make a small contribution to the humanitarian effort. I was then the secretary of the North Lanarkshire Trade Union Council, and the Feeneys asked me for help and support for collections for their car and covering costs.
Soon after Alan Kurdi was found—the little boy on the beach—the original plan of taking a carload was no longer possible. By the time the news of little Alan had spread, interest was so great that we ended up sending trucks with two full warehouses’ worth of clothes and other necessary things, and thousands of pounds in donations, which were sent to people not just in Calais but around the world. I thank people in Scotland once again for the passion and the commitment that they showed to the Wishaw to Calais appeal.
I have some specific questions for the Minister to answer when she winds up this debate.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate, for taking my intervention before he moves on to his questions, and for his understanding: I have a flight north tonight, so I cannot stay for the whole debate, which is why I cannot give a speech. Does he agree that despite everything he has said so far, we should, where possible, encourage refugee children to have a better environment in their home countries to prevent them even having to consider the dangerous trek into Europe?
Hugh Gaffney
I think that every child wants to stay in their homeland. I was proud to be born and bred in my community, and to become a councillor, because I am proud of my own land. Unfortunately, we have wars in this world, which involve bombs and bullets that those children have to dodge, which is why they run. Those children want to stay in their own homeland, as do their parents, but unfortunately the world that we live in, in 2018, has become so dangerous that those children and their parents must seek safety. I wish that we could sort the world’s peace tomorrow, so that everyone could live on this planet and share it as we should do.
Does the Minister agree that by amending our immigration rules to include an extended definition of family, as defined by Dublin III, we can ensure that our response to the crisis focuses on our responsibility to protect vulnerable children? Secondly, will she review the current policies on family reunion and commit to updating the House on what action will be taken? Thirdly, what plans do the Government have to reinstate legal aid for refugee family reunion cases? Lastly, does she agree that by taking action we can reunite vulnerable children with family members and stop their abuse by and reliance on smugglers and traffickers?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. On the difficulty of the procedures involved in refugee family cases, is he as appalled as I am that legal aid has not been available for such cases since 2012? Does he agree that without legal aid assistance, applicants rarely know what evidence is required, and that such evidence is key to determining refusal of applications and appeals?
Hugh Gaffney
Yes. Legal aid is one of the questions to which I would like to hear an answer. It is so important to refugees and families.
We have gathered to discuss how to play our role on the international stage, be good citizens as a country and ensure that we do our part to save lives. As scripture tells us, let us not walk by on the other side. If the Government make the right changes to the immigration rules, we can play a role in reducing the number of dangerous journeys taken by children and—this is key—prevent needless and tragic deaths. We have a moral duty to allow children to apply for family reunification from some of the most dangerous parts of the world. We can and should work to ensure that we create a safe and legal route for vulnerable children to reach the shores of United Kingdom.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Members, may I say that rather a large number of people are requesting to speak? I ask you to try to keep your remarks to five minutes. Then we will get everybody in, and I will not have to impose a time limit.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing it. I want to speak in the debate on cancer strategy in the main Chamber, so I am grateful to you for calling me early, Dame Cheryl, and I hope you will forgive me for not being able to stay until the end.
I will not repeat the arguments already made, as I want to keep my remarks brief, but we are considering important issues. Refugees who have already been granted asylum in the United Kingdom do not have the right to offer siblings under 18 the opportunity to come to the UK. Many of us in this House—Members from all parties, I believe—think that that makes no sense. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the points that my hon. Friend has made.
A 16 or 17-year-old trapped in Aleppo should have the right to come live with an older sibling who has already been granted asylum in Britain. The 2016 report by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found that such applications are usually rejected out of hand, and that families must appeal or re-submit their applications for such cases. That kind of bureaucracy can be catastrophic for children left in war zones, trapped in conflict areas where they are at risk of barrel bombs, Daesh terror attacks and so on. Many children are being denied the right to basic family life. I put it to hon. Members that that does not chime with the values that we in this Parliament and this country uphold. The rules clearly need to be amended to make it easier for children to find a safe place to be reunited with their loved ones. We already know that in the chaos of a war zone, it is all the more likely that families will be split up or separated.
Another serious concern is the legal aid situation, which was alluded to by my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. I hope the Minister will give that careful thought. Legal aid has not been available for refugee family reunions since 2012, despite the fact that such cases are usually incredibly complex. Without legal aid, many applicants are left in the dark, not knowing what evidence is needed or how to collate it, so they have little or no chance of effecting family reunion. Surely it is time to reinstate legal aid.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
I have a case in my constituency of two refugee brothers who are trying to get their other brother to the UK from a refugee camp in Turkey. They are having to rely on charity, so they are literally shaking buckets to raise enough money to get solicitors. Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation we face in Britain, in which those children have to rely on charity, is disgraceful, and that the Government should step in to rectify that immediately?
Grahame Morris
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful example—there are many others. The current situation, in which these families are denied access to justice, shames us. To deny children and families who have already faced immense risks and challenges the opportunity of family reunion and legal aid is an appalling indictment of the UK Government, and of us all as parliamentarians.
Legal aid, or its absence, has the power to change lives, for the better or for the worse. It has the potential to keep families together under the most trying circumstances. These restrictive rules do not just affect vulnerable people’s lives, but can make the huge difference between safety and security on one hand, and danger, war and risk to life and limb on the other. It is essential that the Minister looks at the matter.
The current situation forces many people trapped in war zones to take repeated risks to cross borders to reach British embassies. We have seen ample pictorial evidence of that. Surely it is in children’s best interests to be reunited with family members and to be given safe and legal routes to effect that family reunion, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill suggested. The rules are most damaging to the most vulnerable people who are left behind in war zones, and to people who have been granted asylum but have to go through the heartbreak and trauma of not being reunited with family members.
I am proud that this country has a terrific record of helping refugees and people who come to our constituencies. Our record of welcoming refugee families and encouraging them to thrive goes back to before the second world war. Lord Dubs is a notable example.
Mr Jim Cunningham
If we take that a step further, when children are allowed to stop here and become teenagers, there is a problem about them getting further education, as I have said many times. This is part of a bigger problem.
Grahame Morris
My hon. Friend makes a fair point: delaying family reunion creates all sorts of other problems. People who arrive on our shores—who are often fleeing persecution—become valued members of our communities and often work in public service, like Lord Dubs. They set up small businesses and take on important roles in the community. They are a real asset in terms of adding value.
We must act to ensure that families can be reunited. Parliament and Government should not remain passive and allow refugee families to remain divided. I welcome my party’s recent announcement that puts the humanity of migrants and the importance of family life at the heart of our immigration policy, and our pledge to follow a humanistic approach to immigration policy. That is an expression of our very best values as a nation, and a fulfilment of our duties to the international community.
I pleased to say that I am a proud internationalist, but whether someone is an internationalist or not, they have an obligation to fight for a fairer system. I am proud that my party is championing refugees who are threatened by war, and that it is working to give vulnerable people a chance. I hope we can reform the rules, so that child refugees have a proper chance of being reunited with their families.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing this significant and timely debate and on his excellent speech. I also thank the many constituents who emailed me in the run up to this debate.
The global refugee crisis has displaced a record 65 million people—the entire population of the UK—from their homes; they are fleeing conflict, persecution and the effects of climate change. I am proud that Scotland has a long history of welcoming refugees from all over the world. Over the past two years, communities across Scotland have demonstrated their compassion and understanding as we welcomed more than 2,000 Syrian refugees, many of whom have settled in my constituency.
I will start positively. It is welcome progress that last month, the UK Government announced several new measures to help child refugees in Europe to come to the UK safely and much more quickly. Crucially, they extended the cut-off date for children who are eligible for transfer under the Dubs amendment, and we welcome that—it is something that the Scottish National party has long been calling for. It will ensure that many more lone children, stranded in appalling conditions, can reach the safety of the UK, but more can still be done.
As we sadly leave the EU, the UK will no longer be signed up to the Dublin III regulations, as we have heard, which are a key route for child refugees to reunite with family members elsewhere in Europe. There is a risk that children will have to rely solely on the UK’s far more restrictive immigration rules, which allow them to reunite only with their parents. That forces children to make the dangerous journey to Europe to try to reach their families. According to the International Organisation for Migration, in 2017 alone, more than 3,000 people died by drowning while trying to make the dangerous journey across the Mediterranean, which should be a shame on all of us.
Post Brexit, the UK Government must commit to guaranteeing the same rights for children in Europe as currently exist under the Dublin III regulations. As the UK seeks to clarify its immigration rules, there is an opportunity to amend the UK’s restrictive and unfair refugee laws. The UK allows adult refugees to apply only for their spouses and dependent children under 18 to join them, which means that grandparents, parents, siblings and children above the age of 17 are prevented from coming to the UK to join them in starting a new life. Similarly, child refugees in the UK are not allowed to sponsor their parents to join them here. Families are simply being torn apart.
Additionally, legal aid has not been available for refugee family reunions since 2012, which makes it even more difficult for families to reunite, as other hon. Members have mentioned. A recent study by the Refugee Council and Oxfam found that reuniting refugee families gives them the best chance of living settled and fulfilling lives, but that denying them the chance to restore their family ties condemns them to a future of anguish and guilt.
That report coincides with the launch of the “Families Together” campaign, which calls for changes to the rules on refugee family reunions and has support from many non-governmental organisations. Those NGOs also back the Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) to support the campaign. The Bill will return to Parliament on 16 March for Second Reading, which will undoubtedly give Parliament the chance to debate and address the flaws in the system, and to stop treating refugee family reunion as an immigration issue, rather than a protection issue. I hope that hon. Members across the political divide, and all hon. Members present, will attend the debate and join us on that. I also urge the Minister in the strongest terms to support the Bill.
I call on the Minister to give child refugees in the UK the right to sponsor their close family, and to expand the definition of who qualifies as family, so that young people who have turned 18 and elderly parents can live in safety with their families in the UK. The UK Government must stop thinking in terms of targets, quotas and rules, and start thinking of individuals and families, as we all do in our own lives. It is time to introduce some humanity into the system, so that these families can rebuild their lives together. Helping mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters who have been torn apart, who have lost everything and who have experienced so much pain is simply the right thing to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Before I call the next speaker, I exhort hon. Members to keep their speeches short—less than four minutes, if possible—so that I do not have to impose a time limit.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I am delighted that this subject has come up for debate.
Imagine having to say goodbye to your child, or finding yourself suddenly separated from them without knowing what will happen to them, whether anyone will look after them or whether they will find the rest of your family, if you still have one. That is the situation facing parents among the 22 million refugees across the world. Families are fleeing war or persecution, looking for nothing more than safety and somewhere to live together in peace. Recently, I visited the Red Cross in Scotland and met families who came to this country looking for that very peace and sanctuary. They are now living together in Scotland and making a valuable contribution to their communities. However, we know that it is not the same for all families; for many, things have become impossible.
As a nation, we have been moved by photographs such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney)—pictures of children who have lost their lives or been orphaned because of the conflict in Syria. In the Holocaust Memorial Day debate, we heard moving stories from hon. Members about the flight of their families from Nazi persecution and the sanctuary they found here, yet our approach to reuniting refugee families and immigration procedures is one that I, for one, find depressing. What happened to our humanity, our open arms and our desire to give children the best start in life, regardless of geography?
As we have heard, the EU’s Dublin III regulation determines which EU state decides a person’s asylum application. In 2016, under the regulation’s criteria, 700 children were transferred from other European countries to join family members in the UK, but none of us knows what the situation will be after Brexit. We need the UK Government to improve the system to make it easier for children to find their families. They need to amend the immigration rules on refugee family reunions to make it easier for close family members—siblings, grandparents, aunts and uncles—with refugee or humanitarian protection status to sponsor children in their family to join them in the UK. They also need to lessen the conditions that must be met by non-refugee sponsors, and help with legal aid for refugee family reunions.
All parents, especially single parents, know that horrible feeling that can creep up on us in the middle of the night. It hits us when someone in our family dies or when we sit watching the evening news and see pictures of families fleeing, children separated from their parents and empty, hopeless faces staring out of the screen. We think, “Who would look after my child if something happened?” I think about it even though my daughter is now an adult. When I do, I am grateful that I have a family, so there are people who will love and look after her. Surely that is what we all want for our children, and surely we should want our Government to do their best to provide that sanctuary for every child.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
There are seven refugee families in Bedford as part of the five-year Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement programme, but Bedford has pledged to take 20. More needs to be done to reunite families, but complex family reunion rules and ineffective implementation are an obstacle to the most vulnerable children reaching the safety of their families. Unaccompanied migrant children are highly vulnerable to trafficking, sexual exploitation and other forms of abuse. We cannot continue to turn a blind eye to their plight.
Some 95% of applicants waiting to join family members in the UK through refugee family reunion are women and children. Children have a right to family life and family unity under the European convention on human rights, but in the UK, there is no right for children to sponsor their parents to join them; child refugees can apply for family reunion only outside the immigration rules. The cost of accessing legal advice puts that outside the reach of too many people in desperate need. Refugee family reunion cases should be brought back within the scope of civil legal aid in England and Wales. Nobody decides to leave their family without good cause. These are matters of life and death.
The Select Committee on Home Affairs has criticised the logic that says that a child who has come from a place to which it is unsafe to return cannot bring their parents here, whereas an adult refugee is entitled to bring their children here. These children have fled war, persecution and torture, and have gone through terrible journeys to reach sanctuary in the UK. Surely it is not too much to ask that they be reunited quickly with their families. “Refugees Welcome?”, the brilliant report published by the all-party group on refugees, found that refugee children who are unable to be joined by even their closest relatives really struggle to integrate.
Nobody in this Chamber underestimates the scale of the problem. I am sure we all agree that there are no easy answers, but these children are in dire peril. The Government’s response to the crisis has been modest in comparison with that of other countries. It has been reactive, not proactive, and it simply is not good enough. Last month’s agreement with France to speed up Dublin III transfers is welcome, but children should not have to make dangerous journeys to reach their families in the first place. We must allow them safe legal passage, and the ability to apply for family reunification more easily from their country of origin, before we see more shocking pictures of dead children washed up on the beaches of Europe. I hope that we do not have to look back at those horrific pictures in 10 years’ time and wonder where our humanity was, and why we did not do more to help.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on his remarks. We are here because we want to uphold human rights, but we must also recognise that there are real hurdles and that the system needs to be unclogged. I trust that the Minister will apply practical common sense today.
Recently, children from Bootham School in York urged me to speak in this debate. One wrote:
“I can’t imagine a world without my little brother. He is 5 years old. He was called names and started crying, so I ran to him. I held him as he cried and told him I loved him. That incident was name calling, not having to flee your home and cross the sea on a tiny boat that may kill you and rip you from your family at the same time. Rachael please don’t let other people’s brothers cry alone. Please help loving families get back together.”
Children really get this agenda, and I trust that we will take it to heart, too. As another child said:
“All these people are just like us and they don’t deserve what has happened to them. They should have the right to live in safety and comfort like us and it is inhumane to deny them this.”
I have heard so many moving stories from children, because families are families the world over. It is so important that we understand the love, concern and need to be together that these families have, too. As another child said,
“some have seen things that no one should ever see, some have experienced things that none of us can imagine”—
first the trauma, then the separation. Things must change.
I have heard so many moving stories from constituents, too. They have described unnecessary delays, bureaucracy and requests going back and forth for completely irrelevant information. For instance, one constituent had to prove his religious faith when it had nothing to do with his case. Another had to produce samples of his DNA and his children’s DNA to prove that he was their father. Of course he was the father, but what about his dignity?
Immigration services have to up their game. We cannot have these delays, because every single delay increases the risk, particularly for young and vulnerable people. Today I heard from a constituent who is just 17 years old, whose brother is just 14 and is in Sicily, on his own and at risk. We need to be able to resolve these problems quickly and ensure that the wider family can be involved and that older children, who are incredibly vulnerable in this situation, are brought to a place of safety with other family members here in the UK.
Of course, as we have heard, legal aid needs to be extended to address this complex area of law—nothing less will do. We need to fast-track this matter, to ensure that we address these people’s needs.
I also want to raise with the Minister the issue of families once they come to the UK, which I have heard about from constituents in York. One constituent’s children were in Germany, where they had been placed, and he just wanted to be in the same place as them. He did not mind whether they came to the UK or he went to Germany; he just wanted to be in the same place as them. It is really important that we facilitate that.
We also need to make sure that the needs of families are addressed here. I have heard a story of a constituent who had to live with his family of three children, two of whom were teenagers, in a single converted garage in York. The council did not get involved for two months and then said that the garage was unsuitable and moved them to a homeless hostel. That is unacceptable. There was also a family who had to share a room in a house, and all the facilities, with four other occupants. Such overcrowding is unacceptable. We are talking about people who are fragile and broken, and they should not be crushed by our local authorities. The Government must intervene and ensure that no further harm is done.
I am proud that York is the first human rights city in the UK and that we have great support from York City of Sanctuary and Refugee Action York. We must remember, as one child said to me:
“We are all humans and we all deserve to be with our living families, no matter who we are or where we have come from.”
This Government have a responsibility to act. I am sure the Minister has heard these stories today and that she will take action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Order. There are still five Members who have indicated that they wish to speak before the Front Benchers, so I exhort you all again to try to keep your remarks to three minutes or so.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I will endeavour to be brief, particularly as I hope to speak in the next debate on child poverty in London.
I begin by referring to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On 4 September last year, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who is present for this debate, and the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), I went with Safe Passage UK to the Calais Jungle camp, or rather what remains of it. I had been there once before, at the very beginning of 2016, when it was in full swing, as it were. Although there are substantially fewer refugees there now, because of the demolition and the behaviour of the French authorities, the conditions are substantially worse, particularly for the hundreds of young people who are there. That is partly because of the violence being shown to them and partly because any recourse to the authorities has been moved hundreds of kilometres away, so that even those who have the right to apply under Dublin III are unable to do so. Of course, that means that there is far more risk of them risking very dangerous ways to reach the UK, such as under lorries or on the rail tracks.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the danger to young people who are in limbo in camps such as Calais is not just physical danger but the danger of their being recruited into crime, drug-taking and in some cases even prostitution?
Andy Slaughter
I absolutely agree. I feel for all the refugees in that situation, but particularly for children and those who have a legal right—whether they are Dubs children or Dublin III children—to be in the UK. Frankly, it is shameful that the Government did not honour their promise to Lord Dubs. Lord Dubs is a constituent of mine and last month I went with him to the Holocaust Memorial Day commemoration here in Westminster—of course, he came to the UK on the Kindertransport—and we met other survivors. I think that he is puzzled, as well as horrified, that we are unable to show to children who are being persecuted abroad now the charity that we showed in much more difficult times in the 1930s.
I will make two specific points. When we returned from that most recent trip to Calais, I asked the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union what would happen if we leave the EU and the Dublin III regulations fall away. I asked him what the Government intend to replace them with, whether they would replicate them in the immigration rules, and whether they would apply—somewhat anomalously—just to the EU27 countries or more generally. I received what I thought was quite a helpful response at the time, which was 5 September last year. We know that the immigration Bill is delayed, but the Secretary of State said that that issue is
“precisely the sort of thing that that Bill should address. A more general point I made to the European Commission negotiators…is that a legal requirement is not the only reason for doing things. We are a country with a strong tradition of tolerance and generosity, and if anything, I expect that to grow after we leave, not diminish.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 64.]
Some months on, I wonder whether the Minister for Immigration is able to update us today on the Government’s current thinking on that specific issue. In other words, will there be what I think all Members taking part in this debate would like to see, which is an end to anomalies where there are clearly people in this country who can care for children but who are not their parents? They might be their grandparents, uncles or aunts. A very good example is given in the case studies provided to us by the NGOs: despite being a refugee herself, a grandmother is able to be a sponsor but does not have the necessary finances, and there is an uncle who is a British citizen and does have the necessary finances, but so many hoops have to be jumped through in order to achieve a resolution.
I will conclude by repeating what a number of colleagues have said about legal aid. I had the dubious privilege of leading for the Opposition on the Committee considering the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which stripped out so much of our legal aid system. The LASPO review is going on as we speak and is due to report soon. I wish that the whole of that iniquitous Act could be swept away and that we could go back to there being an entitlement to legal aid, which was then qualified, rather than simply having a very frugal approach of giving legal aid in only a few cases. I am sure that this Government are not going to do that, but I have some hope that they will genuinely review LASPO and correct some anomalies—and this issue is clearly an anomaly.
The people we are talking about cannot use the legal system, because it is complex and, as has been said many times by senior members of the judiciary, simply having the right to go to court is not enough unless someone has the ability to do so as well, and in many cases that means having a lawyer.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
Family bonds are one of the things that give our lives meaning. My family are the most important people in my life and I do not know what I would do without them, and I am delighted that I also have a new niece or nephew on the way. I know that every hon. Member present feels exactly the same way about their family. Yet there are some people out in the world who, although they share those feelings too, are not able to be with their families today. The sad reality is that far too many people in this world are stranded by war, oppressed by circumstances or persecuted either for what they believe or for who they are. It is no wonder that those people choose to flee such conditions and seek a better life, but the horrific side-effect is that families are torn apart.
I know what I would do in those circumstances: I would do anything to ensure that my children were safe—and yes, that would mean maybe even sending them to a different country. I would want the Government of that country to show some humanity and some compassion, and allow us to be reunited. If hon. Members agree that that is what they would do, too, why is it not what we would want for other people?
I am delighted that in Hull there are people who care enough about those in need to roll up their sleeves and volunteer to help refugees who have come to this country. In particular, I am thinking about organisations such as Hull Help for Refugees and Open Doors Hull, which I visited before Christmas. Both organisations do amazing work. However, for all the fantastic work those brilliant organisations do, it is the Government and the Government alone who can extend the rights of reunification so that child refugees can bring their parents to the UK and resume their family life.
I will end by quoting a poem, “Human Family”, by one of my favourite poets, Maya Angelou:
“The variety of our skin tones
can confuse, bemuse, delight,
brown and pink and beige and purple,
tan and blue and white…
We love and lose in China,
we weep on England’s moors,
and laugh and moan in Guinea,
and thrive on Spanish shores.
We seek success in Finland,
are born and die in Maine.
In minor ways we differ,
in major we’re the same.
I note the obvious differences
between each sort and type,
but we are more alike, my friends,
than we are unalike.”
If that is true and if in their situation we too would like to be reunited with our children, then we as Members of Parliament must act to give those who are currently refugees the rights that we ourselves would like, because we are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. This is the biggest humanitarian crisis on record, and the response to that challenge has to meet the severity of the situation in the times in which we live. When a family decides to flee a country because of danger to life, the process is neither simple nor straightforward. During that period of chaotic turmoil, lives are turned upside down and children are often separated from their parents, leaving them in a vulnerable position that no child should be in.
The UK Government’s approach thus far to family reunification is overly complex and bureaucratic, and it keeps families apart. I agree with Refugee Action that refugee family reunion rules should be expanded to cover all relationships where the applicants are dependent on the sponsor. In times of war, it is sadly to be expected that when the parents of a family die, the oldest sibling will be responsible for looking after their younger sisters and brothers, but the restrictive UK approach prevents the oldest sibling from being covered by the refugee family reunion rules. The Government may argue that they have immigration rules that may help, but they fail to mention that the system is costly, complex and overly bureaucratic—a hurdle that is far too great for many refugees to overcome. The financial requirements are prohibitive and were made worse by the Tories removing legal aid for family reunion applications back in 2013.
The private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) would reintroduce legal aid for those looking to bring their families together. That is not just morally right; it is an absolute moral imperative. The Scottish Government recognise that for refugees, leaving home is not a choice but a necessity to protect them from violence and death. Our recently published “New Scots Refugee Integration Strategy”, which has been endorsed by the UN, sets out how Scotland can continue to help refuges to rebuild their lives. However, our attempts are hampered when families are not allowed to be reunited.
This issue unites the Scottish National party and Labour in Scotland, and I am very proud that my local authority, under both parties, has welcomed 28 Syrian families to Renfrewshire. Kassem Ayash, his wife Hiba and their young daughter Hajar arrived in Paisley in late 2015 from a camp in Jordan, and I am pleased to say that they have since had a son, Abdulraham, born in Scotland. However, Kassem’s mother and father and seven siblings are all still in Jordan, and he is not sure he will ever see them again. He said:
“They are all still there so far away. We miss them very much.”
Speaking with tears in his eyes, Kassem said the welcome he and his family received in Paisley was beyond anything he could have hoped for. He said:
“Someone from the council said to me, ‘If I could change the weather for you, I would.’”
I grant that the weather is not grand. He went on:
“That sentence was enough, that said it all to me…The welcome from everyone has been amazing. Everyone has been so kind and understanding. We have seen no discrimination from anyone, just love and understanding.”
We can and must do better. In a few weeks’ time, we can put our warm words into action. My hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill is a fantastic opportunity to ensure we help meet the calls made on us as a result of the biggest humanitarian crisis. All we have to do is turn up and vote on 16 March.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing this debate, and I thank my colleagues for their remarks. The migration crisis is a great test of our values as a nation. It shines a light on the actions, not the words, of our politicians. Britain has much to be proud of in the realm of international development, but when it comes to unaccompanied child refugees, we are being found wanting. It is not an immigration issue; it is an issue of our shared humanity. At the moment, we are not at our best, and we need to be.
The changes to the immigration rules, particularly those affecting unaccompanied child refugees, need to be accelerated. The approach is not working. I welcome the changes announced in the Sandhurst treaty, but since that treaty was signed, how many more children have been brought forward? How much more money and funding has been allocated to supporting these unaccompanied child refugees? Will the Minister reassure us—so many people out there do not know the answer to this—on whether unaccompanied child refugees are included in the immigration targets? We should ensure that young people fleeing conflict and poverty are not counted for political purposes, or for the purposes of an immigration target; that would send the strong message from this House that those young people matter as individuals, not as a statistic.
I was pleased to join my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) in Calais. I saw the shocking conditions those young people were in. I want to know that each and every time we stand up, we move a little closer to improving the lives of those kids. Some of the images I saw and stories I heard still haunt me. A stat from UNICEF shows that a majority of those young people were sexually abused on their way to Calais. That still really angers me. What additional help are we giving to those children whom we are accepting to deal with the sexual assaults and abuse they have suffered en route to the UK?
Plymouth has a fine reputation for welcoming refugees. Students and Refugees Together is a superb example of how open and welcoming we are as a city, but there is still so much more we need to do as a country. I would be grateful if the Minister continued to fight the case within Government, because we need to send a message to our entire nation that these young unaccompanied refugees are not drains on the state. They are part of our shared humanity, and we have a collective responsibility to look after them.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
I thank Members for their forbearance, because I can now get the last speaker on my list in.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Images from a terrible war that has been going on for years haunt us daily. Families suffer on an unimaginable scale. We sit in front of our TV screens feeling helpless, but we actually can do something about these things, especially here in Westminster. We can help families escape this horror. To do that, we must change our wrongheaded immigration rules. I welcome this timely debate, which is not just about rebuilding lives, but ultimately saving them. I am sorry I cannot be in Westminster on 16 March.
It makes no sense that under immigration laws, children alone in the UK have no right to be reunited with even their closest family members, unlike adult refugees. If we allow children refugee status in the UK, we have accepted that it is too dangerous for them to return home. Should they never see their loved ones again? Are we condemning their families to face daily threats to their lives, while their children risk becoming orphans? These children have already been through enough, and it is not for us to punish them further. Being reunited with their family is surely the best way for them to rebuild their life. Not reuniting them is cruel, and means they will become increasingly vulnerable in the UK.
The Government’s response so far has been absurd. They say that changing the rules would create a perverse incentive to encourage children to leave their families and risk hazardous journeys to the UK. That is astonishing. We are not talking about a nice holiday trip across the Mediterranean; we are talking about escaping grave danger. The Government’s obsession with cutting immigration is stopping us from responding as human beings and being compassionate. Helping refugees is the right thing to do.
The rules of family reunion for those given refugee status are incredibly complex, and the obstacles to evidencing a family link when that family has been torn apart due to conflict can be impossible to overcome. The problems are often multiplied by language barriers. The fact that there is little legal aid means that these people struggle to rebuild their lives.
I grew up in Germany—my country of origin—under an immense feeling of guilt at what the country had inflicted on the rest of the world. Germany has taken in more than 1 million Syrian refugees. That is not as some form of redemption, but because it is a changed country. Britain, my country of choice, has a proud tradition of being a sanctuary for those who are persecuted. Let us not take the reverse direction. Let us remember our values. We should be compassionate and able to look refugee families in the eye, knowing that we have done the right thing.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Thank you, Dame Cheryl, for chairing today’s debate so astutely, so we could hear so many powerful and thoughtful speeches. I pay a warm tribute to the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) for introducing the debate, for his powerful advocacy on the issue, and for securing such an amazing turnout. I emphasise that on Friday 16 March we have a significant opportunity to change the rules on family reunion and legal aid for family reunion applications. If as many hon. Members as possible could put that date in their diary, that would be greatly appreciated.
It is good to debate this important issue again; it must be the third or fourth time we have debated it in the last couple of years, which illustrates the strength of feeling among hon. Members and their discontent with the rules. That discontent essentially falls into two parts: first, discontent about the difficulties that families face in going through with a family reunion, even when people qualify under the rules; and secondly, discontent about the rules being drawn too tightly.
Before I touch on each of those aspects, it is important to recall how important family reunion is. It is important that people applying to come here can be reunited with family members, because very often that provides a safe, legal route to a place of safety—a route that would not otherwise exist. It is also vital for the family members who are here already. Their lives can be made unbearable, as hon. Members have attested, and their integration can be made much more difficult by separation from, and the suffering of, their loved ones who are unable to join them here.
Family reunion helps to achieve the aim, which I think we in this Chamber all share, of reducing the number of dangerous journeys that have to be made. It also undermines the people smugglers’ business model. After all, which people are most likely to do anything open to them—to move heaven and earth—to get to the UK? People in dangerous or difficult situations who have a reason to be here in the form of family. If there is no safe, legal route, people with family in the UK will be the most likely to turn to the people traffickers.
I turn to the first issue that I outlined: the procedures for those who are fortunate enough to qualify. As I will show, the requirements can be complex, and it is not straightforward for a person to prove that they meet them, as the Red Cross explained in an excellent report. Even proving what would seem a very simple part of the rules, such as two people’s relationship, is sometimes not easy. In the case of children, we instinctively think of a birth certificate, but what if someone is from, say, Eritrea? How do the UK Government form a view on whether to give such documents evidential weight? Will we need an expert report on the authenticity of that birth certificate? Should we get a DNA test? What if the child is adopted or is a stepchild? All that is without even thinking about language and cultural barriers, never mind levels of education.
I used to be an immigration solicitor, and had the fortune to assist a number of families with such applications. It was always clear as day to me that legal aid to provide that advice was appropriate. I am glad that it is still available in Scotland for family reunion applications; it should be available in the rest of the United Kingdom, given how important and difficult these issues are.
Turning to the various rules that apply to children seeking to be reunited here, part 11 of the immigration rules allows for pre-flight children who are under 18 to obtain refugee family reunion with parents here. It is a solid enough starting point, but even here there are some questions. For example, why should a 17-year-old who moved out of the family house to go and study, just months before his family fled, be excluded from the scope of the rules? Much more fundamentally, why draw the line at 18? Everyone here would be horrified to be told that their 18-year-old had to be left behind, while their 15 and 17-year-old siblings were able to come to the United Kingdom. A more generous option would, of course, be to make the provision available for those up to the age of 21 or 25, or we could apply a test of whether the adult child was still part of the household, and/or a dependent. There are different perspectives, but unfortunately, again, UK immigration rules seem to take one of the most restrictive options possible.
If someone does not qualify under the general family reunion rules, they look to part 8 of the immigration rules, where there are alternatives for children. Here is probably where we find some of the greatest injustices. For children seeking to join other relatives, such as siblings or uncles and aunts, the tests are infinitely more difficult. They must prove not just their relationship, but
“serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable”.
Crucially, the sponsor must also be able to prove an ability to maintain and accommodate the child without recourse to public funds.
Hon. Members will all have had—some spoke about this—new refugees at their surgeries. An example would be a Somali couple, who have been here just a few months with younger teenage children. They may be making good attempts to integrate and learn English, but may be hindered by the distress of separation from a niece or sister who they fear for and believe is vulnerable without other family support. The idea that they will be able to meet all those financial tests so that their sister or niece can arrive here is ridiculous.
If there are serious and compelling considerations that make exclusion of a child undesirable—itself a tough test—surely in no circumstances should there be an additional financial test. That test can force families into horrible choices. What if the family has enough financial resources or accommodation to meet the tests in relation to one child, but not a second? Just this morning, I heard of a family forced to make such a horrendous decision. They could pick one child, but not both; otherwise, the financial and accommodation tests would not be met.
Injustice is served not only to kids seeking to join relatives other than their parents, but to adult children seeking to join their parents. Those 18 and 19-year-old kids have to meet some even more fiendishly challenging legal tests: they have to show that they are in not “exceptional compassionate circumstances”, but “the most exceptional compassionate circumstances”. Think about a 19-year-old daughter living alone in a refugee camp in Kenya. Today, those are hardly exceptional circumstances, never mind the most exceptional, but I think most people in the Chamber would think that she should qualify for family reunion. How many of us could honestly say that if we were in the position of the Somali couple to whom I referred, we would not be tempted to resort to the people smugglers, if that was the only route by which we could get our daughter to the United Kingdom? Government policy is, in essence, in danger of driving parents to make those decisions.
The same maintenance and accommodation requirements risk an even more horrendous situation. Imagine that a 19-year-old in a refugee camp has been seriously harmed. How can it be that we might end up with a decision that says, “I acknowledge that you are living alone in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances, but we’re still not going to let you in, because you aren’t earning enough money yet to meet the financial thresholds”? That would be an incredible injustice.
Families are left to make an application to the entry clearance officer outside the rules, desperately hoping that he or she will exercise discretion and allow that 19-year-old in anyway. The Government say that this is the answer to the problem, but there were only 21 cases in 2015 and 49 in 2016 where such applications were successful. In the circumstances we face, those are worryingly low numbers. If the rules are complex, the guidance on how to exercise discretion, which again requires exceptional circumstances and recognises that grants will be rare, is even more so. We also have to acknowledge that those successful in applications outside the rules will be granted much more restrictive rights than if they had been successful under the rules.
If there were time, I would also criticise the unfairness towards refugees who have been granted UK citizenship and are deprived of family reunion rights. I could also criticise rules on post-flight children, which are restrictive as well. I join other Members in criticising the intransigence of the Government in refusing to allow refugee children who are here to sponsor their parents to come here, a situation that the Home Affairs Committee has described as “perverse”. The Government’s argument that it would create a pull factor is not based on any evidence, and is horrendously unethical. At the end of the day, we need to do what is just and fair. The idea that we should treat people—children in this case—unfairly simply to disincentivise other people, including children, from seeking asylum in our country is pretty outrageous.
I hope that the Minister is listening to the arguments that have been powerfully made by hon. Members from across the House. If not, I hope that hon. Members will join us on Friday 16 March in ensuring that progressive change is made to the UK’s family reunion rules.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) for securing today’s debate and for his excellent speech. There have been many great contributions this afternoon, so I will not name any hon. Members, but simply thank them all for enriching the debate.
At the moment, unaccompanied children who have been granted refugee status do not have the right to sponsor their family members to join them. We are one of the few countries in Europe with that policy. Adult refugees can be joined only by their spouse or partner and dependent children under 18. That means that they cannot bring siblings, parents, aunts or uncles.
In her speech yesterday, Labour’s shadow Home Secretary announced our policy on family reunion. Under a Labour Government, if a child has been granted the right to be here, so will their parents or carers. If they have been brought up by carers or parents with a right to be here, they will also have that right, even after they turn 18. That will allow child refugees to be reunited with their families, and will end the awful practice of children who have spent their childhood and adolescence in the UK being deported at the age of 18 to countries that they often know nothing about, and with which they have no affinity. I will make the positive argument that family reunion promotes integration, and then refute the Government’s false claim that this policy will act as a pull factor.
Separation from family members is a real barrier to integration. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says:
“there is a direct link between family reunification, mental health and successful integration.”
The first thing that many migrants say when they are granted status is, “How do I bring my family?” That can lead to spending enormous amounts of money and effort in attempting to bring family members here, even when that is impossible under the immigration rules.
Samba is a refugee who has been in contact with the Refugee Council. She is a mother from central Africa who has been resettled in the UK with two of her children, but separated from her daughter and grandchildren. She sent every bit of money she had to her family and lived in poverty. Many refugees are unable to focus on taking steps to integrate because of worry about family members and feelings of guilt.
One refugee, Mwanza, described to the Refugee Council going to English language classes and taking nothing in, because of the worry about his wife and daughter, who are still in a refugee camp in central Africa. Mwanza’s difficulty in English classes affected his ability not only to integrate, but to support his family, as English is essential for finding employment.
Integration is already a real challenge for refugee children coming to the UK, and separation from their families makes it much harder. On the other hand, when refugees, especially children, are reunited with family members, that accelerates integration, both for the new arrivals and for family members already in the UK.
The Government’s reason for not doing more to reunite refugee families in the UK has been that they do not want to create a pull factor that encourages unaccompanied children to make dangerous journeys to the UK. We reject that argument completely, for two reasons. First, it fundamentally misunderstands the causes of migration flows. People do not leave their families and take dangerous journeys across the Mediterranean and Europe, with all the associated risks, because of the welfare benefits of the UK. Apart from anything, many refugees arrive with a misunderstanding of our refugee system. Push factors on migrants far outweigh any other issue. So long as there is war, violence, persecution and conflict, people will be forced to flee their homes.
Secondly, a lack of legal routes to resettlement actually encourages people to make dangerous journeys. Legal schemes disrupt the activities of people traffickers, rather than encourage them. Where legal routes are limited, where children lose faith in systems and trust in officials, they turn to people traffickers or smugglers, who exploit them.
Omar has been granted refugee status in the UK after fleeing Syria. His brother is 17 years old and is in danger of being forcibly recruited into the army. The rules on refugee family reunion do not allow Omar to sponsor his brother, so he is forced to explore the possibility of helping his brother to make the dangerous journey to Europe. Once Khaled arrived in Europe, he would be able to ask for his case to be transferred to the UK under the Dublin III regulations. They would both rather avoid a treacherous journey across the Mediterranean, but without a legal route, they have no other option.
It is clear that extending family reunion rules is in the interests of refugees and society as a whole. Labour promotes a fair, managed migration system that honours our humanitarian obligations. We support the family reunification Bill that will come before the House on 16 March. We want to allow refugees to settle, integrate and live fulfilling lives in the UK, and to avoid the perverse situation where children who have close family in danger abroad cannot be reunited with them, and are brought up instead in our care system.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, it might be helpful for her to know that the mover of the debate has indicated that he would like a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.
The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)
Thank you, Dame Cheryl. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing this debate and I reassure him I will certainly leave him a couple of minutes at the end.
I start by thanking everyone here today who has contributed with thought-provoking and compassionate contributions. I have listened carefully to the many accounts of how important it has been for refugees in Members’ own constituencies to have their family members join them, to support their wellbeing and their integration into society. Like other Front-Bench spokespeople, I will not pick out individual contributions at length as I am conscious that I am very short on time, but I would reassure hon. Members that during the past five weeks or so that I have been in this role, I have taken the time to meet representatives from charities in my own constituency and nationally. I was particularly moved to meet Lana and Yameena, two Southampton University students. Lana had very specific experience of refugees when she was living in France and her family had welcomed a number of young refugees into her home. She was very clear to describe them to me as her brothers.
I assure the House that we are listening to the concerns about refugee family reunion. I know from my early discussions with non-governmental organisations and international organisations the importance placed on the issues, and that has been reinforced during our debate today. They are also issues my predecessor discussed on many occasions with NGOs, in the context of our wider asylum and resettlement strategy. I look forward to continuing that important work.
Several colleagues have focused on the question of extending the family reunion criteria, which is the subject of Baroness Hamwee’s private Member’s Bill and of the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—if the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) can be nervous about the pronunciation of that, he can probably imagine how I feel—which was introduced earlier this week and is due to come before this House for Second Reading on 16 March.
The Government’s policy objective for refugee family reunion remains to ensure that we are able to bring together pre-flight families and dependents who are in precarious or compelling circumstances. We must ensure that our policies support those who need our protection who cannot remain in their country or region of origin. I would therefore ask hon. Members to reflect on the policy objective of the private Member’s Bill, because the proposals, as currently drafted, would go far beyond that. It could lead to the policy being used by significantly more people who have no protection needs or who are not necessarily in precarious positions.
The Government strongly support the principle of family unity and we have a comprehensive approach to refugee family reunion set out in the immigration rules and our family reunion policy. Our starting point is that family reunion is a matter for immigration rules and policy, rather than primary legislation. Many hon. Members have highlighted that the family reunion rules provide only for immediate family members of refugees, but the immigration rules and resettlement schemes provide for extended family members to join their family here, if they are in the most precarious and dangerous circumstances.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is right to highlight that there are other routes available to different family members, but will she comment on the maintenance and accommodation test? Even if an applicant can show that they are living in the most compelling compassionate circumstances, that application could still be rejected because the sponsor in the United Kingdom does not meet a certain financial or accommodation threshold. Surely that is an unjust way to go about things.
Caroline Nokes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that with me. That is one of the points that I will take away with me from today’s debate.
We provide for British citizens to sponsor family members, there is provision to grant visas outside the rules in exceptional cases, and the mandate refugee scheme enables those recognised by the UNHCR as refugees to join close family members here in the UK.
I have noted the concerns raised today that so-called family reunification under the Dublin regulations may no longer be available post Brexit. However, Dublin does not confer immigration status simply because an individual has a family member in the UK. It is a mechanism for deciding the member state responsible for considering an asylum claim. It is for those seeking asylum and not those granted refugee status.
Having said that I was not going to pick up particular points, I would like to pick up on those made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who raised the Sandhurst treaty. Many Members have referenced Dublin III and the Dubs scheme. I was fortunate in 2015-16 to be a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe with Alf Dubs—he insisted that I call him Alf at all times, so I apologise if I refer to him incorrectly today. Travelling abroad with Lord Dubs was an incredibly instructive experience. The Sandhurst treaty was signed very soon after I came into this role—I think within the first two weeks.
I reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that we have committed £3.6 million to enable us to strengthen our co-operation with France on the operation of the Dublin regulation and the development fund, and to work with it to identify projects that support genuine claims through the Dublin process. A significant part of the Sandhurst treaty was about looking at the whole route for refugees. It is crucially important that we do not look at it in isolation either in the middle east and north Africa region or in Calais. We have to look at the entire journey that individuals make.
On the 480 children that will be accepted under Dubs—the number was at 220 when I came into this role—we are determined to ensure that, by changing the date and working closely with Greece and Italy, we fulfil that requirement. I regard it to be an absolute priority to take the 480 young people we have committed to.
Anyone transferred under the Dublin regulation will be expected to leave the UK if they are found not to need protection. Our family reunion rules will continue to enable immediate family members to reunite with their loved ones in the UK safely, regardless of the country in which they are based.
Pretty much every hon. Member raised legal aid and the cost of legal representation for family reunion cases. On 30 October, the Lord Chancellor announced the start of a review of legal aid reforms, which will include an assessment of the changes to the scope of legal aid for immigration cases, and will report later this year. Although family reunion cases generally do not fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, exceptional case funding may be made available where it is legally required. We are committed to providing clear guidance and application forms to support applicants through the family reunion process, and are working with key partners such as the British Red Cross and UNICEF to improve the process for considering family reunion applications.
It is vital that our focus remains on those most in need of our protection—particularly those fleeing conflict. The Government have invested significantly in supporting the most vulnerable refugees through our resettlement programmes, which offer safe and legal routes to protection and are designed to keep families together. By 2020, we will have resettled 20,000 refugees from Syria. We announced this week that we are at the halfway point, so 10,000 vulnerable families have been resettled in this country and a further 3,000 children and families have been resettled from the wider MENA region. Last year, we provided 6,212 people with protection under all our resettlement schemes. Over the past five years we have issued 24,700 family reunion visas, and since 2010 we have provided 49,830 people with protection status in the UK—they are entitled to apply for their qualifying members to join them.
I believe that our comprehensive approach to refugee family reunion already caters for the types of case that hon. Members are concerned about and provides safe and legal routes for families to reunite here. However, we need to concentrate our efforts on ensuring that our existing resettlement schemes are used to full effect, and that the current rules work properly and effectively. In that way, we will continue to help those who need it most.
I have already met representatives from UNICEF and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I thank the Refugee Council for sending me the report “Safe but Not Settled”, which looks at how the separation of refugees in the UK from their family members affects their successful integration into their new life in the UK. I look forward to further meetings with representatives of the Refugee Council, the Red Cross and other non-governmental organisations to discuss the important issue of family reunion in the coming weeks.
I therefore ask hon. Members from both sides of the House and representatives of NGOs to continue working with the Government to build on the existing family reunion policy and process to make our resettlement schemes and immigration rules work in the most effective way. In that way, we can ensure that more families are reunited as quickly, legally and safely as possible.
Hugh Gaffney
I thank all colleagues who attended and spoke this afternoon. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) came in late, but he has made a contribution to this debate.
Our obligation to the poorest and most vulnerable in the world was highlighted today in some powerful speeches. We heard some very powerful words, such as “humanity” and “human rights”, and my colleagues made some important contributions. I thank them all for that. I asked the Minister a set of clear questions, and I shall be following them up. I was not fully satisfied with her answers—particularly on legal aid. The questions were all perfectly acceptable and should be answered positively not just with words but with actions.
I look forward to working with all colleagues over the coming months. I will attend the debate on 16 March, and I will continue to help and support people. I will not walk on the other side of the road; I will walk on the side of humanity. There should not be a political divide. I am disappointed that there are some empty chairs here, but I respect the fact that it is Thursday afternoon and people have other places to get to.
I came to this House to change society. Since I was a child, I have been looking for world peace. That is the answer: world peace. It is not going to happen tomorrow. All I ask is that, if any child needs a hand to reach out to, we should offer that helping hand. Do not do it for me: let us remember Alan Kurdi.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (in the Chair)
This has been an excellent debate, and I thank you all for your forbearance. We have managed to get all speakers in in very good time, so you are all to be congratulated. This was a deeply emotional, very significant debate on the future of children.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered reunion for refugee children with family in the UK.
Child Poverty: London
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered child poverty in London.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate on such an incredibly important issue.
“We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.”
That was the promise made outside No. 10 following the appointment of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) as Prime Minister in July 2016. Less than five months later, the Government’s Child Poverty Unit was axed.
Last month, I received the incredibly saddening news from the End Child Poverty coalition that a staggering 32% of the children in my constituency of Mitcham and Morden are living in poverty. They are 8,598 of the 700,000 children across our capital who are living below the poverty line, defined as the minimum acceptable standard of living. Those children, through no fault of their own or of their family, do not have a warm winter coat, cannot afford to go on some school trips, and are denied the basic ability to have friends over for tea.
Today’s debate gives me the opportunity to tell hon. Members about the reality behind the child poverty statistics. I am worried that the Government do not take the plight of child poverty seriously enough. One in 10 London families has relied on a food bank. Some 88,410 London children are living in temporary accommodation, which is often poor quality and far from their schools and friends, without a place they can call home. A childhood in poverty often leads to an adulthood in poverty and a shorter, less fruitful life. Work is no longer the best route out of poverty, given that the majority of children in poverty grow up in a working household.
It is time for Parliament to understand just what causes poverty, and the tangible actions that the Government have the power to enact to make UK child poverty a thing of the past.
[Sir Henry Bellingham in the Chair]
Across the capital, London’s children are more likely to grow up in poverty than their contemporaries elsewhere in the UK. Child Poverty Action Group and others have shown that there are as many poor children in London as in all of Scotland and Wales. In some constituencies in London more than half of children are growing up in poverty. Consider that for a moment—there are places in this country where people are more likely than not to be born into and grow up in poverty. To put such a postcode lottery into context, compare that with the most affluent constituencies where only one in 10 children grow up in poverty.
In fact, of the 25 constituencies with the highest levels of poverty, nine are in our capital: Bethnal Green and Bow, Poplar and Limehouse, Edmonton, Westminster North, East Ham, Holborn and St Pancras, Hackney South and Shoreditch, Tottenham, and West Ham. Some of the biggest increases in child poverty have been in those areas already facing the greatest deprivation. Twenty-eight per cent. of children living in poverty in London are materially deprived, meaning that on the grounds of cost they lack basic items such as warm clothes. This is not a developing country and this is not 19th-century Britain, and yet this country’s children are suffering more than ever before.
To add insult to injury, London is a hub of wealth and affluence. Trust for London has shown that the poorest 50% of Londoners own only 5% of the wealth, while the wealthiest 10% own half of the capital’s wealth. Being born into a wealthy city will not protect someone from poverty.
Furthermore, while the Government continue to blame the prevalence of poverty on the workless, consider the fact that two thirds of children in poverty live in a working household. The toxic combination of rising inflation, falling real wages, frozen benefits and the astronomical cost of childcare means that work is no longer a guaranteed route out of poverty.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does she agree with me that the role that the increase in the number of children living in the private rented sector has on child poverty is an important consideration? One in four children grow up in the private rented sector, more than a quarter of those homes do not meet the decent homes standard and almost half of those families have a tenancy of six months or less. Does she agree that the Government need to make reform of the private rented sector and delivery of genuinely affordable housing the cornerstone of their approach to child poverty?
Siobhain McDonagh
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I know how much work she does on housing, but many Members present, in particular on the Labour Benches, spend most of their advice surgeries talking to families threatened with homelessness—people who live in the private sector and simply cannot afford the rents.
I want Members to hear children’s stories rather than just statistics, because ultimately we are talking about human beings rather than percentages, so I will read an extract from a heartbreaking letter I received from Mrs Sheridan, headteacher at Malmesbury Primary School in my constituency, outlining her experience of child poverty:
“A child had lost his reading book. We encouraged him to have a good look at home, including asking him to look under his bed. He replied ‘I haven’t got a bed to look under’…We see children who eat their lunch very quickly, whilst ‘protecting’ their plate with an arm as they eat…We see children who take extra bread and pasta from the salad bar daily to fill themselves up…We see children attending school in a uniform that is clearly outgrown…We had a family of five, the father who was in work, who lived in a van in a car park for a number of weeks…Parents have asked to use the school phone as they have lengthy delays in payment of Universal Credit, and have no money for phone credit to chase up their claim…We believe that we have a significant number of children who are so used to feeling hungry and cold that they do not recognise these feelings anymore.”
What message does the Minister have for Mrs Sheridan and, indeed, for those children, who are experiencing such deplorable examples of child poverty on a daily basis?
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject and for the case that she is making. She has mentioned universal credit. Does she agree with me that the roll-out of universal credit to a number of the constituencies that she listed earlier will make some of those families’ problems significantly worse over the next few months?
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and for all his work on poverty and helping poor families in London, in particular in his constituency. I completely agree that the delay in universal credit, the difficulties in claiming and the lack of face-to-face contact to be able to resolve some of the problems will have dire impacts on people.
Those examples I gave from Mrs Sheridan’s letter are just some of the examples of child poverty from just one school in just one constituency in our capital, across which four in 10 children now live in poverty—an astonishing figure that is expected to rise. London, however, is a divided city and significant affluence and poverty exist side by side, sometimes on the same street.
Take the London Borough of Merton, where my constituency neighbours the more wealthy constituency of Wimbledon. When we compare child poverty in our borough, it proves to be a sombre metaphor for the story of rich and poor across our capital. There are almost triple the number of children in poverty in my constituency than in Wimbledon and, to be clear, that is not because my constituents are less deserving or work less hard. At local ward level, Cricket Green ward in Mitcham and Morden has a staggering 38% of children in poverty, while less than a five-minute drive away, in the same borough, Wimbledon’s Hillside ward has only 5.5% of children in poverty. Furthermore, Mrs Sheridan, the Malmesbury headteacher, noted a distressing observation she had made: children from her school are significantly smaller physically than their peers in Wimbledon schools.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, as Save the Children found out, in almost half the families living in poverty the youngest child is under the age of five? Is it not therefore crucial that the Government target help on low-income families in the early years?
Siobhain McDonagh
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I ask the Minister what the Government will do to ensure equality of opportunity for all children in our capital, so that the letters of their postcode will not be the determining factor in their lives, dictating how long they live and their quality of life. Almost half of families in poverty are those whose youngest child is under the age of five, the point my hon. Friend just made, so what will the Government do to provide support for low-income families in the early years? How will we ever plug the gap that the absence of Sure Start centres has left?
For the 8,598 children living in poverty in my constituency, the consequences will be lifelong: children who start behind stay behind, harming their prospects throughout life, and harming us all as a society. At birth, they are more likely to have a low birth weight. By primary school, half of all disadvantaged children begin without reaching a good level of early development, compared with the national average of only one third of children. By GCSE, in terms of the numbers achieving at least five A* to C grades, there is a gap of 28% between children receiving free school meals and their more affluent peers.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful and compelling speech. Her constituency is not dissimilar to mine. When we think of child poverty, we think of Dickensian cobbled streets and of it as some sort of inner-city malady, but we both represent suburban seats. In Ealing Central and Acton 7,179 children live in poverty, which is not a dissimilar figure to the one she quoted. We also hear about Victorian diseases such as tuberculosis making a comeback. Those places were built to fulfil the suburban dream to get away from the inner city, but the horrible scourge of child poverty is coming to our suburbs. Does she agree with me?
Siobhain McDonagh
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There are great similarities. Suburban London is not the suburban London that many of us think exists.
By the end of their lives, boys from poorer backgrounds have a life expectancy that is an astonishing 9.2 years shorter than that of their wealthier counterparts. Take my borough, Merton, where Wimbledon constituents have a life expectancy almost three years longer than those in Mitcham and Morden, despite a mere letter change in their postcode. The Government, I know, are extremely fiscally responsible so, if that is not enough to inspire the Minister to action, perhaps it is worth them considering that child poverty costs the UK economy a staggering £29 billion per year in services and wasted potential.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a typically powerful speech and has done us a great service in highlighting such an important issue. She is absolutely right to highlight the economic cost of child poverty, but I think that collectively we agree it is also a moral issue. Does she agree with me that what gets measured gets done? Does she also agree that if we are serious about reducing unacceptably high levels of child poverty in our country, we need a target for reduction? Any Government of whatever political colour who are not prepared to commit to such a target will struggle to be taken seriously on the issue of child poverty.
Siobhain McDonagh
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I commend him for all the work that he does on child poverty. We might not all like targets, but they work.
The fundamental factor explaining London’s disproportionately high child poverty rates is the soaring cost and extreme shortage of housing. Across our capital there is a homelessness crisis, with 54,660 households in temporary accommodation, a figure that makes up 69% of the national total. Some 2,730 of those households are in temporary bed-and-breakfast accommodation, including 500 households with children who have been in B&Bs in London for longer than the six-week legal limit.
In my constituency I discovered a converted warehouse in the heart of one of south London’s busiest industrial estates. Connect House temporarily houses up to 86 homeless families with a car park as a playground and rooms so small that families sleep horizontally to all fit in a bed. Families have been placed there from across London, causing children to fall ill, miss school, and even to be found wandering lost around a working industrial estate at night. That is Dickensian, a disaster waiting to happen, and the reality of 21st-century child poverty in London.
The private rented sector—back to the earlier point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—is where children in poverty are most likely to live, with child poverty in private rents tripling in the past decade alone. That is unsurprising considering that the lowest quartile of rents in London are more than 150% higher than elsewhere in England. That means the average tenant in the capital spends a staggering half of their salary on rent. At my most recent advice surgery on Friday I met John, a married man in his 50s who spends 74% of his monthly income to fund the roof over his head: a one-bedroom flat that he shares with his wife and 11-year-old son. Can the Minister tell me how someone like John will ever be able to afford to save to own his own home, or how work provides John with a route out of poverty?
So what can be done about housing? Since 1939 the delivery of more than 200,000 homes a year in England has happened only in years when there have been major public sector house building programmes, and the last time that the Government target of 300,000 homes were built in one year in England was in 1969, when councils and housing associations were also building new homes. We urgently need to grant local authorities the right to build and the right to buy so that housing can be let to families on low incomes at social housing rents.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Her point on housing is extremely well made. Does she share my concern that some of the regeneration of estates in London is reducing the amount of social housing and that the opportunity to improve and increase social housing is simply not being taken in estate after estate across London?
Siobhain McDonagh
I have a slightly different and perhaps more controversial view of redevelopments. I congratulate councils that try to deal with problems in difficult circumstances and come up with solutions that would not always be their first choice. In life, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, the way to make friends is to do nothing. Sometimes doing something makes you more enemies. I congratulate all the councils of whatever persuasion that are trying to do their best in really difficult circumstances.
A mechanism should be introduced so that any public sector site up for disposal has to be considered for the construction of social or mixed housing, including a substantial proportion that is social. Currently, public bodies tend to sell sites to raise money, not to provide homes. They often hide behind the requirement to obtain best value. For me and many Members here today, best value is the provision of homes for homeless or overcrowded families. How about building on the 19,334 hectares of unbuilt greenbelt land within a 10-minute walk of a London train station? It is not traditional greenbelt land. At no environmental cost, it is enough space for almost 1 million new homes in our capital.
It is not only extortionate housing costs that London faces, but living costs higher than anywhere else in England. In fact, nearly 40% of Londoners have an income below the amount needed to achieve a basic decent standard of living, with children the most likely to live below minimum income standards.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on all the work that she has done on poverty and housing in London and nationally. Does she agree that the distinction between social and affordable housing is crucial to addressing the problem of housing for those living in poverty? In the previous Budget there was no mention whatever of social housing. Affordable housing in London is very often not affordable. If the Government are to do anything about these issues, they need to grasp this distinction, which they either do not understand or deliberately do not want to address.
Siobhain McDonagh
I am sure that as politicians we often live by our word, and I am extremely offended by the way we now use the word “affordable”. In housing terms, “affordable” means 80% of market rent. I suspect many of us here today could not manage to pay an affordable rent, let alone somebody on a low or median income in the capital. I would be grateful to find a way to ban the word “affordable” in this context.
Sir Edward Davey
Again, the hon. Lady makes a powerful point, along with her right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan). My wife is a social housing lawyer and she has a presentation on the meaning of “affordable” in Government policy and law. She has found 11 different definitions of affordability, so not only is it confusing—“affordable” often does not mean affordable—but it is completely absurd and we need to get back to the issue of social housing that the hon. Lady raised.
Siobhain McDonagh
I wish to say this tactfully because I like the right hon. Gentleman a great deal. The problem and the definition of affordability at 80% market value goes back to the 2010 coalition Government. I do not wish to be mean; I simply wish to put that on the record.
Joan Ryan
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. I do not think it is a question of being mean. It is a question of holding to account, and there simply is not enough holding to account of either the previous coalition Government and their Cabinet members or the current Government. If there was more holding to account, we would not be facing the dire circumstances in which many thousands of children are paying the price for those two Governments not being accountable and not addressing the issues that matter.
Siobhain McDonagh
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention.
Across the capital, wages have not kept up with the cost of living and in most parts of London a full-time minimum wage job barely covers the rent. While the cost of living continues to soar, state support for low-income families continues to fall in real terms. The extraordinary cost of living has left one in 10 London families—I could barely believe that figure—to rely on a food bank, with three-day emergency food supplies provided to 169,896 people in London since April 2016.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She mentions families; does she agree that there is a particular problem for single-parent families? According to the charity Gingerbread, 47% of them live in relative poverty. That is the household type that has been hit hardest by welfare reform. It needs a particular kind of support, such as with childcare.
Siobhain McDonagh
It is as if my hon. Friend anticipates what I am going to say. I thank him for his intervention and apologise for speaking for so long; I did not anticipate that so many would want to take part in the debate. I shall try to truncate my remarks as I do not want to take away the opportunity for others to speak.
For many children in poverty, a free school lunch may be the only healthy cooked meal of the day. The Department for Education found that it can lead to positive improvements in attainment and social cohesion, and can also act as a passport to other support such as help with school clothing, trips or extracurricular activities. It is stunning therefore that the Children’s Society estimates that about a million children living in poverty will miss out on free school meals under the Government’s latest proposals to introduce an earnings threshold for eligibility under universal credit. As many of us know, the roll-out of universal credit has countless problems, but completing its roll-out under existing legislation, under which all claimants are eligible for free school meals, would cost approximately £500 million—a fraction of the £29 billion cost of child poverty.
As for childcare costs, a close friend of mine recently had a baby and now, to go to work, she pays £1,000 a month in childcare for her very young child. That is like paying an additional rent every month, just to get access to childcare. She is not alone. Gingerbread reports that some single parents will spend more than half their income on childcare costs so that they can go to work. No wonder 51% of single-parent families in London live in relative poverty. The day-to-day reality means that one in 10 working single parents has had to rely on payday lenders, doorstep lenders and foodbanks. It is that group that makes up half of households in temporary accommodation, whose work in zero-hours contracts has increased tenfold over the past decade, and which is set to lose around 15% of its net income by 2021-22 as a result of this Government’s tax and benefit reforms. How will those reforms ever enable those families to escape poverty?
What about families in London who have a child with a disability? The annual cost of bringing up a disabled child is three times more than that of bringing up a non-disabled child. That results in a staggering 60% of children and young people with learning disabilities and mental ill health living in poverty. In fact, according to a survey in 2012, 17% of families with disabled children go without food; 21% go without heating; 26% go without specialist equipment or adaptations; and 86% go without leisure activity. Does the Minister agree with me that a child with a disability should be no more predisposed to childhood poverty than any other child?
I will end my remarks there to allow others to take part in the discussion. I have many suggestions for solutions that I hope will come up during the debate.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for requesting the debate, which is something I supported.
Too often, London is portrayed within the national context as a rich and robust powerhouse, which gobbles infrastructure funds and brashly demands priority in debates on the north-south divide. As those of us representing London seats know, however, deprivation is threaded through every quarter of our city, and has been for centuries. None the less, the capital now moves at such lightning pace that its local authorities must at times meet gargantuan challenges in serving their populations, using budgets calculated on outdated demographic assumptions. That can make the challenge of addressing child poverty extremely tricky.
The reward for all its economic successes is that London is one of only three regions in the UK where tax receipts outstrip public spending. That means that every Londoner gives £3,070 more in taxes than they receive in Government spend. For those of us representing outer London boroughs, I suspect that effect on public spending figures may be even more pronounced. It has long been assumed that inner-London boroughs have the highest need. I believe we now desperately need to reassess those outdated assumptions and catch up with the growing pressures on outer-London boroughs such as Havering.
Havering is one of London’s lowest-funded boroughs, yet it has the oldest population in the capital as well as the fastest growing number of children of any borough for the past three years in a row. During a six-year period from 2010 to 2015, some 4,536 children settled in the borough, leading to a huge demand for children’s social care and services for those with disabilities and special educational needs. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), for the additional £2.1 million provided to the borough in the new funding settlement, but we now need a wholesale review of funding in London to keep up with the changing demographics. I shall be contributing to the Government’s consultation in that regard.
Population change also strains housing supply, which is causing rents to leap in Havering. The link between child poverty and workless households is well established, and the Government’s fantastic record on driving down unemployment should be recognised as the huge achievement that it is for the impact on individuals’ lives. For some families, however, a regular wage may not be sufficient to cope with rapidly rising housing costs. I have visited some of the temporary accommodation available in Havering for families and, while staff and council do a fantastic job in working with children who stay there, it is no substitute for safe, warm and high-quality homes.
Havering is champing at the bit to undertake an ambitious estate regeneration plan so that it can provide local families with the greater range of affordable—if I may use that word—housing options that they need. If we are serious about urgently tackling the housing crisis and child poverty, we need to unleash those councils that have sensible, financially sound plans to lead redevelopment themselves, not least as they can tolerate lower returns than private developers. I was glad to see the Budget lift the housing revenue account cap in high-demand areas to aid housing delivery plans, and I welcome additional support for those who are homeless or struggling with private rents.
Education has always provided a crucial ladder when it comes to poverty alleviation, and I am lucky to represent an area with some of the best primary schools in England, including in some of the country’s poorest wards. Local schools have done a fantastic job of offering children a window into some of the opportunities our city can offer them by building partnerships with universities, businesses and museums, engaging in such things as the Brilliant Club scholars programme and pushing hard on numeracy and literacy. Next week I shall be supporting the World Book Day 2018 literacy and development drive to encourage families to read with their children.
We must not let that progress slip in the transition to secondary school. The requirement to fill in a form for a child to be given a secondary place can unfairly disadvantage pupils on free school meals, as parents are often late or poorly informed, or they fail to complete the form at all. Consequently, too many pupils who have free school meals—especially white British boys—end up without a place and are served the left-over allocations. That can concentrate children in failing schools and entrench social problems. We should instead look at how best to remove the necessity of a form for pupils on free school meals, perhaps by local authorities automatically awarding them their local school unless a parent wants to exercise a preference.
In the past 20 years there has been an intense focus on how to enhance academic performance in inner-city areas, particularly among black and minority ethnic students, which has produced tremendous results. We now need to refresh the approach by looking with the same urgency at the new neglected groups. Perhaps a new Teach First should deal with white working-class areas that are falling behind, or there could be a major drive to improve the quality of pre-school provision by skilling up the nursery workforce, or the creation of dedicated core schools for excluded children. With the number of secondary permanent exclusions climbing for the fourth consecutive year, too many students are being taught in pupil referral units. Core schools would provide an alternative key stage 4 curriculum, with English, maths and science alongside two further technical qualifications. Close working with social services teams could give excluded children safety and stability and flag up problems in the home that can drive child poverty.
Finally, I have focused on the funding needs of outer-London boroughs, but I would caution against seeing child poverty alleviation as something that can be solved by Government money alone.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I respect the hon. Lady for turning up for the debate. We did not have any Conservative Members in the child refugee debate. Does she think at all that £27 billion taken out of social security since 2010 has had any effect on child poverty in London?
Julia Lopez
We have to look at outcomes as well as methods and spending. I certainly remember that under the Labour Government there were some serious and entrenched poverty problems, because the benefits system was trapping people and there was not a belief that people could do more than they were given. I believe in people and that some of the Government’s reforms have fundamentally changed a lot of people’s lives for the better. Driving employment in households is an absolutely fantastic achievement. We have almost become accustomed to banking these incredible job figures, but they actually mean something to a lot of people. It is incredibly valuable for children to see working parents.
Siobhain McDonagh
Could the hon. Lady identify any word that I have said that suggests that work is not important? Work is important, but support and ability to earn enough to live are important, too.
Julia Lopez
I was not aware that I was attacking the hon. Lady, and I am sorry if that is how she felt.
I have been a councillor in Tower Hamlets and I observed meeting after meeting where councillors in that borough indulged in what I have to admit was an orgy of blame—not just Labour but other councillors, too—suggesting that every negative statistic that the borough racked up was down to Tory cuts, despite overseeing a budget of more than £1 billion, being in receipt millions of unspent section 106 contributions and being able to access all manner of special funding pots due to its poverty ranking. Rarely did councillors expend the same energy in the nitty-gritty of whether the borough’s programmes were effective and delivering results in alleviating poverty.
To give a small example, in my scrutiny of its youth services provision I found that Tower Hamlets was spending more than £1,000 on each young person with whom it came into contact at the extremely poorly attended youth services. That was equivalent to nearly £300 a head in the 13 to 16-year-old population, when Lambeth, Southwark and Greenwich, which are also Labour boroughs and have thriving services, were spending under £150. An attachment by adults to empty youth centres offering outdated programmes was cutting young people off from a much more modern approach to outreach that truly catered to young people’s ambitions. This is what I mean by the need to focus on outcomes rather than methods; there was a real obsession in Tower Hamlets about methods rather than whether results were being delivered—signalling politics rather than delivery politics.
Similarly, a former child services officer advised me that the council had been spending tens of thousands of pounds annually on one troubled family in the borough. It was only when budgets were tightened that officers were forced to review whether those interventions had been working; they realised that the family would be better off if the mother had the confidence to leave an abusive partner. Through very intensive one-to-one work with her, she built up the courage to leave and to get back into the workplace, giving her children the stability to start school again. The council was saved huge amounts of money.
I say this because two of the three national constituencies where child poverty statistics are starkest sit in the borough of Tower Hamlets—one of the most incompetently run corners of our capital. We cannot simply throw a blanket of taxpayers’ money over every problem. Resource is important—I am not denying that—but it must be accompanied by competent governance if it is truly to make a difference to driving down child poverty.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this import debate and on her powerful analysis of the situation. Eight years ago, David Cameron said the Conservatives would be
“the most family-friendly Government you’ve ever seen in this country”.
Less than two years ago, the current Prime Minister stood on the steps of Downing Street and proclaimed that she would fight against “burning social injustices” and
“make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.”
What we have heard so far today throws some stark reality on that. This debate is another reminder of how reality fails to match the Government’s rhetoric.
My borough of Enfield, where I have lived for the past 20 years, and where my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) has lived all his life, is generally thought of as a leafy borough with a very solid foundation for employment, manufacturing, the service sector and logistics. It has always been said, and I have said many times, that it is a great place to live and bring up a family. However, Enfield is in the midst of a worsening child poverty crisis. Four in 10 of Enfield’s children—almost 34,000—live below the poverty line. The borough is the 11th most impoverished area for children in the UK.
My constituency and neighbouring Edmonton are also two of the top 20 constituencies in the country with the fastest growing levels of child poverty, and Edmonton is in the top 10, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned. As the End Child Poverty coalition has said, low-income families are struggling to put
“food on the table, heat their homes and clothe their children.”
We should feel anger and shame that that is the situation. Last year, Enfield had the fourth highest rate of food bank usage in London. Is it any wonder that this is happening when wages are flatlining, with one in three jobs in Enfield being paid less than the living wage? I ask hon. Members to look at yesterday’s edition of the Enfield Independent, our local paper, which says that eviction rates are the highest in the capital. Levels of homelessness acceptances in Enfield have risen more than 80% in the past two years.
My hon. Friend referred to my constituency surgery, which I do every Friday afternoon from 3 o’clock. Anyone who turns up will be seen, even if they have not made an appointment, because people are desperate. A huge percentage of the problems relate to housing. Many hard-pressed local families are trying—and often failing—to cope with soaring rents and a lack of affordable and social housing. But under this Government, house building has fallen to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s. The number of affordable homes in Enfield increased by just over 300 in the three years to 2016. For most families, what is called affordable is not affordable, as we have already discussed. On top of all of this, most benefits for working families have been frozen, which has cut families’ real incomes. There is a serious shortage of genuinely affordable childcare.
I am proud that the last Labour Government introduced Sure Start, the transformative early years programme giving young children the best start in life. When Labour left office in May 2010, there were 24 Sure Start centres in Enfield. Now there are just five. Government cuts to these vital education services are a scandal and our most disadvantaged children are paying the price. As Save the Children has said, the consequences of a lack of quality early years education for children living in poverty are lifelong and
“it harms not only their quality of life, but their ability to learn and develop at a crucial stage in their lives.”
The lack of Government action to address these issues is in stark contrast to the leadership shown by Sadiq Khan, the Labour Mayor of London, who is championing the London living wage to support low income families.
Joan Ryan
The Minister may make an intervention if he wishes.
The Mayor is investing £15 million to buy homes for homeless Londoners and recently he launched the capital’s largest living rent scheme, to offer more Londoners a genuinely affordable home. He is supporting early years hubs, delivering on his promise to improve access to high-quality, affordable early years education for the most disadvantaged families in the capital. However, the child poverty crisis is a national issue that demands a co-ordinated, national response from the Government.
I urge Ministers to restore targets to end child poverty. The Government must support local authorities as they attempt to address the worst effects of child poverty in their areas, instead of gutting their budgets. Enfield Council alone has had its central Government funding slashed by £161 million since 2010, with another £35 million in cuts due by next year. The Government need to fix their broken housing policy and help to make sure that all families in Enfield, particularly those on low incomes, have the chance to live in a safe, secure and genuinely affordable home. Universal credit still needs to be fixed to ensure that it does not drive even more families into debt, arrears and eviction, and the Government need to take steps immediately to provide more good-quality childcare and early years education.
Child Poverty Action Group rightly says that poverty
“damages childhoods; it damages life chances; and it damages us all in society.”
I am proud that the last Labour Government lifted 1 million children out of poverty. They addressed this issue and, to a large extent, they succeeded. It is time that, rather than making the situation worse, this Government got their act together for these children or moved over and let someone else do it.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on introducing the debate so powerfully.
There is more than enough challenge to go around without us having to worry too much about the pressures between inner London and the suburbs, which we have already heard enough about. There are real and growing challenges in suburban London, but child poverty remains acute in inner London, and it is worsening. If London has something of a reputational challenge as a wealthy city, I assure hon. Members that the City of Westminster has an acute reputational challenge. The borough, which contains Mayfair and Knightsbridge, is one of the poorest in the country. It has the sixth highest level of child poverty in the country after housing costs are taken into account, and my constituency has the 15th highest; well over half the children in wards such as Church Street live in poverty.
As Londoners, we must rise to that challenge and recognise that people in other parts of the country struggle to understand that a city with such extraordinary wealth—a city that contains the City of London and the iconic tourist attractions that are so familiar to everyone—is also the region with the highest poverty. It has more children in poverty than Scotland and Wales combined. As Members of Parliament, we have to try to explain that and help people understand it. We must ensure that the specific drivers of poverty in London are understood, and that we get our fair share of resources.
Let me add to the comments by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan). Poverty is not an act of God, but is brought about by a failure by the Government and by market forces to ensure that incomes are sufficiently high to lift children out of poverty, that housing is available at a reasonable cost, and that there are adequate services to support intervention for low-income families and children. I, too, am extremely proud that a Labour Government, although they were not perfect—no Government are—were able, though a mixture of the tax credit system, benefit changes and service delivery, to lift 1 million children out of poverty. That has gone into reverse: according to households below average income statistics, an extra 400,000 children have fallen into poverty since 2010. That was an absolutely foreseeable and deliberate consequence of Government policies, including the freezing and cutting of benefits, the two-child policy, benefit caps and the rents policy, which I shall come on to.
I am also proud of the children’s centres—500 have closed as a result of Government cuts to early intervention and local government funding—and national childcare strategy that a Labour Government set up. Under the previous Labour Mayor, Ken Livingstone, there was a London childcare affordability programme, which did so much to make childcare accessible to lower-income working families. So many of those measures have gone into reverse in the past few years.
As all Opposition Members have generally stressed, housing costs lie at the heart of poverty in the capital. It is housing costs that eat so much of people’s income, and it is housing costs that are driving a crisis of homelessness and housing insecurity. The interface between low-paid work, particularly when that work is insecure, the freeze and in some cases cuts in social security—particularly housing support—and high housing costs is a particular stress point.
Two important reports were published today, including another very important one by Citizens Advice, which found that one in 10 adults in this country has an income that varies from month to month. Someone who lives on a variable income, particularly when that income is low, but has high fixed costs—particularly high housing costs—is likely to find themselves in difficulty. That in turn feeds the epidemic of evictions, which we have heard are happening particularly in outer London, and high debt. That feeds the crisis of mental ill health—anxiety and depression—which is a real challenge for families who are struggling to get by on low incomes and in so many cases see their homes at risk. The pressures of housing and poverty are literally making people sick in their tens, if not hundreds, of thousands. That often drives people to seek advice and help, which are less available than they have been for a great many years.
It has already been said that the most vulnerable and most acutely disadvantaged families in the capital are those who are either in the homelessness system or at risk of homelessness. After many years of decline, the number of families in homelessness accommodation has risen significantly. Some 45,000 children in the capital now live in temporary accommodation, up from 28,000 when the Conservatives came into government in 2010. Those families often live in deeply substandard accommodation—unfortunately, temporary accommodation offers some of the worst conditions any of us have seen—yet they pay excessive rents. As a deliberate consequence of Government policy, those families also find themselves subject to rent restrictions and a benefits cap, even though no family that is accepted as homeless has any say whatsoever in the accommodation they receive, or the price they pay for it.
Joan Ryan
I wonder whether my hon. Friend has the same experience in her surgeries as I have in mine. Constituents come to see me who pay extortionate rents in the private sector for disgraceful property that is below habitable standards—it is damp, perhaps does not have hot water or heating, or has an out-of-date boiler—yet when I complain and try to get enforcement, they get what is called a revenge eviction and find themselves out on the streets. They have to go into temporary accommodation, they might be moved out of London, and their children might have to change schools. They continually suffer massive disruption to their lives.
Ms Buck
I totally agree. The Government will have to rise to the challenge of revenge evictions. That is well overdue. As was said, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden, that challenge is in part down to the fact that the face of poverty in London is increasingly in the private rented sector. We have seen a shift of low-income households from social rented accommodation into private rented accommodation, where rents are higher, insecurity is a constant problem and, because people on low incomes have so little choice in accommodation, people find themselves in the worst conditions.
Siobhain McDonagh
My hon. Friend is making her erudite, detailed knowledge obvious to everyone. Does she know that the Trust for London identified that the average family in poverty 10 years ago lived in inner London on welfare benefits in social housing, and today the average family in poverty in London live in outer London, are in work, and live in the private rented sector?
Ms Buck
That is absolutely right. That paints a picture of change, which, as a deliberate policy, has been into the private rented sector. The private rented sector is shifting further out, to outer London, and as has been said, the changing face of poverty is a working face: the number of families in poverty in work has risen sharply in the last decade. We all recognise that work is integral to getting out of poverty and to people’s sense of purpose and wellbeing in life, but work is not sufficient to lift people out of poverty. Above all, it is not sufficient for people faced with high housing costs.
Now, 43% of poor children in the capital are in private rented accommodation; that has increased from a third 10 years ago. The shift into the private rented sector is happening in large part because the social rented sector is in decline and no longer available for people to live in. People are being diverted into the private rented sector, even though their needs for security and affordability would be addressed far better in the social rented sector.
It gets worse: there has also been a deliberate policy of raising social rents above inflation, and shifting properties that were once attached to a social rent to a higher, “affordable” rent. In recent years, we have seen 100,000 properties converted from social rents to this Orwellian concept of an affordable rent, which traps even families who live in social rented accommodation into paying a much higher proportion of their income as rent than they were. That in itself is a reason why even in the social rented sector an additional 40,000 children now live in poverty.
A second report was launched today by Shout, the campaign for social housing, written for it by Capital Economics. It found that the policy of raising social rents is bad economics, as well as being bad for low-income families, because it reduces people’s ability to earn, and even families in homes for social rent are finding themselves unable to cover their housing costs. They will also increasingly be subject to the caps that flow out of the £25 billion taken out of social security expenditure by the Government.
We know, from the lived experience of British poverty in the last few years, that measures cutting social security, raising housing costs, reducing the availability of social rented housing and cutting vital support services do not work. We know that because poverty is going up, and it is predicted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies to rise sharply by 2021. As a consequence of those policies, we anticipate the first sustained increase in inequality in this country since the 1980s. We know from experience abroad that a policy that drives low-income families into high-rent accommodation does not work; it is bad for work incentives, and bad for those families.
The answer to all that—apart from unfreezing benefits, tackling the structural problems with universal credit, and dealing with issues such as the million children who, under universal credit, will lose entitlement to free school dinners—is to tackle the rent burden on families. That is best done by ensuring that low-income people have the opportunity to live in the social rented sector.
This was uttered today by the Conservative chair of the Local Government Association, in endorsing the Capital Economics report on the problem of high social rent:
“We have to let the state build and dispel the myth that state intervention is subsidy. It’s not. It’s investment in an asset”.
I do not often agree with leading Conservatives, but I firmly concur with that statement. As a famous song from New York City a few years ago stated, “The rent is too damn high”. Until we can tackle this problem, I am afraid we will be struggling with the problem of rising poverty in London.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)
Order. According to my calculations, we have 13 minutes left before the wind-ups.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on winning the debate and on her speech. We have had a degree of consensus on a number of issues that are critical to tackling child poverty, particularly housing. I want to say quite a bit about housing, but first I want to talk about my constituency.
The Royal Borough of Kingston is often seen as a wealthy borough. It is true that it has some very wealthy parts, but over many years representing three quarters of the borough, I have found that that external perception is inaccurate when it comes to the lives of thousands of people in the borough. We have pockets of severe deprivation. In wards such as Norbiton, where we have the Cambridge estate, Cambridge Gardens and the King Henry estate, people are really struggling, daily. There are also estates in central Surbiton, Chessington and Old Malden where levels of poverty equal those anywhere in the capital.
I often worry that the external perception, whether in City Hall, Whitehall or even the Guildhall in Kingston, means that people do not recognise that there are families in real need. As we do not have some of the social infrastructure found in other boroughs, some children in those struggling families get an even worse deal, because there is not that wider network of support. I am not asking the Government to give us the sort of money for social deprivation that other boroughs might get—that argument would be rejected—but I want the Minister to work with his colleagues and realise that in boroughs such as mine, there are vulnerable families. That needs to be recognised more. If he takes nothing else away from my speech, I hope he takes that point.
Housing issues are as severe in Kingston as in many other boroughs in London, and of course the most vulnerable and low-income families are affected most severely, in numerous ways, many of which have been touched on. To give an example of how that can multiply child poverty, when these families are evicted by their private rented sector landlord, they ask the council for support and are given temporary emergency accommodation outside the borough, sometimes miles away from the children’s schools and where the parents work—and the parents are often in work.
The impact of poverty on those children can be severely affected by the dislocation in how our housing support works. Often they cannot go to school, and in that temporary period, which can last for months, they are often in very poor accommodation. As a result, the school is less able to support that family. That is just one example of how housing policy in London is affecting many people day in, day out, and making the experience of children that much worse.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden talked about the importance of social housing; that has been a general theme. I could not agree more. We need to completely change the whole approach to building houses. For decades, under all Governments, we hoped that the private sector would produce the houses, but if we look over five or six decades of house building, we see that we have only ever had serious increases in housing when the state has been directing and building houses. I think it was the hon. Lady who said that 1968 was the last peak year of house building. The idea that the private sector and the free market will deliver the amount and types of homes that we need to go back to those periods is for the birds. It is just not true.
I am fascinated by the quote from the Conservative leader of the Local Government Association. Maybe we are moving toward an understanding, at least in local government, that the state needs to drive house building; otherwise we will never meet demand, particularly in London, but no doubt also in cities elsewhere.
I hope the Minister will address the need to rethink the fundamentals of our approach to house building. We will not take communities with us and build the number of houses necessary unless councils and the state are allowed to be far more proactive, not just in finances, but in how the whole planning system works.
I end by talking about one of the major poverty reduction programmes in recent decades, how it worked and the lessons we should take from it: the Sure Start project. I found the Sure Start programme, brought in during the first term of the Labour Government, very exciting, because it was trying to take an area-based approach, so that there was no stigma in the services being provided, and to take a more holistic approach, bringing different service providers together in a way we had not seen before. To some extent, it worked. In its first years, there were no Sure Start projects in my constituency, and I went to other boroughs in London to visit them, to see how they were working and to learn about them, because I thought it was an important policy innovation.
There is no doubt that some evidence suggests that for some people, Sure Start was effective. However, we should also look at the evidence that showed that there were poor families with children that it did not reach—particularly what are sometimes called the hard-to-reach families. Sure Start often did not manage to reach those. We need to think not just of area-based poverty programmes, although they still have a role, as Sure Start showed. Those projects that innovated by using a whole series of indicators to try to identify the families who were in most need, most under threat and most vulnerable had some promise.
One of the things I regret in recent years is that some of the innovative programmes outside the Sure Start family that tried to help those who are, in many ways, the most vulnerable in our society, were cut. If we are to make a sustained attack on reducing child poverty, we need to think of policy programmes that will meet the needs of those particular families. Otherwise, we are not providing for the children most in need. I hope the Minister will respond on whether the issue is only area-based programmes, or whether there are targeted, innovative programmes that we should look at as well.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing the debate, and on the way she has set the scene. She sets a real example to us all as a champion of her constituency and our city.
One of the myths my hon. Friend has buried today is that London is a rich city for the many, rather than just the few. We have seen that, in fact, London has the worst levels of child poverty of any region of the country. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) indicated, what are often thought of as some of the richest boroughs in the centre of London—Westminster, Camden and Islington—are right up there in terms of child poverty levels.
My borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is not far behind: after housing costs are taken into consideration, 35% of children there live in poverty, and 33% do not reach the expected levels of speech and language skills at the age of five. Where children are on free school meals, that rises to 43%, and I have schools that have up to 70% of children on free school meals. If one looks at the worst-affected wards—in my case, the Wormholt and White City ward—the figure for children living in poverty after housing costs is 45%.
As has been said by a number of Opposition Members, housing is perhaps the most significant issue that makes a difference here. If one looks at Wormholt and White City, the figure is 30% before housing costs are taken into consideration—still very high—but 45% afterward. In some ways that is slightly counterintuitive, because it is a ward with high levels of social housing, where one would expect rents to be relatively low, compared with the very high market rents, let alone the cost of purchasing a property, in the area. However, as was indicated, in many ways, social housing is a thing of the past—not only because of the conversion, particularly by some housing associations, of social rents to affordable rents, but because of the sale of council houses, which are then not replaced. We have the obscenity of slum landlords owning sometimes dozens of properties on estates, and renting them out at—or in some cases above—the housing benefit cap, driving families into poverty, as well as making them live in extremely poor conditions.
It is not the case that nothing is being done to address that. I praise my council, Hammersmith and Fulham, which moved to Labour control in 2014. It has done what it can to revive and support Sure Start and, sadly in some ways, to support food banks and open new centres to support advice services. It has done what it can, given the vast local government cuts over that period, to try to alleviate the worst effects of child poverty. I praise the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who has also been mentioned. He is trying to tackle low pay, improve childcare and build genuinely affordable housing—very different from his predecessor. They are pushing water uphill, however, given the cuts that have been made.
In an intervention, I said £27 billion had been taken out of social security programmes since 2010. That is a phenomenal sum of money. We have seen the effect across a whole raft of Government policies, deliberately introduced by the coalition Government, and continued by this Government: the two-child rule; the benefit cap; the benefit freeze; and now universal credit.
One figure that caught my eye in the excellent briefings we were given for this debate was evidence from Southwark Council that the average council rent account is £8 in credit; but for universal credit recipients, it is £1,178 in arrears. People are being evicted and are struggling to make ends meet because of the effects of universal credit, particularly the housing elements. Until we see a change in Government policy, or better still a change of Government, the situation will not get better. The prediction is that it will get worse, and that average levels of child poverty will be back well over 40% in a few years’ time.
I conclude by referring to a debate I had in this Chamber on Tuesday, on regeneration and social housing in an area called Earl’s Court and West Kensington, in my and the neighbouring borough. It is billed as the largest onsite development in the world outside China. There, 760 affordable homes and council homes are to be demolished without the promise of a replacement home for all the people living there. Some 7,500 homes are to be built, with not one additional social rented home on that site. When such policies are pursued, it is no wonder that we are dragging people into poverty and not giving any hope to children who are growing up in overcrowded, appalling conditions. That was not an accident or market forces, but the deliberate policy of a Tory Secretary of State, Tory Mayor and Tory council leader, conspiring to ensure that we got fewer genuinely affordable homes.
Andy Slaughter
I do not have time, I am afraid.
The Minister knows that, because he was a deputy Mayor for London at the time, so he might want to address his record, as perhaps might some of the other Members who have spoken. I am afraid to say that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) might want to address his record in government, because that is when this dates back to.
I have 20 seconds left in which to speak, and I would not like to refuse courtesy to the hon. Lady, so I will give way.
Julia Lopez
I think it should be agreed that housing supply issues are failures of successive Governments. I recall that, between 2000 and 2010, there was a buy-to-let boom, the arrival of huge sums of foreign cash, extremely loose monetary policy, extremely loose borders, the forced divestment of council housing stock to arm’s length management organisations or housing associations, and a very low level of social housing being built—in fact, lower than in the Thatcher years. The hon. Gentleman should have the good grace to take responsibility for that.
Andy Slaughter
I will never be accused of not having good grace. I leave the hon. Lady with one fact: in the last three years in which the Conservatives were in power on Hammersmith and Fulham Council, they actually managed to reduce the number of social homes. That is quite some achievement.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing such an important debate.
I have been struck by the passion and clear sense of all the speeches we have heard from Members championing the need to improve the situation of those in poverty. From the stories my hon. Friend told about some of the impacts, I think we will all remember the image of children guarding their school dinner plates with their arms to stop other people taking their food. That is horrific, given the scale of wealth in this country. She made a powerful and moving speech.
I also draw particular attention to the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan), who, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), talked about her pride, which I share, in the last Labour Government’s record in lifting 1 million children out of poverty. I also draw attention to the passion of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North, which was also touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), in talking about how such extreme wealth can sit next to such poverty, and the image that people from outside London have of it.
The debate was prompted by the release of disturbing new statistics by the End Child Poverty coalition, which show that, in some parts of London, more than half of children are now growing up in poverty; in Bethnal Green and Bow it is 54%, and in Poplar and Limehouse it is 53%. The Minister questioned those statistics at the last Work and Pensions questions. I suggest that Government Ministers are in no position to do that, given the Government’s reluctance to publish up-to-date figures on a wide range of social security issues. The coalition Government only agreed to continue to publish data on child poverty at all after being pressured by the Opposition and voluntary organisations working in the field.
However, even the Department for Work and Pensions’ statistics on child poverty show that London has the highest rate of child poverty of any part of the UK. According to DWP figures, 37% of children in London are growing up in poverty after housing costs are taken into account. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that current Government tax and benefit policies will see that rise to 41% over the next two years.
Although the rate of child poverty is highest in inner London, it is clear that child poverty is a London-wide problem. For example, some 45% of children in Edmonton are growing up in poverty, as well as 40% in Enfield North and 37% in Croydon North. It is not only the geographical spread that is the problem but the severity of the child poverty. In 2016-17, 40,000 children in London received helped from food banks, according to the Trussell Trust, which is of course the largest but by no means the only provider of food aid in the UK. The latest figures for this year show a similar level of need.
Free school meals ensure that children in families on low incomes get one hot meal a day, which is vital for their wellbeing and ability to learn. The Labour party would introduce free school meals for all primary school children and all secondary school children whose families claim universal credit. Under Government plans, children in families that claim universal credit will no longer be eligible for free school meals if their families earn more than £7,400 a year, which is such a small sum of money that it is difficult to understand how the Department could come up with that policy. Will the Government step back from introducing a cliff edge for eligibility for free school meals?
Many speakers have highlighted the significance of the high housing costs in London; it is something that those of us who do not live in London find quite astonishing. Last September, the median private rent in London for a one-bed property was £1,250 a month, compared with £595 for England as a whole. The level of private renting is at its highest since the 1970s, and private sector rents in London are more than double the average for England as a whole.
Over the past five years, the cheapest fifth of private rents have increased faster than rents in the sector overall. Although the number of children in social housing living in poverty has risen in recent years, the number of children in private rented accommodation living in poverty tripled over the decade up to 2015-16, by which point more than half of all children in private rented homes were living in poverty.
Seven in 10 households in temporary accommodation in England are in London, and more than 80% of them are households with children. Those children have no security in where they live. Levels of overcrowding in London are more than twice as high as the rest of England, and the rate of overcrowding is especially high for ethnic minority households. That means that children may not have the space to play or the peace and quiet they need to do homework. If there are family tensions, it is harder still for children to escape them.
Just 29,000 homes of all types were built in London per year between 2013-14 and 2015-16, and only 24% were —apparently—affordable, which is down 10% on the previous three years. No homes for social rent were built in London in the current Foreign Secretary’s last year as Mayor of London. The current Mayor has set a target in his London plan of 65,000 new homes a year, half of which will be affordable. He also wants to redefine “affordable”, as the current definition of 80% of market rate is beyond all too many people, as many Members have said.
Government funding for affordable homebuilding in London is still less than half the amount spent in 2009-10. The Chancellor announced an additional £2 billion for affordable housing in the Budget, but the Office for Budget Responsibility later revealed that that came from existing housing pots. The Mayor has called for £2.7 billion a year to fund affordable housing in London. Will the Government ensure that he gets the funding he needs to meet London’s housing need?
High London rents mean low-income families are likely to face a shortfall between their housing benefit and their rent. However, the Government have not only failed to back new homebuilding but also cut local housing allowance for private sector tenants in 2011, and then introduced the benefit cap in 2013, which they lowered further in 2016. Will the Government abolish the benefit cap, as Labour would?
In 2013, the Government also replaced council tax benefit with council tax support. Even families with very low incomes are now generally expected to pay some council tax. In 15 London boroughs, 200,000 low-income residents paid, on average, at least £200 more a year towards their council tax than they would have if they had received council tax benefit. Will the Government recognise the pressure they are putting on the finances of families on low incomes and act to restore council tax benefit?
The result of sharply rising rents and less help with housing costs is that low income families are more at risk of losing their homes, which causes misery, for families with children in particular. The total number of eviction orders rose in the five years to 2015-16. Possession orders, rather than mortgage orders, made up 97% of the total eviction orders in that year. High eviction rates are occurring in boroughs with high proportions of families with children living in the private rented sector and receiving housing benefit. Nine of the 10 boroughs with the highest eviction rates are in outer London.
The long waits that universal credit claimants experience for initial payment put them at particular risk of eviction. Increasing numbers of families with children in the capital are claiming universal credit as the full service is rolled out. There is clear evidence from the Residential Landlords Association that landlords are also increasingly reluctant to let to universal credit claimants in the first place.
The Government announced the removal of the waiting period and said that they would make it easier to get an advance, but they refuse to publish regular statistics on timeliness or advances. I had to table a written question in January to find out that, even under the old system of a six-week wait, one fifth of claimants were still not being paid in full on time, and 13% were not receiving any payment at all. The Government would not say how many people had requested an advance, so although more people are getting them, we do not know the extent of the need.
The Minister questioned the End Child Poverty coalition’s statistics. Since the Minister sets such store by accurate figures, will he give a commitment to publish regular statistics on the timeliness of payments and on how many people both request and receive an advance, so that we know whether the changes the Government introduced are making a difference?
The Government do not publish statistics on households affected by the two-child policy either. Will they commit to doing so? That policy will have a particularly severe impact on some religious communities, where reproduction, use of contraception and family size are determined by beliefs, and where culture is also a factor. Those communities are important parts of London’s population, and some of them, such as the Bangladeshi communities in Tower Hamlets and Newham, are located in areas of high child poverty. A couple may well have planned a large family, then found that their circumstances have changed and that they need to receive social security. Will the Government reverse the pernicious two-child policy?
The Government’s stock answer when called to account on child poverty is that work is the best route out of poverty. Yes, it is better to be in work, but work should pay. That was supposed to be one of the foundations of universal credit. However, cuts to universal credit work allowances will hit families on low incomes hard. It is the case that 58% of people in poverty in London are in a family in which someone is in work; that is up from 44% a decade ago. And 17% of people in in-work poverty live in a household in which all the adults work. During the past decade, average weekly pay in London has fallen. In 2016, just over one fifth of workers in London were low paid, compared with 13% in 2005. There is a range of reasons for that, not least a rise in insecure employment. One third of temporary workers are on a temporary contract because they cannot find a permanent job. The figure is nearly 10% higher than in 2004.
Many parents of very young children want to work, but face the challenge of finding both a job that will fit in with parenting and affordable childcare. A recent Gingerbread study of lone parents in Camden highlighted the fact that very few part-time jobs were advertised on the Government’s own job search portal, with which all claimants have to register. The average cost of childcare in a nursery or from a childminder in London is just over £150 a week—more than £40 a week higher than the average for England.
Child poverty in London is not new. Charles Booth’s maps showing the geography of poverty at the end of the 19th century or Roger Mayne’s photos of 1950s Notting Hill testify to that. However, the End Child Poverty coalition’s statistics are still shocking. Rather than questioning the figures and trying to brush them under the carpet, the Government should react to them by making the tackling of child poverty the priority that it should be.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Kit Malthouse)
It is a great pleasure to appear before you, Sir Henry. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) on securing this important and very relevant debate, not least because I spent 16 years as a representative in central London, both as a councillor and as a London Assembly member—where I shared a constituency with the hon. Members for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter)—so I am well acquainted with some of the problems. Indeed, I started my career as a councillor as deputy chairman of the housing committee on Westminster City Council, dealing with the heavy investment that we made in the Mozart estate in Queen’s Park at the end of the 1990s, as the hon. Member for Westminster North may remember. This issue has been of importance to me in the past and remains so.
I emphasise from the outset that the Government are committed—the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden referred to this—to building a country that works for everyone, where no one and no community are left behind. I completely agree that we must continue to provide appropriate support for the least well-off and the disadvantaged in our society, so that we can make a meaningful and lasting difference to their lives and outcomes and those of their children.
However, I was disappointed to hear the hon. Lady say, as I think she did on the record, that work is no longer the route out of poverty. The Government believe that work offers families the best opportunity to get out of poverty and become self-reliant. That is why we are undertaking the most ambitious reform to the welfare system in decades—so that it supports people to find and stay in work.
The evidence about the impact of worklessness on children’s outcomes, in both the short and the long term, is clear. In 2014-15, 75% of children in workless families failed to reach the expected standard at GCSE, compared with 39% for all working families and 52% for low-income working families.
Kit Malthouse
No, I am short of time. As adults, children who grow up in workless families are more likely to be workless themselves, compared with children who grow up with working parents, which creates an intergenerational cycle of disadvantage. It is therefore vital that we continue with our policies to encourage work and to address the often complex employment barriers faced by many disadvantaged families.
A number of hon. Members raised concerns about working families who are in poverty. However, the evidence is clear. Adults in workless families are four times more likely to be in poverty than those in working families. Children living in workless households are five times more likely to be in poverty than those in which all the adults work. Children in lone-parent families are three times less likely to be in poverty if their parent is in full-time work. And the chances of a child being in poverty if one parent works full time and the other part time is one in 20.
We are making good progress. Nationally, there are 954,000 fewer workless households and 608,000 fewer children living in such households now, compared with 2010. In London, there are 197,000 fewer children in workless households than there were seven years ago. By 2016, the number of children in long-term workless households in London was less than half what it was in 2010. The latest data shows that the London employment rate has increased by 7.1 percentage points since 2010. Comparable national figures show a slightly lower increase of 5 percentage points, so London is doing better.
Universal credit is at the heart of the reforms and the positive change that the Government are committed to driving. Through universal credit, the welfare system is, for the first time, providing working people with the opportunity to progress in work and to work more hours so that they can increase their earnings and become financially secure. Once fully rolled out, it will boost employment by about 250,000 and generate £7 billion in economic benefits a year.
We are also committed to tackling poverty by helping people with the cost of living. The national living wage, rising to £7.83 an hour in 2018-19, has given the UK’s lowest earners their fastest pay rise in 20 years. The right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) referred to the London living wage in glowing terms with regard to the current Mayor, but of course that project was started well before he came to office. Indeed, I am pleased to say that the largest expansion of the London living wage came when I was responsible for it at City Hall, between 2012 and 2016. However, that is not the only measure that we have taken. We have cut income tax for more than 30 million people and taken 4 million low earners out of income tax altogether. A typical basic rate taxpayer will now pay £1,000 less in tax compared with 2010.
Universal credit, with its generous childcare offer, has been designed to support parents to work after the birth of a child. Working parents on universal credit can have up to 85% of their childcare costs reimbursed, which is worth up to £1,108 a month for someone with two or more children. That is in addition to their entitlement of up to 30 hours of free childcare a week.
Hon. Members have raised serious concerns about child poverty rates, including the key findings in the End Child Poverty report, which came out a couple of weeks ago. Let me take this opportunity to emphasise that whichever way we look at child poverty rates—relative or absolute, and before or after housing costs—the headline national statistics published by the DWP show that in London all are lower than they were in 2010. Across the country, 600,000 fewer people are in absolute poverty now, compared with 2010—the figure is at a record low—and 200,000 fewer children are in absolute poverty.
Let me turn to the figures used by End Child Poverty. Those are projections based on Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data from 2014, and even the academics who produced the analysis have pointed out the limitations in the method. More recent data, published by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs since the report, shows that rather than rising, the proportion of children in low-income families in London fell in 2015 to an estimated 19%, compared with 24% in 2014. Indeed, every parliamentary constituency saw falls between 2014 and 2015. That includes some of the areas highlighted by the report. For example, in Bethnal Green and Bow there was a fall of 12 percentage points and in Poplar and Limehouse a fall of 11 percentage points. There was a fall of 6 percentage points in Hackney South and Shoreditch, as there was in Westminster North and in Enfield North. The data and the projection from the data in 2014 were immediately contradicted by the data subsequently published for 2015.
Let me deal quickly with some of the specifics that were raised. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) raised the issue of child poverty targets. Some hon. Members will remember that there was recognition by the Government in the past that making a long-term difference to the lives of disadvantaged children required an approach that went beyond a focus on the welfare system. That is why the Government repealed the income-related targets set out in the Child Poverty Act 2010 and replaced them with new statutory measures of parental worklessness and, critically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) mentioned, children’s educational attainment. That is vital; all the evidence points to its being critical to long-term welfare and prosperity. Those are the two areas that can make the biggest difference.
A number of hon. Members raised issues about housing. The Government have recognised that there is an issue with the housing market, and a huge amount of work is going on at the newly named Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. On standards, we agree that everyone deserves a decent home. That is why the numbers of homes that have been brought up to standard in both the public and the private sectors have increased very significantly, and the numbers that are below standard now lie at record lows. On housing generally, hon. Members will know that a significant amount of extra money has been put into the Government house building programme. That now stands at £9 billion, and no doubt there will be more initiatives to come from the Ministry of Housing.
We are also supporting, I believe, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Westminster North. It will give tenants the right to take legal action against landlords who do not fulfil their duties.
It was slightly disappointing to hear from the Opposition a fairly stout defence of the previous benefits system. As far as I can tell, that was a fraudulent system, perpetrating a lie upon the poor. It was designed to trap them in poverty. That is why we saw very little change in long-term poverty, which is what we are dedicated to tackling. I can reassure hon. Members that we are not complacent and particularly not in London, and we will be doing our best over the years to come to try to address the problems that have been raised.
Siobhain McDonagh
I love my city. I love my constituency. I was born in it and have always lived in it. It does the Minister no honour to set up an Aunt Sally on work when he knows very well that there is no Labour Member who does not believe in work. We believe that work should pay. For many of the people I meet in my constituency every week, work is not paying. They have nowhere to live. They have problems with food. Those are not stories I tell because I love to tell them. I say them because I see them. Unless we do something about what we see, we will all be discredited.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered child poverty in London.
Written Statements
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Combat Air Strategy
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
The British aerospace industry has underpinned the operational advantage and freedom of action of the British military since the birth of airpower. It has long been an engine of national and local prosperity: made up of close to 2,500 companies, it generates more than £33.5 billion in turnover, and employs more than 128,000 people, some 26,000 of them in highly skilled research, design and engineering jobs. The defence elements of that industry are particularly valuable: of the £73 billion brought into this country through defence-related exports over 10 years, around 85% was generated by aerospace, much of it specifically by the combat air sector1.
The Government are committed to supporting growth and prosperity across British industry, and defence has a critical role to play in that commitment. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), recently published an industrial strategy which reinforces our comprehensive support to the UK economy and our vision for a modern, internationally competitive UK industrial base. Following on from that my own Department published the defence industrial policy refresh in December 2017 which made it clear that in a very few cases, a deeper analysis may be needed to establish whether our national security objectives would be served by specific sector approaches which help deliver long-term value for money, operational advantage or freedom of action. Combat air is one of these sectors.
Delivery of battle-winning capability to the UK’s armed forces is dependent on a number of vital national technologies and skills. This goes to the heart of our operational advantage and freedom of action and the strategy will seek to ensure the UK maintains the ability to operate both independently and as part of international coalitions.
Recognising the importance of the combat air sector to UK military capability, freedom of action, prosperity and our industrial base, the MOD has decided to develop a combat air strategy as part of the modernising defence programme. Working closely with other Government Departments, industry and international partners, this work will define the UK’s future combat air aspirations, building on extant Government and defence policies to identify the industrial capacity and capabilities necessary to deliver that ambition. In doing so, we will consider operational capability, technological advantage, economic benefits, industrial capability, capacity and skills, as well as international partnering, wider prosperity and export potential. The aim is to set the framework and timeline to assess options for the UK’s future combat air requirements and associated decision making. This should create a strong foundation for industry self-funded research and development and investment in skills, capacity and capability, while also testing UK industry’s ability to deliver our future requirements, remain sustainable and internationally competitive.
It will set out in practical terms how the MOD can deliver this critical military capability in an affordable way by establishing a more strategic relationship with UK industry, working with international partners and securing a competitive and sustainable industrial base to maximise prosperity.
1UK Defence and Security export statistics for 2016 released July 2017.
[HCWS479]
Roadside Nitrogen Dioxide Concentrations
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
Clean air is one of the most basic requirements of a healthy environment for us all to live, work, and bring up families. Air pollution has improved significantly since 2010 but we recognise that there is more to do, particularly to improve pollution hotspots in our towns and cities.
Present problems with air quality in the UK are the direct result of the EU’s failed emissions testing regime, the actions of certain irresponsible car manufacturers, and the rapid increase in the number of diesel cars on the road since 2001. Twenty-one other EU member states are also breaching legal air quality limits.
In July 2017 we published the UK plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide concentrations, and said that we will end the sale of all new conventional petrol and diesel cars and vans by 2040. We are investing £3.5 billion to improve air quality and reduce harmful emissions.
Yesterday the High Court handed down judgment on the judicial review of the 2017 plan.
The judge dismissed two of the three complaints considered during the case in relation to England. Specifically he found that there is no error in the Government’s approach to tackling NO2 concentration exceedances in areas with some of the worst air quality problems, and that the national air quality modelling and monitoring that underpin the plan are compliant with our legal requirements.
In relation to five cities identified in 2015 as having particularly marked air quality challenges, Birmingham, Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Leeds, the judge found that the Government’s approach to tackling their exceedances was “sensible, rational and lawful”.
We welcome the fact that the Court has dismissed the complaint relating to these areas with major air quality problems and has found that we are taking appropriate action. We are also pleased that the Court agrees that our evidence in support of the 2017 plan is sound.
In relation to local authority areas which are expected to achieve compliance between 2018 and 2021, Ministers have already offered significant support, and as recognised in the judgment have “urged and encouraged” them to come up with proposals to improve air quality. However, the Court found that the Government should have legally required the local authorities to take such steps, but acknowledged that further action will not be required in 12 areas where compliance will be achieved this year.
We had previously considered that it was sufficient to take a pragmatic, less formal approach to such areas. However, in view of the Court’s judgment, we are prepared to take a more formal line with the other 33 local authorities.
We have already been corresponding with the relevant local authorities to offer them support in identifying measures to improve local air quality. These authorities had already been asked to provide initial information by 28 February on the action they are taking. They have now been asked to attend a meeting on 28 February to discuss their plans, and whether there are any additional actions they can take to accelerate achieving compliance with legal limits for N02 concentrations. We also now intend in March to issue legally binding directions requiring these areas to undertake studies to identify any such measures.
As required by the Court order, we will publish a supplement to the 2017 plan by 5 October, drawing on the findings from local authorities’ feasibility studies.
The Welsh Government were also a defendant in the judicial review. Air quality is a devolved policy area in the UK; each devolved Administration has responsibility for meeting its own obligations under the ambient air quality directive.
The Welsh Ministers indicated that they recognise that the Welsh element of the air quality plan does not satisfy legal requirements. They have undertaken to publish a supplemental plan, following consultation, by 31 July 2018.
As we set out in the 2017 plan, this Government are committed to improving air quality, and we have pledged to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it. Later this year we will be publishing a comprehensive clean air strategy which will set out further steps to tackle air pollution.
[HCWS477]
Gosport Investigation
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
The Gosport independent panel announced on 21 February that its disclosure to the Gosport families will be on 20 June 2018 in Portsmouth. The Gosport independent panel was formally established in July 2014. The panel is chaired by Bishop James Jones and its role is to review the documentary evidence held across a range of organisations concerning the initial care of families’ relatives and the subsequent investigations into their deaths in Gosport War Memorial Hospital.
[HCWS478]
House of Lords
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
NHS: Charitable Donations
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord O’Shaughnessy on 20 December 2017 (HL4078), why they have no plans to provide patients with the costs of their treatment in order to encourage charitable donations to the National Health Service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, the NHS is based on the principle of access to treatment regardless of your means and according to clinical need. As a consequence, it is important that patients should not be exposed to the costs of care as it might deter them from seeking treatment. Where costs have been provided, such as the cost of missing GP appointments, this has been in an attempt to prevent waste.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have a great gift in the NHS and that great gifts become even greater if one can make a return contribution to the giver? Why will the Government not reveal the cost of treatment to people—after they have had it, not before, and only to those people who request it—so that in turn they may make a voluntary contribution, either in full or in part, towards the cost of that treatment? Why is there such difficulty in encouraging people to play a greater part, to give more and to get more involved with the NHS in a way that the Government are refusing to do at the moment?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I agree with the noble Lord that it is a gift. I also absolutely understand the sentiment behind what he is saying, which is a desire for people to contribute back to the NHS not just through the tax system. It is important to point out that there are more than 250 NHS charities, with an annual income of £400 million. One of the other great gifts we have in this country is people’s willingness to donate time and money not just to the NHS but to a range of health causes. So we do provide an opportunity for that and those gifts are supported by gift aid. With regard to itemising the bill, we worry about deterrence. Many users of the most expensive health services are older people. Itemising a bill could put some of them off and that would be the wrong thing to do.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that the Minister has acknowledged the great contribution made by charities, but is he aware that councils are also providing a lot of care for people in need, both pre hospitalisation and post hospitalisation, but that they cannot use gift aid in any way? Will the Department of Health liaise with the Treasury to see whether there is some way that special council funds could be set up, where you could make a charitable donation? Gift aid is a great attraction. Yesterday I got a letter asking me whether I would like to give something to my council. I would not give anything unless it had gift aid—so it seems that we are missing an opportunity there.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My noble friend makes an important point. Gift aid is a wonderful scheme that obviously has driven huge contributions. She is quite right that public sector bodies cannot provide the gift aid opportunity, which is why in the health sector those charities attached to hospitals exist. She makes an excellent suggestion for what councils should do and I shall take it up with my colleagues in that department.
Baroness Barker (LD)
Can the Minister tell the House whether integrated care trusts can have associated charities so that people can make donations not just to healthcare but to social care in their area?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness asks a very interesting question. Clearly these are emerging organisations and most of the charities are attached to hospital trusts—although not exclusively: some are attached to primary care. None of these are yet quite in being. Once they are in being, this will be an excellent suggestion that we should take forward.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister explain why we should not at least be clearer about what care costs by publishing the tariffs within hospitals so that people understand, if not individually, how expensive some of the day-to-day treatments they get are?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
That is an important point. We are not yet in a position where we have mandatory collection of all that unit pricing data. That will happen from the next financial year onwards, so we will be able to publish that data. It is important, though, to resist the urge to send out to people information itemising costs, precisely for the deterrence reasons that I mentioned.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, we can all agree that the National Health Service being free at the point of use is probably the single most valued thing about it for everybody. Personally, I would not want to see that changed or compromised in any way. However, despite the Minister’s reasonable point about putting people off, does he not think that it would help people to value the health service more if they better understood the real cost of what it takes to treat what are in some cases quite minor ailments? Further, could it not help with the pressure on GPs to overprescribe certain drugs, the use of which we would really do well to reduce?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I think we are getting to a sensible position here: we want that transparency about what things cost in general, but not specific to each patient because of the concern that it might put people off. There is a lot more information available now than there ever has been about what items cost. What is critical—what we have learned—is that when people miss appointments, for example, which costs about £1 billion per year, there is a good opportunity to demonstrate what that cost is. But as regards what they incur as they go through the experience of healthcare, we worry about the deterrence.
Lord Elton (Con)
In his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, my noble friend said that older people might be put off. Speaking as an older person, from what might I be put off by information after I have had a procedure or treatment as to what it cost? In the same supplementary, may I ask that when my noble friend comes to remind younger people about not turning up for their appointments, he should send them a note of the cost of that as well?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I reassure my noble friend that I am not trying to make an ageist point. The point I was trying to make is that the majority of healthcare costs in a lifetime occur at two points in life: in younger children and in older age. We effectively have an insurance system where we pay through our tax and use the care when it is needed. The concern is that at a point in life when people might be vulnerable and not have support around them, and not necessarily know what is required in complex care, having had the facts about one piece of care they may feel that they should not be creating a burden on society by asking for more care. I do not think that is the right approach.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister make it quite clear—loud and clear—that virtually every hospital trust has its own charity and indeed that many individual wards have one?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
That is precisely the point. Any of us who have spent time in hospital will know that those charities are well advertised. As I say, they have £400 million of income, which I think makes them second only to cancer research in terms of income for health charities. I agree that they are a real asset to our health system.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, because he talked about the National Health Service being a right but also said that we have individual responsibilities. Is it not time to put much greater scrutiny on the issues of not only missed appointments but the abuse of health tourism and the Friday night nightmares of people who turn up at A&E not sick but overindulged, and expect the taxpayer to help them out?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My noble friend is quite right—we of course have a responsibility to use this precious resource responsibly. On health tourism, we have introduced a number of changes to recoup the amount of money spent on non-UK citizens who have not contributed to the tax system. We have made good progress on that. I take his point on alcohol, which we are dealing with in a couple of ways. One is obviously by taxing alcohol through the tax system but we also have to do much more preventive work so that people drink less.
Northern Ireland: Devolved Government
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in discussion with political parties in Northern Ireland on the re-establishment of devolved government in the province.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office and Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, over recent weeks there have been talks involving the main political parties in Northern Ireland to see whether there is a basis for re-establishing the Executive. Those talks made progress, but unfortunately reached their conclusion without an agreement last Wednesday. The UK Government remain committed to restoring power-sharing devolution in Northern Ireland. I gave a full update to the House on this matter on Tuesday and refer the House to that Statement.
Lord Lexden (Con)
A draft agreement document is now in the public domain. Do the Government believe that the proposals in it for language and cultural diversity legislation represent the best way forward on those contentious issues? As regards same-sex marriage, would it not be best to introduce legislation in this place rather than at Stormont? Above all, has the time not come for the Government to show leadership and take firm action in a way that accords fully with the Good Friday agreement, to which Members of this House attach the utmost importance, as they have demonstrated overwhelmingly in the past few days?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for his question. There were a number of elements within the discussions, not least the question of culture and language. Progress was made; there is no question about that. Indeed, it appeared at one point that we were within a hair’s breadth of reaching the promised land of an agreement, but we did not secure that agreement. It is important to stress again that the UK Government are a facilitator of a dialogue between the two principal parties. Those two parties themselves must be able to find that extra energy to create the right circumstances to deliver that agreement. That is what the people of Northern Ireland want, that is what the people of Northern Ireland need and that is what the people of Northern Ireland deserve. As to whether this House should bring forward legislation on the same-sex marriage question, I believe that this is a matter best taken forward by a newly established Executive in Belfast who are best able to reflect upon each of the elements of the communities to ensure that they are able to contribute to that important, serious and necessary piece of legislation.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, it is no criticism of the Minister, but is it not the case that his predecessors have told this House repeatedly over the past 15 months or so that an agreement is about to be achieved and that anybody who knows the situation in detail has doubted that? I and my Labour predecessors as Secretary of State are deeply concerned that this whole thing is unravelling. We have a Conservative former Secretary of State attacking the Good Friday agreement—I am pleased that the Government have rebutted that—and a political view coming from the Government that does not seem to understand that the whole Good Friday process before Tony Blair became Prime Minister, under John Major and even before that, took years to achieve, and it is all unravelling in front of us. That is what concerns us.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for his comments. The Good Friday agreement is the cornerstone of the UK Government’s position. I am very happy to reiterate that plainly and clearly and to distance ourselves from those comments made by others. It is very easy to knit a jersey and it is very easy to unravel it at the other end—far too quickly can we lose that which we have spent so long trying to put together. I am aware that on more than one occasion I have come before this House to say that we are hopeful that there will be an agreement, and I do not doubt that noble Lords in this Chamber today will share the frustration. In truth, this agreement must be delivered by the parties at the table. We believe that they were within a hair’s breadth of achieving that just the other day. We do not believe that we are at the end of this process; we cannot be at the end of this process; we need to have an Executive. The alternatives are not satisfactory, particularly against the issues which will face the people of Northern Ireland in coming months. We believe that the parties need to get together once again. I appreciate that noble Lords may be experiencing an element of déjà vu. That is not my intention, but the same ambition and the same need are there. They have not changed. Those two main parties and the other parties in Northern Ireland need to be part of an agreement which is sustainable and can command confidence. If we can achieve that, we will have done an extraordinary thing, but we are not there yet.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, three weeks ago in Belfast, when giving evidence to the Lords EU Select Committee, Sammy Wilson MP said that he and his DUP MP colleagues,
“meet Brexit Ministers almost on a weekly basis”.
Given the continued absence of a power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland, and given the Government’s role as co-guarantor of the Good Friday/Belfast agreement, does the Minister agree that similar access should be granted to all parties in Northern Ireland?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I believe that all the parties in Northern Ireland need to be part of this dialogue, but I reiterate that to develop a power-sharing Executive, it is the two principal parties that must broker that deal. The Government are content to ensure that no party is left in the dark as to our ambitions and intentions, particularly as we go forward into some of the challenging times that have yet to come.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, as my noble friend said on Tuesday, as the 20th anniversary of the Belfast agreement approaches, the celebrations will ring very hollow indeed. Should we not continue to say firmly but quietly to both the DUP and Sinn Féin that they must not sacrifice what their predecessors helped to create?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
In response to my noble friend I will happily say that the Belfast agreement is an imperative, essential element of the Government’s policy, and I have no desire for that celebration to fall without an Executive.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, it is clear that in the coming weeks, regrettably, Northern Ireland will not have a functioning Assembly or Executive at a time when decisions will have to be made on the details of managed divergence between trade regulations in the UK and the EU. Can the Minister assure me that, given the absence of local political representation, the Government will arrange for discussions as soon as possible with representatives of the business and farming community in Northern Ireland to ascertain their concerns and, if possible, take steps to address them?
Lord Duncan of Springbank
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I have already put in place meetings with the NFU in Northern Ireland and with various fishing interests. No voice can go unheard at this important time, and we must ensure that those voices ring crystal clear in the decisions which the Government must take.
Sudan: Human Rights
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the situation in Sudan, with particular reference to violations of human rights and access to those in need of humanitarian aid.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, improving human rights remains a key objective in our engagement with Sudan. Although, regrettably, there has been little overall improvement in the human rights situation, we continue to raise concerns at senior levels, including by the Foreign Secretary in a recent meeting with Foreign Minister Ghandour in December. We welcome recent improvements in access to populations in need, but the humanitarian situation in Sudan remains of concern, with nearly 5 million people requiring assistance.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but is she aware that military offensives by the Government of Sudan in Blue Nile and South Kordofan have forced 300,000 people from their homes? During a visit to Blue Nile last month, we met 9,000 civilians who had not been visited by any other NGO and who are at risk of starvation. They are very disturbed by reports that the Government of Sudan are using the ceasefire to buy more weapons, including fighter aircraft and missiles, with a build-up of armed forces in the area that they fear will be used for renewed military offensives. Will Her Majesty’s Government raise again the need for food aid for civilians not from Khartoum, as the people do not trust aid from a Government who have been trying to kill them for years, and obtain information regarding the reported disturbing build-up of military forces?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. We all acknowledge her distinguished record on these issues, in particular in Sudan. She raises perplexing issues, on which I have no specific information other than to say that she will be aware that the UK is providing humanitarian assistance to conflict-affected populations in the two areas through the Sudan Humanitarian Fund—we gave £16 million to that fund in 2017. In addition, we give general bilateral aid to Sudan. The issues that she raises are deeply concerning and I undertake to make inquiries. If I receive any further information, I shall happily write to her.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, the UN Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights confirmed in Westminster yesterday that lifting US sanctions, in his view, had not seen a corresponding lifting of barriers to aid reaching vulnerable people, particularly in the Blue Nile and Nuba mountain regions. Will the Government consult the UN about pausing the promotion of trade links until Sudan is seen to honour its aid access commitments? Will they seek to persuade other countries to do the same?
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord raises an important point, which strikes at the heart of this issue. It is about balance and whether it is better to engage to some extent and try to help to regenerate what is basically a non-functioning economy. Certainly, the United Kingdom supported the lifting of United States sanctions, which we thought an important step towards a more inclusive form of economic development in Sudan and a normalisation of Sudan’s international relations. There is a need to assist with building economic infrastructure, which will offer genuine help to those most affected and vulnerable, but we are under no illusions about the challenges that confront that country.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, since 2011 there have been reports that the Government in Sudan have arrested Christian leaders, demolished churches and prevented church properties from being registered. My Anglican colleagues from the Sudan advised me that church schools are able to open only four days a week, because the Government require that schools are closed on Fridays and Saturdays—of course, Sunday is a holy day for Christians. How much more can the Government ensure that the rights of religious minorities are respected in Sudan?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the right reverend Prelate for raising a very important issue. It is concerning and, across the piece, we make it clear to Sudan that we expect compliance with international human rights requirements and tolerance in recognition of the legitimate right of people in Sudan to exercise their peaceful and lawful operations. I am interested in the point that the right reverend Prelate raises and I shall certainly take it back to the department.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I want to pick up a point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on how we get humanitarian aid in. No one disputes the fact that the Government have been committed to getting aid in, but it is surely important that we focus on local NGOs, particularly women’s groups, to ensure that the aid that we get in is trusted and effective. Finally, we cannot continue to allow the actors in Sudan to act with impunity. We must ensure that they are held to account.
Baroness Goldie
On the last point, I totally agree with the noble Lord. We make at diplomatic level repeated representations about the need for proper recognition of the rights of the citizens of Sudan, not least those who find themselves the subject of arrest or who are detained. On the broader front of how we get aid particularly to those inaccessible areas, which is extremely challenging, not least due to the complex circumstances surrounding those areas of Sudanese geography, there has been evidence, as noted by the United Nations and others in 2017, of some improvements in access to populations in need, as a result of revised directives by the Government of Sudan. We continue to urge the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North to agree to the US proposal on humanitarian assistance so that aid can reach affected populations.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the 15 years since a visit to Darfur, some 2 million of those to whom the Minister referred have been displaced, there have been more than 200,000 deaths and the President of Sudan, Field Marshal al-Bashir, has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for genocide and crimes against humanity. What extra action, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, have we taken to ensure that he is brought to justice? Why, in the Security Council, did we support a reduction of 44% of the troop presence in Darfur, when the situation there has continued to deteriorate?
Baroness Goldie
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his knowledge of the country and the issues confronting it. It is the case that the security situation has evolved in much of Darfur, which is why we supported the United Nations Security Council’s decision in June to reconfigure the African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur, but we recognise that the security situation remains fragile. Our priority is to ensure that the changes made to the mission are done sensibly, with appropriate review points, so that we can ensure that a smaller, more flexible African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur is still able to fulfil the core components of its mandate.
Prisons
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their vision for the long-term future of the prison system.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, we shall seek to maintain a prison system that is sufficient for public protection and will provide opportunity for the rehabilitation of offenders. Where it is necessary for offenders to be deprived of their liberty, their detention should be decent and safe.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, in 2015, the Justice Committee of the other place concluded that funding for women’s centres,
“appears to be a recurring problem”.
Ten years after the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, can the Minister assure me that secure, long-term funding for women’s centres is now a high priority?
Lord Keen of Elie
Clearly, the matter of female offenders is one of the priorities that we are addressing. Indeed, we can note that the number of female offenders has dropped to the point where it is now in the region of 3,936 out of a total population of about 86,000. We are of course concerned with ensuring that there is funding in respect of female prisoners and offenders as they leave the prison system.
Baroness Corston (Lab)
My Lords, the numbers to which the noble and learned Lord refers have recently gone up. It is 12 years since I was requested by the previous Government to conduct a review of deaths of women in the criminal justice system, because of some very high numbers in the previous two years, and the numbers subsequently plummeted considerably. But, last year, we had exactly the same high shocking numbers of women who took their own lives in prison. Why?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, any death in custody is a tragedy. What I can say is that, in the period of 12 months to September 2017, the number of self-inflicted deaths in the prison system dropped by about 30%.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, speaking as a former Mental Health Act commissioner, I am deeply disturbed by the high incidence of mental illness in our prison population. I would be very grateful if my noble and learned friend could inform us of how much attention has been given to this by the Government, working not only through his department but with other agencies to address what I believe to be quite a serious issue.
Lord Keen of Elie
My noble friend is quite right to highlight such a serious issue. There is a very large proportion of prisoners with mental health issues within the system. We are working with the Department of Health and NHS England to develop a new health and justice protocol that should ensure timely access to mental health and substance misuse services. In addition, we have been providing grant funding of £500,000 a year to the Samaritans for the last two years in order that they can support their Listener Scheme for those who require it.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I believe that this House collectively shares a vision for our prisons to be not only secure, but clean, well maintained, humane, uncrowded, well staffed, safe places of education, training and purposeful activity, effective in addressing mental health and addiction issues and committed to rehabilitation and turning lives around—in short: civilising and civilised. Do the Government share this vision? If so, will they greatly increase investment now to realise it, incidentally reducing the estimated £13 billion annual cost of reoffending?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we, of course, have a vision of a prison system that is decent and safe for all those who have to be secured within it. We are proceeding with a programme of capital expenditure to replace Victorian and older prisons with prison accommodation more suited to present requirements. We have increased the number of prison officers within the prison estate in the last few years to the point where, up to December 2017, there were 19,925 prison officers, an increase of about 1,500 from the previous year. Of course we have aspirations for the prison system but we have to be realistic about those.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that three things should be done immediately? First, we need to bear down on the avoidable use of prison by putting in place a robust system of non-custodial sentences. Secondly, we need to ensure that, particularly for short-term offenders, the regime is purposeful rather than just locking them up for hours? Thirdly, we need to ensure that the resettlement arrangements have substance.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I agree with all three of those points. Clearly, we want to develop reliable non-custodial sentences to maintain alternatives to custody where we can do that. We are seeking to develop our education programme and are developing further resettlement programmes. We recognise that offenders who secure employment on release from prison have a lower rate of reoffending.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, one of the most disturbing experiences I had as Home Secretary—at that time, the post incorporated the responsibilities of the Justice Department—was visiting Holloway prison and hearing the women speak about their fear of being released because of what might happen to them if they returned to the circumstances that had led to their incarceration in the first place. In his first Answer, the Minister mentioned the importance of what happens when women prisoners are released. What further steps does he think the Government might be able to take to ensure that people avoid becoming mules or being abused in circumstances that they experienced before they were sent to prison?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we are concerned to ensure that suitable accommodation is available for all prisoners, particularly female prisoners, upon release. Indeed, under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, prisons and probation providers are subject to a new duty to refer to local housing authorities someone who might be at risk in those circumstances.
Syria: Eastern Ghouta
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to respond to the crisis in Eastern Ghouta in Syria.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, Eastern Ghouta has become hell on earth. We are appalled that the Assad regime has held the enclave under siege for many years and has now escalated its bombardment. People are dying from starvation or lack of medical treatment. The United Kingdom Government have continued to press the regime and its enablers through all international fora to end this unthinkable situation. We call on Russia to agree a UN Security Council resolution for humanitarian access later today.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, we are witnessing a crisis unfolding in front of us, with more than 300 people killed in the last few hours and much larger numbers of innocent civilians injured and maimed. Indeed, I understand that a third of the hospitals have been deliberately taken out through targeted bombing. If the ceasefire is agreed and implemented, what plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to help with the evacuation of those who have been injured and the provision of humanitarian aid? If the ceasefire is not agreed or implemented, what plans do Her Majesty’s Government have to put further pressure on the Assad regime to stop this terrible suffering that is going on?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The right reverend Prelate is right to raise this. I think that all of us have been shocked by the images that we continue to see. If I may digress, I will pay brief tribute to the White Helmets in particular, who are working in intolerable conditions, often helping their own family members. As regards the right reverend Prelate’s two questions, of course we hope that we will reach a resolution today. There was a discussion yesterday, and both Sweden and Kuwait are pressing specifically for a vote on a humanitarian Security Council resolution, which will also include a 30-day cessation.
As the right reverend Prelate will be aware, the area is very near Damascus, and UN agencies—whose efforts we will of course support—are already set up to immediately evacuate the 700 or so people who have been listed as in need of urgent attention and also to provide humanitarian assistance. If, regrettably and challengingly, the Security Council resolution is not reached, I assure all noble Lords, including the right reverend Prelate, that we will continue to press through all agencies, including not just the Syrian regime but also Russia, which has a major role to play in this. It is backing the Assad regime, and we will continue, both bilaterally and through international fora, to press Russia for an early resolution.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the stories we heard on the radio today are incredibly shocking. But we cannot go on with parallel peace processes with the Russians and the UN. Surely we need global leadership now to bring all sides together and focus on it. Will the Government provide that global leadership and make a clear statement—as I said on the previous occasion—that people cannot act with impunity?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the second point, the noble Lord knows that I agree with him totally. People must be held to account, and the United Kingdom is already seeking to collect evidence of the inhumane acts which have been committed during this conflict in Syria. On his earlier point, I believe strongly in the United Nations. The key interlocutors in this respect include Russia, which is a permanent member of the Security Council, so I believe strongly that the United Nations is the place where resolution can be reached. Indeed, the other talks in Astana that the Russians were leading have also stalled, so I believe strongly that the United Nations remains the right forum in which decisions can be reached and lasting solutions achieved.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, someone with relatives in Damascus said to me this morning that there was a real danger that rampant carnage would continue, as in Aleppo, until there was almost no one left. Clearly, we need to act, as the Minister has indicated, collectively putting pressure on Russia to secure a ceasefire and to lift the siege and get the armed fighters out. Is this not an instance where we should deploy UN monitors if we manage to secure that situation?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On the latter point, I agree with the noble Baroness. As I said, the UN is already set up, and the district of Eastern Ghouta is very near Damascus, so agencies are already set up to act promptly. I also agreed with the noble Baroness’s earlier point: we need international action on this. The Government have repeatedly asserted—I acknowledge the support we have received from across the House—that the Assad regime is unrelenting in its brutality. As the noble Baroness pointed out, we have seen this in Homs and in Aleppo. This must stop. There are 400,000 people under siege in Eastern Ghouta; 200,000 are children. The world needs to act, and we will play our part in that.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Eastern Ghouta has been occupied by ISIS and other jihadist groups, such as the Army of Islam, which have been bombing Damascus for years—I saw that bombing coming in when I was last in Damascus— and that recently the shelling on Damascus has become so intense that the sky is blackened, especially over Christian areas, and reports are coming in that many people have been killed and injured in Damascus itself? Does the Minister therefore agree that one of the best ways forward would be for those who support the jihadis, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, to encourage them to accept the peace arrangements that have been offered to them by the Government of Syria, which would shorten the suffering which everyone sees and knows is horrendous?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness talks about peace, and of course any initiative which is aimed at that is important. But let us be clear. She raises an important point about groups that operate within Syria. She knows that I am aware of this and that I support ensuring that they are not armed in a way which can cause further destruction to Syria. But at the same time, when we look at the situation in Syria today, the continuing war has been caused by the persistence of the Assad regime. It is backed by Russia, which is why we are imploring Russia to take action. What we are seeing happening in Eastern Ghouta is because of what the Assad regime is doing. It needs to relent in its bombardment, and action needs to be taken so that we can get the 700 people who need medical aid out and provide humanitarian assistance to the 400,000 under siege.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, one has only to look at every civil war there has been to know that they are bloody and merciless. There is no doubt that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, some of the opposition parties are not democratic at all; they are far from it. Some are even worse than Daesh—they are really bad. Does the Minister not agree that we have to be very careful of making judgments? There are no good guys in this—there are victims but no good guys. Both sides are horrible and we need to be very careful of making judgments. We have to try to get a balanced answer to help the victims.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the point about good guys, many voices and many representatives within the Syrian opposition want to see a pluralist, non-sectarian, democratic Syria emerge, and we continue to work with them. Of course, there are other people working on the ground—but, as the noble Lord pointed out, there are also those with sinister intent who are following the Islamist agenda of hijacking a noble faith, misrepresenting it and using it to extend the civil war. That is also unacceptable. I agree with the noble Lord that we have always to tread carefully in civil wars, but I am sure he would acknowledge that the Assad regime bears the brunt of the responsibility for the situation in Syria.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, this may seem a little odd but, given the recent rapprochement between Russia and Turkey, which is not exactly a marriage made in heaven, would it be possible to make an approach through Turkey, or involving Turkey, to apply pressure on the Russians in a way that, given the political delicacies there, might aid the pressure that we need to bring on Syria?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
From our perspective, we have a direct relationship with Russia. I certainly feel that we should bring pressure to bear in two ways. One is bilaterally. As the right reverend Prelate will be aware, the Foreign Secretary recently visited Russia, and the ongoing civil war in Syria was very high on his agenda in the discussions. The second way is, as I have already indicated, through the Security Council, of which Russia is a permanent member. I am pleased that, as the penholders, Kuwait and Sweden are taking forward the current UN Security Council resolution, which we hope will be supported by all sides. We would also encourage Turkey to exert whatever influence it can to ensure a cessation of the hostilities.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is it not clear that the good guys in this matter are the civilians, who are being subjected to action that can be described only as war crimes? Is it not right to remember that, based on the Nuremberg principles, those who preside over the commission of war crimes or are complicit in their use are as guilty as those who commit them?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is right to raise that issue—history has taught us many lessons. Everyone who is in a position to bring about the cessation of violence in the civil war in Syria should make every effort to do so. I totally agree with the noble Lord. There are good guys—they are the civilians in Syria, and we must bring peace for their sake.
Finance (No. 2) Bill
Thursday 22nd February 2018
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2018 View all Finance Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 February 2018 - (21 Feb 2018)
Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the action the Government are taking to address public concerns regarding the safety of medicines and medical devices used by the NHS. The Statement is as follows:
“On Friday, I will host campaigners, clinicians and safety experts from around the world as part of the world patient safety, science and technology summit, which is being held for the first time outside the United States here in London. As part of that, we will release a landmark report on the extent of medication errors in modern healthcare systems, as well as the NHS’s plan to tackle them. Alongside those in the report, there are three areas of potential medication error that I wish to update the House on today where serious concerns have been raised by patients and their families.
The first is Primodos, a hormone-based pregnancy test which, it is claimed, led to miscarriages and birth defects during the 1960s and 1970s and was prescribed to more than 1.5 million women before it was withdrawn from use in 1978, partly due to more modern pregnancy tests becoming available. The second is sodium valproate, an effective anti-epilepsy drug which has been definitively linked to autism and learning disabilities in children when taken during pregnancy. Campaigners have suggested that up to 20,000 children may be affected. The third is vaginal mesh implants, often used in surgical interventions to address complications after childbirth, which have been linked to crippling life-changing side-effects.
Of course, our first thoughts are with the individuals and families whose lives have been turned upside-down by these issues. Many have endured, and continue to endure, severe complications and tremendous pain, distress and ill health, alongside a strong sense that their concerns have not reached a satisfactory resolution. I pay particular tribute to those who have responded to such experiences not just with understandable anger, but with resolute determination to campaign for change on behalf of others. Many of them have met Ministers and Members of this House to share their concerns, and I thank everyone who has written to or spoken to me personally to raise these concerns on behalf of their constituents.
We must acknowledge that the response to these issues from those in positions of authority has not always been good enough. Sometimes the reaction has felt overly focused on defending the status quo, rather than addressing the needs of patients, and as a result patients and their families have spent too long feeling that they were not being listened to, making the agony of a complex medical situation even worse. So today, in addition to practical steps for each of the three cases, I am setting out plans to establish a fairer, quicker and more compassionate way to address issues when they arise, bringing different voices to the table from the start and giving individuals and their families a clear path to answers and resolution.
Immediate action is being taken in each of the three cases. On Primodos, I have asked my ministerial colleague Lord O’Shaughnessy to drive forward, and where possible accelerate, the recommendations of the expert working group, further strengthening our systems for monitoring the safety of medicines in pregnancy. That will include: offering the families of the Association for Children Damaged by Hormone Pregnancy Tests a full and up-to-date genetic clinical evaluation; better information for pregnant women and their families; better training and support for obstetricians; better evidence around dosing recommendations; making electronic yellow card reporting easier for both women and clinicians throughout pregnancy; and stronger and more joined-up messages on safety.
On valproate, the issue is broader than the UK, and the outcome of the EU review, expected in March, will strengthen our regulatory position. In preparation, we have tasked system leaders with delivering a rapid, co-ordinated response. Directly responding to calls from patients, we are introducing a new warning symbol on valproate packaging; updating NICE guidance on valproate; pushing for valproate to be contraindicated for women of childbearing potential not using effective contraception; strengthening alerts across all GP systems and community pharmacy systems; and, for those women for whom valproate is an effective treatment, offering stronger and more tailored advice on risks and contraception.
On vaginal mesh, I have asked the Chief Medical Officer for advice in the light of calls for a full ban. She has been clear that clinical experts here and abroad agree that, when used appropriately,
“many women gain benefit from this intervention”,
hence a full ban is not the right answer in the light of the current evidence available. However, that is not to minimise the suffering many women have experienced, which is why today I can announce that we will be publishing a retrospective audit to investigate the links between patient-level data to explore outcomes, and investing £1.1 million to develop a comprehensive database for vaginal mesh to improve clinical practice and identify issues.
These actions will improve the way regulators and the NHS deal with issues related to vaginal mesh and valproate, as well as improve monitoring of the safety of medicines in pregnancy. But the fact that it has taken so long to surface these issues also raises much bigger questions. It is an essential principle of patient safety that the regulatory environment gives sufficient voice to legitimate concerns reported by patients, families and campaigners, works alongside them and responds in a rapid, open and compassionate way to resolve issues when these are raised. My view is that that did not happen in the way I would expect in these three cases.
To do better in the future, we need to ensure that patient voices are brought to the table as systematically and consistently as other voices in the system, so today I have asked Baroness Julia Cumberlege to conduct a review into what happened in each of these three cases, including whether the processes pursued to date have been sufficient and satisfactory and to make recommendations on what should happen in future. She will assess, first, the robustness and speed of processes followed by the relevant authorities and clinical bodies to ensure that appropriate processes were followed when safety concerns were raised; secondly, whether the regulators and NHS bodies did enough to engage with those affected to ensure that their concerns were escalated and acted upon; thirdly, whether there has been sufficient co-ordination between relevant bodies and the groups raising concerns; and fourthly, whether we need an independent system to decide what further action may be required either in these cases or in the future.
This is because one of the judgments to be made is whether, when there has been widespread harm, there needs to be a fuller or even statutory public inquiry. The noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will make her recommendations as to the right process to make sure that justice is done and to maintain public confidence that such decisions have been taken fairly. While I am deliberately leaving the terms of this model open for the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, I have asked that she consider how we can strike the right balance on the criteria or threshold for a ‘legitimate concern’; how best to support patients where there might not be a scientific or legitimate concern, but they may still have suffered harm; how we can be more open to the insights that close attention to patient experience can bring, including whether a patients’ champion could help to act as a point of contact for people or families raising legitimate concerns, ensuring that these are heard and responded to; and how any new entity interacts with the existing bodies, including NHS Resolution, the Health and Safety Investigation Branch and the ombudsman. Recognising that this is an issue that many honourable Members have been concerned about, I have asked the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to meet with the relevant all-party parliamentary groups and campaign groups early on in the review process.
We are rightly proud of the NHS and all it has achieved and will achieve in the future. Much of this has been built on the strong connections between scientific discovery and medical progress, but innovation requires safeguards, including a culture of learning to protect against the unintended consequences of new technologies and treatments, and a clear focus on the experience and treatment of patients and their families affected by these consequences. From Mid Staffs to Morecambe Bay to Southern Health, patients and their families have had to spend too much time and energy trying to access, lobby and influence NHS leaders and Ministers to get a hearing for their concerns. The stress and frustration of campaigning, sometimes in the face of closed ranks and a defensive system, has added insult to injury for too many families. We need to establish a fairer and quicker way to resolve such concerns when they arise in the future.
Our regulatory system is in many respects world-leading, but it too needs to adapt to a changing environment and to draw intelligently on multiple sources of feedback to protect the safety of patients. Today’s announcement will build a system that listens, hears and acts with speed, compassion and proportionality, strengthening the commitment to patient safety which is at the heart of this Government’s and this House’s priorities for our health and care system. I commend the Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should also like to thank him personally for meeting representatives from the mesh campaign group two weeks ago, which is much appreciated.
Today’s announcement is an acknowledgement that there are major issues which go back decades in areas that concern safety and a lack of proper scrutiny and research. We have heard how mesh implants have left women in permanent pain, unable to walk and unable to work. Welcome as the Statement is, the Government need to do much more to support those affected. Mesh has been suspended in Scotland and banned in other countries. The most recent interventional procedure advice from NICE on prolapses states that it should be used only for research purposes and not as a front-line treatment, but I ask the Minister whether he thinks we need to go further and suspend the use of mesh until NICE has completed its review into the safety and efficacy of the product. If the Government are not prepared to go as far as suspension, will he at least write to all trusts and indeed private hospitals to remind them that the Health and Social Care Act 2015 requires them not to cause avoidable harm? The review in itself signals that mesh is now acknowledged to cause harm.
I refer the Minister to Owen Smith’s comments in the other place; he chairs the All-Party Group on Surgical Mesh Implants. He said that:
“Lessons must be learned from the awful complications many women have experienced since undergoing mesh surgery and proper processes must be put in place to stop this happening in the future … The mesh scandal shows what can go wrong when devices are aggressively marketed to doctors and then used in patients for whom they were unsuited or unnecessary”.
Will the review chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, look into that particular aspect?
The Minister mentioned in the Statement the investment of £1.1 million, part of which will go to improving clinical practice. Clearly, one should always seek to improve clinical practice, but mesh campaigners would say that the real issue is not the clinical practice but the product itself, which is not fit for purpose.
The retrospective audit is very welcome indeed, but there is a real question about whether it will capture all the women affected. I have certainly received evidence to suggest that some women suffering greatly from mesh implants are not aware of the reasons and therefore do not approach the health service. Will the Minister also say whether the mesh audit concerns only hospital statistics and records or whether it will cover GPs and primary care as well? Also, will the review extend to when men and women are affected by hernia mesh?
The Secretary of State has said that the review will not go into the science of mesh. But most studies do not use quality-of-life questionnaires, so they do not pick up the devastation of pain, lost sex lives or constant urinary infections. Studies concentrate on whether the mesh has cured the problem of prolapse or incontinence. Many studies are short-term or compare mesh to mesh. Trials should compare mesh to the old-fashioned natural tissue repair to get a proper evaluation of whether the use of these products should be continued in the future. Many trials have low numbers and any woman who has had a mesh implant can feel like a ticking time bomb, as the product can shrink or twist years down the line. No amount of surgeon training can counteract that.
Will the review extend to those with mesh bowel prolapses? Will it also look at what help the NHS needs to give to people currently affected as mesh sufferers? Obviously each country in the UK is taking a slightly different approach but, in his role as the Minister responsible, will he work with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to pull together research and co-ordinated action, which would make great sense?
I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will be asked to look at whether device regulation needs to be tightened up. As the Minister knows, it is much less stringent than medicines regulation and there has been an ongoing debate about that. I hope that that will be included within her review.
On Primodos, the Minister indicated that the department would drive forward and accept the recommendations of the expert working group. But in the other place when the report was published in October, it was met with concern from all sides of the House. I hope that he will take that into account.
I am grateful that the Secretary of State has included sodium valproate in this work. The Minister will know that last year a charity found that almost one-fifth of women taking the drug still did not know the risks that this medicine could pose during pregnancy. I therefore welcome government efforts to raise awareness of the dangers of valproate. I also hope that the House can be offered an assurance that the review will gain access to medicine regulation files held in national archives, access to any valuable evidence cited in unsuccessful legal actions and access to documents and information held by pharmaceutical companies, and that all such material will be made public.
I ask the Minister to invite the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to meet victims to see whether consensus can be agreed on the terms of reference, to maintain trust and confidence in it. That would be a very valuable first step to gaining the confidence of campaigners who have worked so hard and have been gratefully acknowledged by the Secretary of State in his Statement.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
From the Liberal Democrat Benches, I am very grateful and thank the Minister for the Statement. I am particularly pleased about its tone, which moves on the Government’s debate with campaigners, families and clinicians about these very serious issues. It makes a break with the past.
I am particularly concerned that there should be regular assessments and updates for people with problems from Primodos and sodium valproate, because we know from our experience with thalidomide that everybody thought that everything had been sorted from the initial diagnosis of the children, but as they entered adulthood and more mature years further medical issues appeared. It will be important to recognise that we need to make sure these young people—and adults as they are now—get that protection.
The yellow card system was not available in its current format for these two drugs. One of the things that concerns me most about the Statement is the assumption that the only people involved with the yellow card are clinicians. Speaking as a patient who has been on a drug that has very serious yellow card incidents, I have been trained to recognise that if I get a side-effect I do not just go back to my hospital; I report it to the pharma company. The pharma companies are notable by their absence in this Statement. Will there be specific links back for clinicians and patients on some of the side-effects of drugs? That is easy to say for those who are formally expert patients. I absolutely accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that some patients are inexpert for all the right reasons.
There needs to be a real focus on all the other health professionals that these patients come into contact with. Reporting a yellow card incident to a GP when it is very difficult to see your own GP these days means that it could quite often be missed. In the case of sodium valproate this certainly needs to include midwives and people involved in the obs and gynae departments as well. What training is to be provided for these non-specialist healthcare people to make sure that they understand, when a patient talks about a problem, that this may need to trigger a yellow card response? To that end, I welcome the proposal for an electronic yellow card. That will be extremely helpful. Printing out a yellow card, filling it in and sending it in is an absolute deterrent to it happening.
On Primodos and sodium valproate, will the longer-term effects also be covered by the Cumberlege review? It is important to have a reference back there. I am also concerned about the vaginal mesh issues, specifically those reported in the Statement. It would be useful to know what percentage of those who have had vaginal mesh implants have faced problems. It is fine to say that many have benefited. I completely accept that, but one needs to understand what the ratio is between those facing problems and those for whom it has benefited them, to understand whether a ban should be in place. What is the date for publishing the retrospective audit? It is fine to say that it will be done. I have no idea how far along the line the process is. Then there is the timescale for creating that computer database for vaginal mesh to improve clinical practice. When will it be not just commissioned, but completed and used in analysis? Will interim reports go to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, by the people doing this review if evidence emerges that she will need to take account of?
I am concerned about the idea of the creation of a patients’ champion. We already have panels and expert groups. Yet another person that patients may or may not know about, and may or may not be able to turn to, seems problematic. I urge the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, to look at what is available now rather than creating yet another body.
Finally, I echo the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about whether we should move to a public inquiry at this stage. I wonder whether the evidence that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will undoubtedly turn up means that she may come back to Ministers and say, “Actually, this is the point at which this needs to go public”. Campaigners have highlighted for years that there are problems.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank both noble Lords for their extensive, well-informed and probing questions; I will try to deal with all of them. I want first to take the opportunity to pay tribute to those involved in each of the three campaigns. They are almost exclusively women. A factor that needs consideration is not only that users of healthcare services are disproportionately women but that women seem to be disproportionately on the end of things when things go wrong—that issue needs investigating in itself. I have had the chance to meet not only the mesh campaigners but campaigners on sodium valproate and Primodos. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to raise these issues; they are remarkable women.
On the position relating to mesh, I have asked the MHRA and NICE as the two regulatory bodies to get in touch with their counterparts in Australia and New Zealand. There is some quite long, technical advice which I will not attempt to repeat, except to say that perhaps the simplified public view of what has happened in each of those countries is not entirely accurate. I shall certainly write to all noble Lords taking part in this debate and place a copy of that evidence in the Library. It is quite important. It is detailed, but it is well worth looking at.
I emphasise that collaboration is going on not only internationally but within the four corners of the United Kingdom. The CMOs of those four countries have met. I am meeting the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Health—I think, next week—to talk about this specific issue and other things as well, so we are cognizant of the need for a joined-up UK approach.
On the scope of the review, it is very open. In the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, we have an ideal chair: someone who has campaigned on safety issues, who is deeply knowledgeable, well respected and fiercely independent—as we know. She has the opportunity to look not just at issues around marketing, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned, but around the private sector. She will be able to look, too, at whether there should be public inquiries or other types of inquiry and to make recommendations. She will be able to look at pharma companies and gather evidence from wherever it is required. I want to emphasise that the review is very broad in scope. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, we are trying to mark a break from the past. We know that we have not dealt with these things well. We are beginning to address that in the clinical and medical space in terms of medical practice; we now need to move on to medicines and devices, which is what we hope to do with this process.
On issues around the mesh, the audit and the registry, the audit is obviously retrospective. It will not be a perfect exercise, because the data is not always perfectly gathered, but it will be quite extensive in scope. It will be able to pick up not just complications associated by women, or indeed men, with having mesh but whether they have turned up in pain at another setting. We are confident that it will paint a much broader picture than we have had. The intention is to publish that in the spring. Obviously, if any interim reports relating to it come out, they will be shared with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, but clearly there needs to be robustness to them.
On the registry, this is an important moment. We have found the money to do this; it will be funded for the set-up and then for the first three years, which is the normal way in which registries are done. I do not yet have a timeline for how it will be delivered, but clearly we want to get it up and running as quickly as possible. It needs to be commissioned, but it is in everyone’s interest to do that.
Primodos presents a challenging issue, because it is not available on the market and has not been for 40 years, so it is not possible to carry out studies on what is happening to women now. However, new evidence has come to light which will also need to be considered and which was not available for the expert working group. Again, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will be able to consider that as she looks at what needs to happen in each of those three cases.
One thing that we have to do—this moves on to the expert working group’s recommendations from the Primodos review, which is obviously very germane for women taking sodium valproate—is make sure that there is proper training for health professionals, not just in the yellow card scheme but for obstetricians in terms of their pharmacological advice and expertise. Indeed, that is one of the recommendations I will be taking forward, as was set out in the Statement. The valproate issue is very difficult, because it is an extremely effective anti-epilepsy drug but it can have very bad consequences for pregnant women and their children. I have met one of the campaigners; four or five of her children are affected and it is having a devastating impact on her life. We need to get to a position where no women of childbearing potential are using it. That needs to be done in the context of recognising that it does work for epilepsy.
Finally, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about meeting the groups to define the terms of reference. Again, we have learned from past experience that that has not always been done well and it is best done independently of government, with that degree of objectivity. I think that that is what this review will bring. As I say, the overall hope is that not only do we deal with the issues under each of these three headings, historical and current, but that we put in place a system that means that patients do not have to go through this tortuous process to get their concerns heard in future.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the review that my noble friend has announced—I can think of no better person than my noble friend Lady Cumberlege to do it. One of the concerns of those who are campaigning and have received what they consider to be very inferior treatment is that when the mesh was originally introduced it was done, they think, without proper research, it was inserted with inadequate training, and inadequate warnings were given of the potential risks. Will my noble friend assure us that if an alternative is sought, that will not be the case but that it will be subject to rigorous testing, that there will be rigorous training of the medical professionals and that the risks will be explained to the patient?
They have also raised concerns about potential trade under any future trade agreement with the United States, where I understand a lot of the mesh comes from. They are concerned that we will not just waive any suspect mesh through but will ensure our own rigorous testing so that it meets the highest requirements of the UK.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I thank my noble friend for those points; she highlights some very important issues. Medical devices are regulated differently from medicines: they have to go through a safety procedure and they are not licensed in the same way as medicines are. They come onto the market, they are used and safety assessments are made as time goes on. We are now in the position with mesh that we will have a registry, so that every time it is used we will know what the consequences are. That will also give us a comparator, as will the audit, for effectiveness against alternative procedures. As I have said, there is still a view in the medical and regulatory communities that, when used according to guidelines in the appropriate way, it can be transformative for women. However, it can also be the wrong thing and NICE has been very clear that in some cases, in some surgeries, the risks outweigh the benefits, in which case it should not be used. It is important that there is absolute conformity with those guidelines and that is part of what the registry will ensure.
On the issue of trade, under no circumstances will our trade relationships with any country in the future dilute the regulatory rigour that we apply and have always applied in this country. We have a very well regarded regulatory system in this country but we also know that we can do better and it is absolutely our intention to continue to strengthen it.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement but I put on the record my severe reservations about the safety of HPV vaccines. The noble Lord knows of my concern. I have had meetings with the MHRA but it seems to think that mañana is quite rapid enough to be dealing with it. The situation he described for those patients dealt with in the Statement is exactly the same as that of young girls and their families who have suffered bad reactions to HPV vaccines. Will the Minister ensure that the MHRA deals with some rapidity on this matter, as at the beginning of the Statement?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I thank the noble Countess for raising that point. We have met to discuss this issue and she has been a great campaigner on medicine safety issues. That dialogue is going on. As she knows, that view concerning the safety is not currently shared by the regulators. But I want to stress that the work that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will be leading will try to set up a process which deals equitably, objectively and compassionately with these concerns when they arise. One of the problems in the past has been, frankly, that we have not dealt with these things in the same way. It is dependent on the strength of the lobby group, the type and strength of the Government and what is on their agenda at any one time. That is not good enough. We need a consistent and compassionate approach to listening to concerns, scrutinising them properly and dealing with the consequences, which may entail no further action or could be anything up to a full public inquiry. That is what my noble friend will be dealing with and that will be a huge step forward. It will be precisely that kind of process to which any concerns about HPV or anything else should be directed.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the support he has given to the epileptic women who have taken valproate, resulting in them having children with autism. The marking and the advice were not there for them. Does the Minister realise that many people are concerned about the European Medicines Agency, which deals with safety in medicines? It was housed in London at Canary Wharf but has now gone to Amsterdam. Will we still be involved in that agency? We were leaders when it was here in London and we still have a lot to offer.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point. Specifically on valproate safety, the MHRA has taken a leading role in pushing all the time for stronger responses to the concerns. We are pleased to see that other European countries are responding. That highlights a bigger issue, which is if you look across the entire continent and the work that our agencies do—whether it is the MHRA, the GMC or others—we are seen as a leader across Europe, and indeed globally, on patient safety issues. That is one reason why it is our desire that in our future relationship with the European Union, the MHRA and other agencies continue to play that role, for the good of patients not just here but across Europe.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Thursday 22nd February 2018
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 86KB) - (20 Feb 2018)
Baroness Featherstone
“Associate membership of Euratom
(1) In negotiating and concluding an agreement in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union on the future of nuclear safeguards in the United Kingdom, Ministers of the Crown must have regard to the desirability of becoming an associate member of Euratom.(2) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a written statement detailing the progress towards achieving the negotiating objective under subsection (1)—(a) one month,(b) five months, and(c) nine months,after the passing of this Act.(3) In the event that the United Kingdom becomes an associate member of Euratom, sections 1 and 2 of this Act cease to have effect.”
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, I am sure that the Minister, in listening to the Second Reading debate in this House, could not have failed to get the message that leaving Euratom, necessitating the re-creation of its safeguarding capabilities and duties in another body set up to mimic it exactly, is an absurdity and a folly. If he were in any doubt, around 11 pm last night a number of noble Lords—among them, my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Warner and Lord Carlile—let him know their opinion of this matter, too.
There was no vote to leave Euratom. Euratom is separate from the EU. Of course, we benefit from our membership, with Euratom regulating the civil nuclear industry, including safeguards for nuclear materials and technology, disposal of nuclear waste, ownership of nuclear fuel, and research and development. Despite our disputing the actual legal necessity of leaving Euratom, the Government are going ahead with the Bill as a failsafe. Amendment 1 seeks to attain associate membership of Euratom. We sought in our original amendment to retain full membership, but, sadly, this was deemed out of scope.
In the Written Statement that the Government laid on 11 January, they said that they want,
“a close association with Euratom”.
But the Government wanting a close association and having one in place are not the same thing, nor have they yet defined what they mean by an association that is “as close as possible”. It would be very helpful if the Minister could indicate what has been said so far about associate membership, and what the answer was during negotiations to date when the suggestion was first put on the table that we want a close association with Euratom, if indeed it was put on the table at all. Was there any problem? It is unimaginable to me that anyone on the other side of the negotiating table would have any problem with us staying in Euratom or, if we are not doing so, having an associate membership. Has the European Commission given its view on this to date?
Our problem with the good intentions of the Government in this regard is that they are undefined, so we want clarity and certainty on this important matter. We want an associate membership that replicates exactly our membership of Euratom—nothing more, nothing less. So what will be required of us in order to have an associate membership? Is it a matter of cost? What would be asked of us, above and beyond what is required now? Amendment 1 has been laid to ensure that the Government, in their negotiations and agreements in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the future of nuclear safeguards in the United Kingdom must have regard to the desirability of becoming an associate member of Euratom. I am sure—at least, I very much hope and expect—that this will be pretty much at the top of the Government’s list of things to do, if only to avoid the extra works, cost, aggravation and uncertainty in recreating what we have already as a member of Euratom.
So that we can be sure that the Secretary of State is carrying out this duty, the amendment requires that he must lay before both Houses a Written Statement informing us of the progress he is making towards achieving that negotiated outcome. Our preference would be to forestall actually leaving Euratom at all, unless and until such an associate membership is in place. However, as that is apparently not possible, the amendment asks that Statements be made at particular intervals post the Act receiving Royal Assent. If we were to succeed in negotiating an associate membership and effectively remain in Euratom, the rest of the Bill need not apply. I beg to move.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 2, 12 and 16, which are in my name in this group. We had a good warm-up late last night for this first day in Committee on this Bill, with the Minister’s colleague doing what I thought was a rather good imitation of Geoffrey Boycott: occupying the crease but not showing much flair in his run gathering. In that debate on withdrawal from Euratom that we had in Committee on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, it was clear that the mood of the House was that this was a rash and ill-considered action by the Government, and that the Government would do well to reconsider their position on withdrawing from Euratom in the interests of the future of the nuclear industry in the UK. I have little doubt that we will return to this issue during our later consideration of the withdrawal Bill and I do not intend to traverse that ground again today, although I still consider that cancelling the withdrawal from Euratom membership would be the best course of action in the public interest.
Today, I want to focus on two issues that continue to cause concern in the industry and among many of us in this House: first, whether the Government have a credible plan for putting in place an internationally acceptable nuclear safeguarding regime in the UK in time for our departure from Euratom; and, secondly, whether this can be done by EU exit day on 29 March 2019. These two issues are inextricably linked in my view, and that is why I have grouped my Amendments 2, 12 and 16 with the related amendments in this first group. I have to say to the Minister that how the Government respond to amendments on these concerns in this Bill will, I suspect, determine how the House deals with the Euratom issue in the withdrawal Bill. I assure the Minister that that is not a threat but a piece of friendly advice.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I shall refer to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner. The noble Baroness would like us to remain a full member of Euratom but, failing that, her amendment seeks to ensure that, as far as possible, we become an associate member of Euratom on exactly the same basis as we are a member. It seems to me that in that case we might as well remain a member. However, given that the treaties seem to be so mixed up with those of the EU, I understand that the Government are in receipt of legal advice that that is not a possible option.
However, it is not accurate to say that our continued associate membership of Euratom is essential for us to adopt and have approved by our nuclear partners a proper accredited safeguards regime. An accredited nuclear safeguards regime does not depend on meeting Euratom standards, it depends on meeting standards set by the IAEA. Euratom standards are thought to be less robust on process, procedures and controls than those set by the IAEA, which concentrate more heavily on verification processes, which is one reason why you need so many inspectors.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I thank the noble Viscount for letting me intervene, but I honestly do not understand that. If Euratom procedures were not up to IAEA standards, it would not be approved as a safeguarding authority by the International Atomic Energy Agency itself.
Viscount Trenchard
Euratom is certainly approved by the IAEA as having adequate standards. My point is that Euratom has standards that go beyond the level required by other international nuclear partners, including Japan, the United States and Australia. My point is that it is therefore not necessary to comply with Euratom standards to comply fully with the safeguards regime—
Viscount Trenchard
Could I not continue, because I have just been interrupted? I will perhaps give way to the noble Lord in a minute.
I turn to Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. He refers to the supply to the United Kingdom of medical radioisotopes and their use and disposal, so far as this depends on UK membership of Euratom. My understanding is that it does not depend on UK membership of Euratom. Sixty per cent of the United Kingdom’s isotope supply comes from the EU and 40% from non-EU countries—predominantly South Africa, I think. Both are imported into the UK under fast-track procedures, and there seems no reason why that should change, whether or not we are a member of Euratom.
It is clearly essential that we avoid a cliff edge in this field, and for that reason, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the Government’s intention to avoid one. Clearly, something which replicates the effect of continued membership of Euratom during a transition period would be the easiest way to achieve that, because it will not be possible in the time available before March 2019 to negotiate and have ratified by their legislatures the four essential nuclear co-operation agreements with the United States, Australia, Japan and Canada that are our minimum requirement.
I am now happy to give way to the noble Lord.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
I just want to come back to the noble Viscount’s key point, which is that IAEA standards are less than those of Euratom. In evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place, the deputy chief inspector of the Office for Nuclear Regulation, which will be taking over the non-proliferation safeguarding role from Euratom under government plans, said that the result in March 2019 will be that we move from Euratom standards to standards that will mean fewer inspections and less intensity of inspections. That is surely the argument—I think the noble Viscount was hinting at this when we debated this last night—for not insisting that we establish our own regulatory function in March 2019 but carry on in some kind of relationship with Euratom. Whether it is transition, associate membership or alignment—whatever you want to call it—we should essentially continue to use Euratom until, if we insist on leaving Euratom in the end, the ONR can signify that it is up to Euratom standards.
Viscount Trenchard
I wholly agree, as I think I said, that the right way is to continue to rely on Euratom until such time as the ONR can apply a UK-specific safeguards standards regime approved by the IAEA. My point is that it is not necessary and might not be desirable. On that, I am particularly interested in the submissions made by the Nuclear Industry Association, on which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, will make an intervention, which I would look forward to hearing with great interest. We do not necessarily need to follow Euratom; I am not saying that Euratom standards are not at least as good as IAEA’s required standards but, in so far as they go further, it does not necessarily mean that they are safer. It may mean that they are more cumbersome or that the frequency of verifications is more—
Baroness Featherstone
I thank the noble Viscount for giving way. Is he aware that the Government’s declared intention is to reach the Euratom standard, regardless of this debate?
Viscount Trenchard
I am well aware that the Government have explained that their policy is to meet Euratom standards, and I am not saying that that would be in any way a bad thing, but I understand that there is a problem over the timescale it would take to reach Euratom standards. Nevertheless, I question whether it is necessary or desirable to meet Euratom standards in full because, as I said, many in the industry consider the IAEA standards better as far as process, procedures and controls are concerned. I think I have now concluded my remarks.
Lord Warner
Well, I am sure the noble Viscount is in the Prime Minister’s thoughts for ministerial office. I am a bit confused about where he is on completing either IAEA-acceptable standards or Euratom standards by 29 March 2019. Is he saying that he accepts that neither of those standards will be met by March 2019, therefore we need a transition period and therefore he supports my amendment on a transition period?
Viscount Trenchard
I am saying that I believe it is not possible by March 2019 to achieve the necessary nuclear co-operation agreements with our four key partners, principally, and that therefore we will not be in a position to operate our own nuclear safeguards regime. I believe the ONR could manage to establish recognition of its own nuclear safeguards regime in that timescale, but—because we will not have the NCAs or an agreement with the EU on nuclear in that timescale—I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government propose to avoid a cliff edge in the nuclear industry.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
Before the noble Viscount sits down, will he clarify something? He sought to give us reassurance on medical isotopes and made the point that 40% of them come from South Africa and 60% from the Netherlands and France. Can he tell us whether they are all the same, because the logistical implications of transportation from South Africa are rather different than coming from the Low Countries and north-west France? Are all isotopes the same? I do not think that they are. Which ones come from which places? Is the reassurance that he is giving us quite as robust as he would like it to be?
Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I am not sufficiently aware of the detail of the proportions of different types of isotopes that come from the European Union—the Netherlands, France and Germany—but the 60% from the EU comes mainly through the Channel Tunnel, as I understand. The 40% from non-EU countries, comes through Heathrow in the main and is subject to the fast-track customs clearance procedure. That is absolutely necessary given the 66-hour half-life that applies to quite a proportion of these isotopes.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I think we should allow the noble Viscount to sit down, and remind ourselves that he is not the Minister. To go back to something that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, in a way, none of the amendments in this group is perfect. Why are they not perfect? It is because we have given our notice to withdraw from Euratom, yet we all know that that was not the greatest thing to do. So we are now trying to claw our way back to the status quo, having given notification under Article 106a of the Euratom treaty. We are trying to find a way to get back to where we want to be, but we are not allowed to withdraw our notification under the treaty. We certainly cannot within the scope of this Bill, but perhaps under the EU withdrawal Bill there is more scope. Who knows? It does not seem so long ago that we were debating that.
I presume the Minister will confirm that we do want to achieve Euratom standards, not bargain-basement, superstore value in terms of just the IAEA standards, although those are important. Can the Minister confirm that a transitional agreement is possible and would work, and that the EU 27 are up for this? Certainly in the publication on transitional arrangements, which was published last month, Euratom is a footnote on a couple of occasions, so I presume that it is in the mix in terms of the continuing acquis during the transition period.
What concerns me most about this is the need—as the noble Viscount has said, and he is quite right—to avoid this rather more precipitous cliff edge than there is even in the other areas of transitional commercial arrangements. When the break from the treaty happens, are we certain that the International Atomic Energy Agency would be prepared to have Euratom act as our safeguarding authority during a transitional period even though we are not legally a member of Euratom? That is a fundamental question. An answer would provide a lot more clarity and perhaps enable us to come back on Report with a suitable amendment which might actually work. We are not in a position to do that at the moment because we do not have that information.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, after the excellent introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I listened with great attention to what was said by the noble Viscount. My conclusion, after he sat down, was that I should take a deep breath, count to three and then try to analyse where we are up to in this debate. My conclusions are: first, we have at the moment a very satisfactory set of standards; secondly, what we are offered as an alternative is a set of good intentions. We know about good intentions; they do not always lead to good standards, or even any standards being adopted at all. I say to the Minister that what persuades those of us who are taking part in this important debate, and who took part in yesterday’s analogous debates, is real anxiety about the standards this country will have in the future, and about whether we will be recognised as coming up to world standards in relation to nuclear safeguards. It was partly with that in mind that I went to look at the EU exit analysis papers at 100 Parliament Street the day before yesterday, which were referred to extensively in the night shift before we signed up to today’s morning shift. I looked in those papers for a single sentence or word about the future of nuclear safety and Euratom. I was only there for three-quarters of an hour so I only had time to read the documents twice, but I do not recall, and did not note, a single word on this issue. It worries me that it was not there because this is a key issue that should have been addressed in the advice given to Ministers, which is what those papers really are.
Therefore, I repeat a question I asked of the Minister’s colleague last night: how many meetings have so far taken place on this issue with European negotiating counterparts? Can we be given a number please? Next question: how many meetings of that kind have taken place on this issue with counterparts in the IAEA? Please can we have numbers because they will give us at least an indication of how far down the road we are towards turning the good intentions into a set of future standards? I am not wholly opposed to leaving Euratom: we may be able to do at least as well or better under other arrangements, but we have to do at least as well or better, otherwise we will serve the country ill.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
I will intervene very briefly to express my support for the amendments that my noble friend Lord Warner has tabled, and the spirit behind the amendments that the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, has tabled.
We have analysed this problem pretty astutely and know exactly where we are. I declare an interest as chairman of the Nuclear Industry Association. The industry wants to avoid the cataclysmic consequence of exiting the European Union in March 2019 without an effective arrangement in place that will oversee nuclear safeguards in the UK. It is impossible to exaggerate the significance of getting to that point. If that is where we get to and there are no arrangements in place with Euratom at that point, I think, as the noble Viscount and others said, that it is highly unlikely that we will have a compliant safeguarding regime applying to the United Kingdom civil nuclear industry. That would be a terrible event, and I cannot exaggerate the significance or consequence of that.
My understanding, therefore, is that it is the Government’s policy to try to reach an association agreement with Euratom that will cover this transitional period of at least two years. That, I believe, is absolutely essential—because, as the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, made clear, we will not be in a position to operate an independent UK arrangement that meets international standards by March 2019. The Minister may well correct me and tell me that I am wrong about that, but I think that it is highly improbable. So it seems to me that the issue behind all these amendments is essentially one of timing. If it is the Government’s stated intention to reach an association agreement with Euratom to preserve the existing internationally recognised arrangements that apply to the UK, it is very hard to imagine why we will need this Bill to be implemented at all. If it is possible to reach an agreement under Article 206, I think, of the Euratom treaty, which specifically refers to reciprocal rights and obligations, it is certainly broad enough as a treaty provision—as I believe, the industry believes and our advisers believe—to cover the full spectrum of safeguarding arrangements covered by the Euratom treaty and we will not need the ONR to be given these new additional powers. If we can reach an agreement for a transitional period, I do not understand why that transitional arrangement cannot continue for longer, specifically in this regard in relation to the civil nuclear industry.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, on making clear from the industry’s point of view the importance of this continuity.
I will make a simple and perhaps naive and impractical point in a couple of minutes. I support Amendment 1 and the other amendments because, as I said at Second Reading and again last night when the situation with Euratom arose in Committee on the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, my interests are centred on sustaining our research and development in support of nuclear power projects. The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, just pointed out the overall importance of sustaining our interest in the nuclear industry. This topic has been followed with some concern by the Science and Technology Select Committee for many years, including during the period when I chaired that committee. I have one reservation with Amendment 1, which I will get to in a minute.
We have sustained world-competitive expertise in many areas of nuclear technology, such as waste disposal, but have relied on collaboration, especially through our membership of Euratom, in keeping up with the development of new types of reactors and of course with nuclear fusion. Research and development of this type is carried out by large teams of research engineers and scientists coming from a broad range of disciplines, and advances emerge through frequent and continuous interactions that occur when researchers get together at symposia and workshops. An idea can come from anywhere in the world. These are team projects, where advances are made through the exchange of information and close collaboration.
I recall when I first took responsibility for a large group of research engineers and scientists developing the advanced electronics for IBM’s new computers in the United States in the early 1980s. A senior engineer with decades of experience pioneering the development of computers took me aside and gave me a lecture about morale. He emphasised the importance of maintaining high morale in managing large teams of researchers working on difficult projects. The fusion project is an extremely difficult project. I was discussing this with a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer just now, who said that the results with fusion were very disappointing. Of course, it is an extraordinarily difficult project. You are trying to maintain extremely high temperatures, higher than on the sun, and trying to contain plasma in a container and then have it survive severe bombardment from neutrons. Why are we doing this project? Because it offers the ultimate solution to our energy problems. We pursue much larger scientific projects—CERN spent orders of magnitude more than we are spending on the ITER project. We have played a key role in that project and we can continue to contribute to it, but we must feel part of the team.
My point is that morale is maintained by feeling part of a team. It is very much like the Olympics. I went back home last night at midnight, and the one good thing about staying up that late was that the slalom was still on the television. We have a very fine slalom skier who trained on a plastic slope—that is a bit of technology for you. He skied brilliantly and got into the top 10, but he had one disadvantage. He did not have the other three members of the team that the Austrians, the French and the Swiss had, who radioed back the moment they got to the bottom to say, “Watch turns five, seven and nine because of the rut there”. He had to do it all on his own.
We do not want to be on our own in our nuclear endeavours: we want to be part of the team but a full member of it, not an associate member. So my unrealistic suggestion is that we go for full membership of the team and not associate membership.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I am very pleased to follow the last two speakers, because I have had associations with both of them. In the case of my noble friend Lord Hutton, I was his predecessor as chair of the Nuclear Industry Association.
In supporting Amendments 2, 12 and 17, particularly Amendment 2, I draw attention to the fact that the Bill is about reassuring the industry and the British people that we will have safeguarding regimes of a quality and a standard that will enable there to be continuing public support for civil nuclear in the United Kingdom. This is not a matter of holding the Government’s feet to the fire—although, as an Opposition Member, I largely approve of such an approach—but to make it clear that it is essential that we get reports back. The fact is that, so far—as has been evidenced by the appearance of the word “Euratom” in the withdrawal papers—that has been a pretty low priority for the Government. Frankly, we cannot trust them without something in the Bill to require there to be a report, albeit an interim one, by Christmas. That is where both the Liberal amendment and the amendment from my colleagues come in. That is not unreasonable, because the record is pretty feeble so far. At worst, we have heard platitudinous nonsense from the Government on many of these issues. We want there to be a requirement that means that their attention is focused on a particular time and date so that, before Christmas of this year, we will have an interim report on the progress that has been made. The areas covered are quite clear.
It is also fair to say that we need a transition period. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, has been riding the horse that he usually rides in respect of research and development, on which he has become an acknowledged expert. I just make the point that there is a lot more to the nuclear industry than research and development and the generation of power. We have considerable expertise in safety matters as consultants in United Kingdom companies and internationally. Our record on the decommissioning of power stations is probably second to none because we have been at it longer than anyone else and because we started building them long before most other people. However, if we are not able to keep abreast of improvements and developments, we will not be able to continue that kind of work.
As I said, the nuclear cycle involves more than just research and the generation of power, and at the moment we enjoy a pretty good position. As my noble friend Lord Hutton said, it is a not insignificant contributor to the engineering and manufacturing side of the British economy, so it is economically important. Politically, it is also important that in this House there is a consensus that then breeds confidence in the country as a whole.
These amendments will have their deficiencies. At this stage in legislation it is the stuff of ministerial responses to say that the amendments are not quite good enough, but when the case is strong enough—I think we all believe that it is—it is the responsibility of government to accept the spirit of the amendments and to go away and consult the Front Benches and interested parties to secure wording which we consider to be appropriate for the scale of the challenge that has to be met to sustain the confidence of the nuclear industry, the confidence of this House and, ultimately, the confidence of the country as a whole in the civil nuclear project in which we are currently engaged.
I will be very disappointed if the Minister tries to duck and dive on this issue. If he does, I suspect that he will get bruised when we come to consider it at the next stage. I think that there is a strong feeling about this on pretty well all sides of the House. Even the noble Viscount was somewhat half-hearted in his backing of the Government and made the point that transitional arrangements are necessary. However, for transitional arrangements to be effective, we must have reports at every stage of the process. Frankly, nine months on is not an unreasonable point at which to ask for such a report. It is not enough for Ministers simply to say, “Yes, we will come back and address the House”. We need something more concrete than that. We also need assurances that, before any further action is taken, we are given clear indications of matters relating to finance and future developments so that we can avoid the charge that we have given the Government a blank cheque in relation to a piece of our national economy which is essential to the future energy needs of our country.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, noble Lords have heard about the scale of the risk of not achieving the objective of the Bill. If you were doing a classic risk analysis in the private sector—the sort of thing that, under corporate governance, the Minister’s department requires every board to observe—you would say that there was a very high risk of not achieving that objective. Even if the Minister thought that there was only a very small chance of not doing so, if we were a board of directors he would be required to mitigate that risk. These amendments provide a pathway to mitigation—a pathway to a plan B. It is the sort of medicine that, quite rightly, the department supplies for all business and enterprise across the United Kingdom—that is, understanding the risks that they are undergoing and seeking a way to mitigate them. That is exactly what the Government and the Minister should be doing, and it is why, between now and Report, the Government have to embrace the messages that they have heard today.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I have some sympathy for the questions raised in this debate and I start by associating myself with support for the nuclear industry and for nuclear R&D. As the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, said, the nuclear industry was founded in this country.
I support the Bill, as I think that we need to plan for the withdrawal from Euratom in a responsible way. The Bill is relatively clear, and we have seen the draft implementing regulations, which are very helpful—I thank the Minister for that. As in other Brexit areas, the Government need to put EU provisions into UK law because many people in this country have told us that that is what they want. I believe that, as a scrutinising Chamber, we need to progress matters technically and that we should provide the powers that the Energy Ministers need to negotiate the necessary nuclear agreements and to strengthen the ONR.
However, I want to make one point which perhaps builds a little on what has been said by my noble friend Lord Trenchard. If we crash out of the EU in March 2019 or, alternatively, at the end of an agreed implementation period, will the Minister consider informing the EU at that point that we would like to reverse the bespoke Article 50 for Euratom and put up with a little bit of potential ECJ involvement—at least until an association agreement with Euratom is arranged or a relevant trade agreement with the EU is finalised? Once the air clears, the two sides will be bound to return to the negotiating table and will no doubt start to agree things on important areas such as nuclear.
I am not sure that my concern calls for an amendment to the Bill but we must avoid any risk of enhanced nuclear non-proliferation and the industry disruption and damage that would go with it. Therefore, if we could find a way of retaining some flexibility in the event of a bad outcome, that could be helpful, and I shall be grateful if the Minister has anything to say by way of reassurance. I had thought that perhaps we should not go ahead with this Bill but, by looking at it carefully, I have been persuaded that we need to get on with it.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, these amendments propose an associate membership of Euratom. In effect, they propose a deferment of our severance from Euratom and possibly even an indefinite deferment.
There is a marked contrast between the bland assurances we have received from the Government that everything regarding nuclear safeguards will be in place by March 2019 and the anxieties expressed by other parties, including, in a professionally restrained manner, the ONR, which is due to assume the duties of nuclear safeguarding. It has indicated that it is struggling to meet the deadline. The regime that it might have in place by March will be decidedly understaffed, and surely the danger that the deadline will be missed fully justifies the provisions of these amendments.
There are also anxieties regarding the ability to establish the necessary nuclear co-operation agreements with third parties in a timely manner. Such agreements depend on the existence of a nuclear safeguarding regime that is compliant with the requirements of the International Atomic Energy Agency, and it will take some time to achieve this. We are fearful that the requirement that a nuclear co-operation agreement with the USA be ratified by the Senate will give rise to a lengthy hiatus during which our nuclear industry may be deprived of some essential supplies.
There is also the matter of medical isotopes, which it is appropriate to raise at this juncture. The Minister has told us that the Government take their continued availability most seriously and assures us that this issue is quite distinct from nuclear safeguarding. Well, it is not a matter that is separate from our membership of Euratom. Euratom appears to have played a significant role in ensuring their continued and timely availability when they have been extremely scarce. By leaving Euratom prematurely we shall be prejudicing the security of our supplies, and this is a good reason for deferring our departure.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House for not being able to take part at Second Reading. I have some sympathy with the intent behind these amendments. I will not go over the very interesting responses last night to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath; I would just like to make a few brief comments.
A report from the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee in other place states:
“We conclude the Government should seek to retain as close as possible a relationship with Euratom, and that this should include accepting its delivery of existing safeguards requirements in the UK”.
The MPs on the committee warned that the impacts of leaving Euratom would be “profound”, putting the UK in,
“a much weaker position to drive regulatory standards”,
at an EU level.
Last week, the EDF corporate policy and regulation director said:
“The UK still lacks the replacement rules needed to fuel its nuclear reactors after”,
the country quits the EU. EDF also told the House of Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee:
“The Euratom Treaty is currently vital to the functioning of nuclear energy generation in the UK. Failure to replace its provisions by the point of withdrawal could result in the UK being unable to import nuclear materials, and have severe consequences for the UK’s energy security”.
The UK’s Nuclear Industry Association, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, said that,
“the Bill does not provide enough certainty for the industry and the government should be pushing for a transitional agreement”.
Finally, according to City A.M., Vote Leave campaign director Dominic Cummings, in rather colourful language, lambasted government plans to leave the European nuclear agency as “near-retarded”.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I have a couple of questions for the Minister before he replies. First, will he answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked about the recently published—on 29 January—report of the EU committee of this House? It is hot off the press, full of information and all the substantial written evidence is available to noble Lords. Although we were covering energy security, we spent considerable time on Euratom, and there was evidence from the industry and from the ONR. Did the Minister look at any of the evidence and the report before he wrote his letter to noble Lords following Second Reading, which contradicts the evidence provided to the Select Committee?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
We had an extensive debate on the principle of Euratom last night and I shall not repeat what I said then, but I shall speak in support of my own amendments and the others in this group. They are not perfect, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said: they are substitutes, because most noble Lords in most parts of the House think it is a mistake to withdraw from Euratom and, even now, we hope to persuade the Government, one way or another, to reverse that decision.
However, the problem, which my noble friends have highlighted, is that the very integrity of this crucial industry is now at stake. Essentially, the Government want to find some way of continuing with Euratom, although they cannot spell out to us exactly what that means. This Bill is an understandable backstop so that, if they cannot agree one way or another with Euratom to continue its work, the ONR can be established as a separate nuclear safeguards regulator. Essentially, we are being asked to take this on trust.
My problem is that, first, I have no confidence whatever in the Government’s ability to negotiate a deal with Euratom. I do not know what it must be like to be a member of the Conservative Party or, indeed, the Government, but what we see is utter chaos and disagreement. For instance, the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said that about 60% of medical isotopes come from the EU and 40% from outside. Last night, he suggested that leaving the EU should not impact at all on the transfer of medical isotopes from the EU. But we have not yet agreed a frictionless customs arrangement with the EU and I am not sure that, at this stage, one would bet anything at all on our seeing that negotiated—and it is but one uncertainty about what will emerge.
The letter sent by Mr Rees-Mogg and his group says, essentially, that this country must have “full regulatory autonomy” by March 2019—it must have the ability to change British rules and laws once we leave, without being a “rule taker”. But what arrangements are we then going to reach with Euratom that do not transgress the red line laid down by Mr Rees-Mogg? The Minister may say that Mr Rees-Mogg is but a Back-Bencher in the other place, but he seems to hold sway over government negotiating positions. That is why we have to assume that, actually, the Government are not going to be able to negotiate a sensible agreement with Euratom. Within government collectively, it transgresses so many of the red lines that have been laid down, one way or another, that if we are not careful, we will have to fall back on the ONR picking up this responsibility.
I respect the ONR and the evidence it gave to the Commons Public Bill Committee, which was everything you would expect of a robust regulator. My reading is that by March 2019, it could just about have enough people to do the inspections according to IAEA standards, but not to Euratom standards. But the other question is: what about the agreements that have to be reached with a number of very powerful countries? There are no guarantees at all that we could do that.
The reason we are debating and struggling with these amendments is that there is a real concern that not only the legality of the industry post-2019 is at stake here, but public confidence too. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, who made a very good speech yesterday, talked about confidence in the industry. I am a passionate believer in this industry and I take my noble friend’s point that it is about not just research, but the fact that we have a highly skilled group of people working in it. Yes, we are experienced in decommissioning, but we now have the possibility of a renaissance in new nuclear. After having thrown away the lead we had, we can get some of that back, develop a supply chain and use the skills of our people, but we need public confidence to do that. The problem is that the Government’s position is putting that at risk because there is no confidence whatever that they can reach an agreement with Euratom and none that they can reach Euratom standards in March 2019. That is a very serious position to be in.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I heard the noble Lord set out his own party’s policy more widely on Brexit, but perhaps that will be for another day. He can then assist the Committee, but I leave that with him. I offer my congratulations and thanks to him, to the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for introducing their amendments. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Warner, who compared the response last night by my noble friend Lord Callanan to a Geoffrey Boycott innings. For those of my age and beyond, I will go for a sort of Ken Barrington type of response, so it will be long and slow. However, it is important that I get it all in to make sure that we have a proper response to the debate so that we can consider these amendments again on Report. It is also important for noble Lords to understand in this sort of Ken Barrington response that I am going to give—
Lord Henley
The noble Lord knows that he always gets wisdom from me. I want also to say that I am not necessarily going to respond to all the points in the course of this debate because an awful lot of them apply to later amendments. Nevertheless I will give a fairly full response, but I shall start by making a pretty fundamental point, made by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is that we are where we are. My noble friend supports this Bill because, as she said, it is very important that we have plans in place for when we leave Euratom. We are going to leave Euratom at the same time as we leave the European Union in March of next year. That was dealt with in the notice of withdrawal Bill, now the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. The legislation has been through both Houses of Parliament and has the support of the party opposite and others.
What I want to make clear to the Committee is that we are determined to continue to have a constructive and collaborative relationship with Euratom and with all our other international partners. The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from Euratom will in no way diminish our nuclear ambitions, and I make that clear to the noble Lord, Lord Broers, and others. Maintaining the continuity of our mutually successful civil nuclear co-operation with Euratom and international partners is going to be a key priority for us. As a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency, we are committed to have in place nuclear safeguards. I should remind the Committee that these have nothing to do with safety. Nuclear safeguards are reporting and verification processes by which states demonstrate to the international community that civil nuclear material is not being diverted into military or weapons programmes. The United Kingdom has been a member of the IAEA since its formation back in 1957.
Under the Euratom treaty, the civil nuclear material and facilities within member states are subject to nuclear safeguards measures conducted by the European Commission on behalf of Euratom. Euratom also provides reporting on member states’ safeguards to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which conducts nuclear safeguards globally. Nuclear safeguards measures include reporting on civil nuclear material holdings and development plans, inspections of nuclear facilities by international inspectors, and monitoring, including cameras in selected facilities. I repeat that nuclear safeguards are distinct from nuclear safety, which covers the prevention of nuclear accidents, and nuclear security, which covers physical protection measures. Those are the subject of independent regulatory provisions and we shall move on to them in due course.
As was made clear by my noble friend last night and I make clear again today, the European Union and Euratom are uniquely legally joined. Euratom shares a common institutional framework, making use of the same institutions; namely, the Council, the Commission, the European Parliament and the ECJ. For example, the European Commission has an active role in shaping and enforcing Euratom rules and it currently plays a central operational role on safeguards in the UK. As was further made clear by my noble friend last night, Euratom is also subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
When the Prime Minister formally notified our intention to leave the European Union in June, she also commenced the process for leaving Euratom. That notification was debated and authorised by Parliament through the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 which, as I have said, had the full support of both Houses of Parliament. The United Kingdom will therefore withdraw from Euratom in 2019 at the same time as withdrawing from the European Union. That is why we need the legislation before us now to be in place.
The United Kingdom’s current nuclear safeguards regime operated by Euratom will cease to function in the United Kingdom as a result of our withdrawal from Euratom. The Nuclear Safeguards Bill will ensure that we have the right regime in place for the Office for Nuclear Regulation to regulate nuclear safeguards. I reassure the Committee that the Government are meeting the challenges that clearly lie before us. We have already made great progress in the work that we are doing to secure continuity for our nuclear industry by establishing long-term arrangements to secure nuclear safeguards. The Queen’s Speech on 21 June last year included our intention to take up the powers that will set up a domestic nuclear safeguards regime, and that is what this Bill seeks to do.
Lord Henley
My Lords, will the noble Lord bear with me? I said that I was going to play a fairly long innings and I want to explain these matters in full. There is no point in the noble Lord interrupting at this stage. I am going through this carefully and slowly in order to explain what we are going to do to make sure that we have the right things in place for when we leave Euratom and the EU in March of next year.
Our intention is for the new domestic regime to exceed the standard that the international community would require from the United Kingdom as a member of the IAEA. It will be run by the Office for Nuclear Regulation which, as the Committee will know, already regulates nuclear safety and nuclear security. We will also be agreeing a new voluntary offer agreement with the IAEA. I believe that we all recognise the special contribution—
Lord Warner
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but can he say what discussions have actually taken place with the IAEA to get to that point of an agreement before March 2019? What is the plan of meetings for those discussions that have taken place and are planned to take place?
Lord Henley
My Lords, discussions have already taken place with the IAEA. We will continue with those discussions to make sure that we are in the right place at the right time. If the noble Lord will bear with me, I will continue with my speech and set these things out in the proper manner.
Lord Warner
I understand what the Minister is saying, but none of us has moved amendments this morning that in any way suggest that we would not be leaving Euratom by next year. We have accepted that for the purposes of this debate. We are not slow learners: we do not need to be taken rather slowly through the arguments that we went through last night.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am sorry if the noble Lord feels that he is not a slow learner. At times, I have felt that he and other noble Lords have been a bit slow on these things. That is why I am trying to spell it out very carefully and very slowly and I will continue to do so. I hope to make it clear so that the Committee and the House will understand that we will have the appropriate civil nuclear safeguards regime in place by next year, which is of paramount importance for us at that stage. We have had already considerable discussions with Euratom. There will be further discussions with the IAEA. I will not go into the details but I can no doubt write to the noble Lord in due course.
In a sense, this is an amending Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, it will amend the Energy Act 2013 by creating new powers so that we can put in place regulations that offer detail on the domestic safeguards regime, such as accounting, reporting, control and inspection arrangements. It also creates the limited power that I referred to earlier which we will get to in later amendments, allowing us to amend the Nuclear Safeguards and Electricity (Finance) Act 1978 and others. That power will mean that references in that legislation to existing international agreements can be updated once new international agreements have been reached. We will discuss that in greater detail later on.
I have listened carefully to what has been said on the agreements that we have before us on Amendments 1, 2, 12, 16 and 17. These amendments taken as a group cover the fundamental issue of the United Kingdom’s future relationship with Euratom and our strategy pertaining to this. I fully appreciate the sentiment and the intention behind these amendments. I shall try to address them all.
On Amendment 1, the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, would require Ministers, when negotiating and concluding the withdrawal agreement, to have regard to the desirability of associate membership of Euratom, and require the Government to report periodically to Parliament the progress to that end. Noble Lords will have heard many times before that there is no such thing as associate membership of Euratom. I made that clear at Second Reading. It is important that discussions on this matter focus on the actual treaty. The concept of associate membership does not exist in the treaty. Given the frequency with which the point comes up, I start my response by reading out exactly what the Government said to the BEIS Select Committee on this point in the autumn:
“There are two different articles in the treaty that deal with the relationship between Euratom and third countries. One of them is Article 101, which enables the community to enter into agreements with third states. That is the one that has been used in the research and training context with Switzerland. That requires a qualified majority vote. The other one is Article 206, which enables the community to conclude an agreement establishing a formal association involving reciprocal rights and obligations. That is the ‘association with’ part, not being an associate member. That requires unanimity.”
It is indeed the case that the Ukraine and Switzerland each have a form of association agreement with Euratom, but those agreements cover only research and training activities. Neither covers nuclear safeguards activities. These countries are not associate members of Euratom. Wanting to maintain a close relationship with Euratom is this Government’s stated objective so we need no persuading on that point. We have already stated very clearly in Statements to the House that the Government will be seeking a close and effective association with Euratom as part of the next phase of negotiations with the EU. We have made clear the desirability of this aim and that it forms part of our negotiation strategy.
I fully recognise the importance of providing clarity on the progress of the Government’s plans for withdrawing from Euratom and our ambitions in respect of a future relationship with Euratom, which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, asked about earlier; it is relevant to Amendments 2 and 16, which I will deal with later.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
The Minister referred to Article 206 and the agreement that has been arrived at with Switzerland and Ukraine in respect of training and research. Does that provision afford any opportunity for other areas to be incorporated in an agreement with Euratom? Could it be the portal for enabling us to be alongside Euratom in the way that the Ukrainians and the Swiss have been able to obtain for their preoccupations with training and research?
Lord Henley
My understanding is that it will allow them to do that. I am not aware that Article 206 could be used further as the noble Lord suggests. If I am wrong, of course I will write to him, but it might be a matter of interpretation. I should remind him in respect of Article 206 that I stressed when I read out the Government’s response to the Select Committee that any agreement required unanimity. That is obviously quite a big “if” in these matters. If there is anything further I can add, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
The Minister is being very helpful. It is the first explanation we have had as to why the Government are leaving. He talked a lot about the influence of the EU over Euratom’s activities, which is no doubt something that we can test and explore. But I do not understand what “close association” means. The Government clearly could not go for a formal association because the relationship would be one in which the EU would set the rules, and we know that the Government have drawn a red line against that. Does “close association” mean that we would basically subcontract the inspectorate from Euratom to work under the auspices of the ONR, with the ONR as the regulator? Does it mean that, despite everything that the Government have said, we hope that we can simply replicate Euratom rules and that it will somehow oversee it, which seems unlikely? Until we know what the Government want to get out of Euratom, it is difficult to know whether the Bill will meet the circumstances if no close association at all is agreed.
Lord Warner
Can I amplify something from what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said? If the Minister looks at my Amendment 2, he will see that the suggested new subsection (1)(a) refers to,
“a report on the progress of discussions with Euratom on the scope and conditions for a form of association with Euratom”.
It does not talk about associate membership. Listening to what he said about what the Government aspire to sounded remarkably like seeking,
“a form of association with Euratom”.
In clarifying the Government’s intentions for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will the Minister explain the difference between what the Government want and the wording in my amendment? I am quite happy to change the wording if it helps the Minister.
Lord Henley
I was coming to the noble Lord’s amendment to make quite clear our ambitions for that future relationship and how we see it developing, before I was interrupted first by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and then by his noble friend Lord Warner interrupting him. I will now deal with how we want to ensure proper clarity on where we are going. The information I will provide to the Committee particularly relates to Amendments 2 and 16 from the noble Lord, Lord Warner.
The noble Lord will remember that we made a Written Ministerial Statement on 11 January. I am sure that he knows it off by heart by now. It included a commitment to continue to provide quarterly updates—it is information that noble Lords particularly want in this matter—addressing the progress on the wide range of issues relating to Euratom exit. That will include progress on those negotiations, but also on how they will develop into our future relationship with Euratom, as well as progress made by the ONR on establishing the United Kingdom’s domestic safeguards regime. I cannot tell where those negotiations will take place. The noble Lord will have to bear with me. What he wants, as far as I understand it from his Amendment 2 and the other amendments, is a guarantee that information will be provided by the Government. All I am saying is that we have made one Written Ministerial Statement—actually, we have made more than one—and we will continue to do so. That reporting commitment goes far further than the proposed amendment, by keeping Parliament regularly updated on the key issues that have been raised. I hope the Committee will welcome the fact that we will continue to provide further updates on those. The noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, asked for one. There will certainly be one before the Easter Recess.
I turn to Amendment 12 on our future relationship with Euratom. The Committee will be aware that in her speech on 22 September 2017 in Florence my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out her desire for an implementation period after the United Kingdom has ceased to be a member of the EU. This is now well understood in the EU and I do not think that the amendment is consistent with this position. It remains the Government’s intention to ensure continuity for the nuclear industry and to avoid the possibility of the cliff edge that noble Lords referred to for the industry on exit day.
I hope that the Committee will not need to be reminded that the UK will not be a member after 29 March next year, whether an implementation period can be agreed with the Commission or not. That much is clear. If it is not, I will repeat from page 1 of the letter that the Prime Minister sent to President Tusk:
“I hereby notify the European Council in accordance with Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union. In addition, in accordance with … Article 50(2) as applied by Article 106a of the Treaty Establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, I hereby notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Atomic Energy Community. References in this letter to the European Union should therefore be taken to include a reference to the European Atomic Energy Community”.
In other words, there can be no question of separately attempting to prolong our membership of Euratom beyond the point at which we leave the EU. That is a very different matter from having an implementation period, which is something we are aiming at. That is a period after we have left the EU and Euratom, during which we continue to be covered by the EU acquis. By “acquis” we mean the regulatory framework that applies to EU member states. In exchange, the Government expect that the United Kingdom would be able to continue to benefit from its current access to the EU’s markets for the duration of the implementation period.
Again, I must emphasise that any agreed implementation period is not a way of delaying our departure from Euratom. It is a way of making the transition smooth, rather than sudden. My reason for asking noble Lords not to press their amendments is simple: the amendment does not seek to establish an implementation period after exit; it seeks a transitional period before exit. My honourable friend the Minister for Business and Energy set out on 7 February that there can be no question of separating the situation for Euratom from that of the wider EU. The two are, as we know, uniquely and legally bound. Again, I made that clear at earlier stages.
Finally, I turn to Amendment 17, which seeks to require the Government to lay a strategy for maintaining existing arrangements once the UK withdraws from Euratom and for this to be considered by both Houses before the main substantive provisions of the Bill can be brought into force. As I have said, the Government have made it absolutely clear that they will seek a close and effective association with Euratom in the future. As was mentioned in the Written Ministerial Statement, the Government set out the principles on which our Euratom strategy is based, including to aim for continuity with current relevant Euratom arrangements, to ensure that the United Kingdom maintains its leading role in European nuclear research, to ensure that the nuclear industry in the UK has the necessary skilled workforce, and to ensure that on 29 March 2019 the United Kingdom has the necessary measures in place to ensure that the nuclear industry can continue to operate. In respect of our future relationship with Euratom, we will also seek a close association with Euratom’s research and training programme, including the Joint European Torus and the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor projects. We will also want continuity of trade arrangements to ensure the nuclear industry can continue to trade across EU borders, and to maintain close and effective co-operation with Euratom on nuclear safety.
The Committee will be fully aware that the nature of our future relationship with Euratom is part of the next stage of negotiations, which is yet to begin. An implementation period may well be agreed and we hope that it is, but there are no guarantees. In any case, without such a period the United Kingdom will legally leave the EU and Euratom in March 2019. The Bill and the regulations made under it are crucial to make sure that we can establish that domestic nuclear safeguards regime to meet international safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation standards when Euratom’s safeguarding arrangements no longer apply in the United Kingdom. From that point, the United Kingdom will be responsible for its safeguards, including having its own state system of accounting and control.
Lord Rooker
In that case, are we not all wasting our time? Could the Minister say whether the International Atomic Energy Agency has already agreed in the discussions that have taken place that the contents of the Bill lead it to believe that the safeguards office will be able to demonstrate the independence it requires? If not, we are wasting our time.
Lord Henley
The noble Lord never wastes his time, nor does he waste the time of the Committee, but I can give an assurance that discussions continue with the IAEA, which is perfectly happy that we will be able to meet the appropriate safeguards regime to meet its standards by March next year. We will discuss that on later amendments. Processes have taken place in the ONR and it is engaged in recruitment. We will meet its standards—standards similar to those met by the Americans as fellow members of the IAEA. All that will be in place; that is the point behind the Bill. It is why I do not think these amendments are necessary—we will no doubt discuss them in much greater detail on Report. I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who is about to respond, will be happy and feel able not to press their amendments.
Baroness Featherstone
I thank the Minister. I listened carefully to his arguments in response to the amendments. I think that our work is not done; I did not hear a meeting of minds at this point. What I did hear was a universal view from across the Committee that surety and certainty are not there. We will probably want to come back on this on Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Warner
“Review of withdrawal from Euratom
(1) The Secretary of State must, in consultation with relevant interests, by 31 December 2018, lay before both Houses of Parliament—(a) a report on the progress of discussions with Euratom on the scope and conditions for a form of association with Euratom that does not extend to full membership but which minimises the changes to current arrangements for nuclear safeguards; and(b) a report on the legislative changes that would be necessary to introduce arrangements described in paragraph (a).(2) The report under paragraph (1)(a) must cover—(a) the future application of Euratom safeguarding standards;(b) the future of nuclear research and development activities within a Euratom framework;(c) aspects of future working with Euratom members in relation to the civil nuclear supply chain so far as this depends on UK membership of Euratom;(d) the supply to the United Kingdom of medical radioisotopes and their use and disposal so far as this depends on UK membership of Euratom.”
Lord Warner
I listened carefully to what the Minister said. I did not hear anything which suggested that there was not still an existential threat to the UK civil nuclear industry. There were some useful nuggets to help me redraft my amendment to make it more compliant with the language that the Government seem to be using—so I shall read Hansard carefully—but I can promise the Minister that I shall be back on Report with an alternative amendment.
Air Quality
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat as a Statement an Answer given to an Urgent Question in the other place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on the air quality plan. The Statement is as follows:
“In July last year, we published the UK plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide concentrations. Yesterday, the High Court handed down judgment on the challenge to that plan, and the judge dismissed two of the three complaints considered during the case in relation to England. Specifically, he found that there is no error in the Government’s approach to tackling nitrogen dioxide concentration exceedances in areas with some of the worst air quality problems, and that the national air quality modelling and monitoring that underpin the plan fulfil our legal requirements. In relation to the five cities identified in 2015 as having particularly marked air quality challenges—those being Birmingham, Nottingham, Derby, Southampton and Leeds—the judge found that the Government’s approach to tackling these exceedances was ‘sensible, rational and lawful’.
The courts have asked us to go further in areas with less severe air quality problems, where we have previously considered it sufficient to take a pragmatic, less formal approach. I had already written to those councils in November. That was followed up by officials asking them to provide initial information on the actions they were taking by 28 February. However, in view of the court’s judgment, we are happy to take a more formal approach with them following that judgment. I have already written to the local authorities asking them to attend a meeting on 28 February to discuss that information and their plans, and whether there are any additional actions they can take to accelerate achieving compliance with legal limits to nitrogen dioxide concentrations. We will follow up on this in March by issuing legally binding directions requiring those councils to undertake studies to identify any such measures. As required by the court order, we will publish a supplement to the 2017 plan by 5 October, drawing on the outcome of the authorities’ feasibility studies and plans.
As set out in the 2017 plan, this Government are committed absolutely to improving air quality, and we have pledged to be the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we inherited it. Later this year, we will publish a comprehensive clean air strategy, which will set out further steps to tackle air pollution more broadly”.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my involvement with the charity ClientEarth and thank the Minister for repeating that Answer. Surely he recognises that this court ruling is a damning indictment of the Government’s handling of the air quality issue. Let us be clear: yesterday, the judge ruled that the Government’s 2017 air quality plan was “unlawful” and went on to say:
“It is now eight years since compliance with the 2008 Directive should have been achieved. This is the third, unsuccessful, attempt the Government has made at devising an AQP which complies with the Directive and the domestic Regulations”.
He was so critical of the Government’s response that he is now considering direct court supervision of the Government’s future plans.
Meanwhile, the Government issued a completely misleading press release yesterday claiming that this was some sort of victory. I am sorry to say that the Minister’s Statement today has similar shades of complacency. This is an issue about which there is, quite rightly, huge public concern. We have previously heard of the estimated 40,000 premature deaths a year from heart attacks, strokes and respiratory problems. This is a public health crisis.
Are the Government planning to appeal against this judgment again? Alternatively, will they now take the advice of their own officials and implement a network of clean air zones in the 33 towns and cities which are projected to have continuing illegal levels of pollution? Can the Minister explain the difference between the action that he is now proposing and what was presented to the court and has already been rejected by the judge? I suspect that the court will want a great deal more than the outcome of feasibility studies in the non-compliant cities by October this year.
There has been real concern around this House that the Government are not taking this issue sufficiently seriously. I hope that the Minister can now convince us that a major rethink is going on in the department and that the Government will finally come back with solid proposals that will deliver a proper legal deadline for clean air zones in the shortest possible time.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I think that all your Lordships want clean and cleaner air. That is why the Government have invested considerable sums of money, amounting to £3.5 billion. I can go through some of that expenditure in detail, but much of it is in support of things such as cleaner buses. For instance, retrofitting school buses in Manchester has resulted in a 92% reduction in emissions; the level of nitrogen dioxide fell by 27% from 2010 to 2016 and by 10% from 2015 to 2016. So progress is being made, but we want to do more. That is why, across the piece, we are going to bring forward our clean air strategy.
However, I want to be clear to the noble Baroness that the judge acknowledged that very considerable time and effort had been invested by both Ministers and officials. The judge also said, in relation to the five main cities where there is a considerable problem, that what was being brought forward was lawful. I do not want to trade elements of the judgment, because we should take it seriously. That is why, instead of requesting the 33 local authorities to undertake measures, we will be requiring and directing them to do so, because we want to make progress.
It is interesting that, of those 33 areas—which is really what the judgment came down to: what we are going to do about those 33 areas where we need to achieve compliance—10 are projected to come into compliance next year, 13 in 2020 and the final 10 in 2021. In looking at this, a lot of what can be done could be done comparatively cheaply—for instance, the rephasing of traffic lights, including at roundabouts. There are a number of ways in which we want to work with the individual local authorities concerned. The reason we have requested and required the leaders to come to the meeting next Wednesday is precisely so we can get what we all want, which is cleaner air for everyone.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the reply to the Urgent Question. In the “Conclusions” section of the hearing referred to earlier on the air quality plan, Mr Justice Garnham said:
“In its application to the 45 local authority areas, it does not contain measures sufficient to ensure substantive compliance with the 2008 Directive and the English Regulations”.
The Minister has stressed that the Government are fulfilling their legal requirements under the UK plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide concentrations, but I put it to him that those legal requirements fall a long way short of what is required to improve air quality in the 45 cities—never mind the 33—that were the subject of the court action taken by ClientEarth. The residents of those 45 cities deserve better for their children and elderly. Air pollution costs the UK economy £20 billion every year. Sick and vulnerable people, the elderly and children are particularly at risk. The health problems resulting from exposure to air pollution have a high cost to NHS services and business. As an asthmatic, I find that I am severely affected by poor quality air.
The Government’s success in banning the use of microbeads in wash-off cosmetic products could be extended to assist with the air pollution in the country. Research suggests that chemicals in everyday consumer products, including perfumes and paints, have been revealed as a major source of air pollution, comparable with emissions from the transport sector. This research suggests that these products emit significant quantities of petroleum-based chemicals, rivalling cars and other vehicles as the top source of urban air pollution. What steps are the Government taking to tackle this source of air pollution?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the clean air strategy we are bringing forward is designed to deal with all elements of air pollution, because we think that is very important. I should have said to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that we are not intending to appeal; we want to implement what the judge has said. We are working actively, in different ways, with all the cities involved, helping them to tackle their NO2 exceedances, and that is an issue for the whole United Kingdom. Wales, which was a separate party to the action, has conceded that it needs to do more and will be bringing forward a new plan in July. There are exceedances in Scotland and Northern Ireland—in fact, 22 of the 28 countries of the EU are in exceedance—so this is an issue we all need to grapple with very seriously. I am confident that my honourable friend Minister Coffey is dealing with this with rigour and drive.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, over the decades the UK’s air quality has improved, thanks to the concerted efforts at all levels, but we all today, listening to other noble Lords, agree that more needs to be done. Poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health as well as to the environment, damaging agricultural crops and forests, and people are rightly concerned. Will the Minister say whether more could be done to inform the general public, with more detailed information or a campaign, to enable them to make informed choices to help tackle the sources of, and to avoid exposure to, air pollution?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I think that what my noble friend has said is really important. We are working with local authorities and businesses. One thing we all have to wrestle with is how to manage our lives differently in terms of the things we do and air pollution. Whether it is particulate matter with domestic wood and coal burning, there is a range of things we are all going to have to address. I agree with my noble friend that more needs to be done. With the Department of Health, on things like awareness of air pollution events, we need to ensure that vulnerable people are safer. All these are important points, but the work we are doing and that we need to do in collaboration is urgent and we need to get on with it.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s proposal to satisfy the judge means air quality will not comply with EU limits until 2028. I am not sure that everybody else would agree with the judge that that is reasonable. I draw the Minister’s attention to the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee which came out today, and I declare an interest as a member of that committee. The committee is very concerned about the oversight and enforcement of these regulations, and it draws attention to the fact that the SI speaks of a new “advise and challenge” body. How will the Government enforce this and ensure that there is oversight of whether these targets are met?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this is a joint venture between government and local authorities to achieve the requirements that have been set for us in terms of EU compliance and, obviously, continued compliance following our departure. Of the 33 areas—this is the area where the judgment came in, where we are required to direct the local authorities—as I have enumerated, the plan is for all 33 of them to be compliant by 2021.
DfID Projects: Women and Girls
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Loomba
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what priority they give to women and girls, including widows, when developing and implementing Department for International Development initiatives and projects.
Lord Loomba (CB)
My Lords, I am not surprised by how difficult it is for the Department for International Development to decide what priorities it should consider when developing and implementing initiatives and projects which relate to women, girls and widows, especially when we hear about the abuse by aid workers that took place in Haiti. I am sure that Oxfam sent their aid workers to Haiti in good faith. However, instead they abused the vulnerable people and let Oxfam down badly. I do not have to explain the consequences of the Haiti incident. However, noble Lords will all be aware that it is not bad news only for Oxfam; it has also destroyed the confidence of the public and many donors who support NGOs such as Oxfam. Everybody knows that around 7,000 donors have already withdrawn support for Oxfam.
This has been a very difficult week for gender equality and women’s rights, especially as the media has brought out evidence of historical abuses that have been swept under the carpet for many years. It has saddened me to have to hear the chief executive of Oxfam, Mark Goldring, apologise for Oxfam’s negligence in the Haiti scandal. The Department for International Development supports and closely works with Oxfam and other charities. I am pleased to hear that Penny Mordaunt has stated that no charity is too big, or its work too complex, for DfID to withdraw its support. Showing that we mean business may be the only way to ensure that people in power do not abuse the powerless. This needs to be sorted out and proper checks and balances put in place to stop such occurrences in the future.
The vulnerability of women and girls comes in many shapes and forms but none are more vulnerable than widows, who suffer in silence as abuse after abuse is meted out to them. Here I declare an interest as the founder and chairman trustee of the Loomba Foundation, which helps widows and their children around the world. In 2015 the Loomba Foundation commissioned and published a piece of intensive, country-by-country research, the World Widows Report, which highlights the depths of despair to which many widows are driven, especially in developing countries.
The report revealed the shocking figures that there are 259 million widows and 585 million of their children across the world who suffer in silence. More than 100 million live in poverty, of whom 38 million live in extreme poverty and struggle to survive every single day. Many of these widows experience targeted murder, rape, prosecution, forced marriage, property theft, eviction, social isolation and physical, psychological and sexual abuse. The children of widows experience forced child marriage, illiteracy and loss of schooling, forced labour, human trafficking, homelessness and rape.
The ground-breaking report, the first of its kind, illustrated that discrimination against widows is a deep-rooted feature of gender discrimination all over the world, although its form and impacts differ from place to place and from culture to culture. Importantly, the report also demonstrates that four of the first five United Nations sustainable development goals are very unlikely to be achieved unless more is done to help widows and their children, making focusing on their issues even more of a priority. Let us not forget that the plight of widows is a humanitarian issue.
In 2016, the then UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, in his message on International Widows Day—which, incidentally, was established by the Loomba Foundation in 2005 and adopted by the United Nations in 2010 as a UN-designated day of action to promote the fundamental freedoms and human rights of widows and their children around the world—highlighted the significance of the SDGs for widows, saying:
“The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda with its pledge to leave no one behind has a particular resonance for widows, who are among the most marginalized and isolated”.
DfID’s recent report to Parliament highlights,
“the cross-Government action that the UK has taken to improve gender equality, tackle sexual violence in conflict, and protect vulnerable people in conflict zones from sexual exploitation and abuse”,
in six countries especially, and yet, as the World Widows Report and the recent revelations about alleged cover-ups in Haiti show, much needs to be done to strengthen the work DfID is doing and to ensure that, first and foremost, its work and money are getting to those who need them the most, and that we are on target to achieve the SDGs by 2030. DfID’s report also recognises the huge challenges faced in countries such as Somalia, where, it says:
“The President stated at the start of his term that he was committed to tackling sexual violence and reiterated his zero tolerance approach to sexual violence … These commitments have not yet translated into actions”.
Nevertheless, I commend DfID for the difficult work that it does, sometimes in the hardest of circumstances.
Finally, I ask the Minister that DfID should consider supporting grass-roots women’s rights organisations and NGOs working on the ground, such as the Rotary India Literacy Mission, which, alongside the Loomba Foundation, is helping a pan-Indian initiative to provide vocational skills training to 30,000 widows in India—1,000 in each state in the country. As a UN-accredited NGO, the Loomba Foundation has also provided education to more than 10,000 children of poor widows and supported 60,000 of their family members. More recently, just last week, the Loomba Foundation also completed an empowerment project for more than 5,000 widows in the holy city of Varanasi that was launched by PM Modi two years ago.
This type of work is key to ensuring that women, girls and widows are not left behind and, alongside strong legislative reforms which are enacted—and indeed, acted upon—will ensure a better future for them.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for initiating this important debate. Undeniably, women around the world suffer disproportionately in comparison to men from discrimination and what can be described only as tortures and traumas. Therefore, we must do all we can stop the suffering of women and girls and I see no more integral principle in helping to achieve this than ensuring that priority is given to them at both development and implementation level. This should apply to the delivery of any initiatives by any country and we should actively encourage other countries to do this, but certainly we should be doing this when it comes to our international development plans, over which we have full control.
That is why I am proud that the UK is leading by example in this area. We are doing this via our national action plan, which places women at the epicentre of DfID’s humanitarian, security and peace programmes. We are doing this via our support of the gender declaration, which aims to make sure that woman have equal access to the benefits of global trade, and supports women in business. We are doing this via our participation in the women, peace and security agenda, which formally recognises that men and women experience conflict differently, and that women have a vital role in conflict resolution, prevention and recovery. It also works to ensure that gender justice replaces gender inequality at all levels—including, importantly, at government and strategic levels.
Research has established that when women have a seat at the negotiating table, security and peace last longer. Greater peace and security leads to better business, which leads to more prosperity, which in turn leads to better education, healthcare and lifestyles. It also leads to better delivery of other development initiatives. Frankly, it leads to better and safer lives and a better and safer world. Making sure that these types of opportunities are available to women and girls is, however, only part of the problem. Making sure that women and girls can access these opportunities and thrive within them is quite another. We need to change the violent and oppressive social norms which control female populations. We need to educate more women and girls academically and on their rights over their own body and their right to access birth control, and we need to protect them from violence and abuse. I know that the Government are acutely aware of all these things and are working tirelessly on them.
We know that girls in the developing world who receive an education will marry later, will have fewer and healthier children and will be more likely to be economically productive. Can the Minister tell the House how plans are progressing to get more girls into schools and to educate them on their rights, promoting empowerment and confidence building among female students and teachers? Does he agree that teachers have an incredibly important role in changing the trajectory of female representation in all levels of society, by encouraging more girls to think about their possible life options and making sure they understand that they may have careers and that their lives are more than biological—more than simply marrying and having children? I believe that teachers have tremendous power and influence in this area.
Can the Minister tell the House how the Government are encouraging more females into teaching in developing countries? Can he also update the House on efforts to educate men and women, young and old, about the devastating effects of FGM, breast ironing and other so-called religious practices that are nothing short of abuse? Throughout the world, schools can be the most effective tools for eliminating a multitude of abuses being done to children and girls. What work is being done with schools to give staff the training to recognise the signs of abuse and partner them with organisations that can provide access to healthcare, family planning, counselling, legal assistance and safe spaces?
What improvements are being made in developing countries to make it clear that crimes such as FGM, child marriage, violence and slavery are illegal and that perpetrators will be brought to justice, so that a clear message is sent out that cycles of abuse and torture have a better chance of being disrupted and, in time, broken entirely? Finally, specifically on the Rohingya refugees and those currently seeking refuge in Bangladesh, how are the Government supporting women and girls whom we know are suffering from gender-specific violence, and how are we supporting women in this particular case to participate in the conflict’s resolution?
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for facilitating this opportunity for us to address the issue of the priority given to women and girls by the Department for International Development. His record, particularly on the issue of support and recognition for widows, is exemplary, and his dogged determination to raise the issue of widows internationally has seen great results. It is a pleasure to follow him here today.
Like many other noble Lords, I find that my head is filled with images that I am unable to forget after meeting young women and others in difficult circumstances over the years. There was a young mother who I met in Liberia; she had been sold by her family to the “soldiers” who were active in the civil war there. She was subsequently raped and had a baby at the age of 15. She was being supported I think by Save the Children. On my visit the person with me asked her what was good about having a baby, in an attempt to lighten the conversation. The mother told us with blank eyes that there was nothing good about having the baby in her life, because of the circumstances.
I met a young woman in Iraq three years ago in a refugee camp just outside Erbil. She had come from Syria aged 11. She spoke confidently about how her family was surviving the trauma of leaving Syria and living in the refugee camp, and all the other things that had happened to them. Yet when she was asked by me about her school results in the refugee camp, she started crying because the one thing that gave her dignity and hope for the future—her education—was the thing that was suffering the most. I also met young women in the Philippines who lived in Muslim Mindanao, where the civil war is hopefully now coming towards an end, having raged since the 1960s. They were three times more likely to leave school before the end of primary schooling than children even in other poor parts of the Philippines because they lived in a conflict-affected area.
All over the world, women and girls suffer the most from conflict and underdevelopment. They suffer from FGM and child marriage, which is effectively the sexual abuse of minors by another name. They suffer from a lack of maternity care; from lacking access to those drugs that can help protect mothers and their children from HIV/AIDS; from not having access to primary schools; or from having to leave school before they get into higher education. Girls all over the world feel the rough end of underdevelopment, and specifically of conflict.
I have chosen to speak today in part because I was inspired by a visit last week to the Gambia, where I spent the February Recess. While I was there, I spent a day visiting three projects which reminded me that in the midst of all that misery, despair and violence, there is hope as well when the right circumstances are generated. I visited one project, Women’s Initiative Gambia, led by an inspirational director, Isatou Ceesay. She is not only encouraging young girls across the Gambia to have more confidence, skills and opportunities but, on the day I was there, had a workshop for women who spend their lives trying to get round the rough streets of the town in their second-hand wheelchairs. In this country, those wheelchairs would be discarded—but they discarded them for another purpose. They were having a workshop on profit and loss accounting, because the project was setting them up in business on their own, to give them an independent life and an income in the future. In order to make sure that those businesses were successful and that the women did not just come back to the project a few years later, they were getting taught accounting to make sure that their businesses made a profit and were able to take them forward. None of the women in the room had any formal education, but they were learning profit and loss accounting through symbols and pictures. It was inspirational to see the independence of the individual put at the heart of a development project. I thought that absolutely correct.
Further down the road in Siffoe I visited another project, Young People Without Borders, and was shown around by another Isatou, who is the vice-president of the local youth Parliament in that area. That initiative was started to encourage young people from the Gambia to stay there, rather than take the back way to the Mediterranean and go across it in a boat in which they might well sink and die before they get to Europe. They stay in the Gambia, feel some empowerment locally and make a contribution to their local community. The community garden was providing healthier food for local children and business opportunities for women in the area. Again, it had the right approach, with a two-year limit on the participation of local mothers in the project, on the basis that they would leave at the end of the two years and take the savings they had made from selling the food and vegetables with them. They would then use the money to establish a business and create a more independent life.
In relation to the sustainable development goals, those projects really brought home to me the fact that when we talk about women and girls, we tend to think of SDG 5 in relation to gender equality. But the importance of support for women and girls, particularly support that leads to independent living, real choices and opportunities, should run through every one of the sustainable development goals—in particular SDG 8 on sustainable development and economic empowerment, with real opportunities to make a living, look after your family and have some choices. It should also run through SDG 16 because, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, has just said, it is women who bear the brunt of conflict but who make the best peacebuilders. That is why under SDG 16 we should have a constant focus on getting women to the negotiating table and involved in post-conflict reconstruction, and in ensuring that the violence women experience in conflicts around the world is minimised and, if possible, brought to an end.
I make a plea to the Government to have, as I have said before in your Lordships’ Chamber, a clearer strategy to ensure that the sustainable development goals run through all our development priorities in the Department for International Development and other departments. They should also ensure that the priority given to women and girls runs through every one of the SDGs.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for initiating this debate. I also pay tribute to his work, especially among women and widows.
The poet William Ross Wallace wrote in 1865 that those who rock the cradle rule the world. The contribution that women make to the well-being of their communities and beyond has been overlooked far too frequently, whether by history or by institutions. As we celebrate the centenary of women’s suffrage, we recall the injustices that women in our own society have faced as we work to combat current injustices at home and, of course, overseas.
Much has been said in recent days—indeed we have already heard reference to it—about the ways in which the behaviour of aid workers and some charitable organisations has fallen short in respecting and valuing women, although let us not think that has been true of everybody. Many fine people over many decades have worked with charities and it is a great pity if they got caught up in some of the tragic stories that we have heard. Nevertheless, those things should not have happened, we need to address them and I am glad they are being addressed. As all major organisations, including my own, know very well, it is crucial that measures are in place to ensure that vulnerable people are protected and kept safe, and I hope that the lessons learned from this experience will spur us on as we work for the future and will not distract some of our best charities from the work they are doing.
Mindful of this, even as we are increasingly aware of our own wrongdoing and weaknesses, we must not stop using our influence and resources around the world to improve the lives of others, an essential ingredient of which is our work to empower women and girls. I know from my visits to various parts of the world that in many areas one of the most important grass-roots organisations delivering health and education is the Church. The Church, including the Mothers’ Union, has worked very closely with DfID programmes. For example, Girls’ Education in South Sudan is a programme funded by the department which focuses on improving the equality and quality of education in partnership with the education department of the Episcopal Church of South Sudan. This includes practical work such as building separate toilets for girls, giving them dignity kits and setting up a girls’ dormitory to prevent them dropping out because of the burden of housework and cooking. The dormitory provides accommodation, all meals and a mentor from the Mothers’ Union to live with the students. I am most grateful that the department has funded this project, where community and church involvement has helped development work have a much greater impact.
Women and girls around the world, especially in conflict and post-conflict regions, have specific needs which the Department for International Development’s initiatives and projects should address. In these contexts, women, especially widows, carry the daily material, emotional and physical burdens of conflict while also often contributing to de-escalating violence and sowing the seeds of peace. Women on the Frontline, a priority programme of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reconciliation team, has found that convening safe spaces for women to share experiences and expertise has had huge benefits for communities. Leading this programme in South Sudan in December moved some women from utter despair about the future of their country to a renewed sense of the possibilities for society there. This hope and capacity to imagine a better future is crucial for post-conflict development, and I would be interested to know what priority the department plans to give to projects which create spaces for women to empower one another.
I would also be interested to know what the department is doing to support work which empowers women and girls across communities and ethnic boundaries. Women’s microfinance, credit and savings initiatives are important not only for essential economic development but where they cross ethnic tribal, and community boundaries, they make it harder for conflict to recur or flourish. What is the department doing to ensure that aid transcends, rather than deepens, divisions?
The aid that the UK provides to countries around the world makes an enormous difference. The peace and prosperity of our neighbours must remain a key priority for this and all subsequent Governments, and providing support for the specific needs of women and girls will be essential to achieve this goal.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for initiating this timely debate. It is timely for two reasons, first because International Women’s Day will soon be with us, and secondly because the events of recent days disclosing shocking revelations about the sexual exploitation of women and possibly girls by two of our most respected UK charities, Oxfam and Save the Children, have rocked the aid community. I thank noble Lords who have drawn attention to that. Women and girls have for some time been an important focus of humanitarian and development assistance, and yet the very men entrusted with the delivery of help and succour abused that trust and brought their organisations into disrepute. So, at the outset of my contribution to this debate I seek every assurance from the Minister that in cleaning the Augean stables, investigations into who knew what and when will be comprehensive—that means encompassing the Charity Commission and DfID—as well as being open and independent. That must be the minimum requirement if we are to retain the public’s trust, successfully defend the attacks on the 0.7% of GNI that is dedicated to international aid and ensure that the vast majority of aid workers can hold their heads high.
Nowhere on earth do women have as many opportunities as men, but for girls and women in the poorest countries that inequality is amplified many times over because in the battle for scarce resources women are at the back of the queue whether it be for education, economic empowerment, health outcomes or nutrition. If we are serious about improving conditions in developing countries, women’s economic empowerment is crucial because study after study shows that when women have money at their disposal the whole family benefits: the elderly, the young, the disabled and, I am sure, widows too. However, economic empowerment can come only with education. A UN Women report tells us that a 40-year study using data from 219 countries found that for every additional year of education for women of reproductive age, child mortality decreased by 9.5%. However, girls are more likely than boys to be completely excluded from education. Girls’ education is a key driver if we are to deliver many of the sustainable development goals, as emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. Will the Minister give us an update on the progress of the second stage of DfID’s Girls’ Education Challenge fund, which aims to get more marginalised girls into education? Will he also give us an update about the replenishment of the Global Partnership for Education? Will he explain why the UK reduced its contribution to that fund?
I now turn to older women and women with disabilities. The UK Government have committed to improving the disaggregation of data, initially by sex, age, disability and location, to establish which groups are the furthest behind. How is that work progressing? Have we removed the upper age cap on reporting violence against women as stated in the sustainable development goals, because research from the Fundamental Rights Agency shows that physical and sexual violence against women continues long after the age of 49? How will the Government ensure that the rights and needs of older women living with disabilities and ageing issues are taken into account in their upcoming disability summit in July? What steps are the Government taking to ensure the implementation of the sustainable devolvement goal commitment to leave no one behind fully takes into account older women and widows?
Like the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Hindhead, I commend DfID’s excellent work and leadership in its UK National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security, I could not help but notice that the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund features large in peacekeeping programmes, prevention of and protection from violence against women and girls programmes, sexual exploitation and abuse programmes and much else besides. However, I am concerned that the CSSF and its programmes are nowhere to be found in the public domain. There is no website, yet I believe one was promised some time ago. If I am wrong about that then I stand to be corrected, but if I am not then when can we expect to be allowed access to this deployment of public money?
The crisis in the aid sector these last two weeks has shown how much reputational damage can be done unless there is complete disclosure of activities, so I urge the Minister to take this issue up with the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency. I would very much appreciate a letter from the Minister on the subject.
We will not end extreme poverty until we break down the deep-seated barriers, often cultural, that hold girls and women back. In particular, stigma against marginalised groups such as widows, the disabled, the elderly and those who have been victims of sexual violence or HIV/AIDS must be tackled. Does the Minister agree with me that to break the cycle of deeply ingrained intergenerational norms we need innovative and creative thinking to bring about fundamental change in the way that girls and boys, families and communities think, feel and act toward girls?
Is DfID making full use of appropriate popular culture, using engaging storylines that confront real-life issues such as early forced marriage, violence and barriers to education? Experience has shown that such an approach provides much-needed role models and inspiration to girls. It gives voice to their desire to stay in school, stay safe and healthy, have economic opportunity and participate fully in society.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I also start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for securing today’s debate and pay tribute to his tireless commitment to these issues.
In the United Kingdom we have seen successive Governments of different political persuasions championing international women’s rights on issues including girls’ education, preventing sexual violence in conflict and family planning. However, as recent events have highlighted, the struggle for gender equality is far from over. In everyday life, countless women and girls experience violence and inequality and are denied the right to make decisions about their life and body—even more so during times of conflict or natural disaster. In recent months, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, mentioned, harrowing accounts have emerged of systematic and widespread sexual violence inflicted on Rohingya refugees fleeing Rakhine State in Myanmar. Countless women and girls have been raped and the perpetrators, acting with impunity, have walked free. As my noble friend Lord McConnell said, gender equality and the advance of women’s and girls’ rights manifestly make a substantial contribution to efforts to meet all the SDGs in tackling poverty reduction, improving health and education and securing peace and security.
Violence against women and girls is a horrific crime in itself, but also has wider ramifications for other aspects of women’s lives. Intimate partner violence, or the threat of it, can be used by men to control their partner’s access to work or money, and a lack of money can make it harder for a woman to leave a violent partner. Violence against women and girls can also prevent women accessing their sexual and reproductive health and rights; men can use violence and coercion to limit a woman’s access to contraception.
Women’s rights are under threat, from the Trump Administration’s “global gag rule” on reproductive rights to efforts to relax the laws on child marriage in Bangladesh. The UK Government have rightly prioritised women and girls in their international development and foreign policy. It was the UK leading the way that helped to secure SDG 5 to achieve gender equality and empower women and girls by 2030. The UK has also shown global leadership on issues such as preventing modern-day slavery and trafficking, of which women and girls make up 70% of reported victims.
As we have heard in this debate, last month the Government announced through the National Action Plan on Women, Peace and Security that it would be putting girls and women at the heart of its work to end conflict in nine countries including Iraq, Nigeria and South Sudan. As the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, put it:
“We know that when women and girls participate in political processes, conflict resolution and mediation their contribution helps to build a more sustainable peace”.
That is why our international development activities are so vital to all communities, particularly our communities in this country. Pushing for peacekeeping missions to include more women and supporting efforts to end sexual abuse by peacekeepers are also part of the plan. I hope the Minister will ensure that at the 5 March summit, to which we are inviting all NGOs, this issue is also addressed by them so that they can focus on changing culture as well as examining their policies and procedures, because that is the sort of change that will ensure that women are able to live their lives to the full.
In the plan the Minister championed girls’ education, which I know is a crucial part of DfID’s activities in transforming the lives of those caught up in conflict and promoting global stability. I know DfID is targeting the poorest countries to provide 12 years of education for girls. What work is being done to replicate any successful policies from those schemes to improve access specifically to technical and vocational education as a means of moving into employment for girls and women?
I pay tribute again to the excellent work of the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, in raising the plight of widows. I hope the Minister can explain what work his department is doing to look at rural women and older women and at what can be done to remove the specific barriers to training and employment that affect these groups and deny them the opportunity for economic activity.
As has been mentioned in this debate—I know the Minister himself is committed to this—women’s groups and activists, who are often the best at bringing about change, are fighting back against gender inequality. They have been successful in changing laws on child marriage and female genital mutilation, and challenging social norms in their communities. That is why Labour is committed to establishing a new social justice fund to get funding directly to civil society activists in developing countries, including women’s groups, who are fighting these problems on the front line. We must work with like-minded Governments but we also need to ensure that all aspects of civil society, including trade unions, church groups and women’s groups, are able to stand up and argue the case for full women’s emancipation.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for securing what has become an annual debate. He managed to put international widows on the agenda with the UN community by securing their own day. We recognise his contribution to achieving that and he is mirroring it in your Lordships’ House by putting this debate firmly on the agenda. We look forward to it and the issues that it raises.
It has been a wide-ranging debate and the noble Lord was right to begin, particularly at this time, by reminding us of the sexual exploitation and abuse allegations that have been made against some of our most important and respected charities. He summed it up perfectly when he talked about people in power abusing the powerless. That is exactly what has been going on, and that is what we need to ensure that we tackle.
My noble friend Lord Smith talked about the role that women can play in peace and security-building, the challenges of tackling practices such as FGM and the situation facing the Rohingya. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, humanised the debate by bringing in some difficult encounters that he had had with young women in countries such as Liberia, Iraq and the Philippines. I was also grateful for his account from the Gambia, because it offered some hope for the future.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans reminded us of the important work which the church does in many such societies and gave the example of the Mothers’ Union. As we mark the centenary of women’s suffrage, he helpfully reminded us to remember with humility our journey towards gender equality in this country. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, drew our attention to women with disabilities and older women and the challenges which they face. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly stated that we cannot limit our conversation about gender equality to sustainable development goal 5: it is integral to all the goals, and a challenge to us as to what more could be done in technical and vocational education and social and cultural change.
Gender equality is a top development priority and as such a priority for the UK. Achieving gender equality and empowerment of all girls and women is the right thing to do and is in our national interest. It is fundamental to building prosperous economies and peaceful and stable societies, and to achieving the sustainable development goals.
In recent decades, the world has made significant progress towards gender equality. However, as my noble friend Lord Smith reminded us, girls and women are disproportionately affected by poverty. Globally, 63 million girls are out of school; one in three women is subject to physical or sexual abuse in their lifetime; women make up only 23% of representatives in national parliaments; and nearly half of the 245 million widows worldwide are living in poverty. Again, I pay tribute to the work of the Loomba Foundation in advancing the cause and caring for widows in our society and around the world.
UK gender equality is providing leadership which drives global commitments and results. I recognise that this did not originate in 2017, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said: the UK has been consistently advocating such measures back to the days of Clare Short and the formation of the Department for International Development. In 2016, we initiated the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Women’s Economic Empowerment, which delivered unprecedented commitments from Governments, businesses and development institutions to give more women safer, more productive job opportunities. In 2017 we hosted a Family Planning Summit which secured global commitments to giving an additional 120 million women and girls access to modern contraception.
Since 2011, DfID’s work has been driven by our strategic vision for girls and women. Our work has been underpinned since 2014 by the UK’s International Development (Gender Equality) Act, which means that we mainstream the consideration of gender equality across all our programming. The results we have achieved through UK aid-funded programmes are making a difference.
DfID focuses on the areas which are the most critical for empowering the poorest women and girls: quality education and decent job prospects. Since 2011, UK aid has helped more than 5 million girls attend school and improved access to financial services for more than 36 million women in the poorest countries.
At the same time, we help tackle the barriers preventing women and girls achieving their potential. We know that women, particularly more vulnerable women such as widows, face more barriers than men to secure stable livelihoods because they are less likely to have education, training, property rights and access to the labour market. That is why, from 2015 to 2017, UK aid reached 9.8 million women with water, hygiene and sanitation programmes, enabling them to attend school or engage in economic activity where they once would have been prevented doing so by undertaking household chores such as collecting water.
The help we give women and girls to live free from all forms of violence and abuse so that they are safe in the home, at school and in the workplace is one reason why the recent allegations against those charities have had such a devastating impact on confidence—because preventing violence against women and girls has been so much at the core of what DfID and the UN agencies have been about. The fact that we should uncover these things happening in crisis situations is unforgivable.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, what we would do at the 5 March meeting which we will be hosting for NGOs and charities, and whether we would co-operate with the two inquiries now under way by the Charity Commission and by the International Development Select Committee. Of course the answer to that is absolutely. We will make our own internal inquiries as well, as I mentioned earlier this week.
We strive to help the most vulnerable and marginalised women and girls at risk of being left behind, including widows, but also women with disabilities and those living in conflict and crisis. We are investing in improving even further our ability to reach the most marginalised. In order to know who is at risk of being left behind and why, DfID is investing in data which can be disaggregated on the basis of sex, age, disability status and geography, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, urged us to do. This will be very helpful in shaping programmes for the future. We are working with partners, including the UN and the World Bank, to improve gender statistics more generally, and are producing world-leading research and evidence on how best to support the most marginalised women and girls as a global public good. Through DfID’s research and innovation programme, What Works to Prevent Violence against Women and Girls, we have found that in South Sudan intimate partner violence is the most common form of violence experienced. Even during conflict, the most dangerous place for a woman can often be in her own home. That cannot be right; it must be the focus of our interventions.
UK world leadership on gender equality is a powerful feature of global Britain, with values at its core. UK public interest is at a high this year with celebrations of the centenary of many women’s suffrage here, to which the right reverend Prelate referred. In March, the Secretary of State will launch a new strategic vision for gender equality, and I will ensure that this debate is brought to the attention of the Secretary of State as we finalise the draft. This will set the agenda for stakeholders across the world, making sure that we all build on the gains that we have made and accelerate progress to make discrimination and inequality a thing of the past for all women and girls, leaving no one behind and paying particular attention to the most marginalised and vulnerable.
Let me turn to some of the specific questions I was asked. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about sexual and reproductive health. In 2015, the UK made a commitment under Every Woman, Every Child that, in humanitarian crisis situations, DfID calls for proposals that require the sexual and reproductive health and rights of girls to be considered. That statement has already been made, and we stand very much by it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked about data disaggregation and whether it included older people. I think that I have already mentioned that it does—and more needs to be done. She asked a very specific question about the CSSF. I do not have the answer to that with me at the moment, but I shall certainly write to her on that matter. She also asked about the upper age limit of 49. Again, that is one that has just escaped the officials, so we will include that in writing, too. The Girls’ Education Challenge is a programme that we are immensely proud of, in the effect that it has had in getting some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable girls into school—and keeping them there, because we know what a profound difference that makes to development. It is now in its transition phase, whereby we learn from what has happened and seek to improve on it in a future programme.
My noble friend Lord Smith and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked about the Rohingya. The UK recognises the plight of Rohingya women and girls, and has provided counselling and psychological support that will reach over 10,000 women suffering from the trauma of their experiences, and over 2,000 gender-based violence survivors. My noble friend also asked about FGM, and of course we had an international day on FGM just a week or two ago. We are the largest donor regarding FGM, with a flagship regional programme of £35 million over five years and an additional £12 million commitment on Sudan.
I repeat our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, for securing this debate and thank noble Lords for their commitments. We shall ensure that this important work continues into the future.
Nuclear Safeguards Bill
Thursday 22nd February 2018
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 View all Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 81-I Marshalled list for Committee (PDF, 86KB) - (20 Feb 2018)
Lord Grantchester
“(c) ensuring that inspections of nuclear material, facilities and equipment for the purpose of nuclear safeguards continue at the frequency and standard established by UK membership of Euratom.”
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 3 would amend Clause 1 by adding the requirement that the UK’s nuclear safeguards regime must continue to the standards set by Euratom. Your Lordships’ House heard throughout Second Reading that the inspections undertaken by Euratom were to a higher standard than those set by the IAEA, and it was the Government’s intention that the ONR would be facilitated to continue the UK’s safeguarding and monitoring at this level. The Minister stated that the UK’s nuclear safeguards regime is currently provided primarily by Euratom and that there has been good progress in discussions with the EU about Euratom. Negotiations with the IAEA have similarly been constructive, and progress made with key partners such as the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan. The Minister stated that the UK needs continuity and must work to avoid any break in our civil nuclear safeguards regime to support the nuclear industry. This regime and the safeguards and agreements with the IAEA are critical for the continued operation of our civil nuclear industry. The UK’s new domestic regime must be as robust as that currently provided by Euratom, and the Minister contended that it would exceed the standards that the international community expected of the IAEA.
The Government’s intentions need to be fulfilled. Guarantees need to be kept and ambitions need to be achieved. The amendment would strengthen the Bill to ensure that the only standard under which the UK regime will operate will be consistent with the Minister’s statements—that is, Euratom. The trouble is that we heard from the other place during its examination of the Bill that there is considerable risk that the UK’s regime will not be able to operate at this standard from day one, from the date of March 2019, when the UK will leave the EU. The Minister contended that those standards were needed to ensure that the UK could have the essential nuclear co-operation agreements with key international partners already mentioned, to ensure uninterrupted co-operation in trade and the civil nuclear sector. The UK standards must be as comprehensive as the current Euratom regime to enable public confidence in continuing high standards.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend and the amendment that he has moved. As I said in our deliberations last night, we must never forget that the issues with which we are dealing have implications not just for us, our children and immediate future generations, but for hundreds and perhaps thousands of years ahead. We have to get it right. There can be no confusion or compromise; there has to be fool-proof action right through, with continuity. There can be no gaps. We must have from the Minister categorical assurances that the Government have in place arrangements that will ensure that continuity when we leave. If we cannot have those assurances, the situation is impossibly grave, because anything can happen in even a short time if the adequate provisions are not there.
One very specific issue on this is that we know, from the Government’s own statements, that for our next generation of nuclear energy we are highly dependent upon expertise from outside the UK, because we do not have the expertise ourselves. What I do not understand is how we can have adequate—indeed, fool-proof—inspection teams working, and how we can have the quality and experience necessary for those teams, if we do not have that quality and experience available to develop our own energy. There seems to be an illogicality here. This is why it is crucial that the Government again have absolutely watertight arrangements about which they can tell the House to cover what happens if we foolishly come out of Euratom.
I have not heard those absolute, categorical assurances, or even begun to hear what the real arrangements will be. This matter is deeply grave. I have great respect for the Minister; I know he is a thoughtful man who will take on board the point being made. It is therefore crucial that this afternoon we have cast-iron evidence that the Government really have the situation under control.
Lord Warner (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support this amendment and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, on his drafting skill in producing words that will not inflame the Government or, in particular, the—misnamed—European Research Group and its red lines. The amendment in no way implies that we, the UK, will go back into Euratom, however much most people in this Chamber wish we would. The noble Lord has kept clear of that dangerous territory and I congratulate him on that.
Indeed, there is nothing in the amendment that goes against government policy. The Government say that they aspire to achieving the safeguarding standards of Euratom but by another method than the current set of arrangements. That is all that the amendment tries to do. Indeed, it may help the Government in securing accreditation by the IAEA when it comes to the ONR being recognised as up to snuff in its standards. That accreditation is essential, as many people have said today, for us as a country to secure nuclear co-operation agreements. This is a helpful and well-constructed amendment, which the Government would be well advised to accept.
Lord O’Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
My Lords, I support this amendment. It is not just a question of maintaining the standards that have been established but of putting us in a position where we will be able to meet and address new challenges. I happened to be in Tokyo on the day of the Fukushima disaster and tsunami. I was in the company of a group of nuclear engineers and no sooner had the messages come over the television than they were on their BlackBerrys, communicating with their international colleagues—because there is an international nuclear community—and working out the extent of the damage.
It was shortly after that, on our return, that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate leadership was appointed to lead the international examination of the Japanese nuclear capability. We were seen to be at the forefront of that. That is a heritage that we want to maintain, and this amendment very succinctly addresses that challenge. It is important, therefore, that the ONR—the successor to the NII—is able to do that. We know that this will have implications for staffing, salaries and for the general financing—which we will come to later—but the point is that it would be desirable to have in the Bill a commitment to maintaining our current position, which is partly due to our membership of Euratom and partly due to the excellence of our inspection and monitoring capabilities.
It is incumbent on the Government, therefore, to give a commitment that they will seek to maintain the quality and standards that we currently enjoy and our capability in contributing to international nuclear safety. This is not something that should be in any way antithetical to what the Government seek to do; the amendment is no reflection on their commitment but it would enhance the Bill and I see no reason why, if not the wording, the spirit of this amendment could not be addressed. As I said in an earlier intervention, the point of Committee stage is to indicate areas of concern and, if the Government are prepared to accept the consensus around this Chamber on the matter, it is incumbent on them to return with the appropriate wording that enables us to proceed. In this instance, we have a very good blueprint from my noble friend Lord Grantchester, as my friend the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said, for what is required. I do not think the Minister really has anywhere to hide on this issue and I would like to think he will be able to co-operate with us in enhancing the Bill to take account of the dynamic challenges that nuclear safeguards in the future will require.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
I rise from these Benches to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Given the amount of discussion across the Committee about uncertainty and concern, this well-worded amendment gives the opportunity to reassure the Committee on standards and nuclear safeguards. I hope the Minister will feel able either to use these words or to simply accept this as a drafting amendment and return on Report with new government words.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment can only be delivered by people, and it is the issue of people that I want to raise with the Minister, because I think that his letter is in fact quite worrying. I first go back to the evidence taken by the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee on energy security on 13 September. We had two groups of witnesses, and the second group was essentially on Euratom, with witnesses from the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and EDF—which of course runs most of the nuclear power stations and is building one—and Dr Golshan, the deputy chief inspector at the Office for Nuclear Regulation.
Having been asked how we were going to be able to deliver what is needed by the IAEA, Dr Golshan, in answer to Question 37 asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, said:
“I started off by saying that we are building capability and capacity and we are recruiting experts in the safeguards area … the extent to which we can equip ourselves depends on the scope of the safeguards arrangements that the Government are working towards. That, in turn, depends on the outcome of the negotiations with both IAEA and Euratom. We are working towards having a regime in place that enables the UK to fulfil its international reporting obligations to the IAEA and to meet the reporting requirements of our nuclear co-operation agreements. We see that as a much more realistic starting point that we can build upon and build in additional layers of assurance as currently provided by Euratom”.
That was basically telling us, “We are not going to deliver”. That is what that means. Dr Golshan concluded her answer to that question:
“To seek to replicate Euratom standards arrangements by the end of March 2019 will be highly challenging and, while we would work towards that, we want a starting point that allows the UK to meet its obligations”.
Later on, in answering another question, Dr Golshan said:
“We currently have 10 staff in our safeguards function. I should not call it an inspectorate. We need another 12 to get to a level where we are able to provide the required reporting arrangements. If additional assurance layers are required we will need to staff to a higher level. Currently what we have, as I said, is based on the fact that we have been a member state of Euratom”.
She went on to alert us to what would need to be put in place to meet the roles and responsibilities that will be placed on the ONR. In answering a question from the chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, she said:
“The first one is to have an IT system that allows us to collect and process data and then provide a report to the IAEA”.
I have seen nothing about that because clearly a new IT system is required. Dr Golshan continued:
“That means the UK would meet its international obligations as part of the non-proliferation treaty. The second element is that we should be able to facilitate IAEA’s activities in the UK. The third element is that we should have suitably experienced staff to undertake verification activities”.
In a later question, Dr Golshan was asked about the staff and she said:
“The biggest risk that I see is our ability to recruit”.
Of course, there has been free movement while we have been in Euratom and recruitment has not been a problem. Not everybody that is needed in the nuclear industry fulfils the Home Office requirement for getting into the country. We are not going to be able to build Hinkley, for a start, because we cannot get the steel erectors into the country. We need half the country’s steel erectors on Hinkley at one point. We will not be able to get them in. They are not qualified in terms that allow the Home Office to let them in.
I am sticking to the point of what will happen about the staff because we were then told in the report, which was published only a few weeks ago, that the training programme to train people to become fully trained new inspectors lasted between 12 and 24 months. Therefore, my first question is: why have six months been lopped off that figure in the Minister’s letter? What has happened to change that timescale between now and when the committee received the evidence? Have more resources been put in? Have the criteria changed? That is quite a big change, bearing in mind the timescales we are working to. We do not have a lot of time. In addition to the training lasting from 12 to 24 months, the committee was told that we need more staff anyway because the existing staff are not inspectors. The Minister’s letter flags that up and refers to 11 safeguards officers, all of whom will undertake training to become inspectors by March. The Minister then chose to put the next sentence in bold type. I assume that that was his choice to reinforce his assessment that the ONR will be in a position to deliver the international standards. The international standards mean lower standards than we have now. That is the assumption because they are not the Euratom standards.
The Minister went on to say that the ONR will require a team of 30 to 35 people, which was implied in the answer given by Dr Golshan that I cited earlier when she said that the ONR would need more staff. The ONR is recruiting but the fact of the matter is that a far more interesting choice of jobs in this industry is available in the rest of Europe than in the United Kingdom, notwithstanding the fact that I understand that a quarter of Euratom’s inspections take place in the UK, so there is quite a big capacity there. But, of course, we have not been doing that. We did not need to recruit or train people because we are members of Euratom.
The Minister went on to tell us that since the evidence was taken back in September and October—the report says the end of October—the ONR has managed to recruit the princely sum of four individuals. Where did they come from? I would like to know. Are they from the UK? Some 98% of its staff were from the UK or had dual nationality when the evidence was given. Where did the four come from? Why is it only four? If this matter is being dealt with urgently does that figure reflect salary levels or other matters relating to the job such as promotion prospects or seniority? Can the training programme cope with upskilling the safeguards officers to become safeguards inspectors?
The issue here concerns the staff but the Minister’s letter did not really address that issue. First, we are told there are only four. That is not enough. They cannot be trained in time, and in the Minister’s letter someone has lopped six months off the period given to the Lords Select Committee. Why is that? There must be a reason for it. I presume that someone reads the evidence given to your Lordships’ Select Committees from representatives of industry and other sectors. I would like to know the answers to those questions because if there is confusion about the number of staff, their training and recruitment at this point in time, we are heading for real trouble. That is clearly the case. Therefore, I hope the Minister has come to this debate prepared. I know that we are in Committee, so I apologise for the detail of my questions, but that is what this stage is for. We need some answers on this issue before we move on to the next stage.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for having gone through all that. That session of the committee which I chair was an eye-opener. That is why I tabled my Amendment 10, which we will consider in the next sitting of the Committee. The amendment is about labour mobility, which is an absolutely key factor in terms of not just safeguarding but the nuclear industry as a whole. I look forward to continuing that debate on that occasion and very much agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I can respond to and deal with the various points that have been made. I am very grateful for all the contributions that have been made, particularly from my former noble friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, who stressed that she wanted reassurances. I think that was the gist of what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said as well. He was seeking reassurances on when the ONR would be ready and whether we would meet the appropriate standards under the IAEA and so on.
I will refer back to the letter that I sent to all noble Lords, to which the noble Lord referred, and remind them of that. I also remind the Committee that we have committed to a domestic nuclear safeguards regime that is equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom. That is the commitment that we have made and I repeat it to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. That means a level of inspections and other regulatory arrangements—it is not just inspections—that goes beyond the normal international standards as applied by the IAEA that would be expected from the United Kingdom: for example, additional assurance and verification activities at additional facilities.
It is crucial that we meet all those international standards following our withdrawal from Euratom. Compliance enables the United Kingdom to discharge international commitments and would also underpin international nuclear trade arrangements with key partners such as the US, Canada, Japan and Australia. It is right therefore that the ONR focuses its efforts on ensuring that the United Kingdom is able to meet those standards immediately on withdrawal from Euratom and seeks to move to Euratom standards as soon as possible thereafter. The important thing is that we get to the IAEA—I hope I have got the letters in the right order; it is difficult to remember sometimes—as soon as possible thereafter.
Lord Henley
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and I will not refer to his socks, which might have been distracting me.
I also say to the noble Lord that we will be ready; the ONR is sure that it will be ready and we are working closely with it to ensure that it will be in a position to regulate the new civil nuclear safeguards regime following our withdrawal from Euratom. The ONR is in the process of expanding its safeguards function by recruiting and training additional inspectors, building additional institutional capacity and developing necessary IT systems.
The ONR requires a multidisciplinary team to be able to deliver safeguards responsibilities. The staff essential to its safeguards function include safeguards inspectors as well as nuclear material accountants and information management and reporting specialists—so a whole range of different specialists. Current estimates—I set this out in my letter—suggest that the ONR would require a team of 20 to 25 staff, which would include at least nine safeguards inspectors, with the precise number depending on the exact requirements of the domestic regime set out in regulations. I remind the Committee again that we have made the regulations available to the House, and I am sure that noble Lords are studying them in some detail.
The ONR already has 11 safeguards officers in post, who are all in training to become safeguards inspectors by 29 March 2019. It is my assessment, and that of my honourable and right honourable friends in the department who have specific responsibility for this as the Ministers responsible, that, based on current progress, the ONR will be in a position to deliver to international standards on withdrawal from Euratom.
However, the speed with which the ONR is able to move from international standards to a domestic nuclear safeguards regime that is precisely equivalent in coverage and effectiveness to Euratom standards obviously depends on a wide range of factors. In particular, timing will depend on negotiations with the EU and negotiations on future co-operation with Euratom and the level of its involvement in the United Kingdom’s safeguards. The ONR estimates that, to be able to deliver its functions—I emphasise its independence—to a standard equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to Euratom, it may require a team of around 30 to 35 staff, which would include around 20 safeguards inspectors.
The ONR is already—again, as I made clear in the letter—actively recruiting and interviewing further candidates to meet this level. I cannot give precise levels as to exactly where it is at this moment, but it is actively recruiting and interviewing. The first phase of recruitment last year was successful: four individuals were recruited and are currently in training to become safeguards inspectors. A further recruitment campaign is under way. Successful candidates will join the ONR’s training programme, and ONR assesses—again, this is its assessment—that it will take 12 to 18 months to upskill new recruits to inspector level.
I hope that the publication of preconsultation versions of draft regulations in January, which set out more detail on the proposed domestic safeguards regime, indicates our genuine intention to deliver standards that are broadly equivalent to the Euratom regime as quickly and effectively as possible. However, the important point to get over to the Committee—
Lord Henley
Can I just complete a sentence before the noble Lord intervenes? The important point is that it will be able to deliver the standards that are broadly equivalent to the Euratom regime as quickly and effectively as possible. I give way now.
Lord Henley
As I think I made clear at Second Reading, I am not quite sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has fully grasped the difference between safeguarding and safety. On safeguarding, the important point is that we meet our commitments to the IEA—
Lord Henley
I will try to get it right. We will meet those without any problem at all. Those are the same as the commitments that the United States and other weapon states—an expression that the noble Lord probably does not like—have to meet, and we will meet them. Euratom’s commitments are slightly different, and so that applies to ourselves and the French as the two weapon states within Euratom. They are marginally different. We will get to those in due course, but we will meet the appropriate standards under the IAEA by next year, just as we do now.
Lord Judd
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Can he clarify one point? He said that he is not sure that I have grasped the difference between safety and safeguards. He is quite correct because I simply do not understand how there is a dividing line between the two. I just do not accept that that is the situation—the two are intimately related.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I could go back but I think that I would try the patience of the Committee if I repeated a great deal of what I said at Second Reading and at other points about safety. The ONR has been dealing with safety for many years and it will continue to do so. Safeguards are another matter. In effect, they relate to the transference of certain things, ensuring that they cannot be used for nuclear warheads or whatever. Safeguards are different from safety. This Bill relates to safeguards and that is what we are trying to get over to the noble Lord. We will meet our IAEA standards on safeguards under this Bill once we have the powers so to do.
I hope that that provides noble Lords—with the possible exception of the noble Lord, Lord Judd—with the appropriate assurances. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, will feel that the information I have provided is sufficient in stressing that we will have a domestic nuclear safeguards regime equivalent in effectiveness and coverage to that currently provided by Euratom. That is what the Bill is intended to do. We are leaving Euratom. We have to make sure that we have the appropriate safeguards regime in place, and that is what the Bill tries to do.
Lord Rooker
Perhaps I may come back on that point. We are in a very vulnerable position, are we not? As a country, we have not been in charge of safeguarding; Euratom has been doing that. It is quite clear that international staff, with free movement under Euratom, have been doing the work. We are hoping to create a cadre of inspectors who will upskill people from various offices, but I have no idea of the industry salaries and so on. We have recruited only four inspectors. Are they UK or EU citizens? I am curious and would like to know that. Are we applying any contractual arrangements to people once they have been upskilled?
Once they have been upskilled to carry out safeguarding, Euratom will be their world—not the UK. The career or job enhancement opportunities and so on will be marvellous for the individuals in question, but I am concerned about my country. Are we placing any restrictions on them? Are we going to say, “We’ll upskill you and get you trained but, by gum, you’ll have to work in the UK for five years”? I do not know whether that will be the case but if we do not do something like that, we will be laying ourselves open to the vagaries of the market. We are entering a completely new area here. We cannot recruit fast enough—we have only four inspectors so far. Upskilling these people places them in a very advantageous position. I am really supportive of that—I want them to be upskilled and better qualified, and to have the freedom to move to better jobs if they do not like what is on offer in the UK. Presumably they will not all be British. They might take advantage of getting skilled and then, because of how we have treated foreigners since the referendum, say, “Right, we’re off to the rest of Europe”. Therefore, are any restrictions being placed on upskilling and training these people?
Lord Henley
The noble Lord is enjoying himself, although I do not know why.
Lord Henley
I am answering the question but the noble Lord is enjoying himself. The ONR is recruiting and will make sure that it has the right people to provide the appropriate safeguards regime on 29 March next year to meet IAEA standards. Obviously we are not going to impose restrictions on where employees go thereafter. Is this a new policy being developed by the party opposite, that once people are trained in any job, they cannot move on and have to stay? These people will be employed by the ONR, and it is then a matter for the ONR to make sure that they have an attractive career and wish to continue working for the ONR. I am sure they will find that it is an attractive career and will want to stay
I am equally sure that they will do the job very effectively and that the ONR will feel confident that, with its recruitment processes, it can provide the appropriate safeguarding regime to make sure that we meet IAEA standards by 29 March next year.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, who mentioned the requirement for information technology systems, which is always the other area that needs to be looked at. When we get to my amendment in the next Committee sitting, I will certainly come back on the points that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, raised about churn, as that is important. However, are we also confident that we will have information technology systems in place? What nature will they take, in a very broad sense? Will they be Excel spreadsheets or something more involved?
Lord Teverson
It is amazing what you can do with Excel spreadsheets, and I suspect that most systems are based on something like that. I would be reassured if that were the case, but if it is rather more sophisticated, I start to get concerned.
Lord Henley
I know that Liberal Democrats live and die for Excel spreadsheets. They find them enormously exciting, although I do not understand that. However, the noble Lord makes a very good and serious point. This is not just about the appropriate individuals to be trained; it is also about equipment. Yes, again, the ONR is happy that it will have the appropriate equipment and IT systems in place for 29 March. The ONR has given a commitment that it will be ready to provide the right service, so that we can meet those IAEA commitments next year. It is very easy just to talk in shorthand about the number of people on the ground, but as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, says, spreadsheets, which Liberals find very exciting, and other equipment are probably also involved. Yes, all of that will be ready—I can give those commitments.
Lord Judd
There is one other matter. Of course, one of the results of what has been in place, very successfully, under Euratom is the international nature of the inspection. We have to recognise that the implications of something going seriously wrong are not confined to British frontiers; there are implications for people—men, women and children—beyond our frontiers. How are we going to ensure that in the arrangements we make, we retain international confidence that we are taking, and are seen to be taking, that responsibility seriously, and are not judges in our own courts?
Lord Henley
The noble Lord talks about international obligations. The important thing to remember about the initials IAEA is that the first letter stands for “International”. It is an international body, we have been signed up to it since 1957 and we continue to be so. It will offer those guarantees.
Lord Grantchester
I hesitated to respond to the Minister because I was not quite sure what he was saying. Is he saying he accepts our amendment, because he seems to be saying that we will maintain our standards to the Euratom standards?
Lord Henley
As all noble Lords will know—particularly those who have been on the Front Bench in government from time immemorial—the lovely word “resist” appears at the top of the brief. No, I am not accepting the amendment. It does not add anything to the Bill. All I am doing is providing the appropriate commitment that we will meet the right standards at the right time.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I am still confused by the way the Minister goes from one stance to another, saying that he will meet these standards but somehow feels it is inappropriate to have that on the face of the Bill.
I am not satisfied with the Minister’s responses and I do not think the rest of the Committee is either. This is the key challenge to the Government—that they can and will do what they propose in order for there to be a credible nuclear industry in the UK, operating to Euratom standards. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, made a compelling remark earlier, saying that the Government have not appreciated the situation and undertaken a risk assessment of their handling of Euratom issues. On a corporate risk register—one axis being low and high impact, and the other axis being high and low probability—leaving Euratom must be placed at the worst quartile: high probability of an unsatisfactory outcome, coupled with high impact.
We will certainly be appreciating the Government’s response across all the Committee’s amendments, in order to determine the best framework to propose on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Warner
“(3A) No regulations may be made under this section unless the Secretary of State has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement certifying that, in his or her opinion, it is no longer possible to retain membership of Euratom or establish an association with Euratom that permits the operation of nuclear safeguarding activity through its administrative arrangements.”
Lord Warner
My Lords, I hope this next amendment will not ensure that we descend into the “end-of-the-pier show”, as we seem to be in danger of doing from time to time. I am very sorry that the Minister has taken the line he has on Amendment 3, and I have no expectations whatsoever that I will get a sympathetic response to Amendment 4.
I want to say a little about why I tabled this amendment. I am genuinely confused as to what the Government want their future relationship with Euratom to be—I simply do not understand. I understand that they want to withdraw from membership, but the Minister talks quite warmly from time to time about having some future relationship. I think “relationship” is probably a safe term to use: we do not talk about “associate membership” or “association”, but a “relationship”. He seems to want that relationship because Euratom provides a comfort blanket in all this. Many in this House are rather desperately looking for some kind of comfort blanket regarding what the situation may be at about 11 pm on 29 March 2019.
The Government’s position is very odd. They are staunchly determined to say that they expect the ONR to be up to meeting the IAEA accreditation standards by that date. However, they are singularly silent about whether that accreditation will actually be achieved in time for us as a country to put in place a series of nuclear co-operation agreements by 29 March 2019. I hope that I can tempt the Minister to say something about that.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I would like to speak to Amendments 14 and 15 tabled in my name, and in particular to the proposed new clause set out in Amendment 14. I would never insult the Minister by accusing him of being overly sensitive; nevertheless, he will have realised that there is a great deal of genuine concern about what is going to be delivered in relation to Euratom on 29 March 2019. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Warner, just said, which was in the same vein.
My suggested new clause would require the Government to answer certain criteria by that date. The criteria are set out clearly and they have been shown, in the debates on this Bill and on the withdrawal Bill yesterday, to be the ones that cause concern around the House and which the Minister has heard repeated time and again. In debating terms, this has basically been a one-horse race in relation to concern about Euratom.
Yesterday—and I will not repeat them—I cited some answers that had helpfully been supplied by the Minister to questions raised by the Society for Radiological Protection and by me as a result of that society’s representations. What was clear from those answers was that the Government do not know what will be delivered or when. This afternoon, I will cite another piece of evidence that draws the same conclusions. On 12 February, just over a week ago, there was a meeting between 10 officials—nine from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, one from Public Health England and the two senior relevant officers of the Society for Radiological Protection. I have in my hand a record of that meeting, which I feel sure is accurate.
In that meeting, there was what was described as a “Euratom exit update”. One of the officials, who was clearly a senior and responsible official—it is invidious to name officials, so I will not name him or her—noted that the Nuclear Safeguards Bill is currently going through the House of Lords. The official noted that,
“at current there has been minimal industry engagement, due to the short timescales to pass the bill. However”—
the official—
“did note that the bill is a skeleton, and more detailed consultation with industry and professional bodies would take place as the regulations are developed”.
All I am asking for, in my new clause suggested in Amendment 14, is the key to the skeleton or the cupboard where the skeleton is kept.
The official noted that,
“discussions are going well internationally”,
which is very welcome,
“with progress being made on bi-lateral agreements with the US, Australia, Canada and Japan”.
We would certainly like to know more about that. The official then explained—and this is very important—that,
“as part of the EU exit process they”—
the 10 officials—
“are unable to pursue agreements with the various EU countries”—
I think “pursue” means seek—
“till the exit process is complete”.
If that is right, it is extremely worrying. I am sure that the Minister can be supplied with a copy of the minutes of that meeting.
It was also noted that,
“there have been wider EU civil nuclear issues around legal ownership of fissile material and radioactive waste”.
Contained in that single sentence is a host of problems that will have to be unravelled in great detail if there is to be proper nuclear safeguarding.
Having read those notes, with the welcome support of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I tabled Amendment 14. It requires the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out the answers to all these questions before 29 March 2019. It requires the making of,
“regulations providing for the implementation of any agreements covered”,
by the clause and a statutory instrument which should be approved by each House of Parliament.
There is an evidence base for the kind of quality assurance that any responsible Government would demand of any contractor to which they were letting a contract. As a Parliament, we are entitled to demand, respectfully but necessarily, a similar level of quality control for the Government before we lose the legislative opportunities available to us and throw this enormously important issue to the wolves—or to a skeleton.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 9. One of the things I have tried to do in this amendment—I could not do it completely satisfactorily because of where we are in the Bill—is to ask what are the key things we need in place before it is safe and practical for us to leave Euratom and the system we have. There were three specific areas that we needed to cross that finishing line before we entered out into this brave new world. They are listed and they are very clear.
The first is that we should have an agreement from the International Atomic Energy Agency that our safeguarding procedures and the body that we are talking about in the Bill are approved. We need that; without it, we are unable to move forward. Secondly, because we are one of the few nuclear weapon states in the world, we need a voluntary offer agreement with the IAEA that relates to our new status outside Euratom. Thirdly and very practically—we have had a description of the difficulties around this—we need active nuclear co-operation agreements that have been confirmed or agreed by the other side. Whether we can get grandfathering rights on them is very difficult in some instances—the one with the United States has been particularly highlighted in that degree—but we also need to have those in place for those nations where we have active nuclear trading of the type of products listed in the schedules of the Euratom treaty and under the international agreements of the IAEA.
The difficulty in drafting this amendment was that if we do not have these in place, what do we do? My solution to that was very simple: that we should seek temporarily—as the Minister said, we have already gone through the process of agreeing withdrawal from Euratom, rightly or wrongly—to withdraw the notice under Article 106a until we have those three areas of agreement in place and we can be certain that we can go ahead. It is my opinion that we can do that ourselves unilaterally. More certainly we would need to get the agreement of the 27 other member states. That would clearly be the right answer, in that we would continue to be a member until we had those in place.
I was unable to put that in the amendment because it was out of the scope of the Bill, apparently, so I have looked to move on. What we would have to do here is, effectively, to have a transition period. On that, I come back to my question to the Minister that I raised in the first grouping of amendments: do we know that there will be a transition period with Euratom, the negotiation on which, as I see it, is going ahead and will have to be agreed or not on 22 March—it is only a month away—and that we can indeed somehow satisfactorily subcontract all these responsibilities to Euratom and to the international agencies should one of these vital areas go wrong? That is an entirely reasonable question for which I would expect us to have a workable strategy to avoid that cliff edge, if that should happen for all sorts of reasons that, quite clearly, are not totally in the Government’s control. From that point of view we need contingency and to understand the route map if those three areas are not fulfilled. I look forward to the Minister’s response on them.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, underline the desirability of an implementation period in this area as in other Brexit areas. For clarity, I want to ask a question arising from what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said. Are energy officials and Energy Ministers able to get on with this? The assumption that I have been working on is that the timetable is tight in this nuclear area and that discussions therefore need to go ahead with the IAEA, Euratom and the other nuclear states. Is that work in hand? Is there a plan for it? It would be helpful if the Minister were able to respond on that.
Lord Fox (LD)
I want briefly to speak in support of Amendment 14, which bears my name. While avoiding repeating what the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has said, I want to pick out subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause, which refers to, “relevant research projects”. The noble Lord, Lord Broers, spoke eloquently in a previous debate about the importance of research in this area. As your Lordships and, I am sure, the Minister know, the UK benefits enormously from the long-term research funding and its membership of the Fusion for Energy programme, which flow through the Euratom relationship. I think the supply chain has been awarded some £0.5 billion to date and expects more, and the UK Atomic Energy Authority receives significant sums—around £50 million. On a broader level, as a leading participant in Euratom and the research element of it, the United Kingdom has been able authoritatively to drive research priorities. What does the Minister envisage our authority being following this process? Will it have risen or sunk as a result of our ability to drive and influence research in the nuclear field?
My noble friend Lord Teverson illustrated how hard and tough the Table Office has been on the wording of the amendments. In many cases—certainly, in other conversations—the Minister has ruled out of order a lot of what we have talked about. However, on Amendment 14, which covers some of these areas, the Table Office has been clear that this is in spec with the Bill and our debate today.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, we have added our names to Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner. It is Labour policy to remain a member of Euratom or to continue equivalent arrangements with it. The Conservative Government have been reckless to reject immediately the UK’s membership of Euratom. Your Lordships’ discussion in Committee last night on the withdrawal Bill highlighted how the Euratom treaty is distinct from the EU treaty. The Government state that, because there is an overlap of membership, with the same nation states as are in the EU, it is part of the same organisation. However, the two treaties are legally distinct, which has not been contradicted by the Government.
The Minister said this morning that both organisations are uniquely and legally joined. He needs to explain how they are so legally. It is reckless to make the theoretical and technical oversight of the European Court of Justice a defining reason, when the UK is far from ready to undertake its own safeguards regimes to the standard maintained by Euratom. The ECJ has never been called on to make a ruling.
Furthermore, the Government have committed to continue as far as possible through negotiations to be in close association with Euratom. They must be exhaustive in their endeavours and report back to Parliament on the outcome. If it is no longer possible to establish an association, they must say so, with reasons.
Amendment 9, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, map out further agreements to be pursued before withdrawal. It requires the Secretary of State to request “a transition period” so that the UK,
“can continue to benefit from existing nuclear safeguard agreements”,
with the approval of the IAEA, that the ONR is the approved UK safeguarding authority. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath has spoken to Amendment 12 on the transitional period. It must be recognised that approvals of nuclear co-operation agreements are sequential to the recognition by the IAEA that the UK safeguarding standards are sufficient. Although these NCAs may be progressing, their ratification will necessarily take some time and may spill over into any transition period. We endorse the sentiments behind Amendment 9 as crucial to maintaining the UK as a credible internationally recognised nuclear state operating to international standards.
Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, would insert a new clause stating that before leaving Euratom the Government must publish a report detailing agreements reached with Euratom to ensure compliance with international non-proliferation agreements and lay appropriate regulations to give effect to their implementation. We understand and are in unison with the importance noble Lords on all Benches place on the highest standards, the nearest equivalence, the closest association, with any necessary transition period, to replicate the regime currently operated under Euratom. We support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that says the Government must keep Parliament informed regarding the ongoing UK status with Euratom. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has also said that it is far from clear where we will be in March 2019, when timing is such a critical issue.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to address this important set of issues around the UK’s future relationship with Euratom. As my noble friend Lord Henley said, the EU and Euratom are uniquely legally joined. Noble Lords will be aware that when we formally notified our intention to leave the EU, we also commenced the process of leaving Euratom. I repeat my noble friend’s assurances, however, that the Government want to maintain the continuity of our mutually successful civil nuclear co-operation with Euratom and other international parties when we leave the EU.
The first half of the proposition of Amendment 4 —that,
“it is no longer possible to retain membership of Euratom”—
has already passed. On 29 March 2017 the Prime Minister notified President Tusk of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from Euratom. We are withdrawing from Euratom but we want a close relationship with it in the future. I believe that it would be deeply irresponsible of Parliament to pass an amendment which, quite explicitly, prevents us from using the powers in this Bill until we have attempted to do exactly the opposite of what the Article 50 letter says we are doing. That leaves the second half of the proposition: that we achieve, “an association with Euratom” that means that it is Euratom rather than our own regulator, the ONR, that carries out safeguarding in the UK after we leave the EU. To reiterate the point made by my noble friend, while the Euratom treaty allows for the conclusion of association agreements that allow third parties to participate in some Euratom activities, these agreements have so far been limited primarily to research and training activities.
This amendment would require us to have explored every avenue and concluded that,
“it is no longer possible”,
before we make regulations to enable the UK’s own domestic regime. That presents enormous timing difficulties and will introduce a risk of the one thing I believe everyone agrees we must avoid—being left with nothing in place from day one of Brexit. I do not believe that the industry would support such a position. We simply cannot await the outcome of the future relationship discussions before we use the regulation-making powers in the Bill. Of course, it may all happen very quickly but, then again, it may not. It would be deeply irresponsible to put ourselves in a position where we cannot exercise the powers in the Bill.
Lord Warner
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s debut on the Bill. I am trying to make clear that I am not asking the Government to stop proceeding with the Bill; all I am asking them to do is to set out on a piece of paper the nature of their future association and relationship. The Front Bench keeps avoiding that issue. I do not use the words “associate membership”, I use the word “association”. I am willing to change it to “relationship”. What I am trying to get the Government to do is set out how they see their relationship with Euratom—because they have acknowledged that they will have a relationship with it in some way—and what that relationship will cover. If we could get some clarity from Ministers on that, we would not be having these endless discussions about the issue.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I am on paragraph 11. I have many more paragraphs to go and I hope that in those paragraphs I will be able to keep him very happy indeed.
I understand and share the sentiment of wanting to maintain a close relationship with Euratom. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, mentioned this relationship and it could indeed include any of the things that he mentioned, but they are subject to the negotiations. However, we have already stated very clearly that the Government will seek a close and effective association as part of phase 2 of the exit negotiations with the European Commission. What we cannot accept is that the regulations must await a definitive outcome of talks which are by their nature uncertain in both timing and result. It is therefore vital that we continue to work to enable the set-up of a domestic safeguards regime, and to have ready the bilateral safeguards and nuclear co-operation agreements that we will need to function as a responsible nuclear state from day one of exit.
This approach will reassure the international community that the UK remains committed to nuclear non-proliferation, and will provide clarity to industry that it will continue to be able to move vital materials, parts and expertise once we leave Euratom. There can be no question of waiting until we know the outcome of the negotiations on our future relationship before we can put in place our own arrangements. The implications of not having the right systems operating from when Euratom safeguards arrangements no longer apply are too serious for industry and for our position within the international civil nuclear community.
Lord Teverson
Can we actually make this clear? I have not heard anyone in this Committee saying, “Please, Her Majesty’s Government, do not do anything until this thing is finished”. We are not asking for anything to be delayed, we are saying, “Please get on with it”, but we need some information on the way; we have to have some idea of the destination, and Brussels wants some idea of the destination by 22 March and then in October. If it does not happen, what are the contingency plans? We are not asking for anything to not happen now. I do not think the Minister understands that. Did I hear anybody say that?
Lord Warner
I put in this provision about regulations only out of sheer frustration because one cannot get any information out of the Front Bench about what that relationship will be. I am not seriously going to stop the Bill proceeding but there is a very high level of frustration across the Committee that the Government cannot explain in any way what relationship they are aspiring to. For example, do the Government want to talk to Euratom about seconding some inspectors to the ONR for a period of time to get it over the hurdle of the transition to a UK regulator? That is the kind of specific thing which it would be quite sensible to discuss. No one is going to stop that. We just want to know what the Government are trying to do.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank both noble Lords for their interventions. I will make a little progress because I think I will be able to make them both a little happier—although I am fairly sure that I will not get all the way.
I recognise the importance of providing Parliament with clarity on our future relationship with Euratom. The Written Ministerial Statement of 11 January includes a commitment to provide quarterly updates on progress.
I turn now to Amendment 9, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which would require the Secretary of State to seek a transition period in the event that the UK is unable to secure new international agreements with the IAEA and nuclear co-operation agreements—or NCAs—with key third parties by 1 March 2019. I will address NCAs first. It may be helpful for me to set out that the UK does not itself have any requirement for NCAs to be in place for trade in nuclear-related items to continue—but some of our key trading partners do. In the US it is a legal requirement; in Japan, Canada and Australia it is a very strong policy commitment. That is why those four NCAs are our priority. It is quite right to stress how important this is: an NCA must be in place before such trade with these countries can take place. Each of these four countries recognises the importance of putting in place bilateral NCAs to ensure uninterrupted co-operation and trade in the civil nuclear sector, following the UK’s withdrawal from Euratom.
There are also a number of countries, in addition to the four priority ones, with which we wish to discuss our ongoing nuclear co-operation to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to allow continuity of trade. But in those cases—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I suspect that she is now on paragraph 15, but she is not answering this debate, which is about whether Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to provide specified information to Parliament on certain criteria. What she is telling us would all be very interesting if we had not heard it many times before, but it is a dissertation on the roles of different organisations. Can we please have an answer to this debate? It is 4.32 pm on a Thursday and I would have thought that it could be answered in a few paragraphs—maybe numbers 47 to 50.
Lord Teverson
I was happy with the answer that the Minister was giving about NCAs.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
With the greatest respect, I did not interfere in the writing of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and I will crack on a bit further to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, as I too think this bit is very interesting. We are talking about these additional countries because we are obviously going to have to set up NCAS with them, too, for trade to continue. I assure noble Lords that discussions on the four priority NCAs started a while back and are progressing well. They are on track to be completed before the UK leaves the EU. I can also assure noble Lords that this Government, as part of their planning process, have factored in the time necessary to seek parliamentary ratification of the agreements both in the UK and in third countries. This will enable the NCAs to come into force from the moment that Euratom arrangements no longer apply to the UK.
I turn now to the UK’s discussions with the IAEA. Noble Lords will be aware that the UK began formal discussions with it some months ago to conclude new safeguards agreements that would replace those between the UK, IAEA and Euratom when the Euratom arrangements are no longer applicable. These discussions, which began some months ago, as my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe mentioned, have been constructive and fruitful, and substantial progress has been made. I can be a little more specific: formal negotiations started last September and there were several rounds of preliminary meetings before that. There have been two rounds of negotiations so far, which have made substantial progress. I hope that that is helpful.
The amendment asks that the IAEA should recognise the ONR as the approved safeguards authority in the UK, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I will make it clear that the IAEA’s focus in respect of the UK’s safeguards lies with the voluntary offer agreement and additional protocols rather than with the domestic legislation underpinning the domestic regime or the UK Government’s arrangements for fulfilling their commitments. However, as I have set out, the Government have already held productive and fruitful discussions with the IAEA on the UK’s future safeguards agreements and understand what the IAEA requires of us in setting up the system. It is not necessary to consult on the detail of legislation or on the ONR’s readiness to implement the new regime with the IAEA.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy set out in his Statement to the House in September last year, the Government are seeking new agreements with the IAEA that follow exactly the same principles as the existing ones. This will ensure that the IAEA retains its right to inspect all civil nuclear facilities and to receive all current safeguards reporting, ensuring that international verification of our safeguards activity continues to be robust.
In addition to this, the Secretary of State set out on 11 January the Government’s intention to update the House on our overall progress with Euratom, including on the EU negotiations and other important matters such as international agreements. I trust that these reports, the first of which we expect to provide in a few weeks’ time—indeed, just before the Easter Recess—will reassure noble Lords that significant and substantial progress is being made. Indeed, noble Lords will be able to see it for themselves and will no doubt bring it back to the House to discuss, should they wish.
Amendment 15, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, inserts two new subsections and seeks to require that, by 29 March 2019, the Secretary of State must present to Parliament a substantially detailed report, along with draft regulations implementing any agreements reached with Euratom relating to safeguards, and have such regulations approved by both Houses. Amendment 14 seeks to prevent the substantive provisions of the Bill coming into force until regulations under Amendment 15 to implement safeguards agreements with Euratom have been approved. While I have sympathy with the noble Lord’s aim of ensuring robust parliamentary scrutiny, the process set out in Amendment 15 would not be appropriate. As we have already discussed in our deliberations on this Bill, I am confident that there are appropriate processes in place to ensure proper parliamentary scrutiny of the substantive powers in the Bill. Noble Lords can be assured that the regulations establishing a UK safeguards regime under the powers in the Bill will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.
I turn now to the report proposed in this amendment. We have been open about our strategy for withdrawal and our future relationship with Euratom. In the Written Ministerial Statement on 11 January, we outlined a twofold approach under which we are seeking a close association with Euratom through our negotiations with the European Union. I refer noble Lords to the Written Ministerial Statement. It goes into some detail about our specific objectives in relation to a close association with research and training, continuity of open trade arrangements and close and effective co-operation on nuclear safety. This is a very broad ambition of ours, and it goes much further than the nuclear safeguards that we are specifically talking about today. Simultaneously with these discussions about our broader relationship with Euratom, on which we will report to your Lordships’ House every three months, we are putting in place measures to ensure that we can operate as an independent and responsible nuclear state from day one.
As noble Lords will be aware, we are planning negotiations on a possible implementation period. The Government have confirmed that they intend to include Euratom matters. This implementation period will start after the date that we leave the European Union. This must be taken into account. We are being open with our plans for a domestic regime, and we have been clear on our intentions for the new domestic regime. As made clear in the Written Ministerial Statement, the Government intend to be able to put in place a robust regime equivalent in coverage and effectiveness to that currently provided by Euratom. To put this more clearly, and for the avoidance of doubt, we would be meeting IAEA standards on day one and working our way to Euratom standards as soon as possible thereafter. A key but inevitable difference will be that reporting and assurance activities would be carried out by the ONR rather than Euratom.
The approach of using a domestic body rather than a supranational one to operate a domestic safeguards regime is common among other non-Euratom countries, such as the US and Canada, whose safeguards regimes consist of a state regulator, with the IAEA providing independent international verification. This approach necessitates some differences in the approach of the regime but we do not consider it to necessitate a reduction in standards. To be absolutely clear about independence, it is the international oversight provided by the IAEA and the inspections carried out by its inspectors that underpin the independence of nuclear safeguards around the world. As I have already mentioned, we have committed to providing Parliament with quarterly reports on progress from across the Euratom programme. These reports will include a section on ONR capacity and readiness as well as on research, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
Before I close, I want to return to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the meeting that he attended with officials. I want to flesh out the Government’s consultation strategy on this because I fear he thinks it is narrower than is truly the case. The Government continue to have discussions with the nuclear industry on the future of the nuclear safeguards regime. In addition to official-level engagement, Richard Harrington, the Minister for Energy and Industry, held a representative industry stakeholder forum in September. There have been further forums since then and the next one will take place on 5 March. The Government have provided the industry with pre-consultation drafts of regulations that we propose to make, and in late February we held a technical workshop on the draft regulations with key nuclear operators.
I hope my explanations have provided sufficient reassurances to noble Lords, and that the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Broers (CB)
My Lords, I would like to catch the Minister before she sits down, if that is possible. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I have mentioned research and development. Resources to sustain that research and development come through Euratom. Have the Government said anything about how these resources are going to be sustained in future?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Broers, for that comment. I did have a little more flesh on that particular bone so I shall share it now. On the question of research, the Government’s objectives are set out in our recent future partnership paper, Collaboration on Science and Innovation. We are seeking a close association with the Euratom research and training programme, including the Joint European Torus and International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, or ITER, projects. The Government have already guaranteed our share of the funding for the Oxfordshire-based JET fusion reactor until the end of 2020, demonstrating our commitment to continued collaboration.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I found part of the Minister’s statement extremely useful and I thank her for that, particularly on the NCA question.
However, there is an issue on which I would like clarity; I think it is very straightforward, and I ask this in a very positive tone. It is the Commission and the EU 27’s offer and negotiating position on transition that the whole of the Euratom acquis is also included in the broader EU transition agreement. Are the British Government in line with that, and will they go down that route as well? I do not hear that we are rejecting it. We have potential issues with the initial situation over residents and people on the EU side, but are the Government saying they are going to have the Euratom acquis as part of the transition that will be agreed, whether that is until the end of 2020 or the two years? If they were saying that, it would take a lot of pressure off what we are talking about as long as the IAEA was happy with it. That seems a very straightforward question and I presume there is a government policy on it. In the response today to Barnier’s negotiating position I did not see any contesting of the Euratom side of it, so I presume we are going ahead and agreeing that transition in March.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for that interesting question. If it is okay, I shall write to him, because I should like to find out more information about what we are allowed to say at this time.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, we come to the end of our discussion today, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept these amendments. As the noble Lord made clear in the debate before last, nuclear safeguarding primarily involves reporting and verification processes by which we as a country demonstrate to the international community that civil nuclear material is not diverted into military weapons programmes, so the definition of what is meant by “civil activities” is rather important.
In Clause 2, page 2, new Section 76A(5) of the 2013 Act as inserted by the Bill will allow the regulations to specify what and what not are to be treated as civil activities. The memorandum that goes with the Bill explains the reason the Government think that the power is necessary to enable further clarification of the regulating power already provided. The Government say that the phrase “civil activities” has a natural meaning, but this power enables the Secretary of State to provide greater certainty about what are and what are not civil activities. This in turn refines the purpose test contained in Section 76(1)(a) and provides enhanced certainty about when nuclear safeguard regulation can be made.
This is important, and the Delegated Powers Committee described the term “civil activities” as a concept central to the nuclear safeguards regulations. However, it says that it is not convinced that the term has a natural meaning. It takes it that it refers to non-military activities and says that if that is correct, there is no reason why that should not be made clear in the Bill. It recommends that it should be defined in new Section 76A of the 2013 Act rather than leaving it to be dealt with exclusively in regulations. My Amendments 5 and 6 essentially do just that, and I hope that the Government are prepared to accept them. I beg to move.
Lord Fox
My Lords, this may be an opportunity for the Minister to play an uncharacteristic square drive. I support the amendment and, with the authority of the Delegated Powers Committee behind it, I should have thought this is an opportunity to send us away with a song in our heart before the next helping. I cannot speak for the noble Lord, but I guess that if the actual definition of civil nuclear needs amendment, there is plenty of conversation to be had. I hope that the Government are able to accept the amendment.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
For someone of my age and generation, it was always fashionable to attack the Wilson Governments of 1964 and 1966. In the light of the Blair Middle Eastern excursions, which I have to say I supported at the time, history now favours Wilson on the basis that he did not send any troops to Vietnam. Equally importantly, those of us who in those days were marching against nuclear weapons often forgot that one of the great achievements of the Wilson Administrations was their sponsorship of the non-proliferation treaty. At the heart of the amendment is a degree of clarity and a redefinition of civil activities. It would be useful to have a clear and explicit definition, which is why this amendment deserves support. It is not against the Bill; it is not going to harm Brexiteers or frighten the horses. It is a straightforward amendment—and, at this late stage of the afternoon, for God’s sake give us something!
The Minister has hidden behind what are quite clearly inadequate ministerial briefs. The noble Baroness, Lady Vere, went on and on. I was reminded of the story about Lord Willie Ross, when he was shadow Secretary of State for Scotland at a time when Labour was in opposition. He dismissed the speech of the then Secretary of State for Scotland, saying that there were three things wrong with it—first, that he read it; secondly, that he read it badly; and, thirdly, it was not worth reading in the first place. I absolve the noble Baroness of the second charge, but the first and third points are still relevant. We are not on the same side as the Liberals, I have to say; it is only the Conservatives who get into bed with the Liberals. This is an amendment that we are quite happy to support, but do not let us have this obfuscatory nonsense that we have been getting. Give us something that makes today’s efforts worthwhile—if not, we will be after you at the next stage, and we will win because we have the majority in the House of Lords.
Lord Henley
We have had rather a lot of history lessons. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, for reminding us of the late Willie Ross. I remember his technique when in opposition of calling Divisions just for the sake of having one, so that he could go out to have a cigarette—but that was in another world and another time, and now we have to go further away to have a cigarette than is possible in the time it takes to have a Division.
The noble Lord also reminded me of the first ever committee I was on, many years ago. I remember with great pride when the Chief Whip approached me and asked me if I would go on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Many noble Lords will remember being asked to go on to such a committee, either in this place or the other place, and feeling that it was a great honour and how important it was. JCSI did a very good job and was very important, but not nearly as important—and I think we are all very grateful for it—as the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which can look at the merits of the legislation. We are very grateful for its reports. We have taken note of exactly what it has said in relation to the amendment. We will look very carefully at those recommendations and I hope to be able to give a positive response in due course. I do not think that I can give that response at the moment because the words that are being queried—“civil activities”—have, as someone put it, their natural meaning, and we would accept that. But it might be that a change has to be made. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that we will look very carefully at this matter and between now and Report we can have further discussions and see whether amendments are needed.
With that, I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment. At that point, going back to the cricketing analogies that we had earlier, we might at this stage draw stumps.
Lord Rooker
I want to break the rules and come to the defence of the Box. It is quite unfair to attack the briefs that Ministers have. The briefs may be poor not because of those who prepared the brief but because of the policy behind it. We should not level an attack at the civil servants in the Box.
Lord Henley
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for making that point. I followed the noble Lord into Defra some years ago. He and I know exactly what all those who have served us in the Civil Service do for us and how well they do it. If briefs ever fail, it is the failing of Ministers, and Ministers—including the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and other noble Lords I see in this Chamber—know that it is our fault and we take responsibility for it. On this occasion, I think that everything we have said and done has been absolutely marvellous and wonderful and we will continue to argue our case.
May I now make my second attempt to draw stumps, if the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, it has been a long 24 hours for many of us, so I am delighted to say that is the nicest thing that the noble Lord has said to us. I take it that the Government will, in essence, be bringing an amendment back on Report. I am very grateful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Space Industry Bill [HL]
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Space Industry Bill [HL]
(6 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text