House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
The Government’s sport strategy sets the ambition that all children, including those in special needs schools, should have the opportunity to take part in meaningful physical education and to lead healthy lives. The Department for Education leads on that, with support from me and the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work.
Sir Nicholas Soames
Knowing my hon. Friend’s outstanding commitment to inclusivity in sport, is she aware of the work being done by the excellent Woodlands Meed School in Burgess Hill in my constituency? In a major reordering of its facilities, the school is seeking to build a gym specially equipped to enable children who have serious disabilities to take part in extensive physical training. Does she agree that the gym could be a county-wide facility? Will she see what she can do to investigate and help me raise the funds to enable Woodlands Meed and West Sussex County Council to go ahead with producing this excellent facility?
Tracey Crouch
I commend the work of my right hon. Friend, who has been a passionate supporter of Woodlands Meed. I am happy to meet him to discuss facilities funding for that school, which has an excellent reputation for the work it does to support children with special educational needs in his constituency.
Mr Speaker
I rather imagine the Minister will be visiting the school very soon—just a hunch. We will see.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
We need to try to reach disabled people in rural communities, too. What does the Minister hope to do to reach out to people in special needs schools, people with disabilities and veterans?
Tracey Crouch
Along with the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), I am passionate about ensuring that all children have access to meaningful physical activity at school. We provide funding—through the school games programme, for example—to ensure that we provide opportunities for disabled pupils and those with SEN to participate. There is also additional funding through the primary PE and sport premium. Through the DFE, we have funded the Project Ability programme since 2011 to increase competitive sport opportunities for young disabled people.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Minister will be aware that there are many talented athletes with learning disabilities who have ambitions to represent their country in international competitions, but there are still many barriers stopping them from doing so. Will she agree to meet me, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on learning disability, to see what more the Government can do to remove some of those barriers and allow those athletes to fulfil their aspirations?
Tracey Crouch
My right hon. Friend has done a lot of work on setting up the new all-party parliamentary group on learning disability, and I am happy to meet him to discuss this.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Some special schools clearly have better sports provision than others. What is being done to roll out best practice across the sector?
Tracey Crouch
My hon. Friend is right, and I see the differences in my constituency—some schools really do ensure that pupils with disabilities participate in meaningful PE. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work and I sit on the school sport board, and we discuss these matters regularly.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
The Government believe that all-seater stadiums are currently the best means of ensuring the safety and security of fans at designated football matches in England and Wales, but we continue to work with the Sports Grounds Safety Authority to consider advances in technology and data that may enhance the existing policy.
Dr Williams
It is a buoyant time for football in Teesside, with Stockton Town in the final of the FA vase and Middlesbrough in the Championship playoffs. Some 94% of Teesside football fans would like the choice of whether to sit or stand when they watch a match, so what advice has the Minister taken from the SGSA about the safety of standing in seated areas?
Tracey Crouch
I regularly meet the SGSA to discuss all matters of safety and I continue to listen to its advice. We are looking at ways in which we can consider advances in technology that do not require legislative change to see how we can deliver that. Having worked for one of the hon. Gentleman’s predecessors, albeit a long time ago, I know that many of his constituents are Boro fans and of course Stockton Town fans. Not only do I wish Boro well in the playoffs this weekend, but I wish to thank the Middlesbrough Supporters Forum for its positive engagement in this debate.
Mr Sweeney
Celtic Park is one of the largest football stadiums in the UK and lies a mere stone’s throw from my constituency. It is the only stadium in the UK currently to be piloting a safe rail seating area, with 3,000 places available for safe standing for the past two years. Will the Minister therefore consider visiting Celtic Park to assess the merits of that scheme, which has been a great success for the past two years, and look at how it could benefit other stadiums in the UK?
Tracey Crouch
I had the good fortune of bumping into a senior member of Celtic in Parliament earlier this week and we had a brief discussion on Celtic. Both my officials and those from the SGSA have already visited the rail seating area at Celtic to see it in operation. It has not been without its problems and has been closed twice already during the last season because of fan behaviour, but we continue to look at the development of rail seating at Celtic.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
As the Minister knows, a growing number of clubs are calling for safe standing to be reviewed and reintroduced. Does she think this should now be not the matter of a blanket ban, but a matter for safety authorities, the fans and local authorities, and decided on a case-by-case basis?
Tracey Crouch
The Government are committed to the current policy on all-seater stadiums. For this to be different, legislative change would be required. We will have a longer debate on this matter on 25 June, when I am sure we will be able to have a much more engaged discussion on it.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I am a Bournemouth supporter. Would the provision of safe standing not discourage those people who insist on standing throughout the match in the seating areas, which is much more dangerous?
Tracey Crouch
Enforcement powers are in place for the SGSA, to ensure that we deal with persistent standing. Addressing the safe standing issue would not necessarily mean that persistent standing did not happen elsewhere in the stadium, but we are looking at these issues. Clubs should remember that safe standing does not come without cost; as we have seen from Celtic Park, it can be rather costly to clubs.
Mr Speaker
On the subject of persistent standers, I call Mr Barry Sheerman.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The House will not be surprised that I stand today after the magnificent result of Huddersfield’s draw with Chelsea, meaning that we will not be relegated. Is the Minister aware that many of us have fought for years for family-friendly football and some of us have deep reservations about standing areas, where there might be a lot of young men, who like to shout, and sometimes shout racist abuse—I am not saying all of them do. Dean Hoyle, the wonderful owner of Huddersfield Town, has his reservations and so do I.
Tracey Crouch
As a Tottenham fan, may I also congratulate Huddersfield Town on holding Chelsea to a draw last night and helping us secure a Champions League spot? The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a significant change since the all-seater stadium policy came in and that spectators have evolved, and we now have a much more family-friendly place for people to go to watch football. That is not to say that we are not looking at ways in which we can accommodate those who do wish to stand, but we do not have any plans at this moment to change the legislation.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
We warmly welcome Channel 4’s agreement to establish a new national headquarters outside London. I am sure that a number of cities throughout the country will be well placed to host Channel 4. The final decision on the location is one for Channel 4 and will be made later this year.
Deidre Brock
Does the Secretary of State agree that the strength of Glasgow’s creative and independent television production sector and its rich cultural diversity make it the ideal place for Channel 4 to land? How will he ensure that the devolved nations get a fair share of the spoils of relocation? There should be no more lift and shift, but some real spending on Scottish production companies.
Matt Hancock
Of course, as well as moving its national headquarters outside London, Channel 4 has committed to increase its production spend outside London to 50%, much of which will end up in the devolved nations. I am delighted to say that Channel 4 currently seems to be very popular right across the country. Once it has made its decision to go to one particular place, I hope it remains popular everywhere else.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
But would not Birmingham be a better choice?
Matt Hancock
I like to make decisions, but I am delighted that this is one I do not have to make.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I should declare an interest as the newly elected Sheffield city region Mayor. If Channel 4 were a city, it would be Sheffield, which is creative, dynamic, authentic and welcoming. It is a city rich in culture. Does the Secretary of State agree that Sheffield would be more than deserving of a place on the shortlist of those cities bidding to attract Channel 4’s national headquarters when it relocates?
Matt Hancock
I admire the hon. Gentleman’s modesty, because he merely asked for a place on the shortlist, as opposed to winning the decision. Of course, there will also be creative hubs for those cities to which Channel 4 does not move. I am sure that this afternoon’s Westminster Hall debate on this topic will be well subscribed, so that this debate can continue further.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
Glasgow’s bid to be Channel 4’s HQ has gathered cross-party and, indeed, cross-city support, with Edinburgh prepared to set aside ancient rivalries. Does the Secretary of State agree that with that level of support, coupled with its ability to draw on production infrastructure and creative and cultural talent, Glasgow ticks all the boxes?
Matt Hancock
I love Glasgow. It is an amazing city that is really going places. I am delighted that there is so much enthusiasm from every corner of the House for the fulfilment of a Conservative party manifesto commitment.
Mr Speaker
I suppose we had better hear about the Northern Ireland situation. I call Mr Gregory Campbell.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I do not wish to add to the bidding war, but when the Secretary of State has discussions with Channel 4 about where it might relocate, perhaps it might also reconsider some of its options in terms of its broadcasting output throughout the United Kingdom.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is almost impossible to overplay the amazing advances in broadcasting production in Northern Ireland over the past few years. It has been an absolute triumph and a great addition not only to the economy but to society and culture in Northern Ireland. I am sure that Channel 4 will consider that, too.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
As well as moving Channel 4 outside London, we are clear that we need to continue to improve broadband and mobile connectivity in rural areas. We hit the target of achieving 95% coverage by the end of last year, and our broadband universal service obligation will be implemented by 2020, to make sure that nobody is left behind.
Peter Heaton-Jones
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer and welcome the progress that is being made. Does he agree that, in a rural area such as North Devon where small businesses, often based in people’s homes, form the backbone of the economy, it is vital that we deliver a good 4G and broadband service for entrepreneurs?
Matt Hancock
I agree incredibly strongly with my hon. Friend, who is a great champion for North Devon. Coverage there is only 85%, so there is much further to go, but I was delighted that Ofcom said yesterday that the average download speed had risen by 28% over the past year. That shows that, although there is further to go, we are making progress.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
The single economic area that covers north Wales and extends into west Cheshire is one of the most successful in the UK, but the final link that it lacks is a digital infrastructure hub. We must consider carefully the bid for such a hub that the economic region has put forward. Will the Secretary of State look at that closely?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I have looked at the bid closely; I think it is a good one. I agree with the hon. Gentleman very strongly. I grew up in Cheshire, but I had to drive through north Wales to get to school every day, so I know the area and the links incredibly well. That border is not an economic border at all. Wrexham and Chester, north Wales and Cheshire are all one area when it comes to the economy, and I look forward to working with him on the bid.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This issue of take-up—how many people take up the broadband that is available—is very important. As availability gets to more than 95%, we are increasingly looking at the levels of take-up that we need to get up to.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will know that Network Rail is piloting the use of its network of global systems for mobile communications-railway masts for public mobile and internet access in rural areas. What discussions has his Department had with the Department for Transport and Network Rail about rolling out more pilot areas, and does he agree that Devon and Cornwall would make an excellent second pilot area?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I do. I have had a whole load of conversations with the Transport Secretary, Transport Ministers and Network Rail to make sure that we drive out connectivity where people live, work and travel, and the rail network is critical for a third of those. This morning, I was delighted to see the plans from Network Rail of a digital railway, and we need to get on with that as quickly as possible.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michael Ellis)
With the benefit of advice from Historic England, the Government protect nationally important heritage assets in several ways, including by conferring statutory protection through the designation system and regulating change through planning policy. In addition, more than 400 buildings and sites in the National Heritage collection are managed on behalf of the nation by the English Heritage Trust, including iconic landmarks such as Stonehenge and Hadrian’s Wall.
Maggie Throup
With only two remaining wrought iron viaducts in England, Bennerley viaduct is a grade 2 listed structure, which spans the Erewash valley, linking my constituency with that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). The community group, the Friends of Bennerley Viaduct, wants to see it restored and linked to the National Cycle Network, but as its most recent heritage lottery bid failed, it fears that the revised plans from Sustrans and Railway Paths Limited appear to lack ambition. Will the Minister look at what more his Department can do to support this community group and help save Bennerley viaduct for the nation?
Michael Ellis
I am aware of the project to which my hon. Friend refers. It was previously funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund, and a bid for further funding was made last year. Our arm’s length bodies, including Historic England and the Heritage Lottery Fund, provide tremendous support to those looking after local heritage. In this particular case, I know that both organisations are keen to work with the owners and the friends groups to develop a successful scheme.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on industrial heritage. That group has recently published a report on how best to utilise our industrial heritage for the economy of the future. Will the Minister meet me to discuss its many recommendations?
Michael Ellis
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his group for the work that they have done on that report, and I am very happy to meet him at our earliest convenience.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
We are the champions of British music. Music contributes a price tag of £4 billion to the economy, but it is not about the money. Britain’s music is our global calling card, so we will keep on supporting it, so that it is rocking all over the world.
Sir David Amess
UK music is the best in the world, except, seemingly, when it comes to the Eurovision song contest. I celebrate the fact that Southend-on-Sea has a wealth of musical talent. Will my right hon. Friend tell me what further assistance can be given to aspiring performers?
Matt Hancock
We have put a huge amount of effort, policy and enthusiasm behind Britain’s music industry, which is gangbuster at the moment. Protecting intellectual property and supporting music and education is a critical part of this. We obviously take inspiration from Southend’s famous sons, including Busted, but, unlike Busted, we are determined that it will not take until the year 3000 for us to get there.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), I recently held a roundtable for Bristol’s fantastic music venues, which, despite very great hard work, face many struggles. Given that every big star, including all the ones that the Secretary of State just named, has to start somewhere, what is he doing to help our fantastic music venues?
Matt Hancock
Supporting music venues is a key part of it. That includes making sure that if somebody moves in next door, the agent of change principle applies in the planning process, meaning that they cannot complain about a pre-existing music venue. This is a really important change, and one of many that we are making to support music venues.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my dismay that Brexit does not mean that we are leaving the Eurovision song contest?
Matt Hancock
We should apply to the Eurovision song contest a principle that I try to apply to my life: whenever something goes wrong, we should try, try and try again, and maybe we will eventually get there.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
May I thank the Secretary of State for his positive contribution, along with that of the previous Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, in introducing the agent of change principle that he just mentioned into the planning consultation process? I urge him to approach the new Secretary of State urgently to impress on him the importance of this change, as he just described it, for musicians and the music industry, and to get this into parliamentary regulations before the summer?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I should have paid tribute to the right hon. Gentleman’s campaign for the agent of change principle. It now exists as a draft measure, and I am absolutely determined to make it a reality.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I support a fair deal for fans who want to attend national sporting events in person, but respect that ticket pricing policies should remain a matter for event hosts. However, I personally keep under constant review the cost for all ages of attending live sports.
Mike Amesbury
I am sure that the Minister will want to join me and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) in congratulating Runcorn Linnets on winning the Hallmark Security League Premier Division title this week. Although my constituents can watch the Linnets for a relatively reasonable price—a very low cost—people attending major events cannot, as prices have rocketed in recent years. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that major sporting events are accessible and affordable to all?
Tracey Crouch
I of course join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Linnets on their success. I know that he is personally a passionate Man United fan; it is through gritted teeth that I wish his team well a week on Saturday. I appreciate fans’ concerns about costs. I always keep these under review. We have worked hard with the likes of the Football Association and the Premier League to ensure that costs are kept down as much as possible. As he will know, the Premier League has done a deal to ensure that tickets for away fans are capped at £30. We do keep these things under control.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Tracey Crouch
I am aware of the fact that netball was formed in my hon. Friend’s constituency, which I am due to visit shortly. I congratulate the England team on their success at the Commonwealth games. We look forward to seeing Tracey Neville’s team participate in the world cup, and we hope that the ticket prices will be affordable because netball is growing in popularity.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Any deal to sell Wembley stadium needs to benefit fans and grassroots football. We must ensure that fans are not priced out, which is why Labour has called for ticket prices to be frozen for at least 10 years and for the current list of cup and play-off matches to be guaranteed. We want these clauses to be written into any deal to sell Wembley stadium. Will the Minister back our recommendations?
Tracey Crouch
May I start by wishing the hon. Lady a happy birthday? I also congratulate her on her important contribution to the discussion about Leeds United’s post-season tour to Myanmar. I agreed wholeheartedly with her, although I know that the team has begun that tour. I have discussed Wembley with the FA and have secured a commitment that it will not increase costs above inflation for another five years. We are looking at issues around the sale of Wembley in close detail, and I am sure that the matters raised by the hon. Lady will be discussed.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michael Ellis)
The Government’s tourism action plan outlines the way in which we support tourism throughout the UK, namely by investing in product and transport, improving skills, introducing common-sense regulation, and providing the great welcome that we do in this country. We also provide £19.6 million to VisitBritain and nearly £7 million to VisitEngland each year to promote the UK as a tourist destination. They also receive £22.8 million of GREAT funding to support promotion.
Glyn Davies
The first stop for overseas visitors is so often London, but it is important that the economic benefits flowing from overseas visits are spread throughout Britain, and particularly to Wales. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that visitors are encouraged to visit what Wales has to offer, including Powis castle in my constituency?
Michael Ellis
I recognise that tourism in Wales is important to my hon. Friend, who previously had a tenure on the Welsh tourism board. I am very keen to see visitors to the UK explore as much of the UK as possible. In fact, I recently held a roundtable with the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), and a selection of Welsh tourism businesses to discuss how tourism in Wales is performing and what more we can do to support it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
What assessment has the Minister made of the effect of leaving the EU on the skills base particularly of EU citizens in the hospitality and hotel sector?
Michael Ellis
Fortunately, we have a very robust hospitality sector in terms of skills. Indeed, we have confidence in our sector to support the huge demands that there are for tourism and people coming to this country.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
The Government already place a statutory duty on local authorities to secure sufficient positive activities for young people so far as is practicable.
Lilian Greenwood
I am proud that Nottingham’s play and youth service still delivers in every ward of our city. Its early intervention work with young people who are troubled or at risk can reduce the need for more costly interventions later. However, since the Government’s cuts forced the play and youth services to merge, they have lost more than half their staff since 2010. When are the Government going to stop this short-sighted thinking and start tackling the crisis in local authority youth services by giving them the funding they need?
Tracey Crouch
I am sorry to hear that the hon. Lady’s council has made those changes to youth services. I am aware of some other projects in her area that are funded by the Government, including the myplace centre, and #iwill has funded other projects in Nottingham. We are providing £80 million in partnership with the Big Lottery Fund through youth investment and #iwill funds, and we also have £90 million of dormant accounts funding that will help young people facing barriers to work.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
In 2011, the Government produced a policy document, “Positive for Youth”, which proposed new partnership models of working between businesses, local authorities, charities and not-for-profit organisations to counter the diminishing provision of youth services. What is the status of that policy?
Tracey Crouch
To be honest, I am unsure, but we are looking at youth policy as part of the civil society strategy, and I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister refers to the £90 million that is going to be made available to youth programmes via dormant accounts, but will she acknowledge that this makes up just 17% of the shortfall of £765 million that has been cut from our youth services since 2011? When are the Government going to get serious and give local authority youth services the funding they so desperately need?
Tracey Crouch
First, I wish the hon. Lady well in her next venture, which I understand is due shortly. I hope that she will take a decent amount of maternity leave, as I did; it is well worth it.
Funding for youth services is a matter for local authorities. I work very closely with colleagues across Departments to make sure that the funds that I have available are going to the right areas of youth provision, and I will continue to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
We are out of time, but I am going to take a couple more questions if people respect the fact that we are running late. Graham P. Jones—a very short question.
Graham P. Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I continue to work closely with the Charity Commission to ensure that we maintain an enhanced public trust in charity regulation, and in recognition of the increased demand for its services, I have provided additional funding of £5 million.
Graham P. Jones
There have been several scandals with charities in Haslingden and Hyndburn, and I think the public are deeply concerned that the charities legislation and the Charity Commission are failing in their duties. I personally do not think they are fit for purpose. Will the Minister meet me to discuss those matters and how we can make charities more trustworthy?
Tracey Crouch
I am aware of the two cases that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I will be happy, as always, to meet him.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
May I start by wishing good luck to SuRie, who I am sure Members are aware is the UK’s entry in the Eurovision song contest on Saturday night?
The National Fund is a charitable trust with almost half a billion pounds of assets. It has been seeking Government permission to close and release its funds for charitable purposes since 2011. That money would be a lifeline to cash-starved charities up and down the country. Why have the Government dithered for seven years, rather than making that money available to charities?
Tracey Crouch
We work very closely with the Charity Commission and look at these issues on a daily basis. I will happily meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that issue further. I am sure there are good reasons behind the delay in the process, but my door is always open, as he knows.
Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michael Ellis)
The Government are deeply committed to supporting our world-leading museum sector. The recent Mendoza review of museums in England found a thriving sector, supported by more than £800 million of public funding.
Michael Ellis
Local museums have an essential part to play. Central Government work with a range of bodies to support local museums, including Arts Council England. This year, Arts Council England will spend more than £35 million on museums, including the Museum Development Network.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
It is very important that our broadcasting sector reflects and provides for the whole country. Moving Channel 4’s national HQ outside of London is part of that, but there is much more besides.
Julian Knight
Although I thank the Secretary of State for his leadership on Channel 4, does he agree that chronic under-investment in the west midlands by the likes of the BBC is a grave injustice and that the 5.5 million people in the west midlands deserve a better deal?
Matt Hancock
The west midlands has an awful lot to say for itself, in terms of more broadcasting. The move of BBC 3 to Birmingham soon is a step in the right direction, but I am sure there is much more to do.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Hancock)
It has been another busy month for the Department. We have announced the artificial intelligence sector deal and the creative industries sector deal, agreed an ambitious new tech partnership in India and piloted the Data Protection Bill through the House, while protecting press freedoms.
I will, if I may, take a moment to congratulate my colleague and very honourable Friend, the Minister for Sport and Civil Society. She reaches a milestone of three very successful years in post on Saturday, and here’s to many more to come.
Mr Carmichael
I will never forget the day that David Cameron set up the Leveson inquiry, because on that day I met the family of the late Milly Dowler, and you just had to spend a few minutes in their company to understand how radically their lives had been affected by press intrusion. That is why we set up the Leveson inquiry in 2011. That is why David Cameron stood at the Dispatch Box in 2012 and promised the victims of press intrusion that there would be a second part to that inquiry. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what has changed?
Matt Hancock
As the right hon. Gentleman says, there has been bad behaviour by the press, but what has changed is that we have to look forward to how we address things now. Strengthening the Independent Press Standards Organisation and the improvements that we made to the Data Protection Bill yesterday are all about ensuring that we have a system for the future which ensures that the press is reasonable and fair but can also thrive in the difficulties of a digital age.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
In my constituency, the Bristol Robotics Laboratory, based in the University of the West of England, is recognised as the UK’s leading academic centre for robotics. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what steps his Department is taking to support emerging technologies, and AI in particular?
Matt Hancock
We are enormously enthusiastic about the advances in robotics, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I would love to hear more about that laboratory. We put £1 billion of public and private funds into AI just two weeks ago, and there is a lot more to do to ensure that we remain world leaders in this amazing technology.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am sure the whole House will want to congratulate Cardiff City on their rightful return to the premier league.
When the Secretary of State was scouring the newspapers this morning searching for favourable headlines about himself, did he see the story in The Times relating to the fixed odds betting terminals decision and the need to reduce the maximum stake to £2? The intervention by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Ms McVey), has apparently blocked the Secretary of State from being able to make that announcement. Who is in charge of gambling policy in this country—him or the right hon. Member for Tatton?
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Matt Hancock
I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to Stirling, where I saw on the ground the leadership my hon. Friend has shown in making sure that Stirling is a fully connected, future-facing city. He has lobbied me endlessly to make sure that we can get the strongest possible connectivity, including full-fibre connectivity, in Stirling. He is doing a sterling job.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
We are studying those recommendations closely. That report by the Lords Select Committee was one of the best reports by a Lords Select Committee I have ever read, so we are taking it extremely seriously.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Matt Hancock
It has made the decision to move its national headquarters, and it will make the decision about where to move them before the end of this year, with the move taking place next year. The case that my hon. Friend makes for Birmingham is a very strong one.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Matt Hancock
I am a great fan of minority languages. I grew up just on the Welsh border; I love the Welsh language, and I have strengthened the support for S4C through the S4C review. I am in discussions with the hon. Lady’s colleagues about BBC Alba as well.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Fixed wireless could provide an immediate solution to superfast broadband in rural areas. Openreach knows this, but constantly refuses to deploy it. Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to persuade it to change its mind?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I will. In terms of using technologies to get broadband rolled out, we should use whatever technologies are best in the location and the geography that there is. Of course, North Yorkshire has very big spaces, and fixed wireless is often the best approach.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a season ticket holder at Liverpool. Does the Minister agree that it is appalling that Liverpool football club has been allocated only 16,626 tickets for the Champions League final, some of them costing up to £400? Liverpool is one of the best-supported clubs in the world. This is not really paying due respect to the fans who support the game.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
That is a matter for UEFA, but I share the view that we want to make sure that Liverpool fans get the opportunity to go along and celebrate being in the Champions League final.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Recently in my constituency, I delivered surveys in rural areas to see how my constituents felt about the mobile coverage that was being delivered. I have had over 200 responses in the last week, and many people are not particularly happy with what is being delivered in their areas. What is my right hon. Friend doing to ensure that these notspots are eliminated?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that, while we have improved mobile coverage, and 90% of the country is now covered, 10% still is not. We are therefore going to put requirements on the mobile phone companies, so if they get licences in future spectrum auctions, they are going to have to do more in rural areas.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
What are Ministers doing to tackle the issue of scam adverts online, as highlighted by Martin Lewis recently?
Matt Hancock
I have seen with interest Martin Lewis’s legal action against Facebook. We are following that with great interest. The internet safety strategy will be coming out in the coming weeks, and that will address these issues.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Yesterday’s Ofcom report stated that Scotland had the lowest average rural download speeds anywhere in the UK. That has a huge impact on my constituency, so what are both of Scotland’s Governments doing to address that?
Matt Hancock
Overall in the UK, we have seen improvements of over 28% in download speeds over the past year, but it is frustrating that we have not been able to get as much broadband coverage in Scotland as we could have done, because the SNP Government in Holyrood have been sitting on millions of pounds of UK cash for over four years now.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
In March, a Populus poll of premier league fans showed that 72% supported the introduction of standing areas at football grounds. Why does the Minister believe that only a “vocal minority” want this to happen, and where did she get the figures for such an assertion?
Tracey Crouch
I speak regularly with the Premier League, which has done many surveys on this issue. While I regret using the phrase “vocal minority”, it is true that only 5% of fans would themselves like to stand, but I appreciate that there is a wider group of very passionate fans who think that standing should be reintroduced.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of yesterday’s article in The Daily Telegraph by Adrian Parkinson, who led the campaign against FOBTs for the Campaign for Fairer Gambling? In it, he said that the campaign was
“greased in hyperbole, spin, misconstrued evidence and, worst of all, commercial jealousy”,
that there is no justification at all for a £2 maximum stake, and that
“the Government has fallen for the spin and hyperbole—hook, line and sinker.”
Matt Hancock
I did see the article, not least because my hon. Friend sent it to me via WhatsApp, and it is safe to say that I did not agree with all of it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Scottish Government are having to invest £25 million to cover some of the mobile notspots, so rather than talking about future licensing requirements, when are the UK Government going to come up with cash to help with Scotland’s geography?
Matt Hancock
A very significant proportion of the mobile masts that went up thanks to our UK taxpayer-funded emergency services network were in Scotland, and the drive for greater geographical mobile coverage will benefit Scotland disproportionately.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
What is being done to help with mobile phone signals, particularly in rural areas such as west Oxfordshire where a signal is vital for businesses?
Matt Hancock
We are doing everything we can to speed up the roll-out in rural areas.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Since the Government launched their review of gambling, more than £2.8 billion—£57 a second—has been lost on fixed-odds betting terminals. I urge the Secretary of State to put an end to this misery.
Matt Hancock
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her work on this subject and the cross-party effort she has led. We have looked at all the evidence, and we will be coming out with our response shortly.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Ministers will know that Cleethorpes is the premier resort of the east coast, and we much appreciate the support that has come through the coastal communities fund, but what policies do Ministers have further to enhance the support for seaside resorts?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michael Ellis)
We are supporting seaside resorts—in fact, we are supporting locations all around the country—because tourism is a vital asset for Cleethorpes and many other areas.
Mr Speaker
As I am in a very generous mood, each of the two remaining Members may have a sentence, but no more—[Interruption.] Order. We are running late; you are a lucky man, and I have been kind to you. Mr Morgan, get in there.
Stephen Morgan
Will the Secretary of State join me in visiting the D-Day Story, a fantastic new museum that is opening in Southsea tomorrow?
Michelle Donelan
Will the Minister join me in congratulating AFC Corsham, which battled the heat on Saturday to play a 12-hour football match in aid of the wonderful charity Scotty’s Little Soldiers?
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The serious violence strategy, published on 9 April, sets out our response to serious violence, which includes knife crime. We will legislate to tighten the law in this area, and the Crown Prosecution Service continues to work with law enforcement agencies to tackle knife crime and other forms of serious violence.
Damian Collins
Following Donald Trump’s speech to the National Rifle Association, does the Solicitor General agree that the streets of London would be far more dangerous for communities if criminals and gang members were armed with automatic weapons rather than knives? Does he agree that while longer sentences for knife offenders are important, we also need to do more to understand the underlying causes of knife crime and gang violence?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right about the need to tackle the underlying reasons for knife crime, whether that is carried out by gangs or young people in isolation. That sort of work is far more valuable than attempts by the President of the United States to channel Sean Connery in “The Untouchables”.
Damien Moore
How can the Minister alleviate concerns over recent reports in the national press about the prevalence of knife crime in our towns and cities? What action are the Government taking to co-ordinate an approach to those offences?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend speaks with bitter and sad experience, given the appalling case in his constituency, and I send my condolences to everybody concerned. It is clear that we are seeing a rise in the use of knives in some of our towns and cities. Some of that information is a result of better police work and increased reporting, but there is no doubt that we have a challenge to face, particularly with our young people. I am glad that the strategy we have set out deals not only with prosecution, but with the root causes of knife crime. We must teach young people about the dangers of knife crime at appropriate times, including both after and before such offences are committed.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The 42.2% rise in knife crime in schools on the mainland is in stark contrast to the one conviction per year in Northern Ireland’s schools. What discussions has the Solicitor General had with his devolved counterparts about the approach to juvenile convictions in Northern Ireland?
The Solicitor General
I am interested in the work being done not only in Northern Ireland, but in Scotland, and I am a member of the inter-ministerial group that deals with these issues. We are working with, and obtaining as much information and learning as possible from, the devolved parts of the United Kingdom so that we can improve our approach. This is not just a question of crime; it is a question of health education, and if we deal with it in that way, we might start to crack the problem.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
In Scotland, crimes involving a weapon are down by two thirds since 2007, and the Scottish Government’s whole-system approach to youth crime incorporates innovative approaches from the prosecution service in Scotland, including diversion from prosecution where appropriate. Will the Solicitor General follow Met Commissioner Cressida Dick in coming to Scotland to view the excellent work being done on knife crime there?
The Solicitor General
The hon. and learned Lady develops the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), and I would be keen to learn more. I have already started that process by delving into the Scottish experience, and I am glad that the learning and experience in Scotland is being absorbed into thinking and policy development south of the border. I would be happy to take up the hon. and learned Lady’s invitation.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
I discuss domestic abuse regularly with the CPS, which continues to improve its performance in that area. In the 10 years between 2007 and 2017, the number of convictions secured rose by 61%. The conviction rate rose to its highest ever level of 75.7% last year.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Attorney General for that answer, but he will appreciate that stark regional variations in the rates of prosecution for domestic abuse exist throughout the country. What specific steps will he take to ensure consistency and fairness right across the country?
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady is right to say that there is variation including, as she knows, in the number of cases referred to the CPS by the police. Of course, the CPS cannot prosecute unless a case is referred to it. We must ensure that those variations are understood and ironed out where possible, and the CPS is working closely with the police at a regional and national level to ensure that that happens.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Which regional CPS prosecutes domestic violence the best and which prosecutes it the worst, and will the Attorney General put the two together to compare notes?
The Attorney General
As ever, my hon. Friend finds out the homework that I have not done, but if I can get back to him with those figures, I will. To reinforce the point I made to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), it is important that the CPS understands where regional variation occurs and the reasons for that and, where possible, we must ensure that lessons from the best are learned by the worst.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Despite the fact that, as we know, far too many victims of domestic violence still do not come forward, the violence against women and girls crime report shows that the overall volume of domestic violence prosecutions fell from 100,913 in 2016 to 93,519 in 2017. Does the Attorney General expect that figure to start rising again this year?
The Attorney General
As I indicated, I think that part of that is to do with referrals. It is important to be clear about what is driving the figures, and I think a large part is those cases that are not referred by the police to the CPS for prosecution at the moment.
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point about the wider picture. It is important that we do all that we can to ensure that victims of domestic violence feel able to come forward to report what has happened to them and that they feel confident that the criminal justice system will deal with them sensitively. He will know that we have put in place a range of measures—not least to enable giving evidence to be somewhat easier—to make sure that that happens.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Attorney General is right to refer to referrals, but it is important that we do all that we can to ensure that the criminal justice system supports victims. If the figure does not rise in 2018, will he undertake to look again at the domestic abuse guidelines for prosecutors to ensure that we are doing all we possibly can in this area?
The Attorney General
I will certainly do that. It is important that we keep the figures under constant review. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Government are engaged in a consultation, to which we have already had some 800 responses, on the broader picture of domestic abuse. It is important that we look at both legislative and non-legislative options to make sure that across the board we are doing all we can to support victims.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that new technologies such as video evidence give victims of domestic abuse greater access to justice by helping them to come forward and challenge their abusers?
The Attorney General
I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important, where we can, to be sensitive to vulnerable witnesses who do not wish to face the defendant. Through the roll-out of pilots involving pre-recorded cross-examination as well as examination-in-chief, they will be able to get their part in the case over with entirely without going into the court room.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Following prosecution, effective perpetrator interventions, such as those with which I worked before I became an MP—I declare an interest—can help to prevent domestic violence offenders becoming repeat offenders. Will the Attorney General encourage Members across the House to join the all-party group on perpetrator programmes, which I am launching next week?
The Attorney General
I am not sure if I am allowed to do endorsements, Mr Speaker, but I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. What she refers to is incredibly important. I am sure all Members would wish to pay tribute to the work she has done. It is important, because we need to make sure that, across the spectrum of activities we can carry out, we do all that we can to reduce the incidence of domestic abuse before it happens. It is far better, as she says, to do that than to deal with these matters through prosecution. I hope that she will be able to contribute to the consultation that is under way and give it the benefit of her wisdom.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will the Attorney General speak to colleagues in the Department for Education about the merits of training more domestic violence specialist social workers, given that about three quarters of child safeguarding cases involve domestic violence? That might help with prevention and provide more information that can lead to successful prosecutions.
The Attorney General
I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very good point. It is important that we look at ways in which we can prevent as well as cure through the prosecution process. Social workers have a hugely important part to play and we want to make sure that we work with them.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
The unduly lenient sentence scheme remains an important avenue for victims, family members and the wider public to ensure that justice is delivered. In 2017, the Solicitor General and I referred 173 cases to the Court of Appeal for consideration. Of those, the Court agreed that 144 sentences were unduly lenient and increased 137 of them.
Chris Philp
I thank the Attorney General for that answer. Will he explain the process by which a referral is made and how decisions are taken, because it is very important that victims’ families understand it.
The Attorney General
I agree with my hon. Friend. In the time that we have held our positions, the Solicitor General and I have been very keen to ensure that there are no procedural barriers to prevent anyone making use of the unduly lenient sentence scheme. There is no particular rubric or form that needs to be filled in. All that anyone who is concerned about a criminal sentence needs to do is to contact the Attorney General’s office. If the case is within the scheme, we will look at it. What will then happen is that if either the Solicitor General or I believe that a sentence is unduly lenient, we will make a reference to the Court of Appeal. In the end, the Court of Appeal will decide.
Sir Desmond Swayne
All sentences are too lenient. What is the Attorney General going to do to extend the scheme?
The Attorney General
I am not sure that I agree with the first part of my right hon. Friend’s question, but in answer to the second part, he will know that the Conservative party has now set out in two successive general election manifestos our commitment to extending the scheme. He will know that we have made a very good start by extending it last August to several additional terrorism offences. He and I both hope that we will be able to go further.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Recently, 26 out of 30 people who were involved in a pack-style attack were sentenced after some excellent work by Humberside police, but my constituents in Grimsby are really alarmed that they have effectively been given a sentence of litter picking. Does the Attorney General agree that that sends the wrong message about such group attacks on defenceless individuals?
The Attorney General
I understand what the hon. Lady says, but she will understand, of course, that I would need to see a great deal more detail to make a judgment about that sentence. If that is a relatively recent sentence, I encourage her to refer it, if she wishes, to the Law Officers so that we can look at it. I advise her that there is a 28-day statutory time limit after the point of sentence, so if she can, I would ask her to get on with it.
Mr Speaker
If the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) were not already on the Christmas card list of his hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), it is a safe bet that he is now. I call Mr Philip Davies.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I commend the Attorney General and the Solicitor General for what they do in appealing unduly lenient sentences, which they carry out with great skill—I am very impressed by their work. However, the Attorney General said that he hopes that the scheme will be extended, and he also said that we have been promising this for quite some time, so can he give us a date for when we will extend the unduly lenient sentence scheme?
The Attorney General
As I said to the House a moment ago, the scheme has already been extended—a number of terrorism offences have been brought under the scheme—but my hon. Friend knows that I share his enthusiasm for further extension. It seems important to me that victims of crime, and members of the public more broadly, can access the scheme across a broader range of offences so that when mistakes are made, which he will recognise is a rare event in the criminal justice system—about 80,000 criminal cases are heard in the Crown court every year and, as I indicated, 137 sentences were increased last year—they can be remedied.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. learned Friend will be aware of a case that I referred to him, which he said was out of the scope of the scheme. I urge him to look at expanding the scope of the scheme so that justice is done, and is seen to be done, particularly by victims of crime.
The Attorney General
Yes, and for the reasons that my hon. Friend gives, that is exactly what we should do.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The Crown Prosecution Service continues to play its part in delivering the cross-Government hate crime action plan. In the last year, 14,480 hate crime prosecutions were completed and the conviction rate was 83.4%.
Simon Hoare
In thanking my hon. and learned Friend for that answer, may I ask him what steps the CPS is taking to improve prosecution rates for disability hate crimes?
The Solicitor General
Disability hate crime has long been a concern of mine, and it is very much the poor relation when it comes to these offences. They are difficult to deal with, because very often victims feel that the incident is part of their normal life and that they should suffer in silence. The message must go out clearly that that should not be the case. I am glad that there has been an increase in prosecutions and an increase in the use of sentencing uplifts, through which judges can increase sentences to reflect aggravating factors such as disability hate.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Tonight, Nottingham Citizens, of which I am a patron, will launch its “Still No Place For Hate” report. It will highlight the fact that almost a third of people surveyed had experienced hate crime related to protected characteristics and that much of that had gone unreported. What assurances can the Attorney General give people in Nottingham that if they do report such crime, it will be prosecuted properly?
The Solicitor General
I welcome the publication of the report to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I went to Nottingham only a few months ago to visit the east midlands Crown Prosecution Service, and I know that if he works with it—either through me or directly—he will find out more about the actions that it is taking. I assure him that it has a structured plan and takes all strands of hate crime extremely seriously.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
The recruitment campaign for the next Director of Public Prosecutions is under way and is due to close on 14 May. The job requires excellent legal judgment, the ability to lead a large organisation and the capacity to work with others in improving the criminal justice system as a whole. This is an exciting time to be joining the Crown Prosecution Service and to play a pivotal role in shaping the organisation for the future.
Jo Stevens
The Attorney General will be aware that many concerns about disclosure have been an issue with the CPS in recent months. Can he confirm that the new DPP will have enough resources to tackle this time-intensive task?
The Attorney General
The hon. Lady knows that I am aware of those concerns, and she also knows that we are looking at disclosure more broadly, as I instituted a review in December last year. She is, however, right to say that one of the primary tasks of the present DPP, as well as the next one, is to get disclosure right throughout the range of cases taken on by the CPS. I will continue to discuss resources with the DPP and, indeed, Government colleagues.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Will the Attorney General bear in mind the widely held opinion that the important, delicate and often finely balanced judgments that the DPP must make require informed views that result from lengthy frontline experience of prosecuting serious cases day in, day out, at the highest level, and that that must be an important consideration when selecting the successor to the current DPP?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend is right. He is aware of the statutory requirement that applicants have at least 10 years’ practising experience, but the matter that he raises will also be an important consideration.
Gillian Keegan (Chichester) (Con)
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)
The exploitation of vulnerable people to traffic drugs across the country through county lines activity is abhorrent, and the CPS does consider modern slavery legislation when it comes to relevant charging decisions.
Gillian Keegan
In Chichester, drug dealers are regularly taking over the homes of vulnerable people who suffer from mental health problems or from drug dependency themselves in a process known as cuckooing. Sussex police tell me that they struggle to identify the gang leaders who control the cuckoos as they are based outside the county. What steps is the CPS taking to prosecute those gang leaders effectively, so that others are deterred from exploiting the most vulnerable in society?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of cuckooing and the need for local police forces such as Sussex to collaborate with other forces. A good example was a case last month in which two London-based gang members were convicted in Swansea Crown court of trafficking a teenage girl to the city to deal heroin and crack cocaine.
James Cleverly
Essex, being one of the home counties, suffers from the displacement effect of gang activity from London, and we have unfortunately seen pockets—it is only pockets at this stage—of violent gang activity in the county. What financial resources are the Government allocating to tackle serious gang violence?
The Solicitor General
My hon. Friend has correctly characterised the nature of some of this gang offending. The Government’s serious violence strategy involves a new commitment of £40 million over two years, which includes £11 million for the early intervention youth fund and £3.6 million for the new national county lines co-ordination centre.
Royal Assent
Mr Speaker
I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:
Laser Misuse (Vehicles) Act 2018
Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018
Secure Tenancies (Victims of Domestic Abuse) Act 2018
Statute Law (Repeals) Measure 2018
Pensions (Pre-consolidation) Measure 2018
Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction and Care of Churches Measure 2018
Mission and Pastoral etc. Amendment Measure 2018
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman wants more. I have news for the hon. Gentleman—he is going to get more. Maybe not much more, but a bit more:
Legislative Reform Measure 2018.
Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Leader of the House if she will make a statement on the Government’s policy on introducing money resolutions for private Members’ Bills.
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Leader of the House to respond to the urgent question, and in conformity with the recent trend of acknowledging and celebrating birthdays, I am disclosing to the House, because I have been informed, that the Leader of the House’s birthday is on Sunday, so we wish her a happy birthday.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
Andrea Leadsom
I could not possibly comment, but I am obviously extremely grateful.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the question asked by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) ahead of business questions today. I have been clear about the Government’s general approach to money resolutions in business questions in recent weeks. On 22 March 2018, I responded to a question from the hon. Member for Croydon North (Mr Reed), saying:
“Discussions are carrying on through the usual channels and money resolutions will be brought forward on a case-by-case basis as soon as possible.”—[Official Report, 22 March 2018; Vol. 638, c. 407.]
I am pleased that the Government have been able to bring forward money resolutions for three Bills so far and that a number of important Bills are making progress. We will continue to look at providing money resolutions for those Bills that require them in the usual way and on a case-by-case basis.
With regard to the Bill of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, as the Minister for the Constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), set out at Committee stage yesterday, the Boundary Commission for England began the 2018 parliamentary boundary review in 2016 and is due to report its final recommendations to Government later this year. The Government have a manifesto commitment to continue with this boundary review, and as it has not yet reported, it would not be appropriate to proceed with the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill at this time. The Government will keep this private Member’s Bill under review, but it is right that we allow the Boundary Commission to report its recommendations before carefully considering how to proceed.
The financial initiative of the Crown is a long-standing constitutional principle, which means it is for the Government of the day to initiate financial resolutions. As I have said and will continue to say, the Government will bring forward further updates on money resolutions, including for the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, in future business statements in the usual way.
Afzal Khan
I thank the Minister for her response.
I believe the actions of the Government are deeply undemocratic. The private Member’s Bill on parliamentary constituencies in my name is of fundamental constitutional importance. It passed Second Reading unanimously. The Government are trying to frustrate the democratic will of Parliament and to block the Bill by procedure.
I do not deny that my Bill is controversial, but it is also reasonable. Whatever arguments can be made for or against it should take place here, between Members and in front of the public, rather than in the backrooms of Government offices. Private Members’ Bills are one of the few ways Back-Bench MPs have to make an impact in this place. It is ironic that the Executive are overreaching on a Bill that seeks to defend the power of Back Benchers.
The precedent that the Government are setting will not only block my Bill, but will allow the Government to halt any future private Members’ Bill, such as the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill, which passed Second Reading with enormous support from across the House. The Bill Committee meets again next week. Will the Minister reconsider her inconsistent and undemocratic approach to money resolutions and bring one forward today in time for the Committee to fully consider the Bill next week?
This House is owed an explanation of why the Government have taken such an inconsistent and partisan approach to granting money resolutions to private Members’ Bills. This is a serious undermining of the rights and privileges of this House by the Executive. It is time the Leader of the House stood up to her Cabinet colleagues on this matter.
Andrea Leadsom
As I have said, a number of private Members’ Bills are currently making their way through Parliament. We continue to look at providing money resolutions for those Bills that require them in the usual way, which is on a case-by-case basis. The financial initiative of the Crown is a basic constitutional principle, which means that it is for the Government of the day to initiate financial resolutions. This is a long-standing constitutional principle that is set out in “Erskine May”. The Government will keep the hon. Gentleman’s private Member’s Bill under review, but it is right that we allow the Boundary Commission to report its recommendations before carefully considering how to proceed.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I have to say I agree absolutely with the points made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). I think the Government’s behaviour is undemocratic and certainly is in breach of the undertakings they gave to the Procedure Committee, which were that, if a Bill got a Second Reading, as night follows day, it would then get a money resolution and the Government would not abuse their power as they are seeking to do now.
Andrea Leadsom
I point out to my hon. Friend that a number of private Members’ Bill are going through and a significant number have had a Second Reading. Those are awaiting Committee. They include the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, the Health and Social Care (National Data Guardian) Bill, the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill, the Stalking Protection Bill, the Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill, the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill, the Organ Donation (Deemed Consent) Bill, the Overseas Electors Bill, the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill and others. It is very important that the Government use their good offices to bring forward money resolutions on a case-by-case basis in line with the long-held constitutional principle that it is for the Government to bring forward money resolutions.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) was right to ask for this urgent question, and you were right to grant it, Mr Speaker.
The Leader of the House knows that Members from all parties raised this matter with her last week, and yet again this week the money resolution was refused. She quotes “Erskine May”. It is clear that money resolutions should automatically follow Second Reading. Any tome on the workings of Parliament, whether “Erskine May” or “How Parliament Works”, states that they normally follow Second Reading. Not to introduce a money resolution is an unreasonable conclusion that no reasonable decision-making body would come to.
As my hon. Friend said, the will of the House was clear: the Bill got its Second Reading unanimously. The instructions given to the Boundary Commission were constrained and his Bill would do a number of things to those constrained instructions. It would expand the electorate by providing for the use of new electoral registers based on the latest figures following the referendum and the 2017 election. That is reasonable. The old instructions tied the hands of the Boundary Commission by maintaining the arbitrary figure of 600 to 650 Members, on no evidence. That is unreasonable.
This is an unprecedented position. No money resolution has been agreed for my hon. Friend’s Bill, yet other Bills behind it have had theirs. All the Bill would do is correct the erroneous instructions to the Boundary Commission. Will the Leader of the House confirm whether the Government are trying to reduce the effectiveness of the legislature as against the overpowering Executive? Will there be a reduction in the payroll vote of MPs? In what circumstances would it be unusual for a money resolution not to follow a Second Reading? If there are no abnormal circumstances in this case, when will one be granted on this important Bill, which goes to the heart of our democracy and the representation of our constituents?
Andrea Leadsom
I understand that the hon. Lady would like the money resolution to be brought forward. She often stands at the Dispatch Box and calls for debates. I should point out that the Government have listened and aimed to bring forward debates on subjects where the Opposition have prayed against statutory instruments. We have also brought forward important debates on subjects such as anti-Semitism and the importance of housing for the next generation. The Government have listened carefully and brought forward proposals from right hon. and hon. Members across the House.
The same is true of private Members’ Bills. We have brought forward money resolutions for three Bills so far. Some very important Bills are making progress, and we will continue to look at providing money resolutions for all those Bills that require them in the usual way and on a case-by-case basis. It is simply not true that this is unprecedented. It is for the Government to decide when to bring forward money resolutions. As my hon. Friend the Constitution Minister has made clear, it is right that we allow the Boundary Commission to report its recommendations before carefully considering how to proceed with this Bill.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Is the Leader of the House as delighted as I am about the progress of important private Members’ Bills such as those dealing with assaults on emergency workers? Does not this show how committed the Government are to bringing forward and supporting such Bills where they have the support of the whole House?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Strong progress is being made on a number of Bills, including Bills being brought forward by Opposition Members, such as the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), which has completed all its Commons stages and is now in the other place.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
The refusal to give this money resolution demonstrates the massive disrespect that this Government have for the democratic arrangements of this House. Withholding money resolutions like this is just about the lowest of the low; it is a tactic to thwart the democratic progress of Bills that have been passed in this House. And this is not just about the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill; other excellent Bills have been thwarted too, including the excellent Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) on refugees. When the House has decided on these matters, it is the duty, responsibility and obligation of the Government to honour the wishes of the House.
The Leader of the House has repeated that it is a matter for the Government to give money resolutions to private Members’ Bills. Let us take this out of the hands of the Government. Surely it should be an automatic function that a Bill gets a money resolution if it is passed by this House. If she is convinced of her arguments, particularly about boundaries, she should bring them to the House. Let us have a debate on the Floor of the House. Let the Government tell us why they think it is good to cut the number of Members of Parliament when Brexit is coming and the demand on Members will be higher. Let them tell us why they think it is right to have more cronies and donors in the House of Lords while cutting the number of Members of this House. Let us hear the Government’s case. Is not this just about the worst possible example of this House taking back control?
Andrea Leadsom
Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman disregards the conventions of this House, as he often does. The financial initiative—[Interruption.] The financial initiative of the Crown is a basic constitutional principle, which means that it is for the Government of the day to initiate financial resolutions. That is a long-standing constitutional principle set out in “Erskine May”, and he must respect that. I can say to him that 13 private Members’ Bills have passed Second Reading and, of those 13 Bills, one has completed all stages in this House and passed to the Lords and three further Bills have received money resolutions and completed their Committee stages. Those include important Bills such as the Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Bill, the Mental Health Units (Use Of Force) Bill and the Prisons (Interference With Wireless Telegraphy) Bill. There is plenty of time left in this extended Session, and further money resolutions will be brought forward in the usual way.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of my private Member’s Bill on parental bereavement, which I hope will complete its remaining stages in this House tomorrow?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend has the Commons remaining stages of his Bill tomorrow. I know that the Bill has enormous support across the House. It will really make a difference to parents who have been bereaved. It carries a great deal of support and the Government were delighted to bring forward the money resolution for the Bill and will be delighted to see the remaining stages being debated tomorrow.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I have to challenge the Leader of the House on her exposition of the constitutional principles at stake here. She seems to forget that this House has a role in the execution of the Executive’s duties in this regard. That is why, every time we have a Budget, a Finance Bill follows it, as sure as night follows day. The purpose of the Government having the power to bring forward a money resolution is to give effect to the will of Parliament, not to thwart it.
Andrea Leadsom
Hon. Members are trying to suggest that the Government are unreasonably withholding money resolutions on a permanent basis, but I have been absolutely clear that they will be brought forward by the Government on a case-by-case basis as necessary. I have tried to explain that the reason that one has not been brought forward for this particular Bill is that the Government have a manifesto commitment to consider the review by the Boundary Commission for England, and we will then consider the right timing for this money resolution.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Leader of the House has detailed the unusually long list of ballot Bills that are queuing to get into Committee, including the excellent Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill in my name. As well as giving clarity on money resolutions, when will she announce the additional sitting Fridays? Is it fit for purpose in 2018 that only one private Member’s Bill can be in Committee at a time and that such Committees can sit only on Wednesdays, meaning that many private Members’ Bills will inevitably fail? Is it not time we sorted out the whole system so that private Members’ Bills get the attention they deserve?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his private Member’s Bill. The House has approved 13 sitting Fridays for this Session and, as I have said:
“Given…this will be an extended Session, we will…expect to provide additional days”.—[Official Report, 17 July 2017; Vol. 627, c. 636.]
In line with Standing Orders, remaining stages of Bills will be prioritised over Second Reading debates on any additional days provided for private Members’ Bills. There are still a number of remaining stages Fridays available for Bills coming out of Committee. The dates available to Members stretch through to 23 November 2018, so at this stage there is no urgency in providing additional days for private Members’ Bills. In fact, tabling a motion later in the current Session will allow us to take into account the progress of private Members’ Bills, as well as of any new recess dates that are announced.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar is gesticulating in a mildly eccentric fashion. My interpretation of his strange hand signals is that he is indicating a desire to catch an aeroplane. We acknowledge that fact and wish him well on his journey. We would not want to deny him the opportunity to expatiate.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Not just one aeroplane but a second aeroplane on to Benbecula, too. Hence the nerves.
Many people watching will think of this as quite archaic. Money resolutions should really follow automatically. It is also archaic that private Members’ Bills have to queue to go into Committee. It is time to modernise the process. We should not be having this urgent question. Night should follow day, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, and money resolutions should come forward, especially for the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill to give child refugees the same rights as adult refugees.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those points. I can only say again that the Government will table money resolutions on a case-by-case basis, in line with current conventions.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend suggests that the Government will wait until the boundary commissions have reported, which I understand will be in September or October. Does she intend to wait until after that before granting any further money resolutions so that Bills can make progress in this House?
Andrea Leadsom
No, that is not the case. As my hon. Friend might be aware, a money resolution was tabled for the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) just last week.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Leader of the House did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on whether the Government can confirm that they have no plans to cut the number of MPs on their payroll. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the result will be a more powerful Executive and a smaller legislature?
Andrea Leadsom
I reiterate that the Boundary Commission for England began the 2018 parliamentary boundary review in 2016 and is due to report its final recommendations to Government later this year. The Government have a manifesto commitment to continue with the boundary review, which is what we are doing. We will await the Boundary Commission’s recommendations, and we will then consider tabling a money resolution on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill at that point.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) on securing the urgent question. He has raised this issue in such a gentle way, but if I had been in his place, I would have been exploding at the Government at the moment. They have said, in answer to the Procedure Committee:
“It is the practice of the Government to accede to such requests.”
No ifs and buts there. What we are seeing here is not a debate about democracy; I say, with some trepidation, that this is an abuse of Parliament by this Government. They do not like the Bill, so they are using a procedural tactic which breaks all convention. The Leader of the House has been sent to the wicket not only without a bat, but without pads or a helmet. I cannot say that she does not believe what she is saying, but I believe that if she was free from collective responsibility she would be on our side. I urge her at business questions to follow to grant the money resolution.
Andrea Leadsom
I gently remind my hon. Friend that he, too, stood on a manifesto that was committed to hearing the Boundary Commission review—
Mr Speaker
Order. I take the point. The hon. Gentleman’s comment that he opposed it is clearly on the record, and so it should be, but the Leader of the House is answering and she should be free to continue to do so.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend stood on a manifesto that led to this Government forming, and it is clear—I have made it as clear as possible—that once the recommendations have been considered, we will be looking to bring forward that money resolution.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
As I understand it, the Leader of the House is meant to be the House’s representative in Cabinet. I hate to burst her bubble, but the Conservative party did not win the general election and there was nothing in its manifesto about passing a bung to the Democratic Unionist party to prop it up on the boundary review. May I ask the Leader of the House, most sincerely, what representations she is making to Cabinet and to the Government to make sure that the will of this House is granted and the money resolution tabled?
Andrea Leadsom
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that it is extraordinary that he thinks that this Government did not win the general election, because this is the Government and this Government are winning votes. This Government are taking charge of running the country, in full collaboration right across the House with all right hon. and hon. Members, to ensure that we take all views into account. That is what I undertook to do as Leader of the House of Commons and it is what I do every day.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
As a former Lord Commissioner and officer of Her Majesty’s Household, I know exactly how inconvenient and unhelpful the happy thoughts of private Members’ Bills can be, and this one is no exception. The answer has to be to turn up on a Friday and vote against them, not to deny them a money resolution.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. I absolutely agree that private Members’ Bills are a matter for Fridays and parliamentary voting, but it is also a constitutional principle that the Government bring forward money resolutions and do so on a case-by-case basis. I will continue to make those announcements at business questions in the usual way.
Mr Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the fact that we eventually got a money resolution for the Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill, but that was only after a seven-week delay, during which time the Government repeatedly promised that the money resolution would be laid. The Committee to consider the Bill was convened but had to be cancelled or adjourned at short notice because the money resolution had not been laid. On one occasion, the Government claimed pressure of business, even though on the relevant date the House had adjourned early because of a lack of business. This is disrespectful, not only to the House, but to interested parties outside it, who are keenly following the progress of these Bills. One would normally associate pantomimes with Christmas, but the Government treated us to one this Easter. Surely this is no way to run the business of the House.
Andrea Leadsom
It is a bit of a shame the hon. Gentleman does not celebrate, as all Members should, the fact that the Committee stage is now complete for his Mental Health Units (Use of Force) Bill, which is an important piece of legislation. The money resolution was brought forward; his private Member’s Bill is making progress; and, with the support of the House, he can hope to see it come into law.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I know it is inconvenient for Her Majesty’s Government, but the right of individual Members to initiate legislation is a precious one, and it is denied to MPs in many other Parliaments around the world. If I may say so, the Leader of the House may be confusing the tabling of a money resolution with its decision in the House. As the representative of the House in Cabinet, surely it should be the Leader of the House’s role to table a money resolution straight after Second Reading has been agreed. It is then up to the House to divide to decide whether that money resolution should be passed. By not even tabling the resolution, she is denying a democratic right to Members of this House.
Andrea Leadsom
I say gently to my hon. Friend that the financial initiative of the Crown is a basic constitutional principle; it is for the Government of the day to initiate financial resolutions. It is a long-standing constitutional principle and it is set out in “Erskine May”.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House believe that the delays in the granting of money resolutions for private Members’ Bills that have had their Second Reading are a result of the Government’s inefficiency or their incompetence? How long does she believe it is reasonable to wait for a money resolution?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted that money resolutions have been brought forward for some excellent private Member’s Bills, and more will be brought forward in due course.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Leader of the House is trying to defend the indefensible, and I regret that she has been sent in to do that. I urge her, rather than getting bogged down in some constitutional niceties that do not appear to be winning the day, just to agree to grant the money resolution for the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). That is the clear will of the House, so she should just be done with the matter.
Philip Davies
While we are on the point, and before she leaps to her feet, I urge her to resist the call for extra sitting Fridays in this Session. You will know better than me, Mr Speaker, but I think the Standing Orders say that there shall be 13 sitting days on a Friday in a Session—not a minimum of 13, but that there shall be 13. Can we please stick to that particular Standing Order?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend clearly does not agree with all Members. He asserts what all Members think, but then clearly disagrees with what I have heard many Members say, which is that they want further days to discuss private Members’ Bills. That is why it is important that private Members’ Bills have support from the whole House. I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that money resolutions for Bills will be brought forward in the usual way, on a case-by-case basis.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Does this not show up the whole private Members’ Bills system for the farce that it is? It was described as a cruel system in the most recent Procedure Committee report on the matter, which made some fundamental, positive and progressive suggestions for reform, not least that the Backbench Business Committee should allocate some of the time for Bills that genuinely have support throughout the whole House, like we see in progressive Parliaments such as the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood. Will the Leader of the House make time for those proposals to be debated in the House of Commons?
Andrea Leadsom
There was a review of private Members’ Bills not very long ago, and the strong view from all parts of the House at the time was that private Members’ Bills do work. Obviously, individual Members have different views, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Different Members have different views about private Members’ Bills, but the Government seek to ensure that when there is strong enough support for private Members’ business, it has the chance to come into law.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Having been drawn in the private Member’s Bill ballot myself, I know the frustration that constituents express when Bills run out of time on Fridays. Surely this additional step, whereby the Government can by procedural means block the unanimous will of this House, can only damage the reputation of politics.
Andrea Leadsom
That is simply not the case. The Government are not blocking. I have set out a clear reason why a money resolution for the Bill has not yet been brought forward. Other money resolutions have been brought forward, and more will be in due course.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Leader of the House has continually referred to the fact that the boundary review appeared in the Conservative manifesto last year; should we therefore expect to have Bills on foxhunting and grammar schools introduced in the House on a future date?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is asking about an entirely separate issue. I am trying to explain, with absolute courtesy to the House, the reason why a money resolution has not been brought forward in this case, and she is raising an entirely different issue.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
The Leader of the House keeps referring to the Boundary Commission’s proposals. Can she tell me when the last census was taken? Can she also tell me how many would be excluded if she continues with the boundary proposals and how that will not be seen as gerrymandering?
Mr Speaker
Forgive me, it may be a question of very considerable interest, but it is not altogether adjacent to the matter of money resolutions. However, if the Leader of the House wants to give us the benefit of her views on the matter, I am sure that we will all listen with rapt attention.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May I gently remind the Leader of the House that she is supposed to represent this House in Cabinet? Why is she allowing a procedural finagle to block the democratic decision of this House?
Andrea Leadsom
I take my role of representing Parliament in the Government incredibly seriously. At every Business questions and at every opportunity, I seek to take into account all the views expressed across this House. I can give the hon. Gentleman countless examples of successes there, but what I am simply setting out today is that the money resolution for this particular private Member’s Bill will be brought forward at a later stage, once the review of the Boundary Commission for England has been considered.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I understand what the Leader of the House has just said, but does she not accept that, to the people whom we represent, this will look like she is actually the Cabinet’s representative to the legislature? We need action on this and on so many other private Members’ Bills so that the people whom we represent can truly feel that we are able to represent them on the issues that matter to them.
Andrea Leadsom
I think people will be delighted at the progress being made in some very important private Members’ Bills, including Bills to prevent assaults on emergency workers, to provide better support for parents who have been bereaved and to provide better support for those who have mental health problems and are taken into secure units.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Does the Leader of the House not understand just how offensive it is to Members of this House that the Government are using a procedural device to block debate on this important Bill?
Andrea Leadsom
I say to the hon. Lady, as I have to plenty of hon. Members now, there is no blocking. The Government bring forward money resolutions on a case-by-case basis. I have sought very courteously to explain why, on this occasion, money resolutions on other private Members’ Bills are coming forward and this one is not at the moment.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I urge the Leader of the House not to trot out the manifesto commitment line, given how many pledges have been dropped already. I remind her that her party does not command a majority in this House, so why does she think that it is okay to override the democratic will of this Chamber?
Andrea Leadsom
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that his party does not command a majority in this House, and that, therefore, what we seek to do in this Parliament is to listen broadly across the House to all the proposals made by right hon. and hon. Members and to accommodate them wherever we can.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
It has become quite clear over the past 35 minutes that the Minister has been sent out to defend the indefensible, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) quite rightly said. I urge her to take note of the exchanges that we have had over the past half hour and give a commitment to come back next week, having reflected on those views, with perhaps a slightly different view.
Andrea Leadsom
I am always well educated by the exchanges in this place, and I always continue to listen carefully and to reflect on what is said.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
On Wednesday morning, we saw an absurd spectacle. We had a Committee full of hon. Members ready to take on this Bill at its next stage, following overwhelming support on Second Reading, but we were prevented from doing so. We were prevented by a Government who were not brave enough to make the case against it and not secure enough to divide on the matter, so, instead, they hid behind procedure. Does the Leader of the House really think that it is satisfactory for the Government to frustrate the will of the House in this way?
Andrea Leadsom
The Minister for the Constitution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), clearly set out in Committee yesterday that
“the Boundary Commission for England began the 2018 parliamentary boundary review in 2016. It is due to report its final recommendations later this year…it would not, therefore, be appropriate to proceed with the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill…at this time by providing it with a money resolution.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Public Bill Committee, 9 May 2018; c. 5-6.]
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
This points to a much wider problem with the farcical and outdated system of dealing with private Members’ Bills in this House, including the farcical scenes that we often see on sitting Fridays. More importantly, does the Leader of the House really think that it is appropriate in this day and age that a private Member should have to rely on the patronage and support of the Government to get a private Member’s Bill through Parliament?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the case. Private Members’ Bill require support from across the House in order to get through. The Government provide money resolutions on a case-by-case basis.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I like the Leader of the House a great deal but I think that in this case she is wrong. A little bit of humility about the fact that the Conservatives did not win the general election and did not command a majority for their manifesto would go a long way in this House. There is a clear will in Parliament on what should happen. I hope that the words of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) will be ringing in the ears of the Leader of the House and that she will come back to the House with a proper money resolution that we can debate.
Andrea Leadsom
I am always grateful to the hon. Lady for her interventions and for the measured way in which she puts her points. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), I always reflect very carefully on all instructions given from this Chamber.
Business of the House
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
There is something of the groundhog day about this. The business for the week commencing 14 May will include:
Monday 14 May—Second Reading of the Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 15 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by the remaining stages of the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill, followed by a general debate on housing and homes.
Wednesday 16 May—Opposition day (11th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 17 May—Debate on a motion on plastic bottles and coffee cups, followed by a general debate on International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia and Biphobia. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 18 May—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 21 May will include:
Monday 21 May—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by Second Reading of the Tenant Fees Bill.
You were kind enough, Mr Speaker, to host the Grenfell survivors in Speaker’s House this week. I pay tribute to their courage in sharing their personal stories with us. None of us can imagine the pain and suffering experienced by all those caught up in that tragic event last year, and I reiterate the commitment of the Government and Parliament to doing everything we can to ensure that such a terrible tragedy never happens again.
Yesterday was important for two reasons. First, it was Teacher Appreciation Day, so I would like to say a big thank you to all the hard-working teachers and school staff who make such a difference to the lives of young people every single day. Secondly, it was also Europe Day. As a proud European myself, I join the millions across our continent celebrating our strong ties of friendship and shared history.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming business. I am not going to ask her for a money resolution for the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), because we have had that debate, but is it too much to hope that the amendments coming back from the Lords next week will have anything to do with the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill? The Bill has been given such thoughtful consideration by the other place, so will the Leader of the House confirm that the House will be able to debate the amendments soon? If not, will she confirm whether the reports in the press that the EU withdrawal Bill will not come before the House again until after negotiations are complete in the autumn are accurate?
When will the so-called customs Bill—the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill—and the Trade Bill have their Report stage and Third Reading, and, more importantly, when will the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill be introduced? Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government are not being cynical and parking the Trade Bill, the customs Bill and the EU withdrawal Bill, and introducing the legislation to enact EU law under the withdrawal and implementation Bill after the negotiations are complete so as to avoid any rebellions? She will know that all this legislation can return at any time before the end of the Session, which is now May 2019. This is unprecedented, and the Government are effectively subverting democracy. They said that they wanted to extend the Session of Parliament owing to a heavy burden of legislation, yet they are not tabling any important legislation.
The subversion of democracy continued, and showed its true colours, in the local elections. The pilot areas trialling controversial voter ID checks have been a shambles. Early estimates show that nearly 4,000 people were turned away from voting in the local elections. In one case that I know of, someone was actually told that his polling station had moved and he could not vote at all. Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society said that millions of people could be disenfranchised if the scheme is rolled out across the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), the shadow Minister for voter engagement, warned of this before the pilot was rolled out. She would like to see the report come back before she goes on maternity leave.
You were in the Chamber, Mr Speaker, when the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) raised a point of order, again on the subversion of democracy, about a dysfunctional Government and their malfunctioning email address for a consultation that closes on 25 May. Will the Leader of the House look into this to see whether the email address now works and to ensure that the people of Buckinghamshire have a say? It is nothing personal, Mr Speaker, but the Government do not seem to want to hear from you or your constituents.
As there is hardly any Government business, or rather the Government do not wish to table any legislation relating to the EU, will the Leader of the House find time to debate the statutory instrument prayed against by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan)? It relates to the treatment of victims of torture and other vulnerable people in immigration detention centres and is the subject of early-day motion 1200, which was signed by 110 Members.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 410), dated 22 March 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 March, be annulled.]
In addition, EDM 1202 was signed by 107 Members.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 411), dated 22 March 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27 March, be annulled.]
May we have a debate on racism in the Tory party? I have to read this out, Mr Speaker, because it is so obnoxious. A councillor posted this:
“I took my dog to the dole office to see what he was entitled to. The bloke behind the counter said ‘you idiot, we don’t give benefits to dogs’. I argued ‘why not? He’s brown, he stinks, he’s never worked”
an F
“day in his life & he can’t speak”
an F
“word of English’. The man replied: ‘His first payment will be Monday’.”
That councillor has been allowed back on to the council so that the Tory party can retain its power in Pendle. What is the position on Pendle council? Is the councillor a full member of the council and the Tory group? Where are the Government voices of condemnation, and when can we have that debate on racism?
On restoration and renewal, last week the Leader of the House said that the Commission decided on governance arrangements. She actually misses the point. It is not about us on the Commission; it is about Members knowing what is going on. Members are not aware of these agreed arrangements. The Leader of the House said during the debate on 31 January:
“This is a matter for Parliament”.—[Official Report, 31 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 888.]
All the Commission published online was a simple sentence saying that it has
“agreed the proposed governance arrangements for the R&R Programme”,
but the details are not given. A written statement published on 28 February does not give the full details of what was announced in the article in The House magazine. When will she make a statement to the House on the proposals for restoration and renewal?
I join you, Mr Speaker, in wishing the Leader of the House a very happy birthday. She mentioned that it was Europe Day yesterday, but there was no mention of that by the Prime Minister. We know that Europe stands for peace, co-operation, opportunity and respect for the human rights of everyone. In or out, that is how we in the Opposition mark Europe Day. I wish everyone a belated happy Europe Day, and the Leader of the House a very happy birthday on Sunday.
Andrea Leadsom
First, the hon. Lady asks about progress of Brexit legislation. Third Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will take place in the other House next week, and then we will bring that Bill back to this place, to look at the amendments. The Government are obviously looking closely at the proposals made in the other House, as we have done with all those made in this House. Other Brexit Bills will be coming forward in due course. There is no hold-up. As all hon. Members will appreciate, very complex negotiations are under way, and it is right that we bring forward these Bills at the appropriate time, as indeed we will do.
The hon. Lady asks about voter ID. Voter ID was successfully tested at the local elections on 3 May in five local authorities, each of which had signed up to it. The data so far and statements by the respective returning officers point towards the pilots successfully testing voter ID and the experience being overwhelmingly positive. It is important to note that it cannot be the case that we have to provide ID to pick up a parcel but not to cast our democratic vote. It is vital that we protect our democracy from potential fraud, and we will obviously look at all lessons learned from that.
The hon. Lady asked about the Home Secretary’s email address. I am not sure that that is within my brief, but if email addresses now come under the remit of the Leader of the House, I am happy to take that up if she writes to me about it.
The hon. Lady asked about statutory instruments that the Opposition have prayed against. It is parliamentary convention that, where a reasonable request for a debate is made, time will be allowed for a debate, and in line with that, the Government have sought to accommodate reasonable requests from the Opposition. There have been a couple of debates on statutory instruments only this week, and more Government time has been given for debates on statutory instruments prayed against by the Opposition than at any time since 1997. I hope she will acknowledge that the Government are doing everything they can to accommodate Opposition views.
The hon. Lady asked about the issue of racism in Pendle. I am horrified to hear that story, and I certainly share her absolute rejection of any form of racism. As I understand it, direct action was taken—suspension, training, apologies and so on—but I am not completely aware of the situation. I am sure she will acknowledge that if people who do something in very bad taste have received their punishment, they should be capable of being reinstated. I am not sure of the case, but like her, I utterly reject any form of racism.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about restoration and renewal. We have a House of Commons Commission meeting on Monday evening, where there will be further discussions. I am always happy to update the House, and perhaps we can discuss how we can facilitate that.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Mr Speaker, given your manifesto commitment to go by 22 June, may we have a debate in Government time about what we want from a Speaker and what type of Speaker we want, before we move to a secondary discussion about who we want to replace you?
Andrea Leadsom
Mr Speaker, you have served this House for a good number of years, in the best way that you can, and I am grateful to you for that. I am not sure that a debate on the subject that my hon. Friend suggests would be at all welcome.
Mr Speaker
I very gently say to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), in terms which are very straightforward and which I know he will be fully able to understand, that after each general election, the proposition about the Speaker returning to the Chair is put, and it is then voted upon by the House. He will recall that I indicated my willingness to continue in the Chair in June of last year. That proposition was put to the House, and it was accepted unanimously. If he had wanted to oppose it, he could have done so, but simply as a matter of fact—I am not making any criticism, nor favourable comment—I remind the House that he did not.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Long may that proposition continue, Mr Speaker.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. As she is always so generous in wishing us all a happy birthday, I wish her a boundary- free birthday, and a signed copy of the MP4 CD is on its way.
It has been a crazy old week for the Government. Apparently, the customs partnership favoured by the Prime Minister is not the preferred option of the Foreign Secretary, who has used characteristically conciliatory language to express his concern. He could have called the customs plan clueless, delusional or unworkable, but, no; for him, it is just plain crazy. I had a look at the dictionary definition of “crazy”, and apparently it means deranged, demented, non compos mentis, unhinged or as mad as a hatter. I think the Foreign Secretary might be on to something here. However, can we have a statement to clarify exactly what someone has to say now to be sacked as Foreign Secretary?
You know, Mr Speaker, that I am not the greatest fan of our undemocratic be-ermined friends down the corridor, and, okay, I have called them a few things in the past—donors, cronies, placemen, aristocrats—but even I have never stooped so low as to call them traitors, as happened on the front page of the Tories’ favourite rag, the obnoxious Daily Mail. May we have a statement on what type of language we could use to describe what goes on in our political life?
It looks like it is the beginning of the end for our lordships—not for being an unelected embarrassment, but for doing the right thing. So I say to the Lords, the Government are probably going to abolish you now, so stand up to them. When it gets to ping-pong, do your own thing. Go down fighting, and make that ermine count for something!
Andrea Leadsom
First, I must say that I would be so thrilled with a copy of MP4’s latest disc or cassette—what would it be? I am also slightly hearing from the hon. Gentleman that he is now after a seat in the other place—I am detecting a level of warmth towards it that I have never seen from him before.
Seriously, however, there is a concern. The other place provides a fantastic revising House to improve legislation, and it has made significant improvements to the EU withdrawal Bill, which the Government have willingly accepted, including on looking at the Bill as it relates to the devolved nations. It is very important that we have done that, and it is great to see the progress with the Welsh Government, who have been willing to accept the latest proposals, although it is a great shame the Scottish Government have not been willing to do so, and we hope they will be able to in due course. The purpose of the other place is not to undermine the will of this House or, very importantly, the will of the majority of people in this country who voted for the United Kingdom to leave the EU.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Most people would think it is absolutely pathetic that a picture of the Prime Minister was removed from a wall at one of our leading universities that showed women of achievement. Will my right hon. Friend please find time for a wider debate on issues surrounding freedom of expression and freedom of speech in our universities, on whose rock a more tolerant society should be built?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend’s description of that as pathetic is just about right. I could not believe that a university would seek to remove a photograph of one of its most successful alumni—that is absolutely appalling. Universities have a statutory duty to ensure free speech for staff, students and visiting speakers. Institutions should ensure that there is no unlawful harassment, intimidation or threats of violence, but anything else is legal free speech. I certainly think all women in our country should be proud of the fact that we have our second female Prime Minister, regardless of whether they agree with her policies.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for the business statement. May I, too, wish her a very happy birthday for Sunday? I am sure the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will also send her a Betamax video tape of MP4 playing, along with the cassette that he is going to send.
Will we be getting Thursday 24 May for Backbench Business? We have business that could fill the slots then, if they are available. Last week, I also mentioned 14 June, which would be in the week leading up to the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Windrush. It is proposed that a debate on Windrush would happen on that date in Backbench time, if time was available.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his birthday wishes. As ever, I will of course seek to accommodate his requests.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for so robustly defending the rights of Back Benchers on both sides of the House. Will my right hon. Friend postpone the sitting, scheduled for Monday, of the Delegated Legislation Committee at which the Government propose to abolish Christchurch Borough Council, against the will of the citizens of Christchurch? I ask my right hon. Friend to do so because Christchurch Borough Council, on the advice of leading counsel, has issued a letter before action against the Government, and the Government have asked for extra time in which to respond to that letter. It seems to me that it is reasonable for us to see the Government’s written response to the letter before action before Back Benchers are asked to vote on this issue, and I hope she will agree that that is a perfectly reasonable request. The Government cannot have it both ways: they cannot delay issuing a decision while at the same time asserting that what they are doing is absolutely right.
Andrea Leadsom
I do not know whether you have any particular constitutional view on this matter, Mr Speaker, but I am certainly unaware of the specifics. I will have to seek advice on it, and come back to my hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the Leader of the House, although I was not looking to come in on this matter. The timing on this subject—in terms of where the power lies—is a matter for the Government. Ultimately, it is for the Leader of the House and others to make a judgment about what seems right and reasonable, in the light of the prospective legal action and of the view, just put, of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). The Chair would not seek to intercede.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
May I gently correct the Leader of the House? She described this as groundhog day, but as you will know, Mr Speaker, groundhog day is actually on 2 February. It is a superstition that if the groundhog emerges from its burrow and sees a shadow, then winter continues for a further six weeks. The Trade Bill and the customs Bill—the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill—emerged from their burrows in Committee on 1 February, well over six weeks ago, so even if we were working on the groundhog principle, we should have had them back on the Floor of the House by now. When are we going to see them?
Andrea Leadsom
I really enjoyed the film of that title, which was about the day repeating itself. [Interruption.] Yes, it probably was on video tape at the time.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s very clear question, a very complex negotiation is under way, as he will know, and at the same time there is a necessity to legislate. We look very carefully at all amendments that are brought forward, and we try to make sure that we do not get ahead of the negotiation or indeed of policy proposals coming from the Government. The timing is therefore very much subject to the overall consideration of the best way in which we can leave the European Union with a good deal for both the United Kingdom and for our EU friends and neighbours.
Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
We plant trees for those born later—they are totems of enduring certainty—so the whole House will have been alarmed to hear that Network Rail is to spend £800 million felling 1 million of them. Trees have adorned railway lines, providing a habitat for wildlife and adding to the aesthetic efficacy of journeys, since the time of Stephenson. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement by the Environment Secretary or perhaps by the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), who has helpfully delayed this, so that Network Rail can reconsider this violent decision, which is either careless or crass? Those born later deserve better.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely share my right hon. Friend’s love of trees. I understand that Ministers have called for a review of the decision to fell this number of trees. I also understand that Network Rail is responsible for some 13 million trees and that it is seeking to ensure maximum safety for rail passengers. Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and he will be aware that Ministers are already looking into this matter.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will agree that a key part of the northern powerhouse involves equipping our young people with the skills and qualifications they need for the new industries that we have been attracting to Hull, particularly the renewables industry. Hull College is currently experiencing strike action over so-called “fresh start” plans to cut courses, reduce student tuition time and axe 231 jobs to address a £10 million deficit. May we have a debate on the distribution of further education funding and whether that is helping or hindering the objectives of the northern powerhouse?
Andrea Leadsom
I entirely support and share the hon. Lady’s enthusiasm for the superb actions taking place in Hull and other nearby areas regarding renewables, and particularly in getting young people the skills they need to have a worthwhile career in that area. The Government have sought to make it easier for more young people to go into higher and further education by removing the cap on further education numbers. The specific point raised by the hon. Lady would lend itself to an Adjournment debate, so that she can raise those problems directly with Ministers.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
May we have a statement on what progress has been made towards ensuring the release of Leah Sharibu, who is currently being held hostage in Nigeria?
Andrea Leadsom
This is a very harrowing case, and our thoughts are with Leah Sharibu and her family. The Government of Nigeria have assured the public that all efforts are being deployed to secure her return. The Foreign Secretary spoke to the Nigerian Vice-President on 26 February and offered additional UK assistance, following the abductions from Dapchi. We continue to call for the release of the remaining Chibok girls and all those abducted by Boko Haram. Attacks on schools and abductions of children are abhorrent and must stop.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I have recently been made aware of an indefensible situation in my constituency. It concerns a young couple—he is aged 25, and she is 17. Because she is only 17, she does not qualify for universal credit, yet her partner cannot include her in his claim. However, since she has a part-time job, that reduces his claim. That is completely unacceptable. It is grossly unfair if a person is denied access to support because of their age, and it is also unfair to expect their income to reduce their partner’s claim. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss young people and their place within the welfare system? We must end this unfair treatment and ensure that common sense prevails in such cases.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important constituency case, and she will be aware that the Government have been trying to promote apprenticeships and higher education for young people, to enable them to get the skills to have a good career with a decent income and to provide for themselves and their families. She raises a specific point about universal credit and its application to young people, and she might like to raise her constituency case during questions to the Department for Work and Pensions on 21 May.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
My constituents in Stirling are concerned about the state of Scotland’s economy, and this week it was revealed that the SNP Scottish Government have missed five major economic targets—targets they set for themselves—which has cost Scotland more than £80 billion. May we have a debate on the prosperity of the nations and regions of the United Kingdom?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend rightly raises the important issue of the comparative performance of Scotland under the Scottish nationalists versus the performance of England. Our Budget delivered a £2 billion boost to the Scottish Government’s budget, so that by 2020 the block grant will have grown to more than £31 billion before adjustments for tax devolution. That is a real-terms increase, and I encourage my hon. Friend to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can tackle his concerns head-on.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
May we debate discrimination against women in golf clubs? My constituent Lowri Roberts wanted to play golf on a Saturday, but she was banned from doing so because she was a woman. After she complained in the media, she was suspended from Cottrell Park golf course in the Vale of Glamorgan. Is that not an absolute disgrace in this day and age?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate to see what more can be done to sort out this ridiculous incident.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
After this harsh winter, the menace of potholes is becoming much more than a minor nuisance in West Oxfordshire, and not just on the A40, which in any event requires major upgrades, but across the whole of my rural area. Oxfordshire County Council is fixing tens of thousands of potholes a year, but has the time not come for a full debate across the whole House to discuss the way forward?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituency and I congratulate him on his work both on congestion and potholes in his area. I am sure he will be as delighted as I am that he and his colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), have managed to achieve nearly £500,000 in extra pothole action funding for 2018-19 in Oxfordshire. Nevertheless, he is right to raise this issue and I suggest he perhaps seeks a Backbench business debate, because potholes are a menace everywhere.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is it not time for the Government to have a binding vote to address the injustice of 1950s-born women, like my constituent Heather Cameron, a teacher who has had to retire early? Does the Leader of the House not agree that it is now time to put this injustice to bed?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there have been a number of debates on this subject and the Government have moved significantly to restrict any losses suffered by women who were born at that particular time. If he wants to raise a further debate on the subject, I encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall debate.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
As the Leader of the House is aware, Public Works Loan Board funds can be used by local councils to borrow money at a very cheap rate. Taunton Deane Borough Council is borrowing £16 million to build a brand new hotel with no operator. We must have an urgent debate on cheap borrowing and the way that Government funds are being used to prop up local government.
Andrea Leadsom
The Government have been very keen to help and support local areas to make decisions that are in the interests of their local communities and local residents. We will continue to do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As recently as the past weekend, there have been reports of armed Fulani herders committing violent attacks in Nigeria. According to the African Centre for Strategic Studies, over 60,000 people have died in Fulani herder-related violence since 2001. Over the past three years, the Fulani herder militia is thought to have killed more people than Boko Haram. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this very pressing issue as soon as possible?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly concerning issue, and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so he can raise it directly with Ministers.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
A constituent of mine has raised the issue of price manipulation of gold and silver bullion. There have been several cases in the United States which have resulted in considerable fines on banks. May we have a debate on this very important issue, because gold and silver are not merely a store of value, but have extremely important uses in manufacturing and, in the case of silver, as a kind of antibiotic?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. I absolutely sympathise with the fact that it is vital that we do not allow the manipulation of any particular markets. I encourage him to take this issue up directly, perhaps at Treasury questions on 22 May.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
In this year as we celebrate 100 years of women’s suffrage, will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating my constituent Masudah Ali on being voted 12th in the top future 100 women across UK universities? Will she agree to have a debate on talented young women and the role they can play in public life?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Masudah Ali, her constituent. That is fantastic. To be predicted to be one of the future 100 female leaders is an amazing thing to achieve—all congratulations to her. I think there will be many opportunities this year to debate the achievements and the prospects for women in this 100 years of female suffrage.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming the Tour Series bike race to Redditch this evening? It is a testament to the hard work of Worcestershire County Council and Redditch Borough Council, which, as she will be aware, has converted to Conservative control this year after a historic victory. As we work to further unlock Redditch’s potential, does she agree that our record of hosting world-class sporting events means that we are well placed to benefit from the Commonwealth games, which are taking place in Birmingham, just up the road from us? May we have a debate in this place about how we spread the benefits of hosting the Commonwealth games across the whole west midlands area?
Andrea Leadsom
I congratulate my hon. Friend again on her triumph at the local elections—it was great news for her and for her constituents. I am sure that getting that particular cycling event into her area was in part due to her work, so I congratulate her on that. She is right to raise the question how the benefits from the arrival of the Commonwealth games can be spread across the whole area, and I encourage her to perhaps seek an Adjournment debate or to raise the matter with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to make sure that everybody benefits from the fantastic hosting of those games.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I have met a number of constituents who have been subject to online abuse, including one woman who spoke about resorting to using a food bank on the BBC’s “Question Time” and was hounded online. May we have an urgent debate in Government time about how we tackle the vile practice of online abuse?
Andrea Leadsom
I am really sorry to hear about the hon. Lady’s constituent. That is absolutely appalling, and unfortunately it is all too regular an occurrence. I agree that it would be a good thing for this House to debate; she might like to seek a Backbench business debate. She will be aware that the Government are taking action through the Law Commission review to ensure that everything that is illegal offline is also illegal online.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Notable among the successful candidates in the North East Lincolnshire Council elections were Callum Procter and Oliver Freeston, because of their relative youth. Indeed, the Grimsby Telegraph reports that Oliver Freeston is the youngest councillor in the country—he now represents Croft Baker ward in Cleethorpes. May we a debate in Government time to look at how we encourage young people to stand for elected office?
Andrea Leadsom
Congratulations to Oliver Freeston and to my hon. Friend on the success in the local elections. He is exactly right: we do want to encourage more people to come into Parliament. As we often discuss, it is vital to ensure that people feel that they can be respected and are not threatened or abused online or in person when they decide that they want to put themselves forward to support and represent their constituents and to make this world of ours a better place.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
When will we see a Government decision on the maximum stakes for fixed odds betting terminals? The Times reports today that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has stymied progress on dealing with these addictive betting machines.
Andrea Leadsom
We all want to see more steps taken to prevent and to get rid of the problem of gambling addiction. The Government will come forward soon with our proposed recommendations following the consultation that has been taking place.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend may be aware, Angus Council is due to remove Stracathro Primary School from the consultation on the closure of rural schools. This is in no small part down to the vibrant campaign by my local constituents and parents from the school, and I fully endorse that campaign. Will my right hon. Friend agree to a debate in this House about the importance of community engagement?
Andrea Leadsom
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. She is a very strong voice for her constituents, and I am very happy to congratulate the parents and pupils of the schools on the successful campaign that they have run.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on the provision of extra care housing? Tory-controlled Nottinghamshire County Council has just announced the closure of five of its care homes across the whole of the county, including one, Leivers Court, in Arnold in my constituency. This is at a time when there is a shortage of such housing. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people across the country are in hospitals because they are unable to be discharged into these types of facilities. It is a real problem, and the reason that the county council is doing this is that it saves it £4.3 million.
Andrea Leadsom
I am very concerned to hear about that. The hon. Gentleman may wish to seek an Adjournment debate to raise it directly with Ministers. As he knows, however, the Prime Minister’s personal domestic priority is new housing for all types of people, whether they need extra care or are just starting out on the housing ladder. That is a top priority for the Government, and we are making progress with it.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Your own Speaker’s whisky, Mr Speaker, is distilled in Speyside, in my constituency. We recently had another very successful Spirit of Speyside Whisky Festival, at which 116 events were sold out within 24 hours. May we have a debate on whisky tourism? That would allow me to thank the chairman of the festival, James Campbell, for the excellent work that he and others do and to congratulate all the award winners, including Ian Urquhart and Laurie Piper.
Andrea Leadsom
Let me extend my congratulations to Ian Urquhart and Laurie Piper on their successes and congratulate my hon. Friend on raising a very important issue. The whisky industry is the United Kingdom’s largest single food and drink sector and accounts for 80% of Scottish food and drink exports. Having had the great pleasure of touring some of Scotland’s finest food and drink businesses, including a visit to the Scotch Whisky Association, I absolutely concur with him that these superb products are vital to the UK economy.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
In Swansea, the UK Government have cut £1.7 billion of rail investment, breaking David Cameron’s promise to invest in rail electrification. As a result, the Virgin Media centre has closed, and 470 jobs have moved to Manchester because of HS2. When will we have a debate particularly on investment in areas that have convergence funding and that stand to lose that money because of Brexit, at a time when we need vital investment in, for instance, rail and the tidal lagoon?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman has raised a series of very significant issues. I encourage him to raise them directly during Transport questions on 24 May.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. As colleagues will know, there is a statement to follow. I have no idea how well subscribed it will be, but it is on an important matter. Moreover, the first, in particular, of the two Backbench Business debates is very well subscribed. I would like to accommodate remaining colleagues, but I should be very grateful if they felt able to be especially pithy today.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
I recently visited the charity Carers’ Resource in Bradford. That charity, along with the 7 million unpaid carers for both the young and old across the UK, have been waiting since 2016 for the Government to publish a national carers strategy and action plan. Can the Leader of the House tell us when that report will be published, and will she grant Government time for us to discuss these important issues on the Floor of the House?
Andrea Leadsom
Let me first join the hon. Lady in thanking all the carers up and down the country who do so much in our communities. If she would like to write to me, I will see whether I can obtain further information on where the report is.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
In my constituency last year, mum of three Hamida Sidat had her life brutally taken away from her when she was hit by an unlicensed, uninsured driver who left the scene of the accident. He was later sentenced to two years in jail. May we have a debate on when the Government will introduce the Bill to increase the sentences given to those who are found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, which they promised to introduce in October 2017?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady has raised a harrowing case and I am very sorry to hear about it. The Attorney General is sitting on the Front Bench and has heard what she has said. I will certainly ask him for a further update.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
May we have an oral statement from the Cabinet Office on why the devolution guidance notes relating to Wales, and Wales alone, in respect of withdrawal from the European Union have been changed and no longer presume that legislative consent is required for changes in devolved competence? That fundamentally undermines the Welsh constitution, which has been endorsed in two separate referendums.
Andrea Leadsom
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government are absolutely committed to working closely with each of the devolved Administrations on all issues relating to Brexit legislation, and we will continue to do so.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
I am feeling extremely frustrated. There were two shootings in my constituency this weekend. What are the Government doing about this? They say they have published a serious violence strategy, yet time and again we have asked questions here about when we will be able to debate that strategy. So my question is very simple: when will we have that promised debate here?
Andrea Leadsom
First, I thank the hon. Lady for all the work she does. She has raised this issue a number of times. I am looking to provide a slot. There are many competing priorities for time in this Chamber, as she will appreciate, but I am aware of the appalling violence that took place over the weekend, some of it in her constituency. The UK has some of the toughest gun laws in the world and we are determined to keep it that way. We have already consulted on new laws on offensive and dangerous weapons and we will bring forward further measures as soon as we are able to do so.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Community transport is vital to many of my older and disabled constituents, but proposed changes by the Department for Transport risk imposing huge costs on local providers, including Wandsworth Community Transport. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss this important issue and the potential impact and loss of transport services for older and disabled people?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important issue and I can absolutely agree. My constituency also has issues involving the loss of community transport. It is a very important matter. I encourage her to raise it directly at Transport oral questions on 24 May.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Eight weeks today, we will be marking the 70th anniversary of the NHS. How will the House be marking that and will the Leader of the House make sure that there is significant Government time to debate the serious challenges now facing the NHS?
Andrea Leadsom
I know that we will all want to celebrate the amazing achievements of the NHS. A lot of consideration is being given now to exactly how we can celebrate it. The hon. Lady may be aware that there will be a debate next Wednesday, 16 May, on the 70th anniversary of the NHS and public health, which she might want to attend. I am delighted that the Government have provided over £14 billion more to spend on caring for people than in 2010 and that there are almost 42,500 more clinical staff looking after patients than in 2010.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may be aware that in many of our businesses and shopping centres across the UK there is a distinct lack of changing places such as slightly larger disabled toilets with facilities mainly for adults and children in wheelchairs. Will she find time for a debate in Government time on this important subject and try to encourage businesses to invest in their services to ensure people have these much needed changing areas?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman raising this point. I agree that it is vital that there are places for people to change, whether they have babies or are people with disabilities. I encourage him to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate so he can take it up directly with Ministers.
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
The other week, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) led a very successful debate in Westminster Hall on the work of the Council of Europe, in which the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) called for an annual debate in this Chamber on that topic in Government time. That was unanimously supported, so will the Leader of the House look at this proposal seriously and report back to tell us her view?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important point. It has been suggested that the Council of Europe may become increasingly important and relevant as we seek to leave the European Union. I am always happy to hear suggestions from the House and to consider them seriously.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
A constituent of mine has now twice been refused a visitor visa for her mother, once after her infant child died in 2016 from the rare genetic condition GM1 gangliosidosis, and recently again when she applied for her mother to come and visit her son, who, sadly, has the same genetic progressive disorder. May we have a debate in Government time about compassion in the Home Office because it is sorely needed?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will be aware that the Home Office is looking carefully at ensuring the right level of sympathy and empathy in particular cases. She raises an important constituency case that I suggest she take up directly with Home Office Ministers, or if she writes to me, I can take it up with them on her behalf.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, I asked the Leader of the House for a statement on whether the long-overdue NHS pay award for staff would be fully funded, and she advised me to bring it up in Health questions. I tried to do that on Tuesday but unfortunately was not chosen. Can she advise me on how I might obtain either a statement or a debate on whether the pay award will be fully funded?
Andrea Leadsom
I suggest that the hon. Lady table a parliamentary written question, which would get her the answer she seeks, but I think we can all celebrate the fact that more than 1 million NHS workers will benefit from the new pay deal. In particular, the lowest starting salary in the NHS will increase from £15,404 to £18,000 in 2020-21.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
This week, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee held a joint hearing on the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. In Swansea and Gower, we are absolutely desperate for some good news, following the tragic job losses this week. Please can we have some good news for south Wales, and please will the Leader of the House find time to discuss the urgency of a decision on the tidal lagoon?
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s request. As she will know, there has been a lengthy discussion, particularly about the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, on the grounds that it is a very expensive and complex project. Nevertheless, I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can take up directly with a Minister what the progress is on that important project.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Scottish Gas Networks installed a gas meter in my constituent’s property, and it did it such that the on-off metal lever was cutting into an electric cable, which is an obvious danger. It has been rectified, but he feels that Gas Safe, the body that holds gas registrations, has not investigated properly. I have asked an inspector to get in touch with my office, but he has ignored me. I wrote to the chief executive at the end of March but have not even had an acknowledgement. Can we have a statement on how I can hold this body to account and how my constituent can get answers about this dangerous installation?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter in this place, and perhaps that in itself will spark a reply. He could also write to BEIS Ministers and ask them to look into it on his behalf.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
A few weeks ago, I and over 50 colleagues from across the House wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the Polish holocaust law. I have not had a response, but I have since learnt that the Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum has had thousands of hate-filled emails and communications and holocaust denials. The law was passed by the Law and Justice party, a sister party of the Conservative party. May we have an urgent debate in this place about the Polish holocaust law?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. If he writes to me with details of his letter, I can ask the Foreign Office to reply to him urgently.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My constituents Mr and Mrs Owen are law-abiding citizens with a strong interest in animal welfare, and as such have reported illegal hunting activities to Cheshire police several times, but one day they found themselves visited by officers from the counter-terrorism unit. We have never had a straight answer about how they ended up coming to the unit’s attention. Can we have a debate please on greater transparency within the police?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a concerning issue. I encourage him to write to Ministers to get a proper answer.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Some 50% of people diagnosed with Parkinson’s will go on to suffer from depression, anxiety and hallucinations. Yesterday, the all-party group on Parkinson’s, which I chair along with Baroness Gale, and Parkinson’s UK published a report, “Mental health matters too”. One fifth of people with Parkinson’s will not gain access to mental health services. Can we have a statement from the Government on how they intend to ensure that people with Parkinson’s have an equal right to mental health support?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. There is an increasing awareness that many long-term conditions have mental health problems associated with them. The Government are committed to achieving greater parity of esteem between physical and mental health and are putting significant new funding into expanding mental health services. I encourage her to seek a further debate so that she can raise this particular issue directly with Ministers.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Last night, Basford United completed an unforgettable league and cup double and secured yet another promotion. This is a well-run football club that makes a real impact on the pitch, but also off the pitch by sharing its facilities with the rest of our community. May we have a debate in Government time on the impact of non-league football?
Andrea Leadsom
May I first congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s team? I also pay tribute to its desire to share its facilities with the community. That is incredibly important. I am sure that there would be plenty of support for a Backbench business debate on the contribution of football teams such as his, if he were to seek one.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I should particularly like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for all your work on disability inclusion, which has been invaluable. May we have a debate on the inadequacy of personal independence payment and employment and support allowance assessments for individuals with brain injury? Research by Headway has found that 76% of respondents said that it was difficult to explain the effects of brain injury due to the nature of the forms, and 71% felt that the assessors did not understand their brain injury. We are failing a very vulnerable group.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. The matter of brain injury is raised quite frequently in this Chamber, and I know that a good meeting took place yesterday with the Brain Injury Association. She will be aware that we have Department for Work and Pensions oral questions on 21 May. I urge her to raise this matter directly with Ministers then.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the impact of rail franchising on passengers? The service provided by Northern Rail through my constituency has been appalling for months and hit new lows this week. I think my constituents would very much appreciate a full debate on this matter.
Andrea Leadsom
I am genuinely sorry to hear that. The hon. Lady might like to seek an Adjournment debate to talk about her particular constituency experiences. I can say to her, however, that we are making a huge investment in the railways, with around £48 billion to be spent between 2019 and 2024. We want to make that funding count and ensure that we take advantage of the best technologies, with the specific desire to give passengers a better journey experience as a result.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker, and your colleagues for your attendance at our predecessor Michael Martin’s requiem mass in Glasgow yesterday. I am sure you will remember how poignant Michael’s effort was to promote social housing construction in Glasgow over many years, and I was delighted to learn last night that one of the housing associations that he was closely involved with, Hawthorn Housing Co-operative, had been awarded a platinum Investors in People award as well as a gold Investors in Young People award. That is a great testament to his legacy of promoting social housing in Glasgow. However, social housing problems are as critical and acute as they ever were, in the city of Glasgow and all around the UK, so please will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on the critical issue of providing more social housing for the people of this country?
Andrea Leadsom
I join the hon. Gentleman in again paying tribute to the ex-Speaker, Michael Martin, and I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your effort to go there and be part of his funeral. I am sure that that was appreciated by his family and friends. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s constituency business on receiving those fantastic awards and on all it is doing for social housing. I can tell him that it is the Prime Minister’s personal priority to address all areas of our housing shortage across the United Kingdom. In terms of affordable and social housing, a further £2 billion is now going into affordable homes, which brings the Government’s commitment to social, council and low-cost homes up to more than £9 billion, which we believe will make a significant difference.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Please may we have a debate on what more the Government can do to support our steel industry, not least because this week Tata announced plans to sell part of its UK business, including Cogent in my constituency? We need a sector deal for steel.
Andrea Leadsom
This is an important industry for the United Kingdom, and I know that all right hon. and hon. Members want to ensure that we continue to have a thriving steel sector. The hon. Lady has spoken about this a number of times, and she is right to do so. I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can talk directly to Ministers about what more can be done to defend the sector.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on Virgin Media’s decision to close its flagship site in my constituency? There are currently 772 jobs at risk, but Virgin Media’s management are being obstructive by denying Assembly Members and Members of Parliament access to the staff.
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sorry to hear about that, and the hon. Lady is right to raise the matter in the House. I encourage her to seek an early Adjournment debate so that she can take the matter up directly with Ministers.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
Tomorrow evening, Cardiff Blues will play in the final of the European challenge cup. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing them luck and in congratulating Cardiff City on winning promotion to the premier league and Cardiff Devils on winning the ice hockey elite league? May we have a debate on the great sporting successes of Cardiff?
Andrea Leadsom
May I offer huge congratulations to Cardiff and to the hon. Lady on raising its successes? I am absolutely sure that her constituents will be delighted to hear their achievements being proclaimed in this place.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Antisocial behaviour is a big issue in my constituency. The vandalism, nuisance neighbours and repeated aggressive behaviour are often described as low level but they can make life a living hell for the victims. May we have a debate on whether the existing tools are tough enough?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is exactly right. Antisocial behaviour is a real blight on people’s lives and I am sure that we have all had constituency cases involving people who simply cannot cope with these levels of antisocial behaviour. A lot has been done to give the police more powers to tackle this, but I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate or perhaps a Backbench business debate, so that all Members can share their views with Ministers.
Sir Christopher Chope
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This arises directly from business questions, during which we made reference to the Delegated Legislation Committee that is due to sit on Monday afternoon to discuss the abolition of Christchurch Borough Council. Because this hybrid instrument affects Christchurch exclusively, I applied to serve on the Committee that will consider it—I made my application to the Selection Committee. I hoped that I would then be able to raise in Committee the criticism that has been made from the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as well as issues relating to the instrument being a retrospective measure, which, as I said, is the subject of potential legal proceedings. What can be done to reverse the Selection Committee’s decision that I should not be allowed to be a full member of the Delegated Legislation Committee? It is surely right that minority interests, particularly when one constituency is uniquely affected, should be able to be fully represented on a Committee. Obviously, I can attend the Committee, but I cannot participate fully in it. Is there any remedy available through which I can try to get myself on to that Committee?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his point of order, and I will respond to it when I have heard the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).
Sir Edward Leigh
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, may I say that no one in this House has worked harder on the issue than he has? He is the local Member, and he has fought almost a one-man campaign. It defies logic and belief that he is the one person who should be excluded from the Committee. He has a right to be heard.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch and to his hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough, who has just spoken in his support. My response is as follows. There is nothing whatsoever to prevent the hon. Member for Christchurch from attending the Committee. Moreover, if he wishes to speak in the proceedings of the Committee, he will be eligible to do so, and I am sure that, under any fair-minded Chair, he will have the opportunity to do that. I accept that the non-appointment of the hon. Gentleman to the Committee is an important detriment so far as he is concerned, but it simply means that although he can attend and speak, he cannot vote if he is not a member of the Committee.
Secondly, no obvious means occur to me whereby the decision can be reversed. There is no procedural opportunity via the Chair, for example, or initiated by anyone other than the Government via the Chamber. Some people might think—I think this is the gravamen of the point raised by the hon. Member for Gainsborough—that it is perhaps less than collegiate, kind or courteous on the part of the powers that be knowingly and deliberately to exclude the hon. Member for Christchurch from the Committee. Unfortunately, in matters of this kind, the Chair has no responsibility for collegiality, courtesy or kindness. The Leader of the House, however, is an extremely senior figure in our political system. As she has pointed out, she is well aware that she is not just the Government’s representative in the House, but the House’s representative in the Government. She may feel that she does have such a role, and she may or may not wish to be sensitive to the concerns that her hon. Friends have raised, but that has to be a matter for her. I might suggest that perhaps she and the hon. Gentleman have a cup of tea together. I have known the hon. Gentleman for over 30 years, and he is a formidable parliamentarian. Certainly, he should be treated accordingly.
Belhaj and Boudchar: Litigation Update
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Attorney General (Jeremy Wright)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. In 2012, Mr Abdul Hakim Belhaj and his wife, Mrs Fatima Boudchar, brought a claim against the United Kingdom Government and two individuals: the right hon. Jack Straw, the former Foreign Secretary; and Sir Mark Allen, a former director at the Foreign Office. The claimants alleged that the UK Government were complicit in their abduction, detention and rendition to Libya in 2004, and in the treatment they suffered at the hands of others. Mrs Boudchar was pregnant at the time.
The claimants’ case, in outline, is that in early 2004, they were detained and forcibly conveyed through a number of jurisdictions by others, ultimately to be handed over to the Libyan regime of which Mr Belhaj was an opponent. During this period, they were subjected to a harrowing ordeal that caused them significant distress. Mrs Boudchar was released from detention in Libya in June 2004 and gave birth shortly afterwards. Mr Belhaj was not released until March 2010
The claims against Jack Straw and Sir Mark Allen were withdrawn on 3 May 2018. Today, I can announce to the House that, following mediation, the UK Government have reached a full and final settlement of Mr Belhaj’s and Mrs Boudchar’s claims. I pay tribute to the constructive way in which Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar have approached the mediation. This has been a long-running and hugely complex piece of litigation that has been difficult for all individuals involved as parties.
As we have seen in recent years, there remains a considerable international threat to the UK and our allies. It is important that the Government, and the security and intelligence agencies, are able to respond properly to keep our country safe, but it is also important that we should act in line with our values and in accordance with the rule of law. That means that when we get things wrong, it is right and just that we acknowledge it, compensate those affected and learn lessons. I believe this is such a case.
The settlement of this claim has been agreed out of court. The main elements of the agreement I can report to the House are as follows. First, no admissions of liability have been made by any of the defendants in settling these claims. Secondly, the claimants have now withdrawn their claims against all the defendants. Thirdly, the Government have agreed to pay Mrs Boudchar £500,000; Mr Belhaj did not seek and has not been given any compensation. Finally, I have met Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar—indeed, Mrs Boudchar is present in the Gallery to hear this statement—and the Prime Minister has now written to them both to apologise.
I think it right that I should set out to the House the terms of that apology in full:
“The Attorney General and senior UK Government officials have heard directly from you both about your detention, rendition and the harrowing experiences you suffered. Your accounts were moving and what happened to you is deeply troubling. It is clear that you were both subjected to appalling treatment and that you suffered greatly, not least the affront to the dignity of Mrs Boudchar, who was pregnant at the time. The UK Government believes your accounts. Neither of you should have been treated in this way.
The UK Government’s actions contributed to your detention, rendition and suffering. The UK Government shared information about you with its international partners. We should have done more to reduce the risk that you would be mistreated. We accept this was a failing on our part.
Later, during your detention in Libya, we sought information about and from you. We wrongly missed opportunities to alleviate your plight: this should not have happened.
On behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, I apologise unreservedly. We are profoundly sorry for the ordeal that you both suffered and our role in it.
The UK Government has learned many lessons from this period. We should have understood much sooner the unacceptable practices of some of our international partners. And we sincerely regret our failures.”
I hope that the Government’s acknowledgment of these events in those unequivocal terms, and the apology they have each been given, will be of some comfort to Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar. As the Prime Minister observed in her letter to them both, the Government have learned lessons from this period.
These events took place in the period after the 11 September 2001 attacks. It was a period in which we and our international partners were suddenly adapting to a completely new type and scale of threat. It is clear, with the benefit of hindsight, that the Government, the agencies and their staff were, in some respects, not prepared for the extreme demands suddenly placed on them. The unacceptable practices of some of our international partners should have been understood much sooner.
The Government have enacted reforms to ensure that the problems of the past will not be repeated. We have made it clear that Ministers must be consulted whenever UK personnel involved in a planned operation believe that a detainee is at serious risk of mistreatment by a foreign state. We have also improved Parliament’s ability to oversee the actions of the agencies through the Justice and Security Act 2013.
The Intelligence and Security Committee is a Committee of Parliament and is fully independent of the Government. It has a statutory right to review past intelligence operations, and the Committee and its staff have direct access to agency papers. These reforms mean that the framework within which the UK now operates is very different from that in the early 2000s.
I end by reiterating that vital work is done to keep us safe and that we aspire to the highest ethical standards. When those standards are not met, it is right that we apologise, that we compensate those who have suffered as a result and that we make whatever changes we can to avoid the same thing happening again. That is the approach we have now taken in this case and, as such, I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Attorney General for that statement, which very properly will have been heard by Mrs Boudchar and a great many others.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Attorney General for the statement and for advance sight of it.
Mrs Boudchar is indeed in the Public Gallery, and I am sure the whole House will sympathise with her and with Mr Belhaj. They suffered appalling treatment at the hands of others. What happened to them both is deeply disturbing, and I can only hope that the settlement of the legal case allows some closure on a terrible set of events.
The Prime Minister has written to Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar to apologise for the appalling treatment they suffered. She was entirely right to do so and to accept, unequivocally and unreservedly, the failings on the part of the UK Government at that time. I, of course, agree with the Attorney General that our security and intelligence services carry out great work in helping to make us all safe, but the rule of law must always be respected and must always guide the Government’s actions. Our security and intelligence services must be properly overseen. When things do go wrong, it is right to acknowledge that in very clear terms, to do what can be done to make recompense and to learn lessons going forward. The Attorney General’s statement rightly raised problems regarding information sharing, the need for more actions to reduce the risk of mistreatment and missed opportunities to alleviate suffering. We can and must do all that we can to stop this happening again.
The relationship between our intelligence and security services and the Government is now subject to a different framework, which is a welcome step forward. The statutory rights of the Intelligence and Security Committee, independent of the Government, to review past intelligence operations and to have direct access to agency papers are important. It is crucial that Ministers will be consulted whenever UK personnel are involved in a planned operation and believe that a detainee is at serious risk of mistreatment by another state. I appreciate that the Attorney General is, understandably, limited in what he can say openly, but I would ask for an assurance that such consultation with Ministers will be detailed, considered and informed by as much information as can be reasonably made available to them at the time.
Will the Attorney General assure me that we will always be vigilant in ensuring that the framework within which our intelligence and security services operate is robust and always shaped by our values of the rule of law, liberty and human rights? After all, it is only by behaving according to those standards ourselves that we can stand up for those values all around the world.
The Attorney General
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the tone of them. He is right to say that one thing we should seek to achieve, not least for Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar, is the ability for them to have closure and to move on with their lives. He is also right to say that the framework in place for the future must be properly robust and ensure that this kind of thing does not happen again. He asked me about consultation with Ministers on questions of this nature. I am sure he will be aware of the consolidated guidance published by the coalition Government in 2010, which of course we keep under review. It indicates clearly that when it comes to the treatment of detainees and information obtained from them, there are clear expectations of the intelligence agencies; where necessary, they should refer matters to Ministers; and when they do so Ministers should be properly informed of the background to the decisions they are being asked to take.
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, also right to say that the framework that surrounds all these activities must be fundamentally based on our values, one of which is the capacity of this Government or any Government to accept where mistakes have been made and apologise for them.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
As chairman of the all-party group on extraordinary rendition, may I unreservedly welcome this statement and the tone of it, and congratulate the Prime Minister and the Attorney General on producing it? My main regret is that it has taken so many years to produce it. These events took place in 2004, and as long ago as 2013 Mr Belhaj offered to settle this case for £3 compensation and an apology—that was rejected. The whole thing has now reached a much better resolution, and my right hon. and learned Friend has expressed all the sentiments we all feel about proper standards in the service. Does he accept that we now need to move quickly to the most important thing, which is to be reassured that nothing of this kind is likely to happen again and that our intelligence services will not get embroiled in such serious breaches of human rights?
The Intelligence and Security Committee is shortly to produce a report that covers these matters. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore assure me that it will be followed by a ministerial statement that will set out as clearly as is possible, given the security problems, the facts that the Government are now prepared to disclose as to how this happened and, more importantly, how future rules and the consolidated guidance are to be so revised that we can be reassured that for the foreseeable future it is highly unlikely that the British will ever be involved in such an embarrassing situation?
The Attorney General
I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that, and I share his regret that it has taken this long to resolve the matter. He may know that in recent months—and it has been recent months—the Prime Minister has asked me to look in particular at this case and to lead the mediation process that recently concluded. What needed to be done here was apparent to me very quickly following my involvement in the case: there needed to be a resolution of this matter and an apology. Although, as he knows, this is an immensely complex matter, legally, factually and in many other ways, it is extremely welcome that we have been able to resolve matters as we have.
In so far as reassurance for the future is concerned, my right hon. and learned Friend has heard me say something about, and of course he knows about, the changes that have been made, since the incidents I have described, to the systems that we apply here. He knows from his experience in government—I have certainly found this in mine—that the way in which decisions of this nature are taken is now fundamentally different from the way in which they previously were, and that provides us with some reassurance. He also mentions the ISC report, which we await. I hope he will be reassured to know that, as far as I know, the Committee has been provided with the information that it has asked for in relation to this case—I know the Committee will ask again if there is more that it requires. When it has produced its report, the Government will of course seek to respond in a meaningful way to it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Attorney General for the tone of his statement and for generously giving me advance sight of it. His statement acknowledges that a previous UK Government were complicit in the abduction, detention and rendition to Gaddafi’s Libya of a man who was an opponent of that vile regime. That is particularly shocking to us when we remember that the blood of so many innocent civilians, including British civilians, was on Gaddafi’s hands. The extraordinary rendition of Mrs Boudchar makes this even worse, particularly as she was pregnant at the time. I pay tribute to her fortitude in pressing this claim and in being here today.
The UK Government’s complicity in these events is shameful and is a gross breach of international humanitarian law, human rights and the rule of law. I am pleased that the Attorney General has acknowledged that lessons must be learned and sought to give us some reassurance for the future. May I ask him three questions? Will he specifically assure the House that such an occurrence could not take place again under a UK Government? Will he assure this House that in future information will not be shared with so-called international partners who flout international law and human rights? Can he tell us whether the investigations that have gone into settling this claim have uncovered whether what happened was part of the dark side of Tony Blair’s deal in the desert with Gaddafi in 2004?
The Attorney General
May I start at the end, but first express my gratitude to the hon. and learned Lady again for her remarks and the tone of them? She will understand that I cannot comment in detail about the position on the behaviour of the former Prime Minister and his Government. I am sure she will expect that Tony Blair has been told about the outcome of this process, and that is the case, but I cannot comment further on what happened during the course of his Government.
The other two questions the hon. and learned Lady asks are about the future, and she raises concerns that the whole House will have about how certain we can be that this will never happen again. The best that I can do is to restate the points that I have made about the changes that have occurred. She will be conscious of the substantial difference that the changes that I have described have made, not just to the processes that the Government apply in such cases but to the approach that they take to them. Formality needed to be brought back into these processes, and it is now there. The hon. and learned Lady will know that as Attorney General I am now a full member of the National Security Council; for me, that is a clear indication of the seriousness with which the Government take the questions of legality and the rule of law that must of course be at the heart of these judgments.
On the broader picture, the hon. and learned Lady will recognise that it is vital that the British Government and their agencies are able to recover intelligence that enables us to keep the British people safe, and it is difficult to give the absolute assurances that she seeks. The best that any Government can do is put in place the processes and practices that mean that the right values are applied to the judgments that we have to take, including in what are very difficult cases. I hope I have been clear that on this occasion we did not get those judgments right. We must do better in future.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. and learned Friend has done exactly the right thing today and has cleared up a disgraceful incident, which was of course not of this Government’s making. He has also underlined the debt that we owe to the men and women of the security and intelligence services, who almost always conduct themselves with complete propriety and effectiveness. The lesson from all this is surely that the officials who help us to stay safe and who defend our country in the shadows must never play fast and loose with human rights and international humanitarian law, which are the rocks on which the safety of us all depends.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that he sends to his opposite number in Washington the relevant details of this issue in respect of Gina Haspel, whose hearing for the role of CIA director is currently taking place? She was involved in the management of the black site in Thailand at which Fatima Boudchar was held and so grievously mistreated.
The Attorney General
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s opening comments. I am sure he will understand that I do not wish to be involved in the processes of the appointment of the new director of the CIA. Nevertheless, he asks perfectly reasonably that there is contact with our international partners about this case and that where we can we give information about it and about the way in which we have chosen to deal with it. Of course, we must also give the clearest possible signal to all our allies and those with whom we deal about what our standards are, what we expect and what we will not accept.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I congratulate the Attorney General on the statement and the sensitive way in which he put the argument.
First, I was a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee for 11 years, and in the period leading up to the 2010 election the Committee did a substantial amount of work on what consolidated guidance should look like. In the event, the coalition Government issued a completely different set of consolidated guidance. Will the Attorney General undertake to look at the work that was done by the Committee to see whether any additions can be taken from it?
Secondly, I am aware that, as has already been conceded, there were failures of record keeping and failures on the part of the agencies in respect of the way ministerial authorisations were sought at that time and in those sets of circumstances. I am aware that there have been improvements since then, but will the Attorney General undertake to keep both of those things under review? They are important and I suspect that they played a part in this particular case.
The Attorney General
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. On his first point, he is right that consolidated guidance should be kept under review. As I indicated to the shadow Solicitor General, the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), we will certainly seek to do that. The hon. Gentleman will know that the current ISC inquiry on detainees will, we hope, feed into a proper look again at whether the consolidated guidance is in the right place. It is worth making the point, which the hon. Gentleman will recognise from his experience of these matters, that the UK is unusual in the publication of such guidance. It is of course important that we recognise our failures on a day like this, but it is also important that we recognise where we lead the world, and there are some aspects in which we do. It is important not just that this information is available to those who participate in the work of the intelligence agencies, but that the public can see it and that the kind of debates we are having can be held in public.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, he will understand that Jack Straw, who was Foreign Secretary at that time, was an individual defendant in this case. I have made it clear that the claim against him has been dropped and there is no further pursuit of those allegations. I understand that Jack Straw will make his own statement later today. The points I have made are about the system more broadly, as are the points made by the hon. Gentleman. In relation to the system more broadly, it is important that we make what changes we can to ensure that we have the safeguards that we need to get as close as we can to a position in which we can answer the questions that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) asked earlier, in the most absolute terms that we can give.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement and congratulate the Attorney General on it and on the way he has handled this difficult and sensitive matter. It is right that the Prime Minister has responded promptly in the terms in which she has.
Will the Attorney General confirm not only that we are resolute in the maintenance of our adherence to all international and domestic legal standards and rules in this matter, but that in any revision of the consolidated guidance and any other procedures going forward, the involvement in a full sense of the Law Officers, and the full and complete documentation of all advice from the Law Officers to other members of the Government and to any operational agencies, will remain a central feature of the decision-making process?
The Attorney General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I can give him that reassurance. I indicated one element in which that reassurance manifests itself—full membership of the National Security Council for the Attorney General, which is a significant change—but there are others. I hope that I speak for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General in saying that we believe that our participation in these decisions is where it should be. We have the opportunity to get our points across and will make sure that that continues to be the case.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I thank the Attorney General for advance sight of the statement and commend him for what he described as his role in bringing this case to a conclusion, although it really should have come to a conclusion some years ago.
Before we rush to congratulate ourselves on getting to this point, we must not lose sight of the fact that this case and the al-Saadi case came to light only because somebody happened to find papers in Gaddafi’s palace in the days following the collapse of his regime. Surely, justice should never rely on events as arbitrary and random as that. If we are now to restore confidence in the proper working of our intelligence services, will the Attorney General carry out the public consultation on the consolidated guidance that the intelligence services commissioner has recommended?
The Attorney General
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He has taken a considerable interest in this case and I pay tribute to him for his continued attention to it.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, as I mentioned, the consolidated guidance is a public document, which of course permits the public to comment on it. In my view, that is as it should be. As he has heard me say, we will continue to look at whether the guidance is in the right place. I believe that we will be particularly spurred into that by the upcoming ISC report. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the public will have the opportunity to make their views known.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s first point, I think he and I are entirely in agreement that prevention is better than cure. It has been difficult to cure this case. I hope I have made it clear that we have done our best to resolve the case in a satisfactory fashion, but that is extremely difficult to do. It is far better to avoid such incidents occurring in the first place. It is about a system change and a culture change that brings that about, and I believe that in recent years—not least, may I say, under the coalition Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished member—we have seen those changes.
Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)
I thank the Attorney General for his statement today. I worked on this case in my previous role as a Government lawyer, as of course have many Government lawyers over the years, and even though there are clearly no winners today, I ask him to join me in praising the work of lawyers in the Treasury Solicitor’s Department and the Security Service lawyers who themselves provide a barrier, where one is needed, in the difficult balancing act between the rule of law and protecting national security. However, I ask him to tell us what lessons have been learned with regard to our ability to speed up litigation, because this matter has gone on for far too long. I thank him for getting personally involved in the mediation and for going to carry out that mediation himself.
The Attorney General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right that a huge amount of work has been put into this case by lawyers on all sides, and very few people register that fact when the case is concluded, however it comes to be concluded. As a fellow lawyer, she will agree with me that it is always better to resolve cases outside the courtroom if one can. It seemed to me that there was a clear imperative in this case to do exactly that. It was, in my view, in nobody’s interest for this case to continue through the courts and to drag out the difficulties that it had caused to all concerned. I am delighted to see that it has been resolved. That, of course, has been a team effort, and I hope very much that this will enable us to draw a line under this incident, recognising as I do that there are lessons to be learned for the future.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This has been a shameful episode. The Attorney General is right to express his sympathy and thanks to Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar. He should perhaps extend his sympathies to other victims of rendition such as the al-Saadi family, and his thanks to those who have represented them, such as the Reprieve organisation and Leigh Day solicitors, often in the face of great hostility from some politicians and sections of the press. This case has also shone a light on the Justice and Security Act 2013. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) took that Act through the Commons. I led the Opposition in Committee, and we expressed grave concerns about the ambit of that Act and the extension of closed material procedures. The Belhaj case over the past five years has justified those criticisms. Is this not the time to review that Act and the extent of closed material procedures, particularly if they look like they will encroach on criminal as well as civil proceedings?
The Attorney General
The hon. Gentleman heard me say that the process of resolving this case has taken considerable effort by not just the claimants themselves and others in the Government, but lawyers on both sides, and I am happy to repeat that. In relation to closed material proceedings, I am not sure that I would go as far as he does; I do not believe that this case demonstrates the lesson that he draws from it. I hope he will forgive me if I do not return to the arguments of 2013 around the Bill, not least because I wish to preserve the sanity of my right hon. and learned Friend, the Father of the House.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister says that he should not criticise the Blair Government, but we can. Has any apology been given this morning from Mr Blair for rendering an opponent of a murderous regime into the hands of that regime? I doubt whether any apology has been given, any more than an apology has been given over Iraq. Further to that, the British Government have, quite rightly, given an apology. The British taxpayer is now paying considerable amounts of compensation, and quite rightly, too. One might ask: what compensation has this murderous former Libyan Government given to the poor people who died in the Lockerbie incident?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend will be aware that the House is discussing just that matter later this afternoon. He will also know that the Government have not diminished their efforts to secure proper compensation in those cases. He knows—he has done it with me—that we have spent a good deal of time over the previous decade or so criticising the Blair Government, but my purpose today is to resolve the individual case that I have reported to the House. It seems to me a principle worth defending that the Government as an institution should take responsibility for what has happened here. In relation to the behaviour of individuals who were Ministers at the time or indeed civil servants, it is a principle worth defending that the Government continue to take responsibility for their actions. That is the best way to resolve cases of this nature.
David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend’s statement and apology today and congratulate both him and the Prime Minister on bringing a dignified end to this long-running case. Will he reaffirm that it is crucial that we always strike the correct balance between counter-terrorism and security and acting in accordance with the rule of law and, of course, our British values?
The Attorney General
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that we continue to strike that balance, and where we get it wrong, we say so.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Attorney General for his dignified and direct statement. It is absolutely right in these very troubling circumstances that the Government do not seek to cavil or equivocate. On two occasions in his statement, he referred to the unacceptable practices of international partners. Can he say anything more about what can be done to ensure that those do not persist in the future, and that if they do, the British Government play no part in them?
The Attorney General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will recognise that some of the changes that have been made since this incident have, I hope, encouraged us to ask better questions and to ask them more persistently. I made reference to the consolidated guidance, of which he will know, and in relation to such documents, we make it very clear that intelligence operatives should ask questions, before information is handed over, about what will be done with that information and what may then happen. Therefore, we do need to see better questions asked more repeatedly, and that, I believe, is one of the changes that is occurring.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
If there was a failure of the intelligence services under the Tony Blair Government then it is right that an apology should be made. However, my constituents in Kettering will be stunned by the scale of the compensation; half a million pounds is a sum to which they could never aspire. I would like to know how that sum was arrived at. I believe that I heard the Father of House correctly when he said that there was an earlier opportunity to settle this case without that scale of compensation. Can the Attorney General update the House on that?
The Attorney General
There certainly have been other efforts made to resolve this matter. They have not been successful for a variety of different reasons. The resolution of the case on this occasion did, as I said in my statement, involve some compensation to Mrs Boudchar. I hope my hon. Friend will understand that many of the details of that settlement are confidential and I cannot discuss them in the House, but he has my assurance that, conscious as I am of the need to ensure that no further taxpayer money was spent that did not need to be spent, I would have needed to satisfy myself that compensation of this nature was appropriate. Again, I do not wish to go into the detail of what happened to Mrs Boudchar. She has said some of that herself, and it is in the public domain, but I am afraid that the necessity of compensating for what happened to her is, in my view, beyond doubt and is part of the appropriate approach that the Government now need to take.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement and I trust that it will bring some closure to all those concerned. Will my right hon. and learned Friend indicate whether an assessment has been made, or will be made, of the impact that this settlement will have on intelligence sharing going forward?
The Attorney General
As I said earlier, the need to continue to share intelligence is vital. If we are to keep the British people safe from what are growing and more and more disparate threats, the flow of intelligence needs to continue, but none of that must be at the expense of the core values by which the United Kingdom lives. Therefore, we must strike the balance to which other Members have referred between continuing to deal with intelligence as my hon. Friend describes and making sure that our standards are maintained.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the tone of the Attorney General’s statement. For me, the key lesson from this is that those who argue that the ends justify the means in relation to our national security are mistaken. What are the key lessons that the Attorney General and the Government have taken from this case?
The Attorney General
My hon. Friend sums up one of those lessons well. It is important that, taking from what has happened here, we understand that system changes need to be made, and behavioural and cultural changes need to take place, some of which, in my view, are well under way. However, none of us should be complacent about them and we should all be vigilant to ensure that we continue to apply our values. My hon. Friend is right, too, that if we allow our values to erode, then so shall our influence around the world.
Mental Health: Failing a Generation
Health and Social Care Committee and Education Committee
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to address the House on behalf of the Health and Social Care Committee and the Education Committee. I am addressing the Select Committees’ report on the Government’s Green Paper on transforming children and young people’s mental health provision, which was published yesterday.
If I tell the House that the subtitle of our report is “failing a generation”, hon. Members will get a sense of our shared disappointment at the scope and scale of the Government’s Green Paper. We welcome the Green Paper but have serious concerns that it lacks ambition, as well as concerns about the very specific measures that it contains. It represents a huge missed opportunity. Every right hon. and hon. Member across the House will know that our mental health services are under enormous strain. There is growing demand that local services are often unable to meet. This is especially apparent when it comes to child and adolescent mental health services, or CAMHS. Our Committees reflect on the fact that half of all mental health conditions occur by the age of 14, and three quarters by the age of 24.
Around one in 10 children are living with some form of diagnosable mental health condition, but this figure stems from a prevalence study that was conducted back in 2004, and the results of a repeated study are not due until autumn this year. We heard from Jonathan Marron, the director general of community care at the Department of Health and Social Care, in an evidence session who said that this figure is not expected to go down. This represents hundreds of thousands of children and adolescents who will be affected by mental ill health, but for whom life should be filled with hope, opportunity and promise.
If ever there was a case for early intervention and, crucially, for preventive measures, it is children’s mental health. The earlier we diagnose and treat a child’s mental health condition when it appears, the better it is for the patient, their family and the NHS. If we leave it until there is a crisis, it is so much worse for those concerned, and costs the NHS and our country far more. So we might have hoped for a raft of preventive measures, tackling the root causes of mental ill health to keep our young people well. Instead, as we report, the Green Paper
“fails to consider how to prevent child and adolescent mental ill health in the first place.”
This is a terrible omission, for if we can tackle the causes of mental ill health in children, we can prevent a lifetime of mental ill health in adults.
There is a significant evidence base for the importance of the first 1,001 days of a child’s life in their development and wellbeing. The Green Paper itself indicated how early years brain development is a key factor for a child’s future and their mental and physical health. We know that there are key factors that are more likely to give rise to child mental health problems, such as parental mental health problems—especially perinatal mental health—and adverse childhood experiences. They were referenced in the Green Paper, but only in passing. If the Government really want to effect change, they need to adopt a preventive approach and do much more work to address the needs of key vulnerable groups at risk of adverse childhood experiences, and very young children as well.
What about the scale of the Green Paper? We report that it lacks ambition. The majority of children will not benefit from the Government’s proposals to roll out “trailblazer” pilot schemes to tackle waiting time targets. These schemes will only affect between a fifth and a quarter of the country, and will not come into effect until 2022-23. That means that between three quarters and four fifths of children who need the extra support will simply not get it. We predict that hundreds of thousands of young people will be left without the proper care that they need, even if the Government’s strategy is a success on its own terms. We express concerns that funding is not guaranteed post-2021 and is dependent on an unspecified level of success. This strategy strikes us as being utterly devoid of ambition, negligent of the true level of need and storing up trouble for the future.
Then there is the question of tackling health inequalities. We heard from many witnesses—in both oral and written evidence—about the correlation between social disadvantage and mental health. The Centre for Mental Health told us that
“the Green Paper makes little recognition of the wide inequalities in children’s mental health. At age 11 children from the poorest 20% of households are four times more likely to have a serious mental health difficulty as those in the wealthiest 20%”.
We asked how the Government’s mental health strategy was integrated in the Government’s other plans to contend with the issue of social mobility, but the Minister for School Standards told us that the two were not linked. Our Committees felt that this was a disappointing response and a massive missed opportunity.
We highlighted the need for services to be tailored for specific vulnerable groups—for example, looked-after children and children in care. The Green Paper’s current proposals will not deliver the support needed for these groups and will miss out others entirely, including children in the criminal justice system, young people who are not in education or training, excluded children and young people who are in further education or undertaking apprenticeships.
Further disappointment was visited upon us when we investigated the degree to which the Green Paper embodied joined-up government. Mental health services for children and adolescents is the archetypal area of policy that needs co-ordination across a range of agencies and Departments—from schools to the criminal justice system, and from the NHS to our youth services and social care. We were very disappointed that there was no reference at all to social workers in the Green Paper. We got no sense whatever that this Green Paper intends to break down the barriers, explode the silos and provide person-centred services. Our report states that
“there must be effective coordination with other initiatives from across Government when building a new strategy.”
Beyond these strategic concerns and issues, our Committees had a number of concerns about specific areas of the Green Paper, and I hope that the House will not mind if I outline some of these.
We looked at the factors affecting children’s mental health, and the fierce system of high-stakes exams was highlighted both by the young people we heard from and educational professionals as a cause of mental ill health. We heard that very much while taking evidence. We reasserted the recommendation of our predecessor Committees that personal, social and health and economic education should be compulsory in all maintained and academy schools to educate young people about wellbeing and to give them a language to discuss their concerns and a space to build resilience.
We were especially concerned about the transition from child to adult mental health services at the age of 18, which was described to us as a “cliff edge”. We recommend that the Government commit to a full assessment of the current transition arrangements between child and adult mental health services. Our Committees looked at the mental health workforce and heard how stretched it already is. We recommend that Health Education England sets out how it will address concerns about the impact of the Green Paper’s proposals on the entire CAMHS workforce, including psychiatrist roles and community services, in its upcoming workforce strategy, which is due to be published in July.
We were concerned by the lack of detail about the training provided for designated senior leads for mental health in schools and the fact that the roles will be voluntary and unfunded. We recommend that the Government should set out an assessment of the feasibility of providing an additional responsibility payment for teachers who take on the designated senior lead role in schools. Further, we recommend that the Government develop contingency plans to ensure that the role could be delivered by qualified professionals. In those plans, they should also consider whether this should actually be the first course of action, rather than a contingency plan.
Overall, we were concerned that the health and education workforce may not have the capacity or capability to meet the extra demands of the proposals in the Green Paper. We recommend that the Government set out and publish plans to ensure that the existing workforce are not overburdened by the demands of the Green Paper. We were specifically concerned that the implementation of the four-week waiting time target for CAMHS referrals could have unintended consequences by making the threshold for accessing services even higher, and we recommend that adequate resource is made available to ensure that this does not happen.
We heard from witnesses that what is needed is a “seismic shift” in the approach to mental health for our young people. We need a system built around prevention, early intervention and personalisation. We need adequate resources and joined-up government to do everything possible to keep our children well and deliver a world- class service. On the evidence of the Green Paper, the Government’s strategy will deliver no more than a minor tremor, not the seismic shift that we want to see. This is a missed opportunity.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for presenting the report on behalf of the two Committees, where it was a pleasure to join her as a member. Notwithstanding the concerns that have rightly been highlighted, I very much view the report as a piece of work to influence the Government’s future policy making. Noting paragraph 36 on the damaging effects of social media on young people, what work does she think it might be necessary to undertake on this in future?
Luciana Berger
That was indeed a key part of our report. We had a mixed bag of evidence on social media. We heard from young people and from representatives of the Children’s and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition about this very specific issue. They told us about the opportunities for social media to provide peer support for young people, but also about the many challenges within social media. We said in our recommendation that we look forward to the forthcoming report from the chief medical officer on the impact of technology on children’s health. That will be very important for us to consider in future plans.
The Science and Technology Committee is also conducting an inquiry, and its report will be key. We look forward to the outcome of the work by the working group on social media and digital sector companies that is being conducted in a partnership between the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. All those pieces of work are incredibly important. As I said, we recommended that teaching on social media should be included in the compulsory PSHE curriculum that we want to be introduced in all schools. That will equip the next generation with the tools to contend with navigating the technological landscape.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
I congratulate the two Committees on a very good piece of work, even though it makes very unhappy reading. My hon. Friend referred to the correlation between social disadvantage and mental health. Will she say a little more about how the Government’s Green Paper links to other Government initiatives such as the social mobility agenda?
Luciana Berger
I touched on that point in my introductory remarks. A report on social mobility entitled “Unlocking Talent, Fulfilling Potential” that was released by the Department for Education just 10 days after the release of the Green Paper on children’s mental health contained just one passing reference to the Green Paper. We asked the Minister about this and were very disappointed that he saw no connection or correlation between the two strategies. Ultimately, from the evidence we heard, this is a massive social justice issue for young people from the most disadvantaged and vulnerable backgrounds. We hope that the two strategies will now be joined up, because that has not been done so far.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her statement and the two Committees on their report. These joint Committee reports are a really good idea. Paragraph 50 says:
“We recommend that the Government commit to a full assessment of the current transition arrangements between child and adult mental health services.”
I particularly welcome that, because it seems to me and my constituents in Kettering that too many young people are falling through the gaps at 18 and not receiving the services they need as they enter adulthood.
Luciana Berger
That is a critical issue that was raised on a number of occasions. A cliff edge exists between the services that young people receive until 18 and what happens when they then try to access adult services. The services are very different. In one part of the country, where services go up to 25, this is working very successfully. That was a recommendation in “Future in mind”, a report published back in 2014. We were firmly of the opinion that the Government should actively address this situation and see it amended across the country.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her statement and the Committees on this excellent report, which I endorse. Does she agree—she touched on this issue—that the absence of a real focus on early years before children get to school, and the absence of any real, in-depth understanding of the impact of adverse experiences of trauma, abuse or neglect in early years, is a gaping hole? Does she agree that the Government need to go back to the drawing board to extend the scope of the Green Paper to really focus on this issue, to gain a better understanding of it?
Luciana Berger
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his important contribution. One of our key recommendations was that the Government should publish the evidence review alongside the response to the report. They limited the scope of the Green Paper too early by restricting the terms of that evidence review. In fact, we heard in evidence that evolved during our inquiry that under-fives are completely absent from the Government’s plans, yet that is a time in a child’s life that determines their life chances and life outcomes. Clearly, this is very much a gaping hole that needs to be addressed.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her introduction of this excellent report. Desperate parents in my constituency report waiting months, sometimes over a year, for their children to receive assessments or to see mental health professionals. Her comments on workforce issues are therefore particularly welcome. One issue is the very high level of staff sickness due to stress. What comments has she to offer the House on how the wellbeing of staff should be part of the Government’s strategy?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for her important contribution. The chapter on the workforce was a key part of the report. The wellbeing of both the mental health workforce and the workforce in our schools and education sector should be addressed adequately. That is not happening at the moment. We heard in evidence that the mental health workforce, particularly for children, has the greatest vacancy rates. No doubt that is one of the reasons there is such a high absence rate due to sickness. We hope that Health Education England will heed our recommendation on the need to address an area that is massively wanting.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Prenatal exposure to alcohol causes permanent brain damage and is one of the contributory factors in mental ill health among children—and indeed into adult life as well. In a recent study, as many as 40% of women said that they may have drunk alcohol during pregnancy. May I, through my hon. Friend, urge the Government to carry out a prevalence study on exactly how many children are damaged in this way? There is also a need for much greater awareness. The chief medical officer’s advice is that those who are planning a pregnancy or are pregnant should not drink alcohol, but that advice is not widely known. May I, through my hon. Friend, urge the Government to make sure that far more is done to raise awareness of the damage done by this condition?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. No doubt the Government were listening to the very important points he has made. We did not address this in our report, but clearly issues around perinatal mental health and support for expectant mums are very important, including in the area that he mentions.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The report refers to the Government’s proposal for a four-week time limit for access to mental health services for children. My hon. Friend will know that access has been a huge issue. She talked about unintended consequences. What was the Committee’s view on what needs to be done to avoid those?
Luciana Berger
Officials in the Department of Health and Social Care told us that they expect that there will be some unintended consequences in seeking to achieve the four-week waiting time target if there are not adequate resources to make sure that the staff are in place to meet these young people’s needs. We know from the evidence we heard that right across the country there are already massive waiting times. In my own area, for example, 460 young people are waiting 24 weeks just for an assessment, let alone treatment. Unless we know that there will be more counsellors, psychiatrists and psycho- therapists to support these young people, there is no way that the Government will be able to introduce a four-week waiting time standard without raising thresholds for young people to access those services. That is a key recommendation of our report that we want the Government to address.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, thank my hon. Friend for her statement and the work of the Committees in producing this really important report. Paragraph 81 goes to the heart of the matter:
“The Government should consider in its plans whether the role being delivered by qualified professionals rather than teachers should be its first course of action rather than the contingency plan.”
Does she agree that, owing to the scale, seriousness and severity of mental health challenges in young people, the Government should build a service based around school but available out of school and staffed by mental health professionals?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. A key concern we heard from education professionals in written evidence was how those designated mental health leads will be able to do their job. It was not clear from the evidence we heard from the Minister for School Standards that adequate resources will be in place to equip those teachers with the skills they need to do that role. That is why we recommend that there should be a specific payment and that it should be a senior role. That is also why we recommend that mental health professionals should not be a contingency; the first port of call should be those professionals in mental health, who have a fuller and wider training to be able to fulfil that role, rather than relying on teachers, who already have a massive burden.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I welcome this very valuable report, and in particular paragraphs 31 and 32 on building resilience against exam pressure and the effect on mental health of the narrowing of the curriculum. However, rather than building resilience against something that is likely to be causing part of the problem, did the Select Committee ever consider suggesting an independent root-and-branch reform of the assessment system, and in particular key stage 1 and 2 SATS, which we hear are a large cause of this problem up and down the country?
Luciana Berger
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. Some people are keen to paint this issue as being just to do with social media, which is why I sought to address in my remarks the fact that, in the view of many who sit on the Committees, the No. 1 concern is the academic system. That is why one of our recommendations says that:
“the Government should gather independent evidence concerning the impact of exam pressure on young people’s mental health”.
We want to see that right through the entire education system, including the stages she mentioned.
We also need to look at the narrowing of the curriculum. We heard from young people about the pressures they felt that that put on them, which was exacerbating their mental health issues. We would like to see that addressed. We were disappointed with the response from the Minister for School Standards, who said that there was no connection or correlation between the two. We heard clear evidence that it has a very negative impact on too many young children in this country.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for making such a compelling case on behalf of the two Select Committees. This is a very important report. One problem with the slowness of assessment and treatment is that cases often end up in the courts, which costs a fortune and means that things play out in a spirit of confrontation between parents and the authorities. That cannot be any good for the children. Does she agree that we ought to do something about that?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We are clear that too many children are ending up in crisis and needing support. It might ultimately end up in the courts, but they are definitely in crisis. That is not good for them, their families, the NHS or society. I do not like to talk about this in financial terms, but it comes at a massive cost to society. For all those reasons, we should be doing everything possible to prevent mental ill health in our young people in the first place. If we cannot prevent it—we cannot prevent everything—we should at least intervene earlier, for financial reasons but also for the social and moral reason that it is important to give every child in this country the best chance in life.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Several Members have mentioned the need for interventions for the under-fives. My hon. Friend visited the Bangor mindfulness centre in north Wales with me a couple of years ago. A curriculum for three to seven-year-olds is being developed in north Wales. What role does she think mindfulness can play in infant, junior, secondary and tertiary education?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I have had the opportunity to see at first hand the benefits of mindfulness, particularly in education. I look forward to seeing the results of the curriculum being developed for three to seven-year-olds. We did not specifically address that in our inquiry and report, but it could be contained within the PSHE curriculum that we would like to see introduced in all schools, both primary and secondary, and could particularly target the under-fives. The Government should look closely at that.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that young people are self-medicating due to stress, because they cannot get access to the mental health services that they need? Does she think that that is worthy of note in the report?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. While we did not talk about that explicitly in our report, we were able to have an informal discussion with young people from across the country, including young people being cared for by Place2Be, a mental health organisation that supports young people in schools. Young people said they were turning to illegal medication or prescription medication that they were getting through illegal means to make themselves feel better. That is clearly an issue for our young people. I know that my hon. Friend has raised that in the House, and I hope the Government will look specifically at it.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I would like to thank members of both Select Committees for this very forthright report. I was pleased to be part of the inquiry, and I would particularly like to thank the hon. Lady for bringing the report to the House. It is one of the most important reports for the next generation.
I want to raise two particular points. The first relates to workforce planning. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on psychology and as a psychologist, I was very concerned by the evidence that educational psychology training places are being reduced and clinical psychology training places are currently inadequate, despite the fact that the Government’s delivery of the strategy relies very much on supervision from those key professionals. Secondly, we need to be targeting complex groups where more than one difficulty is present, such as the many children with autistic spectrum disorder who also suffer mental health problems comorbidly. Much more must be done on access to autism diagnosis alongside treatment and early intervention for mental health issues.
Luciana Berger
I thank the hon. Lady for her important contribution, which emphasised the need to focus on the workforce that the Government are expecting to deliver their Green Paper plans. We know that Health Education England is due to publish in July this year its workforce strategy, and I sincerely hope that it has listened to the points we heard in the Committee and those that she just made about the massive gap that exists in terms of psychologists and child psychiatrists in the community. That is a critical issue.
On the hon. Lady’s point about comorbidities, there is a gaping hole in the Government’s Green Paper on the children who are the most vulnerable and need the most support. There are references to children from the most vulnerable backgrounds, but nothing in practice about how that might be addressed. I hope that, in the Government’s response, they will reflect on our recommendations and seek to bring forward proposals that target children who most need support.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way she has introduced the report and the Select Committees on producing it. She will know that YoungMinds and NHS Providers have expressed concerns about the fact that increasingly high eligibility thresholds for child and adolescent mental health services mean that the mental ill health of children and young people escalates to crisis point before a referral. That was reinforced by the Care Quality Commission’s thematic review, which recently reported that GPs were telling children to pretend to be more ill than they were, to ensure they got treatment. There is much for the Government to respond to in the report, but will she join me in calling on them to investigate that urgently?
Luciana Berger
I thank my hon. Friend for her important contribution. On the thresholds over which children have to jump to access services in the first place, I get emails almost every week from young people or their parents or carers, sharing their experiences of how long it has taken them to get access to services, if they have even been able to get through the door at all. Young people are having to attempt to take their lives before they see a clinical professional. That is not acceptable, and the Government need to address it now if they are going to successfully implement their plans.
One of our recommendations was that within the mental health investment standard introduced by the Government to ensure that clinical commissioning groups apportion a certain amount of funds to mental health, there should be a specific ring fence for children and young people’s mental health. We know from the investigations and research that has been done that at the moment, too many clinical commissioning groups are diverting money away from young people’s mental health to other parts of the NHS. It is under enormous strain, but that money needs to be protected.
Point of Order
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Further to my urgent question on the learning disabilities mortality review on 8 May and my point of order later that day, when questioned about the timing of the publication of that review at 8 am on 4 May in the middle of the local election results, the Care Minister, who is in her place, said:
“It is an independent document and the University of Bristol decided when it was going to be published. It was published on Friday without permission from or any kind of communication with the Department of Health and Social Care.”—[Official Report, 8 May 2018; Vol. 640, c. 553.]
The Minister has now written to me to say that she has been misinformed and that she now admits that NHS England had discussed the timing of the publication and had agreed the date. Also, in a statement yesterday, the learning disabilities review team said:
“All communication about the report, prior to and subsequent to its publication, was directed by NHS England, as was the date of its publication.”
The Minister also admits that the Department of Health and Social Care was notified about the publication by NHS England.
The key point is that, in December 2016, the Secretary of State told the House that he was asking the learning disabilities mortality review programme to provide annual reports to the Department of Health on its findings. The Minister is now saying that the Department was notified about the report only on an unofficial basis. Why was such an important report, dated December 2017, not published until 2018? The Care Minister says she was misinformed by her officials. Is the Secretary of State in charge of this Department or is he not?
In the other place, the Health Minister said of the publication of the review report:
“I agree with her that the timing was less than ideal...I agree it was not done as it should have been”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 May 2018; Vol. 791, c. 207.]
We have not had an apology from a Health Minister on this matter in this House, but it was this House that was misinformed. Let us remember that the people most affected by this mess are the family members of the over 1,300 people with learning disabilities whose early deaths the Government should be taking more seriously.
Mr Deputy Speaker, have you been notified that the Secretary of State wants to explain himself to the House about this mess and to issue an apology to the bereaved families, or does the Minister want to do so now?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
What I would say is I do know a correction is printed today from the Minister responsible, and it is on the record. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to come in at this stage. No? I have certainly not been given any indication from the Secretary of State that they are coming forward. What I would say is that it is on the record, and if there needs to be a further correction, I am sure that will be taken on board.
Backbench Business
Banking Misconduct and the FCA
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I call Martin Whitfield to move the motion, with up to 15 minutes to speak to it.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the public disclosure of the Section 166 report into the conduct of RBS Global Restructuring Group (GRG); is concerned about the fundamental difference of tone and emphasis between the summary produced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the full report; believes this calls into question the strength and independence of the regulator; notes that the concerns raised in the debate on 18 January with regard to the financial services sector, which is not limited to RBS and its advisors, not only persist, but are amplified by the conclusions in the report; calls on HM Treasury to instruct the FCA to move on to phase 2 of the investigation into the root causes of the conduct of RBS GRG by a body independent to the FCA; and once again calls for an independent inquiry into the financial services sector and the associated industries that have allowed misconduct to thrive, and the establishment of an independent mechanism for redress for businesses.
I would like to start by paying tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for enabling this debate to take place and to the enthusiastic work of the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, of which I am vice-chair and which is led by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the hon. Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) and for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), who supported my application for this debate. I also thank those who have travelled down today to listen to the debate live from the Public Gallery.
This debate follows on from the one led by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) in January. It demonstrates what an important issue this is for not only our individual constituents but the whole economy. For many, the foundation of the problem is illustrated by bank closures. Indeed, in my constituency, bank closures and the disappointing remission of free-to-use ATM machines are breaking down trust in the banking industry. Ensuring that consumers have access to finance is fundamental to the ethos of community banking.
Today’s debate rightly shifts attention to financial misconduct and considers the section 166 report, but it also stands as a timely reminder to the entire banking sector that the consumer must always be at the centre of its operations. Access to finance is so important to local businesses in East Lothian and across the UK. Whether wronged by commercial lending policies not fit for purpose or hit disproportionality by bank closures, businesses are being badly let down by the industry.
Regarding financial misconduct, a lot has happened since January, and we are not simply here to cover an old story.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Does he agree that it is not just businesses that suffer? It is also families and people’s mental health. Nigel and Julie Morgan, who are here with us today listening to the debate, have been adversely affected by this issue for years. It is that which we have to bear in mind.
Martin Whitfield
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s intervention. It is right to say that, behind every one of these statistics, there are individuals, families, businesses and employees—who have their own families—who have suffered as a result of all this. I will come on to that in a moment.
The release of the section 166 report into Royal Bank of Scotland’s Global Restructuring Group not only underlined the toxic culture that existed in the GRG but, critically, identified the systemic failures that allowed such conduct to thrive.
Today I intend to focus on three key points. The first is dispute resolution, which has been covered extensively, and the all-party parliamentary group will deliver a report on it in the near future. Secondly, I would like to look at the associated industries involved in this scandal. Thirdly, there is the need for a full public inquiry into the treatment of businesses by financial institutions.
As the debate progresses, I would ask hon. Members to keep at the forefront of their minds the very simple notion of the balance of power and, indeed, the abuse of power, because that is ultimately what we are addressing here, not just with RBS but across the entire ecosystem of commercial lending. We have only to look at the HBOS Reading fraud to understand how corrupt the system can be and how that can thrive if it goes unchecked year after year.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on opening this important debate. Does he agree that one issue is the continuing refusal of many in the banking sector to accept their responsibility and their determined deflection of blame back to their customers?
Martin Whitfield
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. There is genuine anger about banking businesses not taking responsibility for their actions and not looking to rectify the damage that was done in the past. That is what is fundamentally undermining the confidence that people and businesses have in the banking sector.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman will obviously concentrate most of the time on activities inside banks themselves. Will he also touch on one of the issues raised by my constituents, who, like many others, have been affected by this—the activities of insolvency practitioners? There seem to be deep problems there as well.
Martin Whitfield
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I am just moving on to talk about the fact that although there are very legitimate objectives at the turnaround units that many banks have operated, they are so easily manipulated to carry out systematic asset stripping of small and medium- sized enterprises. Indeed, it is the surveyors, insolvency practitioners, turnaround consultants, Law of Property Act receivers, lawyers and accountants that support financial institutions and enable and facilitate the systematic abuse that was so clearly laid bare in the section 166 report who must also be held to account for these failings.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the section 166 report. I understand that the second phase has now been brought in-house into the Financial Conduct Authority. Promontory has ended its role. There is a concern on the part of many people that there will be a lack of transparency. There is a concern about a further possible cover-up of really serious wrongdoing.
Martin Whitfield
Again, I am really grateful for that insightful interjection. There clearly is a concern about transparency. Beyond the single events—tragic as many of these are—the overall story and picture that people are taking away about our banking industry is its being heavily influenced by hidden-door decisions, by delayed reports and by people, frankly, trying to protect themselves rather than shining a light on what has been happening to try to make the system better for the future.
Here we are again, talking about past misconduct. However, this is the catch, and it was mentioned early on: for business owners across the country who have lost their livelihoods, their homes, their marriages and, quite often, their health, this is not an issue of past misconduct; it greets them every single day when they wake up and haunts them at night when they go to sleep.
The impact of this scandal has been so profoundly damaging that people have taken the appalling decision to end their lives because they cannot face things any more. It is the responsibility of this House and of the financial services—it is genuinely the responsibility of everyone—to ensure that there are answers to these questions so that, hopefully, and at last, some people and some families can find some peace.
Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the appalling stress that has been placed on individuals. That has happened in my constituency due to RBS and the Britannia building society acting entirely unfairly towards my constituents. Apart from the behaviour of the banks, is there not an issue about the ability of such individuals to obtain redress, and the failure of our institutions—such as the FCA and the ombudsman—to be able to offer satisfactory relief to individuals so badly affected?
Martin Whitfield
Again, that is an excellent intervention. It is almost as if planned, because I am about to turn to the question of dispute resolution.
The FCA’s recent consultation into extending the Financial Ombudsman Service clearly sets out the complex landscape of commercial disputes, but it also identifies what it can and cannot do as a regulator to bridge this gap. The all-party group is very clear that it cannot possibly support the proposed extension of the Financial Ombudsman Service as a stand-alone solution to problems that have beset the business community for so long. Even with extended powers, it will not be sufficient to cover complex cases or those that sit outside the regulatory perimeters. The FCA’s consultation makes it very clear that it has limited powers and that a complete solution must include action by the Government and this Parliament. It is not an either/or; we need both.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
This is not a partisan point, but one about the current and previous Governments: schemes executed by the Government, such as the enterprise finance guarantee scheme, have been misused by RBS, but RBS has been retained under some element of public ownership, if not control, so will my hon. Friend call on the Government to look at the schemes they have operated and at their performance in helping to support colleagues and constituents such as mine?
Martin Whitfield
Again, I am grateful for that intervention. Clearly, at the end of the day, this goes to the question of a public examination of what has happened and where things have gone wrong. RBS is obviously still held by the public through the shares we bought when we bailed it out, but even without that, there is still a responsibility to make sure that the banking and financial sectors apply rules and laws equitably, fairly and transparently, and do not seek to put down small and medium-sized businesses to their own benefit.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I endorse what the hon. Gentleman is saying because there is a real issue about redress. The lives of my constituents Mr and Mrs Neave have been ruined by this UK banking episode. I have seen their reams of correspondence with the FCA and the ombudsman, yet all these organisations ever seem to say is that there is no case to answer. People then turn to their MPs, but there is nothing we can do. Is not the time ripe for the UK Government to ensure redress, perhaps by way of a tribunal process or something like that?
Martin Whitfield
Absolutely. On dispute resolution, the introduction of a tribunal would be an important and essential step forward, giving access to people and businesses that at the moment struggle to gain access to the courts.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
My constituent Mr Kashourides, who has no confidence in the FCA or the ombudsman, has himself brought legal action against RBS, but he has been asked by a judge to pay £150,000 as a surety for costs, because the lawyers that RBS employs are very expensive. Does my hon. Friend agree that a tribunal would be the best way forward?
Martin Whitfield
Absolutely. The cost of bringing a case to get rectification is so important.
The FCA has repeatedly said that it does not have the powers to deal with commercial lending and that it is up to Parliament to decide if it wants those powers to be extended. However, in various statements, the Treasury has repeatedly stated that this is a matter for the FCA and that if the FCA feels it needs more powers, it should ask for them. All that is happening is that this hot potato is being kicked between two different areas, and we are not getting answers that, in reality, are satisfactory to anyone. I would appreciate clarification from the FCA on the parameters of what it needs in order for it to ask for more powers. At the moment, we are seeing the widespread and systematic destruction of British businesses, which in my mind certainly seems to qualify as a reason to request additional powers.
The lack of mechanisms for redress and of action in general has severely undermined public confidence in the integrity of our system, and it is time that we tackled this head-on. We are therefore calling today for a full public inquiry into the ecosystem of commercial lending, and particularly into the treatment of businesses in financial distress. This cross-departmental issue covers both the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury, so it is too wide-reaching to come under the remit of just one Select Committee in Parliament.
I will briefly turn to the role of professional advisers and the wider issue of commercial funding. I welcome the focus that section 166 has placed on the inherent conflict of interest that exists between financial institutions, surveyors, lawyers and insolvency practitioners. For too long, we have focused solely on financial institutions, but not on the professionals that support them, often in the form of secondments from within the walls of the very financial institutions themselves. Frankly, it beggars belief that this is an accepted industry practice. The mechanisms involved in taking control of businesses and their assets are operated via LPA receivers and insolvency practitioners.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that these professional practitioners are quite often working hand in glove with the banks? Does he also agree that the fees, particularly in insolvency practice, are very high, which, on top of the issue with the banks, can push businesses under?
Martin Whitfield
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I would draw attention to the very basic case of those owning a business that has constantly paid back its loans on time and maintained contact with the bank, who may suddenly, through a simple slip of a pen in the valuation or revaluation of the business by part of the bank’s organisation, find themselves in breach of their loans—and they lose their business. That is not a question for the shareholders or for the directors; with a movement of a pen, their business becomes the bank’s.
RBS has been at pains to point out that the Promontory report did not find any evidence of deliberate under- valuations, but in any event the report could not in many cases find any evidence about how valuations were conducted, and there is a suggestion that they were simply made up. These valuations could then be used to appoint an insolvency practitioner, subject to huge costs, and a cosy relationship between a surveyor, an insolvency practitioner and a bank suddenly means that another family business has been lost.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
My constituent Kashif Shabir, whom I have spoken about in several debates on this issue, has been the victim of exactly that, with Lloyds bank and Alder King surveyors in Bristol, resulting in the loss of his £10 million business. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the bosses of both those organisations, Mr Horta-Osório and Mr Martyn Jones, should now proactively take steps to offer—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady must sit down. I am really sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, who I appreciate is making a very important point. I must point out, however, that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), who is moving the motion, is supposed to take about 15 minutes. He has a lot to say that is of importance, and he has been very generous in allowing interventions, but hon. Members must not think I have not noticed that the people who have intervened will then go away, while the people who have indicated that they wish to take part in the debate will have only four minutes and may need to stay in the Chamber until the end of the debate, which is patently unfair. I cannot allow a long intervention. It is perfectly proper for the hon. Lady to ask a quick question, but it is not in order for hon. Members to make an intervention in lieu of a speech, thus preventing other Members from making a speech. I am trying to ensure fairness, and it is really quite difficult to do so. As I had not previously warned hon. Members, I will allow the hon. Lady to finish her intervention—I realise that she has something important to say—and I will allow the hon. Gentleman to respond to it and to finish his speech. I hope that everyone has got the picture: this is the only way to try to be fair to everyone.
Jo Stevens
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that the banks and the surveyors should proactively take steps now to offer redress to my constituent and to many other constituents of Members on both sides of the House?
Martin Whitfield
Absolutely. I agree with that proposal, because the banks and the surveyors have professional responsibilities to their clients and those they serve, and such responsibilities apply equally by omission as by action.
To conclude, from its early inception, banking was engineered to become a focal hub of community engagement. There was a societal bond of trust, which was represented by the strong institutions on our high streets. In recent years, however, this has become synonymous with mistrust and deceit. Consumers right across the country have been let down not just by a few specific banks, but by an industry that has developed and become polluted by a toxic culture of misconduct.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. As I have said, we are pushed for time this afternoon. There will therefore be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, initially of five minutes although it may have to be reduced.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing this debate, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) who chairs the all-party group on fair business banking and finance.
I would normally begin by saying what a pleasure it is to speak in such a debate, but although it is always a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not feel that such a sentiment is appropriate, given the seriousness of the issues we are discussing. It is clearly far from a pleasure for thousands of business owners up and down the country who have had their lives and livelihoods destroyed by a broken, and in places rotten, banking system. As I have done previously, I shall refer in particular to one of my constituents, Mr Eric Topping, whose business was destroyed by the iniquity we are debating today.
There is clearly no easy solution to the mess we are in—it is hard to find a solution to get the redress that so many victims deserve, to rebuild crushed livelihoods, or to restore public faith in the system. There are, however, three steps to take, each of which might help in part. First, we need some form of acknowledgement that what my constituent, Mr Topping, has suffered is an outrage and an injustice. His complaint was dismissed out of hand because the issue occurred in 1998, and therefore outside the “relevant period” that was set arbitrarily at between 2008 and 2013. Whatever form of redress the Government, regulators or banks come up with, they must consider events before 2008 and the narrow scope of the FCA’s skilled persons reports. They must also look beyond RBS GRG, and into its precursor bodies such as the “specialised lending service”, and any other sham department, in whatever bank, that was engaged in systematic and organised fraudulent asset stripping.
Secondly, it is clear that the Financial Ombudsmen Service lacks teeth as a method of redress, given that in most instances it can look only at cases involving microbusinesses with 10 employees or fewer. With claims capped at £150,000, thousands of SMEs affected by this scandal cannot apply. There is a clear problem for businesses with more than 10 employees, as their only option is to go to the courts. That is too expensive and places small businesses against international financial institutions, which is a complete mismatch.
In a move that would be laughable if it were not so unjust, in the bank’s final letter to Mr Topping, RBS’s director of operations suggested that he seek redress through the Financial Ombudsmen Service, and helpfully enclosed a leaflet to that effect. RBS knew, however, that Mr Topping’s business was too large to come within the scope of the ombudsmen’s remit, and by suggesting such a move it was either incompetent in its advice or it was simply mocking him—I am not sure which is worse.
Proposals for enlarging the remit of the ombudsman are not the answer—as I have said, it lacks teeth—and there is a gap in the current structure that must be filled. It is necessary to have a completely independent system or tribunal that sits outside the regulatory structure and has sufficient powers and knowledge to deal with complex financial disputes that include contracts, insolvency and all associated issues. Such a system must be able to address the backlog of legacy cases and ensure that those who have been mistreated are given an outlet through which their grievances can be heard, and suitable redress awarded. Any system will need to address the statute of limitations so that victims are not barred from taking action.
Finally, as I have said, these issues are no longer just about RBS or even the banks themselves, and it is clear that we have had a systemic failure. This issue has become too wide ranging for either the Treasury, the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, or even the excellent all-party group on fair business banking and finance to deal with, and it is now of such scale and complexity that it demands a full public inquiry. A scandal such as this, just like LIBOR before it, is yet another reason why people and businesses lose faith in the banking sector. Faith in the banks is essential for faith in our whole economy, but SMEs, which are the lifeblood of that economy, are now reluctant to borrow from such institutions. A full public inquiry would be to the benefit of financial institutions, the business community and the wider economy. We must draw a line under the past, obtain redress for our constituents who have been the victims of financial misconduct and create an environment in which trust in financial institutions can be restored.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing this debate.
My constituents were private tenants who had lived above a shop for many years and brought up their children. In 2007, they decided to buy the property when it came up for sale at auction. They were customers of NatWest, which agreed that they could have a mortgage for 10 years. They bought the property on 6 July 2007, and were contacted by the bank to pay valuation fees. The valuation should have informed the bank that my constituents needed a regulated mortgage, since they occupied more than 40% of the property. On 9 July, NatWest informed my constituents that they needed to open a joint bank account, take out a one-year business loan and pay £4,000 in fees for the privilege. That was due to the fact that the premises included a shop. One year later they were allowed to take out a two-year loan, again with more arrangement fees. They thought that was normal, because they did not understand that they should have had a regulated mortgage contract.
This debate is about small and medium-sized enterprises, but my constituents were forced to become an SME, and they were treated appallingly by NatWest. They did not understand the system, and the bank took full advantage of that. They continued to pay the loan without any defaults. After the two-year loan period expired, the bank attempted to contact them, but that was cancelled due to the snow. They finally met up five months after the two-year loan had expired in 2011. In May 2011, the bank told my constituents that they were in default. That resulted in a complaint to the bank, which found in favour of my constituents. However, the bank continued to pursue them, asking them to sell the property.
My constituents made a further complaint, and on 19 January 2012 they received a response from the bank’s complaints department, which said that it was nothing to do with anything they had done, but that:
“The bank needs to rebalance its exposure in the property area. We have twice as much property funding as any of our competitors and this needs to be managed down to more normal levels.”
It was nothing to do with anything my constituents had done wrong; it was what the bank had done wrong, yet my constituents were forced to pay for it. While that was going on, the bank tried to close one of my constituents’ bank accounts, and from then on they were harried into selling the property. It was put on the market for £700,000, but because they were under pressure, they finally had to sell it for £585,000. They were never given the opportunity to live in that property and plan ahead with any confidence.
My constituents finally went to the Financial Ombudsman and requested a disclosure of documents. They discovered that they were being dealt with by none other than the Royal Bank of Scotland Global Restructuring Group, despite having taken out the original loan with NatWest. GRG convinced the ombudsman not to investigate the case and to leave it to the GRG disputes resolution process. When my constituents asked how the involvement of GRG came about, they were told that it was due to the involvement of a specialist relationship manager. GRG claims that the account was never transferred to it and states that the SRM consulted GRG during the relevant period of 2008 to 2013. Therefore, GRG did not recognise my constituents, and they were not part of the review process. My constituents were never informed of any of this; it came to light because they complained and asked for documents to be disclosed by the ombudsman. GRG also convinced the ombudsman not to look at any documents going back further than 2013.
NatWest is part of the RBS group, but it operates under a separate licence. How is it possible for two separate banking organisations to share customers’ information in this way? Is that a matter of concern to the FCA? Are NatWest and RBS GRG at fault for not keeping my constituents informed? The bank made the initial error when it forced my constituents to take a loan for one year, then two years, then no years—it simply failed to renew it—and then foreclosed on my constituents because it was overexposed in the property market. My constituents approached the FCA, but they do not know where their case now is. The FCA has to hold an inquiry into this matter. We have to get to the bottom of it on behalf of people who are just being bullied by the banks.
Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this very important debate and I thank the all-party group on fair business banking for securing it. There are literally thousands of victims of this banking scandal. They are victims not of banks, but of bankers and their advisers who colluded with them—make no mistake about it.
This has not been a golden era for British banking and neither has the FCA covered itself in glory. It has presided over ad hoc redress schemes that are simply not fit for purpose. It has allowed banks to be judge, jury and executioner. It could learn from the best British regulator, the Takeover Panel. If one goes to the Takeover Panel for a decision on a Thursday, one receives it on a Friday. The FCA has allowed the banks to set up their own redress schemes, which have gone on too slowly for too long and have been too small in terms of financial retribution.
Victims have been fighting this situation for years. Their lives have been destroyed: it is not just livelihoods, some have lost or taken their lives. Families have been torn apart and businesses have been lost. Frankly, they have been the victim of banking piracy. I said that in the Treasury Committee yesterday and I say it again today. If the other banks have a pile six inches high, RBS-GRG has a mountain. It set up a scheme of £400 million. Some £100 million of that has been allocated to costs, leaving only £300 million to pay people back. It has paid out £150 million so far, but that does not even scratch the surface. GRG was a profit centre. In 2011, it made £1.2 billion in profit. Considering the profits it has made by knocking on people’s doors and taking their businesses away from them, £300 million is just scratching the surface. It is paltry and pathetic.
The fact that these crimes were committed is not something I am imagining. Excellent reports are available from Tomlinson and Promontory, as has been discussed. We knew crimes had been committed, but what the victims have not seen is any form of justice. I do not just mean financial justice. I mean prosecutions. For banking to clean up its act and for this not to happen again in the future there need to be more prosecutions.
In the first debate secured by the all-party group on fair business banking, I spoke of my own experience. I know at first hand how GRG behaved. I was not a victim. It came twice to try to take a very good asset away from us. The business was making a profit in each of the months when it came and it has made a profit in every month since. That did not, however, stop it trying to come up with artificial breach covenants and other trumped up reasons to try to create fees. I understand that people were under pressure. If they were not in a robust position after the financial downturn, they were, I am afraid, taken to the cleaners.
I will conclude by saying that the worst offender was RBS GRG. The perception is still there that it cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Proper redress for the victims would be a very good place to start.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) and I agree with every word he said. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing the debate and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
The case for both an independent tribunal and a full public inquiry is overwhelming: the destruction of businesses, the destruction of lives, the ruin it has caused for families and the appalling treatment of whistleblowers. Brave people chose to speak out, risking everything. My constituent Mark Wright has seen his career and his health destroyed. He is a brave man still left waiting. What I would say to the Minister is this: this issue unites the House. There is complete agreement on both sides of the House on the need for something to happen. We have been debating this matter for quite some time and I do not really feel any sense of progress being made. I am afraid to say that I have lost confidence in the FCA’s ability to get to the bottom of the extreme wrongdoing that we have witnessed across our banking sector. This issue causes so much anger among people across our country. There is a sense that the elite got away with it without any consequences. I therefore say to the Minister: take seriously the sentiment on both sides of the House and call a public inquiry without further delay.
I want to raise an additional issue, which has the potential for further scandal: the risk that victims of the shareholder action against RBS and victims of GRG could face further loss as a result of the behaviour claims management companies and the failure of regulation and the policing of those regulations by the Ministry of Justice. The regulations were brought in by the Compensation Act 2006. Any claims management company that operates as a business needs to be regulated, yet the claims management company that worked on the shareholders’ action has never been regulated at all. This has been brought into sharp focus because of the action in that case. There has been a settlement of £200 million, but victims are still waiting for most of the money to be distributed. There are concerns about a £20 million bill from a firm called Evaluesafety linked to a certain Gerard Walsh, who has been involved from the very start. He has a track record of personal and business insolvency and has faced allegations of fraud, yet when concerns are raised with the MOJ it seems satisfied by assurances given by a lawyer associated with Gerard Walsh that everything is fine and that regulation is not relevant in this case. However, lawyers have advised the action group company that it comes within the regulatory remit and yet the MOJ does nothing.
I am really concerned about a double jeopardy here: people who have already lost through the appalling behaviour of RBS are now at risk of losing again with the settlement money leaking out all over the place, potentially improperly, and the victims left still waiting. The Ministry of Justice is doing nothing to get to grips with this. These are Government regulations passed through this House. The MOJ—I urge the Minister to have words with his ministerial colleagues—needs to get a grip. There are criminal sanctions where there is a failure to properly register in the regulation system. These people, if they are taking money out of the settlement pot away from innocent victims, need to be pursued. I do not know what the solution is and I do not know the full facts of the case, but I absolutely know that it needs to be investigated as a matter of urgency.
This is a long-running scandal. So many people have lost out so badly that we will only restore confidence in the banking system and in the system of regulation if we have a full public inquiry. The Government need to order it now.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and the all-party group on fair business banking on securing the debate. I follow very powerful speeches by the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack).
A constituent of mine, Mark Nicholson, had an experience with HSBC that raises exactly the issue as many of the RBS cases. He has been in dispute with that bank for eight long, stressful years. His business initially had a cash-flow problem, through no fault of his, and the bank turned his secured loan first into an overdraft and then offered him a nine-year loan. However, despite complying with every single condition, the promised nine-year loan was never forthcoming and he was instead put on a treadmill and offered a series of short, one-year loans at increasingly high interest rates, with increasingly high charges.
In 2014, the Financial Ombudsman Service ruled against HSBC, telling it to restructure the loan and to repay all the charges. Instead of complying with the spirit of the ruling, the bank seized on a lack of detail in it to offer my constituent an onerous loan. After a second ruling, he is still in dispute. The bank is refusing to share the details of how it has calculated the demands that it is making of him, and at the end of this month he faces a court hearing in which he could lose the house that he has lived in for nearly 30 years. It is exactly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) said of RBS: it is a case of the pursuit of profits through made-up fees, high interest rates and the attempt to acquire equity and property. I have written to John Flint, the chief executive of HSBC, to support my constituent in this matter, and I plead with him to think again about the way in which his bank is treating my constituent.
The theme of today’s debate is the other institutions that surround this important problem. Although the Financial Ombudsman Service has done good work and has helped some people, we must ask two questions: first, does it have the power and authority to make large financial institutions fear it and comply with its rulings? For my constituent and others, we can see that that is not the case. Secondly, does it have the technical capacity to cope with some of the more complex cases that it faces? Another constituent is involved in a technical insurance case, and the Financial Ombudsman Service has not been able to do what we need it to do, which is to level the playing field between large financial institutions with a lot of firepower and ordinary members of the public.
Let me quote some of the things that Channel 4’s “Dispatches” discovered when it did an undercover investigation into what was going on in the Financial Ombudsman Service. It talked to trainers and people working within the organisation. Here are some quotes from what it heard:
“Training was not adequate. We rushed through complicated financial issues and processes. I often didn’t know what I was doing.”
“I’m not proud to admit it but I’ve done it myself—just taken a chance and just slung stuff through, with any old decision.”
“For more complex cases, the right decision isn’t always reached. Legitimate claims are being missed.”
“even now I look at an investment case and I don’t know what to ask for.”
“Sometimes I’ve not even heard of the products. I have to Google what it is first.”
“11,000 cases fell into a black hole. Two years later we find out they’ve not been looked at and we had to work our way through them all.”
“Some post was two years old. There were cases saying I am going to lose my house.”
That is simply not good enough. We need to replace the FOS with something that is fit for purpose, because my constituent also faces losing his house.
It is worth noting that over the last eight years we have made a lot of progress on reforming the financial system. We have introduced measures to increase competition and to encourage challenger banks. We have seen the ring-fencing of retail banking from investment banking. We have replaced the failed tripartite system and ended “too big to fail”. We have higher capital requirements, the bank levy and the tougher claw-back regime. A lot has been done, but a lot more needs to be done. The next step now should be to replace the Financial Ombudsman Service, which could do more to help our constituents, with something that has proper expertise and the ability to make large financial institutions, which so often behave in a cruel, high-handed way, frightened of it and get justice for our constituents.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
This is an important debate and I congratulate all the hon. Members who have contributed to it so far. Banks occupy a very special and important position in our economy and society. Without them, the economy could not function efficiently. However, they also operate in such a way that they borrow short and lend long, and they always have done. As a result, banks hold a degree of responsibility and trust when they take people’s moneys into their care. I am afraid that over the past few decades, as other hon. Members have described, a culture has been allowed to develop under Governments of different colours to allow banks to basically follow the principle that “Greed is good,” as so well elucidated in 1980s film “Wall Street”. Ultimately, everything that has been described today—the disasters that have been brought upon our constituents—has been born out of the greed of bankers operating not in the interests of our constituents, but to line their own pockets.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the situation is 10 times worse when the bank no longer exists? I have constituents who are still trying to work through HBOS, which is now part of Lloyds, which has washed its hands of it.
Kevin Brennan
I absolutely accept that; it is completely the case. I want to mention briefly some of my constituents who have been affected by what has been described today and by other practices that should be incorporated in the public inquiry that other hon. Members have called for. By the way, RBS has today been fined $4.9 billion by the American authorities for its activities when it was expecting to pay something like $12 billion, so if there is concern in the Treasury about the cost of a public inquiry, we have $7.1 billion available, given the assumption that was made by RBS, that could be levied on just one of the banks that we are talking about today to cover the cost of any public inquiry. I hope that the Treasury boffins have taken notice of that statistic.
My constituent Mike McGrath was also a victim of the kind of asset stripping we have heard about today. He can show quite clearly that Lloyds bank lied to the Financial Ombudsman Service to obtain a favourable judgment for itself and so that my constituents’ complaint was not upheld. The decision arrived at by the Financial Ombudsman Service was based on the probability of the evidence, but that evidence was incomplete, inconclusive or contradictory because Lloyds bank did not provide all the evidence that it should have done to the Financial Ombudsman Service. There was detrimental evidence that would have allowed the adjudicator to find in favour of my constituent—as the law should require them to do. Customers should have the right to complain to the Financial Ombudsman Service and get it to adjudicate quickly, fairly and at little cost. That is why it exists, but Lloyds bank, and I believe others have done the same, has concealed detrimental evidence to prevent that from happening. This left my constituent with the only option of expensive court litigation, which he could little afford, having been ruined and bankrupted by his own bank.
This allowed Lloyds Wholesale Banking Recoveries in Bristol, with the aid of their appointed Law of Property Act receiver, Alder King, which we heard about earlier from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), to strip the customer’s assets, knowing that the customer had in fact given the true account of the facts to the FOS and would have had their complaint upheld had Lloyds bank been truthful. My constituent can show that this has happened on more than one occasion. He believes not only that there should be a public inquiry, but that the Treasury Committee should look at the wider issues that have been raised in this debate and by this scandal for all the people who have been affected by different banks’ actions when the banks were bailed out by the Government.
Banks are still engaged in other practices that should be part of any inquiry. That includes what a constituent, Mr Iqbal Hassan, came to see me about last week—the way that a bank can suddenly close down their customers’ bank accounts without any notice. In his case, he simply got a text message saying that there were insufficient funds in his bank account and that it had been frozen. He then showed me the letter of apology he received from the bank. The letter gave absolutely no explanation of why the bank—it was Barclays bank in this case— had shut down his bank account. In fact, it said that it did not know why it had happened, but then, a day after that, it closed it completely. Many practices of that kind are going on.
There is also the negligence of banks in relation to customers being defrauded, often over the telephone. They rely on the concept of gross negligence on the part of their customers, which is completely unacceptable. A constituent—I will not name them here, because it is very difficult when this happens—at first lost over £40,000 as a result of this kind of fraud. Fortunately, through the help that I was able to give and through the help of people like Richard Emery—I commend him for his work on this kind of banking fraud—we were able to recover most of my constituent’s money. However, there are many similar cases in which Members’ constituents are not being refunded money that has been transferred from their accounts to accounts in other banks, which are taking no responsibility for giving harbour to criminals by holding their accounts and paying out money that has been stolen from our constituents.
We should have a public inquiry, and I urge the Minister to talk to his Treasury Minister colleagues about it. I know that he may not be able to make an announcement during today’s debate, but I hope he will go away and talk to his colleagues about the requirement for a proper, fully empowered public inquiry to investigate this scandal.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). Let me thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), along with the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance, for securing the debate. This is an incredibly significant issue. As we have heard this afternoon, it has affected many of our constituents, and one of my own, Julia Barrington-Fuller, has informed me that she has been caught up in this terrible episode.
I am here to support a motion that will ensure that if it all goes wrong, such victims of banking malpractice, who, by definition, tend to have limited financial resources, can have sufficient access to justice. I am also here to support a motion that will help us to learn the necessary lessons from this painful episode, while beefing up and altering the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority, which is not up to scratch. Above all, I am here to support a motion that will increase confidence in our financial system, in which small and medium-sized enterprises currently seem to have little faith, as they are reluctant to borrow from financial institutions. That, in turn, has a negative impact on productivity and growth, and anything that has a detrimental impact on the Great British economy is simply unacceptable.
It is clear to me that passing the motion would go a long way to deliver change by creating an environment in which some of our financial institutions are no longer able to abuse hard-working business owners. That is, unfortunately, what we saw in Ms Barrington-Fuller’s case. There have been clear examples of mis-selling during her dealings with the Royal Bank of Scotland. For example, she asked RBS for a fixed-rate loan in 2008, but was instead given an agreement that included swap protection for 10 years. That meant that her business was now fully exposed to interest-rate variance, leaving it with crippling monthly swap payments of £7,000 per quarter, on top of her loan repayments. Moreover, the continuation of the loan agreement was dependent on an RBS renewal after five years, which was then refused. As a result the swap agreement was broken, and the penalties for breaking that agreement were levied—penalties that Ms Barrington-Fuller was told did not exist when she took out her loan.
Those penalties and charges forced Julia Barrington-Fuller and her brothers to close their family business, while RBS is continuing to seek a repayment of £250,000, along with any moneys outstanding on the loan and six years’ interest. In her words,
“these people are deceiving small businesses and ruining lives for their own personal gain.”
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that poor lending practices and the selling of interest-rate swaps, combined with no examination whatsoever—absolutely no redress apart from, perhaps, repayment of the cost of the swaps—has forced some of our constituents, such as my constituent Mr Steve Gray, to close their businesses?
Giles Watling
I do agree, and that is why I am supporting the motion today. Julia Barrington-Fuller requested an agreement, but that was not the agreement that she finally received. We must have an inquiry into this misconduct; we must ensure that there is sufficient compensation for victims; and we must ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority is truly fit for purpose. We can only rebuild trust in our financial services by ensuring that institutions are held responsible in situations like the one I have described.
We hear too often about how our banks have been caught up in yet another scandal, the victims of which are not the bankers themselves but the hard-working people who rely on them to support their aspirations. People like Julia Barrington-Fuller and her brothers, who ran a successful business, are now struggling in circumstances not of their making. It is so disappointing that we are constantly revisiting this situation, especially in the case of RBS. This is a bank that the taxpayers paid £45 billion to bail out, and which now appears to be seeking to exploit those very taxpayers. It seems that the banks have learned nothing from the 2008 crash, an episode that Simon Jack of the BBC described this morning as
“the biggest banking debacle in UK corporate history.”
Indeed it was. It would appear that, if anything, all that the banks have done is move from a period of selling risky products to a period of mis-selling. Banks cannot be allowed to conduct their business in that way.
What is, perhaps, more ironic is that the loan that Julia Barrington-Fuller and her brothers took out was taken out as a matter of convenience rather than necessity. I understand that they did not need it as such. However, because of RBS misconduct, it was not long before they were in serious financial trouble, which led to their being put into RBS’s Global Restructuring Group. GRG, as we all know, was supposedly there to deal with firms that were in financial trouble, but there was no attempt to rescue the firms once they were put there. Instead, it is alleged, its focus was on liquidating companies rather than supporting them through further prudent lending. That is not good for business, and not good for the country as a whole.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling). A constituent of mine was affected by this issue 10 years ago, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the banks have learnt nothing in that time. It has taken more than a decade for some people to obtain any sort of redress, and that is clearly wrong.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing the debate. It is important that we are now debating the idea of redress and the misconduct of other organisations linked to the banking sector. In the time that I have, I shall focus on the failures of regulatory bodies and how their inaction has thus far failed victims of that misconduct. One of those victims is my constituent Mr Alun Richards, a customer of Lloyds Banking Group. Although much publicity has been given to the actions of RBS, Mr Richards’s case shows that Lloyds too should shoulder the blame. I have repeatedly detailed in the House the misconduct of which Mr Richards has been a victim at the hands of Lloyds bank, its Bristol recoveries unit and the estate agent Alder King, but for those who are unaware of the case, I will summarise it briefly.
Mr Richards was once a successful, and award-winning, farmer and businessman in west Wales. After setting up an account with Lloyds, however, he was soon left destitute when, without warning, it chose to transfer his account to its recoveries unit in Bristol. While the account remained at the unit, Lloyds managers John Holliday and Andrew Pavey allowed chartered surveyors Jonathan Miles and Julian Smith, of Bristol-based Alder King Estates, to act as Lloyds bank managers. Although no secondment agreement was in place, Miles and Smith were suddenly judge, jury and executioner of Mr Richards’s account. A further surveyor, Martin Jones of Swansea-based Lambert Smith Hampton, may also have made decisions despite conflicting interests.
Despite that gross misconduct, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors refused to take action against its members—Miles, Smith and Jones—even when it became apparent that they might have made a management decision and appointed fellow Alder King surveyors as Law of Property Act receivers. Since the incident, Mr Richards has met representatives of the RICS twice. I have written to them many times, but the response on each occasion has been that it is not their problem. When Mr Richards has met them, they have dismissed his concerns and the misconduct of its members. The Association of Property & Fixed Charge Receivers, which represents LPA receivers, and the Insolvency Practitioners Association have also ignored all the claims. Meanwhile, the Solicitors Regulation Authority has refused to consider the actions of its member Richard Hillier of the Bristol-based firm of solicitors TLT, who may have acted with conflicted interests whilst simultaneously representing Lloyds Bank, Alder King and LPA receivers Andrew Hughes and Julian Smith. On top of that, the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants has ignored claims regarding a member of its organisation in Swansea.
In my view, this represents regulatory failure. What has happened to Mr Richards over the last 10 years is more than just an injustice; it has left him without the business that he worked for, and without the career and financial security that he obviously deserves. The misconduct that has taken place across the UK—on, I would argue, an industrial scale—has been swept away by those who have been tasked yet are reluctant to investigate. We need redress for the victims of misconduct and this begins with the regulatory bodies, including the regulatory bodies investigating those members that Members of this House have raised complaints about. I have written to all these organisations, but my letters are often ignored or receive brief, passive responses telling me my concerns and my constituents’ concerns are simply not relevant.
The only way we can move forward is by having an inquiry, having more and better regulation, and ensuring our constituents receive the money they have lost. Mr Richards—who is in the Gallery today—is owed several millions of pounds in redress. This is the only real way forward if we are to help our constituents to get the redress the deserve.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
To be honest, I am surprised, if not shocked, that we are having to debate British banking misconduct in 2018. I suppose I must have been naive to believe for so much of my life that all banks, which I have always assumed to be pillars of the establishment, would deal properly, fairly and ethically with their customers. I assumed that one of their primary purposes was to help their customers to succeed in their businesses. It seems I was wrong in so many cases.
Equally, my eyes have been opened with regard to the Financial Conduct Authority. That body operates independently of the Government and its purpose is clear from its title: it is the financial regulatory body for banks in the United Kingdom and is supposed to ensure that they operate fairly as well as legally. But it clearly is not doing its job in the way it regulates how so many banks deal with small and medium-sized enterprises. The body is paid for by charging fees to members of the financial services industry. I am afraid that I must wonder whether that could sometimes influence the way it acts, or perhaps does not act, at least in some cases.
The reason I am speaking today in this debate is that the D’Eye family, all of whom are constituents of mine, have been hit for six by the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Global Restructuring Group and Dunbar Bank, owned by Zurich. From the story I have been told, Dean D’Eye and his family, and also his friends, have been terrorised by insolvency professionals working for GRG and Dunbar Bank. That is disgraceful. In my view, banks such as Dunbar and RBS, which have taken part in what I consider to be unethical piracy, must be brought to book. The FCA must play a much bigger part in doing this, rather than standing idly by.
We in Parliament have a duty to insist that loans and funding for our small businesses are regulated fairly, ethically and with sympathy for people trying to make a living and to boost our economy. We also need a mechanism to ensure that past wrongs are put right. To get all this, it looks like we may need a public inquiry. If that is the case, I fully support one being set up as soon as possible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am afraid that we must now reduce the time limit to four minutes. I am sorry for not giving the next speaker, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), any notice of that.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To attempt to stay within the time limit, I will abbreviate my contribution. I rise to speak on behalf of two constituents, Mr S and Mr A, who I believe may be in the Public Gallery today, both of whom I have attempted to assist, without success. They have both had a very difficult time.
Mr S is a former owner of a successful club and restaurant business in Chelsea and banked with RBS until 1998. In 1993, his account was suddenly moved to the Specialised Lending Services division of RBS, which was subsequently renamed Global Restructuring Group. Mr S felt bullied by the bank to appoint its manager as a shadow director. In the eight months of this new management, £500,000 went out of his account and to date remains unaccounted for. His club lost its licence and was forced to close. Prior to the bank’s intervention, the value of the business was £2.25 million. At that point, it was just £100,000.
Mr S then spent £25,000 on obtaining a new licence before RBS Specialised Lending Services suddenly ordered payment of £500,000. The bank forced the business to close and tried to develop it for profit. Mr S was evicted from the neighbouring maisonette and made homeless. The bank’s actions lost Mr S his home, his business and, ultimately, his wife. Twenty years on, Mr S is still traumatised and has still not recovered financially.
My second constituent is Mr A, the former owner of an estate company in Kent. In this case, the bank was HSBC. The bank agreed to provide partial funding for a £2.2 million development project that started in 2007. It was approximately 75% complete when HSBC stopped the period funding payments. The UK economy was suffering and HSBC’s policy was to treat construction projects as a “restricted sector” for loans. This restriction came into effect in early 2008. To continue funding that project, HSBC applied to its central committee in Calcutta, assuring Mr A that his case was nothing more than a formality. To enable the project to continue, Mr A personally funded a further £150,000, exhausting his resources. It took a full year until HSBC confirmed that there would be no further funding. The works stopped, the site was set on fire by local vandals and Mr A was forced to issue court proceedings. Two weeks before the trial, HSBC took action to place the business into receivership, signing a consent order to stop the trial, which was accepted by the High Court, bankrupting Mr A.
Mr A has lost his business; he has lost his house; he has lost his savings. He is now living in rented accommodation and depends on state benefits. He is understandably suffering from stress and has been classified as disabled. The consequences of HSBC’s actions are lifelong.
How can it be that in the 21st century banks can behave in this way and are free from any retribution?
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I am conscious of time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am disappointed that we are having to debate this matter at all today, let alone for the second time this year.
The section 166 report highlighted that RBS GRG was focused on profit over customer service. I was also interested to note that the Tomlinson report found few examples of businesses entering the RBS GRG then being returned to local management. On a separate, but related, point, in my own dealings with RBS over its closure of three branches in my constituency, it has been clear that customer service is not the bank’s priority.
I want to touch briefly on how the actions of RBS GRG have impacted upon my constituents. One constituent, who has been in regular contact, is appalled by the conduct of RBS GRG. He ran his own property development business in my constituency and was in the hands of GRG for a number of years. He was so aggrieved by its actions that he produced a 19-page report describing in tragic detail the manner in which RBS denied him the opportunity to rebuild the company after it fell into problems, closed down the company, which he had built from scratch, and tried to evict his entire family from the family home. This is but one example. I know that other Members have many more.
Small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy and often the lifeblood of our communities. They employ our constituents and pay the taxes that fund our public services—taxes that were also used to bail out the banks, including RBS. It is bad enough we had to bail them out in the first place; for those banks then actively to undermine the very source of their rescue is a serious moral, as well as legal, issue that we are right to consider and which we must address.
There is widespread discontent with the banking sector that admittedly is not limited to the actions of RBS but stems from the financial crisis in 2008 and other subsequent high-profile cases, such as that of HBOS Reading. The only way to restore any semblance of confidence in the banking sector is to hold an inquiry into the treatment of SMEs by RBS GRG. I am pleased therefore that the all-party group on fair business banking and finance has called for a public inquiry. I back that call.
The all-party group has laid out three reforms it believes are necessary to move the sector forward, and I am pleased to support its proposals, especially that for a more rigorous and robust dispute resolution procedure. Currently, victims have only two routes available—one via the Financial Ombudsman Service and one via the courts. As we know, the ombudsman does not always have the scope to deal with cases where compensation is worth more than £150,000, while going through the courts is potentially cripplingly expensive, especially for anyone who has just lost their business.
Any reform must address and tackle the causes that brought us to this point. It is simply not sufficient to recognise that it happened and compensate accordingly—we must improve the current processes and prevent these issues from ever recurring.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) for his important and impressive speech earlier and for calling this debate.
I do not want to speak for long, but I do want to say a few words about the importance of restoring faith and trust in our financial institutions. Recent weeks have brought bad news of further bank closures in Scotland and across the United Kingdom by RBS. Three of the targeted branches are in my constituency, in Stepps, Tannochside and Bellshill. We are continually told that branches are being closed because more people are banking online, but what about the disabled, the elderly and others who want to open a new account? I accept that many people bank differently these days, but I take issue with the speed at which change is being forced through and the damage it is doing to communities along the way.
I ask RBS, if it is watching, to think again. Its closure programme is affecting the worst-off and most vulnerable people in my community and many others, as we have heard today, but RBS will never understand the frustration that customers across Scotland and the United Kingdom feel at these bank closures. Stepps will be a town with no bank at all. That is unacceptable and speaks to the financial isolation and exclusion that can be triggered when these decisions are taken.
I mention all that because our small and medium-sized businesses are going to think twice before seeking to borrow from these financial institutions, and we cannot blame them—not when these banks are prioritising themselves and their profits over the communities they should be serving. They are putting profit before people. I often travel around Scotland and the United Kingdom, and I recently joined the campaign trail around London, and on every high street I see the same thing: “for sale” signs; boarded-up shops; graffiti; small businesses, once a proud part of our communities, closed down, and not because of their own endeavours but because the banking sector did not serve their interests.
This situation worries me hugely, especially as we are about to leave the EU. I campaigned proudly to remain in 2016, and I welcome Labour’s policy on the customs union and those in the Conservative party who might support it. The economic implications for small businesses across Britain of our leaving the EU will be huge, however, and I do not believe we have even started to understand what we need to do to keep them alive and protected from the coming economic shock. I call on the Minister to be loud and proud in getting a better deal for all our constituents and to call a public inquiry so that we can hold the banks to account.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) for bringing forward this important debate. Like me, he is an officer of the all-party group on fair business banking and finance, which I co-chair. I also speak today on behalf of Jon and Kerry Welsby and others in my constituency who have suffered as a consequence of the apparent bank-induced failure of business services company Mouchel.
As the motion states, the problems in the banking sector are not restricted to RBS—I will offer evidence to the House later that will widen this debate—but I will deal first with RBS. It is clear that the senior management are directly responsible for what happened, but there are also serious questions that the regulator, the FCA, needs to answer, particularly about how it intends to hold these individuals to account through phase 2 of its inquiry and about the reasons for the fundamental difference in tone and substance between the conclusions of the full report and those of its summary. Its summary sets out its key conclusions, and although it identifies isolated examples of poor practice, it lists eight separate areas where RBS was cleared of blame before later highlighting areas in which widespread inappropriate treatment had occurred.
The full report, released eventually by the Treasury Committee some 15 months later, stated:
“Our central conclusions are that there was widespread inappropriate treatment of customers by GRG”,
that
“in a significant proportion of cases...we assessed”
these businesses
“as being potentially viable”
and that
“the treatment appears likely to have caused material financial distress…for the most part”
as
“a direct result...of the priorities GRG pursued.”
Martin Whitfield
Is it not indicative of the problems of transparency that the delay between the release of the initial report and the full report was unacceptable and that it was only eventually released because of the efforts of Committees of the House and Members of this Chamber?
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point. We should thank the Treasury Committee and its Chair for their work.
As I said, these issues are not restricted to RBS. Many will also be familiar with the HBOS Reading scandal, where former bankers and their advisers were jailed for a total of 47 years in 2017 for activities that took place over a decade earlier, prior to the takeover by Lloyds in 2008.
I have recently been sent by one of those convicted, Mr Michael Bancroft—this was kindly facilitated by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi)—hitherto unreleased documents, including the Project Lord Turnbull report, authored by Lloyds senior manager Sally Masterton, which alleges that senior managers within the bank were aware of the fraud prior to the takeover and the £14 billion Lloyds and HBOS rights issues, yet they took clear, deliberate and documented action to conceal it. Let us be clear: if this is true, it could potentially make the rights issues and the takeover fraudulent. Those named as culpable for non-disclosure in the report include chief executive Andy Hornby, chairman Sir Dennis Stevenson, former CEO James Crosby, corporate CEO Peter Cummings, and the auditors and reporting accountants, KPMG. The all-party parliamentary group will have a full copy of the report and Members will be given access to it. Status, seniority and background cannot be a barrier to justice or to holding to account those who are ultimately responsible for the devastation caused to so many lives and to the wider economy.
Luke Graham
Those papers, which will be made available to the APPG, mention the actions of the auditors, KPMG. Will KPMG be included in the investigation, and should it be the subject of a further debate in this place?
Kevin Hollinrake
They should certainly be included in the wider investigation, which is what I will call for shortly.
The Project Lord Turnbull report raises significant questions. Was there deliberate concealment of the scale of the fraud within HBOS and Lloyds? Who was party to the concealment? Crucially, did the concealment result in significant loss to bank shareholders and to subscribers to the rights issue? We see conflicts of interest in the report and in many other places. They include the auditors, KPMG, giving HBOS a clean bill of health in February 2008, only a few months before its collapse; the audit watchdog, the Financial Reporting Council, seeing no reason to investigate this audit; and the fact that four of the 10 members of the FRC board are partners at KPMG and that it is chaired by former Lloyds chairman Sir Win Bischoff, who oversaw the £14 billion rights issue.
Our all-party group sets out clearly what steps we now need to take. We need an investigation into the serious concerns raised against Lloyds and HBOS. The FCA must build a reputation as a regulator that acts without fear or favour. We need a new primary dispute resolution mechanism, potentially in the form of a financial services tribunal, which also sets aside the statute of limitations. We need a review of the structure of our financial crime agencies in the light of the evidence now before us to ensure that our system of justice is fit for purpose. Finally, the only way in which we can resolve the deep-seated cultural problems in our banking sector and remove the conflicts of interests that are so prevalent is by way of a full public inquiry.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
I wish to use these few short minutes to quote from a letter given to me by Martin Wickens, a chartered accountant who has worked closely with my constituent George Jones, a farmer in my constituency, and with hundreds of other farmers and small and medium-sized enterprises across the country that have fallen foul of the predatory behaviour of many of the banks, accountants, surveyors and solicitors who have perpetrated these crimes. Many of the tactics outlined in Martin’s letter were used by those involved in taking money from those SMEs. I want to put an extract from his letter on record in the hope that those who should be investigating these matters will take his evidence seriously and investigate with more vigour. Martin states:
“Despite numerous Complainants reporting the matter to the Police, Solicitors Regulation Authority, Serious Fraud Office and Financial Conduct Authority the matter has not been investigated and repossessions continue. The documentary evidence examined allegedly shows, inter alia, the following in support of the position outlined by The Rt. Hon. Elfyn Llwyd MP and Barrister in his Westminster Debate on the 11th November 2014.
1. Undisclosed conflicts of interest by associated Solicitors, Valuer, Mortgage Broker, Lenders, Business Advisor and LPA Receiver.
2. Valuation Rigging.
3. The payment of substantial secret commissions of up to £92,927 by Commercial First Business Limited to UK Mortgages & Finance Services Ltd, a UK Acorn company.
4. Mortgage Churning and entrapment through destruction of the equity of borrowers by the creation of a vicious spiral of debt by unnecessary and excessive interest, fees and charges in favour of the associated Solicitor Lenders, Mortgage Broker and Valuer by a succession of highly expensive bridging loans.
5. Regulated mortgages advanced as unregulated loans when the lender is not authorised or regulated to do so.
6. Conspiracy to defraud and Document forgery.
7. False accounting and business plans, misrepresentation, unfair relationships in favour of lender, breaches of fiduciary duty and trust, including non-fulfilment of promise to transfer borrowing to cheaper lender.
8. Breach of The Law of Property Act 1925 regarding LPA Receivers fees.
9. Little or no due diligence by lender…and asset based lending with no exit route other than repossession. The average age of the Commercial First Business Limited borrowers is 90…in one case 95…at the end of the 25 or 30 year mortgage term.
10. Separate mortgages on house and land to increase power of lender on repossession and advances to a limited company formed for that purpose which converts a regulated mortgage into an unregulated product with loss of legal protection including that for minors.”
I quote at length to prove to the Minister that these serious charges and allegations cover things that have been happening for 15 years, and nobody has been brought to book.
Will the Minister meet me and Martin Wickens to discuss these serious issues and to make sure they are rectified?
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk in this important, if somewhat depressing, debate. We have heard over and again from hon. Members on both sides of the House that the FCA, the ombudsman and the banks have been found wanting, so we must ask what possible redress our constituents can hope to have when those three bodies are found not to be up to the mark.
A number of cases in Brentwood and Ongar have been brought to my attention, but this afternoon I will just talk to the case of a couple I believe are with us in the Gallery. They took out a mortgage with Halifax, part of Lloyds Banking Group, in 2008. They were not in arrears at the time, but they sought to remortgage in 2013 because they could see things might be difficult down the line. Their request was refused. The couple subsequently did fall into arrears, and the bank sought to repossess their house, which caused them an enormous cost to their wellbeing and health. One can only imagine the stress people go through in such circumstances.
We know LBG is not spotless in this area. In April 2017, the ombudsman found against LBG in the case of a customer who had been stranded on a variable rate mortgage—people in that situation are called mortgage prisoners—and found this had left the borrower in
“a worse position, having to pay a higher rate, which hasn’t been in his best interests.”
A couple of months later, in July 2017, the FCA issued a statement saying that LBG had agreed to set up a redress scheme for mortgage customers who had incurred fees after they fell behind with their mortgage payments:
“Following engagement with the Financial Conduct Authority …Lloyds acknowledged that when customers fell into arrears, they did not always do enough to understand customers’ circumstances to be confident that their arrears payment plans were affordable and sustainable.”
Those two findings in 2017 should have given my constituents some succour and hope, but they had previously taken their case to the ombudsman and consequently found themselves with no adequate redress. Like many hon. Members here today, they subsequently saw the “Dispatches” programmes mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) in which it became clear the ombudsman may not have had quality of judgment in many cases. My constituents have grave uncertainty that they have been treated fairly.
We now find that the bank is disinclined to change its mind. We have reached an impasse. My office, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking and finance and the family themselves have been round the houses. They have gone back to the bank, to the FCA and to the ombudsman, but there is no way through. We are left in a frustrating position, and my constituents feel that vital information about their case is not being taken into account. Indeed, we can see no way in which it can be taken into account.
I would be grateful if the Minister considered my constituents’ case as he looks again at the system. I am interested in the APPG’s proposals for an affordable and accessible dispute resolution platform with the powers of a court. We must strive for fairness, and fairness requires honest redress and honest arbitration.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing the debate. In my last speech on this matter in this House, I referred to a farm in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell); the family live in my constituency. I remind the House that they paid back half a million pounds in capital and £535,000 in interest, including £62,000 just to leave the bank they were with and go to another bank. The bank had the audacity to charge £6 for a transfer fee on the £1.25 million balance. What bank was this? It was the bank I am with—the Danske bank in Northern Ireland, the most profitable company in Northern Ireland, with profits of £117 million in 2016 and of £145 million in 2017. Its chief executive has said:
“We are absolutely delighted to have retained top spot in the Belfast Telegraph’s listing of the Top 100 companies in Northern Ireland”.
Would it not have been better had it been in the top 100 for customer care and looking after its customers? That is what we should have had, instead of it trying to make more dividends for its shareholders.
In the time I have available, I shall be speaking about Hubert and Marjorie Armstrong, who have also had a nightmare situation with Danske bank in relation to their property development business, Moorcroft Estates Ltd, which has sites at Glenburn Manor of some 44 units and Fashoda Street in east Belfast, with a plan to build some 47 apartments. On 7 May 2007, Danske advanced the company £1.25 million, which was matched by the business, which had been successfully trading for a decade. Danske subsequently took an additional charge of £300,000 on their family home.
This story is dreadful, and, as happens all too often, it involves health issues. The company was finally insolvent in May 2010. On the preliminary reading, Mr and Mrs Armstrong’s personal efforts to pursue the matter with the FCA are interesting and resonate with much of what I have heard from right hon. and hon. Members in this Chamber today. Mr Armstrong’s is a classic case of where the Financial Ombudsman Service should not be involved now or in the future. It shows why we believe the tribunal is the correct complementary solution, to run alongside the right expanded remit of the FOS. Those of us in the all-party group on the Connaught Income Fund have come across many episodes and examples of where the FCA has failed in its duty as a regulator. We have read of the actions, or indeed the inactions, of the Financial Services Authority and FCA, and the FCA board should hang their heads in shame. Past victims have been ignored.
I am conscious of the time and I am trying to race through this. I hope I am not talking too fast, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I am, I apologise to the Hansard people, who are probably writing furiously at this moment in time and trying to decipher my Ulster Scots. I wish to draw the attention of Members to early-day motion 1162, which we tabled to give Members the chance to record their concerns about how the cases of past victims have been looked at. The FCA board has asked:
“Do you agree that the changes introducing small businesses as eligible complainants should come into effect on 1 December 2018 and that they should apply only to complaints made to a firm regarding acts or omissions of the firm which occur from 1 December 2018?”
That approach is wrong. Let us get it right. I do believe in the tribunal system—I think this should be done—and I wish to conclude by mentioning an article by Richard Samuel on 5 February 2018 headed “Banking disputes: time for a tribunal”. In our view, he sets out compelling and convincing logic for why we should have both the FOS and tribunals. I urge the Minister to look towards that. As I always do, I look to him for a positive and helpful response. Hand on heart, I ask him to help our constituents.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), although we usually do this in Westminster Hall, rather than here in the main Chamber. It is also a pleasure to be called in this debate and to congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing it, as it gives many of us an opportunity to speak up for businesses that were so badly treated by their banks. At a time when these businesses needed support and a relationship that looked to the future, they instead found short-term attitudes being taken by their lender, offering them little, other than something they did not want or the opportunity to go bankrupt. It was pretty obvious what the outcome of those choices would be.
My involvement in this has been prompted by the case of Rew Hotels Ltd, which has a number of hotels in my constituency. The business is family owned, and they have been developing and running their service for many years.
Kevin Foster
Thankfully, a stay in a Rew hotel is nothing like Fawlty Towers, although I understand that Basil Fawlty might be about to leave the country following one of this week’s votes.
I have only a short time, so will come back to what I was saying. Around 10 years ago, Rew Hotels was offered a hedge that it really did not want. Its bank at the time was Barclays. It was not a constructive discussion; it was basically a choice of the company either taking a hedge that it really did not want, that would cost it a large amount of money and that would not have any great benefit to the business, or trying to refinance multimillion-pound debt in the middle of a credit crunch. It was obvious what the choice was going to be. The company was saddled with it for several years, but in the end bought itself out. It is estimated that, all in, it lost around £850,000 in the process.
That £850,000 is not just a figure; as Tim Rew, whom the Minister has met, says, it is not just lost money but lost jobs, lost investment and lost opportunity. It is a lost chance to develop new rooms and facilities, and other things to bring guests into Torbay. This is not just a debate about what a profit margin might or might not have been. Fundamentally, there is a feeling of injustice that a small company has had to work to produce that for a very large banking corporation that could have done a whole lot better in its attitude and support.
The Minister will know from his meeting with the Rews that their next frustration came with the methods of redress. One of the initial offers was for them to be given some compensation and, oh yes, to sign up for another hedge. They did not want a hedge in the first place, and now they had the chance to sign up for another. It was literally ridiculous.
The potential alternatives for smaller companies are difficult. Rew Hotels was caught by the fact that, because it is a hotel group and has large numbers of waiting staff and general hospitality staff, it was classed as a slightly more sophisticated investor. I could understand that argument if it was a solicitors company, with 50 or 60 solicitors and accountants and a small percentage of non-professional staff. This company, though, was clearly going to be limited in its capacity to make a professional investment decision, yet because it has a large number of employees, it was designated as though it was a great expert in the financial markets, which was clearly unfair.
I was interested to hear the suggestion in the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about looking into a more tribunal-based approach to dealing with some of these cases. Rew Hotels feels that the existing system is like the banks marking their own homework and deciding to give themselves an A, and then saying that even along with compensation a company should have what it does not want.
I have every confidence in the Minister, who I know has an understanding of tourism, given his previous role. I hope that he will consider carefully some of the arguments made in this debate and that we can give companies and those who have been victims a proper system of redress, other than costly legal action.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), and I congratulate my friend, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), on securing this important debate.
Let me start with what we all hope is a mythical three-headed beast that guards the gates to hell: Cerberus, the veritable hound of hell. However, this beast is not mythical, but one of the largest private equity firms in the world. Its interests include private armies and arms manufacturing; it structures itself in such a way that it pays virtually no tax; and it likes to go shopping in the UK for commercial loan books. In Scotland, it has purchased almost all of Clydesdale bank’s commercial property loan book. Rather than run down its book as RBS’s Global Restructuring Group did, Clydesdale took a more straightforward approach: it sold its book to henchmen to do the work for it. Let me be clear, these are not necessarily non-performing or toxic loans; they are just non-core to the Clydesdale.
Why does Cerberus like to shop here? It is quite simple, and a matter of interest to me as a member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee: commercial lending is unregulated and our insolvency system is one of the most creditor-friendly in the world. Firms can buy a loan book, scour the one-sided contracts for any technical breach and, even if a loan is being serviced, put the company into administration, sell the assets and, if there are personal guarantees involved, go for personal bankruptcy and the family home of the guarantors.
All that brings me to an illustration of the individual human toll of banking misconduct. Let me read some very poignant words that were sent to me by a constituent. This businessman’s experience relates to Clydesdale bank, but we all know that we could substitute the name of almost any bank. He says:
“One very personal matter I can confide to you”
is that
“as a direct result of Clydesdale Bank’s strategies, actions”
and
“correspondence, I had a nervous breakdown, coming very close to a life-threatening condition.”
He goes on to say:
“Many business people would not admit to the shame of the impact that Clydesdale had on their life and that of their families. For that reason alone and not that of revenge or financial redress I would ask that this issue is brought out into the open for MP’s to discuss the legacy left. It has been a very high cost in many ways.”
Finally, he says:
“My business interests have survived just, but I can no longer play any part in developing the Scottish economy as a result of that period, and that is a high cost and a loss to the Scottish economy.”
I am very grateful to him for giving me his brave testimony. It is truly shocking that an individual who only ever set out to generate an income and run a good business has been not only financially damaged, but stripped of his plans and his ambitions. His is just one story, one life ruined, but of course we know that it is replicated in every constituency across the country. What has our small business community done to be treated in this way? Surely it deserves better. It has never been more important for the British economy—
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent section 166 report into the Royal Bank of Scotland’s misconduct was limited to only those cases from 2008 to 2013, which means that victims such as my constituent Mr Nigel Henderson, who was going through this from as early as the 1990s, does not have a voice?
Stephen Kerr
My hon. Friend makes her point, which I will repeat: surely these business people deserve better. It has never been more important for the British economy to support small businesses; they are the engine for growth. We need to draw a line in the sand, provide redress for those still suffering as a result of bank misconduct and put safeguards in place so that this cannot happen again. If we are to learn anything from the scandals that have plagued the commercial finance sector, it is that we must look at the way that we treat our businesses. That is why I support the motion today, and why I reiterate my support for a full public inquiry.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I will not say that it is a pleasure to speak in this debate, because it is not. The stories that we have heard from across the House today are absolutely harrowing. It is clear that each one of us represents constituents who have been affected by what RBS, GRG or one of the other banks have done in the pursuit of profit.
I must declare an interest: my cousin, her husband and their four children were one of the families who were affected by RBS and GRG. In fact, their business was put into the GRG and, as late as 2016, they were made homeless as a result of GRG repossessing the farm in which they lived, so a couple with four children were made homeless by GRG. I felt that it was important that I declared that as an interest.
One of my constituents, who I hope is in the Public Gallery today, has also been to see me in relation to his experiences with GRG. I will not say exactly what GRG did, because that has been widely covered by a number of Members this afternoon. His wife suffered a cardiac arrest as a result of the stress and subsequently died. We have also heard about people committing suicide as a result of what happened with GRG. One Conservative Member—I apologise, but I forget who—talked about the fact that companies jumped through all the hoops they were asked to jump through and yet were still relentlessly pursued for money that they were said to owe because of over-inflated interest rates. This was a relentless pursuit of profit. My constituent who approached me is very clear that there needs to be a public inquiry, and I absolutely agree with him.
This issue has destroyed lives. It is impossible to overestimate how hard it is to be a small business owner anyway. It is difficult to run a small and medium-sized business, particularly if a person has not run one before. It is also a lonely occupation. A person is there trying to run a business by themselves. They may never have done that before, and their bank is supposed to be there to support them; they are supposed to be there to provide them with finance to ensure that they can run a successful business. They are not supposed to pursue people for the assets that they want to gain for themselves.
We have not covered how much of a cabal this situation has involved. The reality is that a very small number of people were running GRG. In fact, some practices that have been raised with me involved these people trying to cover their own backs by encouraging one small business owner to take over the assets of another small business owner at a particularly low price, so that that person’s balance book could look wrong. It is horrendous if those things happened, but they were able to happen because of the very small nature of such organisations and the fact that people were not able to talk about them because they were being told that they were in debt.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I, too, have had constituents affected by this, and I agree with many comments made throughout the debate. My hon. Friend is making the case for a public inquiry, otherwise it will fuel suspicions that there is an attempt to continue to keep this matter away from the public eye. She also highlights the fact that we are talking about the Global Restructuring Group. Does she agree that the Minister needs to tell us whether there is international exposure on the activities of the Royal Bank of Scotland—that is, whether these practices were used in some of its overseas activities and whether it is liable for the results of any such behaviour?
Kirsty Blackman
This has not been widely covered in anything that has been published so far in relation to GRG. It would therefore be incumbent on any inquiry to take that into account.
The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) mentioned the issues with the section 166 report and what was initially published. He made an important point, and I echo his sentiments. For hon. Members who have not read the report, it makes for devastating reading and is worth looking at.
The reality is that the redress scheme is not good enough. For a start, it does not have enough money to compensate victims adequately for what has happened to them. RBS will never be able to afford to fund all the claims being made by small or medium-sized businesses. As the redress scheme is run by the bank itself, it is fairly easy for the bank just to pay out to the victims, where the bank now has majority ownership and is therefore one of the main creditors. If there is not adequate external scrutiny, such situations can arise without check.
GRG was in the wrong. Everybody in this House agrees that GRG was in the wrong. RBS agrees that GRG is in the wrong, which is why it has a redress scheme. It is clear that the time for talking has passed. All of us standing around here are clear that something needs to be done. This issue has united the House, which does not happen very often. It is in the power of the Government to take actual action and to create a real system with proper redress.
Joanna Cherry
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to give us some tangible gains to take away to our constituents—including my constituents Mr and Mrs Neave—as a result of today’s debate. We have been going around the houses for years now, as the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said.
Kirsty Blackman
I absolutely agree. The time for talking about this is over. It is time for the Government to take action. It is time for action to ensure that all our constituents can claim the redress that they should and that all business practices that devastated people’s lives are properly brought to light.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It has been a sobering experience to listen to this debate. We have heard so many stories and so much advocacy from hon. Members on behalf of constituents. I commend everyone who has spoken today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) and the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking for securing this debate on a topic that continues to be of such critical importance.
In my remarks I want to restate the Opposition’s support for a full public inquiry; talk a little about the current inadequacy of the regulator and the section 166 procedure; state why an independent mechanism of redress for business is clearly required; and say why this is in the best interests not just of customers and the country, but of the banks themselves.
This debate shows that the issues around the relationship between banks and their business customers are not fading, diminishing or going away. Rather, in recent weeks we have continued to hear yet more appalling revelations about the way in which RBS’s Global Restructuring Group treated its customers and stories of how that had spread to other financial institutions, too. Following the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), we can now read the full section 166 report on the conduct of the GRG unit. The extent of the inexcusable behaviour revealed in that report is truly shocking. The purchase of the assets of distressed businesses, in some cases by RBS staff themselves, illustrates just how deeply the conflicts ran within GRG. Clearly, certain bank employees felt that they could act with total impunity towards their customers, and that cannot be acceptable.
We are all aware that the complaints process is ongoing between RBS and its former business customers who were the victims of GRG. However, I echo the call made by my hon. Friends the Members for Norwich South and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) in the debate that took place earlier this year in saying that this issue demands a full, independent public inquiry. Given the revelations exposed in the section 166 report, there must be a comprehensive examination of whether criminal liability has occurred, and those responsible must be held to account. In addition, given that certain individuals involved in GRG’s management continue to work in senior positions within British banking, surely an objective assessment should be made as to whether those people are fit to do so.
I am afraid that the Government’s response on this has so far fallen short—for instance, in the Treasury’s repeated cut-and-paste responses to the numerous parliamentary questions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central since December 2017. The Treasury has simply deferred the issue time and again, saying that it is impossible to comment while the Financial Conduct Authority’s investigation is ongoing. Will the Minister please acknowledge today the strength of feeling in all parts of the House?
Another key issue is the effectiveness of the existing system—in particular, the use of section 116 reports and whether that is entirely appropriate to deal with these cases. A section 116 report, or skilled person’s report, is conducted by a third party appointed by the Financial Conduct Authority. The cost is met by the subject of the investigation, and it can range from hundreds of thousands of pounds to millions of pounds, but the reports remain entirely confidential. This lack of transparency is not good enough.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman mentioned executives from RBS who are still earning large amounts of money within the financial services sector. Is he aware that Nathan Bostock, a senior director within GRG, currently earns £1.6 million as chief executive of Santander and £1.8 million a year from RBS as part of his payoff?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. These are the questions that need answering. People have told me that they worked for RBS and left because they were unhappy with the conduct of the bank. Surely they should also be allowed to put their case in a proper way.
Returning to the confidentiality of section 166 reports, I have to put on record the disquiet, certainly among Opposition Members, about the discrepancy between the FCA’s summary of the investigation into GRG and the actual report in terms of the former’s heavily sanitised nature. Now that the report has finally been made public, we can fully witness the extent to which relationships with business customers were abused. Under normal conditions, however, the report would have remained confidential. That cannot be appropriate, because it furthers the perception that the odds are stacked against businesses. We need processes that are transparent and fair, and command the confidence of everybody. We also need to look at who is asked to undertake these reports and any conflicts of interest that they might have.
As many Members have pointed out, small businesses are the backbone of our economy. If they cannot trust the financial institutions that are meant to serve them, we are all going to pay the price for that. Statistics show that up to half of all SMEs are non-borrowers, although we do not know whether that is because they do not feel they can trust their banks or simply feel too anxious to expand by taking on credit. As a country, we all acknowledge that we need to offer those businesses the right incentives and support to grow. We need to solve this crisis of trust in business banking. An independent arbiter who can fill the gap between the Financial Ombudsman Service and the full legal route for redress is a minimum sensible starting point for consideration. We await with interest the outcome of UK Finance’s independent review, chaired by Mr Simon Walker, of complaints handling and alternative dispute resolution for SMEs, which could provide a steer.
However, I do not believe that this industry can be allowed to self-regulate, and that is why an independent platform must be considered. Like many Members who have spoken today, I believe that the restoration of trust in business banking is essential, but it will not come without the Government taking decisive action. A public inquiry, redress for victims, accountability for those responsible and a new independent system of redress are surely the right places to begin.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Glen)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) on securing this debate and thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I have listened carefully to more than 20 speeches and 30 contributions, and I would like to acknowledge the request from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) to address specific cases; I am happy to engage with them on that.
Considering the developments in the case of RBS Global Restructuring Group since our debate on 18 January, it is absolutely right that we revisit this important subject. As Members across the House have said, small and medium-sized businesses are the backbone of our economy—I grew up in one—and they depend on financial services providers for vital finance through lending, but those transactions must be in the strictest accordance with the law. Let me be clear: wherever that has not been the case, any business affected should be compensated.
I have listened carefully to a whole range of stories from Members this afternoon about people who have clearly been badly let down. I had the privilege of meeting hoteliers in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) who were treated in an appalling fashion and given products that were clearly not suited to their needs. That has been replicated in very many cases. I have been moved by the numerous letters I have received from Members on behalf of their constituents, many of whom face significant difficulties as a consequence of their treatment by RBS GRG.
I want to reassure the House that the Government and the Financial Conduct Authority take this issue very seriously. I understand the frustration about the timing of resolution, and I want to address specifically what I have done as the Minister since January. In March I met Andrew Bailey, chief executive of the FCA, and stressed to him just how important I consider the proper and full resolution of the RBS GRG issue to be, which he agrees with. The skilled person report produced for the FCA stated that there were areas of widespread inappropriate treatment of firms by RBS. That is unacceptable.
I went on to meet the chief executive of RBS recently, to discuss the range of issues that were raised then and have been raised again today. Following that meeting, I was pleased to receive a letter from the chief executive addressing a number of the points that colleagues have raised today. RBS has committed to setting up an independent appeal process for consequential loss claims, addressing a gap that existed in the redress scheme, and it is discussing with Sir William Blackburne how that process will operate. RBS has also agreed to stand aside —rightly, in my opinion—from any money that might be returned to it from redress paid to liquidated companies and will donate that money to charities supporting small businesses. I welcome those important steps in improving the operation and transparency of the redress scheme for businesses affected by RBS GRG.
As Members will be aware, the Treasury Committee has published the FCA’s full report on RBS GRG. The FCA is now conducting the second stage of its investigation, which is a more focused investigation into the matters arising from the report. It has moved on quickly, so that we can examine the issues more quickly than if we had gone through an alternative process. I have confidence in the FCA’s approach and direction on this case. I am meeting Andrew Bailey regularly, and I hope that the FCA will conclude its investigation soon, by which I mean in the next eight to 12 weeks. As I mentioned in our debate on this topic in January, I do not wish to complicate the matter further or prejudice any outcomes while the FCA is investigating, but I am very clear that I expect it to conclude its investigations in a very short timeframe.
The FCA’s independence is vital to its role; it was vital before 2010, and it is vital now. Its credibility, authority and value to consumers would be undermined if it were possible for the Government to intervene directly in its decision making.
I would like to turn now to the broader issue of alternative dispute resolution methods between SMEs and banks and to some of the issues around professional services that were raised in the debate.
Kirsty Blackman
Will the Minister commit to, if possible, putting the RBS letter in the Library, so that we can all see it? Will he also ensure that when the FCA does conclude the final part of the report, we can all see the full version as soon as possible?
John Glen
I am grateful for that intervention. I am happy to clarify that the letter has been copied to the chair of the APPG and the Chair of the Select Committee, and I will make it more widely available.
There are already a number of avenues for SMEs seeking a resolution when dealing with their bank. Our smallest businesses have the Financial Ombudsman Service. I am of course aware of the “Dispatches” programme, and I have met the chief executive. The FOS is reviewing its operations and addressing the matters raised.
Where there are widespread issues, the FCA can ensure, and has ensured, redress through industry-wide or firm-specific redress schemes. Of course, there is also the usual legal process open to business, although I know this can be a time-consuming and costly process.
Since the last debate, the FCA has published a consultation paper on expanding the remit of the Financial Ombudsman Service, which would widen eligibility to include a greater range of SMEs.
Joanna Cherry
On the point about legal redress, does the Minister not appreciate that a lot of our constituents have lost everything. If they are in Scotland, they might be lucky enough to still be eligible for legal aid, but many legal aid lawyers are not equipped to take on this sort of complex action, so this is a real David and Goliath situation. That is why we need the tribunal.
Clive Efford
My constituents became involved in this not because they had an SME, but because they were trying to get a mortgage and were forced into this process. The mistake was made with the first loan that was given to them, but the ombudsman will not recognise that and look into it. What we need is more pressure on the ombudsman to listen to the consumer and not the banks.
John Glen
I listened very carefully to the case the hon. Gentleman outlined, and I recognise the challenges that the FOS has to face up to. That is why I welcome the FCA’s investigations and the FOS’s own investigation following the “Dispatches” programme.
It is important that the landscape for dispute resolution for SMEs does not discourage or inhibit the ability of banks and small businesses to resolve disputes between themselves in a satisfactory way, where possible. I therefore welcome the reviews being undertaken in this area by the APPG on fair business banking and finance—ably led by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the hon. Member for East Lothian—and by UK Finance, as well as the Treasury Committee’s ongoing interest in this area. When the findings of these reviews are published, we will consider them carefully, along with the outcome of the FCA’s current consultation.
In the interests of time, I will briefly conclude by summarising the Government’s position. It is right that we wait for the conclusion on GRG of the FCA’s investigation of the matters arising from its skilled persons report before determining what further actions need to be taken, and I reserve judgment on what they could be.
On dispute resolution more widely, we must acknowledge the existing avenues, including the work that is going on in terms of reviewing and enhancing the Financial Ombudsman Service’s provision. The FCA is progressing its work looking at the relationship between SMEs and financial services providers, and the APPG and UK Finance are undertaking their reviews as well. In the light of all the work going on, and the imminent conclusion of it, it is important that I consider that before we take alternative routes.
Once again, I thank all Members on both sides of the House who have raised very important issues on behalf of their constituents. I remain engaged to find a solution—a solution that works for all of them.
Martin Whitfield
I thank the Minister for his response, but I also want to thank the 18 Back Benchers on both sides of the House who have spoken with a single voice. We are concerned about our constituents, who have been let down by the banking system. At the moment, we are in a cul-de-sac of regulation and dispute resolution, and this is going nowhere.
I hear what the Minister said about awaiting the report. By my calculation, it will be out in August, by which time other reports will be available. May I book an August slot now, Madam Deputy Speaker, should we need to return? Let us hope we do not need to return to this, but our constituents are not going away and we, acting on their behalf, are not going away either. I look forward to having such a discussion in August, when we may have a more positive response about a public inquiry and an independent tribunal and about the responsibilities of other professionals connected to the banking service.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the public disclosure of the Section 166 report into the conduct of RBS Global Restructuring Group (GRG); is concerned about the fundamental difference of tone and emphasis between the summary produced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the full report; believes this calls into question the strength and independence of the regulator; notes that the concerns raised in the debate on 18 January with regard to the financial services sector, which is not limited to RBS and its advisors, not only persist, but are amplified by the conclusions in the report; calls on HM Treasury to instruct the FCA to move on to phase 2 of the investigation into the root causes of the conduct of RBS GRG by a body independent to the FCA; and once again calls for an independent inquiry into the financial services sector and the associated industries that have allowed misconduct to thrive, and the establishment of an independent mechanism for redress for businesses.
Libyan-sponsored IRA Terrorism
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to take steps to obtain the required international authority to use a proportion of the assets of the Libyan Government that were frozen in the UK to compensate the relatives of people murdered and injured as a result of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism and to fund community support programmes in areas affected by that terrorism.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate and all right hon. and hon. Members, and indeed the Minister, for attending a debate on a subject that should have been finalised and closed a long time ago.
During my time as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, we had the opportunity of holding an inquiry into Her Majesty’s Government’s support for UK victims of IRA attacks that used Gaddafi-supplied Semtex and weapons. That was an opportunity not only to hear from the victims of those attacks and the families of those who, sadly and tragically, lost their lives, but to draw attention to a series of missed opportunities to secure compensation for those victims. Today, we call on the Government to make amends for the inaction of previous Governments by securing justice for those victims and their relatives.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. Does he agree that it is very timely given the Attorney General’s statement earlier, which revealed—and it may be entirely justified—that a Libyan citizen who was wronged by this Government has received £500,000 in compensation?
Mr Robertson
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As I get deeper into my speech, I will refer to other compensation awards, but the Government should certainly follow that guiding principle.
The role of the Libyan Government in bolstering the activities of the Provisional IRA should not be understated. When he appeared before the Select Committee, the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Jack Straw, stated:
“In the 1980s and early 1990s, Libya was probably the most serious state sponsor of terrorism in the world.”
Those were very strong words. From the early 1970s through to the 1990s, the Gaddafi regime in Libya supplied arms, funding, training and explosives to the Provisional IRA, which is accepted by many to have both extended and worsened the troubles.
Through a series of shipments that took place in the mid-1980s, the regime supplied the Provisional IRA with up to 10 tonnes of Semtex, a highly powerful and virtually undetectable plastic explosive. The Semtex supplied made possible a deadly bombing campaign from the late 1980s, resulting in a horrific loss of life across Northern Ireland and the mainland. These include the attacks in Enniskillen, where a bomb was detonated that killed 11 people during a Remembrance Sunday ceremony, the bombings in Warrington that resulted in the deaths of two children—Tim Parry and Johnathan Ball—and the attack at docklands in this city, where a bomb killed two people and injured about 100 more. This is to name just a few of the atrocities carried out by the Provisional IRA using the Libyan-supplied Semtex. It does not come close to illustrating the extent of the devastation caused. While that loss of life is a tragedy, those attacks also had far-reaching implications for those who were injured and for the families and loved ones of those who sadly lost their lives.
During our inquiry, many victims emphasised not only the physical effects of the attacks, but the emotional, psychological and financial difficulties caused. The testimonies of those victims have been highlighted in previous debates, but it would be valuable to the House to consider them once more, to illustrate the sheer loss, heartache and pain caused by those attacks.
Colin Parry, whose 12-year-old son, Tim, died following the Warrington bombings in 1993, told the Committee:
“Describing the final moments of your child’s life is beyond words…because, as a parent, there is no greater pain or loss than the death of your child.”
Suzanne Dodd’s father was the inspector on duty on the day of the Harrods bombing. She told the Committee that, on the day of the attack, she and her siblings had been waiting for their father to come home to put up the Christmas tree when their mother told them that there had been a bomb at Harrods and that their father would be late. It emerged that her father had been seriously injured. Her mother returned from hospital on Christmas eve, telling Suzanne and her siblings that her father had died.
The urgency of this issue is possibly best illustrated by Mrs Gemma Berezzag, whose husband was left blind, paralysed and brain damaged by the docklands bombing. For 20 years she cared for her husband’s complex needs on a daily basis. She sadly passed away in 2016, before any resolution could be found. I ask the Government: how many more individuals affected by those atrocities will not see justice in their lifetime? Those cases provide only a snapshot of the suffering caused by Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, and time is running out for many of the victims.
Losing any loved one through natural causes is bad enough. Losing someone through an accident is perhaps even more shocking, but how much worse must it be when that life has been deliberately taken through terrorism? Add to that grief the involvement of a foreign, rogue state, and the victims’ relatives and friends must suffer more than any of us could ever imagine.
The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee heard how victims have been repeatedly let down by successive Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments, owing to their failure adequately to pursue compensation on their behalf. At times, it seemed that during periods of improved relations the concerns of victims were secondary to other considerations. The Committee concluded that there had been a series of missed opportunities to raise the issue of compensation, particularly during a period of deepening relations between the UK and Libya in the 2000s.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate on a sensitive and important issue. Has he any evidence that the current Government have intensified their efforts to obtain compensation from the Libyan Government for all those victims of IRA-sponsored terrorism not just in Northern Ireland but throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr Robertson
The hon. Lady is a valuable and active member of the Committee and she took part in the inquiry to which I refer. I will touch on the issue she raised in a moment because it is a very important point.
In the 2000s, compensation was secured for the families of the Lockerbie bombing victims, and in 2004 we had the first visit to Libya by a British Prime Minister for 60 years. That visit was accompanied by the announcement that Shell had signed an agreement worth up to £550 million for gas exploration rights off the coast of Libya, yet there was still no sign of compensation for these victims. For our inquiry, the extent to which the Government of the day were aware of the campaign to seek compensation is unclear. Nevertheless, I believe the UK Government missed a vital opportunity during this period of improved relations to act on behalf of IRA victims.
The situation is even more disheartening for victims when we look to the achievements of the US, French and German Governments in securing compensation for their citizens. Because of the French Government’s threat to veto the lifting of UN sanctions on Libya, Libya agreed to pay the French Government $170 million in respect of the 170 people killed following the bombing of UTA flight 772 in 1989.
The Committee also examined the exclusion of the UK victims of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism from the terms of the US-Libya claim settlement agreement in 2008 as another missed opportunity for UK victims. Although the then UK Government claimed they had made representations to the US for the victims’ inclusion, we received no evidence of the level at which they had been made and with what force. It was explained that the US was unable to include UK victims in the agreement for several legal reasons, including that neither international law nor US law allows the US to espouse the claims of foreign nationals. However, this was contested during Committee evidence sessions, when it was suggested that that was not a matter of law but rather a matter of US Government policy. My primary concern, however, is the actions of the UK Government and I do not believe that, on the two occasions I have outlined, enough was done to put forward the claims of victims.
As the Gaddafi regime crumbled in 2011, the UN imposed financial sanctions on several individuals and entities involved in or complicit in the commission of human rights abuses in Libya. In September 2017, it was established that £12 billion of assets from the Gaddafi regime remained frozen within the UK’s jurisdiction. Currently, the UN resolutions, and the EU regulation which enforces them in the UK, provide no option for the UK Government to use frozen Libyan assets for the purposes of compensation. Disappointingly, there is no evidence that the UK Government raised the issue of compensation at the point when the assets were frozen. This is particularly frustrating, as there are precedents for the use of frozen assets to compensate victims. For example, $225 million of former President Marcos’s assets seized in Swiss bank accounts have provided reparations for victims of human rights abuses in the Philippines.
The Select Committee asked the Government to consider the use of frozen assets to compensate victims and to contribute towards community support. At the time, we were very disappointed by the Government’s rejection of recommendations made, and a number of Members, including myself and the new Chairman of the Select Committee, have continued to engage with the Foreign Secretary on this issue. However, to date, the Government have unequivocally ruled out the use of these assets for compensation and the potential use of our veto at the UN Security Council for the purpose of securing compensation. Today, we ask that the Government take a fresh approach to this issue and explore all options available to acquire the international authority to use a proportion of the Libyan assets frozen in this country to compensate victims and to set up support projects in the communities affected.
I do, of course, recognise that there are victims of Gaddafi in Libya, as well as in the UK, and I emphasise that the assets I refer to are the assets of those involved in human rights abuses in Libya and not those of innocent Libyans. The funds seized and frozen in this jurisdiction and across others have a role to play in contributing to the rebuilding of Libyan society and in helping the people who have suffered there to rebuild their lives. However, there is still a responsibility to deal with the legacy of the Gaddafi Government and the pain and suffering caused in the UK. I believe we should pursue these funds to do so.
I am realistic and recognise that since the fall of the Gaddafi regime Libya has faced insecurity and political instability, which has hindered progress on a number of issues, including compensation. I welcome the fact that, when the Foreign Secretary visited Tripoli in May and August last year, he raised this issue with the Prime Minister. To reply to the intervention from the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), I understand that that is the extent of what happened, although the Minister may correct me on that. I hope that this issue will continue to feature in the discussions that the Government have with the Libyan Government. I ask the Government to pursue this Government-to-Government approach where possible, rather than viewing this as a matter for individuals to deal with themselves. They simply cannot do so. The continued perseverance of the victims and their families shows strength and resolve, but they should not have to pursue this very difficult issue alone, and I ask the Government for their support in that.
When conducting our inquiry, we were repeatedly told by Ministers that it was difficult to move this issue on because there was no functioning Government in Libya to deal with, and as soon as one were established, a more determined approach would be taken. However, that has not happened, and the relatives have suffered for too long. That is why, supported by many hon. Members, we are suggesting today that the Government assess the origin of the frozen assets to determine how much of them were effectively lodged by the then Libyan Government, as opposed to being investments made by private individuals. We suggest that the Government then seek international permission to use those assets to compensate the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, to compensate their relatives and to support the communities where the attacks took place.
In the Prime Minister’s address to the Conservative party conference last October, she said that one of her main motivations in politics was to try to “root out injustice”, yet this example of a major injustice remains and rages. Now is the time to act.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Colleagues will be aware that we have quite a short time for this debate. If they can stick to six minutes, I will not have to impose a time limit, but I will do so if we cannot get enough Members in.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for his work on this issue not just as the previous Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, but since then. I also thank him and the Backbench Business Committee for securing the debate, and I pay tribute to all the Members here who have put in a lot of work over a number of years on this issue. This issue is not party political; it is about justice, and the situation has gone on for far, far too long.
I am afraid that when I listened to the evidence as a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, it was absolutely apparent that something, somewhere—at the back of all this within Government—was stopping Governments of all persuasions from pushing to get compensation and from pushing the United Nations to change the way in which the frozen assets could be dealt with. It is tragic—the hon. Gentleman has outlined a number of cases—and we could go through all the evidence. I urge anyone listening or watching who wants to understand the issue more to read some of the evidence that was given to the Select Committee.
I want to add a bit more about one person—one of the victims—who has already been referred to and who submitted evidence to our Committee: Mrs Gemma Berezzag. She had cared for her husband, Zaoui, who was left severely disabled. What she said to us was particularly poignant, because we know—the family are quite happy for this to be public—that she committed suicide in 2016. Just months before, she had told the Belfast News Letter:
“We never had a nice day in our lives since. My husband was a hard worker, nice to his children and nice to me. Now I change his nappy 10 times a day. Can your friends do this? I need financial help for my husband. I cannot even afford the nappies he needs. The Government forgot about me. I am 57 but I feel like I am 80. This is still killing me, 20 years after the bomb.”
She and other people described going to the Foreign Office—they included people who had experienced the London docklands bombing, to which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) will refer—to seek help. They even found someone who could speak Arabic. Time after time, they were told, “This is a private matter between you and the Libyan Government.” Now, all these years later, we have a new relationship with the Libyan Government, and the Minister has just been there. I hope he will tell us very clearly what he said and what was said to him, because, on the basis of all the evidence, I do not believe that enough has been done.
I do not accept what has been said about the frozen assets. One of the criteria in the EU regulation is “humanitarian”. If the person whose case I have just presented—and some of the other people who are suffering now. and who are getting older and older—cannot be helped on humanitarian grounds, I really do not know what “humanitarian grounds” can mean. I hope that in a year or so, if we are no longer in the EU, we may be able to change that regulation so that those people can be helped.
It seems that the push that should have come has never come. Let me give a prime example. In 2013, the G8 came to Enniskillen in Northern Ireland, the site of one of the biggest and most appalling bombings, which happened on Remembrance Sunday. The victims—and some of the relatives of the people who died in Enniskillen are in the Public Gallery—had not been told that the Libyan Prime Minister was coming. They heard about it because they managed to find something out on the internet. They then asked if they could meet Zeidan—the Prime Minister—because they thought that that would be very helpful: here was someone who was against Gaddafi as well. They were refused that visit, but were told, “Don’t worry; he is meeting the leaders in Northern Ireland.” And who should one of those leaders in Northern Ireland be but Martin McGuinness, who probably knew all about how the Semtex had come from Libya. So all those opportunities were not given to them.
I say to the Minister, “You now have an opportunity.” The Labour Government and Tony Blair did absolutely nothing. He would not come and give evidence to the Committee. He gave evidence about the “on the runs” issue, but not about this issue. We believe that there is a lot more to come out about what went on during that time and that it was not in the interests of Blair and the Government to do anything that would upset Gaddafi. Then came Gordon Brown, who actually set up a new unit in the Foreign Office to help the victims.
Lady Hermon
I am very pleased to be working with the hon. Lady on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Does she agree that when the British Government, quite rightly, condemn terrorism unreservedly —and we have experienced far too much terrorism in the United Kingdom —they have a moral obligation to seek compensation for all the victims from the Libyan Government, to whom they now refer as a friend?
Kate Hoey
I absolutely agree. This is indeed a moral issue. I know that people will not like my saying this, but it sometimes seems to me almost as though there are two types of terrorism. There is terrorism, and then there is IRA terrorism. We now have to be so careful not to upset those who were once the leaders of what was the IRA. I really do think that the Government must show that terrorism is terrorism, wherever it happens.
We should not let the IRA off the hook on this. Yes, it was Libyan Semtex that was given to the IRA, but it was not Gaddafi who actually planted the bombs in Enniskillen and all those other places. I think it is very important to remember that.
I know that a number of other Members want to speak. Let me end by saying that this has gone on for far too long. There is £9.5 billion sitting in our banks, and if we and the United Kingdom Government cannot find a way to ensure that some of that money goes to those people who are, as we speak, ill and literally beginning to die off, I think that that is a shame on all of us here, and a shame on the Government. I hope that the Minister will respond in a positive way, because we have to move quickly on this issue.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing it. I was fortunate enough to persuade the Backbench Business Committee to grant a Westminster Hall debate on this matter in my name in September 2016. There have been developments since then, although I would not quite say that there has been progress. I want to focus on what has happened recently, which I believe means that the matter is even more pressing.
There is background to why I take such an interest in this matter. A constituent of mine, Charles Arbuthnot, is one of the campaigners; his sister was a 22-year-old WPC killed in the Harrods bombing in 1983. When I first heard about that, I wanted to help as a constituency MP, but the following really struck me about that case, and it is at the core of the matter. I found out—as finally admitted in correspondence to me from the Foreign Office—that a United States citizen who was one of the victims of that Harrods bombing was compensated to the tune of several million pounds by the Libyan Government, yet UK victims have to date received not a penny.
Indeed, I do not comment in any way on the following case and whether the money is justified, but I am bound to say that we heard today from the Attorney General that in the case of Belhaj and Boudchar, two Libyan citizens whom we failed as a country—they suffered harm as a result of the actions of this state—the wife, Fatima Boudchar, will receive £500,000 in compensation. We must look at that and ask how our own victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism would feel about that. I hope we will get an answer to that from the Minister.
I want now to look at some of the things that keep moving this issue forward. With a group of MPs and Lord Empey, I went to see the Foreign Secretary in October last year, and he promised us in a letter by return that he would be “more visibly proactive” in standing up for victims. I know the Minister is supportive and wants to see progress on this, so my key question to him is what does “more visibly proactive” mean? Does that mean more engagement with the Libyan Government? We know there is great difficulty in terms of the credibility of that Government and the lack of firm government in Libya. Does “more visibly proactive” mean we will get more regular updates, and more discussion between our Government and the Libyans? That is what I want to know: what exactly does that phrase mean in terms of coalface action?
The other point concerns the issue of assets, as set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury. It is hard to ignore the fact that billions of pounds of Libyan money is held in this very city. One of the great features of this country is the reliability of our legal system, and I understand why the Government would be reluctant to look at this issue and in any way undermine the reputation of the City by appearing to be weaker in terms of security to those who might want to put their money here. However, we must also recognise that that Libyan money is frozen under UN mandate, and there will have be a vote in the UN Security Council for those assets to be unfrozen. That would be at the request of Libya once there is a stable Administration, and they would be asking us, in effect, to vote in the UN Security Council to unfreeze those assets. We have already heard from my hon. Friend how the French threatened to use their veto to favour their victims of Libyan terrorism, and it astonishes me that we would not consider at all in any sense using that veto.
In fact in that same letter from the Foreign Secretary, he said:
“At our meeting, we discussed the feasibility of the UK using its veto in the UN Security Council, when the time comes, to prevent the unfreezing of assets until the Libyans had agreed to pay compensation to UK victims. While I sympathise with the intention behind this approach, I need to explain that I believe it highly unlikely that any Foreign Secretary would wish to do this.”
I would like to think that he is not “any Foreign Secretary”; he is a Foreign Secretary who believes in standing up for Britain, and who says he will be “more visibly proactive”, and I would like to think that, “when the time comes”, there will be discussions about that possible procedure.
Lord Empey is bringing forward a Bill again. I sponsored it when it came to the Commons last time; the Government objected and it fell. We must give that Bill at least a chance to be debated in this Chamber.
I want to finish with a really important development in the United States. This concerns a piece of legislation I referred to in the Westminster Hall debate: the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It was vetoed by President Obama, as I was informed in that very debate, but I can tell the House that Congress overrode that and it is now an Act in America. In March 2017, 1,500 injured survivors and 850 family members of 9/11 victims filed a class action lawsuit against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We have, then, a situation where a Libyan citizen is to receive compensation for what they experienced at the hands of the UK Government, while we know that an American citizen received compensation following the Harrods bombing and that the United States is empowering its citizens to take action against state sponsors. We have to ask ourselves what the British Government are doing for British citizens slain on British soil by a terrorist organisation that was aided and abetted by a brutal regime. The scales of justice have yet to weigh in their favour.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for securing this important and timely debate. He has campaigned on this issue for years, as we know, and I pay tribute to him for bringing the motion to the Floor of the House.
I have been a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee since 2004, so I know all too well the seriousness of the issue that is the subject of the motion, which I am happy to support. Parliament must never forget the victims of violence during a 30-year conflict that claimed the lives of some 3,600 people and left many more men and women injured and maimed, with their families suffering, too. Call it an insurrection, call it a civil war—call it what we want—but the troubles endured for so long in that corner of the United Kingdom, that corner of Ireland, and were so dreadful, spilling over into Great Britain, the Republic of Ireland and other countries, that the suffering continues today, and it would be irresponsible to shut our eyes and ears and turn our backs on those living with the legacy of that era.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I fully support the efforts of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) and others on this matter. Does he agree that when we are discussing the past we need to be sensitive, measured and factual, but that the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday upset many victims by inaccurately suggesting that the only legacy cases being investigated were those involving the armed forces and that wrongdoing by the armed forces could be overlooked? Facts and justice dictate otherwise. All victims are entitled to both.
Mr Hepburn
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I will cover some of that later.
I wholeheartedly endorse supporting victims, whatever their community, whatever their background, and that includes adequate compensation so that their lives might be improved and we do not add poverty to the physical and mental burdens that so many bear with determination and great fortitude. To be forced to sell your house to fund care does not just add insult to injury but is officialdom showing it does not care, which adds cruel contempt to injury. Those deserving proper compensation include victims of Libyan-sponsored violence—folk who had their futures torn apart by guns and bombs flowing from Colonel Gaddafi’s regime in Tripoli.
The previous Northern Ireland Secretary was wrong to brush off good people with a cause telling them it was a private matter. No, it’s not; it is a matter for this Government and this Parliament. Nobody is pretending that extracting reparations from a Libya falling apart will be easy, but it would cost the Government relatively little to throw their weight behind the campaign for justice, to fund victims now, and then to use the Foreign Office to try and force Libya to settle a debt of honour.
That said, I want no hierarchy of victimhood: special compensation for some but little or nothing for others. I want every victim looked after. In Northern Ireland, I have heard people blame Libya for weapons used, and others cite South Africa in the era of white rule and apartheid. Both have a case. Most, however, do not know the national source of the armaments that changed their lives forever, and they too are entitled to ask why the Government have abandoned them.
Back in the day, many of the settlements were pitiful, the maimed and traumatised being forced to accept insultingly small compensation that today leaves them on the breadline. Quite frankly, it is a disgrace, and I for one am delighted that they refuse to be out of sight, out of mind, and it is heartening to hear people today loudly take up the challenge to win them the justice so far denied to them. The more noise we make, and the louder we argue their case, the more likely we are to shame the Government into doing what is right. I suspect that, privately, the Minister who is here today knows that.
This is not a party political battle. It is not even a question of right and left in politics. It is a matter of right and wrong. Northern Ireland has been through a lot, and the future is brighter than the past, but regrettably the scandal of inadequate compensation is a stain that we still need to wipe clean. This is a fight for justice and, along with my colleagues, I pledge my support for that cause.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) and I agree with every word that he has uttered this afternoon. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on getting this debate on to the Floor of the House at last. It is time that this long outstanding matter was given the full attention of Parliament, and I hope that our deliberations today will prompt Her Majesty’s Government to take the action that I believe is long overdue to ensure that all victims of IRA and INLA terrorism sponsored by the former Libyan regime are fully compensated for their loss and suffering.
I am sad to say that IRA terrorism, supported by Colonel Gaddafi’s regime, is the most significant example in recent times of British citizens being failed by their own Government when seeking justice for crimes committed against them. I believe that it is the paramount duty of Her Majesty’s Government to use their power to act to resolve this issue either by making provision for the seizing of the assets of the Gaddafi family in London or by awarding compensation now and fighting for the money to be reclaimed for the UK Government later. It is not an option for our Government simply to expect the individuals and families affected to seek justice directly from the Libyan Government on their own. When it comes to state-sponsored acts of terrorism, it is surely right that the responsibility to represent the victims should be carried by the United Kingdom Government, whose duty must always be to defend the rights of British subjects.
As chairman of the parliamentary support group established to help the victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism, I am pleased to have worked on a cross-party basis alongside many colleagues who are here in the Chamber today to champion the just cause of obtaining compensation for the victims of these dreadful crimes, which they rightly deserve. We all lived through IRA bombings in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s in London, Belfast and other towns and cities throughout Britain and Northern Ireland, carried out with explosives used by the Libyan regime, yet so many years later, the victims have still not received the fair compensation that they rightly deserve.
As we have heard today, some of victims and families who have suffered this trauma are elderly or have passed away, and others might not have much longer to live, yet their justified claims have not been dealt with. As a result of these appalling and devastating events, which caused unimaginable damage and suffering, countless people died leaving widows and children behind or were left severely disabled and with life-changing injuries, yet nothing has happened to solve this issue. That is wholly wrong, and the Government really need to act.
I ask the Minister: how can it be justified that some victims have received compensation while others have not? We have heard that other countries, such as the United States of America, Germany and France, have fought for their citizens and got the compensation that our successive Governments have failed to obtain. How can this not be settled while the victims and their families are still alive? It has to be sorted out soon. It is truly terrible that British victims have been treated so differently from American victims. Their Government stood by their victims, but our Government failed to stand by ours. That cannot be right. This approach of indifference must not carry on. It remains a fact that victims who happened to have an American, French or German passport were comforted by the fact their Governments had negotiated a compensation settlement on their behalf, yet British victims still have nothing.
Each time the issue of compensation for these deserving victims is raised, we have until now received the same empty response from successive Governments. Each time, we hear weak excuses for not pursuing a way of bringing this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for the British victims of terrorism. Each time, the long-hurting victims of the IRA and of Gaddafi’s regime listen in, only to be let down and left to wait indefinitely.
Time is running out, and successive Governments have both missed and avoided opportunities to bring justice to the victims. This cannot be allowed to happen one moment longer. To settle this now, our Government should at least consider a compensation scheme to be paid now, with the money claimed back from Libyan assets in due course, otherwise many victims face the prospect of never being compensated.
The former Gaddafi regime has £9.5 billion-worth of frozen assets in our capital alone. If not now, in the future a percentage of those assets should be used to compensate the victims. Let the British Government take the lead. They have the power to do so. Her Majesty’s Government must act decisively against the perpetrators and backers of these horrific crimes and deliver justice for all those whose lives were so cruelly cut short or who suffered injury or loss. The powers lie here, and we must give hope to all British citizens who have suffered at the hands of terrorism.
I truly hope it is not too late, otherwise the consequence of this missed opportunity to secure compensation will be a stain on our nation. Now is the time to correct past failures, to hold the enablers of terrorism to account and, once and for all, to right this wrong by giving the victims the justice and compensation they deserve.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who has been so strong in his support for this campaign over so many years.
I am reassured to see the Minister in his place. He commands great respect on both sides of the House. He has heard numerous speakers say that he does not face a very high bar. We need a champion in the House, and many of us hope he will be able to deliver because we know he is supportive of the cause, to which he is sympathetic.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on leading the bid to secure this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for affording the time.
The South Quay bomb in 1996, near Canary Wharf in my constituency, signalled the end of the IRA ceasefire that had briefly prevailed. Two men died and 50 other people were injured. Hundreds of buildings were damaged or destroyed, many businesses were negatively affected and many, many people were made temporarily homeless.
I pay tribute to Jonathan Ganesh, who was badly injured in the blast. He set up and has been the driving force behind the Docklands Victims Association, which campaigns for redress for victims and their families. Inam Bashir and John Jeffries died, and some of the survivors had life-changing injuries—brain damage, blindness and paralysis—and are still awaiting appropriate compensation. Some, as has been mentioned, have died. We heard moving testimonies from my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury.
The noble Lord Empey first introduced the Asset Freezing (Compensation) Bill in the other place in 2016. The Bill has since been passed by the Lords, and the hon. Member for Romford is now pushing for it to have a hearing in this House. Billions of pounds of Libyan assets have been frozen and gathering interest in UK bank accounts for years. I submitted a parliamentary question asking how much is frozen and how much interest has accrued and—this contradicts the hon. Member for Romford, with no disrespect—the Economic Secretary to the Treasury told me in February 2018:
“In 2011, the approximate aggregate value at the time the funds were frozen in the UK was £7.5 billion.
The current value of frozen assets held are in the process of being finalised as part of the ‘2017 Annual Frozen Fund Review’. However, at the close of business on 30 September 2016 they were approximately £11.7 billion.”
So we are talking about £7.5 billion in 2011 and £11.7 billion in 2016, with the funds having almost doubled in that period. Many of us do not accept the Government’s contention that these funds cannot be accessed. As we have heard, in the USA, following the Libyan Claims Resolution Act in 2008, US victims of Libyan-sponsored terrorism were paid substantial compensation. So the questions are, and have been for some time: can the funds be used, can the interest be used and what discussions have been taking place with the Libyan authorities? Although we all recognise the absence of a formal Government structure with which to deal, if discussions have been taking place, it would be good to know exactly where we are with those.
The second route we have been pressing, in the absence of legal access to the interest and frozen assets—and I understand that the Government have to recognise this—is at the UN, as outlined by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). At some point, the decision to unfreeze Libyan assets in various countries has to be taken and it has to be decided by a resolution of the UN. A number of us have been calling for the UK to threaten to use our veto on the Security Council against the release of these funds. I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that proposal to say why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office seems so set against it. Given the billions at stake, it might be thought to be in Libya’s interests to afford a small percentage of those assets to secure the bulk of the money it needs so badly to restructure the country.
This campaign has gone on for far too long. It is time for the UK Government to step up and conclude this sorry saga, whether by domestic decision, accessing frozen assets or diplomatic pressure. The victims deserve better.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
In 1999, “Bandit Country: The IRA & South Armagh” a book by Tony Harnden, outlined in some detail the links between Libya and the Provisional IRA. The Provisional IRA’s campaign was given huge stimulus by the series of vessels full of weapons that arrived in places such as County Wicklow from the mid-1980s onwards. We are talking about missiles, ammunition and explosives. We make a mistake if we think it was just explosives, because people were killed by Kalashnikovs, rocket-propelled grenades and so on; they were killed by Libyan-inspired weapons. I wish to outline one shipment, to give colleagues an idea of what was coming in.
In about October 1986, a deal was arranged between Thomas “Slab” Murphy of the Provisional IRA, who is pretty well known to people like me, and Nasser Ali Ashour, a Libyan intelligence officer and diplomat. It took about 30 Libyan soldiers two nights to load up a converted Swedish oil rig replenishment ship called the Villa. Some 80 tonnes of weapons and explosives were put about the Villa, including seven RPGs, 10 surface-to-air missiles, a huge number of Kalashnikovs and one tonne of Semtex H, which is an incredibly powerful plastic explosive. It is far more powerful than the normal fertiliser-based bombs used up until that time. The Villa slipped through international waters and landed at Clogga Strand in County Wicklow. From there, its load was spirited away to long-term hides and then secretly distributed to Provisional IRA active service cells for use to kill indiscriminately.
It is indisputable that the Gaddafi regime—let us not say Libyans—supplied weapons and explosives used by the Provisional IRA. It is indisputable that so many innocent people died as a result of Provisional IRA activity using Libyan-supplied arms and explosives. It is indisputable that other nations have ensured compensation for victims of Libyan-backed terrorism. It is indisputable that huge sums of Libyan cash are frozen in London’s banks—we have just heard that there is nearly £12 billion of it. Surely the Government can find a mechanism that can compensate victims, perhaps in advance for those who are getting older, sometimes living in agony or in poverty. Get some money to them!
James Cartlidge
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. I was not even aware of the figures cited by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). Do those figures not suggest that when the request is made, we could return the assets to Libya with some kind of indexing so that it got the full value of its assets, and there would still be billions left with which it could pay recompense?
Bob Stewart
They do indeed—my hon. Friend is so right. We could use just a little of the interest. That is all it would take: just a little of the interest to compensate our citizens for this criminal terrorist activity. I am quite sure that decent, honourable Libyan citizens would want that to happen. The Government have a duty to do something about this.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart); he injects into these debates a level of knowledge from his years of service in uniform that, in all honestly, I do not believe anyone else could. I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for securing the debate.
There is a sense of déjà vu about this debate, but that is not what it should be. It is my desire that this debate will be something completely different and that it will bring about action. That has been the thrust of what all Members have said in their speeches and interventions. I want this debate to result in a change of direction and decision, not simply in platitudes and sympathetic consideration.
It is my belief that the duty that we have to our citizens supersedes the duty that we have to others. It is important that we all stand together today against the tactics of terror that cost lives and resulted in so many innocent people having to endure life-changing injuries. The Democratic Unionist party stands shoulder to shoulder with the innocent victims of terrorism who are making their case for proper recognition and support.
I am sure that other Members have been sent a letter by a very worthy and notable police officer; I presume from some of the contributions that that is the case. He was severely injured in the 1983 Harrods bombing that was carried out by the IRA. To that brave man who has carried on serving Queen and country, through physical difficulty and emotional and mental torment, I say: we salute you. I thank him for his service. I have heard what he said in the letter that I received and that I suspect others received, and I agree with and appreciate every single word that he has shared. He epitomises the suffering of victims.
One of the most startling parts of the police officer’s letter was his recollection of seeing an American gentleman —I think the hon. Member for Tewkesbury referred to this earlier—being injured and then attended to after the explosion. This police officer has looked on as the American Government ensured that there has been a form of justice for that man. They saw the part played by Gaddafi and his minions and decided that there was a price to pay, and they paid that price to their citizens.
This debate is epitomised by the fact that two people who were seriously injured in the same IRA Semtex bomb explosion in the capital city of this United Kingdom are treated in such different ways. Why would any rational person deem it acceptable that an American victim is compensated by the Libyans, but the British victims of this atrocity are not? It is little wonder that this brave police officer and so many other innocent victims feel abandoned, worth less than the American tourist who happened to be visiting their city.
This British police officer ran towards the danger—towards the bomb—yet that duty and sacrifice have not been properly acknowledged by a Government who I say with respect have failed adequately to make the case to the Libyan Administration. Along with others in this House, I pledge that I will seek justice for that police officer, his family, friends and colleagues, and for the innocent victims throughout this nation and this entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Lady Hermon
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene.
Reflecting on the close working relationship between the Conservative Government and his party, the Democratic Unionist party, I have assumed that this very sensitive and very important issue for victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism has been raised in discussions by him and his colleagues with either the Foreign Secretary or indeed the Prime Minister. It would be very helpful if he assured us that that in fact is the case.
Jim Shannon
I am quite happy to assure the House that the matter has been raised at the highest level with the Prime Minister. Everyone can be assured that we are not behind the door when it comes to pushing this matter and when it comes to talking to the Minister. For the victims, families, friends and colleagues across the whole United Kingdom, this is something that has been said before, but it needs to be reiterated, “You are the victims and you deserve the best that we can give.” Government at the very highest level and all of us must do better for the innocent victims of terrorism.
I asked the Home Secretary at the end of March whether she would raise the matter of the unexplained wealth orders in respect of the members of the Gaddafi family and their Libyan associates who reside in the UK, or who claim ownership of the frozen assets in the UK. The response was not particularly helpful, so I think it is time that the Minister talked to the National Crime Agency, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office about finding some methodology on how to retrieve the £9.8 billion.
I say to the Minister, on behalf of every person affected by the evil deeds of evil men, aided and facilitated by Gaddafi and Libya, to make the change today and to step up for his constituents, for my constituents, for the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and simply for the concept of justice and for no other reason than what is right.
Albert Einstein made many statements, and I will quote one today. He said:
“The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”
I say to the Minister that I hope that will not be the case for this Government. It is the wish of our people that we do something about this matter. Government after Government have sat and felt sympathy for victims. Northern Ireland MP after Northern Ireland MP has been infuriated by the lack of movement, as have our colleagues in Great Britain. This issue will be raised again and again and again until every victim of Libyan-sponsored terrorism knows without doubt that this institution, this Parliament and this Government have done all they can to ensure that the men who were blown up, side by side, have parity of treatment from their separate Governments.
I am very conscious of time so let me just say that these people deserve our sympathy, our tears, our time and our promise to act. Their need dictates that we do no less; every fibre of our being should dictate that we do no less; and our position certainly dictates that we as a Parliament do no less. Wrong was done. We cannot give back lives, mental health or physical wellbeing, but we must do what we can and what we have not done thus far. It is our duty to fight against evil and fight for the victims in this way. Minister, I look to you.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I know that we want to hear from the Minister, so I will be as brief as I can be. I congratulate the hon. Members for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate, especially after the Westminster Hall debate in December 2017. Once again we have heard a range of very powerful contributions by Members who have constituents directly affected by this. What we have heard from all of them is that we are dealing with a question of justice and that there is a very real danger that justice delayed will become justice denied.
The Gaddafi regime at the time accepted that it shared some responsibility for the damage caused to so many lives by the IRA bombings. As we have heard, those affected from other countries have been able to secure compensation, but repeated delays by successive UK Governments have meant that the families and victims, maimed and devastated, are still waiting. That is despite the fact that a range of options has been put forward over the years. The proposal in today’s motion and in the Bill that has been promoted by Lord Empey and is now being introduced in this House provide a solution. If the Government are not willing to accept that, they should explain clearly why and put forward a viable alternative.
We have to hope that any decision made on the matter of compensation for victims is undertaken with the utmost sensitivity and with respect to the privacy and dignity of the victims’ families. I pay tribute to the campaigners, some of whom we have heard about and some of whom I have received correspondence from—as all Members have. They all point out how time is passing. It is 20 years since the Good Friday agreement, and 10 years since the US Libyan Claims Resolution Act 2008. How long do these families have to wait for a resolution? If the UK Government fail to act on behalf of their citizens where it is possible to do so, they will have done an enormous and shameful disservice to the legacy of the victims of those terrorist acts. We heard from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that these acts do provide humanitarian grounds for the Government to take action.
There is a range of different proposals and options available to the Government. Of course we have to respect that the situation in Libya is difficult and that there are diplomatic and legal processes that have to happen. As I said in Westminster Hall, we probably have to reflect on the Government’s role in the current situation in Libya. The fact is that they have spent considerably more money bombing Libya than they have ever done on trying to rebuild the country and bring about a stable settlement that would allow for negotiations to take place. But the idea that the families themselves should negotiate directly with the Libyan authorities is pretty concerning. It is difficult enough for the Government to do so, and these families are entitled to representation from their own Government. I am very keen to hear the Government’s response to the proposed Bill and to other suggestions. If they do not take those ideas, what opportunities do they see? Why do they think that families should otherwise be left to fend for themselves?
We have heard the Government say that they have to consider what support they need to offer victims of other terrorist attacks. I am in complete agreement with that. In fact, I led an Adjournment debate in this House on Foreign and Commonwealth Office support for victims of terrorism overseas. I have been visited by constituents who were caught up in Stockholm and in Tunisia. They were looking for basic and simple support from the Government, but found the Government lacking.
As part of my work with those people, I visited the Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Peace Centre in Warrington, which was set up in the memory of two young victims of the IRA bombing. It was one of the most moving experiences I have had as a Member of Parliament. The centre does fantastic work with victims of terrorist attacks—wherever those attacks happened and whatever the cause—and in bringing about reconciliation. Those support services should be extended to everyone who has fallen victim to a terrorist attack of some shape or form. And there will only be more. In a sense, all of us who were present in this Chamber last year were witnesses to terror visited upon Westminster.
The question of compensation is obviously more complicated, but in this instance there are clear opportunities and proposals to provide compensation, which has been awarded in other countries because of the efforts of those Governments. Now is the time for the Government to act. We have had a Select Committee report and a Westminster Hall debate. Today, we are having a debate on the Floor of the House, in which we have heard powerful testimonies from Members. Surely it is time for the Government to listen, to take action and, as all of us have said, to ensure that these victims get the justice they deserve.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) on securing this debate. I also thank every Member who has contributed with such knowledge and such sympathy for the victims of IRA bombings, especially those bombings that were supplied by explosives from Libya. This afternoon, we have heard many tragic and moving cases of victims who have still received no compensation, while they look around them and see other countries that have managed to obtain compensation for the victims of terror instigated by the Libyan regime under Colonel Gaddafi.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury called on the Government to compensate victims now. He referred to similar cases and the role of the Libyan Government in the IRA terror campaign and quoted the comments of the former Labour Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, on Libyan-sponsored terror. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said quite clearly and accurately that this is not a party political issue, but it is one of justice. She told the House of a harrowing case. Victims were told that this was a private matter, but she does not believe that and nor should we.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) drew our attention to a 22-year-old woman police officer who was killed in the 1983 bombing of Harrods. A United States citizen was eventually compensated by Libya for that same outrage. The hon. Gentleman wants similar legislation to that which has now been passed by Congress in the United States—the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister says about that.
We then heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who has been a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee since 2004. He said that we must never forget the victims over so many years who are still suffering today. That was generally the theme of this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), if I may call him that, said that it was time for this matter to be debated on the Floor of the House and at last we were debating it. He also said that British citizens had been failed by their own Government. As always, his words were strong and very clear.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) hoped that the Minister would be the champion of the campaign for compensation for these victims. He spoke about the IRA terror attack in his constituency in February 1996 and the effect that that had on victims. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that not just explosives were supplied by Libya. He told us the story of the 80 tonnes of weapons on the Swedish ship, the Villa, including SAM missiles and rocket-propelled grenades. Of course, he should know better than anybody exactly how that happened.
Finally, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who stands shoulder to shoulder with the innocent victims of terror and was appalled by the different treatment of victims on UK soil, with foreign victims treated somewhat better than domestic victims.
This debate is connected to a private Member’s Bill submitted in the other place by Lord Empey. According to Lord Empey, since the lifting of sanctions against Libya in 2004, there has been a series of missed opportunities to sort out this issue of compensation once and for all. The use of weapons supplied by the Libyan Government exacerbated the violence in Northern Ireland. However, the Government—not just this Government but previous Governments—have rejected many calls from several quarters, from cross-party groups to civil society organisations, to press the legitimate Government of Libya, if we can find out who they are, to compensate the victims.
There is no doubt that the Gaddafi Government sponsored terrorism in Northern Ireland—we have heard many examples this afternoon—and in other parts of the world. From 2004, the Libyan Government have been active in processes to compensate victims of terrorism in the United Kingdom by third parties that it sponsored, such as the IRA. However, since 2011, Libya has descended into civil war, which considerably complicates matters of trying to obtain compensation. The United Kingdom Government have made it clear that compensation for these victims of terrorism should be pursued through civil proceedings. That contrasts with the Governments of the United States, Germany and France, who have intervened forcefully and directly to try to obtain compensation for victims of direct Libyan terror. The problem is that Libya is in the throes of a civil war involving competing authorities. Right now, there does not seem to be an end to that conflict, nor a clear picture of who the legitimate authorities are.
In the 1970s and ’80s, at the height of the troubles, Libya supplied the IRA with vast quantities of weapons. Many Members, especially the hon. Member for Beckenham, have talked about how much was supplied. I understand that the amount of arms was at least 1,000 rifles, with appropriate ammunition, and at least 10 tonnes of Semtex, plus all the other destructive weapons that have claimed so many lives.
Bob Stewart
I intervene briefly just to remind the House that many people were killed not by explosives but through the use of the other weapons that Libya provided, and we will never be able to ascertain exactly who they were, either.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Gentleman—the hon. and gallant Gentleman—for that important contribution.
Over 3,500 people died in the troubles over many decades. To quote the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report of 2017:
“There is no doubt that the weapons, funding, training, and explosives that Colonel Gaddafi provided to the Provisional IRA over the course of 25 years both extended and exacerbated the Northern Ireland Troubles, and caused enormous human suffering.”
I want to read two further quotes. One is from the Minister, who said:
“There is no lawful basis on which the UK could seize or change the ownership of any Libyan assets. The UN Security Council resolution under which those assets were frozen, which the UK supported, is clear that they should eventually be returned for the benefit of the Libyan people. To breach that resolution would be a violation of international law.”—[Official Report, 14 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 256WH.]
The second is from the hon. Member for Tewkesbury, the former Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, who said:
“The UK Government cannot allow this litany of missed chances to continue. There needs to be direct dialogue with the Libyan Government, and if the situation there makes this impossible, the Government must begin the process of establishing a fund themselves.”
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments. I want to make it clear that Labour Members—like, I am sure, Members on both sides of the House—have nothing but sympathy and support for every single victim of IRA terrorism, especially when much of that bloodshed was assisted by Gaddafi’s Libyan regime.
In conclusion, I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, is there incontrovertible evidence of the supply of up to 10 tonnes of Semtex and more than 1,000 rifles by the Gaddafi regime to the IRA? Secondly, have the Government compiled a list of victims of the IRA and their families who the Government have evidence were victims of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism—in other words, where there is a connection between the two? Thirdly, has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spoken to whoever is currently recognised as the legitimate Government of Libya about the possibility of providing any compensation for the supply of explosives and arms to the IRA by the Gaddafi regime?
Fourthly, has the Minister had any contact with countries that have negotiated compensation deals with Libya on behalf of their citizens who are the victims of terrorism directly or indirectly perpetrated by Libya? Fifthly, is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office providing every possible assistance to the families affected by Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism? Is there any more the FCO can do to help and support those families and victims, such as the provision of translation services or access to any evidence of the connection between the IRA and the then Libyan regime? Finally, can the Minister comment on what the hon. Member for South Suffolk said about the US victim of the 1983 Harrods bombing being compensated while his constituent is still waiting?
The Minister for the Middle East (Alistair Burt)
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) for securing the debate and echo the tributes paid to him by a number of Members for his long-standing commitment and work on this issue. I couple that with my thanks to all those who have taken part in the debate, many of whom have contributed to this issue over a period of time—for too long. Those include the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friends the Members for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton).
This is a difficult debate. The ultimate justice and the basic facts are not in dispute among us. Without going into the answers to all the questions raised by the hon. Member for Leeds North East, which I will give him, the evidence is sufficient for us to speak today with confidence that Semtex and other materials supplied by the Gaddafi regime into Ireland and on to the mainland of the UK were responsible for IRA-based terror. The Government do not seek to dispute that in any way. There is also no dispute about the sympathy for victims, which has been echoed around the Chamber.
We are left with the complex issue of what to do. If this was straightforward and simple, it would have been sorted, but it is not. It joins one or two other issues that, in the past, have been considered almost too difficult to solve, and we may be getting into that sort of territory.
Let me say a little about the Government’s position, which will answer some of the questions raised, and then I will turn to some conclusions. At the end, I will give my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury a moment to wrap up.
The Government have the greatest sympathy for the victims and their families, many of whom, as we have heard it eloquently put this afternoon, continue to live with the devastating physical and emotional consequences of these attacks. They are, quite understandably, determined to seek recompense for what they have suffered. It is right that we in the Government do our utmost to help them seek a solution, and we will continue to do so.
Today’s debate is timely. As a number of Members are aware, I have recently been in Libya to fulfil, I trust, that part of the Foreign Secretary’s commitment on behalf of the FCO to do what we can to be more visible and to tackle things directly. In my discussions with the Libyan Ministers for Foreign Affairs and for Justice, I explained that although victims of some other Gaddafi- sponsored attacks, such as the Lockerbie bombing, had received compensation from the Libyan authorities, victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism had not. I told them that victims, their families and the UK Government feel incredibly strongly about that and that the Government attach great importance to finding a resolution.
Just in passing, to answer the question why other people got compensation, it is not correct to say that the UK Government do not and did not negotiate on behalf of victims. The Government helped to secure compensation for the victims of the Lockerbie bombing and for the family of WPC Fletcher. Compensation was possible in those cases because of evidence that the attacks were planned and executed directly by the Libyans. While we are not formally espousing the claims of victims of Gaddafi-sponsored IRA terrorism, we do continue to impress on the Libyan authorities the importance of making progress on this issue, and we have done that where we felt it was possible to do so.
I urged the Libyan Government to demonstrate that they were taking these cases seriously, and I suggested that they consider meeting victims and their representatives to discuss a possible way forward. Both Ministers I spoke to expressed sympathy with the victims and their families. However, they also spoke of the many urgent political, security and economic challenges that Libya is facing. They made it clear that this is a particularly difficult time to discuss legacy cases and compensation.
I can assure the House, as Members would expect me to, that I made it very clear, as I and other colleagues have in the past, that this is a priority for the UK Government. I have since written to both Ministers to reiterate that and to reiterate further the importance of a meeting between Libyan representatives and victims’ groups.
Jim Shannon
I am conscious when I ask the Minister a question that he is a Minister who wants to give us the answer. If a bombing takes place that involves Semtex, one conclusion would be that it was an IRA bomb and came from Libya. If somebody is shot with an AK-47, it would be a good conclusion to draw that that was also the IRA and that the gun came from Libya, or, if it was a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, that that came from Libya. The instruments of war indicate where these things come from.
Alistair Burt
I am not in a position in any way to dispute what the hon. Gentleman says. There may well be some issues, if we look at compensation as a whole, about distinguishing between different groups, but that is a slightly different issue. However, we are clear what we are talking about here: there is enough evidence, and there will be victims of Gaddafi-sponsored terrorism Semtex who we can all be very clear about.
Alistair Burt
I will give way, but I need to finish at 4.57 pm to give my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury time, and I cannot make progress if I am constantly responding to interventions.
Lady Hermon
I am enormously grateful to the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard—he is a very good Foreign Office Minister. After his visit to Libya, he described the UK as
“a strong partner and friend of Libya.”
If Libya is a friend of the UK, what possible justification can there be for delaying compensation for one day more?
Alistair Burt
I do not think that the presently constituted Libyan Government is in any position to make a decision in relation to such compensation or to pay it. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, that is one of the practical issues that we are dealing with at the moment.
James Cartlidge
I am delighted that the Minister is raising this issue. Did he discuss with Libyan representatives any aspect of the frozen assets issue? Did he remind them that, if those assets are to be unfrozen, that will require a resolution of the UN Security Council, in which we have a vote?
Alistair Burt
No, I did not raise that at this time. Our position on the frozen assets is known, but let me come back to that in a moment. If I may, I will make a little progress so that I can present some conclusions.
One or two colleagues raised the issue of visibility, which the Foreign Secretary has previously raised with the Prime Minister of Libya. As far as visibility is concerned, we will continue to raise the matter at the highest level with Libyan counterparts. However, I must say that my conclusion from such meetings and from meeting Ministers myself is that I just do not think they are in a position to deal with this or to put forward anything at present. I am not sure that we can put any timescale on this process, which means that we may have to think about it differently. Progress is likely to continue to be difficult and slow until the situation in Libya changes significantly for the better.
Hon. Members have raised the question of Libyan assets. I do not want to take too much time, but I must repeat that the advice I have been given is that there is no lawful basis on which the UK could seize or change the ownership of any Libyan assets, whether they are owned by the Gaddafi family or by the Libyan state. The UN Security Council resolution under which these assets were frozen is clear that they should eventually be returned for the benefit of the Libyan people, and to breach the resolution would be a violation of international law.
We set out our position on several of the issues that have been mentioned in the Government response to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report last year, and in substance the position has not changed, but let me look towards the future. The Government will continue to help victims engage directly with the Libyan authorities to pursue their campaign for compensation. The Foreign Secretary and I have previously met victims groups and the hon. Members who support them, and we remain committed to keeping them and the House updated on any developments.
In view of the likely absence of any progress within a reasonable timescale, I will now write to my colleagues across the Government to explore whether there is anything else the UK Government can do to support victims, their families and their communities. Hon. Members have previously suggested the idea of a community fund to provide assistance with physical, emotional and mental rehabilitation. I will discuss this with my colleagues across the Government and explore what further support may be available under existing Government schemes. I will strongly take into account what hon. Members have said about the way in which we must approach relationships with a friendly Government in Libya who are, at present, unable to respond.
In conclusion, I am quite clear that the concerns raised today have been raised for far too long. We have a long tradition in this House of eventually getting around to things which, under successive Governments, ought to have been done—Hillsborough, contaminated blood and the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General earlier this afternoon—and, except for the victims themselves, there are very few clean hands. I and my colleagues are being urged to do more, and I will do my best to keep open all channels of pressure on the Libyan Government, as we help them with stabilisation and for the future. With other colleagues in the Government, I will also try to be as imaginative as possible in dealing with the current situation and with requests for us to do more.
Mr Robertson
I have been in the House for 21 years, and I do not think I have ever before attended a debate in which I have agreed with every single word that has been said. There is such strength of feeling on this issue, and that is with speakers from four different political parties and, indeed, an independent Member, so the debate has been quite extraordinary.
I will quickly pick up on one or two issues mentioned by the Minister. He acknowledged that the Government intervened on the Lockerbie and Yvonne Fletcher tragedies. However, given that the Government accept that Libya has been involved with supplying arms and Semtex, I do not see why they cannot take up the individual cases we have discussed today. I cannot see the difference. The Minister said that a Libyan Government are not yet in place, but we have been told that for a number of years, and time is passing, so we have to find other ways forward. I thank the Minister for saying that he will explore other avenues throughout the Government.
On the assets, we understand the position, but the motion asks the Government to seek international agreement. Nobody is suggesting that we should break international law. The motion says that we should seek international agreement and co-operation on this issue, and I ask the Minister to take that back and discuss it with his Government colleagues. I am pleased that he is taking forward this issue, and I thank him very much for his response. Finally, all I would ask is that, as far as he can, he keeps me and other Members informed of the progress he is making.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House calls on the Government to take steps to obtain the required international authority to use a proportion of the assets of the Libyan Government that were frozen in the UK to compensate the relatives of people murdered and injured as a result of Libyan-sponsored IRA terrorism and to fund community support programmes in areas affected by that terrorism.
Crossrail Extension to Ebbsfleet
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I am pleased to have secured this debate and to have the opportunity to argue that the Government should prioritise the extension of the Crossrail line—now known as the Elizabeth line out of respect to Her Majesty—to Ebbsfleet in my constituency. That route was the original plan for Crossrail, so in effect I am asking for the job to be finished and for the line to be completed in accordance with that original plan.
Crossrail is a marvellous piece of engineering that stretches from Heathrow to Abbey Wood and connects London from west to east and vice versa. Ebbsfleet plays host to another wonderful technological achievement in High Speed 1, which connects London to Paris, Brussels and Amsterdam in a short period. It is the fastest rail service in the UK, and it is key to us pursuing the Government’s aim of a deep and special relationship with the European Union after Brexit. It is therefore absurd that those two great engineering achievements are separated by 10 miles—a gap that could be closed if we were to connect the two lines as previously envisaged. The two lines nearly merge further down the line at Stratford, but to travel on Crossrail and connect to High Speed 1, a passenger has to get off one train and walk a fair distance through a shopping centre to catch the second train. We all believe in connectivity in our transport network, but that example highlights the complete opposite.
High Speed 1 at Ebbsfleet, where the new garden city is being built, is currently denied a direct connection with Crossrail. That needs to change not just for the benefit of future generations, but for reasons of basic common sense. After Crossrail is completed, every county surrounding the capital will directly benefit from that project, with one exception—Kent. Despite not having any underground stations, we were chosen to be the county to miss out, and that simply cannot be right.
There is huge potential for economic growth east of London and for brownfield sites to be utilised, but the lack of connectivity holds back existing opportunities. There is also a clear demand for more capacity on rail services in north Kent. The number of people using Dartford station has risen by a third in the last 10 years, and the numbers using Ebbsfleet have more than doubled in the time that High Speed 1 has been operational.
The Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission is due to provide the Government with its recommendations for growth in the area—I believe that will take place at the end of this month—and I hope that, even at this late stage, it will include the points raised in this debate in its submissions. I pay tribute to the work the commission is undertaking to assist in this area. I also pay tribute to the tireless work of Dartford Borough Council, Bexley Borough Council and Kent County Council. Hon. Members across the House have worked with those authorities, in a cross-party way, to try to ensure that we get Crossrail extended out to Ebbsfleet.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Bexley Borough Council, which he knows very well, has a growth strategy for the north of the borough, where the Crossrail extension would come through. The extension is absolutely integral to the pace and change of the growth strategy and to ensure we have housing for Londoners to deal with the overspill coming out from the middle of the city.
Gareth Johnson
It was an honour to serve for years with the hon. Lady on Bexley Borough Council. She is absolutely right. The Government try to identify locations where we can develop on brownfield sites and they are in abundance in this area. The same happened when the Labour party was in government. The infrastructure needs to be in place and a crucial part of that is Crossrail itself. If Crossrail extends to Ebbsfleet, providing the transport link that is currently missing, golden opportunities in north Bexley, Dartford and Gravesham could come to fruition.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
There would be a wider benefit to what my hon. Friend is proposing for Kent as a whole. For example, it would provide Kent with direct access to Heathrow, which it currently lacks. That would relieve congestion considerably in all parts of Kent, not least on the M25.
Gareth Johnson
My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour makes a very important point. I read today that some 2 million journeys are carried out from constituencies in the south-east, such as Sevenoaks and Dartford, to Heathrow. A large proportion of those 2 million journeys would be unnecessary if there was a direct connection between Ebbsfleet and Heathrow airport. It is possible to go from Heathrow airport right across the capital to Essex and various other counties around London, but it is not possible to connect with HS1 at Ebbsfleet. It is complete madness to have that gap. It needs to be filled.
It is for that reason that I am reluctant to refer to this proposal as an extension, despite the title of the debate, because this is more about finishing the job that was started and completing the original plans for Crossrail. This debate is about completing the job. It is nothing short of ludicrous for the two greatest technological achievements in rail infrastructure, Crossrail and HS1, to not connect with each other. There is a gap here: 10 miles of missed opportunities; 10 miles that could lead to the transformation of the area and boost the economy in a way that would far outweigh any implementation costs.
I will conclude my comments there, because I know that other Members wish to speak. I will simply say that for all the time the gap is there, in my mind the Crossrail project will be incomplete.
David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson)—my constituency neighbour—on securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to join him in helping to highlight the potential benefits of extending Crossrail to Ebbsfleet.
For years, the borough of Bexley has suffered from a terrible rail service. Delays, cancellations and poor excuses have become the norm. The situation is made worse because Bexley is one of the only London boroughs that does not have an underground service. We are at a great disadvantage, because we have only the one service, Southeastern, that goes through the borough. When there are problems with Southeastern, which as the Minister knows occur far too often, there is no viable alternative to travel to central London other than taking a bus to a neighbouring borough to catch the tube or the docklands light railway.
Today, we are specifically discussing the potential extension of Crossrail to Ebbsfleet, which is a campaign I strongly support. Locally in my borough and my constituency, there is huge support for a project that finishes the job. People want better rail availability and choice.
Extending Crossrail to Ebbsfleet not only improves the opportunities for commuters to get into London, but provides a great opportunity to improve the whole area in so many different ways. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has highlighted the extension into Essex and the extension into west London. The only part of London that does not benefit from either of the two huge railway infrastructure projects that he highlighted is, of course, our area of south-east London and north-west Kent.
I say to the Minister that it is great news that Crossrail is coming to Abbey Wood in the London borough of Greenwich, but that does not provide a viable alternative for Bexley residents, nor—it is very important for him to take note of this—does it provide the opportunity for development in Bexley, as well as in north-west Kent.
Teresa Pearce
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is about not just housing development, but business development? In Abbey Wood, which is in the middle of my constituency, a major new supermarket has opened ahead of the opening of Crossrail. That has happened completely because of the Crossrail effect.
David Evennett
Indeed. I am delighted to see the hon. Lady here, showing that we have cross-party support for what we are discussing—and she is absolutely right. I was going to come on to that, but she is ahead of me. This is not just about new homes; it is also about businesses and jobs, which are vital for our local economy.
Estimates from the C2E—the Crossrail to Ebbsfleet—campaign suggest that extending Crossrail to Ebbsfleet, as was initially intended, would create an additional 17,500 jobs in Bexley alone, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said. The C2E campaign also suggests that along the whole route, the extension would bring forward a possible 55,000 new homes. In Bexley alone, it is estimated that this would accelerate the provision of 30,000 new homes across our borough, directly unlocking 16,000 of these. This is not just a railway, but a regeneration and an opportunity to develop—to get jobs, homes and businesses.
As both my hon. Friend and the Minister will be aware, Crossrail was originally intended to be extended through Bexley and out into Kent. Disappointingly, that was not taken up, but now is the opportunity to do that and make something really worthwhile. The arguments that my hon. Friend has presented today, assisted by interventions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) and the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), highlight the compelling reasons to do just that. By completing the original plans, there is a unique opportunity to secure major new housing and growth between Abbey Wood and Ebbsfleet. We should jump at this opportunity, because I believe that without action, poor transport will continue to hold back our area in development, regeneration and improvement. We cannot accept that and I hope that the Minister takes that on board. It is so important to south-east London—as a Member in Bromley, he knows exactly the situation.
We are going to be in post-Brexit Britain. We need to be proactive and never more than on vital infrastructure projects, which will give us the cutting edge in our area to develop, go forward and achieve for our constituents and our country.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Joseph Johnson)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on securing this debate about the proposal to extend Crossrail to Ebbsfleet. At the outset, I pay special tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (David Evennett) and for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who is not here this afternoon, as well as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce), for their consistent championing of the—well, we are not allowed to call it the “extension” to Ebbsfleet, but the “completion” of the Crossrail project. They have worked very closely for a long time alongside council leaders, some of whom are in the Public Gallery this afternoon, from Bexley—Teresa O’Neill—as well as from Dartford and Kent.
Across the UK, the Government are investing record amounts to improve the experience of rail passengers. State-of-the-art infrastructure, new and longer trains, smart ticketing, improved information and updated wi-fi are all contributing to the creation of a modern, 21st-century railway that will drive our economic prosperity—and drive it into the post-Brexit period evoked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford a few moments ago.
Crossrail is a key part of that investment. The project is now over 92% complete, and, as Members have recognised, it will have a truly transformative impact on the public transport network, not only in London but across the south-east and beyond. When it is fully open in December 2019, the railway will deliver a 10% increase in London’s rail capacity, carrying up to 200 million passengers a year and with up to 24 trains per hour running at peak times. The new line will bring an extra 1.5 million people to within 45 minutes of London’s key business and entertainment districts. It will link major employment, leisure and business districts—Heathrow airport, the west end, the City and Canary Wharf—which have never been linked in that way before, enabling real and valuable economic development to take place.
I want to take this opportunity to reflect again on the magnificent scale of what is being achieved with Crossrail: not only the surmounting of engineering and technical challenges to build the first new railway for a generation, but the immense economic impact that the project has had, not just in London but throughout the UK. Companies of all sizes across the country have won contracts for work on it, including the construction of 70 brand-new trains at Bombardier’s historic plant in Derby. Overall, it is supporting up to 55,000 new jobs, creating more than 1,000 apprenticeship opportunities for our young people and adding up to £42 billion to the UK economy. The sheer ambition of this project cannot be overestimated; neither can the great legacy that will be created by its use of innovative technologies, and the vast skills capital that it will leave in its wake, to be passed on to other infrastructure projects that are planned across the UK.
The Elizabeth line—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford said, that is how it will be known from later this year—will have a transformative effect on travel in south-east London and beyond when it opens in December. Journey times to and from central London will be significantly reduced, wider regional connectivity will improve considerably, and I anticipate that new travel patterns will emerge. Indeed, I expect that a significant number of passengers will wish to transfer to the Elizabeth line at Abbey Wood.
My hon. Friend asked about the current route of the Elizabeth line and whether it could be extended to Ebbsfleet. The Department for Transport, which sponsors this project jointly with Transport for London, has received many queries over the years about whether the route could or should be extended beyond its western, eastern or south-eastern arms, or whether, indeed, entirely new branches should be developed. As Members will know, the current 60-mile route runs from Reading in the west to Shenfield in the east and Abbey Wood in the south-east, with a spur that will also serve Heathrow airport terminals 2,3,4 and 5 when it is fully open in December 2019. The Elizabeth line, which will pass through 41 stations—10 of which are newly constructed—was developed over a period of many years, and it has been planned to maximise benefits to passengers as well as ensuring that the timetable is operationally viable. It is therefore crucial for any discussion about extending the current route to be placed in the context of the transport improvements that are already planned for the area. Let me say a few words about those.
In respect of the specific issue of an Ebbsfleet Crossrail extension, my hon. Friend is aware that a detailed review of the business case was undertaken in 2004. It recommended that the south-eastern branch should go only as far as Abbey Wood, and that was reflected in the Crossrail Act 2008.
I am aware, however, that Transport for London is currently working with local authorities in London and north Kent as part of the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership to prepare a strategic outline business case. My understanding is that this will look at options to improve transport connectivity and capacity to support the development of new homes and jobs in the area—the regeneration of the area to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford referred. I pay tribute to the work in particular of the Crossrail to Ebbsfleet campaign and council leaders Teresa O’Neill and Jeremy Kite, and I look forward to seeing the outputs of this work and to the Department receiving the full strategic outline business case in short order.
I further acknowledge the work undertaken to develop the regeneration aspirations for Ebbsfleet and the wider area by the Thames Estuary 2050 Growth Commission. I understand the commission is shortly due to publish, in this case its report on the vision for the development and growth in the region.
Gareth Johnson
I hear what the Minister says about the decision made not to extend out to Abbey Wood, but does he agree that this part of north Kent has changed significantly since that decision was made? We have thousands more homes and greater pressures on our rail system than at that time, and the pressure on housing generally is greater now. We also had traffic problems with the Lower Thames crossing, and the issues relating to Heathrow airport that I mentioned and people getting from north Kent to Heathrow. All those issues have evolved over this period, strengthening the arguments for extending Crossrail to Ebbsfleet.
Joseph Johnson
I do indeed recognise that that part of north Kent has changed considerably over the decade since the passage of the Act I mentioned, which is why it is important that we are about to receive this new work from the Thames Gateway Kent Partnership looking at overall growth prospects for the region, and are also about to receive the fully developed strategic outline business case. This will enable the Department to take a fresh look at the case for extending Crossrail to Ebbsfleet, but, as a Member who also represents a constituency in that part of the world, I share my hon. Friend’s frustration and recognise that there are aspirations that are currently unmet, and he has made a strong case for the extension today.
In the context of these plans for housing-led regeneration of this part of north Kent, I also recognise that there is renewed interest in discussions about the transport infrastructure and capacity improvements that would be required to unlock development. I am sure my hon. Friend welcomes the future enhancements to the strategic road network with the planned A2 junction improvements at Bean and Ebbsfleet. These improvements will support economic and housing growth in north Kent, including Ebbsfleet Garden City, and demonstrate the Government’s commitment to invest in transport infrastructure.
I acknowledge that many of these recent discussions have focused on the proposal to extend the south-eastern arm of the Elizabeth line to Ebbsfleet and that the extension proposal was included in the Mayor of London’s transport strategy published in March. The Department’s current priority is the delivery of the Elizabeth line. Any extension to the route would require a strong business case and need to be technically feasible, and include the identification of funding.
As my hon. Friend will understand, any request for Government support would need to satisfy the value-for-money and affordability criteria and be consistent with the new process we announced in March for the development and delivery of rail enhancements. The rail network enhancements pipeline is designed to ensure that future rail projects are properly planned and scrutinised to deliver maximum value and benefit to rail users and taxpayers. Alongside this pipeline, we have launched a call for ideas for market-led proposals to create a new tier of investment in rail infrastructure from the private sector.
I shall now describe some of the improvements already planned for rail in the south-east. From later this month, new Thameslink services will link Woolwich, Abbey Wood and north Kent to Blackfriars, Farringdon and St Pancras for the first time, which, together with the Elizabeth line from December 2018, will deliver faster, more convenient journeys for passengers and improved connectivity.
I also want to draw attention to the work the Department is doing with regard to the new Southeastern franchise due to launch from April 2019. The Southeastern rail franchise public consultation document, also published in March 2017, set out ambitious proposals to transform the train service for passengers on the Southeastern network. Our specification for the new franchise is expected to be delivered by no later than December 2022 and will provide better and more reliable journeys and more room for passengers, integrating seamlessly with future Thameslink and Elizabeth line services. I have no doubt that this will transform travel across London, Kent and parts of East Sussex and will be delivered through a brand-new collaborative partnership between the next operator and Network Rail.
In addition, longer, higher-capacity trains will provide space for around 60,000 more passengers in the morning rush-hour. Metro-style trains will operate on suburban routes in south-east London and north Kent, similar to those on other high-capacity lines into London.
The Government’s vision for stronger performance and reliability will be delivered through a brand-new collaborative partnership between the next operator and Network Rail. This will deliver shared incentives to ensure that both organisations work together to put the passenger first and to deliver a more reliable, efficient railway. The new franchise also recognises the step change in connectivity that the Elizabeth line to Abbey Wood will offer Southeastern passengers. Bidders must provide regular services to and from Abbey Wood and deliver innovative pay-as-you-go ticketing.
In summary, I hope I have demonstrated the Government’s commitment both to rail improvements and to wider regeneration in this area of the south-east.
Teresa Pearce
I have listened carefully to the Minister. Would he not accept that south-east London is massively underserved by transport compared with the rest of London and that stopping at Abbey Wood does not help Bexley at all?
Joseph Johnson
I agree that south-east London is dependent on the Southeastern franchise and that particular train operator. It is unique in not having competition. I would not wholly agree, however, with the hon. Lady’s point about Abbey Wood or with the early point that Kent will not benefit at all from Crossrail. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) said, it will benefit, to the extent that it will have increased connectivity at Abbey Wood, with options to connect Southeastern services directly to the Elizabeth line.
David Evennett
Yes, a new franchise would be great and is desperately needed—at the moment it is so bad it cannot be believed—but the problem is the bigger picture: investment, regeneration and getting more homes, jobs and businesses into the area. That cannot be done just by improving a rail service that is inadequate at the moment.
Joseph Johnson
My right hon. Friend has long been a powerful champion for the completion of this extension and is continuing to be a strong advocate for it. All I can say is that the Department is looking forward to receiving the work of the commission and the full strategic outline business case so that we can give this proposal the fullest possible consideration.
In conclusion, I hope I have demonstrated the Government’s commitment to rail improvements and the wider regeneration in this area of the south-east.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 15 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2018.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I hope not to detain the Committee long, as this draft statutory instrument concerns a procedural issue of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, although it is important.
I will start by explaining what the Special Immigration Appeals Commission is. More generally known as SIAC, it is a specialist tribunal that deals with challenges to immigration and asylum decisions made by the Home Office. The decisions that come before it concern cases where an immigration decision is made—for example, detention or deportation—for reasons of national security or international relations, or cases where a decision is made relying on evidence that it would not be in the public interest to disclose. SIAC is different from other immigration tribunals, in that it has the ability to operate the closed material procedure, which allows sensitive material the Home Secretary intends to use in his response to the appeal to be protected.
There are three matters before us today in relation to SIAC’s procedures: changes to bail conditions, changes to appeals and changes to the time limit. The changes are designed to bring SIAC proceedings in line with other similar types of hearing in other tribunals.
The first change relates to bail. This draft statutory instrument is designed to bring the bail conditions imposed by SIAC in line with schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. That legislation simplified the previous framework with a single power of immigration bail. That allows for illegal migrants, including foreign national offenders, who are awaiting removal to be released subject to conditions if detention is not appropriate. That legislation simplified the law. For example, financial conditions were also introduced to replace recognisances, which are undertakings to pay a sum of money in the event that bail conditions are breached. At its simplest, it was a change to the language, making it more comprehensible. “Recognisances” is simply an outdated term. There were other changes to simplify the bail framework, and we are bringing SIAC in line with those.
The draft statutory instrument seeks to allow cases to be leapfrogged from SIAC to the Supreme Court. That will bring SIAC in line with other courts and tribunals where leapfrogging is possible. For example, leapfrogging is already possible for appeals in the upper tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal. There are safeguards, because it can be done only in certain circumstances. The appellant must demonstrate that their appeal raises a point of law of general public importance that will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court.
The final change brought about by the draft statutory instrument is an amendment to increase the time limit for making an application for permission to appeal, which will bring SIAC in line with time limits in the High Court.
To conclude, the draft statutory instrument makes technical but necessary changes to the procedures used by SIAC to ensure they are consistent with measures already set out in primary legislation, namely the Immigration Act 2016 and the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. We have also taken the opportunity to make time limits for permission to appeal consistent with those in the High Court. I therefore commend the draft statutory instrument to the Committee.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I should say at the outset that it is not our intention to divide the Committee. According to the information provided by the Ministry of Justice, there were only 14 cases in 2017. It is not a huge number, thus we regard the measures as affecting only very exceptional cases.
Can the Minister assure me there are no plans to extend the rule changes for very exceptional cases more generally across cases in our immigration system? Does she have any plans to introduce any further statutory instruments in this parliamentary Session regarding the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997? Does she have an estimate of the number of cases the changes might affect in the first year following implementation?
Legal and judicial safeguards in all cases, including those under discussion, are vital at all stages. For us, this is an issue of fairness. We of course want to see cases disposed of as efficiently as possible. Similarly, we do not have any issue with the technical change regarding bail. I note that in the 14 cases I have mentioned, nobody had bail in any event. We will not, therefore, seek a Division, but we would appreciate reassurances from the Minister.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I understand that this is a technical statutory instrument. Nevertheless, it is being debated in the wider context of the Home Office policy on immigration, and the so-called and highly problematic hostile environment. I am afraid that we want to express slightly more concerns in a slightly stronger tone than we have heard.
The concept of bail is a difficult issue. It may be offensive to some people because it might make them seem like criminals or suspected criminals when they are not. Appeals and the number of appeals are also at issue. I understand that a lot of the work at SIAC relates to appeals related to matters of national security but that the national security clause has been used against highly skilled migrants more than 1,000 times for minor tax issues. Although an increase in time limits might be welcome, we still have an issue with the overall range of the time limits.
Bringing things in line with other tribunals might make technical sense, but we have considerable difficulties with the operation of some of those tribunals in the first instance. I am happy to listen to any reassurances the Minister might want to give us, but we will register our concerns through a Division.
Lucy Frazer
I am grateful for the important points raised by Opposition Members. I can confirm to the hon. Member for Ashfield that we have no intention to extend the SIAC position that she outlined in her first question. We do not intend to bring forward any further issues in relation to SIAC. The Tribunal Procedure Committee has already updated the rules for the immigration tribunal. It is difficult to say how many cases will be affected, but we think the number will be very few.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow North on behalf of the Scottish National party, we are not increasing any hostile environment in relation to immigration. The measures are intended to ensure that we have a streamlined process, and to improve the position for those who want to appeal and the conditions for those on bail. We are ensuring that the bail conditions are no longer as confusing as they were. They were simplified in the Immigration Act 2016 and are now simpler to understand for everyone.
On the issue of leapfrogging to the Supreme Court, it is in the interests of both the Home Office and the appellant that decisions are made swiftly and that, when required, rights are determined through a process. Where there will be an appeal to the Supreme Court in any event, there are advantages in that case going straight to the Supreme Court, rather than through a lengthy procedure. I hope that I have satisfied hon. Members that this is an important, necessary streamlining of the procedure.
Question put.
Ministerial Correction
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alan Brown
I welcome audio-visual announcements. I am one of the MPs who backed the “Talking Buses” campaign by Guide Dogs. Can the hon. Lady give a clearer timescale for when audio-visual information will be mandatory on buses?
Ms Ghani
We have had the action accessibility plan, which we will be responding to very shortly, within the month. We are working with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the charity Guide Dogs. [Official Report, 8 May 2018, Vol. 640, c. 224WH.]
Letter of correction from Ms Ghani.
An error has been identified in my answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown).
The correct answer should have been:
Petition
School budgets
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Community Transport
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the First Report of the Transport Committee, Community Transport and the Department for Transport’s proposed consultation, HC 480, and the Government response, HC 832.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank the other members of the Transport Committee for their work on this inquiry. I am pleased to see that my hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), and many hon. Members from across the House, are present to debate our report.
The Transport Committee often scrutinises multibillion-pound investment in roads and railways—high-profile mega-infrastructure projects. Community transport rarely comes under the spotlight, yet it encapsulates what local transport is for: connecting people with their communities. It is vital to many thousands of users, who are often the most vulnerable in society, and it provides them with reliable, high-quality and, above all, friendly and caring local transport services.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
On that point, in my constituency I have a provider called Torfaen Community Transport, which is exactly as my hon. Friend says. Does she agree that, with rules and regulations, it is important to recognise the special status of community transport and the excellent services it provides?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is exactly right, and I suspect I will hear from many more hon. Members who want to talk about their local providers.
On reading through the many comments on the Committee’s online forum from community transport groups, drivers, users young and old, their families and even a tea shop and bed and breakfast in the Yorkshire Dales, it is clear just how important those services are to people’s daily lives. It is noticeable how many people referred to them as a lifeline. I recommend that everyone looks at #WithoutCT on Twitter to see the range of socially valuable activities that would simply not be possible for some without a local community transport operator.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for the report and for what the Transport Committee is doing on it. Community transport is important, especially in more rural areas, and especially to enable our elderly to get to hospitals all over the place. We have to try to provide some direct help with fuel costs or insurance—something that will keep those community groups going. They often cannot afford to run commercially, but they can do such a good job with some support. They do so all across my constituency, as I am sure they do across hers.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is right that those services are invaluable. It might be a regular trip to the shops, a lift to a social or sports club, or a visit to the doctor or hospital, as he just said. It could even be something that we would all strongly advocate: a lift to the polling station on election day.
Community transport encompasses a broad range of services, whether that is lift-giving by volunteer car drivers, dial-a-ride minibuses for people with disabilities or other mobility problems, or community bus routes that would not otherwise exist because they are not commercially viable. I have seen the importance of Nottingham community transport in my area, and I am sure that we all have wonderful examples that showcase how local community transport operators serve our constituencies. That is why we support and highly value community transport, and why we want and need more of it, not less. We must not take it for granted.
A vibrant, not-for-profit community-based system is becoming increasingly important to complement existing commercial bus and taxi services, and to plug gaps in provision that are growing in many places because of pressure on local authority budgets. Last summer, however, the community transport sector faced an existential crisis. The Department proposed an about-turn in relation to not-for-profit operator licensing arrangements that could have serious, perhaps catastrophic, implications. Grave concerns were expressed by the sector, and by hon. Members across the House, which is why the Transport Committee became involved. I am proud that it was the first issue we considered after I was elected as Chair.
We heard evidence from all sides, including from the commercial operators who claim that there is unfairness in the current system, from hundreds of community organisations that feel under threat, and from the public bodies whose job it is to oversee the licensing and regulation of both sectors: the Department for Transport, the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency and traffic commissioners. Our report was published in December and the Government responded in February, alongside the launch of their consultation on proposed changes.
My anxiety is that despite the work of our Committee and others to expose the dangers of the Department’s approach, the Government have not yet started to listen fully or engage properly with those legitimate concerns. A potential crisis has not yet been averted.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Following that consultation, the portfolio holder in the East Riding of Yorkshire Council said that little had changed from the Department for Transport’s proposal, which will have devastating consequences for the sector in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Community groups such as Goole GoFar and Age UK Lindsey rely on volunteer drivers. The truth is that the Government have simply not understood what the proposals will do to that sector. They should listen to councils such as the East Riding of Yorkshire that know how it works.
Lilian Greenwood
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that during this important debate, we can begin to get the assurances we need from the Minister.
The UK has taken a unique approach to community transport by legislating for a relatively light-touch, affordable regime through the section 19 and section 22 permits of the Transport Act 1985. It is widely acknowledged, including by the Government, that the regime has provided an effective framework within which not-for-profit organisations can safely provide community-based local transport services. The Government have also very broadly accepted throughout that the long-established permit regime still achieves that. Furthermore, they accept that developments in the sector that have led to the current situation have been not only supported by official guidance, but explicitly encouraged by local and central Government for many years.
Not-for-profit community organisations have been encouraged to become more professional in outlook and, in the face of growing pressure on local authority budgets, to become more financially self-sufficient. Community organisations have responded to that call by quite properly and, I stress, in accordance with the official guidance, developing their operating models to deliver services via a mix of grant funding and local authority contracts.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the changing situation in local authorities—I have seen it in Cambridgeshire—whereby mainstream services have disappeared to be replaced by not just voluntary, but professional schemes, has led to those problems?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is right. Many community organisations, some very successfully, have achieved greater self-sufficiency and sustainability by cross-subsidising what can be thought of as core community transport services with income from contracts for school and social care transport, for example.
And so to the bombshell of last summer. At the end of July, in what the Department seems to have hoped would be a relatively innocuous letter from a senior official to issuers of section 19 and section 22 permits, it set out a new approach, which was contrary to the official guidance that had been applied for decades but in line with a new interpretation of EU regulation 1071/2009, which has been in force since 2011. This is the crux of the matter: there is a potential misalignment of the relevant sections of the 1985 Act and its associated guidance and practice, and EU law.
The European regulation defines three derogations from the operator and driver licensing requirements on the mainstream commercial sector: where organisations are engaged in road passenger transport services exclusively for non-commercial purposes; where they have a main occupation other than that of road passenger transport operator; and where organisations have only a minor impact on the transport market because of the short distances involved. Member states can choose whether to apply the third derogation.
The Department’s letter noted the findings of a DVSA investigation into the licensing arrangements of an individual community operator in Erewash, Derbyshire—I see the hon. Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup) is present. Essentially, that investigation, which was conducted in response to a complaint from a commercial operator, found that as the operator in question held a number of competitively tendered local authority contracts, it could not be considered to be operating for non-commercial purposes.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Is the hon. Lady aware that to date this is the only case that has been brought forward in response to this letter issued by the DFT?
Lilian Greenwood
Yes, the hon. Lady is right—absolutely. For years, guidance and practice in the UK had considered “not-for-profit” and “non-commercial” to be interchangeable terms. The DVSA investigation and the DFT’s letter signalled a completely new interpretation. The consequence for the operator investigated by the DVSA was that it could no longer operate on the basis of community transport permits, because—according to the new interpretation—the derogations from full public service vehicle operator and passenger carrying vehicle driver licensing did not apply.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Did the Select Committee have any chance to access any legal advice on this rather startling interpretation of this regulation, which has been interpreted in totally different ways, as the hon. Lady said, for decades? Very little policy point seems to lie behind the changes that are being proposed, and I wonder whether we are somewhat pedantically accepting a rather eccentric legal opinion that is threatening very genuine voluntary services that are quite non-profit making in many parts of the country.
Lilian Greenwood
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a very important point, and I think that it is for the Minister to explain precisely why he has taken this specific legal approach to the interpretation of the regulation. I am sure that he will do so in his response to the debate.
The DVSA told Erewash Community Transport that it must
“take action to bring its operations into line with all applicable legal requirements”,
and that that applied to all its drivers and services, not just those provided under the terms of contestable contracts. The DFT’s letter confirmed that this interpretation was now to be universally applied, and not just applied to one operator, and that it was intended to make clear the broader implications for the community transport sector. The letter acknowledged that existing guidance
“may have provided an inaccurate indication”
of the rules for sections 19 and 22 permit use. Nevertheless, all operators in similar circumstances would
“now need to take action to bring their services into compliance with legal requirements.”
The letter asserted that additional licensing requirements were likely to apply mainly to large, transport-only organisations, and that many—perhaps the majority—of other smaller and community-based permit holders were likely to be unaffected. It said that the DFT intended to explain the implications more fully and to consult on its proposals in the autumn. The evidence to our inquiry, including evidence from hundreds of community transport organisations of various types and sizes, overwhelmingly suggested that that assumption was simply wrong.
Although the DFT’s letter may have been well-intentioned and designed to clarify and calm the situation, it achieved the opposite effect, by creating widespread confusion and panic. Mobility Matters, an urgently convened campaign group, told us that its survey evidence suggested that the new requirements were likely to be catastrophic for many community organisations, with 40% saying that they would be unable to carry on operating as a result of the additional costs.
There were many unanswered questions and the broad community transport sector was understandably confused about what action was required and by what date.
Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for calling this debate. On the Isle of Wight, we have the excellent FYTbus service—the Freshwater, Yarmouth and Totland service. It is very successful and needs no further help. This heavy-handed and bizarre approach to regulation puts a question mark over the future of the FYTbus service, and I think that that is very unnecessary. Does she agree that we need to be encouraging voluntary drivers and the community sector, and not hitting them in this way?
Lilian Greenwood
That is precisely right and my Committee called on the Government not to use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
After the DFT’s letter arrived, traffic commissioners and local authorities were also unclear about its immediate implications. We heard about traffic commissioners sitting on applications for new permits, because they were unsure what to do. We heard about local authorities holding off from agreeing new contracts and that some contracts with permit-holders had already been terminated. Concern was growing that vital and socially valuable services might already be being lost. Frankly, it all seemed to be a total mess and the sector felt in limbo.
The pressure from our inquiry, from the Community Transport Association and from campaign groups such as Mobility Matters perhaps hastened the DFT’s attempt to clarify the situation. On 9 November last year, it issued a letter to local authorities, making it clear that at that stage no contracts should be cancelled. On the face of it, that letter also seemed to offer some of the clarifications that were being sought. For example, it explained that services could be considered “non-commercial” where there was demonstrably no commercial market—that is, where a community organisation had stepped in to replace a failed commercial bus route, or where it was delivering a service for which no commercial operator had tendered. Essentially, it set out a potentially broader definition of “non-commercial” and seemed to address some of the more obviously perverse consequences of the initial statement. We therefore welcomed the clarifications as a starting point from which to find a more workable solution.
However, we also concluded that the fact that it had taken more than three months to produce that letter demonstrated the Department’s lack of understanding of the sector and the potential impacts of the July proposals. What we wanted, and what we recommended in our report, was for the Government to use their consultation to consider reforms designed not only to achieve compatibility with the EU regulation but to maintain achievement of the key public policy objective— the provision of high-quality, safe and secure community transport services for people who might otherwise be left isolated.
I was not reassured by the Government’s response to our report. It took precisely the legalistic position that we had warned against, and discounted almost all of our recommendations, which were intended to lessen the impacts of the proposals. It did not consider the interplay with commissioning bodies’ responsibilities under the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, despite indisputable evidence of the immense social benefits of community transport. In addition, it did not consider establishing any kind of hybrid category, whereby there would be more proportionate licensing requirements for the sector. It could not even set out an appropriate and clearly defined transition period for affected organisations and there was no commitment to offer tangible support to those required to make changes.
It concerns me greatly that the Department has offered no properly reasoned justification for its implacable stance. Given the importance of what is at stake, it is surely incumbent on the Government to explain their thinking. The comments that I am hearing about the consultation, which closed last week, are not encouraging either. The fundamental questions of whether the Government’s interpretation of the EU regulation is correct, whether their proposals will achieve what they set out to achieve and whether those proposals are proportionate and workable have not been adequately open to challenge. It amounts to a consultation in name only; the Government’s proposals are presented largely as a done deal.
Mobility Matters’ opinion, with which I have sympathy, is that the interpretation is arguably wrong. Mobility Matters asserts that the definition of “non-commercial purposes” should be applied to organisations and not only to the services that they provide. For example, it should take account of an organisation’s charitable status and the social value that it brings to its local community. Mobility Matters also points out that the issue at hand is about fairness in competition for contracts. If that is the case, logic would suggest that the issue should be dealt with in procurement guidance.
The Minister needs to demonstrate today that the Department has properly engaged with these arguments and properly considered alternative courses of action. However, the Department seems intent on pushing ahead with more stringent, more expensive licensing requirements, without knowing how many operators will be affected and how much this will cost them, or how many operators will be able to bear the strain. There is a real danger that the Government have massively underestimated the detrimental effects on the community transport sector. That is demonstrated by the initial impact assessment, which was published alongside the Government’s consultation paper and which, frankly, is woefully inadequate. First, it is dated “October 2016”, when we know, by the Department’s own admission, that as recently as last July it did not have a reliable picture of the size or shape of the community transport sector.
Secondly, in the absence of reliable data, the Department seems to have grossly underestimated the total net costs for affected operators, putting it at £69.5 million over 10 years. The Community Transport Association, the trade body set up to support community operators, with the assistance of the Department, puts the figure at nearly £400 million. The Department’s assessment did not monetise substantial costs, including the costs of tachographs, additional insurance, company registration for those needing corporate restructure, and funding required to prove financial standing for PSV operator licences.
The Department’s estimate was that 1,567 permit-holders would be affected by the operator or driver licensing requirements, which is 25% of permit-based operators. The CTA’s analysis is that 95% of permit-based operators will be affected, which is a total of 5,956 operators. Just today, I received the latest example of the wider impact. Keep Mobile is an operator with 14 paid drivers, three volunteer drivers and 12 minibuses providing services around Berkshire, primarily to vulnerable passengers. Last year, the Prime Minister visited to celebrate its 25th year of operation. However, as a result of the confusion created by the Department’s letters, a local authority contract was not renewed and Keep Mobile was forced to make four members of staff redundant and sell two of its vehicles. Now it fears it will have no alternative but to close down. These impacts are real and devastating.
With such a level of uncertainty about the effects of the proposed changes, it is surely incumbent on the Department to take stock, to reconsider or, at the very least, to proceed with extreme caution, and I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that that is the approach he is taking. The published impact assessment is no basis on which to proceed. Frankly, the Department has this back to front: it is announcing its policy without a clear view of the impact that it will have. When will a fuller, more robust impact assessment be published? Is he ready to rethink his plans in the light of that new data?
Will the Minister consider how we got to this point? The Transport Committee concluded that the Department failed to address valid concerns over many years. It acted too slowly. Perhaps now it feels it has painted itself into a legal corner, but why has that happened? As I understand it, complaints about the widely accepted permit system have emanated solely from Martin Allen and his small group of commercial operators, the Bus and Coach Association. The main trade body, the Confederation of Passenger Transport, seemed intensely relaxed about permit use in its evidence to our Committee. Why did the DFT allow the complaints of a small group of commercial operators to rumble on for years? If it had addressed these relatively localised complaints years ago, could we have avoided the current situation? Why could localised problems in relation to competition for local authority contracts not be dealt with through procurement guidance? Why the need for a new, blanket approach to operator and driver licensing when we all accept that the permit system has worked effectively for decades and very broadly still does?
Martin Allen and the BCA say they want an end to unfair competition, but is there not a very real danger that they will succeed in eliminating all competition from community transport operators? Has the Department for Transport and the European Commission effectively been bullied into proposals that could do immense harm to vital community services and achieve precisely the opposite of the regulations’ intention?
Mr Seely
The whole point about voluntary bus services, such as the FYTBus and others that we are here to defend, is that they take up the slack where there is no commercial option because the commercial bus operators will not provide services in those areas. That is the whole purpose and logic of having voluntary services.
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Gentleman is right. In many places community transport operators are filling gaps. In other places, they are providing local authorities with an affordable option to continue providing services to their communities.
As we emphasised in our report, the community transport sector has acted in good faith, in accordance with official guidance and with the acquiescence and encouragement of local and central Government over many years. The Minister must confirm today that he will take full account of the views and concerns expressed during the consultation. He must be clear about the next steps and the timetable for change. I would like to hear him talk about transitional arrangements, financial support and other mitigations. We have heard precious little about them so far. It would be unjust if even one socially valuable community transport service was lost in these circumstances. I fear the ultimate outcome, if the Government pushes ahead regardless of the concerns, could be far worse.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I ask everyone who wants to speak to stand, so I can assess how many Members we have to squeeze in. To try to get everyone in, I will have to set a time limit to start with of three minutes.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this debate and on her Select Committee’s work in scrutinising the impact of the changes. It is right that this debate is taking place now, just after the Government have closed their consultation on the use of section 19 and section 22 permits.
I want to pass on the concerns that two community organisations in my constituency, Bungay Area Community Transport and Halesworth Area Community Transport, have raised with me. There are five issues I will draw attention to. The first is the disproportionate impact on smaller operators. BACT and HACT have advised me that should the proposals go through, they will have to close.
My second point—the hon. Lady did refer to this—is that community transport generally complements, rather than competes with, commercial operators. BACT and HACT have made that point to me. There is a view that the Government are responding to the prompting of a small number of vocal commercial operators that are not representative of the commercial sector as a whole.
My third point is that there is a risk of a domino effect. If one service is closed, it can cascade all the way down through local economies, with redundancies, staff reductions, day centres closing, market towns having even more problems and banks having yet another excuse to close their branches.
My fourth point is that local and national Government have supported the sector for decades, and there is a very good reason for that: it is the best way of plugging this particular hole and meeting this existing demand. If the changes go through, I fear that Government will just have to come up with an alternative arrangement, in effect reinventing the wheel.
My final point is about the social and community role that these organisations provide. I will give one example that BACT brought to my attention. Mr and Mrs X are both disabled with walking difficulties, and Mr X has Parkinson’s. They live in a remote rural village and have no family close by. They make use of BACT’s car service for medical appointments, its dial-a-ride service to get them to the shops and its rural bus service once a week to get to the market town. They would be totally isolated without BACT, and they would probably be forced to leave their family home. In that context, I ask the Government to pause, go back and review the system, which has operated in this country—it is a British way of doing things—and should be allowed to continue.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
I strongly endorse the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on the potentially enormous impact of these retrograde and unnecessary changes, which will affect hundreds of thousands of people with mobility difficulties.
I should start by declaring an interest. Eighteen months ago, I took on the role of chair of the HCT Group, which I think is the UK’s largest social enterprise. It runs a large number of buses, but also a large number of community transport operations. It is not affected by the changes, because its drivers are already fully compliant with the new standards, but it has deep knowledge of the industry and totally shares the assessment of the Community Transport Association that the changes will do truly enormous damage.
I mention HCT at the outset because it is a social enterprise, and I get a strong sense that the Department simply does not understand the concept of a social enterprise. It seems to believe that a commercial service has to be provided by a commercial operator, but very efficient commercial services are provided by social enterprises that operate efficiently, but make a different use of their profit. The profit is used for a social purpose, not the reward of shareholders, and that distinction appears to be completely ignored in the Department’s evaluation.
I will make two specific points. The first relates to the social impact assessment. Frankly, the Department has done a shoddy piece of work. As the Chair of the Select Committee points out, some fundamental costs are completely ignored. The transport management cost in the industry is underestimated by a factor of three. Most seriously of all, there is a well-developed methodology that people in the industry understand for calculating social impacts. Those are not fully taken into account. The figure of £400 million that the Chair of the Select Committee mentioned is well attested by the people who use the standard methodology.
My second point is on the legal issues. It appears that in every other sector of the economy—local or national—there is now an understanding that the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012 can be applied on top of procurement rules, but an exception has been made in this case. What has happened here—it has happened many times in the past over procurement issues—is that officials and lawyers are over-interpreting European Union laws. I encountered that in Government as a Secretary of State, dealing with the Department for Transport over the procurement of railways. Fortunately, the then Secretary of State for Transport—now the Chancellor—listened, changed it, and we had a much more pragmatic approach. We are asking today for a much more practical, pragmatic response, which recognises the real social need in the sector.
Sir Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
I will make two distinct points, because of the pressure from the amount of people who want to speak. I understand why the Minister felt he had to do this, but I hope that after listening to the debate—to the words of the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), and the leader of the Liberals, the right hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir Vince Cable)—he takes on board the very strong feelings, across parties, on this issue.
I first tabled a private Member’s Bill to get bus-fuel duty rebate for community transport back in 1999, because before then the sector was not getting the same kind of rebate as the commercial sector, and I thought that was unfair. When I introduced that private Member’s Bill, the Government prevented it from going any further, but in due course they did bring in a BSOG—bus service operators grant—arrangement for community transport.
When I was Secretary of State for Transport I was fortunate enough to set up a scheme to help the smaller community transport agencies to get new buses. They fulfil a vital role, particularly in rural areas, but also in wider urban areas. I have three community transport agencies in my constituency. To give some idea of the work that Bakewell and Eyam Community Transport did over the past year, it has told me:
“Over the last 12 months we transported over 86,000 passengers which included 8270 wheelchair users and 3525 health related journeys”.
The agency served more than 397 groups, including Age UK, the scouts, Church groups and Women’s Institutes—the list goes on. Bakewell and Eyam Community Transport fulfils a very important role in rural areas.
I am concerned that the proposals have made a number of charitable organisations unnecessarily concerned that they will not be able to continue that work. I would like to see more flexibility. The Minister needs to reflect on the debate, as I am sure he will, and look at what he can do to assist community transport.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said, this is just a matter of law. The new regulation is either a correct implementation of European Union law, or it is not. Which is it?
Sir Patrick McLoughlin
I will leave that to the Minister to answer; I am sure he will want to answer that. I fear that this issue has been around for some time. It is obviously everybody’s view, including that of other speakers, that the Government have gone too far in responding to what was European Union regulation. After all, the Government believe in deregulating, not excessive regulation. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell us about all the regulations he will get rid of, because for every regulation he introduces he is supposed to get rid of two.
As we can see, the proposals would lead to a lot of extra regulations that should not be introduced. I hope that the Minister takes note of the debate, and comes forward with a solution that allows community transport to carry on doing the vital job it has done, and that removes the question mark that many community transport agencies feel hangs over them at the moment.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), the Chair of the Select Committee, for summarising a powerful case, which many Members across the House support. I also thank community transport providers operating in my constituency of Easington. In particular, I thank Angela Kent, the operations manager of East Durham Community Transport, who kindly contacted me and briefed me in advance of today’s debate.
As has been pointed out, community transport is a vital lifeline for many people, especially elderly and vulnerable people at risk of social isolation and exclusion. My constituency is semi-rural, and the quality of local bus services for many people is nothing short of lamentable. If commuters in London had to put up with the quality of public transport services operating in my constituency, there would be protests on the streets. The regulated, integrated, frequent and modern public transport network that is standard for the capital city is a million miles removed from the experience of my constituents. Communities such as South Hetton, Haswell, Haswell Plough, Hesleden, High Hesleden and Hutton Henry can be left isolated, with an infrequent, sub-standard bus service that does not operate in the evenings.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the impact assessments conducted by the Department for Transport underestimate the impact of the proposals on very vulnerable people? The impact assessments led us to believe that the impact would be minimal.
Grahame Morris
That is a really important point; I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The problem is that, as a consequence of the regulations, people will be denied access to local amenities, leisure facilities and employment opportunities. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South indicated the cost—some £400 million.
People are rightly angry and frustrated about the implications of the changes. I am angry about the quality of the transport infrastructure in my constituency, and this will simply compound that. The proposed guidance from the Government implies that community transport providers need to show that they are not blocking commercial operators that may wish to deliver a local service on a particular route—the section 19 and 22 recommendations that have been mentioned. However, community transport is plugging the gaps of a failing commercial network. The ongoing withdrawal of commercial bus services means that the community transport sector as a whole has gained growing importance in filling transport gaps, particularly in largely rural areas such as mine. Many voluntary transport services are financially fragile, and rely on donations and the goodwill of volunteers to continue.
The Government must realise that community transport is about so much more than simply moving people from A to B. It brings people together, teaches people new skills, makes disabled and elderly people in rural areas less socially isolated, improves physical and mental health, and makes communities pull together to tackle many issues that they face on a daily basis.
I share the reservations of community transport providers in my constituency that the Department for Transport, sitting in splendid isolation in offices in central London, may find it difficult to comprehend the service and support provided by community transport. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South that the narrow and legalistic approach that the Government are adopting to community transport is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing the debate.
As I reflected when I led a Westminster Hall debate on this issue back in December 2015, community transport occupies a unique central ground between the passenger transport industry and the voluntary sector, providing innovative solutions to the otherwise unmet transport needs of local residents. Figures suggest that Erewash Community Transport alone generates £1.3 million of social value for the communities in which it operates. We all agree on the importance of these types of transport services run for and by our community, so the changes made to the guidance with regard to section 19 and 22 permit holding organisations are particularly concerning.
The problem appears to have arisen as an unintended consequence of what is, in my opinion, poor EU regulation, rather than any specific action taken by Her Majesty’s Government. Where operators such as Erewash Community Transport are affected, Ministers have announced that they are making £250,000 available to help to fund advice for those drivers requiring a public service vehicle licence. Ministers have also issued new guidance to the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to ensure that a proportionate approach is taken to enforcement for operators who demonstrate that they are working towards that compliance. I accept that this situation is far from ideal, but from conversations that I have had with the Minister, it is evident that the Government are doing everything they can within the scope of the law to mitigate this issue.
As part of the Select Committee’s evidence-gathering process, it heard oral evidence from the chair of Erewash Community Transport, Mr Frank Phillips. Although I cannot say that Frank and I always see eye to eye on everything, as he also serves as a local Labour councillor, we have a shared passion for the community transport sector and agree with members of the Transport Committee that the social value of what these organisations do in providing essential community-based transport services to vulnerable people who would otherwise suffer isolation is paramount. I am confident that the Minister shares that view and would urge him to continue in his efforts to negate the negative impact of the revised directive and to look at what further steps his Department can take to ensure the continued success of a sector that benefits my constituents in Erewash, as well as the wider community as a whole.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I must admit that I always associate you more with a column in the Yorkshire Post than a pillar of the establishment, but it is a pleasure to be here today.
I congratulate the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), on what is a model of a good Select Committee report. It is investigative and thorough. It has called witnesses, including the Minister and Mr Phillips and Mr Allen, who have been mentioned. Above all, it has focused on the core problem—that there are two sections of the 1985 Act, which can be addressed.
Surely if the Government cannot make things better, they should at least endeavour not to make things worse. The extraordinary thing about the community transport model that we have in this country is that it is organic. It has grown and it did so—as a politician, it seems almost heretical for me to suggest such a thing—without our hand on the tiller. It grew organically from the community and has brought added value and so many different beneficial advantages.
We have not yet mentioned the volunteers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) was a volunteer driver with the magnificent Ealing Community Transport, which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South has visited—that was the high point of our career there. I should say Ealing Community Transport is the exemplar; the finest example; the industry standard; the diamond mark of community transport. It has volunteers and also takes people on as apprentices. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) has also visited it on many occasions.
There are many other factors that we simply do not have time to adumbrate today. There is the issue of cross-subsidy—we can cross-subsidise other beneficial community activities. There is also the fact that it can be an early-warning system. Very often, the drivers will identify a potential problem with somebody they are travelling with, and that is an early-warning system.
The absolute core of today’s debate is that there is no comparator between commercial bus and transport organisations and the community transport sector. They are totally different beasts. The community transport sector should be nourished, cherished, respected and admired. I have no argument whatsoever with the commercial transport sector, but it has its end of the pitch and the community transport sector has its end. Let us allow for something that works, and which, in my part of the world, provides transport for police volunteers, cadets and so on and knits all those community groups together in a way that frankly were it to cease to operate would leave a dark and terrible vacuum in the heart of Ealing. I know you would not want to see that, Mr Davies. I am sure the Minister would agree.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. In the short time available, I will make some brief points. Firstly, the implications of these changes for my community in Cheltenham are very significant. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) just referred to volunteers, and Community Connexions in my constituency has 50. It makes 100,000 passenger journeys a year, with 13,000 passenger trips to day centres and 5,000 trips to health appointments. As one example, we have a fantastic facility near Cheltenham called the Butterfly Garden, which provides education, therapy and recreation for people with disabilities, and the commercial providers simply do not want a contract to serve that fantastic facility.
If I may say so, from this side of the fence, is this not paradigmatic of David Cameron’s big society? It is about using corporate receipts to maximise community benefit. [Interruption.] I knew that would rile up Opposition Members, but it is true. We should be doing everything possible and straining every sinew to support these fantastic organisations.
In my constituency, Community Connexions is now having to consider winding up the organisation because of the cost of getting an operator’s licence—some £26,000. It does not know whether its application to get a licence will then be challenged by the Bus and Coach Association or whether commercial operators will pursue loss leaders to try to drive them out of business.
In its briefing for this debate, the Community Transport Association said, quite fairly:
“We understand that this action does not result from policy decision within government, and our sense is that they would rather not be doing this.”
That is fair and right. We have to recognise, as has already been indicated, that the issue derives from an EU regulation from 2009 that came into force in 2011. Therefore, the implication of the Government’s position must be that we have collectively misinterpreted the law during that time, which leads me to think that the law is moot—it is arguable.
The question about what non-commercial purposes means must be a matter for legitimate legal debate. Should it cover the organisation, as has already been intimated, or simply the specific contract? We are a nation of laws and we comply with the law—that is one of the most solemn undertakings of any British Government— but where the law is arguable, there is a duty on those community providers who do so much good in our society and in our constituencies to take up those arguments, to deploy them to the fullest extent and, if necessary, to litigate and test them. It is only where the case is unanswerable that we should be taking the necessary action.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
Would my hon. Friend agree that it is not unknown for Governments to gold-plate European regulations and that, quite often, that is at the instigation of commercial organisations, which do not have terribly strong objections to costs and burdens being placed on rivals? Does he not think that the Department’s interpretation of this regulation being applied, for example, to non-profit-making organisations with unpaid voluntary drivers, providing services that no commercial operator is actually trying to get, should be seriously questioned by the Minister? Perhaps he should challenge the rather pedantic nature of the legal advice that he has received.
Alex Chalk
As always, my right hon. and learned Friend presents the point extremely powerfully. My concern is that it is not so much about gold-plating the EU regulation as it is about being excessively cautious in its interpretation. There is a role here for the Government to take a robust line. With any litigation there is the risk of failure and I recognise that, but there is an overwhelming public interest and, just as importantly, a powerful and legitimate legal argument for taking this on, and I would urge the Government to do so.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
As a member of the Transport Committee, I have already had my say in this report, so I will be brief. Community transport is a vital lifeline for people in the far south-west, both in rural areas across Devon and Cornwall and in big cities such as Plymouth and Exeter. In my own patch, Access Plymouth has been in touch. It is a superb community transport provider that is very concerned about these changes.
My concerns were echoed in the report. The Transport Committee set out some very clear concerns about section 19 and 22 permits, highlighted the fact that the decisions taken by the DFT may have been taken with best interests in mind, but have been done so in a haphazard way. The Committee set out a very clear set of recommendations that the Government should follow in order to mitigate these circumstances. I am very disappointed that that has not happened. The DFT’s management of the sector has been confused and needs proper clarification. I hoped that the Committee’s report would provide the basis for that clarification of the rationale, so I hope this debate will help give new energy to Ministers.
Local authorities are now following very different rules. They are confused and are making very different decisions, which are disadvantaging not only community transport providers but the communities that rely on them. Our recommendations were clear but have not been followed and the changes have now been enacted very differently by local authority providers across the country and by different community transport providers, which are trying to interpret a very complex legal structure in a way they have not before.
The timing of our Transport Committee report was deliberate. Concerns were raised, the Committee communicated them clearly, and the DFT had the window to correct the problem before long-term damage was caused to the community transport sector. I fear that the window of opportunity has now closed. The consequences of the DFT’s inaction is that community transport providers are shedding volunteers and vehicles, and are reducing the service they offer to some of the most vulnerable people in the country, including disabled and elderly people, who desperately need community transport provision to help them get around their communities.
There is a real risk that, unless the Government act, the confusion caused by the DFT’s action could sound the death knell for community transport as it is structured. I ask the Minister please to re-read the Transport Committee’s recommendations, listen to the experience of community transport providers, and act swiftly before any more damage is done to the sector.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on her Committee’s report and on her excellent speech. There is a reason why the Transport Act 1985 set out a reasonable but relatively light-touch regulatory regime for community transport services, which, as hon. Members have made clear, provide services to address a commercially unmet need in our communities. They get people to hospital, GP appointments and the shops, and they generally help people to live a normal, active life by taking them from door to door with a caring, local service.
In my semi-rural constituency of Charnwood, the Syston and District Volunteer Centre, which provides volunteer drivers in cars and minibuses, plays a huge role in supporting the community. It is well run and financially in a good place, but there is the risk that what is proposed in the consultation could unintentionally harm it.
My very real concern is that successive Governments over many decades, having not incrementally tweaked the regulations in the 1985 Act where necessary, have led us to a place where, under legal pressure, the Government have to consult on some remedial measures and risk adopting a legalistic and potentially unduly onerous interpretation of the regulations. As the hon. Lady said, it is very much a sledgehammer to crack a nut. In seeking to address the issue of legal compliance, they might unintentionally have a much wider-ranging impact on this hugely valued sector.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) highlighted, the legal point—the definition and interpretation of “non-commercial”—is important. Getting the right legal advice is important. With two lawyers in the Chamber—with all due respect to my right hon. and learned Friend and his colleagues—we may well get at least three, if not four, legal opinions. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) was right that this should be tested in the court.
I echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin)—as a former Secretary of State, he has probably forgotten more about this issue than any of us in this Chamber will ever know about it—in urging the Minister, who is a reasonable and decent man, to reflect again on the proposal, to show flexibility and pragmatism in his approach, and to ensure that the consultation looks not just at delivering a legal fix but at addressing the broader policy context and delivering a vibrant community transport sector for the future.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on her report, her speech and her excellent stewardship of the Transport Committee.
Community transport is not the sexiest subject on the political agenda. It was never in “The West Wing”. When people think about transport, they think of things such as Crossrail, HS2 and the third runway—all of which are in my constituency, I have to say. However, as many hon. Members have pointed out, community transport gives people a lifeline.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) described Ealing community transport at length, and he has nicked most of my speech. He and I were both at the Christmas party of Age Link, which provides a similar service: volunteer drivers in their own cars, not minibuses, take isolated and lonely elderly people to appointments. In Ealing, we also have Dial-a-Ride—Transport for London is the main provider—which is another door-to-door service, with red buses.
The distinctive green and yellow ECT buses, which my hon. Friend described, are testament to how things work in Ealing and elsewhere in the country, and they illustrate why changing these regulations is so dangerous. I spent a recent Friday with ECT, and we picked up a lady called Suzie. Hon. Members have talked about their rural seats, but even in suburban Acton we picked up someone who had had a fall and has been unable to drive since then, and we took her to Morrisons. She said that the service is a godsend. It has been going for nearly 40 years and serves 298 groups—not just the elderly and disabled, but various scout groups, youth groups and every complexion of religious group from the Jehovah’s Witnesses to various mosques. ECT provides services that are not available in the commercial transport sector, and not just to the elderly—a group we seem to have been addressing today. In my list of groups I have written the YMCA, which has “young” in it. ECT serves young groups, old groups, Dementia Concern, Age Concern—those sorts of people.
These services save our local authorities a huge amount of money in avoided health and social care costs, which is the biggest bill for all local authorities at the moment. In the long run, they save us money. In January, the Government introduced a Minister for loneliness. Community transport providers tap into the loneliness agenda. There are also quantifiable figures: Deloitte estimates that the loneliness bill is £1.3 billion to £2.9 billion for the whole country. It is £10 million for Ealing alone, but with community transport it comes down to £4 million a year.
We have heard about the strangulating definition of European regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South described how the 1985 light-touch regulation turned into the scary notifications of 31 July and 9 November, so I will not go into all that—
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing this important and extremely timely debate.
I declare an interest: I am the chairman of the all-party group on community transport, which is backed and whose secretariat is provided by the Community Transport Association. Many hon. Members here are members; those who are not are very welcome to join. This is far more important than simply a parliamentary matter. In my constituency, I have four excellent community service providers—Our Bus Bartons, West Oxfordshire Community Transport, Volunteer Link-Up and the Villager—and they are all thriving. Only last week, I opened a new bus as it was handed over to the Villager service. Those services are all terrified about the impact of the Department’s proposed actions under the consultation.
I am very grateful to the Minister, who is very interested in this area. He has visited Our Bus Bartons with me, listened in person to the concerns and spent a great deal of time listening to my volunteers in person. I know he is concerned about this issue and he is doing his best, but there is an extraordinary problem here. The reason why all those volunteer-led services exist is that commercial providers have withdrawn. Is it not an extraordinary perversity that, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) said, under pressure from commercial providers, which do not want to operate in these areas, it may be difficult or impossible for such volunteer-led services to run?
We have heard some excellent speeches today. I just want to mention a couple of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), but there are in fact three barristers here.
Robert Courts
My hon. Friend says we will get six opinions—I am sorry all the barristers are agreeing with each other.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham is absolutely right that there is clearly space for interpreting the law here, and that is exactly what we have to do. The sections 19 and 22 system, which has existed for so long, is a classically British compromise. It has created a benign environment under which community transport can operate. It is essential that we continue to go through the regulation and the law with a fine-toothed comb. Simply put, we cannot allow a situation to arise in which community transport providers are not able to operate.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman join me in thanking all the groups across our county that do this, and especially Christopher Gowers from Wolvercote? Many of them cross our constituency boundaries, because our communities are interwoven.
Robert Courts
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I mentioned Our Bus Bartons, which from my constituency runs a service to not only the Banbury constituency but Oxford Parkway railway station. It provides vital links, not just to stations but to doctors’ surgeries, for people to go shopping or for young people to go to work. The impact and essential value of the services simply cannot be overstated. She made that point very clear.
I, too, thank all the volunteers, without whom the services would not run. They put an incredible amount of effort into ensuring that when commercial services were withdrawn, communities could step in and fill the breach. We must make sure that that can continue to happen.
Rural isolation is a real challenge for any of us who represent a rural area, and I know that the Government are combating it and worried about it. That is another essential reason for community transport to continue.
I gave a full response to the consultation, in which I made some of the more technical points that I do not have time to make now. I urge the Minister to engage with the all-party parliamentary group and all of us, because we want to help. We must find a way through to ensure that community transport can continue to thrive, as it has done so far.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. On behalf of the third party, I associate myself and my colleagues with the Transport Committee presentation and the speech of its Chair, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), in support of the general thrust of our discussion today.
We cannot overstate the gratitude that we should express to the many hundreds of organisations throughout the country that provide a community transport service and, in particular, to the many thousands of volunteers who are involved in the boards of the charities, running the services and, often, sitting at the wheel to provide the service itself. Such people are the dedicated community heroes whom we should be lauding, saluting and encouraging. I suggest that the role of Government is to nurture, enable and give support to people who want to provide that service in their community, so I regret that we seem to have got ourselves into a situation in which this Department for Transport consultation exercise leaves many of those people devalued and in many ways frightened about the future of the service in which they are engaged.
In my own city of Edinburgh, we have a very good community transport service. There are five main providers operating in a public sector partnership with the local authority. In my constituency, the South Edinburgh Amenities Group and Lothian Community Transport Services provide an excellent service, which is not just a matter of transporting people from A to B. The whole nature of the service, and the rationale behind it, is that it provides a vital social and caring service to those people in our community who need it. We cannot overstate the importance of the service in preventing and overcoming the social isolation that many people would otherwise feel. The service is vital not just in providing material and physical help to people, but in allowing them to live their lives more fully and better than would otherwise be the case.
Community transport is a service provided at an individual level, and it gets to the places that normal transport does not or cannot reach. Quite often, that involves getting people not only to the door but through the door, with physical assistance for people to get into vehicles—something that normal operators simply could not provide.
I am very disturbed about the process that is under way. There is some confused thinking going on, particularly in the attempt to redefine, after all these years, the notion of the word “commercial”. To suggest that simply by virtue of the fact that money is paid to a service—irrespective of who is paying it and who is receiving it—an operation is rendered commercial seems to me to turn on its head what most normal, right-thinking people believe to be a commercial operation. A commercial operation, for most people, is one in which an operator engages in supplying a service in order to make a profit. That is the normal meaning of “commercial”. Organisations that do that explicitly not for profit should not be regarded as commercial, and they should be exempted from the requirements of sections 19 and 22 on that basis alone.
Even more bizarre is the suggestion that it will be for a private operator to decide whether we apply the exemption—only when a private operator says that it might be interested in running the service will the community transport operator be obliged to go into the new licensing regime. I find that bizarre. We could have a situation in which, on the one hand, a community transport operator is regarded as commercial simply because it receives payment from the local authority or someone else for providing the service and, on the other hand, it could be exempted and be non-commercial on the grounds of there being no private sector interest. At one and the same time, the operator could be both commercial and non-commercial. That is a policy of which Schrodinger would be proud, but it ought to have no part in the planning of public transport.
We must also understand the effect. If the proposal goes ahead, many community transport operators will be faced with higher costs as they try to fit in with a licensing regime that they did not have previously. More importantly, a lot of the volunteers who run such organisations will simply say, “This isn’t why we got into this. We didn’t go into it to be a commercial operator or to operate on this basis”, and they will simply give up. We will see a collapse in community transport organisation providers, and that will leave a gap in the service, driving up the cost to the local authority or anyone else who needs to provide the service.
Stephen Pound
Many volunteer drivers would be extremely put off by having to undergo all the onerous training to get the additional certification. Many people will simply walk away if they are required to get all that additional certification. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Tommy Sheppard
I could not agree more. That is another reason for that effect of the policy—if we oblige community transport operators to jump through the new hoops and the red tape, many people will simply say, “Well, that’s not what I want to do. I want to serve my community. I don’t want to do this.” The Department ought to be responsive to that.
I have a couple of final observations. First, I cannot be the only person to find it bizarre that the suggested rationale for why this is happening now is a sudden desire by some officials in the Department to comply better with the regulations of the European Union. We are, after all, only 47 weeks away from being led out of the European Union by this Government, whereby they hope to free themselves from the shackles imposed on them by just such European Union regulations and many others. Why the sudden outbreak of Europhilia, at the 11th hour of our membership of the European Union? It does not add up. It is probably a smokescreen for some other agenda going on in the Department.
Secondly—I know I am the only Scottish MP present—as I researched for the debate and read around the issue, I have to confess that I realised that the situation in my city is bizarre. The roads along which the community minibus travels are regulated and paid for by the Scottish Government; the people inside the bus are being taken to health and social care facilities that are regulated and legislated for by the Scottish Government; and yet the Scottish Government have no oversight of whether the operator should have a licence to drive the bus. That seems to me to be something of an inadequacy in the devolution settlement. I hope that next time we review the competencies of the devolved Administrations we consider some more joined-up thinking in that regard, so that the settlement is at least internally consistent, and all aspects of public policy can be integrated.
I have attended many of these Westminster Hall debates and usually they are much more collegiate than exchanges in the main Chamber. However, I do not think I have yet seen one in which there is this degree of unanimity in the views expressed by Members right across the House. The Minister is an admirable fellow, and I know that his fingerprints are not on this particular consultation. He now has a golden opportunity to rein in his Department, to say “Stop!” to whoever is driving this policy, and to recognise in public policy and Government action the importance and uniqueness of community transport providers the length and breadth of this country.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and I congratulate her on securing this important debate and on her excellent speech outlining the issue. Her knowledge and expertise on all transport matters is of great benefit to the House, and I commend her work as Chair of the Transport Committee in carrying out this important and thorough inquiry. I also thank hon. Members from across the House for their contributions.
We have heard that community transport is a very broad term for the vital local transport services that provide a lifeline to people in our communities who, sadly, might otherwise be isolated. From lifts by volunteer car drivers to more organised schemes such as dial-a-ride or dial-a-bus, minibus travel for groups of people who struggle to get out on their own and community bus services where there are no existing commercial routes, such as in remote rural areas, not-for-profit services are vital to local communities.
Dr Huq
My hon. Friend mentioned that community transport is a lifeline for the users, but does he agree that it is also a lifeline for the volunteer drivers? Patrick O’Keefe, a constituent who was very high up at Heathrow, and Paul Hurley, who is ex-BBC, love it because they have a post-retirement second lease of life.
Matt Rodda
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South and other Members are right to describe the services as a lifeline, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) just did. It is heartening to see so many Members here showing support for them. Throughout the debate, we have heard many examples of the impact that these vital services have in constituencies up and down the country. The value of these services is not disputed and is not a topic for this debate.
The debate came about as a result of the failure of the Department for Transport to ensure that UK legislation and guidance kept pace with community transport practice and European regulations. Sadly, the Department did not respond appropriately or quickly enough to address issues that were raised directly with them over a number of years. When officials did respond, they mismanaged the situation, causing confusion and panic in the community transport sector. We have heard that the Department’s ill-judged letter last July had an immediate and damaging knock-on effect. It led to local authorities halting commissioning and in some cases even withdrawing contracts from community transport operators. The delay of more than three months in the Department providing clarification further exacerbated the problem and highlighted the Department’s lack of understanding of the impact of its proposals on the community transport sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South informed us earlier that the Transport Committee’s subsequent inquiry was launched in response to the concerns that not-for-profit community minibus services for vulnerable or isolated people were under threat, and in response to Members being contacted by constituents and community transport providers. The inquiry received more than 300 submissions, which demonstrates the considerable strength of feeling among organisations that provide community transport and people using those vital services.
The inquiry found that the Government’s position—that the majority of community transport operators would not be affected by any clarification of the rules—was inaccurate. The Department’s view appears not to differentiate between true commercial services and those vital community services that fill gaps where the market is unable to deliver transport. By accepting a premise that any transaction in any form makes something commercial, the proposed changes will prevent many more community organisations from operating than the Department intended, affecting not just those that compete for contracts. It is important to remember that not all services where a payment is made are truly commercial.
If the proposed guidance stands, the total estimated impact on community organisations will be about £399 million. That will mean that many of the not-for-profit organisations will no longer be able to afford to run their services, as we have heard from many Members. That is a fundamental and worrying shift away from the established policy that not-for-profit organisations are able to play an important role, which has been supported by legislation and encouraged by both Labour and Conservative Governments for nearly 30 years. This long-established arrangement has been successful and has ensured that people in our communities can still get about when public transport cannot support them. That is why, in its inquiry report, the Transport Committee urged the Government to engage with the sector, and called for Ministers to address the Department’s lack of understanding of the community transport sector and to carry out a full impact assessment of the proposals.
A further key recommendation was that the Government use the consultation to consider reforms to achieve compatibility with EU regulations. That would maintain the key objective of continuing to provide high quality, safe and secure community transport services. It is disheartening to hear from my hon. Friend that the Government have not listened and, sadly, not engaged with these very legitimate concerns. With the consultation now closed, I hope the Minister will outline the steps he will take to ensure the views and concerns expressed are taken into account, and will reassure Members that the consultation was not merely an exercise to rubber-stamp the Department’s proposals.
The community transport sector has acted in good faith, in accordance with official guidance from both local and central Government over many years. By its own admission, the DFT has not kept pace with developments in community transport. Furthermore, the Department has taken action only when under immediate legal threat. Will the Minister now outline what steps he is taking to ensure that the Department has the expertise and understanding required to oversee the reforms, whilst ensuring the protection of these vital services? The role of the DFT is to support transport networks and to keep people moving.
This sorry episode suggests a wider failure to take a strategic view of local transport policy, which I hope the Minister will now address. I urge him to take a fresh look at community transport services, to improve services and make them more efficient. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments and to him reassuring the Committee on this matter.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)
You are an adornment to the Chair, Mr Davies, and it is a delight to see you there. I am very grateful to colleagues across the House for taking the time to take part in the debate. I recognise that the reason they do that is because of the strength of feeling of individuals across political parties on this vital sector. I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the questions that have been put and the Committee report that has been produced.
I will start by saying that far from it being the case that Government have not started to listen, as the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) said, we have been very carefully listening all the way through this process. As Members were standing up, I found myself wondering how many of their specific organisations I had myself visited. They include Community Connexions in Cheltenham, the community transport business in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) and Hackney Community Transport. My officials have visited other community transport organisations. That is because, as colleagues have said—it was put beautifully by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) and by many other colleagues across the House—they are vital community organisations.
It was right to recognise, as several Members did, that the organisations in many ways are not entirely distinct but often highly different in their nature from purely commercial operators. That is because the services they offer are often incidental to the wider public good that they discharge and the wider social value that they add. I see this in Herefordshire: we have the city of Hereford but we also have rural lands. I acknowledge the value of community transport. That is why this Government and their predecessors have supported community transport organisations.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin) was right to highlight the fact that those organisations had been supported by the bus service operators grants—BSOG—and by the minibus grant scheme that we have in operation. Hundreds of organisations up and down the country have benefited from both schemes. We recognise the importance of the sector.
This consultation is, and was always designed to be, a consultation in the full sense. The Government do not have a formulated and final policy on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is a thoroughly distinguished lawyer in this area, pointed out—as others with legal practice experience have acknowledged—that the law in this area is a complex matter on which our understanding continues to evolve. Part of the purpose of the consultation is to understand how the law plays out in community transport organisations’ practice across the country.
Lilian Greenwood
I am very pleased that the Minister gave the assurance that he is listening and that he has been to visit operators. Will he explain what he intends to do in response? Will he consider alternative interpretations of that EU regulation? Is he prepared to think again in response to the results of that consultation, rather than the explanation that was given in the consultation, which seemed to take a very legalistic approach with no room for manoeuvre?
Jesse Norman
I will come to the full thrust of what the hon. Lady said later, but let me respond to that point. We will pursue the consultation process, reflect on the experience that comes out of that, publish a response to the consultation and take action based on that, which is exactly what Members would expect of the Government. We do not believe that we should proceed without listening to people or taking account of what they say.
This was a consultation in the full sense of the word. It was not just about listening to local community transport organisations and their wider representative organisations throughout the country, but about gathering evidence. As I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales mentioned, when he ran the Department the Government had relatively little information about this area and there was a certain lack of legal clarity. I only wish that I had his flexibility in that regard, but the point of the consultation has been to gather information as well as to take soundings from operators.
Stephen Pound
I understand where the Minister is coming from, but does he realise that, by not clarifying the situation, he has not given any signal of hope to the community transport sector? It is suffering, and the corrosive impact of last year’s famous letter is causing it pain. We will not have a community transport sector unless he makes it clear here and now that the Government support it.
Jesse Norman
I can only respect the hon. Gentleman’s astonishing capacity to manufacture indignation.
Jesse Norman
I feel the same concern as him and, if he allows me to proceed, I will be happy to give a reassurance about that. In fact, let me bring that section of my speech forward. We have said this in the past, but let me say again on the record that our judgment is that it would be premature for local authorities to withhold contracts pending further analysis and exploration of the legal complexities involved in this area. I cannot be clearer than that, and I hope that is reassuring to the sector, as it should be.
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
In which case, will the Minister write to local authorities instructing them to be helpful towards the community transport sector? The responses from local transport authorities around the country have been very variable.
Jesse Norman
We continue to consult local authorities. We will pursue the current consultation, which has been very full and wide-ranging, and then publish the results on that matter—properly considered and legally advised—in due course. I will say, though, that local authorities should heed the words I have just said and take a large degree of comfort from them for existing practice.
Jesse Norman
I have taken a lot of interventions and I have a lot of stuff to get through, but of course—if my hon. Friend is very quick.
Mr Jenkin
I am most grateful. In the final analysis, the Minister’s legal advisers are there to advise; they do not instruct him. I advise him to get alternative legal advice from outside his Department, because Government legal advice tends to be a little over-cautious, which is why we finish up gold-plating these things. It is tempting just to blame the European Union.
Jesse Norman
Well, there were moments when colleagues sounded very much like Brexiteers in their rejection of this piece of EU legislation. There has been no undue deference to legal advice on this matter. We are considering it and consulting widely on this topic. We remain very open to legal advice. The hon. Member for Nottingham South has not clarified, in response to the question from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), whether her Committee took legal advice. If it did, we would welcome its sharing and publishing it. I say to all colleagues around the House and to representative organisations that we would be very grateful to receive any legal advice or opinions they have. This is a matter of some legal complexity, and we are interested in hearing those views. The point was rightly made that aspects of social value in other legislation need to be taken account of, too.
I hope that it is understood that we as a Department are taking a tone of warmth towards the sector on this issue, while respecting our obligation to uphold and clarify the law. I very much offer community transport operators and colleagues reassurance about that. It is important to realise that there are genuine questions here about what the law is, how it relates to other aspects of law and how it is properly applied. We recognise that, and it is important to place that on the record, too.
Local authorities have not been much mentioned, except by me when I clarified that they should not withhold contracts until further clarification is given, but they are a very important part of this equation. As part of our further work during the follow-up to the consultation, my officials and I will talk closely with local authorities to think about best practice for how they commission services in this area and to encourage them to a proper understanding of the legal position as we see it.
In the few minutes I have left—I want to allow the hon. Member for Nottingham South a chance to respond—let me make a couple of comments on colleagues’ remarks. I think the hon. Lady is caught in a slight dilemma. She rightly praised the light-touch, affordable regime that successive Governments have adopted for the sector, which has been allowed to evolve of its own accord in a very big society way. I was grateful for the triumphant praise for the big society from the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound). He was absolutely right about that. He did not quite bring himself to say those words, but of course that is what he was doing, like the good Tory he is. I hope he lasts in his party under those circumstances.
Jesse Norman
Well, I offered my hope, but I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to contradict me if he wishes. The point is that the regime remains light-touch and affordable. That is precisely why the consultation was necessary—to gather information and understanding. It is misguided to suggest that we are adopting a narrow and legalistic approach when in fact we are proceeding with extreme care and caution in the face of a complex situation. As I said, I very much encourage the hon. Lady to place on the public record any legal advice that she has commissioned or received.
Jesse Norman
The hon. Lady will have a chance to respond in about three minutes, so she can defend her position later if she wishes. I should say that I absolutely respect the Committee, which did extremely well to call this debate. That is a very important aspect of its work—it is an extension from when I was on the Treasury Committee and the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I also have great respect for the Committee’s report, as do my colleagues across the Department.
The question of whether there has been gold-plating here is a proper one. I am not persuaded that there has been. I say to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, and others who think there may have been, that the consultation and the draft statutory instrument went through a process of discussion across Government, including at the Regulatory Policy Committee and other committees, the purpose of which is to prevent gold-plating and which reflects custom, practice and decisions made by many Ministers, and they passed that process. I do not believe there has been gold-plating, but we do not yet have a final, evolved position on this matter, so it would be a rush to judgment to take that view.
Let me close by saying that no one respects the importance of the community transport sector more than my officials and me. We have been up and down the country to talk to these organisations. My officials have covered every part of these British Isles and, indeed, the United Kingdom in an effort to understand the sector and to support it, as the Government have historically. I give that sector, which I respect so much, my reassurance that we will continue to do whatever we can to protect and support it, subject to the process of law, in the coming months.
Lilian Greenwood
I am pleased that the Minister recognises the strength of feeling about this issue among Members on both sides of the House who represent constituencies urban and rural across the UK. There cannot be many issues that unite the Father of the House, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, a Conservative former Secretary of State for Transport, three Select Committee Chairs, the Scottish National party and Labour spokespeople, and so many other learned hon. Members. We know the immense value of community transport. It meets unmet need, generates social value and provides a lifeline to people who may otherwise be cut off from friends, family, work, education, social activities and essential appointments by disability or geography.
The Minister must have misunderstood our report if he thinks we recommend a legalistic approach. We ask for exactly the opposite. In our report, we called on the Government to explore whether a more practical and pragmatic interpretation of the EU regulation is possible, and that has been added to today. If he is prepared to listen, think again and amend his proposals, he has an opportunity to avert disaster. I very much hope he takes it.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Backbench Business
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
Channel 4 Relocation
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the relocation of Channel 4.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Graham. Channel 4 is undoubtedly one of our finest, most precious broadcasting assets, as evidenced by the fact that there has been intense interest from many cities and regions across the United Kingdom in hosting its new national headquarters and new creative hubs, representing 300 new Channel 4 jobs, which will not only expand its footprint across the United Kingdom but deepen its relationship with viewers.
Rightly, Channel 4 has set a high bar for bidding cities and regions, requiring robust local infrastructure and transport and, in particular, frequent, fast and reliable connectivity. For the national headquarters, it is looking for a home with a population of at least 200,000, travel time to the city of London within three hours and a high level of physical and digital connectivity.
As a Glasgow Member of Parliament, I am sure right hon. and hon. Members will understand that I am immensely pleased to see that my home city is putting in a bold, strong and ambitious bid to be the new home of Channel 4. I am particularly pleased that the chair of that bid is the famous Glaswegian journalist and broadcaster Stuart Cosgrove. Beyond Channel 4’s physical requirements, it is ultimately looking for somewhere it can feel at home. It is looking for a diverse city that has a thriving arts and production scene; a city that is not afraid to go against the grain; and a city that has a confident sense of itself but is always looking to stretch itself and take on new challenges. Setting aside the physical criteria, I wish to set out the case for Scotland’s largest city. The truth is that if Channel 4 was a city, it would be the city of Glasgow.
Glasgow is not only Scotland’s largest economy, generating more than £20 billion of economic output, but it has a growing population, standing now just shy of 600,000 citizens. Within that population, we have friends who have joined us from all four corners of the world. The well-established Chinese, Pakistani, Caribbean and African communities, along with many different European communities and other ethnic groups, proudly call Glasgow their home. It is important to note that those citizens who join us from other parts of the world are driving Glasgow’s population growth.
I mentioned that Channel 4 is looking for a city of diversity. If Members will allow me, I will adumbrate some of what has happened in Glasgow that shows we are a diverse city. Let us remember that the city of Glasgow elected Britain’s first ever Muslim Member of Parliament: Mohammad Sarwar, in 1997, as the Labour MP for Glasgow Govan. Similarly, the first ever Asian to be elected to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh, the late Bashir Ahmad, came from Glasgow. Scotland’s first female First Minister—known, I suspect, to everyone in the Chamber—is a Glasgow politician. This week, we marked the life of the late Michael Martin, who was the first ever Scottish and indeed Catholic Speaker of the House of Commons, and of course he was a Glasgow MP. If that was not enough, our Lord Provost—the first citizen of Glasgow—is herself from Sweden, making her the first EU national ever to hold that post.
Today is 10 May, and on 10 May 1994 Nelson Mandela became the first black President of South Africa. Glaswegians are particularly proud of the fact that Glasgow stood alone at the time in being the first city anywhere in the world to offer Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city. At that time, other cities were still condemning him as a terrorist. Sir Graham, you will know the fantastic tale of the South African consulate based in Glasgow. Our civic leaders, in their remarkable genius, changed the name of the street that the consulate was on to Nelson Mandela Place, so every piece of mail the consulate received had the name of that country’s most famous prisoner on it.
As Mohammad Sarwar noted when he spent some time in this House, Glasgow also lays claim to being the place where chicken tikka masala was invented. Let us move on to more serious, timely matters.
When Syrians came to the United Kingdom, fleeing war, Glasgow was the first UK city to welcome them among us. Indeed, in 1999, when the then Labour Government brought in a policy of dispersal for asylum seekers to move them out of London and the south-east across the UK, Glasgow was the first city anywhere in the UK to sign up to the programme. All of us who represent Glasgow are proud that many of them still call our city their home.
It is no wonder that the English writer and raconteur Sir Compton Mackenzie said in his rectorial address to the University of Glasgow that when he gazed down on Glasgow from the Campsie Fells, it offered something that “neither Rome nor Athens” ever could: “the glory and grandeur of the future”.
He said Glasgow was
“the beating heart of a nation.”
Glasgow is home to a thriving creative arts and cultural scene. It is home to some of the best educational institutions in Europe, such as the University of Glasgow and Strathclyde University, supported by a network of colleges that is developing these communities even further.
There is an existing availability of talent in Glasgow that I have no doubt whatsoever would contribute enormously to the future of Channel 4. Of course, Channel 4 knows that, because it has been in Glasgow in some form or another for almost 30 years, working in partnership with some of our independent producers who have a reputation for being the best of the best in the business. All of the reasons that I have set out today and that have been outlined in a bold and ambitious bid document, led by Stuart Cosgrove, have led to an extraordinary display of political, geographical and cultural unity in getting behind Glasgow’s bid to host Channel 4.
The bid has been backed by all the major political parties in Scotland. It is backed formally by the Scottish Government, by Scotland’s tech city, the city of Dundee—home to Grand Theft Auto and the soon-to-be-opening V&A—and, of course, by Scotland’s capital city and home of the Scottish festival, the city of Edinburgh. I cannot tell you, Sir Graham, what an achievement it is to unite Glasgow and Edinburgh on almost anything.
Undoubtedly, one of Glasgow’s most precious assets—if not the most precious asset—is its people. Known the world over for our good humour and welcoming spirit, we have often punched above our weight on the international stage. That was displayed perfectly four years ago at the 2014 Commonwealth games, and no doubt it will be on display again this summer as we host the 2018 European championships.
Glasgow, of course, was once known as the second city of the empire, but the days of empire are gone, no matter how much some in this House might wish they were not. They are behind us. Glasgow has not stopped cutting a new image for itself over many decades, built up by some of our most famous sons and daughters, from the footballing legend Alex Ferguson—I am sure all Members will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery—to the comedy legend Billy Connolly, the musical talents of Amy Macdonald and bands such as Texas and, let us not forget, the only Scot that many people around the world will know, Groundskeeper Willie from the cartoon, “The Simpsons”.
There is a whole generation of young, talented and yet undiscovered Glaswegians who are waiting to make their mark on the world stage. My advice is that Channel 4 should snap them up now. They can be part of Channel 4’s future, and Channel 4 would be a welcome part of Glasgow’s future. Glasgow is a city that is constantly on the up, and constantly challenging itself. It is a city that is forever changing for the better, and a better home Channel 4 simply could not find.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this Backbench debate.
When launching “4 All the UK”, the chief executive of Channel 4, Alex Mahon, said:
“As a public service broadcaster with diversity in its DNA, Channel 4 has a unique ability to reflect our society. This is a significant and exciting moment of change for Channel 4 as we evolve to ensure we are best suited to serve all of the UK. With this new strategy we will go even further to make sure that people right across the UK are represented on screen and in the make up of our own organisation–and it will also build on what we already do to support creative businesses, jobs and economies in the nations and regions.”
Today we have an opportunity to debate what that means and how Channel 4 can achieve that objective in practice with three new creative hubs and a new national headquarters outside London.
As we have already heard, the criteria that Channel 4 has set for its new national headquarters are that the new location should have a working population of at least 200,000, travel time to London of up to three hours, and a high level of physical and digital connectivity and infrastructure. In addition, Channel 4 has listed five considerations that it has identified to support the evaluation of submissions that will be undertaken by Channel 4 and its advisers. The considerations are economic, demographic, diversity and environmental factors; the existing availability of talent and a future pipeline, including educational links; local connectivity and broader infrastructure; ease and speed of travel for Channel 4 employees and partners between the different creative hubs; and effectiveness and efficiency of available office space. I want to argue today that the west midlands should be the choice for Channel 4 to meet those criteria.
Why do I say that? First, as a region we easily meet the physical criteria set by Channel 4. We have a population of 2.8 million. Birmingham alone has a population of 1.5 million people. Our travel time to London by rail is 85 minutes and will be even less after the arrival of HS2. Some 86% of properties in Birmingham achieved ultrafast broadband in 2017. On the availability of office space and other physical facilities, the west midlands has those in abundance at a fraction of the price in London.
To give just two examples from Birmingham, Digbeth has established a real reputation as a creative quarter close to the HS2 station that will be coming and is close to the BBC’s base at the Mailbox. Longbridge in my own constituency is undergoing a massive transformation. It has direct rail connections to central Birmingham and beyond. It is close to the M42 and the M5 motorways and is just down the road from the BBC’s drama village in Birmingham, Selly Oak. Birmingham has many studio and production spaces at various locations, as does Coventry, a city that has already shown its potential by winning the accolade of the UK’s city of culture 2021. It, too, has a great deal to offer Channel 4.
Those are all reasons why in many ways the west midlands would be the least disruptive option for Channel 4. But if Channel 4’s vision, as set out by Alex Mahon, is to be realised, it has to be more than about physical location. It has to be about people. That is where the west midlands is the most disruptive choice for Channel 4, and that means it is also the right choice if Channel 4 is serious about diversity being in its DNA, because diversity is in the DNA of my region, the west midlands.
Research from five years ago showed that there were people from 187 different national backgrounds living in Birmingham. We have 108 languages spoken in the city. We are the youngest city in Europe, with nearly 45% of our people under the age of 25. Already, the west midlands is showing itself to be a pioneer in the disruptive technologies that are transforming what media mean in the modern age. We are home to the gaming industry. We are pioneering new content, new platforms and new forms of production. That is why the BBC has chosen Birmingham as the home for BBC Three; it is trying to tap into a generation that knows that access to media content as and when they want it is digital, and for whom the future is online. All that is connected to the needs of a young and diverse population.
If Channel 4 wants to reflect the United Kingdom of tomorrow, it should look at the west midlands today and get closer to it. Our young and diverse population is a massive reservoir of talent on which Channel 4 can build. Indeed, one of Channel 4’s criteria for its new headquarters talks about needing not only a reservoir of existing talent, but a pipeline of talent for the future. Eight universities across our region are a part of that pipeline. Channel 4 itself can be a part of building that pipeline by the choices it makes. It has the opportunity not only to harness talent, but to help to transform lives and make social mobility a reality for people—whether it be minority ethnic communities or white working class young people growing up on the outskirts of our cities—to whom it seems as though opportunities are always there for someone else,
The heritage of the west midlands has always been about making things, and it still is. Innovation has always been at the heart of successful manufacturing, and our region is now the meeting point of the industrial makers, storytellers and artistic innovators. All those things have been brought closer together in the west midlands. By choosing the west midlands for its new headquarters, Channel 4 can get closer to it, too.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
A number of Members wish to participate and I hope to avoid a time limit. If Members keep to about five minutes per contribution, I might be able to avoid that.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Tomorrow Liverpool will launch its bid to become one of the new locations for Channel 4. The bid has strong cross-party support from across the city region. The relocation of Channel 4 is long overdue. It recognises the skills and expertise right across the country. Relocation will benefit that national broadcaster at the same time as it regenerates the regions with businesses and jobs. Liverpool is the right place for Channel 4. It meets all the criteria set out, but has so much more. It is diverse: the world in one city. It has people with excellent skills and great enthusiasm. The area has great connectivity, with the excitement of the port.
Liverpool became the European capital of culture in 2008 because of its achievements, but also because of its potential. That pivotal year was indeed a launching pad. Now, in 2018, Liverpool has surpassed all expectations. It is the most filmed city outside London. It has the Liverpool Biennial. Always reinventing itself, it has great expertise in the media and digital industries, and at the Baltic Creative there are ever-expanding, innovative businesses. Liverpool has museums, the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts with its unique offer, theatres and much more. It is bursting with enthusiasm and energy, which are matched by people’s expertise.
I have some questions about the process for selecting the new locations of the national headquarters and creative hubs. Will selection be carried out solely by Channel 4, and will the process be transparent? Have there been any prior meetings that might influence the outcome? Those important questions deserve to be answered, because the issue is a critical one. I hope that the Minister will give us reassurances on those important points. The relocation of Channel 4 is a great opportunity for Channel 4 itself, for the regions and nations of the UK, for broadcasting and for Liverpool. I hope that Channel 4 will make the right decision.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing the debate.
The relocation of Channel 4’s headquarters and the locations of the new creative hubs is an important issue, and although the debate is perhaps turning into something of a beauty contest—no doubt we shall be seeing much more of each other in the next few weeks—it provides the House with a valuable opportunity to consider the merits of the bids.
I must declare an interest in that I speak not only as the Member proudly serving the people of Barnsley Central but as the Mayor of the Sheffield city region. As part of my recent campaign I pledged to establish a more vibrant, successful and co-operative economy in South Yorkshire. Those plans are founded on a three-part economic strategy—to build on our strengths, invest in our future and develop a well-paid and highly skilled workforce. The first step on that road would be the establishment of a digital inclusion taskforce, which would pave the way for the development of Sheffield as a regional hub for the creative and digital industries. That is a vision that I share with the leader of Sheffield City Council, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), and hon. Members across South Yorkshire. I believe that that vision is attainable, not just because digital employment in Sheffield and South Yorkshire stands at more than 21,000, the top 25 tech companies in Sheffield employ more than 12,000 people and bring in more than £2 billion a year and Sheffield digital companies boast one of the highest growth rates of any cluster in the UK, but because we now have the potential to supercharge that transformation with the relocation of the national headquarters of Channel 4.
The public service remit for Channel 4 focuses on important issues including quality, innovation, experimentation, creativity, diversity, public service, character and education. If someone were to read out that list of eight words to me and ask me what I was thinking, my answer would be simple: Sheffield. I say that because Sheffield not only has a proud history of high-quality and diverse manufacturing and business: it has a proven track record of promoting public service, prioritising education, and constantly demonstrating innovation, experimentation and creativity in the face of new challenges and opportunities. It is home to ZOO Digital, which works from Hollywood to Bollywood with some of the biggest names in TV and film; Joi Polloi, a home-grown digital design agency demonstrating that kids from council estates can win BAFTAs; and two world-class universities. It should also be remembered that Sheffield is the UK’s first city of sanctuary, and thus embodies much of the diversity and inclusivity that Channel 4 strives to represent.
Mindful of all that, I put a simple question to the Minister: can he think of a place in the United Kingdom that reflects the values of Channel 4 better than Sheffield? With the greatest respect to those making other bids, I cannot.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
People from Channel 4 listening to the debate will be beginning to realise that they are spoiled for choice. I urge my hon. Friend, in the spirit of Yorkshire solidarity, at least to acknowledge that with respect to the diversity, infrastructure and talent criteria the city of Leeds would be a great host for Channel 4, not least because of our strong record of television and film production in Yorkshire. Will he acknowledge that we will all fight as hard as I know he will to ensure that the city we represent will be successful when the decision is finally made?
Dan Jarvis
Of course I am happy to do that. Perhaps my one regret is that the decision will not be taken in a couple of months. Who knows what we might have done, had that been the case, working collectively and collaboratively across the great county of Yorkshire; but, alas, I find I am on this occasion, almost uniquely, on a different side of the argument from my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan), who is sitting next to him.
I was intrigued to hear the comment of the hon. Member for Glasgow South about which city—if it were a city—Channel 4 would be. During questions in the House I said that if Channel 4 were a city it would be Sheffield, and that belief is based on a simple truth that makes Channel 4 and Sheffield a perfect fit for each other. I hope that I have made clear the strength of the bid that we shall submit tomorrow, but I want to mention how important the bid is and how much we hope to secure the investment. It is because the Sheffield city region is already home to 68,000 businesses, which generate £30 billion a year, but the average weekly salary is £60 less than the UK average, and it is clear that too few people in South Yorkshire have a decent income or get their fair share of the nation’s wealth. The decision to locate Channel 4 in Sheffield would not only add significant weight to the Government’s northern powerhouse but would provide a much needed shot in the arm for our city region—one that has in the past few years created 37,000 jobs. It would do much to tackle existing regional inequalities—something that should be a priority for any Government.
With all that in mind, and recognising that the decision is ultimately for Channel 4, I hope and trust that the Minister will give serious consideration to the strength of Sheffield’s bid and that that will help to ensure that the brand that is “Made in Sheffield” will become as much a mark of excellence in the age of information as it was in the age of steel.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham, and to put Cardiff’s case for Channel 4. As we are talking about Channel 4, it is right that I should use four Cs to put my case: that we are a creative cultural capital, that we have a diverse community, that we have the cutting-edge capacity that Channel 4 needs and, crucially, that we already deliver a commitment to Channel 4 in our city.
My first speech in this place was about Cardiff and how it has changed over many years. We were at the heart of the industrial revolution and coal and steel exporting across the world; the first £1 million cheque was signed in the coal exchange. I spoke about how the smoke stacks and docks of old were giving way to the brand new creative cutting-edge industries of the future, and the opportunities that they were giving young people in our diverse capital city. That is where I see Cardiff’s future, and I know that view is shared by my colleagues and hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) and indeed for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), although I know he will have to take a careful and balanced view today from the Front Bench. That view is also taken by Cardiff City Council, the city region, our leader Huw Thomas, the Welsh Government and all our arts and cultural institutions, including those in the television and film production sector in Cardiff.
Independent TV already generates £350 million in the Cardiff economy every year. We already have 15,000 people employed in creative and cultural activities— a ready-made resource of expertise for Channel 4 to tap into. We have 7,000 students studying in the creative sectors in Cardiff at a range of institutions, which I will come on to. We have 3,000 creative companies and facilities located in Cardiff, including those in television and film production. Some are very large, including the famous BBC Drama Village, Pinewood Studios and Wolf Studios Wales. A strong relationship already exists between Channel 4 and Sianel Pedwar Cymru—S4C—the fourth channel in Wales, and its facilities are not far down the road. We also have the new ITV facility in Assembly Square.
We have fantastic facilities such as NoFit State Circus, the Wales Millennium Centre and the Cardiff Animation Festival, and community facilities such as Indycube in my constituency, which provides facilities for small, start-up creatives that are often supplying the larger facilities, right there and being supported in our community. We also have fantastic locations such as the TramShed.
We have a diverse community; I know many cities around the UK will share that, but Cardiff truly is remarkably diverse, with 100 languages, 100 nationalities and one of the oldest Muslim communities in the UK. In my own constituency alone I have six mosques, three Hindu temples, a synagogue just on the edge, a Sikh gurdwara, a Greek Orthodox church and people who have come from far and wide because of Cardiff’s maritime heritage and our welcoming city. It is a remarkable community to draw on and represents the Wales and Britain of today—a perfect place for Channel 4.
Of course, diversity goes well beyond issues of ethnicity, religion and national origin. As a gay MP, I am proud that Cardiff hosts the Iris prize, one of the leading lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender film festivals, every year, that we are the host of Pride Cymru and part of the Big Weekend, one of the biggest LGBT celebrations across the UK, and that I am likely to bump into people such as Russell T. Davies down in Cardiff bay. He is the creator of one of Channel 4’s most famous programmes, “Queer as Folk”, and more recently things such as “Cucumber” and “Banana”, as well of course “Doctor Who”, produced in Cardiff.
We have a strong commitment to another issue that Channel 4 is also committed to—disability and Paralympic sport. We are the birthplace of Tanni Grey-Thompson, who learned to swim in the Splott pool in my own constituency and went to St Cyres School in Penarth, and of Paralympic champions such as Aled Davies and others whom Channel 4 has done so much to champion.
We have cutting-edge capacity. We were No. 1 for quality of life in the EU’s city index in 2016. We have the digital connectivity and infrastructure that is driving so many creative film and TV companies to Cardiff. We have those three universities, the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies, Cardiff Metropolitan University and the University of South Wales, and we have the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama generating talent, skills, technical capacity and all the other supplies that Channel 4 will need to be successful in Cardiff. We have that crucial working population of one quarter of a million in Cardiff, and of course we have the wider capital city region. We have places such as Cardiff and Vale College in my own constituency, which I am proud to see building up young people to go into the creative sectors.
Crucially, we are already delivering a commitment for Channel 4. The broadcast award-winning Boomerang, one of the largest suppliers to Channel 4 covering primetime, daytime and sports coverage, is located locally. We have companies such as Nimble Dragon, Avanti, Sugar and Boom Cymru already working with Channel 4, and others are leading the way: One Tribe TV, Tarian, Vox Pictures, Orchard, Bad Wolf and Wolf Studios Wales. We have fantastic post-production facilities, with cutting-edge companies such as Gorilla, and visual effects companies such as Bait Studio, Milk VFX and Reel SFX. Fitting with what Channel 4 is looking for, the executive producer of “Doctor Who”, Chris Chibnall, said, “The talent base here is simply extraordinary, it is ambitious, bold and takes risks.”
That is very much the Channel 4 that I know and love, and that is what Channel 4 can gain from coming to Cardiff. I hope the Minister will listen closely; I hope Channel 4 will listen closely, and I look forward to supporting the bid with all my Cardiff colleagues and those in the wider region in the days and weeks to come.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
In the interest of scrupulous geographical impartiality, I will impose a five-minute limit on speeches.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for securing today’s debate.
The spread of the creative industries across our country is of great importance to me. I am lucky to have worked in the creative industries for many years, and because of that experience I understand the positive impact that they can have on economic growth, skills, training, employment and regeneration. That is why I see Channel 4’s decision to move significant parts of its operation as a great step and a powerful catalyst for change. The opportunities the relocation brings have caught the attention of many regions, and the Leeds city region, which includes my constituency and the district of Kirklees, is among them. It hopes to spark a revolution in the creative and screen industries in Yorkshire.
Although I am happy to back that bid, I want to ensure that the decision makers do not overlook Leeds’s less well-known neighbours. I hope they look beyond the big cities when choosing where to relocate, and factor in what surrounds those cities. Our towns and villages, such as Batley and Spen, have just as much to offer, and arguably more to gain. This revolution needs to benefit the whole of Leeds and the city region, not just the city. In Kirklees, we have talent, creativity, technical know-how and digital infrastructure to rival what can be found anywhere in the nation.
We are well served for motorway access; we have wonderful picturesque towns and villages, boutique hotels, great restaurants, loads of ice cream parlours, a proud industrial heritage and a vibrant multicultural community, not to mention mile after mile of stunning countryside. Channel 4 need look no further for film locations, from sprawling manors steeped in history and beautiful country parks to thriving urban hubs and heavy industry. “Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell” and the miniseries “Gunpowder” were both filmed at the stunning Oakwell Hall and country park in Birstall. The Emmy award-winning “Hank Zipzer” was filmed in Batley, and Kay Mellor’s series on births, marriages and deaths was filmed in Dewsbury town hall.
Last year, in memory of my predecessor Jo Cox, we brought an acclaimed production of “Les Mis” to the town of Batley. We had a diverse community of 100 young people from across our diverse schools, with an A-list west end professional team sharing their skills and enabling our young working-class kids to punch well above their weight. We proved it could be done, and we will do it again. While Channel 4 is at the forefront of promoting regional talent, we have talent in spades. I beg the Minister to impress on Channel 4 that talent lies not only in the cities, but in the towns that surround them, and that the opportunities in these communities must be part of its thinking when deciding where to relocate. I put my hat in the ring and say that Leeds city region is obviously where my heart lies, but I hope the regional element will also be factored in.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
This is an exciting process, is it not? It is a great pleasure to follow the inspirational speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on his paean of praise for the great city of Glasgow.
I will make a couple of opening remarks before concentrating on the Leeds city region. It is worthy of note that, for the first time since I was originally elected to the House in 1997, it is uncontested across all political parties that Channel 4 is best in the public sector. To paraphrase Sir Michael Grade when he was chief of Channel 4, Channel 4 can be in the public sector with a public broadcasting remit or it can be privatised, but it cannot be both. The fact that this process is taking place at all is testament to that; long may it remain so.
Another point worthy of note is that the new management of Channel 4 have embraced the process. A year ago, when I was re-elected to the House of Commons and had my first contacts with Channel 4, there were doubts about whether it could possibly come out of London and whether the talent would be available, and we heard about moving schools and all the same sorts of excuses that were made in the debate about the BBC 10 or 15 years ago. I am very pleased. I congratulate Ministers and shadow Ministers on keeping up the pressure; I think Channel 4 management are now behind the process.
Channel 4 is a great British institution. There are few that are similar in other nations in Europe, except perhaps ZDF and ARD in Germany. To have two great public service broadcasters, and Channel 4 with its particular remit, is something that makes me proud to be British.
Moving on to the Leeds city region’s bid, my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen made the very good point that, although people say that their cities are like Channel 4, we have learned politically over the last few years that the United Kingdom is not just about cities. That is one of the strengths of the Leeds city region’s bid. Public investment in television in England and Wales over the last 30 or 40 years has all been in the west of the nation. There is a big gap in the east of the country where there has been no big investment in television and film.
There are obviously two bids here from Leeds and Sheffield, and both have strengths. As the new Mayor of the Sheffield city region, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), progresses in that role over the coming years, Sheffield will develop magnificently. At the moment, as an impartial judge from Keighley, I say that Leeds probably has the edge in terms of its creativity and of its being in the fastest growing area for television production throughout the country, and probably in terms of transport—until the new Mayor has had his full impact on improving Sheffield’s transport links. I would probably just about give it to Leeds.
However, I think we agree that it would be outrageous—I use that word advisedly, Sir Graham—if there was no representative from God’s own county on the shortlist that Channel 4 draw up. That is inconceivable, particularly given the investment record in the east of the country. I hope that, whether it is Leeds or Sheffield—unless both progress to the next stage—if only one Yorkshire city or region is on that shortlist, we will all unite behind it. This is a marvellous opportunity.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
To further make the case for the Leeds city region, we have the infrastructure, we have Sky, we have Perform and we have Yorkshire TV. We have Rockstar Leeds, the makers of Grand Theft Auto, which has sold more than 250 million copies around the world. We have Pace and ARRIS in Saltaire, which power internet and TV for hundreds of millions of people globally. We have the people and we have the infrastructure, does my hon. Friend not agree?
John Grogan
I do agree. One thing I admire about my hon. Friend is that he is much trendier than I am and is so much more in touch with the creative hub that is Leeds. He is right to say that Leeds has not only the history—Yorkshire Television and so on, which led to the spinning out of many production companies—but also this whole new phase and new generation of talent. I very much hope that Channel 4 recognises that.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for your robust chairmanship and discipline so far in ensuring a geographical spread of speakers, Sir Graham. I congratulate my Glaswegian colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), on bringing the debate. He made a marvellous, erudite case for Glasgow, which I hope to embellish on somewhat.
When considering Channel 4’s new “Location, Location, Location”, where better than where that magnificent programme, which is a great standard bearer for Channel 4’s publishing capability, is produced—in Glasgow? It is an independent production by IWC Media and is one example of the great pedigree that Glasgow already has in broadcast media. Where better for Channel 4 to relocate than Glasgow?
Glasgow’s relationship with public service broadcasting goes back to the very father of public service broadcasting, John Reith, who was educated in Glasgow and cut his teeth as an apprentice at the North British Locomotive Company in my constituency before traveling to London to set up the BBC in 1922. Glasgow’s relationship with the spirit of public service broadcasting is as old as public service broadcasting itself, and is embellished both by the grit of the city’s industries and the glamour of its creative capacity.
Bound up in the spirit of Channel 4 is its ability to take risks and to be radical. Who was more radical than John Logie Baird himself, one of the pioneers of television, who pioneered his craft at what became the University of Strathclyde and transmitted the world’s first long-distance television pictures to Glasgow’s Grand Central Hotel in 1927?
Glasgow today hosts two of the main broadcasters in the United Kingdom, including the ITV franchise Scottish Television, which started in 1957 and was born out of Glasgow’s music hall and theatre tradition, based at the Theatre Royal in the city. That tradition continues today. Think of “Mrs Brown’s Boys”, one of the greatest productions on the BBC and one of its greatest comedy shows. It was born out of the risk taken by Iain Gordon, the proprietor of the Pavilion Theatre—the only independent theatre in Scotland—in bringing the stage show to Glasgow. As a result, it spun off and had such roaring success that it became an amazing BBC production. That shows the risks taken by our city’s cultural champions at every level, from theatre through to broadcast media itself.
BBC Scotland, the mainstay of Glasgow’s broadcast media capability—launched formally in 1968 but based in the city since 1957—broadcasts 15,000 hours of radio and television productions per year. That is one of the striking things about Glasgow’s capacity: its broadcast media production capability. When I went down to Channel 4 last month, when it launched its call for places in the UK to bid for the relocation of its headquarters, one thing that struck me about its building in Victoria was that it has no studios. Channel 4 does not produce; it is a publisher. Critical to Channel 4’s criteria for its location is its desire to be at the centre of a major hub and a major ecosystem of production capability.
That is where Glasgow has great strengths. It is already at the centre of an unrivalled capacity for delivering broadcast media production, ranging from massive global hits such as “Outlander”, which is filmed and produced at studios in Cumbernauld in the greater Glasgow city region, through to “Question Time”, which I am sure many Members are familiar with and which is produced by Mentorn Media, based in Glasgow. An old university colleague is an assistant producer on “Question Time”; I know many people who are highly involved in broadcast media production in Glasgow. There is a great talent base in the city to draw on.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Does the hon. Gentleman know that a Glasgow MP—one of my predecessors, the late Sir Teddy Taylor—appeared on the first ever edition of “Question Time”?
Mr Sweeney
There we go. We have a fine tradition, from creative comedy to drama, including political drama. Glasgow has a fantastic pedigree across the full spectrum of broadcast media production.
My experience of working in industry showed me that Glasgow always has that creative potential, with the interface of engineering, creativity and innovation working with Glasgow’s creative sector.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point: would it not be wonderful for STV and BBC Scotland to be joined on the Clyde by Channel 4, just next to the shipyards for which he and I have a great passion?
Mr Sweeney
I share the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. That great creative media hub at the heart of Glasgow, at Pacific Quay, would be a magnificent centre for Glasgow to host Channel 4. There is so much opportunity there. It is a former industrial site that can be easily developed to meet the needs of Channel 4. There are also lots of other options, from CityPark in Dennistoun in my constituency, for which Stuart Cosgrove—a constituent of mine—is leading a bid, down to Film City in Govan, which is the old Govan town hall and has been converted into the most fantastic media hub for Glasgow and for Scotland.
My experience of working with Glasgow’s creative sector was as a shipbuilder. We were looking at creating a museum of Glasgow’s shipbuilding heritage. Sir Alex Ferguson, as a son of Glasgow, proudly sponsored the creation of a digital, virtual-reality reconstruction of Glasgow’s shipbuilding industries. I share the sentiments wishing him all the best in his recovery from his recent illness.
I was involved in helping to create that reconstruction with the Digital Design Studio—now the School of Simulation and Visualisation—which is part of the Glasgow School of Art. After we created it, it was so impressive that BAE Systems decided that it wanted to utilise it for modern shipbuilding. That is an example of how Glasgow’s creativity and media production could actually help to generate innovation, even in the old industries, as we have seen; we created new innovations in engineering. That is exactly the sort of dynamism and creativity that Glasgow is all about.
That is just one example of how I have interfaced with that, and it shows why Glasgow offers such a good opportunity to be the heart of Channel 4’s production capability—by plugging into that great ecosystem at the heart of the city. I have every confidence that Glasgow will present a robust bid that will be looked upon very favourably by Channel 4, and which will plug into the best traditions of Glasgow—innovation, creativity and dynamism.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting today’s debate. It is no coincidence that five hon. Members from the Leeds city region—I say “York and Leeds city region”—are here for the debate. Because of the sheer scale of the creativity, talent and diversity across our region, it is crucial that we speak up for the future of the region, but also for the future of this sector. We must see this as a global opportunity for Channel 4. There are major export opportunities for our economy, but also opportunities for serving the public and enriching our culture at the same time. Media is so powerful in its execution, and this proposal provides a real opportunity to rebalance our economy and to celebrate the diversity of our communities as we move forward.
I will say York’s piece, because colleagues have spoken for their own part of the region. York is a city that is transitioning from the Vikings, steam trains and chocolate that we all think about to one that now stands as the UK’s only UNESCO city of media arts. It is unrivalled in its digital and media offer and is one of 114 global cities within that footprint of UNESCO. It is where the past meets the present and it provides the platform to shape the future. Today, I want to extol the virtues of York as the place for Channel 4 to find its home.
Educationally, we see the city advancing in the creative sector. I am thinking of Manor school and its state-of-the-art studios to develop pupils’ interest in the sector; the investment that the independent-state schools partnership puts into the media industry to draw on the talent of the children of our city and give them the opportunity to experience the sector; and the outstanding York College, which provides a platform for academic and vocational excellence. We have two fantastic universities: York St John University and the University of York, which is now third in the nation for film and television production. Impressive as it is, its reputation is growing; I visited only recently.
York is a desirable place to live. In fact, it comes out consistently as the UK’s No. 1 place to live and to visit, with 7 million visitors each year. With its connectivity, the city is like no other. We have the TransPennine Express—it will be express, particularly under a Labour Government when we get electricity on the line. We have the east coast main line, which means that we are within two hours of London, and again, journey times will be shortened, because High Speed 2 will be arriving at the heart of our city. Seven million people can reach the region within an hour.
We have an opportunity to create and shape the future of that part of the country as we see the creative sector growing. I am thinking of the Mediale festival, a digital media festival at the heart of York. The Castle Gateway project is moving forward; that area will be York’s new cultural hub.
I will focus my final comments on the economic opportunity and cultural opportunity that York offers. Next to the station is a 72-hectare site, the biggest brownfield site in Europe, where Channel 4 can come and shape its future and the future of our city. In its digital connectivity, the city of York is like no other in the UK. It is the first gigabit city in the UK, with its extensive dark fibre network.
As a city, we have grown in the new technologies of the future, and the digital creative sector is at the heart of stretching our economy into new fields. It is certainly the way forward for Channel 4; it will see a skills base on which it can draw. The digital creative labs in York are unparalleled in the research that they are doing. That is driving the sector forward. The studios at Church Fenton have such a reputation; we have heard about the films being made. There is also the gaming industry; we can look at the creative industry on that front. Again, we are at the forefront. York provides a massive opportunity for Channel 4 to find its new home, and it will reach into the whole business community of the city. It will give the perfect offer to Channel 4.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I am delighted to be able to speak in support of the proposal that Channel 4 come to Glasgow, the city that I represent. I express my solidarity with Team Glasgow, who are heading down on the train from Glasgow just now. To my council colleagues, Stuart Cosgrove and the rest of the team who are on the train on their way down here with the bid document, I say that I look forward to their safe arrival in the city. I like to think that we are playing for the away team and they are the home team, coming down to do their very best for us.
Glasgow is very much the right city for Channel 4, because like Glasgow, Channel 4 is pure gallus, and it has been from the start. It offers something that challenges, that is different and that is unusual, and it seeks to find the stories that we do not get in other places; that is certainly the story of Glasgow.
Already, as other hon. Members have said, there are production companies that are based in Glasgow and going about the business of telling the stories of the people. Firecrest Films specialises in documentaries, such as “Breadline Kids”, which brought the story of people who were in severe poverty to our screens. Nicole Kleeman says that basing Channel 4 in Glasgow would be an “enormous opportunity in Scotland”. It is currently telling the story of the cancer hospital, the Beatson, which many of my constituents have found very moving. They can see their own stories reflected in those documentaries.
Matchlight, which is also based in Glasgow, says:
“Glasgow is inherently diverse in all measures. It would be a great home for the channel. TV must represent all of the UK if it is to be relevant to the audience.”
Matchlight also works in Gaelic. It does production for BBC Alba as well as for Channel 4, where it works for “Dispatches”, which, as we all know, tells really deep and important stories and brings them to light.
Raise the Roof is the UK’s sixth fastest growing indie producer and is also based in Scotland. It is the biggest Channel 4 supplier from Scotland, and very proudly so. Not only does it do work here, but its very successful production company, which was built through Channel 4’s programmes, exports to 37 countries around the world, so this activity is not just of benefit to Glasgow, Scotland or the UK; we are growing the ability of our native producers to export to the world. Chris Young of Young Films, who is best known for “The Inbetweeners” and is based in Skye in Scotland, also says that basing the channel in Glasgow would be a game changer for Scotland.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady’s advocacy of the strength of the Glasgow bid. Two “Star Wars” actors, including Ewan McGregor, came from my constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire. Does she agree that locating Channel 4 in Glasgow will provide opportunities and inspiration not only to the city, but to the counties and regions that surround it?
Alison Thewliss
I very much agree. One frustration that I picked up in meeting some of the production companies and Channel 4 at a meeting that it hosted with me in Glasgow, at its West George Street base, was that of always having to look at things through a London lens. The creative decision makers at Channel 4 are often based down here, so basing Channel 4 in Glasgow would be a radical decision that would re-tilt the axis of the media in the UK. I feel that it would also bring benefits to Northern Ireland, which is within close travelling distance of Glasgow, and to the north of England. It would fundamentally change the way in which the media work in the UK.
Glasgow is many things, but it is also very closely bound together. It is a very cohesive city; we cannot ignore one another in the street. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) mentioned, it has diversity. It has people who have lived in Glasgow all their lives; interlopers like me, from Lanarkshire; and people from Somalia, Pakistan, Eritrea, China and Afghanistan. They have all come together and live cheek by jowl—not across boundaries, but cheek by jowl with one another in one of the friendliest cities in the world.
I would like to tell a wee anecdote to exemplify just how friendly Glasgow is. At an event that Radiant and Brighter—an organisation that helps to support people who come to the city from other countries—held at the city chambers in Glasgow, a doctor who was speaking at the meeting said, “My experience of coming to Glasgow was that I came out of Central station and was a bit lost. I didn’t know where I was going, so I asked somebody. That person not only told me where to go; he took me to where I was going. He took time out of his day to take me along the street and around the corner to the place that I needed to get to.” That typifies Glasgow for me: people are so friendly that they will go out of their way to help others and make them feel at home.
Channel 4 would be very welcome in the city as a large employer, but also as part of the creative culture of the city. We have in the city the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, bringing through great, wonderful arts graduates. There is also the Glasgow School of Art, which is a beacon of art and design. There are also other universities and colleges within the city, all of which produce great talent that would be very well employed at Channel 4.
I would like close with an anecdote from a member of my office staff, Alexander Belic, who had cause to leave the city for a brief period earlier on today. He told me what he saw when he came back in:
“There is a busker performing ‘No Diggity’ on a guitar and a leprechaun releasing torrents of bubbles down Buchanan street—what a town.”
I think Channel 4 would fit well within Glasgow. I welcome it to choose Glasgow and back our bid.
Sir Graham Brady (in the Chair)
We now have three Front-Bench wind-ups and a moment or two at the end for Mr McDonald to wind up, too.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. This is an important debate about one of the most exciting media developments that has happened in the UK in many years. As many others have done, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions in this well-informed and highly entertaining debate.
I wonder if hitherto Channel 4 had any idea just how popular it was. There is hardly a nation or region that has not extolled its virtue this afternoon. In many ways, however, this debate is an after-party. As us luvvies would say, we have retired to the green room. Those who were here bright and early this morning will know that the bidding war started at Digital, Culture, Media and Sport questions. No one should be surprised that the first shots in that war were fired by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), who was of course backing Glasgow’s bid to be the home of Channel 4’s national headquarters. By the end of DCMS questions, supporters from Sheffield, Birmingham and Lichfield had made their pitches too. I believe there were others, but I suspect that many of those were hon. Members who had not a clue what was happening. They had walked into a bidding war and wanted to ensure that their constituency did not miss out on what was on offer.
As anyone will testify, I came to this debate as a fair and honourable man, and with a completely open mind. But having heard so many excellent speeches from hon. Members from different areas across the UK, I have decided to throw my not inconsiderable weight behind the Glasgow bid. Yes, I can see the shock on the faces in front of me, but I have been persuaded by the excellent contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow South and for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney). I endorse everything they said. If Channel 4 is seeking a new location, location, location, there is nowhere better suited than Glasgow.
As Stuart Cosgrove, the broadcaster and journalist chairing Glasgow’s bid, said:
“Glasgow is in tune with the values that are at the heart of Channel 4—diversity, equality, innovation with a bit of irreverence thrown in.”
He could have added to that if Channel 4 wants to relocate to a city that already boasts a thriving independent production and freelance sector; a city where both the national Government at Holyrood and local government in George Square are totally committed to supporting the film and television sector; and a city where there is a vast array of creative and cultural talent that is ready, willing and able to get to work, that city is Glasgow.
Stephen Kerr
(Stirling) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the people of Glasgow who create that environment, which allows that degree of creativity?
Brendan O'Hara
I could not agree more. It does not happen often—let us call it a red-letter day—but I believe I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. As the leader of Glasgow City Council, Susan Aitken said, our city has
“a high concentration of skills, academic excellence and a highly qualified workforce.”
Although I am the proud representative of Argyll and Bute, I am a proud Glaswegian to my bootstraps. I absolutely agree with both Susan and Stuart. As someone who has spent the majority of their working life making television programmes for the Scottish, UK and international markets from Glasgow, I cannot think of a better place for a vibrant, exciting, innovative and daring broadcaster to set up its headquarters than Glasgow.
Although this is a bid for and on behalf of the city of Glasgow, it is in many ways Scotland’s bid. Scotland’s First Minister gave it her unequivocal backing, when she said:
“the unique character of Glasgow, multicultural, welcoming, hugely creative, and irreverent, is a great fit for Channel 4.”
In an almost unprecedented move, the leaders of all of Scotland’s political parties are united in support of this bid. If that were not enough to persuade Channel 4 to move to Glasgow, the fact that the city of Edinburgh is prepared to set aside ancient rivalries to support Glasgow’s bid should tell Channel 4 that there are now no limits to what it can achieve by setting up its national headquarters on the banks of the Clyde.
Glasgow fits all the criteria like a glove. It ticks all the boxes: population size, proximity to centres, and the level of physical and digital connectivity. Glasgow is already home to BBC Scotland and STV. It boasts of having the National Film and Television School hub, based at Pacific Quay. Channel 4 itself has had a presence in the city for many years.
Mr Sweeney
When it comes to journey times, there is a three-hour target. I can get from my flat in Glasgow to the door of my office in Westminster in three hours. Not only that, but we have a commitment from the Department for Transport that HS2 will deliver three-hour journey times by rail as well. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Brendan O'Hara
Anything that can speed up journey times to Glasgow has a beneficial effect for the whole of the United Kingdom. I am certain that Glasgow City Council would make the transition for Channel 4 as painless as it could possibly be for the company, its employees and their families—more painless than Phil and Kirstie could ever do. We have heard welcome contributions from the hon. Members for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel), for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), for Keighley (John Grogan)—the Mayor of Sheffield just learned the old adage that the opposition may be in front of you, but you your enemies are most certainly behind you—for Glasgow North East and for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I imagine that if some enterprising producer is watching this debate, there is a fantastic new Phil and Kirstie series to be made, based on that list of people trying to get relocation, relocation, relocation to their town or city.
For me, the most important contributions have come from my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow Central and for Glasgow South. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central was absolutely right when she said that Glasgow is indeed “pure gallus”. I believe it is that gallusness that sets it apart from any other bid. She was right to highlight the welcoming nature and cultural diversity of Glasgow. As the mover of the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South, said, we have Chinese, Pakistani, Indian and Caribbean communities, as well as an array of African communities and a multitude of our highly valued EU citizens, including—I just found this out today—our Lord Provost, who is Swedish-born. Glasgow has always had worldwide appeal, and that is reflected in the cultural diversity of our city. It is a major attraction to a broadcaster such as Channel 4.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and I thank all who took part. It has been well informed and hugely entertaining, a bit like “Channel 4 News”. As my SNP colleagues have said, we very much welcome Channel 4’s decision to move its national headquarters out of London. It is something that I have wanted to happen for a long time, both in my career as a television producer and latterly as a politician. Indeed, I raised the matter with David Abraham, the Channel 4 CEO, at his final appearance before the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee last year. I spoke of the frustration that producers felt about having to come to London from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the north-west of England or wherever to pitch an idea to a London-based commissioner, who they just knew did not quite get it because he or she did not live in the same world. To move out of London can only be a good thing for Channel 4, for creative sectors across the UK and for those communities whose voices and stories are rarely heard.
Whichever city Channel 4 decides to move to, I guarantee that it will find no warmer welcome and no greater support from local and national Governments than it will receive in Glasgow, and it will not meet a more creative and multicultural community ready to make an outstanding success of the move than that of Glasgow.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) on securing this interesting debate. The message that we should all take away is that we have great cities and towns around the United Kingdom that are all ready to bid for the wonderful opportunity of the relocation of Channel 4’s headquarters and the creative hubs.
The hon. Gentleman reminded us of the connection between the city of Glasgow and Nelson Mandela and, by coincidence, I was in Cardiff on 16 June 1998 when Nelson Mandela received the freedom of the city. The hon. Gentleman also made a strong case for the city of Glasgow, and it was heartening to hear such a full endorsement from the SNP of a pitch process entitled “4 All the UK”. That can only be a welcome development. On a serious note, he rightly highlighted the merits of his city and its wonderful creative sector.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) described Birmingham as both the least and the most disruptive choice for Channel 4 in an imaginative and creative use of language, and made an extremely strong case for his city.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) made her pitch for the wonderful city of Liverpool. She described it as the most filmed city outside London, which is a statistic I was not aware of. She did not mention the marvellous Liverpool Everyman Theatre, where my brother, Patrick Brennan, is starring as Iago in “Othello” and as Ben Rumson in “Paint Your Wagon” as part of the Liverpool Everyman rep revival, which has gone so well and had marvellous reviews. Tickets are available from all the usual locations. It is a wonderful city with a marvellous cultural heritage. In promoting it, she did not even emphasise the Beatles that much, which shows that there is an extremely broad and wonderful cultural offer in the city of Liverpool, which is another worthy candidate for Channel 4’s relocation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) is the newly elected Mayor of the Sheffield city region, so may I take the first opportunity to congratulate him publicly on that achievement? He described our debate as a beauty contest. We are all relieved that he did not describe it as an episode of “Naked Attraction”, which I understand is one of the late-night offers on Channel 4—not that I have ever seen it myself. The clarity of his pitch explains why he was so successful in his recent campaign. For a man famous for his gallantry, he was surprisingly easily ambushed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), but he made an excellent pitch on Sheffield’s behalf.
My neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), rightly pointed out that as someone speaking from the Front Bench, I have to maintain a degree of neutrality in relation to the proposed bids. I have to say, however, that he made an extraordinarily powerful, persuasive, compelling, erudite and eloquent case for the capital of Wales as the ideal home for Channel 4’s headquarters. I will say no more than that, in case I get into a lot of trouble with my hon. Friends.
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind comments. There is another benefit for Channel 4 in that it could have two diversely performing MPs. He performs with MP4 and has a TV career, and I performed with my a capella group, House of Chords, at Pride Cymru last year. Channel 4 would have performers in its MPs as well.
Kevin Brennan
I am not one to blow my own trumpet, so I will not comment further on that, and I do not want to endanger my relationship with my hon. Friends by saying anything further about Cardiff’s bid.
May I take this opportunity to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin) a happy birthday? She was seen celebrating last night, and she is looking remarkably fresh today. I will say no more. She eloquently made an important point about the need to ensure that our creative industries serve our towns as well as our cities. She also pointed out that our creative industries often rely on locations out of cities in the countryside—our heritage locations—which hon. Members have celebrated here and in other debates on tourism and the creative industries. We should remember how important that is to channels such as Channel 4. In particular, I praise her efforts last year, and the efforts of the commission she worked on, to open up opportunities for working-class children in the creative industries. I strongly commend her for that, and she made a very good speech today.
I am sorry to admit that I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan) for more than 35 years, which is a long time. He made a strong case for the Leeds city region. He rightly pointed out that we have reached a consensus about Channel 4 being in the public sector that is to be welcomed above all. For many years, the uncertainty about its status and the threat of privatisation undermined the sort of process that we are talking about, which gives clarity to Channel 4’s future in its role as a public service broadcaster. He said that we have two great public service broadcasters, but we actually have more than that. As well as the BBC, we have ITV, Channel 5, S4C—the Welsh fourth channel—and STV, which remains an independent channel in the ITV family, as was mentioned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) rightly pointed out Glasgow’s history, the origin of television and the great John Logie Baird’s contribution. He described the commission of “Mrs Brown’s Boys” as a cultural risk. I had not thought that it was that much of a risk, but it is a fine programme. He pointed out that the lack of studios at Horseferry Road should be about spreading capacity across the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned a third Yorkshire city—York itself. She described a brownfield site near York station and its excellent connectivity, and made a powerful case.
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) listed all the production companies—
Kevin Brennan
Well, not all of them; some of them—a small smidgen of the production companies based in the city of Glasgow. Again, she made a powerful case on Glasgow’s behalf.
I will say a word or two about Channel 4. We welcome the fact that Channel 4’s status in the public sector has been confirmed and that the Government have decided that they will not pursue its privatisation, which was under consideration. We welcome the process that Channel 4 has begun, because it is important that our creative industries are spread around the country and not just based in the city of London. Talent is everywhere in the UK, as we have heard, but the opportunity to exploit that talent or to work in the creative industries is not always equally spread.
This is an important moment. Hon. Members may guess my private thoughts on the matter, but whoever wins the bid, it will be a major step forward in ensuring that that opportunity is spread around the country so that talent from all sorts of backgrounds and all parts of the United Kingdom has a chance to prosper in our wonderful creative industries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Michael Ellis)
It is a great honour and pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham. You may be forgiven for thinking that you have been presiding over a constituency candidate selection process, with everybody speaking so eloquently and passionately about their own area, but at least it was not a beauty contest, because that would have been very difficult for you indeed.
The first thing I want to do, of course, is to thank the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for introducing this debate on Channel 4’s relocation proposals. He spoke eloquently, as he usually does, and passionately about his constituency and his home town, where he was born and brought up, as did all the other Members who spoke about their own local areas this afternoon.
That includes the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who powerfully extolled the virtues of Birmingham and the west midlands, including the impressive transport links, and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who is always very persuasive. She asked questions that I will come to in more detail in a moment. However, this is of course a matter for Channel 4; it is Channel 4’s process. It is not a matter for Ministers. It is an ongoing process, it is well-publicised and we will work to ensure that Channel 4 delivers on it.
The Government were very happy to reach an agreement with Channel 4 earlier this year for it to increase its regional impact. As Members from across the House have said, that is very important. We also want to protect and enhance this important public asset, to make sure that it has a bright and sustainable future in a fast-changing broadcasting landscape. We are conscious of that and it is what we want to do—to support Channel 4 in that endeavour.
The Government have long been clear that Channel 4 should have a major presence outside London and should increase out-of-London commissioning. There is an awful lot of talent out there, outside London as well as in it, and as a publicly owned public service broadcaster Channel 4 should do more for the entire nation, and should represent and reflect the voices of those who live outside the capital city. The Government are committed to that aim and to spreading opportunity throughout the United Kingdom, and we want Channel 4 to be a part of achieving it by stimulating creative and economic activity right across the country.
Last year, we ran a public consultation on the future of Channel 4. An overwhelming majority of respondents agreed that Channel 4’s regional impact would be much enhanced if more of its activities took place outside London and more of its staff were based outside London. I think we can all agree that it is not right that at the moment only 3% of Channel 4’s staff are based outside London. Public service broadcasting should mean serving the whole of the United Kingdom, not just those in the capital or indeed those in the bubble of Westminster.
Channel 4 spends around twice as much on programming made in London as it does on programming made in the rest of the United Kingdom combined. Its physical concentration in London is reflective of a wider trend in the broadcasting and production sector, where we have not hitherto seen an even distribution of growth. Although only 20% of the population of this country live in London and the south-east of England, over two thirds of UK producers are based there. It goes without saying that that limits the spread of jobs, prosperity and opportunity outside the capital in all our wonderful geographical locations, and also limits the representation of local views and local interests on television. People seeking to work in the media should not feel that they have to move to London to do so.
Channel 4’s series of proposals, announced in March, will help to reverse that trend. Channel 4 agreed to establish a new national headquarters in the nations and regions, with 300 staff outside London, including key creative decision makers. That number will also rise over time. Moreover, Channel 4 will establish two other smaller creative hubs across the UK. As a consequence, its London footprint will reduce and its headquarters in Horseferry Road will become its London HQ.
Channel 4 will also increase its out-of-London commissioning—this is very important—to more than 50%, stimulating the creative economy across the country. Channel 4 estimates that this will lead to £285 million more in spending out of London than is required by Ofcom. Channel 4 will strengthen its regional impact on screen by becoming the first channel to co-anchor its evening news bulletin from a new regional studio, which is also symbolic and important. It will help to provide a gateway for journalistic talent in the nations and regions to reach “Channel 4 News”. Channel 4’s proposals will mean visibly reflecting the regional diversity of our country, both on and off screen, and according to economic analysis that my Department has commissioned these measures could support an overall redistributive regional impact of close to 2,700 regional jobs.
Channel 4 launched its pitch process, as it is called, in April, inviting bids from cities across the United Kingdom to find the locations for its national HQ and creative hubs. This process is currently ongoing and will allow Channel 4 to carefully consider a range of different cities across the nations and regions. Following the completion of that bidding process, Channel 4 will look to announce its decisions by the autumn of this year and will be moving staff by the end of 2019.
I am sure that Channel 4 is paying close attention to the debate—during it, people have been doing some showreels to get on “Channel 4 News” tonight—and to all the pitches that it receives from across the spectrum, including, of course, from outside this Chamber. I am confident that it will receive impressive bids from across all of the United Kingdom.
This historic deal marks the start of a bright future for Channel 4. Since its establishment over 35 years ago, and I am old enough—just—to remember its opening day, Channel 4 has had an enduring impact on UK culture and UK society. I am sure that we will see it go from strength to strength under the imaginative new leadership of Alex Mahon. Channel 4’s remit includes requirements to be distinctive, to innovate, to promote alternative views and new perspectives, and to appeal to a culturally diverse society. As a result, it has often led the way in areas of diversity and in representing different communities, with groundbreaking shows, including some that have been mentioned today, such as “Queer as Folk”, “The Last Leg” and many others.
Channel 4’s regional proposals show that it is now leading the way in regional representation and that Channel Four Television Corporation is indeed a public service broadcaster that truly provides for the entire country that owns it, which is crucial. This deal will have far-reaching implications for the entire broadcasting sector—it is groundbreaking in that sense—and I hope that others will look to follow Channel 4’s bold lead.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate this afternoon. When my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), who is the Front-Bench spokesperson for my party, said to me at the start of this debate that he had arrived with an open mind, I was ready to shred his Celtic Park season ticket myself, but I am glad that he came down on the side of the angels in the end.
This has been an unusual debate, in that we have been asking things of people outwith this Chamber today; oh to be the Minister in a debate such as this, where there have been pretty much no asks of him whatsoever. Nevertheless, I genuinely thank colleagues for their many fine contributions, as they put forward their bids for their own home turf.
I will just end with one thing that Billy Connolly said about Glasgow, a place that he left to go and explore the world as a fantastic comedian but always loved to come home to. He said that when you arrive in Glasgow and step off the train at Glasgow Central station, it is the only city on Earth that you can feel rise up through the soles of your feet, and we invite Channel 4 to come and experience that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the relocation of Channel 4.
Written Statements
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Leaving the EU: Environmental Principles and Governance
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)
It is this Government’s ambition to ensure we leave our environment in a better state than we inherited it. It is our aim not just to protect and conserve but also to enhance and restore habitats and landscapes. The recently published flagship 25-year environment plan sets out the scale of our future ambition. The environmental principles and governance consultation document that we have published today outlines proposals to help deliver on this, including a new, ambitious Environmental Principles and Governance Bill.
For many who care deeply about the environment, and have fought for its protection over several decades, our membership of the European Union (EU) has coincided with increased awareness of environmental concerns and improved mechanisms to safeguard the natural world. We want to ensure that the new mechanisms we put in place as we leave the EU do not just maintain, but also strengthen protection for the environment.
Our new Environmental Principles and Governance Bill is designed to create a new, world-leading, independent environmental watchdog to hold Government to account on our environmental ambitions and obligations once we have left the EU. When the UK leaves the EU, we will no longer be under the jurisdiction of the EU institutions which currently provide oversight and enforcement of many of our environmental laws. The new body will ensure that environmental standards are upheld after we leave the EU, holding Government to account for their delivery.
In order to ensure we have robust environmental governance systems in place, we propose that the new body should have three main functions: providing independent scrutiny and advice; responding to complaints; and enforcing Government’s delivery of environmental law where necessary. However, we are consulting on what functions and powers the new body should have specifically, and would welcome a wide range of stakeholders’ views on this subject.
The new Environmental Principles and Governance Bill will also establish a new, comprehensive, statutory environmental principles policy statement. The current system of EU environmental legislation is underpinned by a number of “environmental principles”, such as sustainable development, the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle. Although these principles are already central to Government environmental policy, they are not set out in one place beside the EU treaties.
The consultation is exploring the scope and content of a new statement on environmental principles in order to underline our commitment that environmental protection will be enhanced, not diluted, as we leave the EU. We are consulting as to whether the environmental principles themselves should be listed in the Environmental Principles and Governance Bill, in addition to the policy statement. It will be a statutory requirement for Government to have regard to the policy statement as they interpret the environmental principles. We also propose to give the new environmental body the function and powers to scrutinise application of the policy statement, periodically advising Government on possible improvements and taking action to ensure application, if necessary.
This consultation is concerned with environmental governance in England and reserved matters throughout the UK, for which the UK Government have responsibility. However, we are exploring with the devolved Administrations whether they wish to take a similar approach. We would welcome the opportunity to co-design proposals with them to ensure they work across the whole UK, taking account of the different government and legal systems in the individual home nations.
[HCWS675]
Immigration
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The Government have committed to support those of the Windrush generation who have faced difficulties in establishing their status under the immigration system. Among the series of measures to help put things right, I have already announced that a compensation scheme will be put in place for those who have suffered financial loss as a result of these difficulties, and that we will consult on the design of this scheme. I want to do this as quickly as possible. But also need to get the detail right reflecting the complexity of ways in which people might have been impacted.
As a first step to establishing the compensation scheme the Home Office is today launching a call for evidence that is addressed to those who have been affected by this situation, and to their families. This will be the first step of the consultation process, and will be published on gov.uk. A copy of the document will also be placed in the House Library.
It is always important for government to listen, and it is especially important to do so now. To put things right we need to understand more about what happened, to understand the personal stories, which will help to inform the design of the compensation scheme. As well as receiving written contributions I have asked officials to reach out to the people and communities most closely affected, listen to their concerns directly and, in particular, understand properly how we might address them through a compensation scheme.
I believe it is also important to have some external assurance that the compensation scheme meets the needs of those affected. So I will appoint an independent person to oversee the running of the scheme when it is in place. Martin Forde QC has agreed to provide independent advice on the design of the scheme. He is himself the son of Windrush parents and brings a wealth of experience in complex public law and compensation matters. I am confident that he will ensure that the interests of those affected will be properly represented and reflected in the scheme.
The call for evidence will run until 8 June. Once we have listened and considered those contributions, I will then launch a public consultation as soon as possible to provide the technical detail on proposals for the compensation scheme. I want to put in place a compensation scheme as quickly and as carefully as possible, to help redress what has gone wrong.
[HCWS674]
Local Government
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
On 27 March, the then Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced to the House that he was minded to appoint commissioners to take over functions associated with governance and scrutiny, appointment of statutory officers and strategic financial management at Northamptonshire County Council (“the authority”).
These proposals followed the publication of the report of the independent best value inspection, led by Max Caller CBE, at the authority which contained serious findings. In particular, the inspector identified that the council has failed to properly comply with its best value duty for some time. This is not because of lack of funds: as the report states, the council’s “Mind the Gap” analysis
“does not demonstrate that [the Authority] has been particularly badly treated by the funding formula”.
The report sets out in some detail the governance failings which have culminated in the council’s chief finance officer issuing a section 114 notice to stop new spending and KPMG’s advisory notice on the council’s budget. It concludes
“living within budget constraints is not part of the culture of [the Authority]”.
Alongside this announcement on 27 March, the authority and principal local authorities in its area were invited to make representations about his proposals on or before 12 April. Both the authority and the principal authorities made representations, as did Voluntary Voices Northamptonshire—an organisation representing voluntary bodies in the Northamptonshire area. All welcomed the proposal to appoint commissioners and the authority asked that such an appointment should be made as quickly as possible. Following consideration of these representations and further consideration of the inspector’s report, I have now decided to go ahead with the proposals made by my predecessor.
I have decided to appoint two commissioners forming a team with a proven record in providing leadership and financial stability in local government:
Tony McArdle (lead commissioner)—until February 2018, chief executive of Lincolnshire County Council, a post he held for 12 years. He has previously held a number of senior posts in local government and is currently chair of the Association of County Chief Executives.
Brian Roberts (finance commissioner)—former director of corporate resources and deputy chief executive at Leicestershire County Council until end March 2018. This followed on from a varied career in local government. A past president of CIPFA, he has also been a past president of the Society of County Treasurers of the Association of Local Government Treasurers. Currently a national council member and a trustee of the Centre for Public Scrutiny.
The commissioners have been appointed for the period from 10 May 2018 to 31 March 2021 or such earlier or later time as I determine. I have not ruled out the possibility of further commissioners should the need arise.
I have published the directions and explanatory memorandum associated with this announcement on:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/northamptonshire-county-council-directions-and-explanatory-memorandum
The 27 March announcement was accompanied by an invitation to all the principal Northamptonshire local authorities, including the county council, to make proposals for a restructuring of local government across Northamptonshire. The authorities are working together well on this and have asked that I extend the deadline for responses from July to August. I am happy to do this, to enable further opportunity for local community engagement and consultation, and the development of locally generated proposals. I have also asked the Local Government Association to consider how best to support the authorities as they develop their proposals. They are working on this and an announcement will be made shortly.
[HCWS673]
Trade Remedies
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
In November 2017, the Government introduced the Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Bill and the Trade Bill into Parliament. Together, this legislation will establish the framework for a robust trade remedies framework for the UK once we leave the EU, and establish an independent trade remedies authority (TRA) to operate that framework.
On 29 March 2018, the Department secured a technical ministerial direction to authorise spending on the implementation of the TRA prior to Royal Assent for the Trade Bill, in line with the guidance issued by the Permanent Secretaries of HM Treasury and the Department for Exiting the European Union as well as the written ministerial statement from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in October 2017.
The Government have continued to progress work to ensure that the UK has an effective trade remedies function for when we leave the EU. Following a review of suitable locations, the Government have determined that the TRA will be based in Reading. The high concentration of required skills and excellent infrastructure links to the rest of the UK will provide an ideal basis for the TRA to carry out its essential work to protect domestic industry from unfair trading practices and unforeseen surges in imports.
Following engagement with devolved Administrations and key stakeholders, today the Government will begin the process to recruit and appoint a chair designate to prepare for this important role, ready to take on the leadership of the TRA board once the Trade Bill has completed its passage through Parliament and achieved Royal Assent.
[HCWS672]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux) (Con)
My Lords, in the unlikely event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes.
Domestic Animals: Welfare
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Black of Brentwood
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to promote and improve the welfare of domestic animals.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I first sincerely apologise for addressing your Lordships from a sedentary position. I took a tumble down a slope on Monday and have broken my ankle, which is now strapped into a boot for the next six weeks. My consultant was not pleased when I told him that I had one appointment this week that I simply would not cancel, and that was our debate today on an issue dear to my heart. I was particularly anxious not to let down noble Lords who had signed up to speak, and I am most grateful to them all for taking part.
It was back in 2013 that I first had the privilege to lead a debate on the welfare of our domestic animals, and my noble friend Lord De Mauley responded, setting out the then coalition Government’s plans. I am delighted that he is speaking again today. That debate was the first time, so far as the House of Lords Library could tell, that our House had ever debated the topic. Back then it was perhaps rather an esoteric subject, and certainly on the fringes of public policy. What a difference five years can make. The welfare of our pets, and animal welfare more widely, is now a central political issue and one where there is commendable cross-party support, as indeed there should be on an issue such as this.
Defra—and, I have no doubt, my noble friend the Minister, who is such an energetic and eloquent champion of animal welfare—has been crucial in this: a dynamo of policy announcements and initiatives. I commend in particular the Secretary of State, Michael Gove, who has done so much to make this a mainstream issue and a big priority for the Government and Parliament. New animal activities licensing regulations will come into force in October; new welfare codes of practice for cats, dogs and horses have just been published; there has been a consultation on third-party sales of puppies and kittens, which is still a cause of considerable concern; and, at the end of last year, the Secretary of State announced the welcome publication of a draft animal welfare Bill, which will increase the maximum penalty for the most serious animal welfare offences under the Animal Welfare Act from six months’ imprisonment to five years’. Central to the Bill are the welfare needs of “animals as sentient beings”. That legislation will be enormously important in drawing together the threads of policy in this area and will make a real difference to domestic animals and the amazing charities that care for them. I hope legislative time will be found for it soon, although I know how difficult that is. I wonder whether my noble friend, who I know will be deploying his legendary and persuasive charm on the business managers, can give us any clues as to when it might be introduced.
In the cross-party spirit I just mentioned, I welcome the animal welfare plan that the Labour Party launched earlier this year and which is, I understand, still out for consultation. One of the issues it highlights is the compulsory microchipping of cats, which I strongly support because it is so important for owners and their animals. I would be grateful if my noble friend could give us his view of the case for the compulsory microchipping of cats as part of promoting responsible pet ownership.
A huge amount has been achieved and a great deal learned from a number of consultations, but challenges remain and it is right that we highlight and confront them. A primary issue is the prevention of both cruelty and poor welfare—different sides of the same coin. There should be no remorse for those who deliberately attack animals with a view to either killing them or causing them intolerable pain.
Increased penalties will help, of course, but there is more that we can do. In Oral Questions recently I highlighted the issue of air guns and the growing problem of people using these weapons to shoot animals, cats in particular. In 2017, the RSPCA received 884 calls to its 24-hour cruelty hotline, reporting air weapon attacks on animals, many of which resulted in either terrible pain for the animal concerned or often death. The public simply will not tolerate this. Just yesterday, a petition organised by Cats Protection with 110,000 signatures was delivered to Downing Street, calling for the licensing of air guns in England and Wales. The Government are consulting on this area and perhaps my noble friend could inform us when we might see a response and whether he would kindly specifically draw to the attention of the Home Office the urgent animal welfare issues that this raises.
The poor or inadequate welfare of animals is just another aspect of cruelty and neglect. Here again, we face real challenges in promoting the needs of animals. Last year, a PDSA report underlined the scale of the problem. It found that 93,000 dogs are never walked at all; almost 1.8 million dogs are left at home for five hours or more on a typical weekday; around 40% of cats are overweight or obese because of poor diet; and 3.6 million cats have not had a primary vaccination course when young. That is not acceptable and we clearly need a new approach to public education and awareness about the needs of animals. Part of that involves educating young people. Next time there is a review of the national curriculum, Defra should lead the way in ensuring that it covers animal welfare, as the EFRA Select Committee recommended. Perhaps my noble friend could store that one away at the back of his mind for when the time comes.
We also need a more strategic approach to educating the public about animal welfare needs. Crucially, the new statutory codes will be of real value only if people know about them. That means an approach which involves the animal welfare charities, pet industry representatives, local government—which bears so much of the brunt of this—the enforcement agencies, veterinary professionals, healthcare professionals, housing providers and teachers. Such an approach, drawing together so many of the very welcome public policy developments, which have happened under all parties in the 12 years since the Animal Welfare Act 2006, could really be the motor that makes these new policies, codes and regulations work in practice for the benefit of all our domestic animals.
Another aspect of cruelty that I should like to mention—again I have raised it at Oral Questions with an extremely helpful and positive response from my noble friend—is the growing problem of the breeding of cats and dogs with extreme characteristics, including flat-faced or brachycephalic animals, such as French bulldogs, Boston terriers or extreme flat-faced Persian cats, or those bred to have short limbs, such as munchkin cats, or curled or folded ears like the Scottish fold cats. The result of this grotesque genetic modification, which takes place in a wholly unregulated way in the absence of an effective cat breeding regime, is that many of these poor animals often spend a life in intolerable pain, suffering, for instance, from early-onset arthritis or unable to breathe properly. It is in effect torture breeding of animals that are literally born to suffer.
The proper regulation of cat breeding, in the first instance through a Government-backed code of practice on cat breeding welfare, would help in many ways, because many of those buying such benighted animals do so simply because they are a fashion accessory and they have no idea of the suffering that is involved. This is one of the issues on which International Cat Care, of which I am a patron, has campaigned and is part of its excellent international declaration of responsibilities to cats, which has to date attracted over 20,000 signatures from across the world. Sadly, we do not have time today to look at the international dimensions of animal welfare, but will my noble friend always bear in mind that our responsibilities should not stop at our borders and look in particular at the terms of the international declaration?
I hope I have been able to highlight in that quick canter some of the significant challenges all of us who love our domestic animals, which bring joy to millions of homes across the country—in fact, probably half the population—still face. I look forward to hearing about other issues from noble Lords this afternoon.
In closing, I pay a heartfelt tribute to all those charities and their armies of fantastic, selfless volunteers, who do so much extraordinary work in this area: the Dogs Trust, Battersea, Blue Cross, Cats Protection, International Cat Care, Wood Green and the RSPCA. Their work helps to improve the quality of life of so many animals and is vital to the education of children and the public. Those charities, the people who work in them and the volunteers who support them are right at the heart of a civilised society. I know all of us here today applaud their dedication, commitment and shining humanity.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend on bringing forward this debate. I declare my interest as a former cat and dog owner. Promoting and improving the welfare of domestic animals has a simple solution—and the solution is us human beings. We class ourselves as a nation of animal lovers, but the evidence does not prove that. If one studies the PAW report of 2017—a very good document indeed—one will find that a significant minority of animal owners are thoughtless, irresponsible and inconsiderate.
People are thoughtless, in that 98% of cat owners have no idea of the costs of keeping a cat before they have one, which should be a primary consideration. Nearly one-fifth of dogs in the UK are left for five hours or more in a typical weekday; 93,000 dogs are never walked at all. They are irresponsible, in that animals are not receiving primary vaccination courses; 36% of cats are not receiving them, up from 28% in 2011. Some 25% of dogs are not receiving them, up from 18% in 2011, and 55% of rabbits are not receiving them.
People are inconsiderate to their animals—in their diet, as my noble friend mentioned, and in their lack of knowledge of animal laws. Some 15% of owners have not registered their pets with a vet. They are inconsiderate to their neighbours, because poor care of an animal leads to behaviour problems. Some 66% of dog owners would like to change their animal’s behaviour, but they had better change their behaviour first before they can change their animal’s behaviour. They are also inconsiderate to other animals: free-ranging and feral cats kill about 55 million wild birds and a further 220 million small mammals, reptiles and amphibians each year. Cat predation is a national problem. It is estimated that UK cats kill songbirds at 10 times the rate that illegal hunters in the Mediterranean kill migratory species. Researchers at the Universities of Reading and Exeter have reported on the widespread ignorance of that fact by many cat owners—and it is difficult for charities such as the RSPB, because they rely on legacies from cat owners. However, SongBird Survival is working with the University of Exeter and cat owners to get better information and to minimise the adverse effect of pet cats on native wildlife while enhancing cat welfare. What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to help that project—and if they are not helping, why not?
I have some quick questions for my noble friend. What steps are the Government taking to minimise the adverse effect of cat owners’ pets on native wildlife? Will they press the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to include provisions in planning policy so that, as urban areas grow, a buffer zone of 400 metres is imposed around any new development to help to mitigate the adverse ecological consequences of cat predation, where species of conservation concern nest? Will my noble friend give domestic cats the same legal status as dogs?
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Black, whose eloquence was in no way diminished by his sadly enforced sedentary position, has been a tireless champion of the interests of the nation’s pets throughout the 32 years that I have known him and observed his work admiringly. In a debate on these issues a few months ago, to which he was unable to contribute, I recalled a general election long ago when he devised, with some small help from me, a manifesto which set forth the commitments that our much-loved pets would require from political parties if they had the vote. I went on to suggest the kind of action for which they would be looking today.
Briefed by that excellent organisation, Cats Protection, feline electors would want, among other things, absolute guarantees that enhanced border checks for cats and kittens would be introduced, along with a central register of feline immigrants, and tick and tapeworm treatment to prevent the import of infections from abroad. Backed by the marvellous Dogs Trust, canine voters would insist on a major revision of the Pet Travel Scheme—now a very practical proposition with the approach of Brexit—to ensure more stringent tests for rabies. Dogs would be paw-to-paw with their feline colleagues on the need for swift and effective treatment for ticks and tapeworm.
I now think it very likely that the Tory cause has been significantly boosted by the recent introduction of regulations that provide for a new local authority licensing system. I am reliably informed that sounds of approval have emanated from dog baskets and hearth rugs throughout the land. The fine organisations that work on behalf of the nation’s cats and dogs—which include many mentioned by my noble friend, such as the much-admired Battersea Dogs & Cats Home—will be scrutinising the implementation of these regulations very carefully, noting their successes and highlighting any shortcomings.
The team running Cats Protection tell me that they attach great importance to ensuring that the ban on the sale of puppies and little kittens under eight weeks is effectively enforced. It is imperative that licences awarded to commercial operations make it absolutely clear that they are trading for profit, closing loopholes that were exploited under previous legislation. There is also a strong view that the regulations should be extended to cover, for example, rehoming organisations and sanctuaries.
Our pets think to themselves, “Will the new licensing system, with its star ratings and other features, be fully understood by fallible human beings”—the fallibility being underlined by my noble friend Lord Caithness—“and will they seek out pet sellers with good welfare standards, endorsed under the new system?”. If the Government give their full backing to the guidance that has been produced by a group of animal welfare charities and help promote it with vigour, they would move even further to winning the hearts of the nation’s pets as they ponder their votes.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, there are a number of things to be welcomed in the Animal Welfare (Licensing of Activities Involving Animals) (England) Regulations 2018, including the licensing of breeding establishments, the risk-based approach to inspections, the prohibition of the sale of puppies under eight weeks old, and the requirements on advertisements of pets, although those may be tricky to enforce—I hope that the various websites are being helpful. It is vital that the regulations are applied consistently across local councils and I hope that the Government will keep their operation under review.
There remain a number of important issues that are difficult to deal with, including the breeding of domestic animals in poor conditions, and, as my noble friend Lord Black mentioned, the breeding of dogs and cats with congenital conditions such as severe breathing difficulties and eye problems, which breeds such as French bulldogs and pugs experience, due to extreme conformation. There is also the matter of the frequent import of dogs and cats bred and travelled in poor conditions, often leading to disease. My noble friend Lord Lexden spoke in detail about that.
Clearly, electronic collars should never be used for the routine training of dogs. There may, however, be occasions when, used properly and as a last resort, they can prevent serious problems, such as sheep worrying. In these cases the only viable alternative to their use could be euthanasia. The recent consultation document regrettably failed to consider options such as further regulation, a licensing system or statutory controls on the quality and specification of the devices available. If there is to be a ban, it should at least include an exemption for boundary fence systems. The use of these allows animals more freedom and greater safety, particularly near busy roads.
Turning to horse welfare, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Horse Trust. The creation of the British Horse Council is a major achievement. There have been a number of other successes along the way, from new protocols for dealing with contagious equine metritis to a tighter tripartite agreement and the Control of Horses Act. On the latter, I ask my noble friend the Minister to update us on progress, especially on enforcement.
I understand that a new statutory instrument is now planned to include both retrospective microchipping, which is essential for disease control, traceability, theft prevention and holding owners to account, and civil sanctions, as well as requirements such as the Central Equine Database. It would be helpful if the fine income could be returned to local authorities to act as an incentive to enforcement.
With EU exit ahead, there are many challenges for the equine world to help government work through, such as the movement of horses between the north and south of Ireland and, indeed, throughout the rest of the European Union. I have concerns about horses being exported for slaughter and I am frankly unconvinced by the lack of declarations thereof. Until there is full traceability within and outside the United Kingdom, it is impossible to know where exported horses end up. In the meantime, intelligence-led checks at the border and point of origin would help stop the non-compliant movement of horses out of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State announced plans last September to have the maximum prison term for an animal welfare offence raised from six months to five years, which I would welcome. In closing, I ask my noble friend the Minister to tell us when and how that will be implemented.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for initiating this debate. I have had a number of briefings from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club. Of course, if I read out the briefings it would take far longer than probably all the speeches combined.
I particularly thank the Dogs Trust because I found our family pet from it: a rehomed, extremely stupid cockapoo. Although he is much loved, the actual cost of keeping a dog and dealing with some of the things he has, such as anxiety issues, should not be taken lightly. One of the problems we face across the board is that many people buy dogs and cats on impulse. This is a particular issue: they see a cute kitten or puppy and see it as something that should be owned automatically. Of course, this leads to the problems of the industry: puppy farms, which I know regulation is needed for, and smuggling of puppies. I hope the Government will start thinking about age restrictions on puppies that can be imported. This would solve some of the problems, especially since some of the diseases that the puppies might carry, especially tick-borne ones, which can be imported to this country, might be an issue in future, as has happened with Alabama rot, whatever that is—I have not seen very much about it, although people on Hampstead Heath are getting very worried about it. I believe that it is mostly around Manchester.
We are a nation of animal lovers. Indeed, the trade body I work for calculated that the energy used for watching cat videos is the equivalent of running Ashford in Kent—67,000 houses—for a year. Obviously, they are terribly important. I went on Gumtree this morning to see how easy it is to acquire an animal. It was interesting that a lot of the owners on that website were talking about the fact that their dogs were registered with the Kennel Club, which showed best practice. You can also then happily google, “Where can I find a cheap, cute puppy?”, which obviously feeds into exactly the wrong attitude, which we are trying to look at.
I introduced two Private Members’ Bills, which I think the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, remembers, to try to overturn some of the worst aspects of the Dangerous Dogs Act, which increased the problem by creating status dogs. People are owning Staffordshire bull terriers, which are excellent dogs and look like pit bull terriers. They make them aggressive, which is a very dangerous thing to do with a dog of that order. I ask the Minister: since there are new duties on local authorities—and I commend the work done by dog wardens around the country, and their dedication—are there adequate resources to undertake the work they have been given? Secondly, following the Home Office regulations, will there be a review of public space protection orders to make sure that they are not being implemented against animal welfare?
Viscount Astor (Con)
My Lords, I have decided to speak today as I am concerned about the Government’s possible plans to ban so-called shock collars. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity by initiating this debate.
I understand the Secretary of State has indicated that he might limit the ban to collars used for training devices, but exempt those used to contain animals. I declare an interest. I have five dogs—two spaniels and three terriers—none of whom has ever worn a collar of that type. They are used for two reasons and the second is the important one; that is, to contain pets from wandering. Where these collars are justified, and supported by many vets, is where the animals gets a buzz—if necessary, a mild shock—to keep them safe in gardens. It is an invisible fence supported by an electric collar that responds to signals from wire buried around a garden or home. There are 40,000 of these collars in use and many vets say they are in the animal’s best interest. In a recent letter to the Times, they said:
“The pet is in control and quickly learns not to go too close to the boundary”.
They went on:
“We are confident that sound science shows these garden systems do not harm pets. They instead stop them joining the 300,000 cats and dogs killed on roads every year”.
None of us has an escape-proof garden; I certainly do not. We do not want to lock our dogs up all day and all night while out at work. Many people who use these collars find that once their pet has gone near the fence they never go near it again. It does work.
I was concerned about some of the lobbying, particularly by the Kennel Club, whose stance I thought somewhat hypocritical. It lobbied against shock collars, but uses choke leads in its shows. These improve the dog’s posture but often result in ongoing health problems to the neck and disc problems for the dog.
There are many important issues in the animal world that need attention, including battery farming, puppy farming and general animal cruelty. It is animal cruelty that, paradoxically, will explode if collars used to prevent dogs escaping on to roads are banned. It is cruel to the dogs and cats and deeply upsetting for the owners. I hope my noble friend will meet all those who are concerned in this area, particularly vets, before making a final decision. I would indeed support the Government if they banned shock collars for training. They are unnecessary and can sometimes lead to cruelty and be detrimental to the dog. For containing pets in gardens, however, they are probably very important.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that the Government are committed to ensuring that Brexit will be good for animal welfare in the UK. Far from looking to loosen regulations in this important area, as we leave the EU we will ensure that we do even more to protect animals.
I am confining my remarks principally to dogs, without intending any slight to other domestic animals. That is simply due to time pressure and because dogs are, after all, our most popular domestic animal, with over 10 million living with us in the UK. It is argued that we are a country that gives undue priority to the care of our domestic animals, but that is emphatically not a view that I share. That is not surprising, as I am a vice-president of the Kennel Club, founded in 1873, and deputy president of the Animal Health Trust, which is 75 years old. Both organisations are absolutely committed to improving the health and welfare of domestic animals, particularly dogs.
With that prompt, I trust that the Government are still minded to ban those horrible electric-shock collars that my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Astor mentioned. I look forward to the Government’s considered consultation response. With the support of the Kennel Club, the Animal Health Trust is driving forward research that is delivering new treatments, vaccines, preventive measures and pioneering scientific developments. These will make life better for dogs and other companion animals worldwide. That is research that can yield read-across benefits to other domestic animals and to human beings.
As well as fulfilling the role of loving companions that help keep us fit and sane, dogs can be key workers, too. Every day they help to make our workplace, here in the House, safer as the sniffer dogs and their handlers diligently search around those red leather Benches for explosives. Lottie the calm canine guide leads my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond to his place and into the right Lobby. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has a new Labrador, Barley, who skilfully guides him into a different Lobby. Police dogs help to protect us here and in many public places. Sniffer dogs guard our borders against smugglers of bombs, drugs, money, animals, plants, food and people. Dogs help us find the victims of natural disasters, living and dead; they serve with distinction in our Armed Forces; and play a vital role on every farm in the land. Whether it is as guide dogs for the blind, hearing dogs for the deaf, seizure alert dogs, other assistance dogs for the elderly and disabled, comforters for the sick and bereaved, or simply as much-loved and valued pets, it is hard to overstate the importance of the role dogs play in all our lives.
It is our duty as a civilised nation to ensure that we repay the devotion of our dogs, recognising them not merely as sentient beings but as our very best friends, and that they and all other domestic animals are afforded the fullest protection of the law as we move into the next phase of our proud history outside the EU.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of five dogs and president of the Dove Valley Working Gundog Club. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Black on securing this important debate. I shall briefly make two points.
The first is regarding the completely unacceptable practice of puppy farming. On 8 February this year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced:
“A ban on third party puppy sales is to be explored by the government as part of a package of reforms to drive up animal welfare standards”.
I believe that any such reform should be much stronger than simply a ban—it should be much more bite than just a bark. Will my noble friend the Minister provide an update on the progress of this, and on his plans in this area?
My second point concerns the theft of working dogs, predominantly gundogs, in rural areas. The number of missing or stolen gundogs has been on the rise since 2012. According to the Shooting Times, in that year around 3,500 dogs were reported stolen simply during the shooting season. Since then, gundog theft has continued in a big way: the figures are on the increase each year. These working dogs are highly valuable assets, with a typical trained Labrador costing upwards of £4,000. But it is not only gundogs which fall victim to the thief: terriers are fair game, too. I understand that criminals sell them into the unspeakably cruel and vile dogfighting world, as so-called bait dogs. That is quite simply disgusting. Does my noble friend agree that everything must be done to bear down on this aspect of rural crime, which causes considerable cruelty and great distress to dogs and their owners alike? Will he convey to his colleagues at the Home Office that funding for rural crime units must not be diminished but enhanced?
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for securing this debate. In agreeing with many speakers, I would like to voice my support for improving measures and raising standards for our domestic animals. These much-needed measures are long awaited and we need to see clear, strong guidelines embedded in a good, clear strategy. It is regrettable that little further has been done apart from the microchipping of dogs and the Welfare of Racing Greyhounds Regulations 2010, although both are welcome.
We need much-improved measures to include the licensing of all sellers, with better enforcement and strict new import rules to stamp out unregulated dealers. Anyone breeding or selling should and must be tightly regulated and licensed, with the local authority holding the register to inspect on a regular basis. People who are in this business, whether on a large or smaller scale, should have the added incentive to support raising animal welfare standards. It is being recommended that anyone breeding two litters or more per year should be licensed but I would like to see anyone breeding just one litter and selling puppies for a profit having to have a licence. A priority must be to see an end to third-party sales, including in pet shops.
Brexit heralds the opportunity, I hope, for stronger enforcement, particularly when puppies are found to have been imported underage and unvaccinated, with some having travelled in appalling conditions to then be sold on the internet with false data on their passports to evade contravening the PETS. We need to see full traceability at customs points.
Finally, the legislation has potential but progress has been limited on the commitment to promote good welfare, and we must stamp out cruelty. I would like to see the Government working with animal welfare organisations to have a public media campaign bringing all this to the fore.
A timetable for secondary legislation was set some 10 years ago in the Animal Welfare Act 2006. We need some real progress. I want particular attention paid to animal cruelty, for which the maximum sentence is just six months—in the UK it is among the lowest in Europe. I hope that the Government will quickly introduce a change to a five-year sentence. Let us hope that 2018 will be the year for real progress on all fronts in stamping out cruelty to animals.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Black, for securing this important debate. I declare my entry in the register of interests. Britain is a nation of animal lovers. Animal welfare is also an important issue for councils, which in some areas have not received sufficient funding from central government to enforce the Animal Welfare Act. This has moved the responsibility to charities such as the RSPCA. Councils work in partnership with the RSPCA and in many areas are reliant on it for enforcement of the Act.
The other place produced a report in November 2016, Animal Welfare in England: Domestic Pets, which made several recommendations. Many of those were in included in the SI debated on 27 March in this Room, when the Government updated the animal welfare regulations. I have been lobbied, as have other noble Lords, by Battersea Dogs Home and the Dogs Trust about third-party sales. A consultation under way on this subject closed on 2 May. Despite it being early days, is the Minister able to indicate the preliminary outcomes from that consultation?
A recommendation from 2016 that the RSPCA should no longer be involved in acting as a prosecutor of first resort when there are statutory bodies with a duty to carry out that role has resulted in the Government giving the RSPCA two years to set its house in order over its prosecutions policy. How is the review of that policy progressing?
A further recommendation for the Government to set up a register of those convicted of animal cruelty offences who had also been disqualified from keeping animals was rejected in favour of public access to police prosecutions. I note that a petition was launched by the Daily Mail that year. I wonder how many people find it easy to access the police prosecutions lists and whether the Government are thinking of reviewing their decision.
The regulation and licensing of dog walkers has been raised previously. Dog walkers and grooming premises are not currently licensed. There is a National Dog Walking Register website, which gives advice about pet insurance and a list of dog walkers in one’s area, but there is no statutory licensing system. A second website on dog walking indicates that some local authorities may require a dog walker to have a business licence, but this is by no means widespread. Can the Minister say whether there have been complaints about dog walkers and whether licensing is necessary?
I support the comments of previous speakers on puppy farming and deliberate animal cruelty, and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Black, for being a great champion of domestic animal welfare and to all noble Lords who have spoken. In the brief time I have to speak, I want to say something about Labour's animal welfare proposals. But before I do that, I want to ask the Minister whether a timetable of primary and secondary legislation will be produced. Despite the Secretary of State’s enthusiasm for animal welfare issues, the legislation does not seem to be keeping pace with his promises and his credibility is increasingly on the line. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Black, that this would be rectified if we had more assurance on the future timeline of legislation.
In the meantime, noble Lords have mentioned important animal welfare issues, most of which are encapsulated in Labour’s animal welfare plan. It was, of course, Labour which brought in the landmark Animal Welfare Act 2006, but we recognise that it is now time to update the existing legislation so that we continue to have the best standards in the world.
We are angry that penalties for animal cruelty are now some of the lowest in Europe, which is why we supported the animal welfare Bill, which would increase maximum sentences. We have fought to enshrine the principle of animal sentience in UK law, preventing animals being exposed to cruel and degrading treatment—despite the Government’s prevarication.
We have consistently supported a ban on the third-party sale of puppies and the requirement for all puppies to be sold with their mother on site. We will take proactive measures to tackle the cruel and illegal acts of puppy smuggling, often carried out by organised gangs, and review the operation of the pet travel scheme. We would introduce a microchip database, recording microchip numbers upon entry to the UK and extending mandatory microchipping to cover cats. We are opposed to the use of animal shock collars and would ban their sale and importation. We would introduce new restrictions on people keeping primates and other exotic animals captured from the wild as pets. We would tackle the scandal of retired greyhounds being needlessly destroyed by introducing a centralised database to trace ownership. Recognising the companionship and comfort that animals bring to so many people, we are consulting with landlords and care home providers on allowing pets to be kept on their premises.
The humane treatment of all animals is the benchmark of a civilised society. Our proposals would make sure that we remain world leaders on this important issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Black’s dedication to animal welfare is truly exceptional, and today we witness this given his recent accident. We are proud to have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I say to my noble friend Lord Kirkham that they will remain so under our new arrangements.
Animal welfare affects us all. The veterinary profession is at the front line, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the veterinary community and the contributions it makes. Together, we are working to create a veterinary profession equipped to deliver future requirements: to protect animal health and welfare, safeguard our food chain, maintain public health and services, and enable thriving trade. Work is ongoing between the Government, the British Veterinary Association, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and other key partners on the hugely important veterinary capability and capacity project. The profession also has a key role in the fight against antimicrobial resistance and meeting our targets for the reduction in antibiotic usage.
My recent visit to the Animal Health Trust at Newmarket reminded me just how much we owe my noble friend Lord Kirkham for his generosity and commitment to that establishment. We are extremely fortunate to also have the Animal Health and Welfare Board for England and the Farm Animal Welfare Committee providing advice, and I acknowledge their work.
The UK equestrian sector plays a significant role in our national and rural economies. It sets a global standard with its exceptionally high level of expertise, which is recognised around the world and has encouraged a strong and successful export market. I value the work of the British Horse Council, to which my noble friend Lord De Mauley referred, and in particular its help in the creation of the Central Equine Database. This holds 1.2 million equine records and is being used by local authorities to help identify the owners of straying, abandoned or neglected horses which have previously been microchipped.
My noble friend Lord De Mauley asked about progress with the Control of Horses Act, and I pay tribute to him for his close involvement in bringing that forward. The Act has undoubtedly helped tackle this problem, which is one that he knows so well. However, there remains the issue of equine fly-grazing. We encourage partnership working between all partners—landowners and their representatives, local authorities and the equine charities—to deal with horse abandonment and fly-grazing. I know a number of equine charities that are absolutely instrumental in this, including the British Horse Society, of which I should declare membership, and in the castration of horses, which is hugely important.
My noble friend Lord De Mauley asked about fine income in connection with retrospective equine microchipping. We are finalising our new statutory instrument on equine identification to implement EU requirements, which will be laid as soon as practicable. Officials are in discussion with local authorities and other government departments to establish whether it is appropriate that any fine income could be returned to local authorities.
As a number of your Lordships have said, cats and dogs are surely our most numerous and hugely popular pets. So many of us have had them, and without them our lives would not be as full as they have been, from early childhood and thereafter. I had the privilege of speaking recently at the Big Tent event for the Canine & Feline Sector Group. I cannot overstate the importance of these connections and the constant communication and sharing of ideas with the sectors on animal welfare. My noble friend Lord Caithness and a number of your Lordships raised the issue of awareness. I am acutely aware of that in so far as the veterinary profession, as well as the animal charities, will be key to helping us raise awareness as we seek to persuade many owners who would not dream of even thinking of being cruel to their animals but who unfortunately are not caring for them in an enlightened way. We absolutely need to raise awareness.
My noble friend Lord Black made reference to the PDSA report and to the importance of education. These are all things on which we must beat the drum. The codes of practice for dogs, cats, horses, ponies and their hybrids have been updated, as a number of your Lordships mentioned, and they came in to force on 6 April. The whole purpose of these updated codes is to contain more detail about what owners and keepers need to do to ensure the welfare of their animals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, quite rightly asked about the timetable for primary and secondary legislation. Of course, I will have to reply with what is expected from the Government Benches, that we will bring forward legislation when parliamentary time permits, but we are clear about the priorities we set on bringing these matters forward. In particular, my noble friend Lord De Mauley asked about the legislation increasing the prison sentences for animal welfare offences. Our proposal is to increase the maximum penalty for animal cruelty from six months’ to five years’ imprisonment. As your Lordships know, we published a draft Bill in December, and the timing will be announced in the usual way. However, I am conscious that we all want to make progress on that. The Bill also seeks explicitly to recognise animals as sentient beings, which is an indication of the Government’s resolve not only to maintain current standards of animal welfare but to strengthen them.
As has been mentioned—this was part of our manifesto commitment—we have already achieved the passing of the new animal welfare licensing regulations. I point out specifically to your Lordships that we worked with charities, through the Canine & Feline Sector Group; we are working on guidance on these matters precisely because we want the regulations to be of practical benefit. That was raised by my noble friends Lord Lexden and Lord Black. These regulations update the licensing controls for five activities involving animals. I emphasise to my noble friend Lady Redfern that anyone in the business of breeding and selling, regardless of the number of litters, must have a licence. We are absolutely clear that this is about whether you are in the business of breeding and selling. One of the key points on which we are absolutely clear is that no puppy or kitten should be sold under the age of eight weeks, which is clear in the new arrangements.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised the issue of commercial third-party sales of puppies and kittens in England. As has been said, this consultation closed recently; we need to analyse the responses and will come forward with our own response as soon as we possibly can.
A number of your Lordships, my noble friend Lord Black in particular, raised the issue of breeding pets with what I would describe as extreme characteristics. I have of course discussed the issue with the Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association. For the first time we have placed legal requirements on licensed dog breeders in our licensing regulations. Surely the point is that we must breed defects out of pets—that point was also raised by my noble friend Lord De Mauley. We must prevent these extreme conformations for cats and dogs. It cannot be right to breed animals that will have all sorts of disabilities because of our self-indulgence. This is the strongest message that anyone, whether breed societies or the Kennel Club, must get across. It is simply not acceptable for animals to be knowingly bred in this way.
Further recent progress on domestic animal welfare arising from the compulsory microchipping of dogs has led to a significant decrease in the number of stray dogs—this is a really strong point. A number of your Lordships mentioned e-collars, including my noble friends Lord De Mauley and Lord Astor. The consultation has just closed. I have had a very large number of representations on a range of issues arising from it. Of course, we must consider the way forward extremely carefully and I am mindful of all the points that have been made by your Lordships and others on this matter. I would also like to recognise all the work that Defra officials do, some of whom are sitting behind me. They have worked tirelessly on these matters.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury mentioned pet theft. I know of a number of friends and relations who have suffered this over the years. It is a traumatic event and very often one never really gets over it. There are strict laws in place; in fact, someone can be in prison for up to seven years. The Sentencing Council has issued guidance to the courts underlining the significance of the theft of a pet or, as my noble friend said, a working dog, and the emotional distress that it can cause.
My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and others are absolutely right to talk of puppy farming. It is at the root of what we need to do to ensure that that illegal trade is stamped out.
My noble friend Lord Black asked about cat microchipping. We definitely agree that microchipping is strongly recommended. However, we do not think at this time that cats present the same potential public nuisance as dogs.
My noble friend Lord Caithness mentioned cats and wildlife. I do not have enough time to go into the intricacies. All I can say at this stage is that we are not convinced that this is a matter for government intervention, but clearly many owners are fitting bells to collars and I encourage that.
My noble friend Lord Black asked about the licensing of air weapons. This is still being analysed and my officials are very strongly in communication with Home Office officials on the matter.
Clearly, we are working on new arrangements. My noble friend Lord Lexden mentioned the Pet Travel Scheme. We need to work on that to heighten biosecurity and to ensure that matters run smoothly.
On the illegal dog trade, the APHA has been working in partnership with the Dogs Trust. I want to record our appreciation of what has been done. It is disrupting the illegal trade in dogs and puppies, and as a result of the partnership more than 700 dogs have been seized and placed into quarantine.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and other noble Lords asked about local authorities’ resources. Our licensing regime is created with full cost recovery, including local authorities’ reasonable enforcement costs. We are also placing emphasis and importance on training, which often means that local authorities are collaborating.
I am about to go over time and am conscious that I have not been able to answer a number of questions. I will write to your Lordships. I express my gratitude to my noble friend for his long-term commitment and for giving me this opportunity to update your Lordships. Good progress has been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is quite right to say that there is more to do. We have a lot more that we want to do and are seeking the legislative time to do it. I look forward to working with your Lordships and with all those at home or abroad who are advancing the cause of animal welfare.
Committee adjourned at 1.54 pm.
Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the outcome of their review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I start by expressing my appreciation for all noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate who will be contributing to this short debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for she was the sponsor of the Private Member’s Bill that became the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013. Almost exactly a year earlier the House was able to accept an amendment that I moved to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that made it illegal for a scrap metal dealer to make payment in cash. That was the first step along this road of solving the problem of metal theft. The cash-free provisions, and a great many others, were incorporated in the 2013 Act.
Noble Lords may recall that at that time there were almost daily reports of lead being stolen from church roofs, metal plaques being stolen from war memorials, manhole covers disappearing, signalling cables being ripped from our railway lines, the theft of which led to trains being delayed for thousands of hours, and in one case in Dulwich, a complete metal sculpture being ripped off its plinth. The number of metal theft offences recorded by the police in England and Wales peaked at just under 63,000 in 2012-13. The Act came into force in October 2013. As well as making it illegal to pay cash for scrap metal, it set out ID check requirements and gave the enforcement authorities, such as the police and the Environment Agency in England and the Natural Resources Body for Wales, powers of inspection and access to premises. A scrap metal dealer was required to hold and display a licence issued by the relevant local authority. The lead for tackling metal theft was taken by the British Transport Police, who built on the success of Operation Tornado. That started as a pilot in January 2012 and required scrap metal dealers to request identification for every cash sale—such sales were, of course, legal until December 2012.
I pay tribute to the BTP for the effectiveness and dedication of its continued work in this field. I make the point in passing that its activities in combating scrap metal theft cover not just England and Wales but Scotland too—another powerful reason for the Edinburgh Government to abandon their attempt to remove the British Transport Police from Scotland. Its efforts were supported in the first year of the Act’s implementation by a dedicated and specially funded metal theft task force and there was a significant fall in the incidence of metal theft. This trend was assisted by a dramatic drop in world scrap metal prices. However, funding for the task force ended in October 2014 and since then there has been no funding for continued enforcement by a dedicated group. Enforcement interventions are now carried out on an ad hoc basis. For example, on 17 November last year I took part in two unannounced visits—I would not wish to use the word “raids”—by West Mercia Police and the Environment Agency to dealers in Malvern, Worcestershire.
A number of preventive measures have also been taken. A cast iron manhole cover in the street close to my home in London has been replaced by one made of plastic which carries the words “Non-metallic—no scrap value”. St Blaise Church in the Oxfordshire village of Milton had the lead on its roof stolen five times and has now replaced it with stainless steel. There are many similar examples.
The House was supposed to be adding a sunset clause to the 2013 Act but your Lordships decided not to pass that amendment to the Bill. A sunset clause was not applied but the Government were obliged, under Section 18 of the Act, to review its effectiveness within five years. At the request of the industry, that review was brought forward and the outcome was published last December. This is the first time, I think, that the review has been debated by your Lordships. The most important conclusion is on page 10:
“The overwhelming view of those who responded was that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act had improved regulation of the scrap metal industry and, by doing so, had helped to achieve reductions in the level of metal theft. The overwhelming view was that the Act should continue in force. The Government agrees with that view”.
I am sure we will have no difficulty in agreeing with that conclusion. However—and this is a significant “however”—I urge the Minister to look behind the headline figures and think seriously about a range of issues which, if they are not addressed, could fatally undermine the effectiveness of the Act in future.
Let us look first at the statistics. The Home Office review states that the number of metal theft offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2017 was 12,970. That is a huge reduction compared to the 62,997 recorded in 2012-13. But the latest report from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, published by the BTP as recently as 2 May, says that there was an 11% increase in 2017-18 and notes a clear correlation between the price of copper and lead in particular and the number of incidents reported. A further indication of the seriousness of the problem is contained in figures obtained from Network Rail under a freedom of information request by the British Metals Recycling Association. These show that 62 cases of railway cable theft were recorded in 2017, which contributed to train delays amounting to 36,286 minutes.
A particular issue is the degree of enforcement. An article in the trade journal Materials Recycling World by Robin Edwards, who was the project leader for Operation Tornado and operational lead for the national metal theft task force, said:
“The future of metal theft sits on a precipice, and the recent increases in commodity prices and the lack of enforcement is all that is required to push it over the edge”.
That view is strongly supported by the British Metals Recycling Association, which represents the ethical and law-abiding part of the industry. The association has told me that for the ban on cash purchases to be effective, it needs to be enforced properly, and it is disappointed that its requests for the Act to be strengthened have so far been ignored by the Home Office. Examples of what it says are needed include the introduction of a new offence of receiving cash for scrap metal, strengthening the requirements to identify the sellers of scrap metal, expanding police enter-and-inspect powers to include stop-and-search provisions for mobile collectors, and the re-establishment of the metal theft task force.
The increase in severity has not been captured by the official figures, as the ONS data simply record the number of metal theft incidents and not their value or impact. The data do not show that the nature of metal theft has changed from predominantly a high number of small, opportunistic thefts to fewer but far larger, often gang-organised, crime-based thefts. The number of churches having lost half of their roof lead in a single night is evidence of this.
In addition, thieves are now targeting new sources of scrap metal, including foundries, with legitimate scrap metal dealers often stealing £30,000 to £40,000-worth of copper-based materials in a single night. I also hear that, while in the past thefts were seemingly opportunistic and involved small quantities, now, 50 cubic metres of lead or two kilometres of cable are being stolen at once. Worryingly, these larger crimes are more likely to be the work of organised crime gangs and may lead to the stolen items being sent overseas in secure containers. I believe that metal theft is again on the increase in part because the criminal element knows that there is no longer a dedicated metal theft task force and that metal theft is often seen as a victimless crime. But the impact of metal theft goes far beyond the cost of replacing the metal. In some cases, the theft of lead from churches is not noticed immediately, leading to far more damage to the church’s fabric.
The perception that there is little danger of detection has another consequence: we are seeing an increasing number of operators choosing openly to break the law and pay cash for scrap metal. Not only does this create an uneven playing field for the legal operators but, assuming that an operator who is willing to act illegally by paying cash is more likely to do so in other ways, it creates an easy means for thieves to dispose of stolen metal.
I conclude by reminding the Minister of the statement on page 5 of the review of the Act. It says:
“The Home Office will give further consideration to the case for strengthening the legislation in the future, in consultation with the industry, the police and interested parties, building on the representations received in response to this review”.
I hope she may be able to give us some encouragement in that respect this afternoon.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for launching this debate and for the expertise he displayed, once again, in doing so. My interest in these matters stems from my involvement with the War Memorials Trust. I was a trustee for 20 years and now I have been moved to be the president. As noble Lords will realise, we are concerned with all kinds of vandalism to war memorials. That certainly includes the theft of plaques and other features made of bronze and other materials. By their nature, war memorials are often in public places and therefore vulnerable in the dark hours of the night.
However, I am delighted to tell your Lordships that there has been a considerable decline in the theft of metal from war memorials in the years since the Scrap Metal Dealers Act and other measures in 2013. There had been a spike in 2011, corresponding to the figures that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, gave us, when 40 such cases of theft from war memorials were known to the War Memorials Trust. In 2010 and 2012, there were 14 and 16 cases respectively. By contrast, in the whole of 2017 only two cases in the UK were known to the War Memorials Trust. In Nottingham last September, lead was stolen from the roof of the Memorial Gardens colonnade, which is the centre of the remembrance celebrations in that city. In the same month, in the village of Bunbury in Cheshire, two bronze plaques on the church gates, listing the names of the fallen of the village, were stolen. Last week, the National Trust reported that the brass plaques listing the local dead had been prised off the war memorial in Clumber Park in Nottinghamshire and stolen.
These are tragic cases. There is something particularly sickening about stealing from war memorials. Of course, it is very distressing for the communities concerned when it happens. However, the fall in the number of cases is obviously welcome and coincides with the coming into force of the Act and the other measures. I believe that is one reason why there have been fewer cases. Another reason, we believe, is the scheme that the War Memorials Trust has had in place in recent years to protect war memorials by painting them with a special chemical known as SmartWater. I recommend it to anyone who has metal at risk of being stolen from church or house roofs, or wherever it may be. If the metal is stolen and later found in someone’s possession, it can be chemically identified and the police can prove—and have proved, in various cases in court—where the metal came from, even if it has been melted down in the meantime. That fact is well known, particularly to organised thieves—the sort of gangs the noble Lord was talking about. They are often deterred by seeing the little SmartWater sign that is put beside metal that is so protected. It also deters scrap metal merchants from accepting metal that might have been stolen, as they do not want to be prosecuted for handling stolen goods that can be traced through this technique. I am delighted to say that the trust has an arrangement with the SmartWater Foundation whereby any war memorial can be protected in this way free of charge—but that applies only to war memorials, of course. With the exceptions I have mentioned, therefore, the news overall is good on this front.
It has not often been my experience in my political life that I can say quite so clearly that the Act is working as intended. However, in this case it is so, and it should certainly be continued and enforced.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Cope, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for the opportunity to say a few words on this matter, and I commend him for the diligence with which he has pursued this matter over some years. I do not want to sound as though I am prejudging the Minister’s response before she has made it, so I will not yet accuse her of any complacency. However, the Government do not take this problem as seriously as they should, and I hope that when she comes to reply, she can ease some of my fears. Given the time constraints, I shall confine my remarks to the impact of metal theft on the railway industry, in which I spent my working life.
Fifty years ago I was a passenger guard, as it was known in those days, at Manchester Victoria. One of my first duties after I took over at that station was to work a train on the old Lancashire and Yorkshire main line from Liverpool Exchange via Wigan to Leeds. On the first day the train was 35 to 45 minutes late, as it was the whole week, due to the theft of signalling cables between Liverpool and Wigan. I tell that story not, I hope, to bore the Committee unduly, but to show that this problem is far from new. Moving to the present day, anyone who watches that excellent Channel 5 programme “Paddington Station 24/7” will know that metal theft, particularly from alongside the railway, still has an enormous impact 50 years on. I watched an episode the other night which detailed the theft of some signalling cabling in the Bristol area, which again caused hundreds of hours to be lost by thousands of passengers. Although there is nothing inherently unsafe so far as the railways are concerned, you have to plan contingency arrangements for when metal thefts take place. Obviously, it means that trains are enormously delayed and passengers massively inconvenienced.
I fear that the Minister will say in her reply that the 2013 Act is working perfectly adequately and there is no particular need to strengthen it. That view is not shared by other people in the industry. The British Metals Recycling Association, to which my noble friend referred in his speech, said in a statement at the end of last year:
“If Government was to reinstate the Metal Theft Taskforce, and use it to tackle cash-paying operators, it would quickly reduce the number of disposal outlets for stolen material”.
I hope the Minister can reflect on that and decide to reinstate that task force, which, in the opinion of many people in the scrap metal industry, was responsible for the dramatic fall in thefts following the passage of the Act in 2013. Of course, some in the industry say that that dramatic fall was caused not only by the activities of that task force but by the fall in commodity prices. As we are seeing commodity prices increase at present, it is conceivable—more than conceivable; it is very likely—that these thefts will rise in future.
It is all very well for Governments or local authorities to say that cash payments for scrap metal have been banned. However, on the fringes of this industry—which extend quite a way—it is possible to receive a cheque for stolen metal in a scrapyard and then be told where to take the cheque to exchange it for cash. Any legislation, as all of us who have served in either House of Parliament know, is only as good as its enforcement. Given local authorities’ lack of resources, I would be interested to know from the Minister just how many inspections have led to prosecutions over the past year or so, and whether instructions can be sent to local authorities to strengthen the operation or implementation of the Act and ensure that, whatever happens in future, there is an improvement in the number of people prosecuted for the sort of behaviour I have just outlined.
It is of course not just the British Metals Recycling Association that has expressed concern. I shall not repeat anything my noble friend has said, but one of the recommendations from the Chartered Institute of Waste Management, to which he did not refer, talks about creating a more rigorous local authority licensing regime to ensure transparency and consistency by harmonising renewals procedure, improving the application process and strengthening the requirements for local authorities to provide data. All these matters would go a long way to tackling this problem; I hope the Minister will take them seriously.
I end on one quote, from someone to whom my noble friend referred—Robin Edwards, the project lead of Operation Tornado, which had such an enormous and beneficial impact on metal thefts. He says:
“There is no silver bullet and without effective licensing, enforcement and greater controls from the owners of metal the problem is only going to go one way”.
I hope the Minister will agree that more needs to be done and that she can offer some hope and consolation that the Government take this problem far more seriously than they appear to have done so far.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for initiating this debate. I agree with everything he has said.
I will concentrate on heritage metal crime. You have only to think objectively for a few seconds and you realise that dealing in scrap metal is an extraordinarily important recycling initiative. It is a green project and therefore an activity that should be held in the highest regard by the public. It is a great shame that the old stereotype still to an extent prevails, although this has been admirably countered by organisations such as the BMRA.
It has to be stressed that we are talking about a small minority of criminals who have a significant effect. It is good that the Government are happy that the 2013 Act remains in place. There are, however, clearly reasons why the Act should be strengthened. If a number of firms are trying to get round the Act and are successfully doing so, for instance by providing cheque-cashing facilities on-site, it is essential that these loopholes be closed, most obviously because it is important that all companies should adhere to the spirit of the law, which is to stop theft. However, every company in this industry also has a responsibility to promote trust, whether or not it is breaking the law. This is not just in the country’s interests, but in the interests of the industry that there should be a better perception of it, not least because it will affect its own business. Another thing that can be done, and which the BMRA is in favour of, is a national licensing scheme, which could be administered by the Environment Agency rather than by local authorities.
I notice that the review lists the number of offences for particular years, but we do not get a detailed sense of the nature of the crimes committed, although there is a general sense that offences are individually of greater value than they used to be, with, for example, whole roofs of churches being taken, and even drones being used to locate them. There are a number of issues around this. Historic England is very keen that heritage crime is perceived as such. I understand that sentencing can now include a heritage element, which can increase the severity of the sentence—but there is not the accompanying consistent input through the system to that point, either in the charge made, or, going further back, in the way that crimes are currently recorded by the police, which does not specify heritage metal crime. Is this something the Minister could look at?
There needs to be a proper differentiation between heritage and infrastructure crime, such as the theft of railway copper cables. We need a better understanding of the kind of crime, its location and its prevalence to build up a more precise picture of what is going on, both geographically and historically. Scrap metal, of course, by definition a metal that can be further worked, is not a heritage asset—which scrap metal dealers should then not normally be in contact with.
This brings me to my second point, which is the need to involve dealers and work more closely with them. Again, Historic England’s team, led by Mark Harrison, head of heritage crime and policing advice, alongside others, very much favours this, as do the dealers themselves. Such an initiative involves dealers becoming heritage “watch yards” and becoming actively participatory, as we should all be in the protection of our shared cultural heritage. While good work is being done and progress is being made with these new initiatives around intelligence and awareness, better police resources would be extremely welcome. It is important that heritage crime is seen as just that. Thieves need to be made more aware that the crime they are committing is not just the stealing of an object, but has much greater ramifications in terms of cultural damage and destruction. Sometimes it is not only the theft of a church’s roof tiles, but the further damage that may be done inside the church, through exposure to the elements, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, pointed out.
Taking a longer-term view, one reason why this is a modern crime is that our society has lost respect for establishment and authority. That contract has been broken. This has had some good effects on our society in that we are more questioning, but also bad ones, as shown by the concerns raised in this debate. What needs to replace that contract in part is one where respect is held throughout society for our shared culture and heritage, which means better education about our cultural environment in schools and improving maintenance of our shared public spaces—both things that, I am afraid to say, are going in the opposite direction to how they should. The recognition of heritage crime as a specific crime of which we are all victims, including heritage itself, would be a step in the right direction.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, I echo the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for initiating the debate, and to the whole process that led to the Act being enacted, which is a good example of legislation that makes a difference. I suspect that we will all be singing from the same song sheet this afternoon to some degree. Orchestras can, of course, have two people playing the same instrument, so I shall be second fiddle in my own heart to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, who had a big involvement in this when he was Bishop of London.
This is good legislation. It provided for a review within five years, but the review started rather earlier, after about three years. I question whether that was entirely wise. In some senses, the Act arrived at the right time. Metal prices were falling, but I am told that they are now 65% above their low point, so obviously the crime has become more attractive. Also, the Act had an initial impact on the police and local authorities, who know that they will have to do something about it because it has just happened. One of the key things is keeping up the sense of momentum and pressure.
Of course, crime and criminals mutate and evolve. We have heard a little about how there might be fewer offences, but it would be good to have some facts on the size of the crime. Indeed, things seem to be moving around the country. The Cathedral and Church Buildings Division tells me that there is more of an organised character to it, particularly in the south-east, and in Leicestershire and Northamptonshire. There is a bit less in my part of the world, although I share with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, the view that what happened in Bunbury was dreadful. It was not just a plaque that went. It was probably put there when there was a service of dedication. That bit of metal has a meaning. It is almost irreplaceable, even if you get a physical replacement.
One of the things we need more information on is what happens to the lead that is stolen. How is it getting to wherever it goes to? There is very little in the review about that. Is it going abroad? Is there some way around the SmartWater technique? It would be good to have more information on that in particular. We also need to recognise that police resources are under ever greater pressure. Particularly with the fall in the number of recorded crimes, this crime could easily slip down the order of priority for police forces. Renewed attention is needed to the whole process of enforcement and a further review at some point. To think that we have now reviewed and that is it would surely be wrong. There must be some ongoing process of review because, as I said, the underlying crime will mutate and evolve.
This crime is deeply anti-social. While I can speak especially from the point of view of lead from church roofs, there is also the impact on rail. I have come across this in the north-west, where I live. If it happens outside one of the main London stations it causes absolute havoc. One wonders what the cost of making good is in relation to the value of what is stolen. It makes the whole crime even more senseless.
Our churches are typically maintained by a small band of very dedicated volunteers. On Sunday, I celebrated the 50th anniversary—he was eventually retiring—of a churchwarden. He had worked as a churchwarden for 50 years, since I was still at school, which is the longest I have known. His wife said that whenever someone phoned the house she would always say, “He’s down at the church”. The churches are maintained by volunteers like him, and to find water coming through the roof because somebody has pinched relatively small amounts of lead flashing or whatever is utterly dispiriting. So not only is there a monetary cost, there is a social and personal cost that goes with everything. When the Minister replies, will she say whether sentencing takes into account some assessment of the aggravation in relation to heritage assets, or whatever? Half our listed buildings are churches, so it has a disproportionate impact. I do not want to make special pleading for the Church in this regard, but something about the impact of this particular type of theft should be taken into account in the judicial process.
At the same time, the efficient recycling of scrap metal is a very important part of our national life, and we should acknowledge that. I have recently built a house for retirement, and twice I went to the scrap merchant with bits of scrap lead that I had carefully assembled—and, indeed, disposed of other things. Let us acknowledge that there is an important process of recycling scrap metal, but we must not be at all complacent because there is more to do in enforcement. I hope very much that the Government recognise, too, that this review should not be the first and last but the first of a series.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on bringing this debate to the House today and on the vital role he played in bringing this Act on to the statute book. I remember it very well, and I was very grateful for his support and all the work he did towards it.
I spent a very short time, unfortunately, as a Home Office Minister, but in the list of my personal responsibilities in the department was “scrap metal theft”. I did not have a lot of knowledge about it at the time, but I was soon informed by many people of the problem. I was aware of the difficulties with things such as cabling on railway lines, but the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, as Bishop of London, soon came knocking on the door and explained very clearly to me how important it was and how it went across many sectors.
My first question to my noble friend is whether there is still a Minister in the Home Office who has personal responsibility for this. I see from the beaming smile that I am receiving that I am talking to the right person. I am delighted to know that, as there is now an Act on the statute book, the Home Office has not just put it in with all the general stuff, but it is still regarded as important enough for a Minister to take responsibility. Moving on from that, as I think I have now established that we are talking to the right person, I appreciate that operational decisions and day-to-day policing must remain with the police and not with Ministers, but this is an area that needs some leadership to keep the momentum going, with all the things that have come out—not just in today’s debate but in the review and the responses to it.
On the question of lead on church roofs, the Government’s response in the review says:
“While the Government cannot commit to further legislation in this area at the present time, the Home Office is keen to work with those who advocate this, to identify whether there is more to be done within the existing legislation to address some or all of these issues”.
I noticed that one response to the review was about changing the smelting regulations for lead. I am not somebody with any particular technical knowledge on this, but changing regulations is not quite the same as asking the Government to find time for primary legislation. If my noble friend does not have the answer to that today, can she look at why that recommendation was made? It could be something to do with the SmartWater—I do not know—but, clearly, somebody who knows a lot more about the smelting of lead than I do can see that the Act would be enhanced, which would particularly bear down on church roofs and, possibly, on some of the appalling accounts that my noble friend Lord Cope has given us today. I find it quite appalling.
I am fortunate enough to live near a cliff top on the south coast, where very often people pass on having looked at the wonderful view. Their relatives then donate a bench for other people to sit on. I regularly sit on those benches myself as I get older. There is usually a little metal plaque on them that says, “Doris enjoyed this view”—all lovingly put there by relatives. There was a period when I noticed that people had unscrewed those tiny pieces of metal. It seemed so petty and so horrible that someone had gone to the lengths of bringing a screwdriver into the open air just to remove little dedications such as that. All that would possibly have been sold on.
I ask my noble friend to encourage leadership on this within the department. For example, we now have police and crime commissioners—who I hope are fully briefed about the importance of metal theft. The department could ensure that they have knowledge of such issues and understand the wonderful result of this legislation in terms of reduction in crime. I notice that the report said that, at the same time as the figures came forward, the Government were aware that an increase was coming. We are now seeing that increase in metal commodity prices. I hope my noble friend will see this as a time to start the ball rolling again and use her good offices to make sure the momentum is maintained.
Lord Chartres (CB)
My Lords, I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, as I did in a previous incarnation as chairman of the church buildings division, first and foremost to celebrate the passage of an Act which has made a difference—which is hugely encouraging.
I remember during the debates on the Bill lead and metal theft being described as second only to terrorism as a major threat to the infrastructure of the country. So we were very clear about the size and significance of the crime when the Act was passed, and it has been illustrated powerfully, but perhaps a sense of quite how significant and serious it is has abated partly because of the success of the legislation.
We noticed in the church buildings division an initial reduction in the number of the crimes, but, as Robert Fell, the chief executive officer of the organisation, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, has said—this is a telling and simple phrase: “The number of thefts has been reduced, but they have got much bigger”. He has called, as have noble Lords today, for the reinstatement of the metal theft task force. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester has already indicated the need to establish more clearly, which such a task force would be able to do, the disposal routes for various kinds of metal—lead smelting, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, would be part of that—to establish how the routes operate, because there is considerable suspicion up and down the country that victims of this crime find themselves buying back the metal and lead which have been stolen.
Coming at this point in the debate is rather like Ruth attempting to glean after a combine harvester, so I shall not delay noble Lords excessively by recapitulating all the points that we have already heard. But I have been asking around, and St Albans—for example, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire—seems to be one of the worst affected areas. There have already been four major incidents this year. I refer to the experience of the parish of Eyeworth, a small parish that was kept going, as the noble and right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester says, by a handful of dedicated volunteers who were trying to maintain the community’s inheritance in terms of their parish church. The lead roof was entirely stripped 18 months ago and they decided to replace it with zinc. However, the little lead that remained was very recently stripped off and, as we have already heard, the damage done in removing it was such that the organ was damaged. There was a great deal of additional deterioration of the building and the costs for a very small parish look as if they are going to be considerable.
I modestly add my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and other noble Lords. We need to underline the need to enforce this excellent Act, to reinstate the metal theft task force and particularly to investigate and identify rather more clearly the disposal routes for the lead and metal that has been stolen.
I notice that we are also suffering from stone theft in the church. A lot of stone is being taken off—and perhaps this is an appropriate Room in which to meet to consider these matters.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester on securing this debate on the review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act. As noble Lords have said, it is a very good piece of legislation and we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for getting it through Parliament.
The Act has made a significant difference and dramatically reduced the number of thefts of lead from roofs, as we have heard, as well as war memorials, manhole and drain covers, and other items from the public realm. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester said, public art is also at risk. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, spoke about heritage metal crime. I agree with his comments—this cultural crime is much more than the theft of the metal.
In November 2011, the statue of a local GP, Dr Alfred Salter, was stolen in Bermondsey. He was a social reformer, a mayor of the borough, and elected the MP in 1922. The statue was stolen from Cherry Gardens in Bermondsey and replaced only in 2014, when local people raised £60,000 to replace it and the borough council matched the sum. It was a terrible thing to happen. I grew up in Walworth in the London Borough of Southwark. On the Brandon Estate, the old London County Council bought a Henry Moore for £8,000 in November 1962, the month and year that I was born. It is called, “Two Piece Reclining Figure No. 3”. There were several attempts to steal it in recent years before the Act came into force. Even today, the sculpture is only there because it is protected by the enormous bushes and cameras that the council has placed around it. When I was a child I used to sit on it and eat ice-cream and play there. No more—no kids can go anywhere near it today. Of course, Henry Moore would have been very happy for children to play on the statue without causing a loss to people.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, reminded us of the threat to our war memorials. I know the memorials in Clumber Park and Nottingham to which he referred. I lived and worked in Nottinghamshire for many years. I pay tribute to noble Lord’s work for the War Memorials Trust, a fantastic organisation that does great work preserving and protecting our memorials. I often read its magazine, which is really worth reading, and I thank the noble Lord for the trust’s very worthwhile work.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester raised the important issue of the effect of the Act in future. He made the important point about cable theft on our railways costing the industry vast sums of money, producing delays and adding to the misery of the travelling public. I use the railways, and it can be a struggle on some days. There were 62 cases of cable theft on the railways, as my noble friend said. There has been an 11% increase in metal theft in the last year, which has been brought about by a number of factors, including the rise in price of copper, lead and other commodities, but also by a lack of enforcement. It is important that we deal with that, too. My noble friend Lord Snape spoke about his experience with the railway industry and the problems with that lack of enforcement. People who are prepared to break the law, cut corners and pay cash for scrap metal will be encouraged to do so if they realise that the law is there but there is no effective enforcement. That is a very important point for us all to look at carefully.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, that it is important that the Home Office is clear that this is a priority for action. The role of PCCs is important, too, which they understand. Perhaps the Minister can speak about that and also about my point on regulations on smelting lead. Can the noble Baroness tell the Grand Committee why there is a reluctance in the Home Office to support calls to strengthen the Act? Perhaps I am wrong about that, but if it is the case she should let us know. This is something that the law-abiding, overwhelming majority of the industry want to happen. When the Government do not support these calls, in effect they make it more difficult for legal operators to operate fairly.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, made reference to the number of thefts being smaller but the thefts being bigger, because the law-abiding scrap metal dealers are being targeted themselves for theft by organised gangs. That is a new offence and, again, the Government need to respond to it.
We have heard about lots of issues here today. This is a despicable crime. Although the Act has achieved many good things, more needs to be done. I hope that we can get a positive response from the Minister today. In conclusion, I thank my noble friend, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for asking this important Question today.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for securing this debate. We have had a few debates on this matter over the last couple of years. The reason that I was smiling at my noble friend Lady Browning, when she mentioned a Minister responsible for scrap metal, is that in your Lordships’ House I am responsible for everything to do with the Home Office—hence, I have particular responsibility for scrap metal, among other things. I thank noble Lords for all the contributions they have made.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Snape, we do take metal theft seriously. That is why we have retained the Act and continue to work with police and industry through the metal theft working group.
The Question concerns the outcome of the Government’s review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Browning for securing that Act through your Lordships’ House. The review was conducted during 2017 and the Government’s report on it was published on 11 December last year. I will speak to the conclusions that we reached following the review in a few moments. First, though, it might be helpful to set out a little of the background to this important legislation, and why we looked at it in some detail last year.
The Scrap Metal Dealers Act was introduced to help to tackle rising levels of metal theft, as noble Lords have pointed out. These are the thefts of items for the value of their constituent metals, rather than necessarily the item itself. The thefts affect tele- communications, transport services and power supplies, as well as cultural and heritage assets, as the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, pointed out—and as my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley mentioned, in talking about war memorials. I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in paying tribute to all the work that my noble friend does as part of the War Memorials Trust. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked about our doing more to protect the country’s heritage assets—for example, the lead on church roofs. We recognise the impact that these crimes can have on our communities and heritage. In terms of sentencing, which one noble Lord asked about—I am desperately trying to find out which one, and will do so in a moment—the Sentencing Council has published guidelines relating to theft offences which specifically recognise that, when an offence involves the theft of historic objects or the loss of the nation’s heritage, that should be considered an aggravating factor when considering the sentence. That can include damage to heritage sites or thefts from the exterior or interior of listed churches.
The Act focused on tackling the trade in stolen metal. At the time, global metal prices were high, as noble Lords have pointed out, making metal an attractive commodity to thieves. The Act sought to change this, in particular by making it more difficult for thieves to dispose of stolen metal. It did so by strengthening the regulation of the metal recycling sector through the licensing of scrap metal dealers. It prohibited cash payments for scrap metal and introduced requirements relating to record keeping and the verification of the identity of those selling scrap metal to dealers. Alongside the improved regulation of the metal recycling sector, the Act included a specific requirement to review the legislation within five years, which is why we are discussing it today. This was to enable the Government to take a view on whether the Act had met its objectives and whether it should be retained or repealed, whether in full or in part.
The statistics on metal theft paint a compelling picture. The most recent statistics were published by the ONS last December and show that there were just under 13,000 metal theft offences recorded by police forces in England and Wales in the year ending March 2017, to answer in part the question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester. That was a reduction of 22% compared with the previous year and a staggering fall of 79% since 2012-13, as my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley pointed out. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Snape, the Government do not collect data on numbers of inspections or prosecutions, but I shall ask the MoJ if it has any figures on prosecutions that might throw further light on this. There will be a number of factors that contributed to this fall, including falling global prices which will have reduced the attractiveness of metal to thieves. However, the Government are clear that the legislation made a contribution and that it provides a solid foundation for continuing action to tackle this form of criminality.
This is the context in which the review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act took place. The review commenced in December 2016 and the Home Office wrote to interested parties and relevant representative bodies to seek their views on the Act. More than 50 individuals and organisations wrote to the Home Office with their views, and these informed the report that was published last December. The overwhelming majority said that the Act should be retained. Some wanted the legislation to be extended further—including some of your Lordships—which was beyond the remit of this review, while others made the point that neither the Act nor the effect of falling metal prices had eradicated metal theft altogether. We were told that crimes such as the theft of lead from church roofs suggested that there was a shift from opportunistic crimes to more serious and organised criminality where entire roofs were being stolen: fewer crimes but more serious criminality. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, mentioned this.
Against the background of significant reductions in numbers of metal thefts, and a strong body of support for the legislation, the Government took the decision that the Act was effective and should not be repealed. Since conducting the review, we have heard our partners’ concerns that rising global metal prices, as the noble Lord, Lord Snape mentioned, are now beginning to put upward pressure on metal thefts. We do, of course, take these warnings seriously.
So, where are we now? First, we recognise that having this important legislation in place is only half the story. The other part of the equation is effective enforcement, as the noble Lords, Lord Snape and Lord Faulkner, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, mentioned, to keep up the pressure on those who would readily flout the law as metal prices make the theft of metal more attractive to criminals. Enforcement is, of course, a matter for individual police forces and police and crime commissioners, as my noble friend Lady Browning and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out, and it is the role of local authorities to issue or to revoke the licences that all scrap metal dealers need in order to conduct their business. We do, however, have to recognise that enforcement of this legislation is one of a number of pressures and priorities that the police and local authorities face, and they will prioritise according to need. That is not an apology for patchy or inconsistent enforcement; it is a recognition of the realities of the situation.
I mentioned earlier the concerns that were expressed to us about the potential shift to more serious and organised criminality that manifests itself in crimes such as the theft of church roofs, which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned. A number of recommendations were made to us about what more might be done to prevent these crimes happening, such as the use of permanent chemical markers, which make the stolen metal more identifiable, as my noble friend Lord Cope pointed out. We recognise the value of such markers, but there may be a question about how resilient they are—for example, when metal is melted down. Nevertheless, it is of course a good idea for dealers to check for them when they receive scrap metal, to ensure that they are not inadvertently handling stolen goods.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester talked about sentencing, which I have already dealt with in my remarks. However, he asked also about a further review of the process. We will continue to measure the impact on metal theft, using the national statistics. That is why the national metal theft working group is so important.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lady Browning talked about extending the legislation and, in particular, smelting regulations. It was not covered by the legislation, but we can discuss it with the industry through the national metal theft working group.
My time is about to run out, but my final point is on the reinstatement of the metal theft task force, as was mentioned by a number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Snape, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres. It is important to note that the task force was set up when the number of metal thefts was rising; it was funded by the Government to allow sufficient time for the reform provided through the Scrap Metal Dealers Act to become well established and embedded within the normal business of police forces and local authorities, and it was never intended to be a long-term arrangement. However, as I hope I have explained to noble Lords this afternoon, the police-led national metal theft working group now brings together the police, government, industry, local authorities and others to ensure that collaborative working across these sectors continues. We do not have any plans to re-establish the task force at this time.
The final question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, was on the lack of enforcement of the Act, and enforcement has been mentioned several times. I reiterate that it is important that the police continue to support the Act, but, as I mentioned earlier, it is important that police chiefs and police and crime commissioners decide how best to deploy their resources to manage and respond to crime in their areas and what their local priorities are.
I conclude by thanking all noble Lords for their part in the debate.
Myanmar
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of recent developments in Myanmar.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, 30 March 2016 ushered in a new era for Myanmar. The first elected civilian president in more than half a century took office. Aung San Suu Kyi assumed the key role in the new Administration as State Counsellor. Although barred from the presidency, she said she would rule by proxy. The handover completed the transition that began after the NLD won a landslide victory in the November 2015 elections. Today we have the opportunity to consider what the reality of that new era has been so far and what the future may now hold.
UK parliamentarians of all parties and none have demonstrated a strong commitment to Burma’s successful transition from the military domination it suffered before to democracy, which should bring peace, human rights and economic progress to all the peoples in Myanmar and resolve the devastating crisis in Rakhine. The large number of Peers participating in our short debate today is proof of that parliamentary commitment, and I very much look forward to their contributions.
The key test of any democracy is how it treats its most vulnerable and marginalised populations, such as the ethnic Rohingya and other minority populations. Burma’s Government and security forces should respect the human rights of all persons within its borders, and hold accountable those who fail to do so.
I visited Myanmar back in November 2016 in my capacity then as a Foreign Office Minister and the Prime Minister’s special representative on the Preventing Sexual Violence Initiative—roles now carried out so ably by the Minister. I felt a cautious optimism. I was impressed by the dignity of the peoples who had survived so long in such difficult conditions and by their willingness to give the Government time to put things right. The Government had been in office for only seven months at that stage and had made some progress, including signing the national ceasefire agreement, which was vital for areas outside Rakhine.
But was my optimism misplaced? I shall focus today on the crisis for the Rohingya, but we should also note—I know we will hear about it today—the long-standing conflict between the Kachin Independence Organisation and government troops which escalated severely last month, despite the existence of the ceasefire agreement. Thousands have been displaced in Kachin and Karen states, and there are fears that many women, children and elderly people are trapped near the border with China. Can the Minister update the Committee on this crisis and say whether humanitarian aid organisations have now been allowed by the Government to gain access?
I turn to the crisis facing the Rohingya community. They have suffered decades of persecution, have been denied citizenship and been marginalised. They have been described by the United Nations as one of the most persecuted minorities in the world. The Myanmar Government continue to implement laws and policies that discriminate against the Rohingya and are designed to drive them out of the country, including by using starvation, harassment and intimidation.
In the summer of 2016 there was an outbreak of violence in Rakhine. Border police were attacked. The response by the military was swift and brutal. In November that same year, I met the Defence Minister in Naypyidaw, the seat of government. I was told that the military did not consider that the Tatmadaw had committed any offences, and that if evidence were produced that offences had taken place, action would be taken by the Burmese Government. I was not convinced then, and I am not convinced now. In August 2017, the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army carried out attacks which we rightly condemned. Twelve soldiers were killed. Far from exercising courageous restraint, the military’s reprisals were swift and even more brutal than ever. Thousands were killed. Approximately 1 million Rohingya fled to Bangladesh to escape the systematic rape, gang rape, torture and murder of men, women and children carried out by the military. The Burmese army appeared to be trying to destroy an ethnicity, not end an insurgency.
The Rakhine advisory commission reported last autumn. It was established by Daw Suu and chaired by Kofi Annan, the former UN Secretary-General. The report analyses the underlying issues such as the entrenched poverty of all those in Rakhine. What has the UK done to press for implementation of its recommendations? What is the Government’s assessment of the current situation in Rakhine? What steps can and should be taken to hold the military to account?
This year, the UN Secretary-General has for the first time included Burma’s military, the Tatmadaw, in his annual list of parties that have committed sexual violence in conflict. A report presented to the UN Security Council finds:
“The widespread threat and use of sexual violence was integral to their strategy, humiliating, terrorizing and collectively punishing the Rohingya community”.
Will the Minister update the Committee on the work being funded or carried out by the UK to tackle sexual violence, improve human rights, and hold the perpetrators to account?
The Government of Bangladesh have sheltered up to 1 million refugees and should be thanked for that. Recently, they signed a memorandum of understanding with Myanmar about the return of the Rohingya. What are we doing to promote the citizenship rights of the Rohingya and facilitate their safe, voluntary and dignified return to their villages to rebuild their homes and livelihoods?
The UN reported just two days ago that 93 refugees who have been in Thailand for decades have now been returned to their place of origin in south-east Myanmar with the support of the UNHCR and its partners. But what about the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh? Is there any progress on their safe return to Rakhine?
Last month, there were three potentially significant developments. The UK co-led a visit of the United Nations Security Council to Burma and Bangladesh and issued a brief statement yesterday. The principle of the statement is clear, but it is how that principle should be put into practice that I wonder about. What steps does the UK now expect to be taken by the Security Council as a consequence of that visit? As one of the P5, we continue to play an important part. Also last month, the Foreign Secretary co-chaired in London a meeting on the Rohingya crisis with fellow Commonwealth Ministers, a welcome development. What conclusions were reached at that meeting? Thirdly, the EU imposed further restrictive measures on Burma, strengthening the EU’s arms embargo and targeting the Burmese army and border guard officials. How confident is the Minister—who is also the Sanctions Minister—that these will have the right effect?
Over many years, even before I came here, I watched the way in which Parliament and the UK generally saluted the work of Aung San Suu Kyi, before and when she took office. Her championship of human rights was exemplary, but I now feel somewhat confused, to put it mildly, by her apparent inaction in this crisis. I appreciate the challenge of walking the tightrope between international condemnation and Burmese public opinion in her attempts to bring an end to the generals’ power and bring democracy to Myanmar. But we now see the worst kind of abuse of human rights under her custodianship. As my noble friend the Minister said in this House six months ago, it is time,
“for Aung San Suu Kyi to use her moral authority to challenge directly herself the military ruthlessness and ethnic prejudice that lies behind the suffering”.—[Official Report, 11/10/17; col. 223.]
It is also time for the UK and the international community to do so much more to hold her to her words.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for securing this debate and giving us such wonderful evidence of what she understands to be the case. The United Nations and respected organisations such as Human Rights Watch have, as we know, described the actions of the Burmese army against the Rohingya people of Burma as nothing more than ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and have said that acts of genocide have taken place. Since last August, the military has devastated Rohingya communities with murder, rape and burning, driving 700,000 people out of Burma, and those atrocities continue. As assistant Secretary-General Gilmour recently reported, there has been,
“terror and forced starvation … to drive the remaining Rohingya from their homes and into Bangladesh”.
Clearly, the Government of Bangladesh are to be commended for their response to the mass inflow of Rohingya refugees. They endure terrible conditions, currently worsened by the flooding and landslides of the monsoon, and have no means of mitigating the danger and agony. Naturally, I welcome the resources committed by the British Government, and urge that they be increased.
Meanwhile, the visit to Burma by UN Security Council envoys has been useless. It is clear that repatriation could be justified only if there was rapid, transformative change in the policy, practice and citizenship law of Burma. For the Rohingya, anything else would mean a return to hell. The testimonies of countless survivors and satellite images give appallingly conclusive evidence of the guilt of the Burmese military, but only international action will make it accountable. That must mean referral of Burma to the International Criminal Court, and I urge our Government to seek such action through the United Nations. The crimes against humanity of the Burmese military will continue as long as its arrogant sense of impunity is unchallenged, which is why it is vital to subject it to international law.
The UN has long described the Rohingya as the world’s most persecuted ethnic minority. They have been subject to unimaginable horrors; they are stateless, utterly powerless and almost voiceless. We who have voices must provide mercy, security and some hope of justice for these wretched people. Prosecuting their oppressors would be a start.
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I too warmly thank the noble Baroness for promoting this important debate. I share the deep concerns over the suffering of the Rohingya people, but I shall focus on northern Shan and Kachin states as these have received less media coverage and desperately needed humanitarian aid. Renewed offensives by the Burmese military are causing mass displacement of civilians throughout north-east Burma. There has been sporadic fighting over several years, but recently this has intensified with daily attacks, displacing thousands and killing hundreds in the past few weeks. On 1 May, the UN expressed grave concerns over increased fighting in Kachin state. Many civilians are trapped in conflict zones, without access to humanitarian aid. UN Special Rapporteur Yanghee Lee has made repeated calls for the safety of civilians and provision of aid, but the Burmese Government have blocked access to all humanitarian aid international organisations and the UN in ways similar to their treatment of the Rohingya.
The latest wave of displacement adds to the over 100,000 already displaced from Kachin and Shan states. Many remain trapped by the military in conflict areas, forced to seek shelter in nearby forests, without access to food, water or medical supplies. More than 3,000 are confined in dangerous conflict areas in Kachin state.
The suffering inflicted by military offensives is exacerbated by frequent violations of human rights and crimes against humanity, with reports of extrajudicial killings, sexual violence and torture. Interviews with internally displaced peoples, or IDPs, in Shan camps tell of horrific stories of civilians beaten and used as forced labour by the military, farms taken from villagers and children recruited by the military. The Shan Human Rights Foundation reports arbitrary arrests and Amnesty International found treatment of ethnic minorities in Shan and Kachin states similar to that of the Rohingya. There are also reports of extortion, of villages being levelled to make space for hydro projects along the rivers, and land-grabbing for the expansion of mining and hydro projects.
The numbers of IDPs has grown alarmingly. On 14 March, over 800 people were displaced in three towns in northern Shan state; on 17 March, 200 civilians were displaced from the Namtu township in Shan state; on 28 April, following a month of intensified military attacks, 4,000 more were displaced from Kachin state; on 6 May, another 500 civilians were displaced from Shan state, seeking refuge in monasteries and churches; on 8 May, the figure increased to over 6,000 civilians displaced from Kachin state and a further 600 were displaced from the Namtu township. Around 2,800 villagers in Kachin state are seeking refuge in churches in the capital or nearby villages. Displacement continues and the chance of return, as is recommended by current policy, is prevented by continuing offensives, destroyed homes and landmines restricting access to villages. There is also restriction of access for essential aid supplies and the blocking of escape routes for civilians by the destruction of bridges and road closures.
The Rohingya crisis has shifted the provision of aid from the eastern border to Rakhine state, where it is much needed, but this has caused severe malnutrition for many living in camps on the eastern border. Humanitarian and local agencies have been refused access to townships in Kachin state. For example, on 23 April, a Red Cross food convoy was reportedly blocked from entering Man Wai village, where over 100 civilians are trapped.
My small NGO, HART, with which I work and with which I have visited these people, works in partnership with the Shan Women’s Action Network, or SWAN, which provides healthcare and education in camps in Burma and for Shan civilians forced to live in Thailand. In 2017, it lost its DfID funding. Could the Minister tell me what the UK position was regarding the policy change which led to the cessation of funding for local aid organisations along the eastern border in favour of working with government-approved organisations? Will a reversal of that policy be considered to allow direct funding to NGOs such as SWAN, which carry out vital work for local people? Finally, what representations have the UK Government made to the Government of Burma to cease military offensives in Shan and Kachin states, to ensure the protection of civilians and to allow for urgent humanitarian assistance?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for her championing of this issue and for the way she has kept it in front of us. Her Majesty’s Government are to be applauded for their leadership on many aspects of this issue and in particular for their commitment to supporting refugees in Bangladesh as monsoon season approaches. However, as has already been pointed out, the scope of the crisis is enormous. The International Organization for Migration estimates that around 688,000 refugees have fled to Bangladesh since August last year. Cox’s Bazar is now, in effect, the world’s largest refugee camp. The implications of this for the host community and for refugees, in the light of the forthcoming monsoon season, are huge, even before one considers the root causes behind why these refugees have had to flee and the appalling treatment that many have suffered.
The statistics are so enormous that it is easy to forget that, behind each one, is the individual story of a person. One such person is Rajuma, a young mother who was beaten by a group of soldiers with their rifles, her baby snatched from her and thrown into a fire in front of her, before she was gang-raped. As well as losing her baby son, she has also lost her mother, her two sisters and her younger brother. There is no easy way to respond to that sort of suffering. She is going to need long-term, practical help but also support and counselling to rebuild her life.
As the Government support vital, urgent work to improve conditions for Rajuma and many other people with similar, equally appalling stories, I hope that more work will also be done to move towards long-term plans to secure the rights of all in Burma, particularly these minority groups. There have been reports, as we have heard, of continuing and escalating armed conflicts in Kachin, Shan and Kayin states. A ceasefire and access for humanitarian aid are urgently needed in these states, as well as in the west in Rakhine. Can Her Majesty’s Government assure us that they will make representations about the treatment of these minorities and other internally displaced people in these other states as well? Will they work with partners, through the United Nations, to ensure that the rights of these minorities are upheld and protected? What is being done to get the appropriate levels of aid and medical relief into the more remote parts of the country, where people are in a desperate state?
In the long run, peaceful political solutions to these conflicts must be found. It is critical that the international community unites to engage with the Myanmar Government, to encourage, cajole and help this political compromise and discussion—to find a solution that can help, rather than have simply more armed conflict. I hope that as well as formulating long-term plans for this tragic situation Her Majesty’s Government will also consider how reconciliation work, particularly with young people, can be put in place to help foster a mutual commitment to peace and the cessation of violence.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on this debate and I am reminded of many other occasions when she spoke with feeling and authority at the Dispatch Box. I have not visited Burma since it became Myanmar but I have strong memories of the resilience of the Burmese people, whether soldiers or civilians. My host was a Karen war hero in charge of a church programme and a very precarious old Toyota jeep. That visit as Christian Aid’s representative taught me how the Burmese, having endured so much hardship, can combine physical strength with great sensitivity.
Refugees in the Middle East have taken almost all of our attention. Until recently I was ignorant of the details of the Rohingya crisis, though it is one of the worst and most complex the world has known. Close to a million have fled to Bangladesh, most escaping the violence in northern Rakhine state on 25 August only last year. An attack on the border guard police on 9 October 2016 had led to military operations involving serious human rights violations. Among many tragic scenes, the most depressing and distressing have been those affecting young children. Children arriving in camps have described the killing and maiming of other children, their parents and other adults, and attacks on their homes, schools and hospitals. Because of rising numbers, conditions in some camps are now appalling.
A critical question for us and for our Government is ethnicity and the extent to which the Rohingya will be accepted as citizens of Myanmar. They have no status either as refugees or as citizens; they are displaced in a foreign state. They have a “right to return”, but that phrase has a hollow ring this week when we remember what has not happened for 70 years in Palestine. I am among those who still believe in Aung San Suu Kyi’s good faith, in spite of the obvious political deadlock she is in. We must welcome her commitment to implement the recommendations of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, namely to ensure basic rights for all that state’s communities. Army training and discipline, proper investigation of human rights and the co-operation of Bangladesh through a joint commission seem to be crucial, but inevitably none of this works unless there is a genuine will on all sides to implement those recommendations.
Can the Minister say how close aid donors have come to the UN’s target of $434 million for Myanmar? I know that UK aid has been essential, but can we afford more, knowing that the world has to cope with the needs of some 60 million other refugees and internally displaced people? Many MPs and human rights agencies have spoken out about the barbarity of gender-based violence and rape by the army. Our Parliament and media should be congratulated on making us aware of these atrocities. It was a disgrace that the IDC was unable to visit, but does the Minister think it right to reduce our embassy staff at this time?
I understand that access to northern Rakhine is strictly prohibited, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, for non-governmental organisations. It seems that even our DfID has been unable to make an impact. Could the Minister confirm this and explain why our Government are apparently unable to work even with British NGOs in an area of such acute need?
There has also been intense fighting in Kachin for several months between the Tatmadaw and the Kachin Independence Army. Civilians have been victims of airstrikes and many more are trapped in conflict in situations reminiscent of Syria and Sudan. An appeal was sent out last week by humanitarian agencies calling for immediate cessation of hostilities there and in northern Shan. This is another desperate situation. Does the Minister hold out hope for both a ceasefire and greater access to those in need?
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for securing this timely debate and for her continuing commitment. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Burma Campaign UK. As has been so graphically described in the speeches before mine, and as I am sure will follow in the speeches to come, the Burmese military is ethnically cleansing the Rohingya from Burma with impunity. It is the fastest refugee displacement since Rwanda.
Because the military has paid no price for its actions against the Rohingya, it is now turning its attention to military action against the ethnic Kachin. It has broken the ceasefire in Kayin state, while continuing its policies of starvation, harassment and intimidation to drive the remaining Rohingya from Burma. The extra aid DfID is providing to the displaced Rohingya is to be welcomed, as is the generosity of the British public and the role of the Bangladesh Government in providing shelter to the refugees.
What is happening in Bangladesh would be a strain on any country, let alone an emerging economy with some of the highest poverty levels in the world, but I hope the Minister will take this opportunity to say what representations he has made to the Bangladesh Government about the proposed relocation of the Rohingya refugees to the island of Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal. Along with colleagues from all sides of the House, we have written to the Foreign Secretary and the Bangladesh high commissioner, expressing concern that this planned settlement is more like an exceptionally unsafe and inaccessible prison camp.
While concern is being expressed for the refugees who have fled to Bangladesh, we must not forget the ethnic groups in IDP camps in Burma, where access by humanitarian groups is very limited and the media spotlight cannot reach, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. The treatment of the ethnic groups who remain in Burma is not conducive to the,
“voluntary, safe, dignified and sustainable return of refugees”,
according to the UN high commissioner, but I agree with the other calls that have been made for more action on an international stage to stop the Burmese army continuing on its path of ethnic cleansing. Surely that must be a referral to the International Criminal Court by the UN Security Council. A Minister speaking in a Westminster Hall debate this week said that,
“calling on the Security Council to refer Burma to the ICC will remain an option”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/18; col. 260WH.]
I therefore ask the Minister if he will explain to the Grand Committee what is needed to get the Government to move from referral being “an option” to declaring publicly their support for such an action and beginning the process of building the needed consensus. Everyone is aware of the possible veto from Russia and China, but the UK as penholder should take the first step. There is precedent for Ministers supporting other draft Security Council resolutions that had even less chance of success.
We know that the Burmese military responds to pressure and public exposure on the international stage, hence the ban of the proposed visit of the International Development Committee, so why are the UK Government not supporting a UN-mandated global arms embargo? Economic measures have in the past affected the behaviour of the generals, so I hope the Minister will also explain why the Government rejected calls for targeted sanctions preventing British and European companies doing business with military-owned companies.
It is eight months since the latest crisis with the Rohingya began. In a month’s time, thousands of women, young and old, will start to give birth to children conceived from the sexual violence of the Burmese military. They will give birth under the most dreadful circumstances in the most appalling conditions, with the monsoon and cyclone season upon them. We cannot stand by and let Burma’s military and civilian Government go unpunished for the genocide of ethnic groups in Burma, because the consequences have very grave implications for the whole world.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, I will also start by saying how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for giving us an opportunity to say the things which are in our hearts.
I went to Burma some years ago. My visit was arranged by the Burmese ambassador at the time, who had been here for some years. When I arrived in Yangon, I was met by a captain, so I thought, “Ah! I will be put under close scrutiny—that’s why they’ve sent a captain to receive me”. It was very interesting, because when we got to the hotel, he said, “Here is my telephone number and my office number. If you need any help, just call me, but I will only come when you need me”. I thought, “My goodness! This bodes well”. I have to say that I had a wonderful visit. What I want to share with your Lordships is my feeling about Aung San Suu Kyi.
Even at that time, many people in Burma felt that she had polarised opinions against Burma, because everybody adored Aung San Suu Kyi so they hated everyone else. That is not entirely true. However, I know that at that time there was no trade with Burma—it had all stopped—and no airlines were coming in except for Biman from Bangladesh. It was isolated. My view was that if we wanted them to change, we should start making contacts, but nobody wanted to do that because Aung San Suu Kyi was under house arrest and, “Oh, she was the most wonderful person of all”.
Your Lordships may have got the feeling that I am not totally enamoured of Aung San Suu Kyi, nor have I ever been. She thought she was going to do good, and I am sure she intended to, but she has no opportunity. There is no possibility of doing things that the generals do not want, no matter what kind of position they accord you. In 1995, she was offered the prime ministership, but she refused because she said that they would not give her the power. No, they will not give her the power. Why would they ever part with the slightest amount of power? This is what we have to remember. We can say, “Oh, how wonderful—democracy and all that!” but there is no democracy. “How wonderful—human rights!” but there will be no human rights. I am fully convinced that the generals are in power and will stay in power unless something cataclysmic happens, and Aung San Suu Kyi is not a cataclysm.
In addition, all the people who used to support Aung San Suu Kyi in the early days, when she won the first election, have got too old or have died, so there is a new lot of people supporting her. It appeared that there was a chink of light, but I do not think she is up to it, because you have to be very strong to stand up to the sort of pressure she is under. It is not her fault entirely, but she is not a strong person. A lot has been made of the fact that she was not allowed to go and see her dying husband and so on. That may be so, but she lived in great luxury, in a beautiful house, with lots of people looking after her. I met a lot of people there, but one of the boys I met was her houseboy, who said that she took one to two hours to get dressed in the morning before she met the people who had come to see her in her home. I also met Professor Taylor, who said that she applied to do a doctorate at SOAS. He said that he looked at everything she had done and written, and that she was not up to a doctorate. So she is not a brilliant lady with a brilliant past, and possibly she will not have a brilliant future.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I declare a personal interest in Myanmar. I have visited three times over the past three years, once as Chief of the Defence Staff and twice in an advisory capacity, assisting in efforts to bring about a resolution of Myanmar’s multiple internal conflicts through reconciliation.
On my visits, my status has permitted me exceptional access to Aung San Suu Kyi, to wider government, to the leadership of the Tatmadaw and to representatives of several of the armed ethnic opposition groups. My visits have left me with a varied set of impressions about the complexity, scale and diversity of the challenges that Myanmar faces. They have left me, on balance, with as much sympathy for those who face those challenges on the ground as for those who sit in often emotional judgment from afar.
I would never be an apologist for those who perpetrate atrocity, utilise sexual violence as an instrument of policy or proclaim impotence as a defence against inactivity. But nor can I unreservedly join the ranks of those—not today’s speakers—whose condemnations lack informed judgment and whose aspirations for action are simply not anchored in reality.
The place is a dreadful mess. The Government lack professional capacity; they are in power but not in control. The armed forces lack sophistication and enlightened leadership—an understatement. The army is internally fractured between an old guard who retain power and an emerging generation who cannot navigate a path to a desired position of civilian control and societal support. Society is riven with deep ethnic enmity and suspicion, united only by a populist hatred of the Rohingya, whose persecution is the one residual thing that keeps the army remotely popular.
Is the situation hopeless? Yes, if your aspiration is for instant remedy, for a civilian Government in control, for a country unified, for a secular state, for a depoliticised army that enjoys the widespread support of society and for a resettled Rohingya living in peaceful harmony. But the country is not without hope if the international community offers structured, long-term assistance. There are enough enlightened people on whom to build a better future; there is a society that wishes to be led to a better place; and there is an army that wants to rid itself of the burden of politics and unpopularity. I hope that government policy reflects this view. I fear it is not widely shared, but it is one that I hold.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, I rise in the gap and for only a short while, for which I apologise, but there is one aspect of this subject that could usefully be underlined as it has not hitherto been referred to in detail—also particularly remembering my jaunts to Naypyidaw and onwards. Does the Minister agree that the benefits of trade are twofold, and are as applicable to Myanmar as elsewhere, particularly given our past association?
First, trade plays into the objective of a global Britain, with equal emphasis on being a peace broker. Secondly, there is the undeniable benefit that, when all else fails, it often falls to trade to be the catalyst for a better world by keeping channels open and impacting on the process referred to by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, particularly in respect of those who share ideals with the Commonwealth and well-versed red lines.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I add my thanks to those expressed to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for introducing this debate on such an important issue. Four minutes is barely time to do justice to the grave injustices that have been meted out to the Rohingya people. However, it is important that details, gross as they are, are recorded in Hansard, just as they are being meticulously documented by those who will hold to account the perpetrators of these heinous crimes, because held to account they must be.
We must suppose that the premeditated and systematic nature of the horrific abuse was calculated to inspire abject terror, and that must strengthen our resolve comprehensively to censure those who had the power to speak out but did not. Does the Minister agree that not only must the generals and their henchmen face the courts, but the lady with moral authority and a holder of the Nobel Peace Prize must answer questions also? Ignorance is something that Aung San Suu Kyi cannot plead.
One of the most sinister moves by the Myanmar authorities is to pull down the shutters: those who have spoken out, however gently, have been punished by being denied access. Ms Yanghee Lee, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar for the Human Rights Council has reported:
“Despite my efforts to remain impartial, I am now declared unwelcome in Myanmar”.
Members of the House of Commons International Development Committee were denied visas to Myanmar this February. One reason given was that individual members of the committee had signed a letter calling for the senior general of the Myanmar army to be held accountable for military behaviour in Rakhine—good on them.
The repatriation process that has started causes great concern. As I understand it—maybe the Minister could confirm whether this is the case—it is being carried out against a backdrop of secrecy. Independent observers, including UN agencies, are still barred from witnessing the treatment of the returnees. What are they returning to? Satellite evidence shows that whole areas that were Rohingya homes have been razed to the ground and replaced with military bases. Continuing reports of brutal violence against minorities in Kachin, Shan, Kayin and other states show that we are not dealing with forces seeking to appease their detractors. Will the Minister state the Government's position on repatriation?
I shall end with a few words about Cox’s Bazar, where the pre-monsoon rains are already throwing up challenges, some unforeseen, such as the conflict of sharing terrain with elephants, but others that were foreseen. In the debate brought by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, last month on anti-microbial resistance, I voiced concerns conveyed to me by the Malaria Consortium, of which I am a trustee. The monsoon rains, coupled with the combination of poor sanitation and substandard housing, will provide perfect breeding conditions for malaria-transmitting mosquitoes. The native population of Cox’s Bazar is highly vulnerable to malaria because the people have not been exposed to the disease recently. To compound the problem, the refugees from Myanmar are coming from areas where drug-resistant malaria has been detected. I know that the Minister responding is not a DfID Minister but I hope he will take these comments back to the relevant Minister. DfID is well placed to take action as a world leader in the fight against malaria, so can the Minister reassure me that DfID is alert to the dangers, and is working effectively with the Bangladeshi authorities, who must be commended for their response to this most tragic of man-made crises?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for initiating this debate and for her excellent contribution, which reminded us of the optimism and hope that the dawning of democracy brought to Myanmar. We should not lose that sense of optimism, despite the horrific conditions. Today’s debate has focused on the Rohingya people and we must not forget that they have suffered over decades—denied citizenship and marginalised.
As we have heard, many of the women who fled last August were victims of brutal sexual violence used by Burmese soldiers as a weapon of genocide. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, I would like to hear from the Minister about the Government’s action to respond to the specific needs of women as part of their general response, particularly in Myanmar and Bangladesh, including supporting survivors of gender-based violence and protecting women from further attacks and abuse.
As my noble friend Lady Kinnock said in her excellent contribution, the Government of Bangladesh have rightly been praised for their initial response to the refugees, despite its limitations. I therefore welcome the Government’s additional £70 million helping to fund programmes for the most vulnerable refugees. However, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, we also need to ensure that others step up to the mark. Can the Minister tell us what steps the Government have taken to encourage other countries to meet the overall funding shortfall? Access to the camps for the UN and other agencies is being hampered by red tape. Will the Minister assure the Committee that his department is doing all it can to ensure that NGO staff are able to apply for the appropriate visas to plan and implement their work?
Despite the humanitarian response, it is clear that the long-term persecution faced by the Rohingya in Myanmar can be addressed only by a political solution. I support the UK’s efforts in raising the issue at the UN General Assembly and Security Council, which have helped galvanise the international community around the five-point plan, particularly the Annan commission’s recommendations. The Government have said in the past that they are watching closely to ensure that Aung San Suu Kyi’s words translate into swift action. I hope the Minister will tell us the Government’s assessment of the Government of Myanmar’s action in respect of the plan and the commission.
Why is there no specific DfID investment in northern Rakhine, despite the information that Rohingya villages still exist there? Will the Minister give us a more detailed explanation of the Government’s position and plans? I have received concerns from NGOs about the in-country response, particularly of the embassy in Myanmar.
Political leadership on the rights of the Rohingya and action against Burma for its gross violations of international law must go hand in hand. As we have heard, it is important that Britain takes the lead. In February this year, 100 parliamentarians wrote to the Foreign Secretary supporting a referral to the International Criminal Court. We saw the response of the Burmese Government to ban individual members of the International Development Committee from visiting Burma. I know that the Minister will say, as he has said before in the Chamber, that a UN Security Council resolution on referral will be vetoed by the Russians and China. How we build support for a referral is key to this. I think that arguing for it is the means to overcome such opposition.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I join all noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lady Anelay for securing this debate. She is a well-known advocate for freedom, equality and human rights around the world. It is my pleasure to respond to her today and to welcome her pragmatic and expert advice and insight into this important issue. I also thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
I share the opinion of many noble Lords about the onset of democracy in Burma. To reiterate the important points made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, about the importance of trade, I remember, as a Minister for Transport at that time, that Britain extended an invitation very early on—I think I was the first Minister to visit to look at what opportunities for infrastructure development could be put forward to support the Government of the day. As several noble Lords have said, there has been great disappointment in the civilian Government, but we should not forget that they are much under of the influence and heavy hand of the military.
I will set out to answer most, if not all, noble Lords’ questions. I shall write to noble Lords about any that I am unable to answer in the limited time. Noble Lords will know that when violence broke out in Rakhine state in August 2017, it was the latest episode in the decades-long persecution suffered by the Rohingya community. We have been urging the Burmese civilian Government to take action since they took office two years ago. Yet, since August, thousands have been killed and many more remain unaccounted for. Anyone who has visited Cox’s Bazar has seen the human suffering. Around 700,000 people have fled. Sexual violence, particularly against women and children, has taken place. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans recounted the very personal story of Rajuma. When he spoke of her child being thrown into the fire, that is not an exceptional story; it is, regrettably and tragically, the human suffering of the Rohingya community.
I assure noble Lords that the UK has played a leading role in the robust international response. In November we secured the first UN Security Council presidential statement on Burma in almost a decade. It urged the Burmese authorities to stop the violence, to hold those responsible to account, and to create the conditions necessary for the safe return of refugees. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, other ministerial colleagues and I have kept international attention focused on the plight of the Rohingya community. Since making high-profile visits—including one by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary —we have maintained dialogue with international counterparts to continue to press for progress, most recently, as my noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out, at the Commonwealth summit and also at the G7 Foreign Ministers’ meeting in April.
The right reverend Prelate asked whether the UK will continue to work with partners at the UN; the short answer is yes. I was present at the debate in the Human Rights Council that was tabled by Burma and we have ensured that we have kept this issue right to the fore—including the situation that exists not just in Rakhine but in Kachin and Shan states, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned. I assure noble Lords that we will continue to ensure that the Human Rights Council continues to hold its intention and focus on these important areas.
The UK continues to be a generous contributor to the UN-led Joint Response Plan, and we recently announced additional funding of £70 million to support Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, among others, in paying tribute to the Bangladeshi Government. Bangladesh is a poor nation, yet it has opened up its borders as best it can to ensure that it provides the facilities. It is right that countries such as the UK and others provide the support that is necessary. I assure the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that following the UK’s announcement of a further £70 million, we are lobbying other countries to make further contributions of humanitarian aid. I also assure noble Lords that we have not reduced our embassy staff. The actual issue is that the Burmese authorities themselves are refusing to authorise embassy travel to Rakhine, which is the big challenge.
My noble friend Lady Anelay raised the recent visit by the UN Security Council and follow-up action in that regard. Last night the UK secured a UN Security Council statement, reiterating the council’s calls for Burmese action in ensuring a safe, voluntary and dignified return for refugees, and also stressing the importance of accountability. The UN Security Council is due to convene on Monday and the UK will use that meeting to ensure that the council again sends a clear message about the need for progress in Burma in the coming weeks.
We see the sight of refugee tents stretching to the horizon, in the knowledge that the cyclone season is fast approaching, which the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, talked about. She mentioned the spread of malaria. In all our conversations with the Bangladeshi authorities, including with the Prime Minister— most recently, my right honourable friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development wrote to the Prime Minister in March—we have emphasised the importance of ensuring expert input into this. Again, that issue was raised at the Commonwealth summit, working with the charity Malaria No More for the eradication of malaria across all countries, not just Bangladesh, and we will continue to work in that respect.
The scale and nature of the human rights violations and abuses, including sexual violence, perpetrated against the Rohingya in Rakhine state in particular have horrified and appalled all right-thinking people. The UK believes that it amounts to ethnic cleansing. The issue of the International Criminal Court was raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Nye. We await the International Criminal Court’s ruling on whether it has jurisdiction over the forced displacement of Rohingya from Burma to Bangladesh. If proven, this would constitute a crime against humanity and we will support the court, should it judge that it has jurisdiction. Of course, I will keep noble Lords informed of this.
The perpetrators of human rights violations must be held to account. The Burmese authorities have yet to begin a credible domestic investigation. I assure noble Lords that in all bilateral communication, and indeed at the last Human Rights Council, I met Burmese Ministers directly. We continue to raise important issues about access, international supervision and holding to account the perpetrators of these crimes. There should be no doubt that international attention will not cease until a credible mechanism is in place for accountability. Preserving and documenting evidence is vital for effective accountability. That is why we are leading efforts to ensure this evidence is documented appropriately and that this is done in a way that does not further traumatise victims.
Following on from my noble friend’s role as the Prime Minister’s special representative on PSVI, I assure noble Lords that UK-funded training in March by the PSVI team of experts identified just how much capacity building still needs to be done. We will continue to lead on this, ideally with UN and donor support, and we are working closely with the UN in this respect to ensure that Bangladeshi evidence-gatherers are given the skills they need. We have also funded a practical guide, specific to Burma, to help NGOs and other documenters of conflict related to sexual violence, and this was published earlier this month.
The noble Baroness, Lady Nye, also talked about sanctions. I assure the noble Baroness that the Government have pushed successfully in the EU to impose new sanctions that will restrict the finances and freedom of movement of senior military commanders who were directly involved in the atrocities in Rakhine last year. With our EU partners we are drawing up a list of named individuals and we hope to make an announcement very soon. We have also moved to strengthen the EU arms embargo, which the noble Baroness referred to and which now prohibits the export of dual-use goods and equipment that could be used for monitoring communications.
Ultimately, as all noble Lords have expressed, we want to see the voluntary, safe and dignified return of the Rohingya community to Rakhine—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. For this to happen, it requires, as noble Lords have said, independent monitoring, ideally by the UN High Commission for Refugees.
Questions were asked about direct representations made by Her Majesty’s Government to the Burmese State Counsellor. The Foreign Secretary pressed State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi when he met her in February. The sentiments expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, in this respect, particularly about the hopes that were held out, were perhaps shared by many when the civilian Government was first formed—and we have since seen the disappointment of and tragic consequences for the Rohingya community. While we welcome moves by both Burma and Bangladesh to agree a memorandum of understanding to manage repatriations, much remains to be done. Returns can happen only when conditions in Rakhine improve and safety can be guaranteed. We will continue to demand that all the concerns of the UN High Commission for Refugees are met, and that the recommendations of the report of the Advisory Commission on Rakhine State, which were raised, are also implemented.
I also assure noble Lords that the British Government’s support for transition from conflict to peace will continue, not just in Rakhine but, as has been pointed out by noble Lords, in other states—Kayin, Kachin and Shan. Indeed, I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the British ambassador visited Kachin state in January and met political and religious leaders. I will write to them with the details of that meeting.
In the short time that I have left, I assure noble Lords that we continue to press in our project work to ensure that humanitarian support—which was worth over £4 million in the last financial year—continues to all regions. Our project work particularly emphasises the importance of inclusion of all communities in Burma and of working in areas of the country affected by conflict, including those that my noble friend pointed out near the border with China. However, as my noble friend and other noble Lords have pointed out, it is important that we continue to press the Burmese authorities to give urgent access to allow much-needed aid to be delivered across Burma. We are also continuing to support grass-roots peace-building projects, providing access to the peace-building process. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and others asked specifically about lead NGOs. I will write about our policy in that respect. I assure the right reverend prelate that we will continue to support agencies on the ground.
I am running very short of time. I assure noble Lords that the Government—politically, diplomatically and in terms of humanitarian and development support—will continue to work. Ultimately, we hold on to the hope of building a bright future for all Burmese communities, and the return of the Rohingya community to their homes, but only in a safe and responsible manner.
Equality and Human Rights Commission: Disability Commissioner
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shinkwin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the case for a disability commissioner on the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the Prime Minister for her kind words in answer to a question asked by Philip Davies MP in the other place at Prime Minister’s Questions on 7 February. She described me as a champion of disability rights, and it is as a long-standing campaigner for disability equality that I have tabled this Question for Short Debate, because I believe it is crucial that we assess, on an ongoing basis, progress made towards that elusive goal.
I say “elusive” because 2020 will mark a quarter of a century since the introduction of the Conservatives’ Disability Discrimination Act. The sad fact is that we, as disabled people, are nowhere near attaining equality. By that, I do not simply mean equality with non-disabled people; I mean equality with the other protected characteristic groups covered by equality legislation.
We are so far behind as disabled people, not because we necessarily lack the determination or ability to catch up but because we are still too often denied the equality of opportunity to contribute and to succeed. Unlike other groups, we need reasonable adjustments to be made for us to be able to enjoy equal access to goods, facilities and services, whether commercial or statutory. The goal of equality might be the same, but the nature and extent of the disadvantage that goes with disability are so different that while mainstreaming disability might sound laudable in theory, in practice it means that disability, as the heaviest stone, falls to the bottom of the inequality pond. A prerequisite to it not being left at the bottom is a sharp focus on disability issues—the sharp focus provided by the DDA; the Disability Rights Commission, or DRC; and, following the DRC’s amalgamation within the Equality and Human Rights Commission, or EHRC, the focus provided by a disability commissioner. But now we do not have a disability commissioner because the post has been abolished, even if the need for such a position and the sharp focus it was meant to bring to disability issues has not.
Noble Lords will know from my previous contributions on this matter that I was not made aware of the agreement between the commission chair and the then Minister for Women and Equalities to abolish the position of disability commissioner until after I had been misled by that Minister of the Crown to believe that I was being appointed to that position, for which I had applied and been interviewed. Now it transpires that I was not the only one not to have been informed of the position’s intended abolition. I thank the Prime Minister for telling Philip Davies that she had not been made aware of the decision either, and I also acknowledge that the then Minister for Disabled People, Penny Mordaunt, who is now Minister for Women and Equalities, in addition to being Secretary of State for International Development, was not made aware either.
I know there is a Civil Service saying that, “We are where we are”—the implication being that one needs to accept a new reality and move on. I make it clear that I accept that the Government cannot insist that the EHRC reinstates the position, even if they wanted to, because the commission is independent. However, if the EHRC is independent, there is something that the Government can do—and, I believe, should do—both to extricate themselves and to move us on from where we are, which I am sorry to say is not a good place. They can express regret that a former Minister should have gone behind my back, the backs of disabled people and the backs of the Prime Minister and her ministerial colleagues and allowed the commission to do away with disabled people’s last distinctive, powerful voice. She did not have to do it. Indeed, I recently learned that one of her predecessors in the coalition Government blocked such a move and ensured that the position of disability commissioner was not abolished when the commission previously proposed that it should be. So there was a clear precedent, which she chose to break with, and in the process undermined disabled people and severely compromised the Government.
As I told Cathy Newman on “Channel 4 News” in November last year, this is not about me. When your disability has taken you to hell and back, it tends to put things in perspective. So, while serving as the disability commissioner would have been an honour, which I would have done to the best of my ability, what happens to me does not matter. I am not important; the position was. What concerns me far more is the message given by the involvement of the then Minister for Women and Equalities in the position’s abolition and the Government’s continued failure to dissociate themselves from her involvement, which it is clear that she did not inform—never mind consult—her ministerial colleagues about. It worries me that the Government seem not to appreciate the need for them to express a view, because the adoption of such a position amounts to a message in itself—a message that may be inadvertent but none the less is one of contempt, as if because it is only disabled people, they do not need or deserve the truth.
Speaking as a disabled person, disabled people deserve better than that. We deserve some respect and a clear answer. So I ask my noble friend the Minister if the Government are glad that the disability commissioner position has been abolished. Are the Government proud that a former Minister was involved in the position’s abolition, as I demonstrated she was with reference to two contradictory emails that I mentioned in the Chamber last November? If the Government are not proud, why do they not say so?
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and the Secretary of State for International Development should not have to take the rap for a decision that I accept none of them was involved in making. Yet the Government’s silence on this matter means that that is exactly what is happening, because it has all the telltale signs of a cover-up, not necessarily by Ministers but by the Whitehall machine.
Some argue that because the commission is independent, the Government therefore cannot state that they regret a decision taken by a Minister without compromising its independence. I do not follow the logic of that argument. Surely to state one’s opinion of an independent body’s actions underlines and reinforces that independence rather than compromises it. The commission cannot have it both ways: either it is independent or it is not.
The fact is that your Lordships’ House was never meant to know what happened to downgrade disability by the taxpayer-funded body supposedly responsible for promoting and protecting our rights. As its chair told the Women and Equalities Select Committee:
“Lord Shinkwin has obviously chosen to make public some of this detail, which otherwise would be confidential”.
What an admission. If I am wrong—I would be happy to stand corrected—there is an easy way to prove it. If the Government and the commission have nothing to hide, let them put all records of contact about me and the disability commissioner position, whether between the commission, the commission chair, the Government Equalities Office, the then Minister for Women and Equalities, her private office, her special advisers, the Department for Education or any other external organisations, in the Library. All I am asking for, as a disabled person, is transparency. Surely that is fundamental to equality.
In conclusion, of course I think there is a strong case for a disability commissioner, otherwise I would not have applied for the position. But now it has been abolished, the case that the Government need to answer is why disabled people should trust them when they cannot even bring themselves to express regret for the involvement of a former Minister in the abolition of disabled people’s last powerful voice. As a Conservative, I believe we could have a much better story to tell, but we need to close this sorry chapter before we start the next one. I hope very much that my noble friend can help us do that and I look forward to her response.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for tabling this Question for Short debate. I hope it will provide an opportunity to alleviate some of the noble Lord’s concerns regarding the way the debate on disabilities and equality is held. I have been involved in the equalities debate for a long number of years. As the national secretary for women in the very male-dominated Transport and General Workers’ Union, I learned pretty early on that issues of importance to women should be mainstreamed and must not be sidelined into a women-only debate. The same principle applies to questions of disability and equality.
As we know, the Equality and Human Rights Commission was established by the Equality Act 2006, starting its work in October 2007. At that point I was proud to be appointed as deputy chair of the commission, a position that I held until December 2013. The Act brought under one umbrella the responsibility for dealing with all the protected characteristics while at the same time terminating the remits of the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Commission for Racial Equality and the Disability Rights Commission.
Because the DRC had not been in operation for very long and it was believed that the disability lobby had not had the opportunity to set out its stall, it was agreed that the new commission should have a separate statutory committee to highlight disability issues. This, by the way, did not mean that questions of disability and agreement for special campaigns were not discussed at the main board. They were, because they were and are the responsibility of the whole board. It was never the intention that disability questions should be dealt with as a separate issue. Apart from anything else, people with disabilities often have more than one protected characteristic; they may be from an ethnic minority background, for example, or they may be female or gay. How could the EHRC consider the rights of a disabled person absent any consideration of other characteristics?
In March 2017, the sunset clause contained in the 2006 Act came into play, and the disability committee was abolished. In recognition of the fact that all other issues under the commission’s remit were dealt with in the mainstream debate, the board of the commission took the view that disability would best be dealt with in the same way and therefore it would no longer seek a commissioner with that narrow remit. Since taking that decision, a disability advisory committee has been established. Our own noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, is a member, together with a number of people with wide experience of a variety of disability issues. Of course members of the main board of the EHRC have a duty and a responsibility to deal with all equality issues. No member can nor should consider themselves as representing one strand or one subject. If a candidate is not interested in questions of, among others, race, sexuality or religious discrimination then that person should not consider themselves suitable to be a commissioner.
A brief look at the work of the commission on disability issues will show that it is not an area which is neglected. Reports and campaigns on legal rights, housing, health and accessibility at football clubs are but some of the areas covered. I hope the noble Lord feels more confident that the work of the EHRC is both comprehensive and inclusive. He should know, and I am sure he does, that the commission papers are all available to the public and to Ministers—there is no secrecy.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for the opportunity to say something about the EHRC’s approach to the disability agenda, even though his own experience with it is not a good one. The question before us, which is a valid and really rather difficult one, is whether the disability agenda is best served by those who have oversight of all the protected characteristics that concern the EHRC or whether it should be particularly promoted by one disabled commissioner with a dedicated committee. If the latter, should all the protected characteristics be treated in the same way?
As for disability, the practice in the recent past was a statutory disability committee chaired by a disabled commissioner, but there is now just an advisory committee with all the commissioners having a duty to oversee the disability agenda. If one were to ask a body of disabled people which model they would choose, I am pretty sure they would go for the former. The reason is simple: as we have heard, so much of life, public and private, is denied to disabled people even now and there are still so many battles to be fought, be that video relay services so that deaf people can take part in everyday life or wheelchair users wanting to travel independently on public transport without feeling that they are entering a lottery. They would want the strongest voice possible to get things changed. After all, there are so many different disabilities, all with their own particular problems.
The question of whether disabilities should ever have been bundled up with the other eight protected characteristics is at the heart of what the House of Lords equality and disability committee tackled in its March 2016 report. I am very pleased to say that our chairman will speak more about that. The committee made the point that the other protected characteristics need equality of treatment to bring about equality of opportunity but different treatment is required for disabled people. Although several of our committee’s witnesses wanted to go back to the old days of a separate commission, which we just heard about from the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser, our committee concluded that it was better to make improvements to the working of the Equality Act than to take disability out of it. The commission is quite open about its reasons for disbanding the Disability Committee, saying that it was often on a different page from the commission as a whole. It said that there should in future be a “managing of expectations”, which will inform its relationship with the new Disability Advisory Committee. I am afraid that I find that phrase rather chilling. Does that mean, “Be realistic, don’t ask for the moon” or, “We are not going to promote this issue at this time because we are concentrating on another non-disability matter altogether”?
The House of Lords equality and disability committee called for the statutory Disability Committee to be re-established as a “decision-making body” with ring-fenced resources to increase its visibility and influence, although the report acknowledged that this would have to be in the context of the EHRC as a whole. Contrary to the view, the 2013 independent review of the Disability Committee found that it was not as effective as it might have been and not “hard-wired” into the commission. I am not quite sure what that means in this context. Perhaps someone will enlighten me.
I am not persuaded that disability can be treated on the same footing as the other protected characteristics, particularly in view of the longer lives that both disabled and ordinary people are living now, meaning that ordinary people need services that disabled people need now. We need somebody shouting the odds from the rooftops on our behalf. Perhaps this is for a disability tsar, not the commission. Disabled people want a body that will not rest until it has brought about real change—not a body that has all the right words but not enough action.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, to my mind this is a debate not about persons but about the strategy of the EHRC and its handling of disability issues. It is good to note that my noble friend Lord Low is on the Disability Advisory Committee, so it is not without expertise, but the clue to understanding whether the EHRC is living up to expectations lies in the diffusion of that expertise.
I had the privilege of chairing the 2016 report of the Select Committee on the Equality Act 2010 and Disability. Our first and lasting impression, gained from our own work and strongly from witnesses, was that disabled people regretted the demise of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission. That Act introduced the notion of reasonable adjustments and favourable treatment. It was then rolled into the EHRC by the Equality Act 2010 and disability became just one of nine protected characteristics.
However, practice shows that it is not enough to treat disabled people equally with everyone else. There are situations where, to get to a level playing field, disabled people need favourable treatment, a concept with which employers struggle. Witnesses to our committee thought that the inclusion of disability within the EHRC had diluted the focus on disability that had existed and had given rise to a sense of a loss of rights by disabled people. We concluded that it was impracticable to turn the clock back, but that loss of focus and expertise concentrating on disabled people is at the heart of this Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. He is asking, in my view, whether the EHRC is handling disability issues with the emphasis that it should. Mainstreaming is an ideal that has not worked, so far.
I fear that the answer is no, special disability commissioner or not. I say that not only because of the findings of the Select Committee report, which highlighted failings in ensuring disability rights, but because of the strictures in the report on the UK in 2017 by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That report called for the incorporation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into English law and drew attention to shortcomings in bringing into force relevant provisions of the Equality Act, especially about transport and leasehold premises, the accessibility of buildings and sports stadia, the availability of legal aid and the provision of health and education for disabled children. The Government’s response has been resistance.
As for the EHRC, it is not clear that having a Disability Advisory Committee which interacts with the board is as good as the previous arrangements. The Select Committee report recommended that the committee should be re-established as a decision-making body with ring-fenced resources. That does not seem to be the case. I give the EHRC credit for funding legal assistance for litigation by disabled persons, providing legal advice and starting judicial reviews. The recommendation it made for a disability action plan to be produced with input from disabled persons seems to have been rejected, as has the need to produce guidance on carers’ rights under the Equality Act, although the EHRC has taken some carers’ cases. Disability issues are swallowed up in the general rights issues that the commission is pursuing.
Also very seriously, it was clear from evidence given to the Select Committee that it was much regretted that the Equality Advisory and Support Service was no longer in-house. Indeed, it has gone to G4S, a result that has been much criticised and which was subjected to judicial review by human rights groups. Disabled people called for face-to-face legal advice, dispute resolution and the restoration of the conciliation service. None of those things has happened. They wanted enforcement functions more than strategy formation. They want a champion, not to be just one of nine protected characteristic groups, and that call has not been answered. The Government should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, with plans for a more proactive EHRC with a dedicated disability area and a timeline for carrying out all the recommendations of the Select Committee’s report.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to participate in this debate, not only because it deals with an important question but because the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, was once upon a time a student of mine and this is the first time that I have had the opportunity to participate in a debate led by an ex-student.
I shall follow on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, was saying, but I want to talk about not the individuals involved but the principle at stake, which is whether the Equality and Human Rights Commission treats disability fairly and equitably. In this country, we started with dedicated commissions—the Commission for Racial Equality, of which I was privileged to be deputy chair, the Equal Opportunities Commission, and so on. Those dedicated commissions did a lot of valuable work, but as protected characteristics, as they are called, began to multiply—we now have nine—it was not possible to have separate commissions for each of them and we embarked on the path of a single Equality and Human Rights Commission. This raises an important question: is a single commission capable of doing the work of nine commissions? If so, is it able to do so with equal impartiality, justice and fairness? This is why what we are debating today is of great interest.
In the history of our country we have played with three different models for constituting a human rights commission. One would be to have each of the commissioners selected on merit—not for representing a particular disadvantaged group but simply because of their public eminence. Secondly, they might be nominated because of their capacity to represent particular groups, such as women, the disabled, or whatever. Thirdly, they might be appointed for general purposes and then be asked to concentrate on a particular area, such as women, the disabled or race.
In recent years, the Equality and Human Rights Commission seems to have opted for the first model, which seeks in the name of mainstreaming to abolish the commissioner in charge of the disabled. That is a mistaken approach because, as noble Baroness, Lady Deech, pointed out, the question is how do you mainstream something? Is the only way to mainstream through abolishing the commissioner in charge of a particular issue? Representatives of different groups ensure that their concerns and disadvantages are noticed and, therefore, recognising differences is not a way of avoiding mainstreaming. Expecting every commissioner to be concerned with all groups equally is inherently implausible and impracticable. The commission needs representatives of the diverse groups in our society for a variety of reasons.
Such a commission reflects society at large and has a great symbolic value. It also ensures that relevant groups have their own spokesmen and they feel reassured. It ensures necessary sensitivity and expertise and gives the concerns of particular groups a clear focus. This is why the absence of women or ethnic minorities, for example, on the Equality and Human Rights Commission seems extremely odd. The same applies to the disabled, whose presence on the commission is as vital as the presence of women or anyone else. Others can certainly speak for them—as, obviously, anyone could speak about race—but can they speak with the same authority, authenticity and intuitive grasp of the issues involved? They cannot. A commission in charge of human rights ought to include a diversity of groups and, therefore, a diversity of commissioners.
Baroness Flather (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for introducing the debate.
I have no disability, as far as I know, but I was married to someone who was very disabled. He was diagnosed in 1983 with MS and died last year at the age of 80. We were together with his disability for 34 years. I therefore learned a great deal about disability because you cannot avoid it. He was lucky to live to 80 because I am told that many people with MS do not live that long. I think he did so because he kept working and, as has been said, it is important to be useful and doing something. That is what he used to say: “I feel useful. I am doing something”. He sat as a part-time judge, mainly in Reading, and he worked until retirement age. The court in Reading then asked him to stay on for two more years and he was proud of that. It is a great comfort to someone who has to struggle most of the time to do the work they are doing. I am happy to say that his brain never deteriorated. On the day he died, he was reading a book I had given him for his birthday: a book of poems by Rupert Brooke. Very important factors were that we could talk to each other and have something to share.
I put it to the Committee that disabled people are not treated well, which is very sad. When you go out, a lot of restaurants and shops are very pleased to help you as much as they can, but not everyone is. In many places there is no way for a disabled person to get in. It might seem that that does not matter, but it is the law that there should be some way for them to get in. If you write to the company that owns the business, you will not hear from them. Those things are very important because, if you are disabled, going out to do something is a big event. You cannot just say, “I’m going out for a drink” or “I’m going out for dinner”. It is not like that. Everything must be planned down to the very last detail, including transport.
I think we do need a commissioner. To some extent, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, that it should be a representative person. It is not, in my opinion, necessary for a race commissioner to be of a certain race, because there are so many races. But a disability commissioner should be a person with a disability.
Disability is so varied, and no two disabled people have the same issues or problems. A lot of people do not realise that. They think that if you are in a wheelchair, that is your disability. But no, you may be very stupid and unable to work at all or you may be very bright and work all the time: you cannot tell unless you talk to the person, get to know them and find out what is wrong with them. Usually, people do not even make the attempt to find out what a person can offer to the world.
We all know “Does He Take Sugar?”, and we have all experienced that. Even later in my husband’s life, people would ask me whether he needed a drink. I said, “Ask him, I don’t know”, or I would ask him. You have to constantly try to guard against the mistreatment of disabled people.
There has to be someone with proper responsibility for disability because it is complex and varied. Unless somebody really knows about it, they cannot do anything to help. I have learned a lot this afternoon. Everyone who has spoken has taught me something. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prosser—it is good to know what is going on. When I first joined the Commission for Racial Equality, it had no connection at all with the women’s commission. I suggested that we must at least meet that commission. It was daft that we were all dealing with equality issues but did not know each other. I was very moved by what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and I thank her for that.
My time has finished. I thank also my noble friend Lady Deech, who taught me something. I am not entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, but I thank him.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting debate and, as many people have already stated, it comes down to this question: is disability something that easily fits with the rest of the commission? Personally, I think it should be there but that it needs to be treated slightly differently.
I and my noble friend Lady Thomas are both disabled people under every term of the Act, but our problems in day-to-day life could not be more different. As the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, said, if you have a disability—in my case, dyslexia—you often have to plan to do the normal differently. I am in a total mess if the voice-operated system on my computer breaks down. I cannot function as a normal Member of this House because I do not have access to email. It does not happen very often, but it does happen. Suddenly everything changes.
The perceptions of disabilities always exist in certain contexts. For example: “everyone in a wheelchair is only affected by transport”. That is something I went through many a time on many a Bill. “Dyslexia”, my own disability, “affects you only in the education system”. Both perceptions are patently absurd under any examination.
I recently took part, in the company of Barry Sheerman MP, in a commission on the neuro-diverse community and recruitment. We discovered—I throw this in merely to explain the great diversity—that the neuro-diverse community has tremendous difficulty with big-firm recruitment. It uses a series of online tests that we are bad at. I suspect that nobody else in this Room knew that, although you should have read our commission’s report. The difference is there and although all the other sectors here will have a great degree of difference, it is greater still. Many of the disabilities in the two groups which are to be discussed in the next debate have a great diversity of influence.
I have given the Minister warning of this question, although not much because I probably sent it to the wrong email account. I ask her: is there any evidence that the new approach is working better? I ask because that approach is not one that is reassuring to the huge and diverse disability communities—not “community”. We need to know that there is something working better and that information is getting out there. That is the important bit. Unless the Government can give us that assurance, we are going to have problems because we do not know what is happening.
Also, if your Lordships are looking at this huge, diverse and multifaceted group of things, yes, every disabled person happens to belong to at least one of the other groups in the commission but they will have little turns and changes in emphasis as things are gone through. Everything will be that little bit more complicated and, as my noble friend already said, we need to take some positive action to adopt this. Most bits of that action are actually much easier than people think, certainly with modern technology, but it still has to be taken. Somebody still has to be told that it is their duty to take it and, most of the time, it is my experience that people have to be shown that they can deal with the problem fairly easily.
In my professional life—I have to declare an interest here as chairman of Microlink, which deals with disability adaptation—often merely the structural changes in how something is paid for make life easier. For instance, it is often cheaper to do it without referring to somebody else’s budget and putting a central core down, but that is for another day. We need that reassurance that the information is getting through and that there is a central point, which is going down. If we do not have this, we will come back to this subject. We need the reassurance that it works, so is it being tested and, if so, how? What are the results? Make those public and we can move on.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, for bringing this debate before us today. We know that he has a great record of campaigning for the rights of people with disabilities and he is well respected for the views he holds and the passion he holds them in, as we have seen today.
The UK has, through various pieces of legislation, always striven to promote equality in the workplace. Over the years, there have been different statutory bodies that deal with specific aspects of discrimination. It was a Labour Government who set up the Equal Opportunities Commission; its first chair was Baroness Lockwood, who has only recently retired from your Lordships’ House. This body was established under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and had statutory powers to help enforce Acts such as the Equal Pay Act and other gender equality legislation that existed in Britain at that time.
The Equal Opportunities Commission was established to tackle issues of sex discrimination. Then we had the Commission for Racial Equality, which was established in 1976 to address racial discrimination and promote racial equality. Then we had the Disability Rights Commission, again established by a Labour Government in 1999, which obviously focused on issues relating to disability discrimination. As my noble friend Lady Prosser pointed out, these commissions were merged into a new body, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in 2007. In addition to taking on the responsibilities of the three existing commissions, they acquired new responsibilities to provide the same level of protection for all minority groups. The primary aim was and is to promote and protect everyone’s right to equal opportunities in the workplace, as laid down in the Equality Act 2010.
The legislation on equality and human rights has changed over the years and I believe it has improved: as we learn more about how many forms of discrimination there can be, Parliament will, we hope, bring forward legislation to deal with it. With all the legislation we have, and the protected characteristics, can a case be made for a separate disability commissioner? I am not so sure, since there are nine protected characteristics under the 2010 Act. There could be calls for there to be a separate commissioner for each of those, not just for disability. I know that when the legislation was brought in to set up the Equality and Human Rights Commission to bring everything together in one umbrella body, I was concerned about what would happen to the voice of women, for example. Other groups were very concerned about what would happen to their voice: would they all be lost in this bigger organisation?
I looked at the briefing that the EHRC sent out for this debate and it says that it believes its efforts should be embedded in all its work. Its strategic plan sets out the key issues to address all areas of life. It has a disabilities advisory committee with people with expertise in this field, and most people who sit on the committee have disabilities. This committee keeps strong links with the board of commissioners to keep informed of their activities and to input them as appropriate. The board maintains oversight of the work of this committee and is in regular contact with it. The Equality and Human Rights Commission believes that the changes it has made were designed to strengthen, rather than weaken, its approach to advancing the rights of people with disabilities. It has made a good case for the work it does on behalf of people with disabilities and it believes that that is the best way forward.
We can always improve on all levels of equality and discrimination and we are all looking at ways to make things better for people, to treat people equally and to ask what legislation we need to put in place to make sure that happens. There is still much work to be done to ensure that people with disabilities are treated with respect and given the support they need. I believe that our legislation can provide that, but we should look at other ways as well, if they are needed, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, strongly believes is the case. I look forward to what the Minister has to say on this.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend for securing this debate and all noble Lords who have made such interesting points on the subject. I echo the words of the Prime Minister in February about my noble friend and the role he has played in this area and I am sure will continue to play. Before I move on to deal with the issue of an equality and human rights disability commissioner and the particular points made, I want to take a moment to reflect on the Government’s position on disability.
The Government are absolutely committed to improving the lives of people with disabilities and making the UK a country where everyone can achieve their full potential. The Government take action, including through legislation where necessary, to address disability discrimination. For example, we recently announced our intention to commence Section 36 of the Equality Act 2010, and our manifesto commits to change the Act to better protect people with fluctuating mental health conditions from discrimination. We provide support to people with disabilities and related conditions to help them live fulfilling lives and move towards—and, where possible, into—employment. We have invested over £130 million to improve work and health outcomes for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions, and the long-term unemployed. We have also provided an additional £19.3 million for the Jobcentre Plus Flexible Support Fund to help claimants with limited capability for work with extra costs that can be involved in moving closer to the labour market and into work.
To further improve our ability to spot and respond to discriminatory practice, the Equality Advisory and Support Service—the equality and human rights helpline—refers cases which may have specific strategic significance to the EHRC for possible enforcement action. Disability inquiries constitute nearly 70% of the service’s work, so it is acutely conscious of and sensitive to disability issues. The service has strong links to the EHRC, which sits on its management board. To address the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the two organisations have a memorandum of understanding and a good working relationship. I know that the EASS would very much welcome the noble Baroness—or, for that matter, any noble Lords who are interested—to visit its site near Rotherham to see the approach it takes to deal with its many callers.
The EHRC has a crucial monitoring and enforcement role for the Equality Act 2010. It has enforcement powers to compel compliance with the Act’s provisions, including the disability discrimination provisions and specific accessibility provisions, and to challenge organisations where required. If the EHRC suspects an employer or service provider of committing a breach of the discrimination provisions, it can conduct an investigation and take action to ensure that the employer avoids a continuation or repetition of that breach.
The EHRC has always been conscious of the need to prioritise disabled people’s interests, but its arrangements for doing this have changed over time, as noble Lords have pointed out. The 2006 Act provided for a disability committee. I stress that this was seen as a temporary arrangement, intended to reflect the need to integrate the particular requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act into the EHRC’s work. The then Government’s White Paper outlining the EHRC said:
“In line with the … Board’s general power to establish Committees to assist with specific functions, there will be a provision in the CEHR’s legislation for the establishment of a disability committee for a period … This will be especially important in its first years of operation”.
This committee had delegated powers within the EHRC relating to disability, but it did not have any additional powers: it could not do anything that the commission itself could not do.
The Act required an independent review of the activities of the committee after five years. This was partly to review how well disability issues had been embedded within the commission, and partly to reduce the Government’s role in dictating the commission’s governance structures, which would strengthen its independence as a national human rights institution. This independent review was duly carried out, and reported in 2013. It is still available on the EHRC’s website, and noble Lords may find it helpful to read it if they are not already familiar with it. The review recommended that the statutory committee come to an end on or after March 2017, and the then Secretary of State, who was under a duty to dissolve the committee,
“as soon as reasonably practicable”,
after receiving such a recommendation, duly did so, with effect from 31 March 2017. This gave the EHRC adequate time to make new arrangements.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gale, has already given a good account of this but by spring 2017, the EHRC was already looking to change its disability arrangements to those which better reflected its independence. It was setting up a Disability Advisory Committee to replace the statutory committee. The purpose of this committee was to bring in disability expertise to inform and advise the commission’s decision-making across all its work. The board maintains oversight of the committee through receipt of the minutes of its meetings and advance sight of committee meeting agendas. It may invite reports from the committee on particular issues and request the attendance of committee members to observe or participate in discussions at board meetings where appropriate. Similar arrangements are in place for the statutory Scotland and Wales committees, ensuring that the expertise of the DAC, as we call it, can be applied across the full range of the commission’s activities. Individual committee members may also be invited by the commission to play a specific role in, or advise on, areas of work where their personal skills, expertise or networks are of particular value to a project.
The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Winchester, asked whether disability could be treated in the same way as other protected characteristics. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, spoke very much to the point when she noted that the Equality Act provides particular rights and protections for disabled people, including more favourable treatment in certain circumstances. It seems to me that the EHRC recognises this through its disability advisory committee, which is not replicated in its structure for other protected characteristics.
It was as part of that set of changes that the EHRC decided last year not to continue with the term “disability commissioner”. This was not a statutory post but simply an EHRC-created role: a set of responsibilities connected to the former disability committee that the commission decided to change as part of its overhaul of its disability arrangements, which indeed meshed in with a wider restructuring of the commission as a whole.
My noble friend has set out today, with strong feeling and in some detail, the problems and frustrations that he has experienced in seeking an appropriate role for himself as the EHRC’s disability commissioner. I am aware of his view that the real reason the disability commissioner role ended on 31 March last year, along with the statutory committee, was that the EHRC did not want him to occupy that role. I hope my noble friend and other noble Lords who have contributed to this debate will accept that I was not involved in any of the events that he has mentioned, so I am not in a position to debate the details of those events and I think he recognises that. I can certainly say that the Government have taken his concerns very seriously and he has had opportunities to discuss them with a range of Ministers and advisers across a number of departments, including Downing Street. I stress that the Government deeply regret that my noble friend was not able to resolve his differences with the EHRC about his role and responsibilities, and that as a result he is no longer an EHRC commissioner and cannot lend his wealth of personal passion and experience to the EHRC board.
In answer to the question of why we took away my noble friend’s disability commissioner role, I understand that he was appointed as a commissioner, not specifically as a disability commissioner. Any decision to give EHRC commissioners specific roles and responsibilities is a direct matter for the EHRC. My noble friend also makes the point that HMG should express regret about the conduct of a former Minister, and there was a precedent for keeping the disability commissioner. I believe my noble friend is referring to the coalition Government’s decision to abolish the statutory disability committee after three years rather than sooner. The relevant order related to the committee; it had no direct bearing on the disability commissioner, which was and remains an EHRC role, not in the gift of the Government.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I cannot allow my noble friend to intervene because I am right on the wire.
My noble friend talked about freedom of information in this regard. The decision to abolish the role was not taken by Ministers, and the redacted material that my noble friend refers to does not evidence that the Minister took this decision.
I am completely running out of time so I shall address just one more point, made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. I assure him that the new EHRC arrangements work better for disabled people than the old ones. That is a really important point. I refer him to the remarks made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Prosser and Lady Gale, which are very helpful. The EHRC itself has noted that while its previous approach provided some focus on disability issues, it was found to have the effect of treating work on disability separately from other work programmes. It also led to work on disability being seen as the responsibility of specific individuals in the commission rather than the collective responsibility of the board and the organisation as a whole. It is believed that that led to some miscommunication as well as missed opportunities.
I am now over time. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I will catch up in writing on any points I have missed.
Health Inequality: Autism and Learning Disabilities
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Touhig
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to eradicate health inequalities for autistic people and people with learning disabilities.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, more than 10 years ago, Mencap launched a report entitled Death by Indifference. It was part of a campaign made necessary by the ongoing poor treatment of people with learning difficulties in the health service. The report highlighted the serious consequences of poor healthcare through the tragic stories of six people: Emma, Mark, Martin, Ted, Tom and Warren. Mencap wanted the world to know that their deaths were senseless and could have been avoided.
Just last week, the Learning Disabilities Mortality Review Programme report, commissioned by NHS England, was published. It again highlighted the deeply concerning figures on the life expectancy of people with learning disabilities. It showed that women with a learning disability are dying 29 years before women in the general population, and for men it is 23 years. This is truly shocking and demands urgent action. This and previous research have shown that people with a learning disability are four times more likely to die from causes that were amenable to good-quality healthcare.
A YouGov survey of 500 healthcare professionals last year, commissioned by Mencap, found that almost a quarter had never attended any training specifically on learning disability, that two-thirds wanted more learning disability training, and that more than half thought that more on-the-job learning disability training would enable them to provide better support to people with learning disabilities. Almost two-thirds said a lack of practical resources for themselves and their colleagues might also be contributing to the problem. Most concerning was that more than a quarter thought that negative attitudes towards people with a learning disability might be a contributing factor in avoidable deaths.
On that point of negative attitudes towards people with disabilities, I highlight the case of Ann Grant. She says:
“I have been to hospital lots of times and had good and bad experiences … I had a good experience of going to hospital when having an operation on my knee. The learning disability nurse helped by giving me some easy-to-read information about what would happen. The doctor explained things in a way I could understand and the nurses looked after me. This was a good experience because all the staff communicated well and took the time to help me. But in 2016, I had to go to accident and emergency, and the receptionist did not understand my needs. I kept having to repeat myself which made me feel very anxious. I asked if I could go and wait in a quiet space but there wasn’t anywhere to go. They told me to wait outside if I wanted to have space. The doctors were not very good and gave me information which was different to what the nurses had told me. They changed my medication and did not clearly explain what I needed to do. It was very difficult to understand the words they used, especially the jargon. If they would just take some time to explain things better, I would know what to do”.
That is not an untypical case. Mencap recently launched the Treat me well campaign, which makes six suggestions. I have given the Minister a copy and I hope he will give the Government’s view when he responds.
I move on to the issue of eradicating health inequalities for people with autism. Autism, as we know, is not a mental health condition. It is perfectly possible to have autism and good mental health but more than 70% of autistic children develop mental health problems at some point in their lives. Problems such as anxiety and depression can be key drivers of the stark health inequality that autistic people face.
In its report, Personal Tragedies, Public Crisis, the autism charity, Autistica, highlights research from Sweden that suggests that suicide is a leading cause of premature mortality in autistic people in that country. It calls for action in the UK. These findings deserve close attention to ensure that autistic people are not subject to unacceptable health inequality.
In 2016, NHS England published The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health, which outlines how it plans to improve mental health services in England. It includes a number of proposals for new care pathways to help people access the right support. Importantly, it proposes a care pathway for autism. Work on designing the pathway is due to start in 2018, but we do not yet have any details of what it will include.
The National Autistic Society, of which I and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, are vice-presidents, believes that the care pathway must cover the age range of children, young people and adults on the autism spectrum. It should include timely access to autism diagnosis and autism training for all mental health staff, and make reasonable adjustments to mental health treatments. It should also identify what works and share best practice. It needs to account for the fact that mental health needs may present differently in autistic people. It should be developed in partnership and co-operation with autistic people, their families and organisations that support people with autism. Can the Minister confirm that the autism care pathway will be developed? Will it cover the age ranges that I have mentioned? Will it cover diagnosis, access to tailored mental health support and autism training—three key points?
More needs to be done to improve GP recording of autism. The National Autistic Society has called on the Government and NHS England to improve the recording of autism in GP records, which was also reflected in the Government’s Think Autism adult strategy. This will have two key benefits. GPs will be better able to make reasonable adjustments for autistic people and be better equipped to support their autistic patients. Secondly, anonymised data from GP records will give a picture of the health—including mental health—needs of autistic people. This will be crucial in addressing health inequalities and help to make sure that the right support is put in place at the right time. Similar initiatives have been used to support people with a learning disability, asthma and diabetes.
NICE has recommended that this be put in place by creating an indicator in the Quality and Outcomes Framework. I hope the Government and NHS England will accept this. The Minister may have something to say about this when he responds.
I have one final point. I am not alone in encountering countless stories of problems getting a diagnosis for anyone with autism. People wait years for a diagnosis. It is a disgrace. Putting a stop to such delays should be a major priority of all of us in Parliament and government: 61% of people who responded to a National Autistic Society survey said that they felt relieved to get a diagnosis and 58% said that it led to them getting new or more support. That is important. It adds to the quality of their life. Will the Minister include autism diagnosis waiting times in the CCG improvement and assurance framework? It would be a very good step forward.
Our fellow citizens living with autism and learning disabilities face challenges to their lives that most of us in this Room never encounter, but they are truly amazing people. All they ask is to be treated as equals and to be given the same chances and opportunities that you and I take for granted and a chance of a full and happy life. Surely they deserve the care of a first-class NHS service. That is not too much to ask, is it?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for initiating this debate. I shall speak on the importance of early diagnosis of children who are showing signs of HFA and Asperger’s syndrome. It is still hard to get a diagnosis, partly as there is no fixed set of behaviours common to all, but there are clear signs that healthcare professionals should be trained about when faced with a toddler or older child. There is also the problem of the invisibility of autism in the healthcare system, so it is vital for professionals to trust parental instincts and listen to their concerns to ensure that every individual with autism receives the correct care and support throughout their life.
It can make a difference if the condition is diagnosed early. Though frightening and bewildering, it is essential for parents and children to be able to move forward. With a diagnosis, they can understand why they are like they are. It can prevent distress as the child develops and can stop further physical illness. Many high-functioning children with autism are not diagnosed until they enter school and start struggling socially. By 24 months an autism diagnosis tends to become stable, but from 18 months onwards an intervention programme can be highly effective in improving IQ, language ability and social interaction. Research has shown that children are waiting more than three and a half years for an autism diagnosis. Parents who are involved with early diagnosis and treatment have found they are better equipped to give specific support at varying stages of the child’s development.
I welcome the fact that data collection within the NHS starts in April next year, but no decision has been made on data collection within GPs’ surgeries. A flag against a patient’s file could assist the GP and the person with autism, particularly those who have no outward physical signs. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, mentioned the anxiety that this can cause. Decision-makers cannot plan services locally unless they know how many people need to use them. Without accurate information, autistic people can be left without the right support being available. Anonymised data from GP records would provide decision-makers with the data they need to plan effectively.
Around 70% of children on the autistic spectrum go to mainstream schools. Before a diagnosis is given, these children are often marked as disruptive. I welcome the Government’s strategy that, from September, every new teacher will have autistic training within their curriculum. What training is available for classroom assistants? Some of the most successful people in the country have an autism diagnosis, but we need to ensure that the collection of social and health data relating to autism becomes more co-ordinated and systematic; that local authorities’ and GPs’ information systems allow the collection of data from toddler-age upwards; and that provision of school nurses and health visitors who can identify those with autism is built into tendering arrangements for health service agreements with schools and colleges. If as a society we can follow through on the above, I hope that those with autism will feel that they have not been forgotten, do not have to struggle for their identity within their community and can reach their potential, and that those who care for them feel that they can get the support they require.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for tabling today’s debate and pay tribute to him and other noble Lords around this House who champion the cause of people with learning disabilities and learning difficulties and those on the autistic spectrum. As we have heard, that group includes some of the most vulnerable people in our society, for whom our advocacy and that of others is essential in ensuring their basic safety, that their needs are met and that their quality of life is the very best it can be.
I wish to focus my brief remarks on this question of advocacy, and to do so from the perspective not of someone with clinical or personal experience, but as the patron of a Suffolk charity, Ace Anglia, which does wonderful work in this field. In this world of care pathways, detailed measurements and performance indicators, there is a danger of creating care by algorithm, which loses sight of the individual. I heard from a specialist nurse about the difficulties of defining learning difficulty and learning disability. The result of that nuance is that you can end up with your name not on the learning disability register, so you do not get called for a health check, and then the danger of undiagnosed health conditions can increase.
A learning disability adviser to the NHS told me that, as someone with a mild learning disability himself, he was convinced of the need for more people like him in paid NHS roles because, “They know how things should be like”. That is why it is crucial to have high-quality local advocates, such as Ace Anglia, which work with individuals on a one-to-one basis to improve their lives then, crucially, turn that experience into valuable learning, which can then be used to help others. I have been told by a number of people in health and social care in Suffolk that the work of Ace has been a real catalyst for cultural change and has created what they have described as “real-world understanding”.
Ace holds regular get-togethers around the county for its users, which are used to share experiences of services such as the NHS or public transport. It provides good qualitative evidence to local service providers. The organisation has become expert in facilitating that sort of event so that users can feel genuinely empowered in what can be a hostile system. Ace has been commissioned by its local clinical commissioning group to produce 20 easy-read resources to support people with learning disabilities in navigating their way through primary care services. These will give people more knowledge and control over their health and allow for better communications. So much depends on having a local group as effective as Ace and on the personal relationships that they can build with the key people locally in the NHS, or social services. Could the Minister reflect on how these local support networks can be helped to thrive right around the country?
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord on securing this debate, on what he said and on the very powerful points that he made, as well as his final call for equality and whether it is too much to ask. This is a really important set of issues, not just for the people we are talking about but for the NHS as a whole, as it seeks to move towards a much more personalised approach to care—and what could need a personalised approach more than the sort of issues that we are talking about here?
As everyone here has, I have received very good evidence from the different charities involved in this field, which make an enormous number of very powerful points. Of the various questions that they ask, I select three to ask the Minister. The first has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. Will the Minister confirm that an autism care pathway will be established in the way the noble Lord talked about? Secondly, will the review of the Mental Health Act that is under way look at how it works in particular for people with autism? Thirdly, I am struck by how many other health issues people with autism and learning disabilities have. I was struck by the evidence that we received—I suspect that we all received it—from SeeAbility that there are GP health checks for people with learning disability and special dental care but nothing at all for access to specialised eye care, with which an awful lot of people in this area have problems.
I conclude by speaking briefly about a personal example about the importance of the personal focus here. I have a close relative, aged 56, who has Down’s syndrome, who lives with his 94 year-old father. I have three observations to make. First, as he ages, there is less and less evidence and research about what will happen to him as he moves on into his 60s and 70s, simply because people have not lived that long so far. There is a real need here for the continuation of the research and making sure that it is of a high quality. The second point is the obvious one that quite a lot of people are living with ageing parents in this way. It is important that there is support for them.
The third point comes from a recent occasion when my relative ended up having an operation on his knee and it is about the health service staff’s understanding of the condition and how to talk to people with these conditions. I was struck that my relative would tend to agree with you if you asked a question and would try to work out what you wanted him to say. If you asked, “Is the pain worse on this side?”, he would reply, “Yes”, but if you then asked, “Or is the pain worse on this side?”, he would say “Yes”. You need to understand how to work through those sorts of issues. I was struck that the GP found this difficult, but the orthopaedic surgeon did it brilliantly. There is a real personal aspect here and it is important to have people in the health service who understand how to do that.
I finish by congratulating the Government, because I understand from a recent press release that they have established a new “golden hello” for nurses coming in at postgraduate level who are working with people with learning disabilities, and for mental health and district nurses. This is a very positive step forward.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the father of an autistic daughter. I agree 100% with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, that those on the autistic spectrum are among the most vulnerable in our society. The Government’s mandate to NHS England requires them to tackle health inequality for autistic people, and ensuring access to good quality mental health support is one important way in which this can be achieved. I have to stress that, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said, autism is not a mental health condition, but more than 70% of autistic people will develop mental health problems at some stage in their lives. This is why it is one of the key drivers of the stark health inequalities faced by people on the spectrum.
The noble Lord pointed out that, in 2016, NHS England published its mental health five-year forward view, which outlines how it plans to improve mental health services in England. It includes a number of proposals, as the noble Lord said, for care pathways to help people to access the right support and, importantly, it proposes a care pathway for autism. The Government have indicated that work on designing that pathway is due to start this year, but it is now May and we do not yet have any detail on what the pathway will include. Like other noble Lords, I would welcome some clarity today from the Minister on how the pathway is progressing and, in particular, the plans they have for developing the pathway in conjunction with autistic people and their families.
The new care pathway is a welcome building block that will, in time, help to reduce the stark health inequalities that autistic people face, but it is vital that the new pathway covers timely access to autism diagnosis; autism training for all mental health staff; and making reasonable adjustments to mental health treatments so that they work for autistic people. Finally, it should also contain the capacity to research what works and then use that research to share best practice with other agencies.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I put my name down for this debate because I am afraid I recognised the issue. The problem that the NHS has with groups who do not handle the basis of diagnosis—that is, the one-to-one interview—is one that is very well established. The idea that you will go to talk to your doctor and he will try to get from you what you think the problems are and to talk through them is a very good model for most people, but not for all. Two groups for which this model breaks down are talked about here. Somebody who is autistic, who may not relate to that person, is always going to have slightly more problems than somebody else. Of course, anybody who knows anything about autism—I do not know anywhere near as much as many people in this debate—knows that no two people with autism will relate in exactly the same way.
You are asking an incredible amount of a doctor or any other health professional to get that diagnosis correct, without giving them guidance and training—including, importantly, guidance and training on when to call in an expert. That is something that we need to hear about. When do you call in the person who really knows? How do you give the health professional the confidence of saying, “You will not be marked down as a professional by calling in someone who knows more”? The same will be true for those who have learning disabilities. It is a different set of skills, but still one that is required. Will you train those health professionals to call in the support of an expert and give them the room and flexibility to do it?
I finish on the need for early diagnosis in all hidden disabilities. Autism is something that is so well known that we only need to say “Me too” on it. Once the person knows it, you cut down on anxiety and stress, which are the fast track to mental illness. Let us make sure that we cut down at least that one shortcut.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I, too, have a family interest. My son has a learning disability and is on the autistic spectrum.
The Learning Disabilities Mortality Review report was discussed briefly following an Urgent Question last night, and the Minister made some very reassuring comments about training, on which I hope that he will expand today. The mortality review is an extremely important programme, but it cannot change entrenched discriminatory attitudes on its own. Equally important is what action Ministers, NHS England and NHS trusts take to prevent avoidable deaths, given this important evidence.
Interestingly, the recommendations in the recent report are almost identical to recommendations made in 2007 Mencap’s game-changing Death by Indifference report: make sure that hospital staff understand about people with learning difficulties. Make sure that hospital staff work together with other agencies, including families, and that they understand the law on capacity and consent. They are the same recommendations every time, but we do not seem to be able to do anything about it.
It is critical that tackling health inequalities faced by people with a learning disability and/or autism is a priority among Ministers. NHS England must continue the funding of the mortality review programme beyond its current one-year extension and continue the good work of its learning disability programme beyond next March. Other confidential inquiries are permanent. Why is this group being treated differently?
In addition, individual NHS trusts must take urgent action in line with the recommendations of the review, not least in improving learning disability awareness training and practice in relation to the Mental Capacity Act. Doctors and nurses probably need a lower threshold for admission and to understand that sending a person with a learning disability home and suggesting that they come back if they are worried is inadequate. That may be one reason for the episodes of sepsis which underlie 11% of the deaths reported by the learning disability review.
The third sector is campaigning effectively, but it needs the Government and the NHS to commit, too. Mencap launched the Treat Me Well campaign in February, an aim of which is to ensure that no health professional sets foot on a hospital ward without learning disability awareness training. Dimensions, another national learning disability provider, is launching an initiative to offer training within primary care, and we have heard about SeeAbility’s report.
In my time at St George’s at the University of London, the most effective training for medical students was co-delivered by people with learning disabilities. Sadly, it ended on my retirement, because it depends on having a learning disability expert on the staff. If it was mandated, it will be different.
We know that involving people helps health professionals to understand what it is like to have difficulties communicating or understanding complex information. I look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, who has raised this important subject today, and other noble Lords, including the Minister, on this agenda.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register, including family interests. I apologise to the noble Lord as I was a minute late. He was on his feet; he beat me to it. I apologise to the Committee.
This subject covers far more than we have time for today. This will be a quick canter. I shall refer first to the physical disabilities of people on the autistic spectrum. The Mencap report, Death by Indifference, which I feel I have been quoting in debate after debate for so many years in this House, fills me with despair. We are still talking about people on the autistic spectrum either in primary care or in hospital wards being disadvantaged, sometimes to the point of death. That in some cases is no exaggeration, purely because their autism was not understood by health professionals. In some cases, mothers have stood by hospital beds trying to explain to professionals how their adult child functions and how they are affected, yet they are still being ignored because the child is over 18—and why listen to somebody with a lifetime’s experience of that individual? People have made the point that they are individuals and they all function differently, albeit having the same diagnosis.
On mental health, this is not rocket science. The vast majority of people who grow up into adolescence and then into young adulthood, particularly, suffer mental illness on top of the autism, mainly because very simple, straightforward support services are denied them. That downward spiral of despair, when they are unable to access often very basic services, is hardly surprising. Most of us would suffer from mental health problems, if we were on the autistic spectrum, and if by the time we were 25 we had tried very hard to be part of society and the education system and to have relationships with other people but still could not get through that glass wall. Very often, it is through social services and others that these supports are forthcoming but, if they are not forthcoming, there is a serious mental health downward spiral. There is a paucity of support out there among clinicians. Very few psychiatrists, particularly in the provinces, have a working knowledge of autistic people. It can be fine in the big cities, but not so much out in the sticks. If they do not understand the condition, sometimes even the professionals do more harm than good.
I shall give a plug to the National Autistic Society. My noble friend Lord Touhig has worked very hard with the society, and there is an autism hospital passport on its website. It can be downloaded, and I know that people have used it, so that when they are admitted to hospital, the professionals have the information that they need about that individual. It is not the answer to everything, but I recommend those sorts of tools to make sure that people are given the support that is out there. There are now some apps that people can have on their phones, if they are on the autistic spectrum, which is very good.
I hope that the Autism Act, which I must finally mention, will be put into practice. If it were, things such as speedy or timely diagnosis, and some of the problems that have been mentioned today would not still be being raised by Members of the House.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, on tabling this debate, and it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Browning—a bit humbling, actually, because she knows far more about this than me.
I pay tribute in my short contribution to June Felton—not a name noble Lords will know—who pioneered an intensive educational approach to very young children with severe autism. They were non-verbal and very badly affected, but nevertheless had underlying abilities, as many severely autistic children do. June Felton successfully prepared those severely autistic children to go to their normal schools—quite an achievement if one saw the children at the start, as I did, and then a few years later. Anyone involved in the design of education for that group of children—the very autistic, but able—would do well to try to find the carefully kept records of June Felton’s small but extraordinary Family Tree school. Sadly she died rather young, and the school closed.
I fully support the Autistic Society’s call for an autism and education strategy. An appropriate educational environment for a child can really make the difference between ultimately leading a reasonably normal life on the one hand—even for some severely affected children—and lifelong institutional care on the other. For children with autism and a limited IQ, of course the goals will be different, but in every case education is the absolute key to maximising ability and reducing dependence as far as conceivably possible. For the NHS and social care, that is critical.
The impact on families of a severely autistic child cannot be overstated. Family life is likely to be disrupted every minute of every day, in my experience. The strain on the parents’ own relationship and the child’s siblings is immeasurable. The normal reward of parenthood—the display of love from one’s children—has a horrible tendency to be a little limited from these children; so it is a tough, tough world that these parents live in. Of course, the cost of a comprehensive autistic education programme to meet the needs of children across the whole autistic spectrum would be considerable. However, I urge the noble Lord, who I know understands these things, to make sure that a good cost-benefit analysis is incorporated into the strategy development. For instance, £200,000 spent on an intensive education for a child may save the NHS and social care millions over that child’s lifetime. It is never going to be a waste of money.
As others have done, I want to touch on the mental health of autistic people. If we put ourselves in the position of an autistic person—probably feeling rather cut off, perhaps having no friends, very likely unemployed or in a job in which they really do not belong or feel completely disconnected from—it is not at all surprising that 70% finish up with depression or anxiety, as a number of other noble Lords have mentioned. I think that I certainly would, were I in that position. Others have mentioned the NHS England mental health five- year forward view and the care pathway for autism that they are recommending. I ask the Minister, when is that work going to begin? Others have asked a range of questions, but I do not think that it has begun. It is absolutely crucial. I hope that the Minister can give some assurance to these children, families and adults—not only for themselves, though that is crucial, but for the sustainability of the NHS and our social care. This is a large group of people, and the potential savings from a really good strategy are immeasurable.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, we are very fortunate to have such a powerful advocate for the way in which to deal with this. On my own front, I have a young grandson who is on the autistic spectrum. We are also getting many more people with autism coming into the Motability scheme, so I am interested on two fronts. In advance of today’s gathering I spoke to the chair of the British Psychological Society’s Division of Educational and Child Psychology, Dr Vivian Hill. She also looks after our little boy. We have talked about the child, but it is the stress on the family that is immense. I see despair and sadness in my daughter—she says to me sometimes, “What is going to happen to him if I am not alive? Who’s going to look after him?” She brought up one issue on the health side, in particular. There is a lady—I will not give her name—who is now 35; she has a university degree, and works with Vivian at University College London interviewing people for the educational course. She has been in and out of hospital this year with various problems, to say the least. She said yesterday that she calculated that, for the first six months of the year, it has probably cost the health service £50,000—but they stopped the welfare attention that she used to have once a fortnight, which could have made a huge difference in understanding what the situation is. She was saying that there should be a way—in the same way that there is in collecting tax, for example—that a name flashes up immediately, in any ward anywhere throughout the country, if somebody is on the spectrum.
I also spoke yesterday to two fascinating headmasters in the Horsham area about money and so on. Many noble Lords have talked about how early it is possible to identify children on the spectrum. Everybody here feels that if you can get a child into a mainstream school, they have a chance of making it in life—a chance of acquiring self-esteem and of getting somewhere. We have not talked about money but really we are talking about money being made available to achieve that. If one looks at this from a taxpayer’s point of view, it is reckoned that if things were handled differently on the health service side, we would save a huge amount of money, although there is no point in my trying to guess the figures. Our little boy was diagnosed at the age of three. He was very fortunate and is getting through it very strongly. From the perspective of the taxpayer, the savings from early diagnosis—as a long-term investment—are immense.
In conclusion, as has been said, most of us in this Room are very fortunate. We must help these people, many of whom have brilliant minds and want to play their part in society. There has been enough talk.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for introducing this debate. I declare my interest as listed in the register.
People who have never been involved with learning disabilities are unclear about what they really mean. People with a learning disability will have the emotions of an adult—they can fall in love, worry, get cross and be jealous—but it is the reduced intellectual ability that affects them for their whole life. They are subject to mental health problems and early-onset dementia.
Learning disability is subject to the Equality Act and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Somebody with a learning disability should be able to expect good NHS treatment. They should also expect clinicians caring for them to make reasonable adjustments. In the questions after yesterday’s Statement, I raised the issues of funding, clinician training and the provision of suitable written material, and I will not revisit them now. However, I should like to raise the issue mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp—access to NHS sight tests.
People with a learning disability are at high risk of sight problems. Adults are 10 times more likely to be visually impaired and six in 10 will need glasses. Most people think that sight tests are easy to access, but for many people with more complex needs they are not. No targeted scheme is run by the NHS or NHS England, unlike GP health checks or special dental care. For years, the same tariff of around £20 has been paid by NHS England to deliver these sight tests. This covers about half the cost of a standard high-street test, let alone the service that someone with more complex needs requires.
The outcome is that many people with learning disabilities are instead sent to use the sight-testing services at hospital eye clinics. Without any national scheme, parents are at a loss as to where to go. Half of the children in special schools have a vision problem. Around 45% of children of the age of 11 in a special school will not have had a sight test. This makes for a poorer quality of life than would otherwise be the case. Therefore, will the Minister look at whether an NHS England scheme in the community and in special schools, which four in five children with more severe learning disabilities attend, is a possibility?
As I mentioned, people with learning disabilities have rights, and this lack of appropriate treatment is an unacceptable face of discrimination. Therefore, will the Minister please investigate this and get back to us? I might also suggest that perhaps a much longer debate than this one is required on this well-ignored group.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this important debate, made particularly poignant by the learning disabilities mortality review, which we discussed yesterday. I also congratulate all noble Lords on sticking to the time limit, on being succinct and on being informative and moving in their remarks. I also thank the National Autistic Society, Mencap and SeeAbility for their briefings.
I was going to talk about eye care because I was so taken by the brief that we got on that. SeeAbility points to a gap and I hope that the Minister will be able to assist with that. The National Autistic Society quite rightly wanted to know when the autism pathway will be progressed. That has been mentioned by many noble Lords and I echo that. It is important also that the department looks at whether the Transforming Care programme meets the needs of autistic people and takes action to ensure that it does. Given that the Government are reviewing the Mental Health Act, will the Minister commit to look explicitly at how the Act works for autistic people?
I shall finish with something also to do with eyes. Desmond’s story, which came from the National Autistic Society or Mencap, is worth reading into the record:
“My learning disability means I grasp things more slowly and I need people to communicate clearly. Normally I go to my local hospital for my eye care—they are good with me. But in 20113 they referred me to another hospital to get an operation. That is where the problems began. I had a new doctor looking at my eye before the operation and he didn’t explain anything to me about what would happen. In the past, the hospital staff sedated me for operations on my eyes. I thought this would happen again. But instead, the doctor immediately started operating on me, while I was still awake. I was scared, and they were telling me not to close my eyes. It was a horrible feeling. I didn’t have a chance to explain what would make me feel more comfortable. There was no-one to talk it through and no time for the doctors to get to know me. I wish the doctors could have told me what was happening and why—it’s what anyone should expect. I hope staff get better training in the future to make sure they communicate better with people with a learning disability”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, on calling for this debate and on his good grace in agreeing to meet ahead of it so that we were able to discuss some of the issues that have been raised today. I hope to answer as many questions as I possibly can. I also congratulate all noble Lords on their contributions, some of which were very personal. Whether it is a family experience or the experience of people we know, have met or have communicated with, it brings gravitas to a debate. I congratulate Mencap and the National Autistic Society on the quality of their briefings and, if nothing else, on making sure that government is kept honest in its attempts to address the needs of this group.
Noble Lords have set out the many challenges that people with learning disabilities and autism face in leading healthy and productive lives. We have talked about inequalities in health and well-being compared to those without learning disabilities or autism; comorbidities, and particularly mental health needs; great difficulties in accessing health and social care support, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, and others brought to life through their experiences and the stories they told; difficulties in fulfilling educational potential; and difficulties in securing employment.
The sad fact is that people with a learning disability are more likely to experience major illnesses, to develop them younger and to die sooner. Those are the bald facts. Autistic people are also at increased risk of dying younger and have a higher risk of developing mental health problems and conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes and heart disease. They are less likely to get the screening, checks and treatment they need. They continue to face barriers to accessing services and information. My noble friend Lord Sterling talked about the impact on families: it affects not just the individual concerned but everyone around them. Such inequalities are deep rooted and we have not only a moral obligation to tackle them but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, pointed out, an economic rationale as well. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that we need to start from the position of rights: the right of these individuals to enjoy the same standard of health and care as everyone else.
I will set out a few of the things that the Government are doing to try to improve outcomes for this group and then will address questions posed by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever mentioned the NHS mandate, which is an important place to start. It sets out our ambition and expectation to reduce the health gap between people with mental health problems—who are not the direct focus of today’s debate—learning disabilities and autism and the population as a whole, and support them to live full, healthy and independent lives. The learning disability annual health check is a big part of meeting this aim, in looking for undiagnosed health conditions early and promoting the uptake of preventive care. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, pointed out, as a group, they are not necessarily that good at coming forward to seek support or to express their needs. NHS England has increased the funding available for GPs for these health checks and there is an ambition to significantly raise the number of people benefiting from them.
We did unfortunately have cause yesterday to discuss the first annual report from the learning disabilities mortality review. I say unfortunately, because, as many noble Lords have pointed out, it sets out the scale of the challenge that still exists to reduce early deaths and health inequalities for this group. The fact of the programme is in itself progress, but the number of deaths reported, and indeed those which have been reviewed and are of concern, is still very high. This demonstrates how much more work there is to do. I did commit in the House yesterday to NHS England and the department working together to try to take forward all the recommendations in that report, as far as we can. It has been noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that this is not the first time these recommendations have been made.
Some of the action taking place includes publishing data for the first time on avoidable deaths, including those of people with learning disabilities. Trusts will be inspected against their learning and the changes they have made from studying these avoidable deaths. In answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, NHS England has provided additional funding for this year. I should say at this point that it has not ruled out funding for future years. The point here is that we need to get up to speed on the backlog of reviews that are taking place and make sure that that is fully embedded in the NHS.
NHS England and the RightCare programme are also producing guidance on pathways of care tailored to the needs of people with learning disabilities, including for diabetes. There are further pathways coming soon on epilepsy, sepsis and respiratory conditions.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins and Lady Meacher, all mentioned training. That is a critical point. There is a training and education framework for people with learning disabilities for use by health and care staff, and there is one to follow for autism training. That builds on the tiered approach that has proved successful in training all staff for dementia and is being rolled out at the moment.
I would like to address the particular issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord Crisp, the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Meacher, and my noble friends Lord Astor and Lady Browning—by pretty much everybody: the autism pathways that were mentioned in the five-year forward view for mental health. These pathways are being developed for both adults and children. Specifically, they are for those with a mental health diagnosis with neural developmental comorbidities such as autism. They are about the two things happening together, rather than simply for people with autism alone. That makes sense, because this is about access to mental health services. We have been pressing NHS England for a timeline in the run-up to this debate. I regret that I do not yet have that, but I will continue to press for it and will share news on our progress with noble Lords as soon as I get it.
Some of the other ways in which we are acting to try to reduce that health gap include the wonderfully named STOMP programme—stopping overmedication of people with a learning disability, autism, or both with psychotropic medicines. A pledge to stop overmedication has been signed by 24 professional royal colleges and societies, which have all developed clear plans to deliver on this, and by over 150 social care providers supporting 50,000 people with learning disabilities, autism or both. That is good progress. It is fair to say also that the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme has adapted its standard intervention for people with learning disabilities and autism. NHS England is working to update its framework for community mental health services for this particular group.
Many noble Lords have talked about the issues around delayed diagnosis. It was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and my noble friend Lady Chisholm. There is an ongoing review of the quality and outcomes framework by NHS England, which is looking at implementing the NICE recommendation about putting a flag effectively on the record. I do not have a publication date for that but I reassure noble Lords that I will write to them once I do. We also have for the first time autism indicators in the Mental Health Services Data Set, collected from 1 April this year, which is bringing more transparency to the process and helping us improve performance locally.
My noble friend Lady Browning mentioned the Autism Act, which remains the only condition-specific legislation in England. I hope that the consequent adult autism strategy represents to her a clear commitment by the Government to change the way that we support and provide services for adults on the autism spectrum to address those inequalities. I reassure her about the seriousness with which the Government undertake those actions.
While we are talking about schooling, it is worth touching on special educational needs, although it is not necessarily a topic for today. My noble friend Lord Sterling talked about getting the right support at an early age. The introduction of education, health and care plans as a consequence of the Children and Families Act 2014 was a major step forward. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission are inspecting the arrangements that CCGs and local authorities have for those to make sure that we can improve performance and drive out variation. I am aware that there is huge variation across the country in both the availability and quality of such plans.
While we are talking about education, several noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lady Browning—talked about the issue of advocacy. I absolutely applaud the work that Ace Anglia is doing and the production of easy-read materials. The noble Baroness asked what government can do to support that process. Training, which we have touched on, is one thing, but there is also clearly a role for government funding—I know that the Government have supported the Autism Education Trust to support the development of training for school staff. I think that will provide some reassurance to my noble friend Lady Chisholm, who also asked about the training of school staff.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, also talked about education. I do not know about the work of June Felton but it sounds interesting. My first ever role in education was as a governor of a special school in Wandsworth called Garratt Park School, which has an autism base, and I eventually became chair of governors there. The quality of a good intervention and what it can do for children’s lives is truly dramatic. Indeed, another school in that area is the former Rainbow School, which supports very autistic children with behavioural approaches and which has changed their lives. That school lodged with us for some time at one of the free schools I set up, so I had the opportunity to see that in action, and it does amazing stuff. The links between health and education are absolutely there, which is what the EHC plans are meant to be bringing together.
I will finish with a few more points that I have not touched on yet. On delayed diagnosis, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, from April NHS Digital has been collecting autism diagnosis waiting time data, so that that is now visible, and the autism strategy task and finish group is exploring how to use that data as part of a local accountability regime. So that is in progress, and I hope that we will see something positive emerge from that.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, mentioned the Mental Health Act, which is an important issue. Professor Simon Wessely is chairing his independent review and has published an interim report—if noble Lords have not seen it, I encourage them to look at it; I will send them a copy of the report. It sets out some of the specific issues that need to be explored under that review for people with learning disabilities and autism, so I can reassure them that that is an explicit part of the work of that review.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jolly and Lady Thornton, also mentioned eye care. If you think about the process of having your eyes tested and think about what that must be like for someone with sensory issues, with autism or learning disabilities, it is not a pleasant thought. An NHS working group is looking at this, and I am reassured to see that SeeAbility is part of that. They are looking at that, but if they feel that that is not going as it should, I would be grateful if they could write to me. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, also mentioned the key issue of staffing, which is critical. We are trying to get more nurses into the NHS; having this golden hello for shortage areas, including learning disabilities, is a good step forward. There is a desire—my noble friend Lady Browning raised this—to increase the number of mental health staff so that we can start to meet some of the standards which we have set ourselves.
I hope that I have managed to answer all questions noble Lords have posed. Again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for instigating this debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said yesterday that we should judge ourselves as a society on how we look after some of the most vulnerable people. This debate has brought the needs, challenges but also the opportunities and rights of this group to the fore. I reassure noble Lords that it is a major part of the Government’s policy and attention. We know that there is more work to be done; there are some good signs of progress, but there is clearly a lot more work to do together to make sure that people with learning disabilities and autism have the opportunity to lead a healthy, productive and independent life.
House of Lords
Royal Assent
Thursday 10th May 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 97-I Marshalled list for consideration of Commons amendments (PDF, 67KB) - (30 Apr 2018)
Children: Gangs
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action are they taking to stop children being recruited into gangs.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s Serious Violence Strategy was launched on 9 April. The strategy sets out our response to serious violence, including gangs, and focuses in particular on the importance of early intervention to provide young people with the skills and resilience to lead productive lives, away from crime and violence.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, the Serious Violence Taskforce has had its first meeting, and I am pleased to see that it focused on county lines activity. However, many people are concerned that the strategy section on county lines is quite limited, with few new commitments and very little on safeguarding. As we know, thousands of children, some as young as 12, are trafficked and enslaved by county lines gangs. They need safeguarding; moreover, their evidence is critical in securing convictions. Why does the Serious Violence Taskforce have no representation from the anti-trafficking sector, and why is the Children’s Commissioner on the task force but not the Anti-Slavery Commissioner? Can this oversight in membership be corrected, and can the Minister give the House assurances that the new national county lines centre will focus as much on safeguarding as it plans to do on law enforcement?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness asks several questions, but perhaps I can encompass them all into one answer and say that she gets to the nub of the problem: county lines are, as she rightly points out, all about exploiting vulnerability. We are undertaking a national awareness-raising communications exercise on the threat of county lines targeted at young and vulnerable people, and on how to avoid becoming involved in, and exploited by, gangs. We are also working closely with organisations such as Redthread and St Giles Trust, which work with children at the teachable moment—for example, if they arrive at A&E with violence-related injuries—to provide an alternative route out of a lifestyle of violence. Additionally, we are working across government departments, such as the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care, to ensure that key partners in those professions are trained to spot and refer young people involved in county lines. The noble Baroness will appreciate that this is a multi-agency cross-government issue.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, are the Government looking at the status of youth work, and at a strategic plan to raise that status and ensure that in future there will be consistent funding for youth work, so that it is seen as a good career? Historically, youth work has suffered from booms and busts in funding, which, I would suggest, is very unhelpful.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Earl is right to point out that youth work is a crucial part of tackling this area. The Government continue to back the growth of the National Citizen Service, which is delivered through a network of 300 local partners, more than 80% of which are in the public or voluntary community and social enterprise sectors. The Government recently published guidance for local authorities on how they can maximise the benefits of the NCS within local strategies. In addition, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Big Lottery Fund will make available £90 million of dormant accounts money to support disadvantaged and disengaged young people with their transition to work.
Lord Nash (Con)
Central government is clearly not in control of the gang issue in this country. Ten years ago, the Centre for Social Justice produced an outstanding piece of work analysing in great detail the gang issue in this country, Dying to Belong, which I strongly recommend to any noble Lord interested in this field. It pointed up successful strategies such as call-ins, which are used in places such as Strathclyde. Why are we not rolling out these strategies across the country? The Centre for Social Justice is updating that work. It is probably the most comprehensive work ever done on gangs in this country. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the CSJ to discuss this matter?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work over the years involving young people. I am certainly happy to meet him to learn from his expertise in this area. I think it is true to say that the true scale of exploitation, including the number of victims, remains an intelligence gap. The National Crime Agency pointed this out. I would be happy to meet my noble friend to discuss it.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, many young people are unaware of the realities of gang membership: discipline enforced by stabbings, the rape of women and girls, and street dealers whose lives are put at risk while those who supply them with illegal drugs take most of the profit. Is the Minister aware of the work of Growing Against Violence—GAV, a charity of which I am patron—which works in schools to destroy the myths around gang membership in order to dissuade young people from getting involved with gangs, knives and drug dealing? Is this not exactly the sort of work that the Government should be supporting?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right that any work such as GAV’s is to be commended. We are not only developing some of the existing good practice but expanding our knowledge of the extent to which county lines are affecting our most vulnerable children. The noble Lord is right to point out that drugs market violence may be facilitated and spread by things such as social media—another area on which we need to clamp down.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the work done in Glasgow, where violence was dealt with as a disease? It was one of most violent cities in the world. The first thing to do was to stabilise the patient. Glasgow increased stop and search, and when knives and weapons were found the person carrying them was not simply released on bail but taken straight to the police station, detained and put before the court fairly quickly. The reduction in carrying weapons was quite dramatic. Can we learn something from the work done in Glasgow?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I am sure we can work on some of the initiatives in Glasgow. The noble Lord described it as a disease. These issues are multifactorial and include sociological and psychological factors depending on people’s experiences, particularly their early life experience. Tackling this preventively from a very young age is part of the answer.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the Government on the work they are doing on county lines. Is the Minister aware that there is very patchy communication between the agencies and that all too many of the very young children—the 12 and 13 year-olds—are ending up in the local youth court instead of being treated as victims?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble and learned Baroness points to a very serious issue. County lines, as the phrase suggests, crosses different local authorities and different police forces, and therefore some sort of continuity of effort is needed here.
Children’s Services: Funding
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bassam of Brighton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to ensure that there is sufficient funding for local government children’s services.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, funding for children’s services is made available through the local government finance settlement. Local authorities are being given access to £45.1 billion in 2018-19 and £45.6 billion in 2019-20—an overall increase since 2017-18 of £1.3 billion. Core spending power is largely not ring-fenced, allowing local authorities to decide how best to direct their funding. Local authorities used this flexibility to increase spending on services for young people and children to around £9.2 billion in 2016-17.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which sounds remarkably like the Written Answer I received over a month ago. He says that local government has all this money to spend, but he will be aware that this is the total funding available for 800 different services that local government delivers, of which children’s services is just one. The National Audit Office says that local government funding has been cut by 50% in real terms since 2010, and the Minister’s figures show that local authority spending on safeguarding and looked-after children continues to increase year on year. What assessment has the Minister made of local government’s capacity to remain at this level of spend on vulnerable children, particularly in the light of the LGA’s analysis that councils are facing a funding gap of around £5 billion by 2020, of which £2 billion is in children’s services? Does the Minister deny that councils, such as my own in Brighton and Hove, have had to close Sure Start centres and youth services and end play provision and supervised parental contact? A crisis is emerging in children’s services.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am glad that the figures are the same as the ones in the Written Answer given a few weeks ago. The noble Lord is right to say that, over the past eight or 10 years, local authorities have had to manage with fewer resources from the centre. I think that local authorities of all colours have done well to maintain good-quality services with access to reduced resources. They have done that by improving back-office services and front-line delivery. More recently, the Government have recognised that those constraints need to be relaxed: we have raised the cap on council tax increases to 3% before the referendum trigger is activated; we have put £2 billion into social care, taking some of the pressure off local authority services; and, as I said in my reply, we are putting more resources into the grant. On top on that, local authorities have access to £21 billion in reserves, up 47% since 2011. We believe that they now have the resources available to continue to provide good-quality services to children.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord has very helpfully agreed that local authorities have been squeezed and are being squeezed. Does he agree that in many authorities this is resulting in a reduction in preventive and family support work, and therefore local authorities are not intervening until such time as a crisis occurs? Could that be one of the reasons why more children are being admitted into public care?
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord has had a lifetime of distinguished career in social care. He may have been in the House yesterday, when my noble friend Lord Agnew referred to the troubled families programme, which indicated that the number of children defined as children in need declined by 14% after they had been involved in that programme. That, of course, reduced the demands that those children and families made on more expensive children’s care services. On top of that, last year the DfE invested nearly £5 million as part of an innovation programme to test the most effective ways to provide targeted support to reduce the need for most intensive forms of intervention—precisely the point the noble Lord has made—and thereby, it is hoped, reducing the pressure on children’s services departments.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the All-Party Group for Children is doing a report on children’s social services? It has become very clear to us that thresholds for intervention are rising, leading to the situation that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, just mentioned. The Children’s Commissioner published a report yesterday that indicated that the general public’s expectations of intervention for children in need are much higher than what they actually receive. Is the Minister aware of that, and is he going to do anything about it?
Lord Young of Cookham
To some extent, children’s services are better placed within the local authority framework than other services because there are statutory protections for children that are not available for other services provided by local government. Spending on the most vulnerable children has increased by around £1 billion since 2010, and that includes safeguarding looked-after children and other children at risk. Since 2013, over 500,000 two year-olds have benefited from 15 hours of free early education a week. However, I am interested in the report that the noble Baroness has referred to, and I would like to write her with some more responses.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, did I hear the Minister correctly when he seemed to indicate that he wants to keep income tax down by pushing up council tax, pushing the problems that we are talking about away from the Government and on to local government?
Lord Young of Cookham
I was not aware that I had made any such commitment at all. The question was about resources for local government; the words “income tax” never passed my lips.
The Earl of Listowel (CB)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the Government for the troubled families programme. In the course of evidence to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children, we have heard from many local authorities that are very grateful for that funding. Unfortunately, the resources that have come out of this area have been greater than the resources that have gone in. A couple of weeks ago I was speaking to a virtual school head, a former Ofsted inspector who works with looked-after children, who was decrying the fact that so many services that support families to prevent them from rising to the higher level of need have had to be cut. I sense that the Government are looking at this area and I am grateful for that, but please may I get the sense from them that this is something that they are looking at very carefully?
Lord Young of Cookham
I hope I indicated in my earlier replies that this is a subject that the Government take very seriously. I indicated that resources have been made available in more recent years in order to reduce some of the pressures on local government. It is also worth making the point that outcomes for all children are improving, and the development gap is narrowing between high achievers and lower achievers. However, of course I take seriously the point that the noble Earl has made, and the Government will continue to see what more they can do to look after children who are at risk.
Children: Obesity
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have as part of their review of the Childhood Obesity Plan for Action to work with the BBC to ensure that efforts to reduce obesity involve schoolchildren nationwide.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, broadcasters have an important role in shaping the national conversation about reducing obesity and promoting healthier lifestyles, as has been demonstrated by recent programming. Officials from my department are in discussions with those in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to explore how we can work together with broadcasters on this important issue.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful and hopeful reply. Like the noble Lord, Lord McColl, I believe that we need a major overarching campaign that must be focused on children, and principally the BBC would be the organisation to lead it. I hope the discussions that are taking place will produce a positive programme so that we can see that the 8 million children, many of whom have a serious problem and face difficulties ahead, are given the assistance they need to get to better health in the future.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I applaud the noble Lord for the work that he is doing. I know he has written to my noble friend Lord Hall about this topic. I think other broadcasters have a role to play as well; we know that broadcasters in the past have had a critical role to play. I remember the Just Say No campaign when I was growing up, as well as campaigns that focused on the prevention of HIV/AIDS. So there is an important role to play here. Broadcasters are not always polite about government actions, but nevertheless we want to support them in their important role in this position.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, for noble Lords who may be confused, there are two different Questions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on the two different Order Papers—and I am delighted that the Minister has responded to the one in House of Lords Business. On a daily basis we seem to be getting reports that further prove that there is going to be a generation of children who die ahead of their parents because of the scourge of childhood obesity. The BBC is to be congratulated on commissioning Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s latest campaigning series, which culminated last night in a rather uncomfortable episode for the Government. When the childhood obesity strategy was published, we were told it was the first part of a conversation. Is the Minister able to tell us when we might hear the second part?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I thank my noble friend for pointing out that we are talking about obesity rather than the NHS constitution—which is just as well because I had not prepared for that. She has been steadfast in campaigning on this issue. We know that the problem presents some uncomfortable truths. The Government have taken some significant actions in this area, such as the soft drinks levy, but we have always said that we will not rest if we do not think they are having the impact that we want them to. There is emerging evidence that we need to go further. I cannot give my noble friend a date on further action but I can tell her that this is the subject of most serious consideration at the centre of government.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
I first congratulate the Government on last night’s announcement that there will now be golden hellos for postgraduate students into hard-to-recruit nursing posts in mental health, learning disability and district nursing—which, in the longer term, will help solve some of the problem of childhood obesity. The relationship between obesity and poor health is proven, yet our schools fail to fully embrace tackling this issue. Does the Minister agree that if pilot schools and their pupils were exposed to substantial public health interventions from community-based nursing teams, and their successes and challenges were part of a BBC series, it would be an experiment that might have significant benefits both in assisting a reduction in weight gain and promoting mental health and well-being in children and adolescents more widely?
Lord O’Shaughnessy
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her acknowledgement of that important step forward in recruiting nurses to hard-to-recruit areas. That is important because we want more mental health, learning disability and district nurses in the future. They have an important role to play in schools. If I may say so, the noble Baroness is slightly underplaying the work that schools are already doing in this area. We have talked about the Daily Mile programme, which is going very well, with 900 schools in England adopting it. Learning about food, healthy eating and nutrition is a compulsory part of the curriculum in key stages 1, 2 and 3. However, I agree that there is always a need to do more.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that when you cook your meals from scratch, you know what is in them and are more likely to stay healthy? Can he assure me that children learn to cook in schools, not just the theory of nutrition? Will he also join me in encouraging the BBC to produce a cookery programme aimed at children?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I am turning into the commissioner of children’s programming. I am trying to remember—I think that there is actually a CBBC programme that encourages children to cook. Its name has gone completely out of my mind but it was popular with my children. The noble Baroness raises an important point. Children learn to cook in primary schools, most of which have some sort of kit that allows them to do that. It is critical for them to understand that food does not just come from packets or shops but can be created by hand—and enjoyably, too.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it has been shown that having a good breakfast, such as an egg or two in the morning, reduces one’s appetite for the rest of the day, and one’s weight? One of the problems for children is that many do not get a good breakfast. Can the Government do anything to encourage breakfast as a proper meal?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
It goes to show that public health campaigns can be effective. I remember the “Go to work on an egg” campaign—although I had a banana myself. The serious point is that too many children do not go to school after a proper breakfast, and one of the great advances with the sugar levy has been a commitment of around £26 million to support breakfast clubs in about 1,500 schools in areas that unfortunately have the worst outcomes for healthy children and obesity. That support will help those children go to school on a good breakfast and function properly.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that one of the tragedies of the demise of so many Sure Start programmes was that parents were engaged in not just nurturing but understanding what happened to their children, particularly in poor areas where junk food was bought as opposed to learning to cook? Will he put some emphasis on parents being taught how to cook nutritious food, and not just children?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I could not agree with the noble Lord more about the importance of good parenting and parents setting an example in this area. I would focus on a major Public Health England initiative, Change4Life, which is about equipping parents with the knowledge and understanding of how to prepare good-quality, healthy meals that are affordable.
Grandparents: Legal Rights
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure grandparents have a more effective legal right to see their grandchildren after the parents’ divorce.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, in the first instance, it is for parents to decide what is in the best interests of their children. The Government recognise the important role that grandparents may play in children’s lives and the stability they can provide in families when parents separate. We are keeping the matter under review.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The requirement for grandparents to apply for child arrangement orders is cumbersome, expensive and needs reforming. However, when grandparents need to go to court to maintain contact with their grandchildren, they typically have a relationship problem with one or both parents, rather than a legal problem. In Australia, where there is disharmony following divorce and separation, extended family members can access family relationship centres. Do the Government have plans to ensure that there is similar community-based help—sited, perhaps, in the family hubs slowly emerging across the country?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the requirement for non-parents first to seek leave of the court in order to apply for a child arrangement order is regarded as an important filter mechanism, and was the subject of review by an independent panel in 2011 which came to the same conclusion. With regard to means of alternative dispute resolution, we are of course anxious to see mediation employed in the situation to which the noble Lord refers. He may recollect that at a recent Westminster Hall debate, on 2 May, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice indicated that she was carefully considering the current position and provision. In doing so, we will of course be happy to look at international experience.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
Will the Government consider extending legal aid to grandparents, assuming that the law is changed to allow them to apply, because that would clearly be very helpful in many cases?
Lord Keen of Elie
The law does not require to be changed in order that grandparents can make an application in respect of an arrangement order for children. As regards legal aid, as the noble Lord is aware, that is currently the subject of a review within the Ministry of Justice.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, with some family experience, I am concerned that a Minister of Her Majesty’s Government was talking about presumptions for grandparents to have contact with their grandchildren. I would hope that that would not go any further, because presumptions are highly undesirable in the law, but it would be useful to review whether grandparents are finding it unusually difficult to get access to the court when they wish to be in touch with their grandchildren.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, with regard to access to the courts, the number of applications for child arrangement orders has generally been in the region of 2,000 over the period since 2011. They have varied slightly, and the number of applications has increased steadily from 2015 to the current year, where the figure is in excess of 2,000. I have certainly not referred to presumption, and various issues would of course arise if we were to consider such a move because, if you contemplate a presumption in favour of grandparents, you are in a sense intruding on the rights of the parent.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, is there really a justification for the two-stage process whereby grandparents have to apply for the right to make an application for a contact order and there is then a filtering system? Would it not be much easier for there to be a single application for a contact order with a filter system for non-parents built into that application, thus saving grandparents a great deal of time and trouble—all, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, points out, without the benefit of legal aid under the current arrangements, which require there to have been domestic violence or abuse?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the matter of seeking permission, whether it be by grandparents or other non-parent applicants for an arrangement order in respect of children, was the subject of independent review by the Family Justice Review panel in 2011. In its final report, published in November 2011, it concluded that the matter of an application for permission should continue.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, respect for grandparents’ rights to see their grandchildren should be always in place. In the case of divorced parents, what strong, lawful action can be taken to restore this great and loving tradition?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, we respect the right of grandparents to make an application for an arrangement order for children. Indeed, in the context of public law cases, local authorities are directed to consider placing children with relatives where it is not possible for the parents to continue with their care. It is open for grandparents to be appointed as special guardians in such situations.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister agrees with me that grandparents often have a very special relationship in the life of any child, and I congratulate the Government on the recognition of grandparents’ rights, for example, in the crediting of national insurance contributions for grandparents who look after their grandchildren. May I also urge my noble and learned friend to encourage our honourable friend in the other place to reinforce the concerns expressed that denying rights of access for grandparents can often be like a living bereavement? If there is an opportunity to amend the Children Act to give grandparents more rights, I would very much welcome it.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, of course we understand the concern of grandparents with regard to child arrangements. But, as I indicated earlier, this is a difficult field. It is easy to talk of a presumption in favour of grandparents, but if you do that, you are, in effect, intruding on the rights of the parents with respect to the care of the children.
Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL]
Thursday 10th May 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL] 2017-19 View all Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill [HL] 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, for his skill in steering this Bill through your Lordships’ House. We are all very grateful to him and for the campaigns and businesses that have supported him, including the Co-op and Co-operative Party, of which I have been a member for 40 years.
I wish this Bill every success in the Commons and hope that it will become law swiftly. It will improve the support that victims of this wicked crime will be able to receive and bring the law in England and Wales up to the same standard that already applies in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I thank my personal friend, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for all his support. He has been very effective in persuading people not to put down amendments. His technique was really quite effective—he simply threatened to lean on them until they stopped breathing. I also thank all noble Lords for all their support.
Civil Liability Bill [HL]
Thursday 10th May 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Liability Act 2018 View all Civil Liability Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 90-I(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 54KB) - (10 May 2018)
The Earl of Kinnoull
“(1) In this Part, “whiplash injury” means an injury or set of injuries resulting in soft tissue damage, usually of the neck, back or shoulder, arising out of a motor accident, which presents symptoms which may include pain and aches (including pain of the jaw, neck, back, and shooting pains in the neck, shoulder or arms), headaches, stiffness, fatigue, dizziness, swelling, bruising, tenderness or muscle spasms.”
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I declare my interests as set out in the register of the House, in particular those in the insurance industry. I am going to speak briefly to three propositions. First, a definition of “whiplash” should appear on the face of the Bill. Secondly, that definition should be wide. Thirdly, it should be amendable without having to resort to primary legislation, but with parliamentary oversight.
I turn to the first of those propositions. My work has been made much easier by the 22nd report of the excellent Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee is excellent as well as the report. It says at paragraph 9:
“We take the view that it would be an inappropriate delegation of power for ‘whiplash injury’, a concept central to a full understanding of the Bill, to be defined in regulations made by Ministers rather than being defined on the face of the Bill”.
I very much agree. It is particularly curious to me that there is no definition, because there are so many definitions of whiplash floating around, not least in the pre-action protocol for low-value personal injury claims for motor accidents and indeed in the draft regulations that appeared within the last 48 hours for this Bill. I therefore can see no reason why there should not be a definition on the face of the Bill. I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister whether he might see that one was, in fact, appropriate.
There are two problems with the width issue. The first is that, if the width is narrow—and a whiplash motor accident normally involves several minor injuries to the person involved—we are in the position where a tariff applies to a selection of injuries but maybe not all of them. That would be to the advantage of what I call the claims industry. Aviva, in its briefing to all Peers before the Second Reading, estimates out of whiplash alone to make £500 million a year. It is unbelievably inventive and supple. This morning, I was looking at one of the principal websites, and I will read a bit from it out as it will show just how much the meaning of the word “whiplash” has been stretched:
“Symptoms can include dizziness, blurred vision, disorientation, tiredness, poor concentration, memory loss, nausea, pins and needles in the arms and hands, muscle spasms and pain in the lower back”.
Later on, there is a rather curious sentence:
“Even if you don’t experience any symptoms straightaway, don’t rule out the possibility that you’ve suffered this type of injury”.
That is the sort of entity that, in fact, is doing great damage to the general population. It has increased motor insurance premiums. They are highly intelligent and well funded. I really feel width is important.
There is a second point on width. For the honest claimant, having clarity—so there is one tariff for one sum of money, and so they can fill in the online portals for a claim—is greatly to their advantage. If they have to fill in one online portal to sort out part of their heads of claims, and then no doubt head off to the one of the companies I was referring to, there would be greater chaos and we will not have tried, through legislation, to improve society.
I turn quickly to the point about the importance of it all being amendable. I regret that we will always be playing catch-up with the claims industry. This is not the first attempt to cope with the burgeoning whiplash problem. I remind the House that, even today, 1% of the population every year has a successful whiplash claim, on average—that is 30 times what happens in France. It is a problem that is out of control; we heard many examples of that at Second Reading. There is an enormous prize in having flexibility and, accordingly, I beg to move.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I should inform the Committee that if Amendment 1 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendments 3 to 5 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 2 in this group, which is in my name, tackles the same issue. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has laid out the background and reasons why this House and the country should be concerned about whiplash—false whiplash—and what are rather inelegantly called “cash for crash” events. I do not propose to weary the House by running over those issues again, which we discussed quite a lot at Second Reading.
Amendment 2 addresses the point made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about the lack of a definition in the Bill and does so in a slightly wider way than Amendment 1, moved by the noble Earl. It proposes a definition in proposed new subsection (1) but, at the same time, proposed new subsection (2) recognises the need for flexibility, in the sense that medical technology and medical sciences are always changing and there will need to be some flexibility in keeping the law up to date with those developments. Amendment 2 therefore aims to create an overarching definition, clarifying what is included within a soft tissue injury, but then provides room for flexibility, so that new ways of describing these injuries do not result in them falling outside the definition. At the same time, it allows the definition to be changed to reflect improvements in diagnosis and prognosis of these subjective injuries.
I should say that I was somewhat concerned that, having got a definition of whiplash in the Bill, a definition gap might have been left by not defining soft tissue. But the insurance industry tells me that this term is well understood and does not need a detailed definition here; the noble Earl referred to that. What I understand is called the pre-action protocol for low-value personal injury claims—I am reading this carefully because I am not entirely familiar with it myself—uses the term to define the scope of powers and has been in force since 1 October 2014, apparently so far without challenge or the need for a judicial ruling on its meaning. I hope that this amendment will be a useful contribution to the debate on this important topic.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 3 in this group is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for whose support I am very grateful. Following the two preceding and eloquent speeches, I can be very brief. The point of the amendment is simply to put a definition of whiplash in the Bill. There are rival definitions in various other amendments, and there is now also a government definition contained in the draft SI published yesterday. At first glance, this government definition seems to provide a sound basis for discussion, but it is in the wrong place. It should be in the Bill.
As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has already said, our Delegated Powers Committee said clearly in its 22nd report that,
“it would be an inappropriate delegation of power for ‘whiplash injury’, a concept central to a full understanding of the Bill, to be defined in regulations made by Ministers rather than being defined on the face of the Bill”.
At Second Reading, many noble Lords strongly agreed with this conclusion and it is disappointing, now that they have a draft definition, not to see the Government bringing forward an amendment to put this in the Bill.
In his Second Reading reply and in his subsequent letter to us of 30 April, the Minister did not respond substantively to criticisms of using secondary legislation to define whiplash. He merely noted that he did not entirely agree with the DPRRC recommendations and that noble Lords were anxious about the definition of whiplash.
In fact, the Government had already set out elsewhere in correspondence with the Delegated Powers Committee their case for using secondary legislation. The DPRRC helpfully summarised this by saying that, first, whiplash must be defined accurately; secondly, there must be extensive consultation; and thirdly, the definition must remain accurate. The Delegated Powers Committee agreed with these propositions but said,
“it does not follow from them that the definition of ‘whiplash injury’ should be contained in regulations rather than the Bill. Neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Ministry of Justice is best placed to make this determination”.
We agree with the conclusions of the Delegated Powers Committee and invite the Minister to explain why the Government have rejected them and are still pursuing the statutory instrument route.
As to the Government’s definition itself, as I have said, it seems to provide a sound basis for discussion but we have not had enough time to make a proper assessment and to canvass the opinion of other stakeholders. We will want to return to this issue on Report.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, as chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, which published a report on this Bill, I would like to make a few comments. First, I have a purely personal comment. Colleagues may be interested to know that I have made a full recovery from the serious accident I had in the last few days—not that I recall having had a serious accident, but my mobile phone tells me that I did and that I should pursue a claim. I say to my noble friend the Minister that this racket is still happening again and again. I had thought, as a passionate supporter of the Government, that we had nailed this down and stopped the grabby racketeering lawyers pursuing these claims. I hope in future we will be able to put a stop to it.
Going back to the Bill and the amendments, the Delegated Powers Committee looked at this and said we were becoming rather familiar with skeletal Bills. By any standards, this Bill is skeletal. Then we went on to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, so very kindly pointed out—the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also paid tribute to our work—that:
“In this Part ‘whiplash injury’ means an injury, or set of injuries, of soft tissue in the neck, back or shoulder”,
and then the description stops to say that the rest of the definition will be,
“specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor”.
I am not revealing committee secrets but half of us on the committee thought that the parliamentary draftsman had been distracted—he was half way through writing the definition and stopped and forgot to complete it—because it seemed an elementary thing to complete.
I have not seen last night’s regulations—I shall look at them carefully—but I did a quick Google search last night on the definition of a whiplash injury. Even the NHS website states that:
“Whiplash injury is a type of neck injury caused by sudden movement of the head forwards, backwards or sideways”.
Wikipedia has a much more detailed definition, which I assume from some of the spelling is an American one. There is a fascinating point in it:
“Cadaver studies have shown that as an automobile occupant is hit from behind, the forces from the seat back compress the kyphosis of the thoracic spine, which provides an axial load on the lumbar spine and cervical spine. This forces the cervical spine to deform into an S-shape where the lower cervical spine is forced into a kyphosis while the upper cervical spine maintains its lordosis. As the injury progresses, the whole cervical spine is finally hyper-extended”.
That is not skeletal. It may be a bit too much fat on flesh on the bones but I quote it because I think it important that we have a technical medical definition, by physicians, relating to the distortion and flexing of the spine and not just a list of symptoms. If we merely make a list saying that people feel dizziness, nausea, headaches and so on, we could include everything. After a good night’s dinner one could feel those symptoms and not necessarily have been involved in an accident. If it is simply possible to get some definitions from Google and to look at the excellent definition from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and from my noble friend—who is not a lawyer—these definitions seem to me to be a very good starting point. If the Government’s definition in the regulations is even better, let us go with that. My committee was at an absolute loss to understand why it was not in the Bill. There is no justification for it not being there. Of course, there can be an order-making power for the Minister to tweak or amend it in due course as medical science changes.
We said that there should be extensive consultation. If I go outside the Chamber right now and phone the Royal College of Physicians, within 10 minutes it will give me a pretty good definition. The doctors who deal with this issue are the experts, not the Lord Chancellor or the lawyers in the Ministry of Justice. We must let the doctors come up with the definition and put it in the Bill so that we have complete certainty in the future.
Lord Ribeiro (Con)
My Lords, I agree entirely with that last point. I too searched on Google and Wikipedia and saw the rather extensive definition of the diagnosis. That makes the point that none of these claims should be accepted unless a medical opinion has been sought and a report given. It is for the physicians to make the diagnosis. This Bill is very clear about confining the list to motor vehicle accidents rather than all the other ways in which whiplash injuries can occur. In the context of a motor vehicle accident, the very injuries that have been described and the mechanisms and consequences relating to those injuries can be defined only through a proper medical assessment. As explained in the Minister’s letter to us all after Second Reading, it is essential that a medical report is provided before taking this matter further.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks. I agree with the comments of the chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, although obviously I cannot comment on the legal qualifications of the person who telephoned him. As I outlined at Second Reading, I have practised in this area and have dealt with these claims, and I know that it has become something of a fashion to be quite derogatory about the role of advocates and lawyers. When I joined the Bar, it was one of the proudest moments of my life. People becoming lawyers and acting as advocates so that someone is not a litigant in person is an incredibly valuable part of our system, and as we discuss further amendments we should all bear that in mind. Having an advocate when you are an ordinary person—potentially with three part-time jobs on the London living wage—so that you do not have to deal with such calls is valuable, and I implore us to look at our lawyers in a better light than is often the case in our culture.
Lord Judge (CB)
Perhaps I may add a few words. Of course the definition of whiplash has to be made by doctors—that is how the world works—but we are engaged in legislation. This word must have a legal meaning and it must be enshrined either in a statute or in regulations. The Bill approaches the problem by putting the legislative cart before the legislative horse. If we are being asked to enact legislation in which we do not know precisely what the word means, we are being asked to do something that we should not be asked to do.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I may add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has just said. I agree with her and stress that this is not just a case of racketeering lawyers. One problem that we need to grapple with at this stage of the Bill is that the cold-calling racket and the encouragement of claims comes from claims management companies as well, often from abroad. They can also come from those who offer free hire cars to those who will pursue claims, and they can add a personal injury claim. The same applies to people who repair cars. There is all that potential for racketeering to jack up these claims, and we accept that there is a very serious problem.
I come back to the point about the definition. I agree with all those speakers who have said that the definition has to be in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, very concisely just explained why it has to go in the Bill and why it is insufficient for it simply to be in draft regulations at this stage.
Perhaps I may say a word or two more about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. I served on it for three years when my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester chaired it. The general practice then was for the Government to accept the recommendations of that committee. We took the responsibility of considering the delegated powers in every Bill that came through this House extremely seriously and in an almost entirely non-partisan manner. We were guided and assisted by clerks who were astute to ensure that their advice was based on precedent and on principles, and the principles were published.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, this is a good Bill but it is incomplete. As the Minister will have noticed, every single speaker has said that, to be completed, it requires a legal definition. Individuals who say that they have a whiplash will have to have a medical diagnosis, but in a Bill of this sort, which is intended to deal with fraud, there absolutely has to be a legal definition, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Judge, which I entirely support.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a racketeering lawyer, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra would have it, although it has been some time since I was involved in whiplash claims.
I accept that there are genuine whiplash claims and that some whiplash problems last for a considerable time and can cause difficulties that continue well beyond six months, 12 months or even two years. The majority do not. However, the legislation we are concerned with here ought to be clear—I agree with all noble Lords who have said this—which would mean a definition in the Bill. This has been a problem for this Government and previous Governments and we have to accept that we are dealing with a slippery and powerful opposition in trying to pin down this racket.
Whiplash injuries have an attraction for fraudsters because, as no doubt my noble friend Lord Ribeiro will confirm, they are difficult to prove or disprove on medical analysis—they do not show up on scans of any sort—and doctors have to rely on the veracity of the patient to satisfy themselves that they may or may not have whiplash symptoms.
We do not want to pin down a definition of whiplash injuries and the nation’s necks appear to improve, only for its lower backs to deteriorate, and suddenly we are invited to consider claims in which, as a result of some movement of the thorax, lumbar or cervical regions in an accident, all the symptoms are referable to the lower back, which is outside the definition and would be equally difficult to prove or disprove. I therefore counsel the House to use caution in saying that we must pin down the definition. As legislators that is of course desirable but we want to help the Government to deal with this problem.
A similar issue arose during consideration of the Psychoactive Substances Bill, when everyone in the House said that we must be clear as to what the substances are and put them in the Bill. However, the conclusion was that we should not do this because of the infinite adaptability of those who produce such substances. While I sympathise as a matter of principle with those who have spoken—I will listen with interest to what my noble and learned friend says—we should be careful not to do anything which may assist those who have perpetuated this racket.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey (CB)
My Lords, I support everything that has been said by every lawyer who has spoken this morning. Clearly, the Bill needs a definition. However, I also agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has said about the difficulty that has arisen in constructing the definition.
The House will not be able to tell whether the Bill will work as a matter of practical justice until we see the definition. It will need to be a broad definition for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks. It is easy to foresee that when the Bill passes into law, as it probably will, there will then develop heavy tactical warfare between those acting on the claimant’s side and those acting on the defendant’s side, which will be focused on the precise wording of the definition. If there is undue looseness in the definition, that warfare will clog up the courts and be generally undesirable.
In short—I do not disagree with anything I have heard this morning—it is clearly necessary for the Bill to contain a definition and for this House to consider the proposed definition in minute detail and with great care to ensure that the Bill works when it passes into law.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, and my noble friend Lord Faulks. In doing so, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I too have sympathy for my noble and learned friend the Minister. This is a good opportunity to remind ourselves why we need this legislation. Late last night, at a most inconvenient time, I received a call urging me to bring a claim. I do not know how many noble Lords have had the same but there is an industry out there. That is why working out a definition will be quite a challenge.
This problem needs urgent attention. Noble Lords may know that I have been pursuing this line of argument for 15 years. I have watched this claims industry grow and make life intolerable for so many people. In the last 10 years, the number of reported road accidents has gone down by 30%, but in the same period the number of injury claims has gone up by at least 40%. We have a problem.
I received copious briefings from vested interests who are completely opposed to any whiplash reform on the basis that it threatens access to justice for injured people, but a lot of these briefings come from companies with a commercial interest in the presentation of these claims. I think that the threat is more to their income and profits than they are prepared to admit. I want to quote Sir Rupert Jackson, albeit from seven years ago:
“There is currently far too much money swilling around in the personal injuries system and the beneficiaries are not the claimants, but usually the referrers and (when no referral fee is paid) the lawyers”.
He made that point in a different context but it is a good reminder that we are dealing with a pretty serious problem. Governments have tried before to reduce the cost of whiplash claims but the measures used, including the banning of referral fees, have not succeeded in bringing the number of claims in check.
Some noble Lords will try to argue to the contrary although they have not participated so far in the debate, but any reported decrease in the number of whiplash claims is probably because they are being described as something else. A neck injury becomes an injury to the spine or the shoulder or the back. As my noble friend Lord Faulks pointed out, this is a moving target. I have a great deal of sympathy for my noble and learned friend the Minister.
I suppose that this set of reforms is different from what has gone before. It is targeted specifically at reducing the number of claims. In view of the reduction in accident numbers, this must surely be the right target. That is why we have provisions such as a tariff set by the Lord Chancellor. This is a socio-political problem, not a medical or even a truly legal one. It needs a political policy steer, not just to be handed back to judges to exercise controls. Indeed, the Judicial College has acknowledged that this is not its role:
“We stress again that we do not attempt to prescribe what levels of damages ought to be awarded”.
In truth, judges assess very few of these low-value claims; when they do, it is usually because there is an unusual factor involved.
The industry—it is a commercial industry—that brings these claims is highly adaptive. I welcome the opportunity given to us by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble and learned friend to look at the definition. The reforms in 2013 led to an early move by road accident solicitors into industrial deafness claims and clinical negligence claims, and the call that I received last night urged me to bring a claim because of some alleged sickness I had suffered on a holiday I never took. Let us not avoid the fact that we need to confront these waves of claims. There is time for more drastic action. Of course, I agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Noble Lords are well-versed in arguments about Henry VIII powers but in this case, with due respect to the committee, the concerns may be misplaced.
The action that the Government need to take must be radical but also fleet of foot. That is the key to understanding why the majority of the measures are subject to regulations. It is also essential that this Bill does not stray into narrow, overly medical or overly legalistic terms that are easily circumvented. Having said all that, I can hardly wait to hear what my noble and learned friend the Minister has to say.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
I must apologise to the noble Lord for delaying his expectations slightly, and declare my interest as an unpaid consultant in my old firm of solicitors.
It is clear that we must have a proper definition. It is equally clear that the definition ought to be provided by a medical source. The groupings of this rather long day are such that the recommendation that I shall be making in the next group is relevant to this first group, in that the responsibility for defining a whiplash injury should be on the Chief Medical Officer and the definition incorporated into primary or secondary legislation. That takes the decision away from politicians. I disagree with the noble Lord—I do not think that the definition should be a political decision: it should emanate from the medical profession and be embodied in legislation. An amendment to that effect on Report would perhaps be helpful.
It is clear that there are problems; nobody denies that. There is an argument about the extent to which the current system is being abused, but any abuse is unacceptable and reflects on innocent people who have suffered genuine injury. Their cases need to be dealt with properly. So there has to be change. However, with due respect to those who tabled these amendments, who may well have drawn on medical advice, we should at some point incorporate a requirement for that medical advice to emanate from a medical source—I have suggested the Chief Medical Officer but it could be another source—rather than be determined by politicians.
Lord Faulks
The term “whiplash” is pretty loose. What is the noble Lord inviting medical experts to do to interpret a term that is not really medical?
Lord Beecham
There surely has to be a medical definition—and where better to get it from? The medical profession deals with injuries that are labelled “whiplash injuries”. There may be some argument about the definition, but surely it can be decided only on the basis of medical skills.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I thoroughly agree with the proposition that is highly desirable for the definition used as the basis for later provisions in this part of the Bill to be on the face of the Bill. The difficulty I have had so far is in identifying what we want to do. It is the area of exaggerated claims, or something of that sort, that underlies the Government’s proposals. I agree that it must be, ultimately, a medical definition, because a medical report saying that you have this injury is an essential requirement for you to come under this part of the Bill.
The difficulty, however, is that the doctors have to know where these exaggerations take place. I have been instructed by people who suggest that if you go for the back, and the rest, you are extending the thing beyond the real position. I have, therefore, some sympathy with the amendment restricting that, which I think is to be moved or spoken to later. I do not, however, profess to know exactly what the problem is, in the sense of the area of medical expertise that is being used by the claimant industry to exaggerate claims. That is their idea: to exaggerate these claims and ask for more than they are worth. As I said at Second Reading, I have some experience long past of the difficulty of actually quantifying the correct amount for these injuries, particularly if they are serious—and they can be quite serious, I think. This is my problem and I would be glad of help when the Minister comes to speak.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I am obliged for all the contributions that have been made so far this morning. I observe that it appears to be generally recognised that the Bill is addressing a very real issue about which policy decisions have to be made and implemented. I quite understand the question raised about where the definition of whiplash injury should appear. The definition in the Bill seeks to limit injuries to those soft tissue injuries that affect the neck, back or shoulder and arise from road traffic accidents. The vires in the Bill are tightly drawn to enable regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor that would apply only to a discrete number and type of injury.
It is interesting to see the diversity of amendments that have come forward this morning. That may underline the particular challenge we face in arriving at a suitable definition, be it in the Bill or in regulation. We have sought to address an issue that involves reconciling a legal understanding of this matter with a medical definition—one which covers both injury and the symptoms of injury. That involves us engaging with not only medical expertise but a degree of legal expertise. In addition, while I am not going to go through the detail of every amendment, because I understand what lies behind them, I will note this much. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, set out three points for consideration, and in doing so underlined the very real problem that we need to address here. It was emphasised by the suggestion that if you go to a particular claims management site you are encouraged to believe that even if you have no symptoms you may still have a claim.
I was reminded of an incident some years ago where I was acting for an American pharmaceutical company. The US attorneys showed me a photograph of a genuine roadside sign that had been erected in the state of Mississippi. It said, “If you’ve taken drug X and suffered a fatal heart attack, telephone this number”. The lengths to which we lawyers will go know no bounds, and our belief in the Almighty is always there. There is a very real industry out there. I do not use the term “racket”, but others have—and with some justification.
Looking to the current position, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, correctly observed that the regulations that we have produced in draft to elaborate the definition of whiplash injury have only just appeared. I quite understand the need for noble Lords to consider those regulations in more detail. In turn, I will consider in more detail whether we should incorporate a more precise definition in the Bill. But I stress that, even if we were to take that step, it would be necessary for us to bear in mind the ability of government to proceed by way of regulations to support any definition in the Bill. We are well aware that flexibility will be required with regard to any final definition so that we can meet the way in which claims development occurs—the way in which this sort of market develops—in order to put limitations on claims.
At the end of the day, the detailed definition of whiplash injury will need to reconcile the current legal understanding with an accurate medical definition covering both injury and symptoms. Our aim is to achieve that objective, but to what extent we achieve it by incorporating the definition in the Bill is not a matter on which I would take a final position. I quite understand the suggestion that we should consider further the extent to which the definition can appear on the face of the Bill, and also allow noble Lords the opportunity to consider the scope of the draft regulation that has only recently been made available. In the light of that, and understanding that these are essentially probing amendments, I invite noble Lords not to press them at this time.
The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, I am grateful for those last few sentences from the Minister, which were very helpful and reflect the strong mood of the House. I must say that if we had had a brief fee clock going, with the number of very expensive lawyers here, it would have been going round quite rapidly. I will make one point, following what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said. I too am a non-practising barrister, but I would never do anything to suggest that advocacy was not valuable. Advocates are immensely valuable in our justice system.
I do, of course, have experience of sitting on the other side of the table from the “claims industry”, as I term it—and the last thing those people want is an advocate in the mix. Most of their companies do not employ that many lawyers: some companies have no lawyers at all, or just one on their writing paper. They want a paper-based or telephone-based operation, in order to process things as cheaply as possible. This would actually help advocacy, because it would try to push things back into the proper legal market and away from companies that have been commoditising the rather grubby process of grabbing money. But, on the basis of what the Minister has said, and knowing that we will be having discussions with a view to bringing forward some sort of amendment on the definition—no doubt several noble Lords who have spoken today will be involved—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name. I have already effectively, I hope, spoken to Amendment 5. Amendment 4 is a probing amendment that seeks to alter the definition of a whiplash injury to confine it to neck injuries. I accept the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made about the precise definition, and also the fact that I am effectively in the position that I was questioning before, of not having the medical authority to give a prescription. That underlines the need for independent medical advice as to what constitutes the kind of injury that needs to be covered.
Amendment 5, to which I referred before, would require the definition to be provided by the Chief Medical Officer. There may be other professional sources that would be as effective, but the independence and status of the Chief Medical Officer strikes me as highly relevant.
The other amendments in this group to which I will refer are, particularly, Amendments 8 and 10, which suggest a new tariff for 12 months rather than the two years in the Bill. I understand that the vast majority of cases are within that one-year period, so to extend it to two years seems somewhat invidious, given that there has to be proof of the effect of the accident. Two years is a long time to be subjected to, for what would be a pretty minimal level of compensation provided for in the tariff. I hope that that would improve the Bill somewhat.
In relation to Amendment 9, sub-paragraph (ii) seems superfluous because it requires the claimant to have mitigated the damage suffered, but in common law the plaintiff has to demonstrate that he has done precisely that. Sub-paragraph (ii) does not seem to add anything to the current legal position and, for that reason, it should be removed.
Amendments 15 to 20 are in this group. They would remove references to psychological injury from Clauses 2 and 3. That is a matter which we feel should be dealt with in the ordinary way. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 15 to 20 and to explain why leaving out the word “psychological” benefits the Bill. As currently drafted, the Bill captures soft tissue injury and minor psychological injury only. If a claimant sustained a whiplash injury and, say, a bruise on their knee at the same time in an accident, the bruised knee would not be captured by the definition, which is limited to neck, back and shoulder in the current Clause 1. Damages for the bruised knee would therefore fall outside the tariff damages but would remain compensatable under common law. As I said earlier, there is a great prize for simplicity here, for being able, as an honest and genuine litigant, to go to a web portal to fill a claim and have predictability about what you are going to get. We will no doubt discuss the tariff a lot later on today. By removing the word “psychological” we bring minor injuries into the tariff so that if you have an accident and get a set of minor injuries, which we loosely call whiplash injuries, but which include bruised knees, you know what you are going to get and there would be a simple web way of doing it. We have tried to do that, and that is the sole reason for removing “psychological”. It would mean that injuries without the word “psychological” include psychological injuries. In fact, the definition I referred to earlier on the pre-action protocol for small bodily injury claims specifically includes psychological injuries. I think I have made the point.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment 21, which is tabled in my name. I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register.
I shall follow the theme in the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, with regard to physiotherapy and psychological treatments in claims under this clause. The debate at the moment is with regard to probing amendments, and I hope very much that the Minister, in his reply, will be able to give us a little more explanation on how he sees this particular section of the Bill operating.
I should also say as a caveat that, while I accept the very strong point continually made in the Chamber, and rightly so, about the creativity of some claims management companies—the ones making the telephone calls—to find ways into this area and to cause considerable difficulties, I hope that we will not lose sight of the genuine claims of individuals and the hardships they suffer when they seek to make a claim but cannot represent themselves and whose access to finance for such a claim does not exist. In our rush to deal, quite rightly, with unwanted claims, I hope that we will not undermine and damage the very valuable claims that are necessary for individuals—not just adults but children as well.
With regard to my proposed amendment, Clause 2(6) states:
“Regulations… may provide”,
that a person has taken,
“reasonable steps to mitigate the effect of … whiplash injury or minor psychological injury”.
As I have said, I want to talk about physiotherapy as well.
The reason I ask the Minister to give us more information is in the background of the very public debate about, for example, the provision of mental health services and, in particular, where such services are provided and how the claimant would get access to them and therefore have taken reasonable steps not to undermine a subsequent claim. The King’s Fund, in its analysis of NHS trusts, clearly identifies, through their financial accounts, that approximately 40% of mental health trusts have received a reduction in their funding and therefore in their services.
The type of claims made that require psychological support may involve children who, having been with their parents in a car accident, have problems with nightmares, so they need access to proper support and therapy. Such a claim may involve, and has involved, parents travelling in a car where the mother is pregnant and therefore suffers stress as well as physical injuries. Again, where is the access to psychological injury and, reasonable steps having been taken to mitigate that, given the connection between pain and one’s mental health well-being?
I am not a lawyer, and if my comments are considered ill-informed I will not be embarrassed by being corrected by the very many experienced noble and learned Lords in this Chamber. At the heart of this, and the objective that the Government seek to achieve, is how to stop those who are using the system in a way that, frankly, undermines the rights of good, honest people who are not making fraudulent claims. How to correct that system without preventing worthy, correct and needy claims is a huge challenge. At the moment, while I understand why the ABI talks in its briefing about the need for it to have flexibility to adjust and evolve as the industry does, I see nothing in the Bill that puts that same flexibility into protecting the rights of legitimate claimants in this area of physical damage.
I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this whole area, because I fear that otherwise we may need to return to this. There is not enough protection at the moment for the individual legitimate claimant.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 8, 10 and 49A in this group. I join with the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, in relation to genuine claimants. As I understand it, even the insurance companies accept that the majority of claimants in this area are genuine. It is a high burden on your Lordships’ House to ensure that the Bill hits the target of fraudulent claims as accurately as it can without the shrapnel hitting genuine claimants. Fundamentally, someone with a bruised knee, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, mentioned, may find themselves with more compensation when assessed under Judicial College guidelines than someone who has genuinely incurred a potentially six-month whiplash injury.
Amendments 8 and 10 relate to reducing the length of the period of these symptoms from two years to one. It is important to remember that while, yes, there is a portal, which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, referred to, and the small claims track, even today 35% of claims are outside the portal. These are the nuts and bolts of people’s access to justice through the small claims track, but that is without legal representation.
The important reason to reduce the scope of the Bill to a year is that the overwhelming majority of whiplash cases, even including those that the insurance companies maintain today are fraud or suspected fraud, are resolved within a year. However, a bulk of cases—15%—last longer than that, and of those there are about 5% where someone has a long-standing chronic condition as a result of the whiplash injury. They might have an early onset of osteoarthritis, a chronic pain condition or fibromyalgia—these are cases that I have seen—which are seriously long-term disabling conditions. It is very important for those people that there is representation, perhaps more in-depth medical reports looking at what has happened to their symptoms, and legal advice so that they are not pressurised into settling a claim too early and getting a sum of money within the first year when actually the prognosis is not definite. If we reduce the scope of the Bill—the Government’s stated intention relates to minor injuries and fraud—down to one year, it would give protection to those people who, hopefully, if they were advised properly, would wait to settle their claim to ensure that their symptoms had resolved.
I hope this is not going to be a complicated amendment. It would do a lot to protect genuine claimants. We do not seem to have evidence of people who are exaggerating and claiming to have fibromyalgia, chronic pain or early-onset osteoarthritis as the result of a fraudulent claim. At the moment the Bill does not do sufficient to protect claimants in those categories, and reducing the limit from two years to one would deal with the fraud problem but also give them some protection.
Amendment 49A is one that I was given advice on by USDAW. The policy reason that Her Majesty’s Government have given for creating this section of claims is that we are aiming at fraud where they will not be covered by the Judicial College guidelines. That will lead to ordinary people not necessarily understanding why claim X merited much more than their own claim. This is serious in people’s fundamental understanding of compensation and justice.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I rise with some trepidation to enter into a debate that is so well populated by lawyers and people who know a lot better about these things than I. Perhaps I should declare a sort of interest or make an admission that while I am not a lawyer, I live with one—and her advice to me the other day was not to get into this debate. I have set that on one side for what I hope is a good reason.
I shall speak to Amendment 27A on the supplementary list. It pursues the same point that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, explored. I too am worried about what the Bill—a welcome, reforming Bill in many respects—will also capture and that it will put off, deny and deprive access to proper compensation to those who, in the course of their employment, drive for a living. I am thinking of public service workers, ambulance drivers, firefighters, police officers and those in the distribution sector. I am worried that the Government have it wrong and that the legislation will capture people they do not want to. I cannot see, and we have not yet seen, evidence that there is widespread fraud. I am also concerned that in cases involving people who drive as a product of seeking their living and who are injured in the course of their work, perhaps by someone else’s negligence or when they have been working for a supplier contractor, they end up being undercompensated.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, I should like to probe the Minister’s intent. Can he assure us that such claims will not be affected in the way in which they potentially are? We are both seeking assurances, some evidence and a hope that damages suffered by those in the course of their work will continue to be assessed in the usual way. That is only fair, right and proper. I am sure that the Government would not want to unwittingly—perhaps inadvertently—damage such people’s interests. While a claim culture exists, stimulated by an industry that is very driven, we do not want to harm those who are rightly seeking compensation for an injury that they have suffered.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, I follow for a moment the line that previous speakers have addressed. I understand that the Scottish position is different from that proposed in the Bill and that people injured in the course of their employment are treated differently from others. It would be interesting if the Minister, with his extensive knowledge of the Scottish position, could outline what the different reasoning might be. I am not asking him to speak for the Scottish Government, but I am sure he understands how Scottish practice has developed in a different way.
A number of us are concerned that this is a Bill for the insurance industry, tackling problems that it should have addressed itself. If insurance companies were paying out claims without properly investigating, if they were making money available just because it was too much trouble for them to assess the honesty of those making the claim, they have spawned the industry that we are now grappling with and trying to make sense of. The insurance industry should put its own house in order, not come crying to the Government too often to say, “You should do this for us with legal changes”.
I am conscious that we could have a problem with drivers who get injured and are covered by the road traffic laws being treated differently from a driver of a forklift truck, say, who has an accident in the factory or depot, and is not covered by road traffic law. There are inconsistencies here which, I understand, the Scots have addressed differently from the position under the Bill. The Minister shakes his head, and I stand to be corrected, but I should be interested in his observations on that point.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monks, makes a good point: the insurance industry has its share of responsibility for what has occurred in its eagerness to settle claims which may not have been genuine to save the cost of going to court to argue the matter, but to describe this as an insurers’ Bill may be to overstate the case. In the Bill, we are all concerned to stamp out what has been a widespread fraud—not at the expense of genuine claimants, of course, but I do not think anyone looking at the statistics could deny that there has been a serious and long-standing problem that needs a solution.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentions the Chief Medical Officer in one of his amendments. Of course, the definition of whiplash and the approach to it should be informed by medical opinion, but I respectfully suggest that, ultimately, we as a legislative body have to grasp that definition and approach, bearing in mind medical evidence but nevertheless seeking to identify what is going on in the real world, rather than simply tying ourselves to a medical definition which may of itself be imprecise.
As to where the cut-off should come—whether it should be 12 months or two years—it will always be somewhat arbitrary. However, there seems to me a risk that if we reduce it to 12 months rather than two years, we can anticipate a number of medical reports suggesting that matters should resolve themselves in, say, 18 months—not the more reputable medical experts, but, I am sad to say, not all of them have in the past been in that category.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, about the availability of therapy in various contexts is good but, as I understand it—my noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong—we are concerned here with damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity. That does not preclude damages for loss of earnings or for the cost of medical expenses, whether for therapy or otherwise, which can be recovered in addition to the tariff claim. I hope that that is some answer to the question of whether those matters can be attended to following an accident.
As to the argument about whether employment should be an accepted category, while that might have some initial attraction, I would counsel against that approach. I can imagine a revision to the standard message following any such amendment. It would be, “We understand you have recently been involved in an accident while you were driving in the course of your employment”. That would inevitably follow if we narrow or exclude incidents arising from employment. Whether you are driving in the course of your employment, recreation, or whatever the reason, you are equally likely to—
Baroness Berridge
I hate to interrupt my noble friend, but in principle, what is wrong with a call saying that? If someone is driving in the course of his employment, it is in a different category because the employer will have to give evidence that he was indeed driving in the course of his employment. There is a danger that we are saying all these calls are a bad thing, or that all claims management companies are a bad thing and all insurance is a good thing. What in principle is wrong with a call of that nature that can be substantiated by evidence, and would need to be from the person’s employer?
Lord Faulks
I am grateful for that intervention. My point is that if someone has been genuinely injured, whether in the course of employment or not in the course of employment, they are entitled to make a claim, and nothing should preclude that, regardless of whether they receive a message in the current form or in an amended form. It seems to me that it would be inappropriate to make a distinction between the circumstances in which you may or may not suffer a whiplash injury. My point was simply that if there is an amendment to the law, those seeking to encourage not the genuine claimants—of which there are certainly some—but those who are not genuine may revise their message to take into account the revision that we make in the law. Of course I am not against genuine claims. On the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson, although I understand the disaggregation that lies at the heart of their amendment, I am not for the moment persuaded that this is not a matter that is catered for under Clause 2(3) and (4). I shall listen with interest to what my noble and learned friend says.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps I may invite the noble Lord to refer to the provisions that refer to MedCo. He talked about doctors’ reports as if they could be made by rather unscrupulous doctors at the behest of a client. Would not use of the MedCo system pretty well ensure that the reports would be valid and authentic?
Lord Faulks
The MedCo system has contributed very considerably to the improvement in the standards of medical reporting. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with it, it was a system to prevent what was undoubtedly an abuse of the system by some doctors, to allow the random allocation of medical experts to deal with whiplash injuries. It is certainly an improvement. My point is that there is still a risk in certain cases of there not being reliable medical evidence.
Lord Trevethin and Oaksey
Before the Minister responds perhaps I may, in the probing spirit of the amendments, mention one point that has occurred to me in light of the noble Earl’s proposed deletion of the word “psychological” from various provisions in Clause 2. I completely understand what the Government are hoping to achieve by using the term “minor psychological injury” in those provisions. I imagine they have in mind the fact that in cases of the type we are considering, it did become routine, and probably still is routine, for claimants to be advised to get a supportive report from a psychiatrist that uses the term “post-traumatic stress neurosis” or something similar as a way of enhancing the eventual award. I can see that that is a problem that the use of the term “psychological injury” is directed at.
The noble Earl makes a significant point when he refers to the bruised or gashed knee of the claimant in this type of case. I am not sure how that type of case, where there is a whiplash injury but also some other injury that is outside the definition of whiplash injuries, will be satisfactorily addressed. I imagine that the tariff award for whiplash injury will be fairly low. I do not have the answer to this problem, but I am contemplating the position that will arise when a claimant has suffered a whiplash injury and is entitled to the tariff award, which may be only a few hundred pounds, but has also suffered a probably rather less serious injury to, say, his or her knee. A gashed or bruised knee might stop them from playing football, skiing or whatever it may be, and would be worth, I guess, a few hundred pounds—it might edge into £1,000. You might get an anomalous outcome that would involve claimants recovering more for very trivial injuries to the lower part of the body than they are entitled to recover, pursuant to the Bill, for the relevant whiplash injury. I do not know what the answer is, but it is a potential problem.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I return to the issue of employee exemption, which several noble Lords have mentioned in this debate. I have a lot of sympathy with it. In my Amendment 23, I shall be seeking some kind of exemption for vulnerable road users. My worry in these amendments is the definition of who is driving in the course of their employment. My understanding is that under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, you are covered if you are driving to work in your car and you are employed. The car does not have to be owned by your employer; it can be hired or your own. You are at work and, therefore, covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. I assume it is the same for Uber drivers, truck drivers and anyone in between.
It is difficult to accept an exemption that would cover all those things, whether you are self-employed or employed by a company or by somebody else. It would be fine if one could find a definition, but there are so many loopholes nowadays in driving and road safety law. I have had many discussions with Ministers over the years about whether road safety and driving legislation should be led by the rules of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. In other words, you are at work all the time. That applies to drivers’ hours, driving safety and everything else. I worry about the definition of driving when in the course of employment, and I have a lot of sympathy with anyone trying to find a definition.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I intervene briefly, having put my name to the noble Earl’s amendments. I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, quite followed the idea behind this, which is that psychological injuries are specifically identified at various places in this clause but minor injuries are not. The purpose of the amendments is therefore to remove psychological injuries as a specific category and reinsert them further down, through Amendment 22, with minor injuries, so that we sweep up everything concerned with a whiplash unless it is a serious injury, such as a fracture of a leg, which is clearly a different issue. However, the issue is picked up by the reinsertion by Amendment 22 of the words “minor injuries”, such as a bruised knee.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions to the Bill in Committee. I begin with Amendment 4, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which would limit the definition of whiplash to soft tissue injuries of the neck. There is then a further amendment that would require the definition of whiplash to be set by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health. The amendment to remove the back and shoulder from this definition would significantly reduce the number of claims subject to measures in the Bill, namely the tariff and the ban on settling claims without medical evidence. It would also encourage claims displacement into other areas to avoid them being subject to the tariff. That would be a serious issue.
The definition in the Bill has been adapted from that in the Prisons and Courts Bill following feedback from stakeholders that the definition in the latter Bill was not broad enough to capture the intended claims. The current definition, with the draft regulations that have now been produced, is intended to achieve that objective.
The amendment requiring the definition of whiplash to be set by the Chief Medical Officer of the Department of Health would provide an independent person who has responsibility for advising the Government on medical issues, but the definition of whiplash injury needs to reconcile the current legal understanding with an accurate medical definition that covers both injuries and their symptoms. This is why the Government have developed the definition of a whiplash injury with input not only from medical experts, but from other expert stakeholders, including claimant and defendant solicitors.
Amendments 8, 9 and 10 restrict the scope of the tariff provisions by reducing the injury duration of affected claims to 12 months from two years. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, observed, this would reduce the number of claims captured by these reforms, but have the negative effect of encouraging claims displacement or claims inflation. Having an injury duration of up to two years will ensure that genuinely injured claimants seek timely treatment for their injuries, as well as enabling the Government to reduce and control the level of compensation in whiplash claims and consequently—as is one of the objectives—reduce insurance premiums for consumers.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, spoke to Amendments 15 to 20 and 22, which would widen the types of injuries affected by both the tariff of damages and the ban on settling claims without medical evidence. It would remove the term “psychological” from the clause, so that the measures in the Bill would apply to all minor injuries related to road traffic accidents, regardless of whether they are psychological or physical in nature. Consequently, this would apply the single-figure tariff to all those injuries, irrespective of number and type, by reference to the duration of the whiplash injury alone. This would result in the reduction of damages for a substantial number of personal injury claims outside the scope of our proposed reforms. The proposed reforms are intended to reduce the number and cost of particular claims—“an industry”, some people have referred to; “a racket”, others have mentioned. We are committed to addressing the issues that arise with whiplash injury.
I understand the point made about the bruised knee. I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, on the potential for discrepancies between awards made under the tariff for the whiplash injury itself and awards made for other minor injuries.
Clause 2(8) makes provision for the fact that the court will take into account other minor injuries and will make an award that is not related to the tariff itself. That is my understanding of the words in parentheses: that, in the context of the whiplash injury, regard will be had to the limits imposed by the tariff and the regulations but that, with respect to the other injuries, there will be no such limitation. That is why we do not consider it appropriate to delete the term “psychological” and extend these provisions to all minor injuries. Including minor psychological claims within the original tariff, as the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, indicated, was done in order to meet the way in which claims develop in this area. Indeed, it is in line with the Judicial College guidelines for personal injury compensation, which indicate that minor psychological injuries such as travel anxiety are not in themselves separate injuries attracting compensation; they have to be linked to physical injury itself.
Turning to Amendment 21, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, if one considers Clause 2(6), persons who are unable to locate treatment for either their physical or psychological injuries are in fact only required to take appropriate steps to seek such treatment. There is no requirement for them to undertake it if it is not available for any number of practical reasons. I would therefore suggest that this amendment is unnecessary in the circumstances.
Baroness Primarolo
Can the Minister explain, then, what the point is of putting a subsection into a Bill that will have no effect, given that we know that psychological and physiotherapy services are under enormous strain and vary around the country? On the point he makes about people just adjusting how they make their claim, surely the answer would be, “We tried and it wasn’t available”. If it is to be a test, should it not be a test that is capable of being judged?
Lord Keen of Elie
With great respect, the relevant text can be judged, because the requirement is that a person should take reasonable steps to secure those services where they are required. If they are not available then that is an answer to the point.
May I move on to Amendments 27A and 49A, on the course of employment? I have to confess that, on this matter, I am inclined to side with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. It appears to me, with due respect, that there is perhaps a misunderstanding here. If we look at Clause 1(3), we see that it is concerned with a situation in which a person suffers whiplash injury “because of driver negligence”. Whether a person is in the course of their employment or not, if they suffer a whiplash injury because of driver negligence, the third-party driver’s negligence will be responsible for the injury and, therefore, the insurer of the third-party driver will respond. If, on the other hand, the injury is the consequence of the driver himself, then he will have no claim, because you cannot claim in respect of your own negligence. In neither event would there be a legitimate basis for claim against the employer. It is for that reason that we do not consider it necessary to exclude a group to that extent.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but is that the point? The point of these amendments, as I understood them, was to exempt those who drive in the course of their employment from the rigour of the new provisions of this Bill when they are claimants, so that the claimant in the course of his employment has a legitimate claim. We may assume it is a legitimate claim because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, it would have to be backed up by the employer’s evidence saying, “This claimant, driving my lorry on a perfectly legitimate delivery, was injured”. It is the claimant who counts, not the defendant.
Lord Keen of Elie
With great respect, if the claimant is driving, his claim will be against the third-party driver whose negligence caused the claim. There is no reason why, in those circumstances, you should distinguish between a claimant who is in the course of his employment and a claimant who is not. They are both liable to suffer the same injury in the same circumstances as a result of the negligence of the same party. The distinction is one without a difference, with great respect. There is no justification for making such a distinction. I recollect discussing this with the noble Baroness, and she talked about the distinction between motor insurance and employers’ liability insurance, but there is no question of the claim being directed against the employer’s liability insurance in such circumstances.
Baroness Berridge
That is not the point that is being made here. I would be grateful if my noble and learned friend could address the question. We are all, I believe, in your Lordships’ House working on the assumption that the target of the Bill is fraud, not genuine claimants. So the specific question is, where is the evidence that people who are claimants when they drive in the course of their employment and are injured by a third party’s negligence—the claim is not against their employer but against the other driver—are fuelling any of the calls or the fraud that is the underlying principle of the Bill? Because that is an injustice.
Lord Keen of Elie
With the greatest respect to my noble friend, there is no basis for distinguishing between the cohort which is driving in the course of employment and the cohort which is not driving in the course of employment when an injury is suffered due to the negligence of a third-party driver. I am not aware of any examination, study or evidence that would seek to distinguish, or of any conceivable basis for distinguishing, between those two cohorts. So, with the greatest respect, I would suggest that it is a distinction without a difference.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
May I just try to assist—I hope—the noble and learned Lord? The fact that the employer can authenticate that the accident was caused while the driver, the claimant, was acting in the course of employment does not authenticate the fact that he suffered a whiplash injury, and that is the vice that this legislation is designed to attack. Why, in any event, exempt from these provisions that particular class of driver? Why not the man taking his wife to hospital to have a baby, or a whole host of perfectly legitimate drivers? I hope to have helped.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am grateful for the noble and learned Lord’s assistance. In the past his interventions have not always been of assistance, but they certainly are on this occasion. I would go further and suggest that it would make no more sense to exempt people who were driving red cars at the time of the accident. It is a distinction without a difference; it is as simple as that. That is why we do not consider this to be a helpful line of inquiry, and it is not one that we intend to pursue further.
With regard to the other amendments that were spoken to in this group, I have endeavoured to address the points made. I acknowledge the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, about the potential for anomalies where someone suffers a whiplash injury and other forms of injury as a result of the same accident. That is there, and there is no obvious answer to that. Nevertheless, the Bill is structured with the intention of addressing the vice we are really concerned with here and which is generally acknowledged to exist. In these circumstances, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Belhaj and Boudchar: Litigation Update
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Attorney-General:
“Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement. In 2012, Mr Abdul Hakim Belhaj and his wife, Mrs Fatima Boudchar, brought a claim against the United Kingdom Government and two individuals, the former Foreign Secretary, the right honourable Jack Straw, and Sir Mark Allen, the former director at the Foreign Office. The claimants alleged that the United Kingdom Government were complicit in their abduction, detention and rendition to Libya in 2004 and for the treatment that they suffered at the hands of others. Mrs Boudchar was pregnant at the time.
The claimants’ case, in outline, is that in early 2004 they were detained and forcibly conveyed through a number of jurisdictions by others, ultimately to be handed over to the Libyan regime of which Mr Belhaj was an opponent. During this period, they were subjected to a harrowing ordeal which caused them significant distress. Mrs Boudchar was released from detention in Libya in June 2004, and gave birth shortly afterwards. Mr Belhaj was not released until March 2010.
On 3 May, the claims against Jack Straw and Sir Mark Allen were withdrawn. Today I can announce to this House that, following mediation, the United Kingdom Government have reached a full and final settlement of Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar’s claims. I would like to pay tribute to the constructive way in which Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar have approached the mediation. This has been a long-running and hugely complex piece of litigation which has been difficult for all the individuals involved as parties.
As we have seen in recent years, there remains a considerable international threat to the United Kingdom and our allies and it is important that the Government and the security and intelligence services are able to respond properly to that to keep our country safe, but it is also important that we should act in line with our values and in accordance with the rule of law. That means that, when we get things wrong, it is right and just that we should acknowledge it, compensate those affected and learn lessons. I believe this is such a case.
The settlement of this claim has been agreed out of court. The main elements of the agreement I can report to the House are as follows: first, no admissions of liability have been made by any of the defendants in settling these claims. Secondly, the claimants have now withdrawn their claims against all the defendants. Thirdly, the Government have agreed to pay Mrs Boudchar £500,000; Mr Belhaj did not seek, and has not been given, any compensation. Finally, I have met Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar. Indeed, Mrs Boudchar was present in the Gallery to hear the Statement and the Prime Minister has now written to them both to apologise. I thought it right that I should set out to the House the terms of that apology in full. It reads as follows:
‘The Attorney-General and senior United Kingdom Government officials have heard directly from you both about your detention, rendition and the harrowing experiences you suffered. Your accounts were moving and what happened to you is deeply troubling. It is clear that you were both subjected to appalling treatment and that you suffered greatly, not least the affront to the dignity of Mrs Boudchar, who was pregnant at the time. The United Kingdom Government believe your accounts. Neither of you should have been treated in this way.
The United Kingdom Government’s actions contributed to your detention, rendition and suffering. The United Kingdom Government shared information about you with its international partners. We should have done more to reduce the risk that you would be mistreated. We accept this was a failing on our part.
Later, during your detention in Libya, we sought information about and from you. We wrongly missed opportunities to alleviate your plight: this should not have happened.
On behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, I apologise unreservedly. We are profoundly sorry for the ordeal that you both suffered and our role in it.
The United Kingdom Government has learned many lessons from this period. We should have understood much sooner the unacceptable practices of some of our international partners. And we sincerely regret our failures’.
I hope that the Government’s acknowledgment of these events in these unequivocal terms, and the apology they have each been given, will be of some comfort to Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar. As the Prime Minister observed in her letter to Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar, the Government have learned lessons from this period.
These events took place in the period after the 11 September 2001 attacks, which was one in which we and our international partners were suddenly adapting to a completely new scale and type of threat. It is clear with the benefit of hindsight that the Government, the agencies and their staff were, in some respects, not prepared for the extreme demands suddenly placed on them. The unacceptable practices of some of our international partners should have been understood much sooner.
The Government have enacted reforms to ensure that the problems of the past will not be repeated. We have made it clear that Ministers must be consulted whenever UK personnel involved in a planned operation believe a detainee is at serious risk of mistreatment by a foreign state. We have also improved Parliament’s ability to oversee the actions of the agencies through the Justice and Security Act 2013. The Intelligence and Security Committee is a committee of Parliament, fully independent of the Government. It has a statutory right to review past intelligence operations, and the committee and its staff have direct access to agency papers. These reforms mean that the framework within which the UK now operates is very different from that in the early 2000s.
I end by reiterating that vital work is done to keep us safe and we aspire to the highest ethical standards. When those standards are not met, it is right that we apologise, that we compensate those who have suffered as a result and that we make whatever changes we can to avoid the same thing happening again. This is the approach we have now taken in this case and, as such, I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement and am especially grateful to Jeremy Wright, the Attorney-General, for advance sight of it yesterday and, in particular, for his humane handling of this matter.
Mrs Boudchar has been in the Public Gallery of the other place today, and I am sure that the whole of both Houses of Parliament will sympathise with her and Mr Belhaj for having suffered such appalling treatment at the hands of others. What happened to them both is deeply disturbing, not least as Mrs Boudchar was pregnant at the time. I only hope that the settlement of the legal case allows some closure to a terrible set of events in their lives.
The Prime Minister has written to Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar, who is in the Palace today, to apologise for this terrible treatment. She is entirely right to have done so, and to accept—unequivocally and unreservedly—the failings on the part of the UK Government at that time.
I of course agree with the Minister and with the Attorney-General that our security and intelligence services carry out vital work in helping to keep us all safe. But the rule of law must always be respected and must always be the guide of the actions of government. Our security and intelligence services must be properly overseen. When things do go wrong, it is right to acknowledge that in very clear terms, to do what can be done to make recompense, and to learn lessons for the future.
The Attorney-General rightly raised in his Statement problems regarding information sharing, more actions being required to reduce the risk of mistreatment and missed opportunities to alleviate human suffering. We must do all we can to stop this ever happening again.
The relationship between our intelligence and security services and government is now subject to a different framework. That is a welcome step in the right direction. The statutory right of the Intelligence and Security Committee, independent of government, to review past intelligence operations and its direct access to agency papers are important. That Ministers must be consulted whenever UK personnel are involved in a planned operation in which they believe a detainee is at serious risk of mistreatment by another state is absolutely crucial. I appreciate that the Minister is, understandably, limited in what he can say openly today, but I would ask for an assurance that such ministerial consultation will be detailed, considered and informed by as much information as can reasonably be made available to Ministers at the time.
In addition, might the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that we will always be vigilant in ensuring that the framework within which our intelligence and security services operate is robust and is always shaped by our core values: the rule of law, liberty and human rights? After all, it is only behaving to those standards ourselves that allows us to stand up for those values around the world.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Attorney-General’s Statement.
On 21 February 2008, this House was concerned with the use of UK facilities and UK airspace by the United States for the purposes of extraordinary rendition. In answer to a Written Question from my right honourable friend Menzies Campbell, now my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, assurances had been given by Mr Jack Straw in 2005, and later assurances were given by Mr Blair, the Prime Minister, in 2007, that these events had never occurred—that there had been no extraordinary rendition. A Statement in February 2008 was made by the noble Lord, Lord Malloch-Brown, in this House to the effect that this was incorrect and that extraordinary rendition had taken place through the British territory of Diego Garcia. Perhaps I may crave the House’s indulgence for quoting myself. I said on that occasion:
“We look for a public inquiry, as we have called for several times, which will investigate what extraordinary renditions have taken place not just to European countries but to places where we know that torture takes place—places such as Syria, Egypt, Morocco and Jordan, where it is thought that there are secret holes where United States detainees are held. We cannot be satisfied by assurances given by the Government today on this matter”.—[Official Report, 21/02/08; col. 351.]
Nothing was said in 2008 about the events of 2004—the abduction, detention and rendition to Libya of Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar, who were opponents of the Gaddafi regime and could expect torture and imprisonment.
Today, the Prime Minister’s apology, as we have heard, contains the following:
“The UK Government’s actions contributed to your detention, rendition and suffering”.
We are entitled to know in what specific way. Mr Belhaj’s claim was that MI6 provided information to the CIA which led to his capture in Kuala Lumpur in 2004 and rendition via Bangkok to a Libyan jail. He further claimed that he was interrogated by British intelligence officers during his six years’ imprisonment and during the period of torture that he endured. All this was denied at the time. The Prime Minister says in her letter:
“The UK Government believes your accounts”.
Therefore, I take it that what Mr Belhaj said in his statement of claim is admitted, despite the fact that liability in the case is not admitted.
Another phrase used by the Prime Minister was that she was,
“profoundly sorry for the ordeal”,
of Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar. If that is so, why did this Government try to quash these proceedings and argue a defence of state immunity and “foreign act of state” immunity all the way up to the Supreme Court as recently as January of last year? Do the Government now recognise that these defences must be subject to exceptions where there are violations of fundamental norms of international law and basic human rights, such as the prohibition of torture, which has been recognised in this country since Felton’s case in 1628?
A further point is that the costs of such a series of applications and appeals, which were unsuccessful, have no doubt fallen upon the public purse. What were those costs?
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her observations and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. As the Statement made clear, more could have been done to prevent the suffering of Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar when the Government shared information with their international partners. Although the Government believed assurances that they sought in good faith about the treatment, with the benefit of hindsight they feel that they could have done more. Furthermore, after the detention of Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar in Libya, it is now clear that the United Kingdom Government missed opportunities to alleviate their plight.
As regards future ministerial scrutiny, of course that will be all that is required to ensure that these events do not repeat themselves. Our vigilance will be clear and robust, and will reflect our core values, as outlined by the noble Baroness.
With regard to the queries from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, I will not make any comment on operational matters, but it is not the case that the Government tried to quash any decision. The case which was raised and which has now been settled without admission of liability raised complex issues of law, and we of course respect the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court handed down in January 2017. The costs were incurred by the Government Legal Department and were approximately £3 million.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I should like to draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am an officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition. I am extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend for repeating the Statement and to the Government for having taken the opportunity to draw a line under this very unhappy and unsatisfactory episode. They are to be congratulated on having grasped this particular nettle.
Perhaps I could ask my noble and learned friend to follow up on a couple of loose ends that are still lying around. The first relates to the press release put out by the Crown Prosecution Service on 9 June 2016 when it decided not to proceed with the case against Sir Mark Allen. The press release said that,
“there is sufficient evidence to support the contention that the suspect”—
that is, Sir Mark Allen—
“had … sought political authority for some of his actions albeit not within a formal written process nor in detail which covered all his communications and conduct”.
Will any further probing take place on what that political authority was and who gave it?
Secondly, there has been discussion in the Statement and elsewhere about the question of consolidated guidance and the review of consolidated guidance dealing with interviewing prisoners abroad when they are at risk of torture and ill treatment. There has been discussion about this being reviewed for some months, and tomorrow never seems to come for this. Will the Minister explain where we are with the review of consolidated guidance and when we might expect to see it published?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord. It is not for me to comment upon a press release from the Crown Prosecution Service, which is, of course, an independent body concerned with the consideration of criminal complaints and cases. Therefore, I cannot add to the comments that were made in that press release.
On the matter of guidance, the current consolidated guidance is from 2010. That sets out the principles consistent with both domestic and international law governing the interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receiving of intelligence-related matters and information. At the moment, I am not able to give any indication as to when a review of that guidance will be completed, but it might be informed—apart from anything else—by the work of Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee, which is due to publish its detainee report in the near future. In light of that, we will give attention to the 2010 guidance.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I had forgotten that it was a Question asked by me in the other place that initially produced the Answer that no such rendition had taken place. At the time, there was great speculation that airfields other than the principal airfields in the United Kingdom were being used for that purpose. It might help the House if I were to point out that I was subsequently given a public apology by the successor as Foreign Secretary, Mr David Miliband. Even by the standards of the time, what happened in this case was quite extraordinary and unacceptable. The strength of these new arrangements—some of which arose out of recommendations made by the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I subsequently became a member—will be to ensure that nothing of this kind ever happens again in any circumstances.
On a technical note, I understood the Advocate-General to say—I may have misheard him—that there was no admission of liability when this settlement was made. Having listened very carefully to the terms of the letter written by the Prime Minister, it seems to me that on any view, that might not be a judicial admission of liability but it is most certainly, in the minds of any who hear it, an admission by the Prime Minister that a great wrongdoing was created in this case.
Lord Keen of Elie
As I indicated, the conclusion of the mediation was, among other things, that there was no admission of liability. However, the noble Lord will recognise the concern that the Prime Minister and the Government felt over the events that led to the detention of Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar. I hope that the Prime Minister’s clear apology will speak for itself.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, about a decade ago, I had the privilege of chairing the Intelligence and Security Committee, which produced a report on rendition. I assume, therefore, that all of the information that the Minister has given us today in this Chamber, and which the security services and the Government have given to the ISC, comes under a different regime. The committee now has more powers of greater strengths. Will the Minister tell us when the ISC is likely to report on this matter?
Lord Keen of Elie
Clearly, I am not in a position to determine the timing of the ISC report, but my understanding is—and the expectation is—that it will be published later this year.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this Statement: it is very clear in drawing a line under matters. Things have changed since these events happened. I was the Security Minister at the time and when I asked the question about rendition, I was told, as a Minister in the Government, that it was not going on. Does the Minister feel that this could not possibly happen again now because of the changes that have been put in place by a number of noble Lords, when they were in the other place, and by the committees that are in place or does he think that such a thing could happen again, where a tiny cabal of people is able to do something and there is no way of breaking this out?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am confident that we have put in place such measures as will ensure that there will be no repetition of this.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Statement mentions the unacceptable practices of other countries on several occasions. Can the Minister assure this House that we will not be bent in our moral judgment by the need to kowtow or suck up to other countries, which appears to be one of the reasons that has driven this behaviour in the past? Can he also undertake to make sure that these other countries have been told that we find these practices unacceptable?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, our international partners are well aware of our standards, our belief in the rule of law and our desire to uphold the rights of the individual. They are therefore well aware of our concerns in that area.
Prompt Payment Code
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Burt of Solihull
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the effectiveness of the Prompt Payment Code.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, which is arguably the biggest threat to small and larger businesses’ ability to thrive in the UK today: late payment. I thank the SEC Group, the FSB and the AAT for their extremely useful briefings.
Much has been said about the demise of Carillion, but many noble Lords may not be aware that Carillion was signed up to the prompt payment code. The code is a voluntary code of practice run by the Chartered Institute of Credit Management with the backing of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. Members promise to pay their suppliers on time, give clear guidance to suppliers and encourage good practice in their supply chains. These members undertake to pay their suppliers within 60 days and work towards adopting 30 days as the norm. Nevertheless, Carillion, like many other companies, was using money belonging to its suppliers to shore up its own cash flow.
There are plenty of ways in which the big suppliers exploit their supply chain today. Long payment periods are, of course, the obvious one; there are others that I do not have time to include here. During 2017, Carillion’s average payment delay was 43 days, and 5% of its contracts took 120 days to be paid. Its collapse left 30,000 small firms unpaid, with creditors only expected to cover less than 7p of every pound that they spent. Most suppliers to Carillion were not insured against it collapsing, and insurers are expected to pay out only about 3% of the total losses.
Why has the prompt payment code not solved some of these issues? Because it is a voluntary code of practice, it has largely failed to protect supply chains from late payment; it needs to be given more teeth. The AAT comments that the code has been undermined by the fact that the signatories to the code basically fall into two categories: those who already took this issue seriously and those who believe that, as it is voluntary, it does not have to be taken seriously. Carillion falls into the second of those categories.
The situation with public sector contracts, through which suppliers are contractually obliged under the Public Contract Regulations 2015, is quite dire. Under these regulations public bodies have a statutory duty to ensure that all subcontracts and sub-subcontracts contain 30-day payment clauses. Needless to say, Carillion did not have these clauses in its contracts and, as far as I know, no one picked it up on it. Unfortunately there is no effective enforcement mechanism under which to complain, except for the anonymous mystery shopper scheme. Even anonymously, in construction most will not complain because of the climate of fear existing in the industry.
However, there is a ray of hope in the form of payment practice reporting. From this April, large businesses must provide details every six months of their standard payment terms, how they resolve payment disputes and the percentage of payments they make within 30 and 60 days. It is naming and shaming and shines the harsh light of reality on what has been going on below the surface for many years. Of those businesses that reported in December 2017, before the statutory requirement to report came into force, only 52% of invoices were paid within 30 days; and nine of the 10 largest companies that reported their practices paid fewer than 10% of their invoices on time. Reporting is beginning to reveal the scale of the problem but we wait to see whether businesses will change their practices as a result of being shamed.
Tangential to the code, but nevertheless crucial, is the issue of retentions. These can be withheld from construction companies for many years and can often get caught up in insolvencies further up the supply chain. It is estimated that Carillion owed about £800 million in retentions alone. The Government have held a consultation on retentions and we look forward to receiving their conclusions—soon, I hope. Perhaps the Minister could indicate how soon.
A practical and realistic option has been presented in Peter Aldous’s Private Member’s Bill, which receives its Second Reading on 15 June. It seeks that when a cash retention is used it should be ring-fenced within a deposit scheme. This will protect it from insolvencies and incorporate a standard payment process, ensuring no unnecessary delays or time-consuming chasing. The Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill is supported by 120 cross-party MPs and over 350,000 companies. Could the Minister indicate whether the Government are minded to support it?
I recommend to the Minister a number of options that can deter large companies from paying their subcontractors late and protect small businesses when large contractors fail. First, the Government must be prepared to enforce the Public Contract Regulations so that recipients of major government contracts pay their suppliers within 30 days. I welcome the news last month that the Government will exclude suppliers from major government contracts if they cannot demonstrate fair and effective payment practices with their suppliers. However, we have yet to see the detail and I would appreciate the Minister providing more detail on how this will work, either in his response or in writing.
Subcontractors need to have the confidence to speak out, so I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will have greater access to buying authorities to report poor payment performance.
My second recommendation is that the Government should either accept Peter Aldous’s Private Member’s Bill or introduce something similar on retentions.
Thirdly—and, for the construction industry, arguably most importantly—project bank accounts should be introduced for all public sector construction projects over, say, £2 million, which is already the case for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. PBAs could be used to ensure that payments are made within 30 days by holding the funds in a central, ring-fenced bank account. Highways England uses them, and third-tier subcontractors are paid within 18 days of the evaluation of the work under the main contract. No more Carillions would then be able to exploit their supply chain, using their money and pushing them over the financial edge into liquidation.
Finally, the Government should consider how to give the prompt payment code more teeth. Perhaps all listed companies, or those with turnover over a certain amount, could be required to sign up to the prompt payment code. It could levy fines for poor compliance, which could be used to fund its administration and support subcontractors in distress.
Getting paid fairly and on time will always be an issue for some companies, but these four measures combined would make a significant impact on poor payment practices, which would provide a legacy of which this Government could be proud.
Lord Cope of Berkeley (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the House that I am due to speak in a debate which starts at 2 pm in Grand Committee and I will therefore be unable to stay for the winding-up of this debate. Therefore, in accordance with the customs of the House, I shall withdraw from the debate after confirming my strong support for the actions the Government have taken in this matter and for their latest consultation document about public sector contracts.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her excellent speech and for securing this debate.
There are two questions at the heart of this issue: do the signatories to the Prompt Payment Code perform better on payment practices than non-signatories; and has the overall picture of late payments been shifted in a positive direction since the establishment of the code?
On the first question, it is hard to make an assessment. The code’s website provides no aggregate data and I can find no detailed reported data. On the website, companies are asked to supply data on how to get paid, and most do; their procurement policy, and some do; and their reported payment information, and I found none that did. Some have put in details under “payment terms comments” which are quite unbelievable. From the random—and undoubtedly totally unrepresentative—sample I looked at, 20% of the companies had written in payment terms of 90 days, which is against the code.
I welcome the new duty to report on payment practices but will the Minister give some indication of how both datasets will relate to each other? There is no evidence available to test the direct impact of the code on the companies that are signatories but public confidence is not evident. The last IoD survey from February this year showed that, as a means of addressing late payments, businesses felt that the Prompt Payment Code did not feature and that kitemarks for best practice as sector-specific codes carried the confidence of only 3% each. No doubt this relates to the performance of some individual signatories, and the example of Carillion is perhaps instructive.
Let me make a sobering point in an attempt to draw a conclusion on performance. In a survey on late payment by MarketInvoice, five of the worst offenders were shown to pay an average of 83% of their invoices late. Three of those—John Lewis, Marks & Spencer and Kingfisher—were and remain signatories of the code.
On the question of whether the bigger picture has improved, the evidence, unfortunately, suggests the opposite. The cost of late payments to SMEs is £40 billion to £50 billion and getting higher. However, I draw your Lordships’ attention to an excellent new index developed by Lloyds Bank called the working capital index. This was created to draw attention to the area of financial operational efficiency in the UK and is soon to publish its third report. It is an account of a variety of missed opportunities but reveals some important points about the problems of payment practices and late payments. It reveals that there is a £680 billion opportunity in the UK to release working capital and that, as a result of payment problems, working capital makes up 25% of net company debt.
The latest data shows that around a third of all invoices are reported as being paid later than agreed terms, and four times as many small firms reported longer payment times from customers compared to larger firms as part of the survey. Why has the code not had the intended impact? Put simply, there is no consequence for non-compliance. Transparency is low, enforcement is piecemeal, accountability is absent and trust in the system has eroded. Checks, investigations, improvements and the role and functioning of the code’s compliance board need to be addressed. Naming and shaming has not worked when you look at any company that has faced such a problem; the example of Debenhams and its terrible performance is instructive.
Companies need to take this seriously. When I first addressed the House on this matter in 2015, when the legislation establishing the Small Business Commissioner was passed, we contacted a number of companies to try to find out how they used the Prompt Payment Code. Not once were we directed to the finance department. Not once when we contacted the finance department did they know that they were members of the code. In every example of the companies we used—also probably unrepresentative—we were directed to either the PR department, the corporate affairs department or the social responsibility department. It was not tied to finance. As a voluntary code, it needs to be tied to the part of the business that pays the bills.
I want to make a few suggestions on how to improve this. First, the code needs to be enhanced operationally. Naming and shaming and expulsion from the code—as the Federation of Small Businesses suggested—should be an absolute minimum for the worst offenders, while we should always find ways to commend the good performers. Secondly, by far the most useful thing would be to link the Government’s initiatives more strategically. The Government should place the code in the office of the excellent Small Business Commissioner, Paul Uppal. He and his brilliant team are doing very well in establishing the right approach and are well placed to make best use of and help with not just the PPC but the payment reporting requirements. I recommend strongly that the Government look into this.
Finally, some strength could be given to the areas where there seems to be a consensus and the Government’s determination to pursue good practice is backed up by a determination to bear down on bad practice. I plan to introduce a Bill on these measures soon and I hope that the Minister can indicate the Government’s willingness to support: in relation to payment practices, outlawing retrospective drops and requiring companies to publicly provide details of charges made to suppliers for storage, marketing or any other deduction or contract term that helps them to change or vary the price of supplied goods; outlawing payment dates of 120 days; dealing with the increasing problem of companies avoiding being taken to account for late payments by reclassifying them as payment disputes, by ensuring that a 30-day limit for resolving payment disputes becomes a part of all relevant sector codes and public sector contracts; and, finally, outlawing the idea that suppliers should be forced to accept giving a company a discount on the agreed price for paying on time.
The current measures employed by the Government are insufficient because there is too strong an economic incentive for cultural change to work. All evidence and economic analysis indicates this. Practices have to change the culture, not the culture change the practices. At the heart of this problem are the asymmetries of power, information, scale and capacity, which work too strongly in favour of late payment, particularly against small businesses. Without a degree of enforcement or compulsion, we can never overcome the legitimate fear for a small business that challenging a larger company will have adverse consequences. If reporting remains a problem, it is unlikely that the Prompt Payment Code will ever be effective.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, small businesses play a vital part in our national prosperity and well-being in terms of growth, employment, innovation, entrepreneurship, productivity, exports, apprenticeships and so many of the subjects that concern us in this House, not forgetting Brexit. However, they will not fulfil their potential if they have to spend a large part of their time and energy chasing payments they are owed. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, about a third of payments to SMEs are late and the UK has,
“the worst late payment culture in Europe”.
Having run small businesses myself, I know about the perennial challenge of managing cash flow and the difficulty of coping with late payments and ensuring that salaries get paid; sometimes it requires negotiation of emergency loans or overdrafts, or owners forgoing their salaries or having to make loans. In the worst cases, the business may have to close down, as some 50,000 SMEs do each year.
I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, on obtaining this debate and introducing it so powerfully. I also thank the Specialist Engineering Contractors’ Group for the helpful briefing it provided. At the same time, adding some criticism to my congratulations, I apologise to the House for the fact that many of my points have already been made, if not by the noble Baroness then by the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. I will briefly comment on three issues, trying to skate over points that have already been made.
First, the Prompt Payment Code is a laudable attempt to improve SMEs’ chances of being paid within a reasonable timescale, but it does not seem to be working, as we have heard. In 2017, the Government announced that 32 of their biggest suppliers had voluntarily committed to pay 95% of invoices within 60 days and work towards adopting 30 days as the norm. That fact that one of those companies was Carillion, which issued its first profit warning four days later and had payment periods always well over 60 days, rather undermines that commitment. Carillion is by no means the only example of a larger company using funds that in effect belong to its smaller suppliers to meet its own cash needs. Last year, the Government set up the Small Business Commissioner to tackle the problem of late payments. He has made a promising start, but has so far received only 42 complaints, relating to 14 companies, and has commenced full consideration of only two. The message is that a voluntary code will not work, as we have heard. Given the understandable reluctance of SMEs to complain about the larger clients on which they depend, will the Minister consider ways to enable the commissioner to be more proactive in seeking out poor practice and giving him more teeth to enforce his findings—for example, through fines, which I believe the Minister has indicated he would welcome?
Secondly, public sector bodies are covered by the Public Contracts Regulations 2015, under which they have a statutory duty to ensure that all sub-contracts contain 30-day payment clauses. Again, there is no effective enforcement mechanism and most suppliers will not use the mystery shopper scheme. Therefore, these regulations also need beefing up, by requiring monitoring of compliance, mandating the use of project bank accounts—as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt—or instituting rewards and penalties based on performance in payment practice.
My final issue relates specifically to small firms in the construction sector, which suffer the additional burden of retentions: cash held back from the sums due to them on completing a contract, ostensibly so that the client can ensure that the work has been done properly. There are no codes or regulations that stipulate time limits for the release of these retention moneys; the average time they are held is thought to be about two years but it can be much longer. If the client becomes insolvent, the SME supplier loses the money owed to it completely. Some £700 million of funds has been lost like this over the past three years and the collapse of Carillion alone may have resulted in a similar scale of losses. Because of the uncertainty about when or whether the funds will be paid, the business to which they rightfully belong cannot borrow against them or use them to fund new investment, training or extra employment, thereby contributing to the economy.
This is not just unfair but plain wrong. The Government seem to recognise this but their response so far has been shockingly slow, going back many years. The latest study of the issue, commissioned in 2015, eventually reported last year. A consultation process ended in January and last month’s deadline for a government response has now passed. I echo the noble Baroness’s request for the Minister to indicate when that response will come. Apparently, the Government are seeking an approach with broad support and wish to avoid any potential negative economic consequences, but there is never likely to be much consensus between businesses whose funds are being withheld and those that are withholding them. The actual negative consequences for businesses deprived of funds that they have earned are plain to see.
The long-term solution may be a complete ban on retentions, but that will involve a major change of long-standing culture and behaviour in the construction sector and will take time. Something much more immediate is needed to ensure that funds owed to small businesses are properly protected, and soon. There is no shortage of possible approaches. We have heard about the tenancy deposit scheme in the rental housing sector. Others include the insurance-backed scheme in the lift industry—which has worked well for 17 years—or a guarantee-based scheme. Potential providers have indicated their willingness to offer or run such schemes. I also echo the support for the Private Member’s Bill introduced in the other place, the Construction (Retention Deposit Schemes) Bill, which has its Second Reading next month. That would require all cash retentions to be ring-fenced. The Minister made mildly encouraging noises about possible government support for this when he answered an Oral Question from me about retentions in February.
I end, therefore, by asking the Minister some further questions. What plans does he have to protect from loss retention money owed to small firms? How soon does he aim to have this protection in place, given the urgency of the need? Finally, will the Minister consider using the Aldous Bill as a vehicle to bring about the changes needed in the timescale needed?
Denying small firms funds that they have earned is not just unfair: it is a disgrace that is damaging to the positive impact they can make for the UK. The Government seem to recognise the problem. Other countries have already tackled it. It is high time that we did the same.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, forgive me for my hoarse voice. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for introducing this debate and—I do not have to thank too many people—the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Aberdare, for their incredibly detailed contributions. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, rightly said, it is very difficult not to repeat, to some degree, what has already been said.
My noble friend Lady Burt quite rightly pointed to Carillion. The effectiveness of the Prompt Payment Code is clearly seen in its collapse. Carillion was an early signatory to the code but prior to collapse had been exposed as making creditors wait 120 days to be paid. It is often small businesses that suffer most. The Government should mandate that all FTSE 350 companies sign up to a stronger code with a new “three strikes and you’re out” rule—something that many bodies have mentioned. This would target repeat offenders. At least the penalty would strip them of the right to be awarded government contracts, and it could be even harsher than that. Will the Minister detail how the Government feel that the “three strikes and you’re out” rule could be implemented, and what the penalties and the enforcement procedure would be?
During my preparations for this debate, many helpful points have been made from within the industry. I am sure that these points have also been made to other speakers. Late means late—that is, paying after a previously agreed date between two or more parties. It does not mean extended—extended payment is also late. Bills ought to be settled promptly, in full, to agreed terms and free of unnecessary charges. Small firms cannot be expected to lend interest-free to big companies.
Many firms view the Prompt Payment Code as toothless. It cannot be right that firms whose default position is 60-plus days can sign the code. It is the Prompt Payment Code, not the extended payment code. There is no obligation on signatories to pass on favourable terms they receive to sub-contractors or merchants.
Moreover, too many invoices are disputed or overlooked: “Oh, we never received your invoice. I’m sorry but you’ll have to wait for the next round for it to be seen”. An invoice can be disputed because it has a typing error: “I’m afraid it has to go back to the end of the pile. And by the way, we only settle our bills on the 7th of the month. You’ll have to wait for the next 7th of the month”. This is normal practice, and completely wrong according to the code. The date of the invoice ought to start the clock, not the date received. What, furthermore, is a “disputed” invoice? Something has to be put into legislation to describe what would be a disputed invoice that could delay payment.
One-sided changes in payment terms and conditions, or the length of time taken to settle invoices, are often a sign of cash-flow or other financial problems. Delays by big companies can cause SMEs cash-flow problems and take too much time and effort on the part of the creditor to chase debtors.
Previous attempts to eradicate bad practice by voluntary approaches have floundered. The scourge of late or non-payment is a long-standing issue that cannot be tolerated. The trend by some businesses to move to 120 days as a default position has to be confronted. Until settlement of bills becomes elevated to a board-level responsibility, late payment will persist. Those noble Lords who have been in business, or, as I was, practising as a chartered accountant, know what happens in reality. The very large client, which you treasure, has built up a debt to you of many thousands of pounds—I talk from bitter experience. At a certain date in the month that valued client will make a payment on account—a round sum. “Here’s £1,000, £2,000, £10,000” or whatever it is, they will say, at the same time as initiating new work—and the debt to you goes up. This is the bullying practice of the large client towards the companies that service it.
The Small Business Commissioner should focus on poor payment practice issues, including the more subtle forms of bullying such as the one I have just described. The commissioner’s “name and shame” powers—they have briefly been referred to—should be used more obviously. If they are to be named and shamed, let us broadcast the fact and say that you should not be dealing with Carillion, or whichever firm it is, because they do not treat you properly. The powers should focus on serious instances of supply chain bullying. If you supply goods or services to a large organisation you do not want to risk losing the work, so the practice continues.
The word used in the heading of this debate is “code”—the Prompt Payment Code. I am afraid that codes are obeyed by ladies, gentlemen and boy scouts. They are not obeyed by anybody else. We must put some teeth into this legislation.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I was never in the boy scouts so I lost that last metaphor, but I understand where it comes from. We owe a great debt of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for raising this issue again—it has been discussed before—and doing so in contemporary terms by bringing us up to date with some of the issues of recent years. We have had some very good speeches. We have lost the noble Lord, Lord Cope: in that respect we have lost the little group of aficionados that was here for the Enterprise Bill in 2016 and covered this and related topics a number of times. It was very good to hear some of those tropes repeated today.
The general theme of those noble Lords who have spoken today is that while there have been welcome improvements in what the Government have been doing to help the problem of late payments, the current approach is not going to work. The central thrust is to change the culture and to believe that that will lead to a significant and speedy change in what has become current business practice. Using a code is not really the way forward—it is not even statutory and is not operated by the Government but through a franchise by a non-statutory body.
We supported the measures in the Enterprise Act 2016 that required large unlisted companies to publish information about payment performance and practices—strengthening the Prompt Payment Code in that respect—but we do not think that the situation today is satisfactory and we want big changes. The model that we had in mind for the Small Business Commissioner was the system used in Australia, where that post can operate in a way that causes things to happen, including fines. We do not understand why the Government do not want to take that forward.
Is funding a major problem? We have heard from many speakers that there are significant problems. I am not sure of the figures but we reckon that between £50 billion and £60 billion is tied up by the way companies have to deal with late payments.
On top of that there are two problems. The code itself is pretty good in terms of what it says, but the behaviour by companies, whether or not they are signed up to the code, has been egregious. We have had examples in recent debates about Diageo, the owner of Guinness and Johnnie Walker, which simply informed its suppliers that it was extending its payment terms from 60 to 90 days. AB InBev, owner of Budweiser, Stella and Boddingtons, has extended its terms of payment to 120 days. Heinz has doubled its payment terms from 45 to 97 days. The list goes on: it includes Monsoon, GlaxoSmithKline and Debenhams, to name just a few. It is a common theme. It is of course a perfectly logical response to difficulties within the marketplace. These companies put a squeeze on their suppliers to accumulate as much cash as they can. They also do it because they can and, in some sense, that is bullying.
All this comes out in the wash when we look at Carillion. The Carillion crisis has exposed how absolutely toothless the Prompt Payment Code really is. Despite being a signatory to the PPC since 2013 Carillion, as we have heard, was notorious for being a late payer. According to the FSB, it regularly required its suppliers to wait 120 days to be paid. I do not think there is any doubt that there is a problem.
The question is: is the code robust enough in itself? First, it is not very extensively used. We may get warm words about the numbers of signatories—I think it is nearly 2,000, which sounds a lot—but we are talking about a totality of companies and organisations vastly in excess of that: 32,000 mid-sized companies and 200,000 smaller companies. If we add micro-businesses, which are also eligible to come under the code, we are probably talking about 5 million or 6 million companies. Out of that number—perhaps 6 million or 7 million companies—we have 1,700 signatures. The code is not a successful or effective way of trying to change the culture. Secondly, the objective of the code is to ensure that there is a gold standard for how people should behave but if it is just a gold standard to aspire to, it obviously means that others will not meet that standard and therefore be excluded, so the culture will not be transformed in the way we are talking about.
We do not have what is required in the marketplace, so what are the proposals? I would like to add a couple to those we have heard of today. First, the Prompt Payment Code should be put on a statutory basis and it should not be franchised out but operated by the department concerned. Secondly, we need to look again at the link between the Prompt Payment Code and the Public Contracts Regulations, which have been mentioned by other speakers, and make sure that it actually works. Since the regulations are quite appropriate in requiring payment within 30 days and enforcing that throughout the value chain of the contracts concerned, there are real penalties which follow from non-conformance with it. It should not be possible for people to be reappointed to government contracts if they are clearly not fulfilling the requirements under the Public Contracts Regulations.
Thirdly, the retention scheme has been mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Burt, suggested a model for setting up escrow accounts or public bank accounts to prevent the problem that happened with Carillion; money which should have been passed over ages ago to small contractors and others involved gets lost in a bankruptcy. This is already happening in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—it is England that is behind. Surely the Government must now take action on this matter. We have heard about the consultation and the reporting cycle has now finished. Where is the action that will follow from that?
Fourthly, the sorts of powers we are thinking about for the Prompt Payment Code are already to be found in other areas of government activity. For instance, the groceries code gives powers to the Groceries Code Adjudicator to fine companies which are in breach of that code 1% of their turnover. Why is that power not given to the Small Business Commissioner, who I am sure would jump at the chance to level what he finds on the ground from the information flowing to him with the action that he needs to take? If we are not getting progress there, why are we not outlawing discounts by companies which attempt to take a cut when they make a payment within the normal rules? If there is a continuing problem, why does an automatic interest rate penalty not kick in at the Bank of England rate plus, say, 10%? I am sure that for any financier who is involved in trying to work out how to pay their bills, the prospect of having that bill increased by 10% if it is not paid within a certain time would focus their attention.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for securing this debate and for all the expertise and advice that has come from all other noble Lords who have spoken in it. I think particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and his account of some of the bullying practices used by some of the larger clients. I heard his desire that we should be not just naming and shaming but actively broadcasting the behaviour of some payers. These matters can certainly all be taken into account in the various consultations and decisions that we have to make in the future. As I said, I am grateful to all noble Lords for speaking, but I am sorry that we have lost my noble friend Lord Cope, who felt that he must be dragged away for another debate. I well understand that it was right that he should not speak if he was speaking in another debate.
As I hope to set out, we are actively taking steps to make the United Kingdom’s payment culture fairer while simultaneously providing a base of support for all our small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our economy. It is right that I should start with remarks about the Prompt Payment Code, the voluntary attempt by which the Government started the process of trying to ensure that companies should lead by example in paying their suppliers promptly and fairly. I am a great believer, as the Government are, in always trying a voluntary approach as a first step. We should not make a point of rushing into legislation but there are occasions, and enough examples have been given to me by all noble Lords in this debate, where the behaviour of certain companies—that of Carillion has been highlighted—leads us to a view that further action possibly needs to be taken. That will be considered and I hope I can set out just how we are going to consider all that.
However, I certainly take on board, for example, everything that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, said about these matters and what we ought to do in this field. I will certainly look at his Bill when he introduces it in due course; I cannot comment on it in advance of that, just as I would not want to comment in advance on what our attitude is to my honourable friend Mr Peter Aldous’s Bill. But any measure that is introduced to address the unjustified late payment or non-payment of retentions needs to be simple, consistent and transparent. It is premature to commit on those things but we will consider them in due course, as we will consider all the points that noble Lords have made.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for highlighting the fact that there was Carillion. I rather expected that she would raise it and that if she did not, the next speaker would—and if not the next, then another. In fact, I think that nearly every speaker raised it.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
I am conscious of the fact that I talked quite a lot about Carillion. I restrained myself from naming and shaming any companies that are currently working still but there are plenty more that could have come under the aegis of this debate.
Lord Henley
The noble Baroness knows that she has considerable freedoms in what she can say in this House because of the various protections that she has. Perhaps she ought to take advice from her noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill about not necessarily naming and shaming but broadcasting these points. I merely make that offer to her. My point was that I was pretty sure that Carillion would be mentioned because when one has a code of this sort, it is rather embarrassing that a large company which the Government have made use of, even if it no longer exists, quite obviously signed up to that code without—I will be polite—thinking about the consequences of what it had signed up to.
The fact is that we have a code and it performs a function. We should think about that function and not necessarily completely dismiss it as it is. We know that signatories to that code must pay 95% of invoices within 60 days, in all but exceptional circumstances, and work towards 30-day payment terms as the norm.
In recent years we have strengthened that code and all the Government’s strategic suppliers have signed up to it, as well as some of the UK’s largest businesses. That represents the 2,000 signatories that the noble Lord mentioned; as I understand it, that includes most of those that the Government deal with. This is an important step in moving towards a gold standard across the largest businesses in the United Kingdom, and I hope it will assist us in getting into the position that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, talked about, in being in a better state than other countries. If a business believes a signatory is not complying with the code it can challenge its status, and the compliance board will take that into account. I think that I have dealt with the point that the noble Baroness made about Carillion.
The Chartered Institute of Credit Management, which administers the code on behalf of the department, works with all the signatories and challengers to recover payment debt and educate businesses of all sizes on the importance of good credit management and a positive payment culture. The principles of the code are effective only if taken seriously both by signatories and by the suppliers of signatories, which is why we are now exploring how the code can be strengthened and enforced. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and others were looking for more teeth. That is why we will be inviting views on this, as well as on wider payment matters, within the forthcoming call for evidence on unfair payment practices. The code is an important tool for setting best practice, but it is just one of the measures that the Government are using to promote fair payment.
In April last year we introduced a statutory duty for the UK’s largest businesses to report on their payment practices, policies and performance so as to increase transparency and provide small business suppliers with better information about those they intend to trade with. So far some 1,500 reports have been submitted on GOV.UK, and can be accessed easily by the public. Small business suppliers, journalists, academics and others can use that data to compare and contrast, and to hold large businesses to account for their payment practices.
As the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will be aware, we launched the Small Business Commissioner in December last year, following the appointment of Paul Uppal in October. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, had a debate on this subject in January, and I think I am right in saying that he has visited Paul Uppal and discussed these matters. Mr Uppal has an important role in supporting small businesses to resolve payment disputes with larger businesses, providing advice, and helping to bring about a culture change in payment practices and how businesses deal with each other.
The commissioner considers complaints by small businesses against their larger clients, but we also encourage businesses to report poor payment practice and cases of late payment in public sector contracts, including late payment through the supply chain, to the Cabinet Office’s mystery shopper service to investigate. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who referred to that. That service provides a further route for suppliers to raise concerns about public sector procurement issues, including payments. It works closely with all public sector contracting authorities to broker a resolution to cases, and makes recommendations to improve procurement. I can assure the noble Lord that the mystery shopper service has handled some 1,300 cases since it was established in 2011, and is widely used by small businesses.
The Government are alert to the specific difficulties, particularly in certain sectors: construction has been named. In October last year my department published two consultations on payment practices within the construction sector. We are actively considering the responses and options for future policy. We are also consulting on how we should exclude suppliers from major government procurements if they cannot demonstrate fair and effective payment practices with their subcontractors. The consultation, to which I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred, will close early next month, on 5 June. The noble Baroness asked in her usual optimistic manner when we would respond to it, and I will give the usual response: we will respond shortly. I want to make it clear that we will consider the responses very carefully, and will respond in due course.
We believe that the voluntary approach is a good one, but sometimes it does not work as it should. The recent collapse of Carillion has shown there is still more that needs to be done to protect small businesses. It is with this in mind that a call for evidence is being launched by my department on how we can eliminate the continuing problem of unfair payment. The call for evidence will build on the Government’s existing late payment policies to drive an end to all the unfair payment practices that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, highlighted when he talked about invoices and cheques being “in the post”, or getting lost in the post, or whatever.
All the steps I am announcing amount to a package of measures that will ultimately strengthen, as we need to, support for small and medium-sized enterprises. It is important, as we all agree, to do what we can to enable them to grow and create jobs by providing an environment in which they can flourish. I am grateful, as are the Government, for all the suggestions from those who have taken part in this short debate. Those suggestions too will be fed into the process. I hope that I have answered all the questions—or at least, I cannot answer them all, because these are matters that need to be considered. What I can say is that we accept that the voluntary approach is the right one to pursue, but it does not always get quite as far as it might, and there may be occasions when we have to look into taking things further in the future. I hope that that deals with all the points that have been made, so I will end my speech.
Civil Liability Bill [HL]
Thursday 10th May 2018
(5 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Civil Liability Act 2018 View all Civil Liability Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 90-I(b) Amendments for Committee, supplementary to the marshalled list (PDF, 54KB) - (10 May 2018)
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) Regulations may be informed by a review from time to time of relevant changes in motor vehicle technology and driving techniques.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, this is a step back from the legal intricacies of the Bill to reflect on a wider issue. The problem that the Government identify is the high number and cost of RTA whiplash claims. Their policy objective and intended effect are to disincentivise minor exaggerated and fraudulent claims—that is, to bear down on costs by reducing compensation levels for all, and requiring medical evidence before claims are settled. The impact assessment records that the volume of RTA-related PI claims has remained fairly static over the last three years, with rising volumes of traffic, meaning that there are proportionately fewer fatal or serious accidents. It attributes this in part to improvement in vehicle design—for example, integrated seats and headrests. Yet the Department for Transport recorded, for the year ended September 2017, 27,000 killed or seriously injured, with 174,000 casualties of all severities.
Although there was a decrease in settled claims, attributable in part to LASPO reforms, financially settled soft tissue claims for that year totalled some 520,000, whether they were from whiplash or as a result of other road traffic accidents. What seems to be missing in this debate is any form of focus on a wider prevention agenda. It should be about not only reducing costs but avoiding the pain and suffering and sometimes life-changing injuries in the first place. Why are we not raging against the scale of all this, as well as chipping away at monetary compensation levels?
I should point out at this juncture my interest, set out in the register, as president of RoSPA, the safety charity, and am grateful to it for the information it provided. I shall instance just two developments which have the potential to make a difference. In-vehicle monitoring—telematics—is increasingly available in the UK. As noble Lords may be aware, these systems essentially monitor how, when and where a vehicle is driven. The system can provide in-vehicle alerts if pre-set parameters are exceeded. There are obvious benefits for crash reduction circumstances. At present, it is understood that take-up of a variety of different systems is ad hoc and the catalyst, particularly for younger drivers, is reduced insurance premiums. Would not a comprehensive national take-up campaign have a beneficial effect on the real reduction of whiplash, reducing not only costs but the actual medical effects and suffering?
It is understood that next week the European Commission will propose new regulations that will focus on the mandatory fitting of autonomous emergency breaking systems. It has been estimated by the EU new car assessment programme that AEB can prevent up to 38% of rear-end crashes and avoid 1,100 fatalities and 120,000 casualties over the next 10 years. Currently, about 21% of new cars fit AEB as standard. I hesitate to move into issues of the European Commission, but will the Government support those regulations, both before and after Brexit, if that is where we end up?
I am aware that this amendment may be seen as a bit away from the mainstream before us today, but I hold to my point that concerns over levels of compensation for whiplash should be about prevention as much as about having a fair and robust system of compensation. I beg to move.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his contribution to the debate and I acknowledge the importance of looking more widely at issues such as road safety in the context of addressing the very issue that this Bill is intended to deal with.
On the question of the European Union regulations, in so far as they have direct effect before exit day, they will form part of retained EU law, and in so far as they do not have direct effect by that date, they will not form part of retained EU law. Going forward, it will be for our domestic legislatures to consider the appropriate steps to take with regard to such measures, and of course they will be conscious of developments in other jurisdictions when addressing that point. I am sorry to revert to an earlier Bill and its progress through this House, but I thought that I ought to address that point directly.
We recognise that the definition of whiplash injury is complex and that there is a need to reconcile the current legal understanding with an accurate medical definition that covers both injuries and symptoms. That is why we developed the definition of a whiplash injury, and the wider reform proposals, with extensive input from expert stakeholders, including medical experts, in order that we could come to a view about the appropriate definition for these purposes. In developing the whiplash reforms, we have considered the impact of improvements in vehicle safety. Indeed, developments in vehicle safety have been one of the features of the analysis and impact assessment that have been carried out. As the Government have mentioned on several occasions, it is surprising that the number of whiplash claims continues to be so high despite the significant improvements in vehicle safety over recent years, including the development of safe seats and head restraints which have had such a material bearing on safety in road traffic cases.
The amendment would enable the Government to take account of advances in vehicle safety and driving techniques when revising the definition in regulations. The noble Lord did not go so far as to incorporate the possibility of increasing numbers of driverless vehicles—but, looking further ahead, that is an additional development that we may have to take into consideration. It is crucial that we retain the ability to continue to amend the definition of whiplash in order to reflect all these developments, some of which may come along far more rapidly than we presently anticipate. That is why in the first instance we propose that the definition should be set out in regulations that can be amended and, in any event, allowing for the suggestion that there should be a more extensive definition in the Bill, it would be essential that there should be the means to amend that definition rapidly in response to changing conditions, and to do so by way of regulations.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for a very comprehensive reply. I should say that looking to deal with the definition in the amendment was pretty much a peg on which to raise the issue that I did. The Minister prompted me on driverless vehicles. As it happens, I had half an ear to the television set in my office yesterday when I was drafting some of this, so I caught up on that debate. It certainly should feature in the future.
There is a broader issue here—I accept it is not for this Bill—about whether we could make a dramatic improvement to some of the casualty numbers by a comprehensive effort, particularly around some of the black box technologies. The insurance companies bear some of the costs of that at the moment. It may be that they should be asked to do more. What I am looking for here is a thorough, comprehensive focus. If we had the same intensity of focus on dealing with road traffic accidents that we have—dare I say?—on Europe, we might have made a real difference already. Having said that, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharkey
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, the long string of amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Marks has a very simple purpose: to enable us to debate the proposed tariff and, in particular, two different types of tariff. The first, essentially contained in Amendment 11, is a tariff based on the Judicial College Guidelines. The second is a fixed, specified and structured tariff. This is essentially contained in Amendment 96, where the amounts are place-holders based on the average of awards actually made. Before I discuss either of these variations, I should again mention the Delegated Powers Committee recommendation that,
“it would be an inappropriate delegation of power for damages for whiplash injury to be set in a tariff made by Ministerial regulations rather than on the face of the Bill”,
and that the tariff,
“should be set out on the face of the Bill, albeit amendable by affirmative statutory instrument”.
At Second Reading, the Minister noted this recommendation and responded by saying:
“We consider that being able to regulate the tariff by the affirmative procedure is a more flexible way of being able to respond to changes”.—[Official Report, 24/4/18; col. 1531.]
That is precisely what the DPRRC proposed should happen after first setting out the tariff in the Bill. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will give a fuller answer as to why he believes that the tariff should not be in the Bill but should be fixed by an unamendable statutory instrument.
I turn to the question of the tariff itself. Should damages remain determined by application of the Judicial College Guidelines, or should they be fixed amounts? If fixed amounts, what should those be? These questions go to the heart of the matter. If we stay with the Judicial College Guidelines, the system would be relatively unchanged, although we could reduce awards for injuries of less than three months’ duration if, for example, we thought that that was where fraudulent claims were concentrated. If we move away from the Judicial College Guidelines to the example tariff contained in the impact assessment or to the tariff published yesterday by the Government, there will be very profound changes. The tariff published yesterday is even lower—by about 4.7%—than the example tariff on page 26 of the impact assessment. It would be interesting to know how these tariff levels were arrived at and what objectives were used in deriving them. For example, was there a target reduction in the cost of total damages awarded? If so, on what basis was this target chosen? Can the Minister explain the basis of the construction of the tariff amounts and tell us whether there was indeed a target for overall damage reduction?
Whatever method was used to devise the Government’s proposed tariff levels, in either the example tariff or yesterday’s tariff, both would have a very large effect. These new tariffs would transfer £1 billion away from claimants, via insurers, wholly or partially to motorists in the form of reduced premiums. That is a very large transfer. It is made up of £240 million in claims that would no longer proceed under the new tariff—assumed to be around 133,000—£550 million because of the reduced awards for every successful claimant, and £190 million from insurers no longer picking up legal fees and VAT. On the way, and as a consequence of this transfer, the general taxpayer would be hit for £140 million by reduced revenue from IPT and some loss of revenue to the NHS. If the Government’s tariff levels are applied, there will be, they calculate, a lot fewer claimants and, it is to be hoped, fewer fraudulent claimants, deterred as they might be by the banning of no-med settlements and very low tariff awards. This means that those successful claimants remaining will carry the burden of this transfer. Claimants will be £1 billion worse off; motorists will be £1 billion better off. What is the Government’s justification for such a massive transfer of funds? There are two questions to answer. First, what is the evidence base that justifies any transfer? Secondly, why this amount? Why such a very large reduction in amounts awarded to claimants? Why not a smaller reduction—or, for that matter, a larger one? What is the justification for this level of transfer?
In the impact assessment and in the Minister’s speeches at Second Reading, it was clear that some care had been taken to avoid using fraudulent claims as the main reason for the proposed changes. However, I note that today the Minister seems clear that this is in fact the main driver. As we noted at Second Reading, claims about the incidence of fraud are highly contested. Is there in fact a reasonable and properly evidenced consensus about the extent or cost of fraudulent or exaggerated claims? I worry that there is not.
There are certainly competing claims from all the many vested interests involved, including the insurance industry, but no independent assessment to help us reach an evidenced view. The Government more or less recognised this when they set out in the impact assessment the principal justifications for the proposed changes. They were all economic and based on a need they saw to correct three alleged market failures. The first failure—if you can really call it that—was asymmetric information. Only a victim could really know the extent and duration of the pain and suffering caused by whiplash, and the Government see this as an incentive to fraudulent or exaggerated claims. So it may be, but we do not seem to know how many or to what extent. But punishing all genuine whiplash claimants by hugely reducing their awards is surely not a reasonable remedy. Why punish these people and reward motorists for an unquantifiable, or at least unquantified, number of fraudulent or exaggerated claims?
The second market failure is alleged to be that of perverse incentives. This refers to legal fees. The Government claim that if legal fees were not recoverable or were less recoverable, this would bring down the number of claims. So it might, but would this be reasonable? In any case, this alleged saving is by no means the major element in the transfer of funds away from claimants.
The third alleged market failure is that of insurance companies settling claims without proof of injury. Here, there is obviously a genuine market failure, and I am very glad to see the Bill banning this practice. However, nowhere in the impact assessment’s justifications for action is there any reference to the huge transfer—over £500 million—that is brought about simply by the introduction of much lower awards for all claimants. Again, what is the evidence base for such a reduction?
The Government’s proposed tariff is significantly lower than the current actual awards in every duration band. For injuries lasting up to three months, current awards average £1,800; the Government propose £225. For injuries lasting between three and six months, current awards average £2,250; the Government propose £450. That carries on all the way up the duration scale. This all looks like an arbitrary and huge transfer of money from claimants to motorists via insurance companies. The Government have given no justification for the scale of this transfer and no explanation why claimants should be so punished and motorists so rewarded. I imagine that we will hear such claims as, “It is generally accepted that claim levels are too high”. This is not a sound basis for policy decisions, certainly not involving huge transfers of funding on this scale, which also create very serious anomalies.
As we pointed out at Second Reading, an injury of 24 months’ duration identical in its effects, if suffered at work, would attract up to £6,500. For whiplash, the Government would restrict you to £3,725. If the Government want a fixed tariff, as they clearly do, then they should put this tariff in the Bill, so that we have the opportunity to amend it. As importantly, they must justify this £1 billion transfer from claimants to motorists. They must explain why all claimants for whiplash should suffer and all motorists benefit.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, if this amendment is agreed to, Amendments 12 to 22 inclusive cannot be called by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I understand that the clear purpose of Part 1 of the Bill is to discourage false claims for whiplash injuries in road traffic accidents. The proposed method, besides wisely insisting henceforth on medical reports, is essentially by substantially reducing the damages recoverable in such claims to, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has just explained in some detail, figures well below those that are suggested in the 14th edition of the Judicial College guidelines, based as they are on typical court awards for such injuries.
The real question raised here is whether it is right to create especially low awards and, if so, how much lower than the norm for this particular injury suffered in this particular way specifically because disproportionate numbers of this sort of claims are likely to be false, not least because it is highly subjective and very difficult to establish objectively the reliability of the complaints. These are essentially political questions. It may be addressing the next group of amendments to say that it would make no sense whatever to involve the judiciary in answering these political policy questions. We know what the courts regard as the appropriate levels; we have those from the Judicial College guidelines.
As to what the political answer is to the precise level of damages proposed and whether or not it should be on the face of the Bill, I am essentially agnostic—although if anything I would favour that it should be. What rather surprises me is that, as I understand it, none of the amendments to the Bill is designed to challenge the whole Part 1 approach, which inevitably involves discrimination against those genuinely claiming for whiplash injuries in this context. Is the problem, one may ask, despite a number of improvements in the overall legal landscape over recent years—and indeed, no doubt consequentially, some reduction in the level of these claims—really bad enough to justify that whole approach? That does not seem to be squarely addressed in any of the amendments.
That said, I would add that I am in broad agreement with the whole idea of tariffs for injuries, certainly for lesser injuries, and indeed even of reducing awards in respect of a number of these lesser injuries. When I used to practise in this area decades ago, I used to think even then that lesser injuries were altogether too generously compensated, certainly in comparison to the graver injuries, which were not. Tariffs promote certainty and predictability, although of course always at the cost of some flexibility. That very predictability and certainty cuts down the enormous expense, the worry, the concern, the delay and the hassle of litigating expensively—as it invariably is—in this field. Indeed, that is also the effect of raising the small claims tribunal limits. I therefore also tend to support that to some degree in respect of these lesser injuries.
Overall, one must recognise that this is par excellence a policy issue, and it is for the Crown to justify Part 1 in the way that I have indicated. Part 2 raises very different questions, and to that I give my total support.
Lord Faulks (Con)
The amendment tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, seems at least to question the underlying premise behind these reforms. I respectfully suggest that the Government have established the premise. The Minister set out the Government’s case, as it were, at Second Reading, and the statistics seem to lead ineluctably to the conclusion that there is widespread abuse of the whole whiplash claims system. The solution, though it is inevitably somewhat rough and ready, is that there should in effect be a reduction in what claimants might have been able to claim under the system that currently obtains, although that is in relation only to damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity and excludes loss of earnings or any other consequential losses. It is a reduction but a fairly modest one and we are speaking of injuries at the lower end of the scale, although I do not downplay the discomfort that can follow from whiplash injuries. However, the purpose behind the reforms is surely, first, to provide certainty and, secondly, to make the awards reasonably modest so as to provide less of an incentive for those who would seek to make fraudulent claims. That, combined with the ban on medical officers, should fulfil what is, as the noble and learned Lord rightly says, essentially a policy decision.
In effect, the losers about whom we should be concerned are those genuine claimants, as opposed to the many who are not genuine, who I accept will get a lesser sum than they would otherwise have obtained. In the round, though, I suggest that this is a sensible policy decision. The House may have in mind that when these reforms were initially trailed by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne—and it came from the Treasury rather than the Ministry of Justice—the suggestion was that there would be no damages at all for whiplash injuries. This is a modification of that change, and of course there is the right of the judges to have an uplift in circumstances that we may be exploring later. Still, I suggest that it would be a mistake to pass these matters back to the judges. The Judicial College guidelines are in fact an extrapolation from individual cases decided by judges. They then, as it were, create a form of certainty, although they are variable according to individual cases.
I think the Government have made a case. They have to grasp the nettle, and they have done so in this case.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, for framing a good debate in this important area, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his very clear opening remarks. There seem to be three issues here: first, who should set the tariff; secondly, where it should be set out; and, thirdly, how it should be amended.
I regard the tariff as being very much a political matter. The problem that we are trying to cope with is a widespread low-level fraud that is afflicting our country. It is easy money offered by the claims industry for people following what are probably genuine motor accidents. I read out earlier a quite shocking quote from one of the leading people in the claims industry:
“Even if you don’t experience any symptoms straightaway, don’t rule out the possibility that you’ve suffered this type of injury”.
I feel that as it is a political and social problem it must have a political solution, and it cannot really have a judicial solution.
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, who has lent me his copy of the Judicial College guidelines. The introduction states:
“Assessing the appropriate level of any award remains the prerogative of the courts, which are not constrained by any range identified in this book, since the figures within any such range are persuasive, not obligatory, and merely represent what other judges have been awarding for similar injuries”.
Therefore, the whole basis on which the Judicial College has been gathering figures and making judgments is not the sort of basis on which in any event one would want to build a tariff construction. It is the wrong starting material, although it is an interesting book. Accordingly, I feel that the Lord Chancellor must be the person who takes a decision about what will be contained in the tariff.
In respect of my other two questions, I return to the 22nd Report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which considered this issue at paragraph 13 and stated:
“In our view it would be an inappropriate delegation of power for damages for whiplash injury to be set in a tariff made by Ministerial regulations rather than on the face of the Bill. The tariff should be set out on the face of the Bill, albeit amendable by affirmative statutory instrument”.
I feel that answers both my questions. I urge the Minister to consider having a tariff on the face of the Bill and to ensure that it is amendable with suitable parliamentary oversight.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, the amendments are, as has been said, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharkey. I shall first add to the point made about the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee by quoting what it said about placing the tariff in the Bill. It said that the second central question—the first being the question that I quoted earlier about what is meant by whiplash injury—is:
“By how much are awards of damages to be reduced?”
The committee said that the Government’s answer was that:
“The reduction in damages will be whatever the Lord Chancellor says it will be, in regulations to be made by him or her at some future date”.
The committee came to the conclusion, as the noble Earl pointed out, that that is an inappropriate delegation of power. I again make the point that it is appropriate for the Government to accept that recommendation. That has always been the way that that committee’s recommendations have been dealt with. Of course, amendment in the future can be made by statutory instrument.
I turn to the important point that was made in different ways by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, which is that the cost paid by society for these reforms in this particular case—that is, the reduction in damages—is a reduction in awards for genuine claimants. It is genuine claimants who are made to suffer. I cannot see the justification for that in any of the evidence that the Government have produced. We accept entirely that there is a problem with fraud. We are fully behind attempts to tackle fraud by eliminating, or at least reducing, fraudulent claims. But to remove the right to fair damages for claimants in these particular types of cases does not seem to be an appropriate response to this problem in a civilised society.
We address this central problem by saying that the Judicial College Guidelines are an appropriate way of coming to a conclusion on appropriate damages. They are a fair and workable way in which to achieve comparability. They avoid the problem that fraud may be positively encouraged by a cliff-edge system that encourages exaggeration. Damages under this proposal double if the claimant can persuade the medic who is preparing his report that an injury will have a duration of three months-plus, rather than just short of three months—doubled from £225 to £450. In that context, I make two points. The first is that it is a little odd that the response—
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
Does the noble Lord accept the argument that the quantum of damages is essentially a political decision that should be taken and justified in Parliament, not taken by judges in courts? How do aggrieved people achieve change there? We know how they achieve change in a political situation: they can lobby their Member of Parliament and get change. Is the noble Lord saying that this must be left to the judges and that we have no way of obtaining redress for decisions that an individual might feel are unfair or inaccurate?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
Absolutely not. The Judicial College can respond, and be required to respond, to political guidance if Parliament chooses to legislate on the level of damages. I do not say that that is what is wrong. My concern is about the fairness and comparability of picking out whiplash injuries in an attack on fraud and reducing the compensation to genuine claimants accordingly. My point about the £225 and £450 figures—
Lord Faulks
Does the noble Lord accept that if you reduce the amount of damages, it provides something of a disincentive to those who are fraudulent?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
Of course I accept that. It is a question of whether the cost in unfairness is worth paying. It is a dilemma that the noble Lord himself correctly outlined in his speech. We are simply saying that we ought to try every other avenue before trying this drastic avenue of introducing an unfair system for genuine claimants. I will see if I can get beyond the next couple of sentences.
My point about the £225 and £450 figures is that they represent a cliff edge. They compare to £1,800, which is the expected award set out in the Government’s impact statement for such injuries of less than three months’ duration to date. The Government’s response to the outcry that these damages are so low has not been to meet the outcry at all but to reduce them from £235 to £225 and from £470 to £450.
One of our problems with the present proposals is that there is no evidence base for a recent increase in the number of fraudulent claims. We entirely accept the case that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, made both at Second Reading and today that there is a wide prevalence of fraudulent claims that we have to tackle. However, there is not a wide base of evidence for an increase in such claims, nor is there sufficient evidence of how many claims are fraudulent or genuine. There is certainly no evidence that only the fraudulent claims would be deterred and that the genuine claims would continue. That worries me seriously, because the noble and learned Lord suggested earlier today that a genuine claimant might continue whereas a fraudulent one might be deterred. We simply do not accept that. It is just as likely—and I say this also without an evidence base—that genuine claimants would be deterred because the amount at stake had become so low, even though they had a fair claim.
We entirely agree with the Government that the proposal for compulsory medical reports discriminates between genuine and fraudulent claimants. I repeat my declaration at Second Reading that I have just concluded some litigation about compulsory medical reports and the operation of the pre-action protocol. However, there is no corresponding evidence of discrimination in the case of these drastic cuts in damages, which we say are unjust, unfair and fail to give fair compensation to genuine claimants. They discriminate unfairly between injuries sustained in road traffic accidents by drivers and passengers in motor vehicles and those sustained in such accidents by cyclists and pedestrians. Who would receive the traditional level of damages? Passengers and motorists would not, even in genuine cases. They discriminate unfairly between accidents which are covered by the Bill and accidents at work or accidents caused by, for instance, a council’s negligence. Those can also be a source of fraudulent claims.
If the Government are determined to have a tariff, we are worried about the cliff edge. I see no fundamental reason in principle against a tariff; it is a question of weighing the advantages of certainty outlined by the noble and learned Lord against the fact that you have a cliff edge where those cases that are very close to the three-month level produce very large discrepancies in damages. If we are to have a tariff, let it at least be one that does not penalise genuine claimants by allowing them an award that is far too low. That is the basis for our alternative Amendments 13 and 96. We do not put them forward as a preferred option, but they are more acceptable than the Government’s proposals.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I concur with the views expressed and proposals made by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks. They are absolutely on the right track, although I do not agree with the provision for the Judicial College guidelines to be taken into account. It will be seen that in the next group, we have an alternative proposal suggesting that the Civil Justice Council should be involved in making the decisions.
In this group, however, there is an amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie which would restore a degree of discretion for the court to uplift the amount of damages payable where it deems it just to do so in all the circumstances of the case. That would revive the role of the judiciary in assessing damages, at least to some extent, where it felt that the scale proffered under the legislation was inadequate—as noble Lords have already made clear, that seems likely in many cases.
I broadly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, and will revert to one aspect to which I referred in the next group.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. It respectfully appears to me that the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, materially bolstered the approach that the Government take in the Bill. Why do I say that? Because it is quite clear that we are addressing a matter of policy and have to do so as such. What ultimately has to be taken here is a political decision, not a judicial determination.
In fairness, I think it was a slip from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, but when he talked about the question of whether claims are genuine or not reasonable, he said that it was unquantifiable—and then corrected himself to unquantified. The former is more accurate than the latter.
Let us be clear. More than 80% of road traffic injuries are allegedly whiplash-induced injuries. The vast majority of all personal injury claims are whiplash claims. Over 10 years, the number of whiplash claims has rocketed—yes, it has stabilised a little in the past year or two, but it has still rocketed. At the same time, the number of road traffic accidents reported has dropped by 40%. At the same time, the number of vehicles classified by Thatcham as safe from the perspective of seating and headrests has increased from 18% to 80%.
As some people have said, an industry is going on. As others have suggested, there is a racket. We have a claims culture that has built up—I attribute no blame to any one party; all sides involved have contributed in one way or another to the ballooning of the claims culture. The time has come—indeed, the time may be almost past—when we need to address it as a political issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, suggested that somehow we were making a transfer from claimants to motorists. With great respect, a very large proportion of claimants are motorists, so it is not as simple and straightforward as that. Secondly, he talked about the transfer requiring to be justified. The transfer is a consequence of the policy decision we are making to deal with the industry, the claims culture; it is not the purpose of it. It is, as I say, the consequence.
Lord Sharkey
In fact, I was asking the noble and learned Lord, with respect, to justify the quantum, but perhaps he is going to deal with that.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, as I say, the quantum is a consequence of the steps we are taking to address the claims culture. The way in which we are doing it is such that we are confident that the benefits will be passed to consumers in the form of motor insurance premiums.
Lord Sharkey
In that case, perhaps the noble and learned Lord could explain exactly how the tariff was constructed—on what basis?
Lord Keen of Elie
Yes, I shall come to that. We have had regard to the present level of damages awarded in these cases, we have had regard to expert input about how we can deal with the claims culture that has built up, and we have taken the view on the level of tariff required to implement the policy decision that we have made to deal with this emerging problem.
Lord Sharkey
Does the Minister accept that that is not really an explanation? It is simply a statement that the Government have done something. I was asking for the basis on which they arrived at these numbers. In fact, oddly, the numbers changed between the impact assessment and the SI published yesterday. There must be a reason for that; there must have been some discussion. There must be some basis on which these amounts were constructed, but it is not clear from his answer what they are.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, first, I understand that there was not intended to be a change between the impact assessment and the SI publication. That is why the rather odd difference of 4 point something per cent emerges. I acknowledge that that was not intended.
Lord Faulks
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps he will confirm to the House that even the Judicial College guidelines or awards of damages by judges for pain, suffering and loss of amenity are not mathematically calculated; they are figures arrived at doing the best that a judge can to represent the nature of the injury by such an award.
Lord Sharkey
I think this is a misunderstanding. I was not trying to imply that there was an element of certainty involved here. I simply wanted to know how the figures had been arrived at. Why not some other figure? Instead of 235, why not 200? Why not 400? How were these figures arrived at?
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, a judgment had been made having regard to all the information available as to what level should be set for the tariff to address the very problem that we are attempting to deal with. It is not based on some mathematical formula or percentage.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I refer my noble and learned friend to his previous comment which, fairly, recognises that all parties are to blame, which is something that I think he conceded at Second Reading—that the insurance industry shares part of the blame. May I clarify? When he says that all parties are to blame for this, may I clarify that he was not including the genuine claimants, who have become a focus in this House: that they are not to blame for an industry, a racket or whatever created by others?
Lord Keen of Elie
Everybody readily acknowledges that point but, with respect, you cannot take 650,000 claims and identify 300,000 that happen to be fraudulent, or 200,000 that happen to be exaggerated. A policy decision has to be made, acknowledging that there are within that very large body of claims perfectly genuine claims, perfectly fraudulent claims, exaggerated claims and minor claims that would never have been brought but for the encouragement of a claims industry that sees the financial benefit of ensuring that people take these claims forward. That is part of the culture that has developed. I noticed that when the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, suffered an unfortunate accident on the Tube and mentioned it in this House, he was asked if he intended to make a claim and said no. One was encouraged by that. People tend to consider that these events can happen; they may be able to point the finger of blame at someone, but they feel that life goes on and it is unnecessary to be distracted by such issues. We have a claims management culture that goes out of its way—many noble Lords have noted it—to encourage people who would otherwise think nothing of a minor injury to come forward and join the bandwagon. Let us emphasise: this is a matter of policy that we are addressing in these circumstances.
Baroness Primarolo (Lab)
On that point, the Minister will be aware that the business model for insurance companies is to assist those who they insure, and to make claims against others when it is appropriate. They are part of that industry, and some of them own claims management companies. Will the Minister explain to the House what he undertook in terms of research to make sure that the figures he is basing his assertions on are correct?
Lord Keen of Elie
I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s expertise in these areas as a non-executive director of Thompsons Solicitors, and her knowledge of the claims culture that has built up. With respect, in carrying out our work, we looked at the behaviour of the insurance industry in this context. Of course, the insurance industry can operate as an intermediary because, where the claims arise, it passes on the costs to the consumer by way of increased premiums. There have been instances in the past where insurance companies have passed on details of their own insurees’ claims to third parties and that has been exploited. I was quite open earlier in saying that we acknowledge the contribution of a number of different parties to what has developed into an unacceptable claims culture. That is what we are seeking to address in this Bill.
Can I continue just a little further in that context? The first group of amendments from the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Marks, proposed that compensation for pain and suffering should be determined by reference to the Judicial College guidelines. Indeed, the second set of amendments proposed to place the tariff amounts into the Bill rather than in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor. All those figures would be significantly higher than those proposed by the Government—indeed, more in line with the amount currently paid out by claim.
I understand that noble Lords feel that the proposed tariff amounts are too low, but we continue to be concerned about the high number and the high cost of these claims in general, and the impact of that on the consumer. Therefore, we have to take a policy view as to how we can disincentivise not just fraudulent claims but what I would call unmeritorious claims—very minor and exaggerated claims. Our view is that it is right to set the tariff through regulations, which will help to control those costs and ensure greater certainty to both claimants and defendants when they come to deal with these claims, remembering that the vast majority of these claims never reach court anyway. They are dealt with before they ever arrive at the door of a court. In addition, we consider that a tariff will provide the flexibility required to change the tariff amounts, in reaction not just to inflation but to changes in the market, if I can gently call them that. We know that we are dealing with a marketplace; it is extremely inventive and can rise again phoenix-like from any statutory provision that we bring forward.
Therefore, we are going to have a tariff of predictable damages, albeit for those who suffer injury with a duration of up to 24 months. That is a relatively minor personal injury, but not one to be dismissed—and we do not seek to dismiss them. The relevant tariff will then be applied. It will be far simpler for someone to take their claim forward and, of course, we then have in place the requirement for an independent medical expert report, albeit in circumstances of dealing with subjective complaints of injury, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, acknowledged. They can be very difficult to determine. If someone comes forward with symptoms, on the basis of a subjective assessment, a report can be made, but it can be very difficult to determine whether those subjective complaints are well based. Indeed, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, observed, there are claims management companies that would encourage someone to come forward even if he had not suffered any symptoms so far, in the belief that something might emerge in due course. That is why we have taken that approach, albeit we have allowed for the judiciary to have input so that it can, in appropriate or exceptional circumstances, increase the tariff award by up to 20%.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
I just wanted to make this point, but because of the noble and learned Lord’s plea I have perhaps left it a little late, as he has left the question of the figures. He made it clear that a political judgment was made in reaching these figures. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, asked for clarification that the Judicial College guidelines, on which we rely, were merely an extrapolation from judges’ awards. However, as I expect the noble and learned Lord will accept, there is an element of circularity here because the judges reach their decision as to what is appropriate invariably after having the Judicial College guidelines cited to them, so they feed on themselves and are therefore a fairly carefully worked-out set of figures into which there could be political input.
Lord Keen of Elie
With respect, as the noble Lord outlined, they are self-perpetuating figures. Therefore, although we have regard to those guidelines when coming to a view as to where the tariff should be set, that was only one element in deciding the appropriate levels for the tariff itself.
I shall turn for a moment to the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which would provide the court with complete discretion with regard to any percentage increase of exceptional circumstances. We do not consider that that is an appropriate way forward. It would simply lead to an increase in litigation and in the claims culture, so that is why we feel that there should be an appropriate limit on how any exceptional circumstances can be dealt with by the court.
In that context, I should point out that the tariff system is not entirely a novelty. Other European jurisdictions faced with the same claims culture and the same racket, as some people have called it, have introduced tariffs as well, or tables of predictive damages. That includes Italy, Spain and France. In due course both Houses will have the opportunity to debate the details of any regulations that are introduced to put forward the appropriate figures for the tariff, which at present we consider should be in the regulations, if only for the purposes of flexibility.
Again, I want to emphasise that this is essentially a matter of policy to deal with a very particular problem. It is a political decision; it is not one that we consider is for the judges; it is one that is ultimately for the Lord Chancellor to deal with in his capacity as a Minister. It is in these circumstances that I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharkey
I thank the Minister for the long and comprehensive—and occasionally interrupted—answer. There is an issue here. I accept that it is a political decision, of course, and we are all operating on that basis, but I am still worried and puzzled about the way in which this table of tariffs has been devised. I have heard nothing from the Minister to suggest that it is not arbitrary. In particular, he did not answer my question so perhaps he can do it now. Were the figures devised on the basis of some target saving being set and then working backwards to say what the tariff would be to generate that saving? If that is the case, we ought to be told.
Lord Keen of Elie
Can I be clear to the noble Lord? I am not aware of there having been any target saving. As I sought to indicate earlier, this was rather an approach from the other direction: what policy is required? Effective policy is required to deal with the problem facing us.
Lord Sharkey
The Minister will forgive me if I say that that sounds a bit like the back of a political envelope. The question still remains. We are interested in what these figures are, and it would help our discussions if we had a clearer idea of how they were arrived at. I am sure that we will want to pursue that as the Bill makes progress. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 29 set an alternative method for recommending a tariff, not via the Judicial College but via the Civil Justice Council, and it is suggested that this should be done on an annual basis. The Civil Justice Council is a body established by the Civil Procedure Act 1997, and it acts as an advisory body to the Lord Chancellor, who must then set out the recommended tariff under this amendment, in regulations. That is the substance of Amendment 12.
Amendment 29 makes the necessary changes to the Civil Procedure Act, which then empower the Civil Justice Council to include recommendations on the whiplash injuries damages tariff. In my submission, that is a better way of dealing with matters than either the Lord Chancellor doing it on a political basis or leaving it to the Judicial College. I understand the reservations about them. This is a better way of dealing with the situation, and I commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 14 in this group. Much of this ground was covered in the earlier debate, and I anticipate the Minister’s response in that light. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Beecham that we perhaps need to find another route on this issue, and in a sense that is what Amendment 14 does. It seeks to place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Chief Justice and obtain the agreement of the Judicial College on the proposed amount for tariffs, before making regulations to set damages tariffs for whiplash.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House recommended that it is the judiciary, with its experience of personal injury claims, that should determine the provisions for damages or, failing that, the responsibility should be undertaken by independent medical experts. Noble Lords have referred to medical experts in earlier debates and recognise their value. I know that many would prefer the Government to abandon their plan to discard the use of the Judicial College guidelines for general damages claims, but there is value in the current guidance. This is a probing amendment, along with others, to find a way of enabling consultation and constraining the absolute power currently set out for the Lord Chancellor.
One of the worries that feeds this is that genuine cases may be dealt with in a way that leads to undercompensation. We do not know what the scale of the problem is, because the Government have not produced statistics on what they believe to be the level of genuine or, for that matter, fraudulent claiming. While that remains the case, we must surely protect those who have genuinely suffered and need to make a claim for good reasons.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the Bar Council recommended that the Lord Chancellor should be required to have regard to decided cases. That seems a reasonable approach. If the Lord Chancellor is required to consult the Lord Chief Justice before making regulations on the uplift in exceptional circumstances, what justification can there be for him not to consult the Lord Chief Justice on the tariff amounts generally? It may be that, with its experience, the Judicial College guidelines would be an appropriate starting point and basis for consultation.
We recognise the power of the Government’s argument generally to change and make reforms, but it is also important to recognise the value of the judiciary’s knowledge in this field and the importance of consulting it in setting tariffs. After all, it has the experience.
Lord Faulks
I just wanted to say one thing. First, I am not sure whether I have declared during Committee that I was a Minister in the Ministry of Justice when the subject of whiplash reform was frequently discussed, although the precise shape of that reform did not manifest in the same way that it does in this Bill. I made that clear at Second Reading, but would like to make it clear now.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I was rather hoping that my noble friend was going to explain the tariff, but that may be for another day.
If I respond shortly, it is not because I dismiss the importance of the amendments that have been moved but because I have already sought to set out the Government’s approach to the tariff, and I hope that will be appreciated. However, I understand the purpose of these probing amendments, in particular the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, which reflects some recommendations from the Bar Council. I will add two short points.
First, as I mentioned before, we allow for the 20% uplift for exceptional circumstances to be placed in the hands of the judiciary. Secondly, in setting the tariff, the Lord Chancellor is going to consult widely and take into account the views of a wide spectrum of interested parties in order to arrive at what is considered, for policy purposes, to be the appropriate levels, both now and in the future. However, we do not consider that it is appropriate to formalise any part of that consultation, for example by reference to consulting the Lord Chief Justice.
I have heard what has been said; it is essentially a development of the previous group of amendments. I appreciate why these additional amendments have been moved, but invite noble Lords to withdraw.
“(7A) Regulations under subsection (7) may not increase amounts in relation to claims by vulnerable road users unless the increase is to reflect increases in the retail prices index or the consumer prices index.(7B) In subsection (7A), “vulnerable road user” means any person other than a person—(a) using a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle on a road or other public place in England or Wales, or(b) being carried in or on a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle while another uses the vehicle on a road or other public place in England or Wales.”
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will move this amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Berkeley, who is unable to attend this afternoon due to personal circumstances. This amendment addresses a slightly different issue from those that I have heard today. If the Bill is enacted, the Government also propose to increase the small claims track limit for personal injury cases from £1,000 to £5,000 for all road traffic accident claims and to £2,000 for all other personal injury claims. The Ministry of Justice’s impact assessment makes it clear that the small claims limit increase is part of a broader reform package, although the small claims limit proposals do not appear in the Bill, as they can be implemented through secondary legislation via an amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules.
When the Ministry of Justice published its consultation on reforming the soft tissue whiplash claims process, Cycling UK—to which I must pay tribute for providing the briefing—realised that the stated proposal to increase the small claims limit to £5,000 extended far beyond whiplash claims by car occupants. In partnership with RoadPeace, the national charity for road crash victims, and Living Streets, the national charity for everyday walking, Cycling UK launched its Road Victims are Real Victims campaign, the catalyst for which was the shared concern that the consultation ignored the interests of road crash victims, particularly pedestrians, cyclists and motorcyclists—generically vulnerable road users.
Within the consultation, no reference was made to vulnerable road users. The focus was on whiplash, fraudulent claims and motorists, without consideration of the complexity of vulnerable road user personal injury claims, the different nature of the injuries typically sustained and claimed for or their vulnerable status. More than 6,000 people responded to the Road Victims are Real Victims campaign, writing to the Ministry of Justice in support of Cycling UK’s submissions and outlining their opposition to the proposed small claims limit increase, which disproportionately affects vulnerable road users. The MoJ’s consultation response failed to address any of the arguments raised on behalf of vulnerable road users, including the complexity of their claims or the nature of their injuries, save for one sentence in paragraph 86 acknowledging that certain points had been made but not responding to them.
The Government’s proposal to increase the small claims limit to £5,000 for all road traffic accident-related claims will affect 70% of cyclist personal injury claims and a similar percentage of motorcyclist personal injury claims, where the general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity are under £5,000. Cycling UK met with officials at the MoJ following publication of the consultation response, and explained why vulnerable road user personal injury claims should be excluded from the small claims limit increase to £5,000 and how that could be achieved simply through adopting the same definition of a road traffic accident claim for the purposes of the small claims limit, as the Government propose to adopt in Clause 1 of the Bill, which defines whiplash injury and refers to whiplash injury suffered due to driver negligence when someone is,
“using a motor vehicle other than a motor cycle”.
The Bill excludes vulnerable road users from the definition of whiplash and the whiplash reforms in the Bill. The changes to the small claims limit catch all road traffic accident personal injury claims, including those by vulnerable road users.
The consultation document made it abundantly clear that the Government’s main aim was to tackle what they perceived to be the “compensation culture” and both fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims. Whatever the extent of these problems, the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that vulnerable road users should not be penalised as a consequence of measures the Government implement to address them. I do not think that we are trying to say that this is a perfect amendment. I hope the Minister will understand that this is a probing amendment; we are seeking an assurance from him that he would be open to a consultation process. Before I end my contribution I suppose that I should declare an interest as a regular cyclist and a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Cycling Group. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey
Talking about vulnerable road users, I was reading Tuesday’s edition of Insurance Times, and the opening sentence was:
“Justice minister Lord Keen makes the first concession on Civil Liability Bill ahead of it entering the committee stage in the House of Lords”.
It went on to say:
“Lord Keen sent a letter to peers this morning, and in it, he made his first real concession regarding the Bill”—
and it then went on to quote the Minister at some length.
I looked on the Bills in progress website and could not find any letter. I searched through my emails and could not find any letter; I searched through my junk mail and still could not find any letter from the Minister. I wonder whether he will simply tell me that I should not believe everything I read in Insurance Times, or whether there is some letter that he would like to draw our attention to.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. I, too, declare an interest as a regular cyclist and a member of the APPG on cycling. As has been made clear at all stages, the Government’s main aim in this Bill is to tackle what they perceive as the compensation culture, and in particular fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims. It should not be a by-product of that that vehicle road users, including cyclists, are penalised by measures designed for a completely different purpose.
Whiplash claims are brought by motor vehicle occupants, not by people riding bicycles or motorcycles or crossing the road. Nobody makes a fraudulent claim by throwing themselves off a bicycle or a motorbike or by jumping in front of a car. The point has been made to the MoJ that there is no evidence to suggest that fraudulent claims by vulnerable road users are an issue of concern—and, as far as I am aware, no evidence to the contrary has been provided by the Ministry of Justice.
Whiplash claims from cycle and motorcycle collisions are almost entirely unheard of. The mechanism of the typical injury sustained is, of course, different. People on bicycles tend to be injured by hitting hard surfaces—car bonnets or the road. They sustain fractures and injuries from those impacts. It is not at all likely that they would be making a fraudulent claim. Indeed, I think it is impossible to imagine that they would.
I support this amendment. I think that a Bill designed for whiplash claims should not accidentally spread its effect to vulnerable road users whose injuries are likely to be of a completely different nature.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, we have Amendment 26 in this group. I thank my noble friend Lord Young for stepping in to the breach in place of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and for the other contributions that have been made.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I am sorry. I will speak to Amendment 23 only to congratulate my noble friend for stepping into the breach. I thank him and the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for speaking in support of cyclists. We are very happy to support their proposition.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to the noble Lord for supporting their proposition rather than their amendment—which, I venture, is entirely appropriate in the circumstances. Clause 1 goes out of its way to ensure that vulnerable road users such as cyclists or motorcyclists are not encompassed within the ambit of the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill. That has to be made absolutely clear. I entirely endorse the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, as to the types of injury normally suffered by cyclists or motorcyclists. It does not tend to be of the whiplash variety, which is why we have ensured that they are not included in the terms of the Bill. In particular, as I say, Clause 1 expressly serves to exclude vulnerable road users of that type.
However, the point that the noble Lord made was more to do with a matter outwith the present Bill, which is the proposal to increase the small claims limit to £5,000 for road traffic cases. That is being mooted. Indeed, that increase was a factor in our approach to the whole issue of whiplash injury—but it was not limited to that. The proposed increase in the small claims limit will apply to all road users, including cyclists and motorcyclists. The Government’s reasons for seeking that increase are not simply limited to whiplash claims and the claims culture that has developed there but reflect the fact that, in our view, low-value road traffic accident claims—whether whiplash or otherwise—are appropriate for the small claims track and are capable of being dealt with in that track, whether they be for whiplash or other forms of road traffic injury.
In that context, I also note that we are developing, with expert input, the claims portal for these small claims so that claimants will find the system far more accessible. I simply seek to emphasise that the Bill does not embrace vulnerable road users such as cyclists. However, our reason for increasing the small claims limit for road traffic accidents in general is not limited simply to the view that that is a means of dealing with the whiplash claims culture; it reflects a wider view that low-value road traffic accident claims can appropriately be dealt with in the small claims track. Of course, where those claims are perceived to be complex, they can be moved from that track into the next track of judicial determination. In these circumstances, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment—albeit he acknowledges that it was tabled for probing purposes.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
I welcome what the noble and learned Lord said—I have found it constructive and helpful. Nevertheless, I still think that there is some concern and, rather than having to return to this on Report, it would be useful if we could meet him for further consultation.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am perfectly content to meet the noble Lord. As I return to my feet, I am reminded of the regular reading material of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, which includes the Insurance Times. I circulated a letter to Peers following Second Reading and it may be referring to that, but I do not recollect having made the sort of concession reported in that material. Unless the noble Lord feels that he can correct me, I am certainly not aware of it. Our position has always been that the original draft of the Bill specifically excluded vulnerable road users. I suspect that it is a case not of journalistic licence but of journalistic error.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, once again I thank the Minister for his contribution and will reflect on it when we pore over Hansard. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) Nothing in this section, or in any amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules which increase the Small Claims Track Limit, prevents a court, in a case where a person suffers a whiplash injury, making an award of costs in respect of the provision of a medical report in support of that person’s claim.”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this is a very straightforward amendment. We know that legal costs are unrecoverable in the small claims court, and the increase in the small claims limit creates real problems. The amendment would at least provide for the courts to allow an award of costs in respect of the provision of a medical report. That is important, because whiplash claims cannot be processed until a medical report is available, and the amendment would facilitate that in circumstances where it would otherwise be difficult for claimants to obtain one.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I have three amendments in this group: Amendments 27, 47 and 52. Amendment 27 seeks a review of the small claims limit. We say that the provisions of the Bill cannot be satisfactorily considered unless at the same time the Government are prepared to discuss what will happen with the small claims limit.
The proposal is that the small claims limit will rise to £10,000 and to £5,000 in these cases, and that will effectively exclude all the whiplash claims on this tariff, with the claimants being unable to recover costs, apart from the very limited fixed costs. If that goes ahead, there will be no legal representation in respect of nearly all whiplash claims. Of course, that will not be limited to fraudulent claims; it will penalise genuine claimants as well.
The reason why there will be no legal representation is that, essentially, the vast majority of these claims are dealt with on conditional fee agreements whereby no fee is paid unless there is recovery. If there can be no costs recovery, even the fixed costs allowable under the protocol, there will be no legal representation. It looks very much, therefore, as if the purpose of the damages sections of this legislation is to wipe out these claims indiscriminately—fraudulent or genuine. There are two swipes. We dealt with the last swipe—cutting the damages to a level whereby, in many cases, it is simply not worth claiming—and changes in the small claims limit would effectively remove the chance of getting a lawyer to work on a conditional fee agreement. We believe that there should be a review of the small claims limit, and we said in our Amendment 27 that the provision may not be brought into force until the Civil Procedure Rule Committee has reviewed the limit of the small claims track for personal injury whiplash claims and published its decision.
Amendment 47 comes back to the question of recoverability of medical reports. It ought to be perfectly obvious that a successful claimant can recover the cost of securing a compulsory medical report or what is termed in the Bill,
“other appropriate evidence of an injury”,
even in the absence of a rule that the claimant can recover other fixed costs. When I raised this point at Second Reading, the Minister said that there would be such recovery. I quoted the impact statement showing that all successful claimants would have to pay the £216 for the medical report. The Minister said no, that was not right and the savings calculated that formed the basis of what I alleged were calculated on the basis of claims avoided, not of all claims. The Government were assuming that a successful claimant would recover the £216—which is £180 plus VAT—in respect of medical reports. At the moment, I can see no provision for that. The Civil Procedure Rules relating to small-claims track cases restrict awards of costs, but by exception they permit, at the discretion of the court, an award of limited costs for experts; but that does not make such costs payable as a matter of course, only as a matter of concession. We seek to have this matter made clear and Amendment 47 is a simple and secure way of ensuring that.
Amendment 52 is a further probing amendment: probing in the sense that, at Second Reading, the Minister expressed considerable sympathy with the idea of having a new protocol for small claims. The existing pre-action protocol for low-value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents came into force in 2010, and it has been kept up to date since. It introduced a simple low-cost way of pursuing claims, generally through lawyers acting on conditional fee agreements—often “CFA lite”, as they are called—whereby lawyers effectively guarantee that there will be no liability on their clients at all to pay fees, because under the existing protocol they will recover the fixed costs from the defendant’s insurers, which they are able to do. The protocol has its faults, not least—some would argue—that the protocol has of itself increased the number of whiplash claims, including the number of fraudulent claims. That is partly because it is very computer-based. It works on the basis of the portal: generally speaking, everyone has to use the portal; the claims are notified and the insurers respond through the portal. There is very little personal checking of what is in fact happening to such claims.
It is also suggested that, arguably, the number of claims settled by insurers without proper investigation has increased. That is for the simple commercial reason that insurers prefer to pay small claims and fixed costs rather than contest cases outside the protocol. That is a danger in relation to all of these proposals. The Government have not sufficiently considered that insurers will find it easier to settle smaller claims under the tariff than to settle larger claims under the Judicial College Guidelines, as they do now, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge.
However, for all its faults, the protocol has increased access to justice for genuine claimants. The concern that this amendment is designed to address is that because the protocol does not apply below the small claims limit and the small claims limit is going to rise, there has to be a parallel protocol for unrepresented claimants that is easy to navigate. Our amendment describes that as having,
“the objective of ensuring that the procedures for claimants pursuing such claims are simple and readily understandable for claimants who are not in receipt of legal advice and representation”.
That is the purpose to which the amendment is directed.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 27, 47 and 52, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, has referred, which relate to some of the most fundamental points in the reforms. They involve the procedure which will exist for genuine claimants through the small claims track and/or the portal.
I am saddened but grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister to learn that it is not an unintended consequence of the Bill that genuine claimants will be caught. It is an intended consequence of the Bill, so there is a high onus to ensure that access to justice is ensured for genuine claimants.
The noble Lord, Lord Marks, referred to no legal representation but, having worked in what was then called small claims arbitration I know that defendants are usually legally represented. In Scotland personal injury claims, which are generally more complex, are outside its equivalent of the small claims procedure because of the asymmetry of the relationship in the small claims track between the claimant and the defendant. Having represented defendants in those circumstances more times than I care to remember, I know that although district judges go out of their way to try to ensure that there is fair procedure, they cannot step outside the boundary of their judicial role. Invariably, therefore, as the legal representative of the defendant, you know that you are at an advantage.
It is important to remember that, on the figures I have been given, 40% of people who buy fully comprehensive insurance do not also buy legal expenses insurance. Therefore, in order to recover their personal injury losses, their uninsured losses, and their often considerable excess losses—which can be about £500—genuine claimants pursuing personal injury losses, more often than not, will be litigants in person using the small claims track or the portal.
On the claims portal which has been mentioned, I know that a working group at the Ministry of Justice is looking at the new portal which will ensure that litigants in person have access to a streamlined procedure.
At the moment, however, you are within the claims portal only if liability is admitted. Some 75% of insurers have apparently signed up to pass on premiums so, like claims management companies and lawyers, we have good, exemplary and not-so-good companies. Unfortunately, with unrepresented claimants, there is now an incentive for certain insurers to deny liability because once they do so, the case comes out of the portal. It is then for a defendant insurance company to deal with a claimant—precisely the asymmetry of the Scottish situation. We have talked a lot about cold calling. Imagine being in that situation as a claimant trying to recover personal injury losses and an excess. You are busy, you are working and nobody is there to advocate between you and the defendant insurance company. That is a worry in relation to how the current portal operates.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
My Lords, I am much heartened by what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said because my Amendment 30 tries to take us to the same range of issues. It states:
“When making regulations under section 2(2), the Lord Chancellor must take account of the PI small claims limit”.
The rest of the amendment addresses the whiplash issue.
Why is the amendment here? It is here because there is no other way in which we can address the personal injury limit. It seems to us to bring in an element of manifest unfairness. This piece of legislation will impact on small claims made by employees. By raising the threshold to £2,000 for those personal injury cases the Government are creating a particular difficulty. Claimants in the small claims court, because they cannot reclaim the cost of legal support, will have to represent themselves as litigants in person—and that brings a number of difficulties.
These cases can be very complicated, and they impact adversely on those who have suffered an accident at work, or the early onset of an industrial disease. USDAW has produced a very good briefing on this, citing a vast array of cases in which it represented members and which would be caught by this uplift. Vulnerable employees can be quite seriously injured. They are often unable to work for weeks or months and suffer considerable financial detriment and loss. With no legal assistance available to them, they will be opposing an employer—who will invariably be represented at court—without the expert advice that their injury and its implications merit.
I do not understand, therefore, why the Government are so keen on this £2,000 limit. It seems both unfair and lacking in rationale. The Government have not set out any reasons for including employee injuries in what was billed as a reform of whiplash claims—which, as we have said, we have no argument with. There is no suggestion anywhere that there have been fraudulent claims by injured employees. Claimants in this process will be vulnerable. There should be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, an equality of arms. That principle, which is fairly fundamental to the way our system of justice works, is undermined by this change, and the uplift to £2,000, when employers will be able to rely on full legal advice and support.
Cases are complex, injuries can be significant and victims can suffer considerable financial loss. Furthermore—an important point—the increase is far in excess of inflation. In 2009 Lord Justice Jackson suggested that there should be no increase to £1,500 until inflation justified it. Well, the figure of £2,000, to which the Government are wedded, cannot be justified on an inflationary basis: in terms of Lord Justice Jackson’s proposals, no increase is currently justified.
Small claims courts are not suitable for personal injury claims. We invite the Government to seriously reconsider the way they have set about this. We have already heard that cyclists will be swept up in the whiplash issue. Whether or not the Government seriously thought that they would be involving quite badly injured claimants by raising the limit to £2,000, that would be the effect of the proposed change. I have tried to find a way to bring an amendment to the Bill that would capture this issue, but have not so far succeeded. That worries me, because the Government seem to have found a way around a problem to the benefit of employers. I hope that that is not the case.
The Minister has a gap between Committee and Report, and I hope that he will meet me and others—particularly those who represent trade union members and are involved day in and day out with small claims personal injury issues—to benefit from our experience and knowledge of this field. I hope that he will then reconsider what is a very unfortunate policy, and one that will not be welcome in the workplace.
There are two other points here that are of value to consider. There will be an increase in the undersettlement of claims as a product of this; and I suspect that there will also be an increase in the number of claimants with highly unrealistic expectations of the value of their claim, thus removing the possibility of early settlement and placing increased pressure on the courts system. I hope that the Minister has some reassurance for us on this, because it is a very serious issue. It undermines some of the other, perhaps gentler, words that the Government have used in trying to understand the problems and complexities that people confront in the workplace, which was one of the Government’s earlier ambitions. That is the purpose behind our Amendment 30 and I hope that the Committee will see the strength of the case that has been put.
Baroness Primarolo
When the Minister considers in the round the comments made by other noble Lords, will he undertake to go away and look specifically at the way in which Scotland has approached this important question of asymmetry in the process? Will he look at whether there is a way of incorporating or dealing with claims in a similar way, without clearly undermining what he has identified as the Government’s policy principles in simply reducing tariffs?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, perhaps I may begin with Amendment 26, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and Amendment 47, put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lady Berridge. These amendments seek to secure assurances as to the recoverable cost of a medical report in respect of whiplash injury claims, notwithstanding the increase in the small claims track limit.
The cost of medical reports is currently recoverable in personal injury claims where the defendant insurer has admitted any part of liability. It is intended that these costs will continue to be recoverable following these reforms, including the proposed reform in the small claims track, which is not part of the Bill. I seek to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in particular that it is intended that that cost will be a recoverable element in each and every case where liability is accepted. My understanding is that the civil procedure rules currently permit the recovery of such a cost; if there is any issue with that, I would be perfectly happy to look at it again to ensure that the rules reflect that position, because that is certainly our intention.
The effect of Amendment 27 would be to require the Civil Procedure Rule Committee to undertake both a review and a consultation in respect of the proposed increase to the small claims track limit for whiplash claims before publishing its decision. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is taking us beyond the realms of whiplash claims and I will comment upon his observations in a moment. The Government have already undertaken a consultation on this issue and our policy changed as a result of that consultation. Originally, we proposed raising the small claims track limit to £5,000 for all personal injury claims but, after consultation, we proposed that the track limit should be raised to £5,000 for road traffic accident-related personal injury claims but only to £2,000 for all other personal injury claims, including employer/employee claims. We do not believe that a further consultation on this issue is required, nor that such a requirement should be placed into the Bill.
I observe in passing that the small claims limit for non-personal injury claims is now, I believe, £10,000 and it operates adequately. In respect of the personal injury limit of £1,000, that was set about 10 years ago so even if we were to apply various inflation-linked multipliers, it would be in the region of £1,700 to £2,000, depending upon what index was taken in respect of inflation. As regards personal injury claims in general, it is not going much beyond that.
The proposal in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is that the increase should be to a maximum of £1,500, as opposed to the increase to £5,000 for road traffic accidents and £2,000 for personal injury claims. In that context, the noble Lord observed that these cases—I believe he was referring to non-road traffic accident cases in particular—can be very complicated. I acknowledge that, but if such a claim is complex, that is a ground for removing it from the small claims process to the fast track. There is already provision for that very situation, so we do not consider that further steps need to be taken.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
Can the Minister assure me that there will be consultation with the trades unions? Given the case he is making, it is important that that should take place. Their experience here is highly relevant.
Lord Keen of Elie
Trades unions’ experience is, essentially, filtered through claimant solicitors such as Thompsons, and those being consulted include representatives of both claimant and defendant groups—so that is being done. However, I would be perfectly happy to meet the noble Lord, and such representative groups as he may wish to bring to a meeting, to discuss the proposed increase in the limits on small claims. If he wishes to do that, I shall be perfectly content for him to contact my private office, and we can make suitable arrangements. At this time, however, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, at this stage in proceedings on the Bill most of the ground has been pretty extensively ploughed, and I shall endeavour not to till it longer than I have to. We had a long discussion about the setting of the rate on the group taken with Amendment 11, and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, got even closer to the matters I have in mind with his Amendment 38. However, Amendment 35 is concerned with the provisions of Clause 3, which, as the title suggests, permits uplift in exceptional circumstances.
The question I wish to discuss is whether there should be any limit on the amount by which these exceptional awards can exceed the basic tariff, and if so, whether that limit should be in the Bill. I think there is a strong argument for limiting the exceptional awards, and for putting that into the Bill; the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, was kind enough to take my intervention in an earlier debate. I wish to see judicial discretion limited because I think this is a political matter, not a matter for judicial discussion and discretion. Therefore the limit should appear in the Bill—as a percentage, not as an absolute amount, because if the tariff goes up, obviously the amount of an exceptional award should also eventually increase.
My noble and learned friend referred to this matter in the letter he sent to those of us who participated in the Second Reading debate about the need for a degree of judicial discretion. He suggested that the uplift should be capped at 20% and he has already referred to that this afternoon. I do not disagree with any aspect of his remarks, except that I think it is important that the percentage should appear in the Bill. This is in the interests of stability and clarity—stability because if the exceptional amount could be increased by the court without limit the temptation for claimants to game the system would be greatly increased, and clarity because such a limit would facilitate the setting of the rates of motor insurance and reduce the volatility in the amount of such rates year by year. That is an important distinction to remove absolute discretion from the courts, to bring it into the political arena and to set that percentage in the Bill so it is clearly a political, parliamentary decision. I beg to move.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I am a little concerned at the degree to which political considerations are supposed override our system of justice. This is not the first time it has been mentioned. However, the latest case is perhaps the least acceptable of the recommendations of this kind. Why on earth should Parliament decide on the so-called exceptional circumstances—undefined, of course, for the purposes this debate—on what are already constrained sums to be awarded in damages? It is trespassing too much on the rights of the citizen and the role of the judiciary. I hope that the Minister will concur with that, given his enormous experience of these matters, and, I apprehend, a real interest in justice being effective and available. With all due respect, the amendment moved by the noble Lord undermines both.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his amendment. I understand the intent when we are seeking to address a very particular problem. However, I cannot concur with the proposal that we should set in the Bill some limit to the judicial discretion that will be exercised in exceptional circumstances. We have yet to see how exceptional circumstances will develop once the Bill comes into effect. We therefore consider it more appropriate that the percentage increase in tariff should be determined by regulation by the Lord Chancellor in order that he may, from time to time, have regard to developments once the Act is in force. We do not consider it appropriate to constrain that exercise by setting a ceiling in the Bill. For these reasons, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I thank my noble and learned friend for that reply. It was not entirely unexpected. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, that it is nothing to do with access to justice, it is merely limiting judicial discretion. Indeed, the noble Lord accepts that judicial discretion is going to be limited because he is quite happy to have this percentage in regulations which can subsequently be altered one way or another without much parliamentary scrutiny for all the reasons we know. I note the points my noble and learned friend has made, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the amendments in this group pray in aid, as it were, for the work of MedCo, a body set up by the Government, I believe in 2015, to facilitate the sourcing of medical reports on injuries of the kind that we are debating under the terms of the Bill. The Ministry of Justice produced a pre-action protocol for what it calls low-value personal injury claims in road traffic accidents. Before that, there was no system at all to effectively source reports, and apparently a practice was developing of some claimant representatives—not necessarily solicitors—and insurers using what are described as “tame” doctors to produce medical reports for the purposes of securing compensation.
The Government set up the MedCo organisation to provide claimants with access to independent medical reporting facilities from reputable sources, which are themselves subject to regulation and control by the MedCo board. Apparently MedCo had a bit of an uneasy period in its early days and there have been a number of reviews, but the principle remains valid. I understand that it is now working better and that there is no channelling of medical reports to, as it were, sympathetic doctors who might be relied on to back up claims that are less than valid. To that extent, the Government’s original idea has proved right.
In relation to the Bill, it appears that there will be a necessity to reconstruct the portal so that litigants in person can access and use the portal themselves. Therefore, it is all the more necessary to ensure that the MedCo system is available and as user-friendly as possible. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that I am taking the unusual stance of having supported a decision made by the Government some time ago and seeking that it should continue to flourish. I look forward to his acknowledging that this is a good way of serving justice for both sides in such cases, by having thoroughly professional, independent people providing the necessary political evidence, not being paid for a particular kind of evidence—which one suspects can happen and perhaps has happened hitherto, producing some decisions that were, frankly, unjustified. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will build on the position created originally in 2015 by the Government and ensure that it remains applicable and useful under the new regime being developed.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
There are other amendments in this group, are there not?
Lord Keen of Elie
There are indeed, and that was why I wondered at the noble Lord’s reticence. If the noble Lord wishes to speak to them, I am not the person to stand between him and the remainder of the Committee.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
I am extraordinarily grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his prompt rising, as it were, from a sedentary position. My Amendment 42A is in this group. On the Bill as a whole, in Clause 4 the Government seem to recognise the problem of what are called “pre-med offers”, yet fail to ensure that they are sufficiently discouraged. We are in the same territory here but perhaps not seeking to approach it in the same way. My understanding is that such offers are made to people sometimes at a point of vulnerability following injury and sometimes, it has to be said, in the most cynical of circumstances—when sick pay runs out and after putting in a denial, which, although clearly weak, sometimes worries people.
Lawyers for claimants have a professional duty to put an offer to their client. There are many circumstances in which desperate people ignore the advice to reject that comes with that offer and accept what is offered, however inappropriate the sum is to the injuries that they have suffered. Pre-med offers are not made to be fair or reasonable. The offers are often made by defending insurers to get rid of a case cheaply, and I quite accept that the Government are right to seek to prohibit them. The consequence of acceptance in the absence of a medical report is that if the injured person later develops conditions arising from the accident, they will of course fall back on the NHS to support them. They will have no compensation to get treatment and the cost will fall more widely on society and the taxpayer. Meanwhile, the insurer for the guilty party who caused the injury will have walked away having saved money.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. The amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would place the requirements for medical reports to be provided by an accredited medical expert selected via the MedCo portal or other experts specified by the Lord Chancellor in regulations. Currently, the Civil Procedure Rules require any initial medical report in support of a whiplash claim to be sought through the MedCo IT portal, which is established and proves, as the noble Lord indicated, the independence and quality of these medical reports. The Civil Procedure Rules also require that all MedCo medical reports must be provided by an accredited medical expert. I am therefore uncertain what additional benefit the amendments would add to that process, because we already have in place the requirement that it should be a MedCo report that is obtained.
Indeed, the amendments could have a negative impact on the success of MedCo as, on one view, it would widen the pool of medical experts to any person with medical qualifications rather than someone who has been accredited specifically for these types of report by MedCo. I may have misunderstood Amendment 41, but that appears to be what its result would be, although that may be unintended. I emphasise that we consider that the creation of MedCo, as adjusted recently, has been a success and will continue to be so. We require that parties should have to go through the MedCo portal for an appropriate independent expert report before these claims are settled.
So I ask the noble Lord to reconsider the terms of the amendment because we do not feel that it adds anything to the Bill. I believe we have a common intention here and it may be that I have misunderstood what lies behind Amendment 41, but at present we believe the present structure of MedCo reports and the portal is appropriate as it stands, and at this stage we would not be prepared to contemplate the amendments that have been moved. If the noble Lord wishes to discuss this matter further with me, I will be content to do so because it may be that I have somehow misunderstood the intent of Amendment 41 in that regard.
I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. We looked at the whole question of how it would be most appropriate to deal with claims that were settled without a MedCo report. That would place the insurer or relevant party settling the claim in breach of their own regulatory requirements, and appropriate steps would be taken. In due course, as we know under the financial regulation Bill that is currently going through, that would be the FCA in respect of claims management companies.
I draw attention to Clause 5(6), which states:
“A breach of section 4 does not make an agreement to settle the whiplash claim in question void or unenforceable”.
We adopted that approach to ensure that the claimant should not suffer at all in circumstances where the person making the settlement did so without the report. In other words, the claimant would be entitled to retain all sums paid in those circumstances. If we make the agreement void, the sector would potentially seek recovery of the sums passed in respect of a void transaction. I appreciate that the noble Lord seeks to qualify that, but it raises complex issues over contract liability. We believe that we have taken the correct approach by ensuring that the person making the settlement, who is a regulated party, will be in breach of their regulatory regime if they do so without a MedCo report, while equally ensuring that the claimant should not suffer because of that misfeasance, and should be able to retain the settlement sum.
We do not believe that there is a major issue in this context with regard to those who are persuaded to settle early but, if that is an issue, it is more widely encountered across personal injury claims as a whole, and we do not see any basis for taking an exceptional route in regard to whiplash injury claims. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that there is a mechanism to protect the claimant and enforce the requirements of Clause 4 against those who are settling claims.
Lord Bassam of Brighton
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his attempt at reassurance. I will reflect on his words, but I may come back with something on Report because I want to ensure that we have that protection there.
Lord Keen of Elie
I quite understand the noble Lord’s concern, and I would be willing to consider any further amendment that he puts forward on this in due course. At this stage, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
I am obliged to the Minister for his invitation, which I will certainly take up. The intention of the amendments is to fill out, as it were, the provisions in Clause 4 relating to regulations to be made by the Lord Chancellor about the appropriate evidence of an injury for the purposes of this clause. It may be that both of us are replicating something that already exists, but we can have a look at it and I am sure it is a matter on which we can reach agreement one way or another. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
“( ) The Treasury must make regulations requiring the Financial Conduct Authority, where it is the relevant regulator, to prohibit a regulated person, in the course of providing any claims management services (within the meaning of section 419A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000), from doing, or arranging or advising the doing of, an act mentioned in section 4(2).”
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I shall also speak to our other amendments in this group. Amendment 43 requires that regulation made by the Treasury must require the FCA, when it is the regulator, to prohibit regulated persons from providing claims management services in advising, doing or arranging any of the acts prohibited by Clause 4 as regards settlement of a claim before a medical report is available. Many have spoken on this Bill and elsewhere about the conduct of claims management companies and how fleet of foot they can be in exploiting opportunities. These activities have been constrained by recent legislation. The FCA is to become a tougher regulator, transitional arrangements have been put in place and a charge cap has been enabled. However, we use this opportunity to get a comprehensive update on where regulation is or what is yet to be put in place for CMCs.
Amendment 44 refers to cold calling. We know that cold calling is often a prelude to some scam or nefarious activity, and there has been a range of activity to restrict such operations. The Financial Guidance and Claims Bill provides for a ban on cold calling for pensions, enables the introduction of a ban on other financial products and makes provision in respect of certain CMC activity but, for the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister tell us where these things stand across the board?
In our debates on the financial guidance body, exchanges took place about no cold calling in respect of personal injury claims by virtue of the involvement of solicitors in that activity. However, it was further suggested that people were finding a way around that. This is by way of a probe. Is all cold calling in respect of personal injury claims—be it by CMCs or otherwise—now prohibited?
Amendment 44 is one of several in this group which require a review of the activities of Part 1: in particular to ensure that savings arising to insurers are passed on to consumers—motorists. We know that this is particularly difficult. The accounts and activities of general insurers can be complicated and it is very difficult to identify a fixed starting point from which to do the analysis. A whole host of questions arise about how the distribution of any savings made should accrue across the range of consumers that face insurers.
There are questions about who might be the person in a particular organisation to have to certify annually that savings have been secured. Experience shows that if you simply have a process whereby someone has to sign off for the company that savings have been passed on and the policy complied with, it could well be delegated to someone who does not necessarily know exactly what has gone on. In all the variations trying to substantiate that savings are made and that what is promised under the legislation is being delivered, we may seriously think about regulation which requires the chief executive of each of the insurers to be the person held to account for the statement about the extent to which compliance with the requirement has been made.
I may return in a moment to speak to some of the other amendments in the group, but for the time being, I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull
My Lords, my own solution to the problem of the promise that the insurance industry has given is contained in Amendment 46. I am very grateful for the support and advice that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has given me in considering this problem. The promise made by the insurers—percentages are a dangerous game, as there is a question of whether you are counting numbers, premium volume or whatever; but in premium volume terms—represent 90% of the market. The promise says that,
“the signatories to this letter today publicly commit to passing on to customers cost benefits arising from Government action to tackle the extent of exaggerated low value personal injury claims”.
In considering how one should attack that problem, I ask myself two simple questions. First, does the person who accepts the data understand it? Having spent a lifetime in the insurance industry, I can say that claims presentations are phenomenally complicated. I will not even start to use some of the jargon. It is extremely complicated to know whether you are talking about an accident year or the date year, as it were, and to understand certain things such as how the claims coding works, loss triangles, reinsurance effects and so on. But a regulator is someone who can do that.
The second question I ask myself is: will the person who has it have a mechanism for ensuring compliance? Are they good policemen? That is why I have centred on the FCA. I have criticised the FCA in the past but I have never criticised its competence. I have only ever said that it has been heavy handed. It will certainly have people who understand the approximately 250 returns that come in from the participant companies that have motor insurance licences in Britain. We can see who they are on the Bank of England website, and they certainly have the power, not least under the regime of treating customers fairly, but they also have plenty of other soft power. The chief executives of insurers have to be approved, as does the chief risk officer. I seem to recall that even the chairman of our audit committee ended up having to be approved. An insurer cannot afford not to have a good relationship with the regulator, because the insurance industry is much more scared of the regulator getting annoyed than of the court. The regulator can move overnight and do something to your business, whereas a court will take a period of time to do that.
Accordingly, I advance my structure for solving the problem, which I think is proportionate. It would be possible for the FCA to report on it in some way—I had not really considered that part. I am asking for the trigger to be fired twice because, by the end of 2020, this legislation will either have been a terrific success, and we will be absolved of this particular problem with the claims industry, or it will have not been a great success; they will have found a way around it, so we would not need to have the report rolling on for ever. On that basis, I ask for my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, to be considered.
Baroness Berridge
I rise briefly to speak to the amendments I have in this group, which refer to a report by the FCA as well as a report being laid before Parliament.
It is important in this context to look back at Second Reading and the Government’s confession that the insurance industry had not done all it could to get on top of the issue of fraud. In some respects, on Second Reading one could have been forgiven for thinking that the problem of fraud was so great for the insurance companies that they were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy as it was such an urgent issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. A report from Direct Line Group, which is the largest insurance group that we have, shows profits for financial year 2017 of £610.9 million—a leap of 51.4% on 2016. Dividends were up 40.2%. In its interim report in 2017, one of the reasons it gave for that was fewer than expected bodily injury claims. We might argue for a long time about CRU figures, but Direct Line attributes its increase in profits to a decline in personal injury claims.
It is disappointing to those of us who are saddened and troubled by the effect on genuine claimants that there is no proper mechanism in the Bill to ensure that the £1 billion of savings from claimant payments will actually go to the motorists. The Government are saying that that is the Bill’s overall intention. In light of the scale of the fraud that the insurance industry would like us to believe, it is disappointing that it has not invested more of its resources into controlling this fraud because it is a societal issue that affects culture, as opposed to the profits that I have just outlined.
There is a particular legal problem, though, on which I hope the Minister can help us. Many insurance companies are no longer mutuals; they are listed on the stock exchange, with all its reporting requirements and requirements for directors to take into account their shareholders in the payment of dividends. How is that circle going to be squared? You have directors with an obligation to shareholders. They make cost-benefit savings, but they are under pressure either to pay down debt, as some have with some of their profits, or to pay out dividends rather than decrease the premiums they are charging to motorists.
There is a further issue with insurance companies, which is that they have enjoyed bumper savings from the implementation of the Jackson fixed-cost reductions and the LASPO changes that were introduced in April 2013. I am grateful to a fee earner from the Vale of Catmose—and to Thompsons Solicitors—who pointed out to me that insurers have saved at least £8 billion in claims costs between 2010 and 2016; the figure to date is around £11 billion. In spite of this, premiums have continued to increase relentlessly. She said the average premium has gone up from around £385 in the second quarter of 2013 to £493 in the last quarter of last year, according to the ABI’s own premium tracker—an increase of 28% since the LASPO changes.
There have been inordinate savings before that insurers have not passed on as reduced premiums. It may be as a result of being legal entities, as I have described, that they are under pressure from their shareholders to pay out bumper dividends instead of reducing premiums. There needs to be something more effective in the Bill to ensure that, after the Government introduce these changes, insurance companies will be held strictly to account and will pass on the savings they will undoubtedly make.
There is a laissez-faire attitude that, as half the market uses price-comparison websites, these savings will be passed on, but it does not always come to pass. It is ironic that, after the Second Reading of this Bill, we received the message that the Commons had passed the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill for meters. That clearly shows that, in some circumstances, the market does not provide the savings to consumers that we envisage. The Government need to ensure that savings are passed on and there is a strict mechanism in the Bill to that effect.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I first speak to Amendment 53 in this group, which deals with passing savings to insurers on to the public. Our amendment seeks an annual review by the Lord Chancellor of the extent to which insurers are passing on those savings to their policyholders. It is common ground that the purpose of this part of the Bill is to reduce fraudulent claims and to reduce the cost of all claims. This has become particularly apparent here, for claims both fraudulent and genuine. Savings are to be passed on to insurers that will pass those savings to their policyholders. The Government rely on the letter written to the Lord Chancellor in March, in which the insurers said that they would,
“publicly commit to passing on to customers cost benefits arising from Government action to tackle the extent of exaggerated low value personal injury claims”.
At Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Sharkey pointed out that it did not define precisely what “cost benefits” were, nor did it commit to passing on all savings or even all cost benefits made.
We want to see that all savings are in fact passed on. Our amendment is intended to ensure that the Government do better than simply relying on that letter. Far be it from me generally to accuse the Government of naivety but, generally speaking, a letter of intent in that form would not convince many in commerce that the intent was in fact going to be carried out. I believe that a review by the Lord Chancellor and an obligation to report to Parliament would increase greatly our chances of having that stated intent carried out. The reason that we press for the involvement of the Lord Chancellor is that this is a political decision and political action and it seems to me that a political response is required. The purpose of this group of amendments—and ours is consonant with that purpose—is to encourage the insurance industry to stick to its promise, and indeed to do better, to make sure that all savings are passed on; and, because of the report to Parliament, to enable the Government and Parliament to consider reviewing the legislation and/or penalising the insurance industry by imposing some kind of levy, tax or other measures if it fails to keep up to the mark on this.
I will also speak to Amendment 54 in this group, which is directed at cold calling. If the real mischief at which this part of the Bill is directed is fraudulent and exaggerated claims, then cold calling is undoubtedly the chief instrument by which that mischief is done. Sometimes, in discussing this, we have not looked at the fact that these fraudulent and exaggerated claims in fact come at three levels. At its worst, perhaps, it involves faked or staged accidents. These calls that say, “We understand that you have had an accident that was not your fault”, when no such accident has ever happened, are an invitation to the practice that is most invidious, and which we know happens, of accidents being deliberately staged, sometimes by people who develop a real accident involving innocent motorists crashing with them in order to mount claims. The second is fake injuries, where there is a real accident but the injury is faked altogether and a claim is made. The third is exaggerated injuries. The practice of cold calling makes all three types of dishonesty worse and we really have to get on top of it.
The first part of our amendment would mandate the Lord Chancellor to carry out an annual assessment of the effect of cold calling on the prevalence of fraudulent whiplash claims. The second part would compel the Lord Chancellor, if he were satisfied that it would significantly reduce such claims, to ban cold calling and to ban the commercial use of any data obtained by cold calling. That second part is directed at the fact that it is very difficult to legislate against cold calling from abroad but that, if you legislate against the commercial use of data, you do catch UK corporations or individuals who are using such data to pursue these fraudulent claims. The amendment is not specific to claims management companies. I mentioned earlier the interest that car hire companies and car repair companies have in pursuing these claims. They can offer to pursue personal injury whiplash claims as an add-on to sell their other services.
This is a probing amendment in a sense in that the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, covered claims managers and defined claims management services quite widely. However, we are not convinced that that would achieve our object of banning the use of cold calling for other purposes or by other outside companies or that it would cover the use of cold calling in its widest sense.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, my name is down to Amendment 46, moved by the noble Earl. I entirely support what was said by my noble friend Lady Berridge and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. It is not good enough just to say, “We are going to make sure it is competitive”. There will have to be some demonstration of returns and the improvement from this.
Therefore, who invigilates and who enforces? The noble Lord, Lord Marks, suggested a review by the Lord Chancellor. The noble Earl pointed out quite graphically the complexity of unpicking insurance claims and returns. I urge the Government, if they are minded to move in this direction, to think about the FCA as the invigilator and the enforcer. It has exceptionally wide powers.
The noble Earl referred to treating customers fairly but there is a thing called Section 166, which is an investigation by skilled persons. This puts the fear of God into people because the FCA can choose to have anything investigated and the cost is charged to the company being investigated. That sort of power is extremely valuable in unpicking the very detailed information that the noble Earl referred to. I fear that the Lord Chancellor’s Department would not be as well equipped to do it as the FCA. I hope the FCA will be uppermost in the Government’s mind if they are minded to have somebody keep an eye on and verify and show beyond peradventure what savings are being made and how they are being distributed.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, clearly these amendments are directed primarily at two areas: first, the review or regulation of the effectiveness of these reforms and the supporting regulations and, secondly, the issue of cold calling. I will deal with each in turn. I am not going to go through the detail of each set because I understand that the force of the amendments is all in one direction on the first point. The amendments as drafted would require reports on these reforms to be published shortly after their implementation. Although I understand the reasoning behind them, I question how effective they would be in their current form. I appreciate, nevertheless, that these are essentially probing amendments and it is in that spirit that I address them.
As has been observed, the insurance sector has made it clear and very public that it has a commitment to pass on savings. Having made that commitment, insurers will be accountable for it in a highly competitive market. Insurers have pointed out how they have passed on to customers the benefits of previous government action to cut the cost of civil litigation without the need for regulation. The Government, of course, are intent on monitoring the reaction of the insurance sector to these reforms and will engage with it in that regard. If the industry as a whole sought to avoid passing on these savings, that would signal that the competitive nature of the market had changed. If that were to happen, I have no doubt that the Financial Conduct Authority and, indeed, the Competition and Markets Authority would wish to investigate.
Nevertheless, I hear the message from around the Committee about the need to put further discipline in place with regard to these savings, and that is a matter that we will consider. As I say, I appreciate what is intended here. The question is how we can effectively bring that about. We have to remember that the insurers are regulated by the FCA already. Oversight is in place with regard to their conduct. With all due respect, I take issue with my noble friend Lady Berridge about there being some conflict between shareholder interest and the interest of customers.
An insurance company requires to rely on its integrity in order to maintain its resilience as an insurer. Any board of directors that abandoned integrity in favour of a larger dividend would find itself not only in conflict with its regulator but, no doubt, in conflict with its own shareholders, who would not appreciate that sort of conduct either, given that it would simply undermine the capital value of their investment. Therefore, I do not believe that there is that conflict of interest at all.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord McKenzie of Luton, would introduce a formal requirement for Her Majesty’s Treasury to keep under review the ban on cold calling, and the amendment in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Sharkey, would introduce a formal requirement for the Lord Chancellor to review the effect of cold calling and the ability to introduce regulations for a ban on cold calling. Of course, a ban on cold calling in relation to claims management was introduced in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill and was agreed by this House quite recently. As noble Lords will be aware, the Bill inserts a provision into the privacy and electronic communications regulations, which govern unsolicited direct marketing calls, to ban such calls in relation to claims management services unless prior consent has been given. The Government consider these to be robust proposals which will add to the package of measures in place for tackling unsolicited marketing calls.
With regard to the use of the material that is obtained, there is of course provision for regulation of the legal profession. The SRA has regulations in place for the acquisition and use of such data, so that matter is already regulated. However, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the difficulty of what I would term “regulating the unregulated”, where cold calling centres are based outside the United Kingdom. I am advised that it is possible to trace more than half the cold calls received in the United Kingdom to one place—essentially a factory—based in Pakistan. But it is fleet of foot: it changes its name and location on a regular basis. That is a formidable challenge and we are seeking to approach it by means of regulating, apart from anything else, the use of the material gleaned by those means.
The amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, would introduce a formal requirement for the Treasury to make regulations requiring the FCA also to prohibit certain pre-medical offers—I think that that is also in the amendment. Again, we are of the opinion that the Bill deals sufficiently with that issue as well.
As I indicated, I have heard what has been said around the Chamber about the consideration of further measures to ensure that savings are passed on to consumers, and I will give that further consideration before Report. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. I am sure that these are matters to which we will need to return at a later stage. One of the things that we were seeking to be sure about—and this is, perhaps, an issue that we share with the Lib Dems—is how extensive and how robust across the board are the prohibitions around cold calling. The noble and learned Lord mentioned the SRA. As I recall, when we were debating the financial guidance Bill at Second Reading, the SRA and its activities were held out as being a reason to ban cold calling for personal injury claims. But then one noble Lord in the debate said, “No, there are people getting round that by a number of means”. It is those sorts of issues that we want to be sure about, so that we can look across the piece and see that cold calling—so far as it can possibly be legally achieved within the UK—is dealt with. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.