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
(6 years, 6 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
(6 years, 6 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
(6 years, 6 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
(6 years, 6 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
(6 years, 6 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.