House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
The UK proposes a UK-EU free trade area underpinned by a common rulebook, including on agri-food, but only for those rules necessary to provide frictionless trade at the border. On services, we seek to minimise new barriers to trade, enable UK firms to establish in the EU and continue mutual recognition of professional qualifications.
Mr Sheerman
While welcoming the Secretary of State to his new post, may I ask if he shares my view that all Members of this House have a sacred duty to look at the long-term future of the people that we represent? Will he join me in looking at the front page of the Financial Times, and did he listen to the radio this morning? He knows that many of our constituents working in manufacturing and in services are deeply distressed and worried about their future.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to look to the long term, and we need to try to bridge some of the divisions in this country. I believe that the White Paper that the UK Government have published is a principled, pragmatic but ambitious approach that delivers the best deal for the UK but also makes sure that we continue our firm, strong ties with our European friends.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
May I wish my right hon. Friend well, particularly at the start of his negotiations this afternoon? Amid all this talk of no deal, can he reassure me and the House that it is still the British Government’s intention and expectation that they will be able to reach a good deal in these negotiations?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will have seen from the White Paper that we have set out the approach that we are taking—the strategy that we have. I will be out in Brussels today because we do need to step up the pace, the intensity and the heat of the negotiations. But, at the same time, the only responsible thing for the Government to do is to prepare for all eventualities out of these negotiations.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be only too well aware that, without an agreement on a backstop for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, there will be no withdrawal agreement. The technical note on customs arrangements that the Government published last month was only half a backstop because, as the paper itself acknowledged, it would need to have added to it something on regulation. Now that the Government have committed to a common rulebook in the White Paper, can the Secretary of State today confirm that that will now be added to the proposal for a backstop so that he can make progress on it?
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about the progress that we have undoubtedly made with our European friends on the withdrawal agreement, but to say that issues such as Northern Ireland remain to be resolved properly. He is also right to say that the White Paper and the proposals have a principled but flexible approach that will allow us to make sure that we not just continue the frictionless trade but avoid any issues at the border. We will obviously take forward those negotiations today, and I look forward to discussing this with Michel Barnier later.
Mr Speaker
I call Rachael Maskell. [Interruption.] I mean Rachel Maclean—I do beg the hon. Lady’s pardon and the other hon. Lady’s pardon. They are both very distinctive, and it is my fuzzy memory, not their lack of distinctiveness. I do apologise to both of them.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Laughter.] Oh, I am sorry, Mr Speaker. It is obviously flattering to be confused with the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).
My constituents voted to leave the EU because they did not want our laws to be made by bureaucrats in Brussels—they wanted our laws to be made by our own country. Can the Secretary of State, who I know shares this ambition, reassure my constituents that the Chequers proposal will allow our laws to be made in our country after we leave the EU?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have made a narrow exception where there will be a common rulebook for agricultural goods and manufactured goods at the border, but only to the extent that that is necessary to ensure frictionless trade—and even there, elected Members in this House will have the last word. Of course, the UK Supreme Court will finally do what it says on the tin, which is to have the last word on the application of the laws of the land.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Fears that the schism at the heart of the Tory party is driving the country towards a no deal Brexit are once again on the rise, and it is clear that the new Secretary of State is stepping up preparations for such a scenario. Will he therefore tell the House what specific advice his Department is giving to the financial services sector on how to prepare for an EU departure without a deal?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Of course, many of the banks and people in the City are already preparing and are very confident that they can withstand any of the uncertainty in relation to Brexit negotiations. We have been preparing for some time now. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) for all the preparatory work that he has done. We will be starting to step up some of those preparations. Some of that will become more publicly facing in the weeks and months ahead. That is necessary, and any responsible Government would have to do it. We will obviously set out the details of that shortly.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
But all our manufactures will have to be produced in full accordance with the acquis, will they not?
Dominic Raab
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, but the common rulebook relates only to those particular rules that relate to the border, to enable frictionless trade. We will ensure, through technical-level consultations, that we have a voice in the formation of those rules. Ultimately, it will be for this House to say yes or no to whether those rules become the law of the land.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
We work closely with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on farming support. The Government will provide the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of the Parliament, maintaining stability for farmers as we grow our world-leading food and farming industry in a sustainable way.
Peter Heaton-Jones
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government’s policy is to leave the customs union, leave the single market, leave the common fisheries policy and leave the common agricultural policy, and that the Government are committed to the fact that in that new framework North Devon’s farmers will continue to thrive outside the EU?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, our White Paper confirms that the United Kingdom will leave the single market and the customs union. Outside the CAP and the CFP, we will be free to develop a domestic agriculture policy that works in the best interests of farmers in North Devon and across the UK, and at the same time we will become an independent coastal state with full control over our waters.
Mr Speaker
Order. I have just been advised that the hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) is not here. She has not yet been able to access the building. If she gets here later, I will try to accommodate her, but it means for the time being that the grouping falls.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The chemicals regulation division of the Health and Safety Executive regulates biocides and pesticides under the EU REACH—registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals—regulation. The pesticides have to be tested within the EU, so we will lose that work on 29 March 2019. Will the Government buy into the new replaced EU body, losing 300 jobs in York and Bootle, or will they be forced into having separate EU testing, placing additional costs on farmers?
Dominic Raab
Obviously, that is subject to negotiation, but I understand the concern that the hon. Lady has raised. We will seek to pursue a relationship whereby we are engaged with the regulatory structures in Europe to ensure that we have continuity and stability in that sector.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I congratulate the Secretary of State on his elevation to Cabinet. A number of leavers suggest that the governing classes or the establishment are calling the shots on Brexit and that that is why it is such a mess. Farmers in my constituency want to know who is calling the shots—is it the Secretary of State?
Dominic Raab
No, it is the Prime Minister and the Cabinet. I will be deputising for the Prime Minister in the negotiations. I will be out seeing Michel Barnier shortly, and I hope that I can attest to his full support for the White Paper.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
Not so long ago, the Secretary of State, in a burst of youthful exuberance, published a blog—[Interruption.] It was not that racy. It included his 10 policies “for a Better Britain”. Policy No. 7 stated:
“We need to deregulate…the common market”.
Does he still agree with his own manifesto for Britain?
Dominic Raab
In all those areas, as important as they are and whatever the different views across the House on those sensitive matters, the crucial thing is that elected Members in this House have the last word on the laws of the land. I share her concern about those areas and her interest. Why on earth would she want to abdicate responsibility for law making to Brussels, when in this House we need to be accountable to our constituents?
Jenny Chapman
For British farmers to trade successfully with Europe, we must remain on the same level playing field, with common standards and regulations. The president of the National Farmers Union said earlier this year that
“the floor is for our standards to be in line with the rest of Europe”.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the Farmers Union or himself?
Dominic Raab
She has welcomed the White Paper, but I would gently say to the hon. Lady that the CAP’s land-based subsidy and the bureaucratic structure that goes with it has held back productivity in this country and has not delivered the scale of environmental improvement we need. When we leave the common agricultural policy, we will make sure that we have the best agricultural but also environmental policy for this country.
Mr Speaker
Let me just say to the hon. Lady that it was a reckless door or barrier—electronic or otherwise—that sought to deny her access to the House, but she is with us now and we look forward to hearing her.
Michelle Donelan
Thank you for your patience, Mr Speaker.
Leaving the EU provides opportunities for Wiltshire farmers; hence why they voted to leave. Does my right hon. Friend agree that making our own decisions for farmers to suit farmers will ensure that their interests are better protected?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want a more dynamic, more self-reliant agricultural industry as we continue to compete internationally, supplying products of the very highest standard for the domestic market and increasing exports. We also want a reformed agricultural and land management policy to deliver a better and richer environment for Wiltshire and across the UK.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
The White Paper published last week makes it clear that the Government are committed to high levels of social and employment protection and proposes a reciprocal non-regression requirement for domestic labour standards. The paper also proposes a mutual commitment to individual rights, noting that the UK will remain a party to the European convention on human rights after it has left the EU. This is also reflected in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which maintains existing rights protection as part of EU retained law.
Suella Braverman
The Secretary of State is experienced and has a proven track record not only as a Justice Minister but as a lawyer, and any attempt to undermine his credentials and commitment to the rule of law, civil liberties and now delivering a successful Brexit is fundamentally misguided. The Government have made it clear—not just in the White Paper, but on numerous occasions during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act—that leaving the EU does not mean a diminution of human rights.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred earlier to the mooted common rulebook as very narrow, but when we look at what is necessary for free circulation, it is actually extremely wide. I am concerned that the parliamentary lock in the White Paper is actually unworkable, because there will be the sword of Damocles of a hard border in Ireland should we derogate from any of it. Does my hon. Friend remember that decades of Conservative manifestos have committed to retaining or increasing our autonomy over such regulations?
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I know what an indefatigable campaigner he is for the UK leaving the European Union, and his expertise on this issue is well known. At the end of the day, the common rulebook is going to be subject to a parliamentary lock, and it also reflects rules on goods that have not changed for many decades.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister rightly points out that the White Paper proposes non-regression clauses on environment regulations and on social and employment protections. In 2016, however, the Secretary of State wrote in The Times that Brexit was an opportunity to
“ditch”
the
“100 most burdensome EU regulations”.
He took exception to the agency workers regulation, for example, on the grounds that it
“gives agency workers the right to the same basic employment and working conditions as full-time staff”.
Does the Minister agree with the White Paper or with her Secretary of State?
Suella Braverman
The Government have been clear in the White Paper that our commitment to rights protection is unequivocal and that how those rules are applied is ultimately a decision for Parliament. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that rights do not emanate from the EU? We have our own rich and proud tradition of civil liberties, such as the Race Relations Act 1965 or the Equal Pay Act 1970, and we acceded to those critical pieces of legislation before our accession to the European Economic Community.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I understand my hon. Friend’s position on guaranteeing UK rights—indeed, I respect her position, which is that UK rights need no foreign courts to guarantee them. Perhaps she can help me understand how she views the rights of others on our continent. The great achievement of many of our people in the past 50 years has been the extension of those rights, yet today I see lists of Jews being suggested in Vienna, and I hear about the erosion of the rule of law in other parts of eastern Europe. What will be the Government’s position on making sure that those human rights still exist?
Suella Braverman
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As I said, we have a long and proud tradition, which predates our membership of the EU, to protecting civil liberties, upholding human rights and enhancing the position of the individual, whether through the rule of law or our commitment to the ECHR. Brexit will not change that.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
On 19 June, we published a joint statement on the draft withdrawal agreement, setting out our progress in agreeing the text on a majority of separation issues. Negotiations are ongoing, and my officials are in Brussels. With last week’s publication of the White Paper, we hope to intensify negotiations on the future relationship.
Mr Whittingdale
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the financial settlement contained in the withdrawal agreement is one of our strongest bargaining cards? Will he therefore include in the Bill provisions to ensure that its full payment is conditional on our achieving a satisfactory outcome to negotiations?
Dominic Raab
As ever, my right hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and as the EU says, there is no deal until the whole deal is concluded. The withdrawal agreement must come alongside a framework for the future partnership agreement—article 50 requires that—and if one party does not meet its side of the bargain, that will inevitably have consequences for the deal as a whole.
Nigel Huddleston
The Secretary of State will be aware that the UK has a near £70 billion trade deficit with the EU, and it is transparently in the EU’s interest to get a deal that keeps trade flowing. Is he aware whether European businesses and companies are lobbying EU negotiators and Governments to ensure a mutually beneficial deal?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. The Government have a regular and productive dialogue with the European business community, and in those discussions we highlight our common interests with those businesses. It is important that their voice is heard because a lot is at stake, not just for UK businesses and jobs, but for European businesses and jobs.
Stephen Metcalfe
Does the Secretary of State agree that remaining inside the customs union or the single market would be a breach of the outcome of the referendum and totally undermine the trust of the British people?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right. Not only would it be a breach of the referendum, but every hon. Member, at least on the Government Benches, went into the last election promising our constituents that we would leave the customs union and the single market. Crucially, the White Paper forges a plan that can deliver that, while maintaining the strong relationship that we want with our European friends.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
PPG Industries in my constituency provides 200 jobs. It tells me that if we leave the European Chemicals Agency, it will have to close. Will the Secretary of State commit to the common rulebook and not to making any compromises on that part of the White Paper?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is right to point to that issue, but she also mentioned the White Paper. She will know that we are committed to staying with a strong regulatory relationship with our EU partners, for precisely the reasons she gave.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Given that so many of his friends and colleagues want to bring down the Prime Minister, how will the Brexit Secretary get his withdrawal agreement through in the autumn?
Dominic Raab
The same way that we got the customs Bill through this week—by working hard, listening to all sides and delivering for the people of the United Kingdom.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
My constituency of Strangford depends greatly on the agri-food sector for employment, jobs and opportunities. With reference to the border in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State explain how he intends to foster cross-border trade in a safe and effective way?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman will know from the White Paper that we have set out a paradigm that works, not just for trade between the UK and the EU, but that specifically will avoid any return to a hard border in Northern Ireland. We now need to take that proposal to our European friends. I will see Michel Barnier later this afternoon, and I will be sure to convey to him the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
The Department is working closely with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to understand the complexities of the issue relating to broadcasting. Together we are listening to the international broadcasting sector to understand its needs and concerns. I was very pleased to address the Creative Industries Federation in March.
Christine Jardine
Is the Minister aware that the Commercial Broadcasters Association has expressed its concern about the lack of clarity in the Government’s proposals post Brexit, particularly for international TV channels based in the UK, which are currently worth more than £1 billion to the economy and provide one in five jobs in the broadcasting sector? At the moment, UK-based international TV channels have a licence for the rest of the EU, and the Commercial Broadcasters Association is concerned that it is not clear whether that will continue. We are already seeing international broadcasters moving, so what steps are the Government taking?
Suella Braverman
The Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech committed to exploring creative options, with an open mind, to replace the country of origin principle enshrined in the audiovisual media services directive. The UK’s position represents the best credible proposal for the future relationship. It reflects the EU’s aim, as stated in Council guidelines, of allowing market access to provide services under host state rules.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) is leaping to her feet with a vigour and enthusiasm that reminds me of my younger self.
Thangam Debbonaire
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Given that the advice the Government now seem to be hinting at—that businesses should prepare for a no deal situation—looks an awful lot like the consequences that we remainers were criticised for raising during the referendum as “Project Fear”, does the Minister understand why the creative and digital industries in my constituency, of which there are many, do not trust the Government to negotiate on their behalf one little bit?
Suella Braverman
I know how experienced the hon. Lady is in the arts sector. The White Paper proposes new arrangements for services and for the creative and digital sectors, recognising that the UK and the EU will not have the current levels of access to each other’s markets. The EU and the UK included broadcasting in the joint list of topics for discussion in the future framework, which reflects our shared understanding of the importance of the sector as a whole. Obviously, it is the responsible duty of the Government to prepare for all outcomes.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
The UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected domestically, and of promoting high standards across a range of issues on the international stage. The EU withdrawal Act 2018 will ensure that, wherever practical, the same rights, standards and protections apply after exit. We will not engage in a race to the bottom in the standards and protections we set.
Mohammad Yasin
The recent White Paper committed the UK to membership of the European convention on human rights. Will the Minister confirm that the Human Rights Act 1998, which puts that in domestic law, embodies that commitment to the people of the UK and our European partners?
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
One of the most tangible benefits of the EU for my constituents is their ability to travel across the EU and not pay roaming charges on mobile phones. Will the Minister guarantee that once we leave the EU, my constituents will still be able to travel and not pay roaming charges?
Mr Walker
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point. I do not see how it relates to rights, standards and protections, but we will be discussing the matter with commercial operators in the sector. A number of key UK providers have already said that they do not intend to apply roaming charges.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The question relates to when we leave the EU, and I have a little digital thing on my phone that says that we are going to leave in 253 days’ time. There has been a lot of talk in the media today about the Government considering extending the article 50 period and the exit date. Will the superb Minister lay that rumour to rest, and confirm that the Prime Minister will stick to her guns and that we will leave on 29 March next year?
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
The White Paper sets out a comprehensive vision for our partnership with the EU. For services, our ambitious and credible proposals include guaranteeing that suppliers and investors can operate across a broad number of sectors, enabling firms to establish cross-border services, ensuring that professionals continue to get their qualifications recognised, and establishing a new economic and regulatory partnership for financial services.
Sandy Martin
Successive British Governments have expended significant effort and time on negotiating a single market in services in the EU, achieving a 40% increase in services exports since 2010 as a result. How long does the Minister think that it will take to negotiate a similarly open market in services with other parts of the world, and what does he suggest my constituents working in insurance and IT do in the meantime?
Mr Walker
The White Paper sets out a number of proposals for the services sector on how we can maintain those benefits, but we have also been growing our services trade with the rest of the world. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a 40% growth in trade with the EU, but there has been a 70% growth in UK services exports to countries outside the EU over the past decade. Our UK services industry is world leading and will continue to be as we go through this process.
Tom Brake
In preparing for negotiations, a responsible Government would establish the impact on the services sector of both the Chequers agreement and no deal, so will the Minister confirm how the profitability, job creation potential and ability to export to the EU of the services sector would be affected if either the Chequers proposals or no deal were reached with the European Union?
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman will know that the UK has a world-leading services sector. As we have just discussed, it is exporting both to the EU and the rest of the world very successfully. Sadly, the single market in services was never completed. I think that our services sector will remain hugely profitable and a huge success story for the UK throughout this process.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The White Paper says repeatedly that on services, which make up 80% of the UK economy, the Government’s proposals will mean less market access for UK businesses to European markets compared with at present. Have the Government made an assessment of the impact of this lower level of market access, either on the volume of trade or the impact on jobs?
Mr Walker
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we have been engaging with businesses across the whole economy, which of course includes our world-leading services sector. It is clear that the advantages that make the services sector world leading are created here in the UK. We will make sure that the services sector has the right arrangements to continue to do business within Europe and to continue to have qualifications recognised but, of course, we are leaving the single market and there will be changes as a result.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
We have made significant progress in negotiations and are confident that we will secure a deal with the European Union. However, as a responsible Government, we are continuing to prepare for all possible outcomes.
Martyn Day
There has been recent press speculation that the Government are considering emergency measures that would include the stockpiling of food and medicines. Will the Minister confirm whether that is accurate? If so, what would be the proposals for the distribution of those stockpiles?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Departments’ plans are well developed and designed to respond to all scenarios, including the unlikely possibility that we leave the EU without a deal. Some contingency plans have already become evident and more will become public over the coming weeks.
Giles Watling
If, in the end, there is no deal, can my hon. Friend assure me that the Government’s contingency plans will take into account often overlooked areas, such as Clacton?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Clacton, Mr Speaker, is never overlooked by its Member of Parliament.
The Government are engaging with businesses and other stakeholders in every region of the United Kingdom in order to understand the challenges and opportunities that may have an impact on them. Later this year we will consult on the new UK shared prosperity fund, which will give us an opportunity to consider carefully how we should address barriers to growth and tackle inequalities faced by all parts of the country, including rural and coastal areas such as my hon. Friend’s Clacton constituency.
Alan Brown
The Government’s own analysis shows that no deal would be a financial disaster, and this week the Governor of the Bank of England warned that a no deal Brexit would have “big economic consequences” for the UK. The White Paper was a sham: it just talked about “exploring options”. Does the Minister agree that the Government need to do a lot more than explore options, and that they should work hard to secure a deal, rather than facing a no deal scenario?
Chris Heaton-Harris
Obviously we would much rather have a very good deal with the European Union than not, and most of the work in my Department is focused on that, but we must prepare for every scenario. As for the gentleman whom the hon. Gentleman quoted, let me finish that quotation by saying that the financial consequences for the EU would be far greater.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. There is absolutely no one whom I would rather see in his job at this time, and I wish him every possible success.
Papers that are available to my hon. Friend will show that as long ago as October, I was seeking to create a parliamentary moment to galvanise the whole Government to prepare not only for the unwanted contingency of no deal, but for all scenarios, including the end of the implementation period. Will he now use the collective agreement reached at Chequers to go out and galvanise the whole Government to deliver, in the knowledge that that is not something that the Department for Exiting the European Union can direct, and that it will require those at the very top of the Government to mobilise every Department?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for leaving me an unbelievable quantity of reading to do because of the diligent way in which, as he rightly says, he prepared for every scenario.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister to their elevation to the governing classes. Given that the Minister’s predecessor has now chosen to reveal some of what was in unpublished Cabinet papers, I hope we can expect to see the rest published quite soon.
Today Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary for England and Wales warned police forces that they need to be ready for an increase in hate crime after we leave the European Union. Does that take the Government by surprise?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I had not heard about that particular report, so I cannot comment on it. What I can say is that, in preparing for no deal, we have already recruited 300 extra staff to police our borders, and we have an ongoing programme to recruit a whole load more.
Peter Grant
With the greatest respect, hate crime is not committed by people who cross our borders to come here; it is committed by people who are already here, all too often provoked by irresponsible and inflammatory language from those who really should know much better. I ask the Minister again: did the Government realise before the publication of today’s report that Brexit—intentionally or unintentionally—would create a climate in which hate crime was more likely to take place?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I am afraid that I do not recognise the basis for the hon. Gentleman’s question—I do not believe that in the slightest. I can only point out to him that a group of people called the “cybernats” were not particularly pleasant in the run-up to the Scottish referendum.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
Crashing out with no deal looks increasingly likely, particularly as former members of the Government have stated that they intend to undermine a deal. What is needed now is a plain English guide to the consequences of no deal for individuals, families, communities and businesses. Will the Minister commit himself to publishing such a guide so that people can see the consequences and step away from the edge of the cliff?
Chris Heaton-Harris
As my—right hon. Friend? [Interruption.] It is only a matter of time; everything comes to those who wait.
As my hon. Friend knows, because she chairs the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister said yesterday that a whole bunch of technical notices would be produced for exactly that purpose.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
We have already heard a great deal about no deal and potential problems at Dover. What are the Government’s plans in respect of the second busiest roll-on/roll-off port in the UK, which is Holyhead?
Chris Heaton-Harris
The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), has already met representatives from Holyhead. I look forward to travelling around the country, visiting such places and listening to what people have to say.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
We work closely with Ministers and officials from all Departments, including DEFRA, to further our preparations for exit from, and a new partnership with, the EU. This includes discussions on the recently published future framework White Paper and the fisheries White Paper.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Can she confirm that her Department shares the commitment of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to the UK having full control of our territorial waters when we leave the EU, with trade in fish and fish products being a completely separate matter, and that there will be no trade deals linked to access to our fisheries?
Suella Braverman
The Government are clear that upon our exit from the European Union the UK will be an independent coastal nation free to set our own rules including on access to our waters and fisheries policies, and we seek to agree a process for future annual negotiations with the EU on access and fishing opportunities. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend that we will be taking back control of this significant sector of our economy.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
With our leaving the EU next year, access to European funds that have done a great deal for fishing communities around coastal areas will be lost. Will the Government themselves replace those funds in the same way that they propose to deal with funding for farmers?
Suella Braverman
I was delighted to visit the hon. Lady’s Grimsby constituency earlier this year and I know how energetic she is as a representative of her constituents. The fundamental principle, as set out in the fisheries White Paper and the future framework, is that we—this Parliament—will be in control of how we distribute funding, how we set the rules and how we empower our fishing communities around the country.
Mr Speaker
I tell the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) that I have not visited her constituency recently, but during the general election campaign, in Buckingham, in the market square in Winslow, I did buy, and then consume, fish that was, of course, from Grimsby.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Notwithstanding what the Minister has said and what her colleagues have said on previous occasions, she will be aware that in fishing communities there are still concerns that the Government will use fishing in some way and make further concessions. Can she give an absolute guarantee that there will be no further concessions on fisheries?
Suella Braverman
Again, I was very happy to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency as part of my travels as a Minister. Like him, I represent a coastal constituency, where we know that our fishermen work very hard to earn their livings. The Government have been absolutely clear that once we leave the EU and no longer abide by the common fisheries policy, we will be an independent coastal state managing our fisheries and controlling access to our own waters. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
The Government have regular and productive dialogue with the international business community, and the DExEU ministerial team has visited 18 EU member states this year alone, meeting businesses to understand their priorities and explain how our proposals enable businesses to thrive. Tomorrow, the Secretary of State and the ministerial team will be meeting business leaders from a number of countries at Chevening House, which is a dedicated opportunity to hear from them.
Jeremy Lefroy
One issue that the business community has raised is continuing access to the working and investment capital currently supplied through the European Investment Bank. What arrangements are the Government making to ensure that continued flow of capital to our businesses?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right to point out that investment is crucial for the economic future of our nation and of the wealth creators in our country. The UK believes it may be mutually beneficial to maintain some form of ongoing relationship with the European Investment Bank, and we are exploring those options now.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
What assessment have the Government made of the costs to international and domestic business of preparing, amidst the chaos of this Government, for all the possible outcomes of new relationships with the EU?
Suella Braverman
As has been set out this morning on many occasions, the Government are carrying out extensive preparations for all outcomes. No deal is not our objective, but we are preparing for that scenario, as is responsible and expected. Our future framework White Paper, however, sets out how we see our economic relationship working with the EU so that UK and EU businesses can continue to trade fruitfully as we leave the EU.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Following on from that question, when will the Minister’s Department properly publish an impact assessment for all sectors on the impact of a no deal scenario, in contrast to the shambles that we saw at the end of last year?
Suella Braverman
The Government have been clear that we will provide the appropriate analysis at the time that a deal is presented to Parliament. Many predictions of impacts and outcomes were made at the time of the referendum, but let us look at the facts. Manufacturing is at a record high, exports are rising faster than imports, and unemployment is at its lowest in 40 years. Let us base our predictions on the facts, not on scaremongering.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
Extensive discussions were held with the devolved Administrations through the Joint Ministerial Council for EU negotiations and the ministerial forum for EU negotiations, which I chair, and at official level, to ensure that their views were taken into account in finalising the White Paper.
Andrew Bowie
It will come as no surprise to anyone here that the Scottish National party do not want to make a success of Brexit. They want to wreck Brexit and wreck our United Kingdom, and the implementation Bill is designed to do just that. Can my hon. Friend assure me that he is doing all he can to ensure the implementation of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 across the whole of the UK, to enable the smooth transition out of the EU that is needed for business and the economy to thrive?
Mr Walker
I agree with my hon. Friend, but significant concerns remain about whether UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Legal Continuity) (Scotland) Bill is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament. As he knows, the Supreme Court will be considering that matter next week. I remind the House that the Government have worked hard over the past year to try to secure the support of the Scottish Government for the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. However, we could not go as far as the Scottish Government would want, because it cannot be right that one legislature in one part of the UK should be able to veto the approach of the Union when there is agreement on the UK-wide framework.
Mr Walker
There has been regular discussion between the Government and Scottish Ministers, including ahead of the White Paper, and those discussions will continue. We will continue to work with the Scottish Government in good faith on the arrangements for a future partnership with the EU and on preparations for contingency planning.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I think that the Government are still planning to bring forward a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill in due course, so will the Minister tell us whether that will require legislative consent from the devolved institutions? Will he also tell us whether he expects it to have to amend or repeal any aspects of the customs and trade Bills that we have been debating this week?
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
UK-owned trademarks and design rights in the EU27 will be unaffected by our withdrawal. Meanwhile, we have agreed to protect all existing EU trademarks, community-registered designs and unregistered designs in the UK as we leave the EU. In place of those EU-level rights, 1.5 million new UK trademarks and registered designs will be granted automatically and for free. The creative industries can therefore be confident that their existing intellectual property rights will not be diminished, and that the UK will remain one of the best places in the world to protect and enforce IP rights.
Dr Cameron
I thank the Minister for that response. It is extremely reassuring, particularly to the all-party parliamentary group for textiles and fashion, which I chair. However, concerns have been raised with me this week regarding EU-wide trademark and design registrations, because they do not feature specifically in the White Paper and could therefore be at risk, once the definition of the EU no longer includes the UK. Can the Minister reassure the industry in that respect?
Mr Walker
Yes, I would like to reassure the industry that we have set out in the White Paper that we want to work with the EU to reflect common arrangements in this space. We recognise that the UK is a world leader in fashion, and it should continue to be. We will ensure that trademarks and unregistered design rights are protected in the UK.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
We are committed to securing a deal that works for the entire UK, including Scotland. We approach the negotiations anticipating success and neither want nor expect a no deal outcome. The Government are undertaking a wide range of ongoing analysis across a range of scenarios in support of our EU exit negotiations and preparations.
Hugh Gaffney
I welcome the new Ministers to their jobs. As we have seen this week, the Government’s Brexit plans are in tatters. What assurances can the Minister give the House, my constituents and residents across the country that no deal is in fact the worst of all worlds and that the jobs of hard-working people in Scotland will not be sacrificed to keep this Tory party together?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming me to my new role. If the Labour party had supported us, no deal would have been far away and a deal would have been on the table.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
As we set out in the White Paper, the future UK-EU relationship is likely to consist of several separate agreements covering different elements of economic, security and cross-cutting co-operation, and those arrangements could take the form of an association agreement.
Karin Smyth
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. According to the European External Action Service, an association agreement must offer “a privileged relationship” between the European Union and its partner and must create enforcement bodies that are
“competent to take decisions that bind the contracting parties”.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is now the Government’s aim?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. An association agreement is a flexible legal form. It is a term of art in general international law, but it does require binding treaty arrangements. In relation to recourse for dispute settlement, we have set out detailed proposals in the White Paper for arbitration, and that obviously has the advantage, whether it is a three or five-person arbitration panel, of being balanced. The UK and the EU will be able to appoint arbitrators to the panel, so disputes can be resolved with good faith, trust and confidence on both sides.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
As set out in the White Paper, the UK seeks participation in the European Chemicals Agency, which will ensure that products go through only one approval mechanism to access both UK and EU markets. Given the sector’s complex multinational supply chains and the well-developed regulatory framework, there is a strong incentive for the UK and the EU to continue co-operation in this area.
Maggie Throup
I thank the Minister for that answer. Much of Britain’s manufacturing and engineering sector relies heavily on an uninterrupted supply of industrial chemicals, which are used on the production line to carry out processes such as non-destructive testing. Will my hon. Friend update the House on what progress has been made in negotiations with the EU on the REACH regulations? Will he reassure businesses in Erewash that they will continue to have ready access to industrial chemicals after we leave the EU?
Mr Walker
As the hon. Lady says—I recognise this from my constituency, too—chemicals are an important part of production input, and the proposed free trade area for goods, underpinned by a common rulebook, will protect existing supply chains. Our proposals will ensure that products meet the necessary regulatory requirements for both the UK and EU markets, removing the need for regulatory checks at the border, and will mean that existing chemicals regulations and authorisations will remain valid in both markets.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Dominic Raab)
Last week, the Government published their White Paper on the future relationship between the UK and EU. Today, I will travel to Brussels to meet Michel Barnier to discuss the negotiations, and I look forward to working with him to secure a deal in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and our European partners.
Tom Pursglove
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to bolster and emphasise the importance of no deal planning across Government?
Dominic Raab
Most of our no deal preparation has been developed internally with targeted engagement with the relevant parties, but we are now at the point at which more of that delivery will start to become more public. Over the summer, the Government will release a series of technical notices to set out what UK businesses and citizens in various sectors will need to do in a no deal scenario and to make public more of our preparations. That is the responsible thing for any Government to do.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Yesterday, the former Brexit Minister, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), made a direct threat to the Secretary of State that Conservative MPs on his wing of the party are not prepared to vote for any Brexit deal that does not meet their demands. Talking about the White Paper, he said that 40-plus Conservative Members
“do not like this deal and are willing to vote in line with that dislike”.—[Official Report, 18 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 489.]
Against that threat, and without just saying that it is a great White Paper, what evidence can the Secretary of State point to that suggests the White Paper could command a majority in this House?
Dominic Raab
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems more interested in doing the job of whipping Conservative Members than in coming up with any serious, substantive proposals. We have a White Paper, and I am going to Brussels. We ought to unite the United Kingdom behind getting the best deal for this country and for our European friends.
Keir Starmer
Let me follow on. Given the threat that has been issued by the hon. Member for Wycombe, the burning question for the Secretary of State, which will be asked again and again in this House, across the country and, I have no doubt, by Michel Barnier later today, is whether he personally is prepared to face down that threat. What is the answer?
Dominic Raab
I am not interested in the media circus or in any of the drama. We have proper scrutiny in this House, and we have relentlessly and unflinchingly focused—I am sure our European partners will be doing the same—on narrowing the differences, accentuating the positives and getting a win-win deal that is good for this country and good for our European friends. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should get behind that effort.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes his point in his usual powerful and eloquent way. Of course, when the referendum legislation was passed it was agreed by all parties that we would respect the verdict of the referendum. That was how we entered into the legislation, that was how the legislation was passed by the House and that was how we campaigned. It would be a shifting of the democratic goalposts and a breach of democratic trust to suggest otherwise.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
Having sat on various Select Committees with the hon. Gentleman, I know that he takes these issues very seriously. We detailed it in the White Paper, and he has the reassurance of the detail in that extensive document. I will be going out to talk to Michel Barnier and our European friends about all these issues to make sure we can take it further forward.
David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Suella Braverman)
I assure my hon. Friend that I share his and the Environment Secretary’s view that, once we leave the EU, we will be able to control access to our waters by non-UK registered vessels, which will be a matter for negotiation. Access to markets for fish products will be agreed as part of our future economic partnership, just as with other goods and food products.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
Obviously we need to see any of those allegations, any of those cases, followed up by the relevant authorities. I was on the campaign board of Vote Leave. I had nothing to do with the financial implications, with donations or with anything like that. What I think the hon. Lady is really trying to do is somehow, in a back-handed way, to discredit the outcome of the referendum, which is not going to work. The country voted to leave the EU, and that is what we are going to do.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; that is what the White Paper sets out. This is about maintaining a strong trading relationship with our EU friends; broadening our opportunity to trade more energetically, with a bit more vim and vigour, with the growth markets of the globe, from Asia to Latin America; and, of course, in those vital other areas of co-operation, including security, making sure that we retain those strong ties.
Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She comes from a wonderful city that I used to live in and which voted heavily for leave. People there will therefore be surprised that she is trying to undermine that referendum result. However, I can tell her that there is no intention on this side to undermine any of those workers’ rights.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are ending free movement. We want, in order to restore confidence in our immigration system, to control the numbers of people coming here. We want to make sure we have stronger checks at the border, for security purposes. But it is absolutely right to say that this country benefits from immigration, including in the way he described. The proposals we put forward on mobility will make sure we continue to do so in the future.
Danielle Rowley (Midlothian) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I am meritocratic to my heart; I do not believe in any discrimination, be it against men or women. Of course we are going to maintain our strong equality standards— and indeed reinforce them. We do not need Brussels for that; we need active and energetic Members in all parts of this House.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Many Conservative party members in Chelmsford voted leave, but when I met them last week the vast majority supported the Chequers deal and the White Paper. May I urge the new Secretary of State to continue to fight for a deal that delivers for our security and protects jobs?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has a wealth of experience and expertise in all these different areas, and I have listened carefully to the strong contributions she has made in this House every step of the way. She will have seen the White Paper. I believe that, not just in the letter, but in the spirit, it will deliver the kind of Brexit she wants to see: one that is good for this country and good for our European friends, and one that will allow Britain to go from strength to strength.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for that. She has always been powerful in her contributions, both on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and right throughout on Brexit. As she will know from the White Paper, we have a detailed set of proposals that are not only principled, but flexible, to make sure that we not only sustain the strong trade we want with our EU friends but take advantage of the global opportunities to trade more energetically. This will be good for exporters and for cutting the costs of living in this country by reducing prices.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
Following this week’s votes, which make aspects of the White Paper less tenable and certainly less likely to be accepted by the EU, has the Secretary of State had any discussions with No. 10 and within his own Department about modifying the UK’s negotiating position?
Dominic Raab
Our negotiating position is set out clearly in the White Paper. Obviously, we listen to my hon. Friend, who is a strong campaigner on this issue, with a powerful voice. We are listening to all sides, but what we need to make sure we do now is come together to deliver these proposals, get the best deal for the UK and forge the agreement with the EU. These proposals are a principled and pragmatic way of delivering that.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The National Audit Office says that unless we at least agree a mutually recognised driving licence, up to 7 million licences may have to be issued in the first year after Brexit alone, and that detailed delivery plans are yet to be completed. Is that not an example of our unreadiness for falling out of the European Union? What is being done to make sure that drivers can drive on the continent if we come out without a deal?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
The White Paper makes it clear that on those measures we want to reach arrangements that are in the mutual interests of the UK and the EU. Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there will be more announcements on contingency planning in due course.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
On citizens’ rights, UK citizens in some EU countries may have to renounce their British citizenship to stay living in those countries. It is unclear whether any of the 1.2 million in the EU will be able to move from living in one country to living in another without making further applications. At the same time, the EU is very reluctant to secure reciprocal voting rights. It is good that our approach is generous, but is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State concerned about the lack of reciprocity in some areas of citizens’ rights? Will he raise the issue with Michel Barnier later today?
Suella Braverman
My hon. Friend is right to highlight this issue. The Home Secretary has issued a statement that sets out his disappointment that the EU has not necessarily put into plan the reciprocal arrangements that it agreed to for EU citizens. For our part, we have made it clear that we have agreed the sections of the withdrawal agreement that provide for an exhaustive and comprehensive series of protections for EU citizens. That is on a reciprocal basis and we expect the EU to respond in kind.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
This week, the Office for Budget Responsibility followed the Institute for Fiscal Studies in pointing out that there is no such thing as a Brexit dividend. Given that the OBR was set up to provide expert advice to the Government, may we have an assurance that there will be no more talk from Ministers of this fantasy Brexit dividend?
Dominic Raab
It is clear that when we leave the EU and take back control of our borders, law and money, we will not be paying the gross contributions to the EU. We will continue some domestic payments in the way that we have described, but we will of course be able to take back control of our net contribution and will pay a lot less to the EU as a result.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) to his new role. Will he confirm that he will continue and build on the good work of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), and that he is by no means starting from scratch?
Chris Heaton-Harris
I can confirm that I will build on the amazing quantity of diligent work that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) has put in place. I only wish he was still on the Front Bench to finish it off.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Famers say that crops are rotting in the ground because of a lack of European labour. When will we see a seasonal agricultural workers scheme?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of mobility. We detailed some of the proposals in the White Paper and we will of course take forward the negotiations. As he will know, I am seeing Michel Barnier later today. It is crucial that we make sure that we have a balanced approach to immigration in which we control the numbers coming here and make sure that we fill the skills shortages in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described, while also making sure that we restore public trust by having proper control over our borders and immigration policy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Colleagues are a rum lot, I must say! I was just about to call the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) but he has beetled out of the Chamber, poor chap. Admittedly, he was not to know that I was going to call him, but had he stayed, I would have done, and I usually do. It is very odd. As for the hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), we always savour his contributions but he has already spoken at topical questions so cannot do so again.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Given that HMRC makes available online the documentation for its computable general equilibrium model, will the Department follow suit so that the public can be objectively informed about the shortcomings of such models and so that the model can be fully scrutinised by interested external economists?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for the first in what I am sure will be a series of valuable and important forensic contributions. I shall take a good, long, hard look at the matter.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Andrew Muirhead Leather in my constituency has been in business since 1840 and relies on the EU for importing rawhides, exporting leather and chemical processing. Will the Secretary of State meet the people from Andrew Muirhead Leather to hear their concerns? They are extremely worried about what a no-deal Brexit would mean for their business.
Dominic Raab
We do understand some of the concerns relating to supply chains. If the hon. Lady looks at the White Paper, and in particular at the facilitated customs arrangement, she will see our approach and the detailed way in which we are going to resolve those concerns, not only to maintain that strong EU trade that I understand her constituents need, but to make sure that we grasp the opportunities of Brexit, particularly in respect of global trade.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I welcome the association agreement with the EU that the White Paper seeks. Will my right hon. Friend therefore also seek a category of associate citizenship for UK citizens with the EU? I think that will be welcomed both by the European Parliament and by many, many millions of people in the United Kingdom who are losing their European citizenship and would like something to replace it.
Mr Robin Walker
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, and I know that it is something that is very dear to the heart of the President of the European Parliament and something that he has discussed. The EU Commission is, of course, running these negotiations with a mandate from the Council and, at this stage, there is no mandate for it to discuss the issue of associate citizenship.
Personal Statement
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to make this personal statement at this time. It is with profound personal regret and deep personal embarrassment that I have to make this statement.
In 2013, in the course of my first Parliament, I failed properly to register and declare two overseas visits. I had no ulterior motive for that genuine mistake. I do recognise how serious a mistake it was. As a Member of Parliament, I know that I have personal responsibility to seek to be above reproach. I acknowledge that registration of such matters and subsequent declarations must be adhered to diligently. I accept my total failure in that matter. I have given an unreserved apology to the House and to colleagues. I take the opportunity to do so again from my place here, and I do it without qualification. I say sorry and apologise for the failings that were identified in the Standards Committee report.
I am disappointed that I was not able to persuade members of the Committee of the weight of my arguments on some of the major matters of mitigation, especially on the issue of paid advocacy. However, I accept the report, but I do so regret its sanctions. I have apologised to the House and to colleagues and I understand that, subject to the decision of this House, I may, from September, be subject to a suspension lasting 30 days.
I take my duties as a Member of Parliament seriously. I believe that I conduct myself with colleagues with integrity and openness, which is why I have such remorse about the matter, as I believe it goes against the grain of who I am, especially how it is portrayed.
It is to my constituents, who have sent me here since 2010, that I make the profoundest of all apologies. They have honoured me with unwavering support to be their voice and I hope that they will continue to have that confidence in me in the future.
We all in this Chamber know that, in public life, if we make mistakes, they are amplified, and rightly so. That is the nature of the job that all of us do and all of us understand that. However, I believe in a politics and in politicians who can admit to human frailty, who can apologise, mean it, and move on, because that is what real life is all about. It is often said that it is how we respond to these challenges in our lives that defines who and what we are, and defines our character and demonstrates to us where the true source of our personal strength rests. The 8th-century prophet Isaiah said, “You were angry with me, that anger has turned away, you comfort me.” I hope to learn that lesson.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said and the sincerity with which I feel sure the whole House will accept that he has said it. The matter rests there. Thank you.
ESA Underpayments
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on the employment and support allowance underpayments.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
In 2017, the Department for Work and Pensions identified an error that had resulted in some claimants being underpaid employment and support allowance between 2011 and 2014 while their claims were being converted from incapacity benefit, a legacy disability payment. The Department proactively informed the House of this problem in 2017 through a written statement before briefing partners and the media.
On 15 March, the Secretary of State tabled a statement setting out how the work to correct the underpayments was progressing. She explained that the Department would supply 400 staff for this exercise to ensure that we could identify as quickly as possible any cases where underpayments had occurred. Yesterday, she tabled a further statement to confirm that this work was under way. Staff are reviewing cases, contacting claimants and making payments. So far, we have paid out over £40 million in arrears.
As outlined in yesterday’s statement, the Department has analysed the relationship between official error and section 27 of the Social Security Act 1998 in regulating how and to what point in time arrears can be paid out. As a result of this analysis, we will now pay arrears to those affected back to the date of their conversion to ESA. Where we have already corrected cases by paying backdated arrears to 21 October 2014, we will review these cases again and pay any additional arrears due prior to that date. As planned, the Department will contact all those identified as potentially affected. Once an individual has been contacted and the relevant information gathered, they can expect to receive any backdated payments within 12 weeks. Once contacted, individuals will be provided with a dedicated free phone line on which to contact the Department to discuss their claim.
Marsha De Cordova
I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting me this urgent question.
The ESA underpayments were a major error by the Department for Work and Pensions. Dating back to 2011, 70,000 ill and disabled people were underpaid thousands of pounds, after being wrongly migrated from incapacity benefit to the contributions-based ESA and thereby denied additional social security payments, such as the severe disability premium. This meant that people already neglected by the Government’s social security system were denied vital support and caused significant hardship.
The DWP was alerted to the error as early as 2013, but, in what the Public Accounts Committee report, published yesterday, described as a “culture of indifference” at the Department, the error was neglected, only to be taken up six years after it had occurred. The Government had claimed they were legally prevented from paying arrears to those underpaid prior to 2014, but in a significant climbdown yesterday, they seemingly pre-empted a legal challenge and committed to paying arrears from the date claimants were migrated to ESA.
Significant questions remain unanswered. How many people does the DWP estimate will be entitled to additional arrears payments? How soon does the DWP expect to be able to identify people affected by this announcement? Will the DWP pay compensation to those who got into debt as a result of the underpayments? When will these payments be completed? What measures has the DWP undertaken to ensure that similar mistakes do not happen again?
The review into the ESA underpayments is just one of six the DWP will be carrying out to identify ill and disabled people to whom it has wrongly denied social security support. Five of those reviews have been undertaken only to pre-empt legal judgments. The latest announcement is yet further evidence of a Department in chaos, and the chaos is chronic, with millions of disabled people affected by the DWP’s failures. That needs to be sorted and sorted now.
Sarah Newton
I will take each of the hon. Lady’s detailed points in turn, but I first want to disabuse the House and the hon. Lady of the characterisation of people working in the DWP that we hear week after week. It simply is not fair. Day in and day out, the staff of the DWP work very hard to support people with health conditions and disabilities. The amount of money that this Government—in coalition and now as a Conservative Government—spend supporting people with health conditions and disabilities has grown every single year since we took office in 2010. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that people get the support from us that they need.
I want to put this issue in context. I fully accept, and have accepted, that these mistakes should not have happened. We are acting at pace to resolve these issues as soon as possible. Yes, some individual cases were raised in 2013, but at that time the Department felt that they were individual cases. It was not that the Department was lacklustre in trying to deal with the issue, as the hon. Lady is trying to portray. In fact, it was the proactive work of the DWP—in ensuring that we look out for fraud and underpayment—that identified this problem, and Ministers in the Department have worked proactively to put the necessary resources in place to resolve the issue as soon as possible. One mistake is one too many, but in actual fact this issue has affected about 5% of the people who made the transfer from incapacity benefit to ESA, and 3% of everyone on ESA. We are sorting the situation out as soon as possible.
The hon. Lady specifically asked how many people are affected. Our initial assessment was that 70,000 people were affected. However, in the light of our decision to go right back to the point at which people transferred from IB to ESA, we are going to look at more claimants—even dormant accounts—to ensure that no one is left out of this exercise, and the number will therefore rise. I will be able to update the House, as I regularly do, once we have taken this action over the summer recess. At the moment, we estimate that we will end up spending around £390 million, but given our further announcement yesterday, I expect the number of people affected—and therefore the amount of money—to go up. People will be paid their full arrears. It is absolutely important to me, the Secretary of State and the whole Department that we rectify the situation as soon as possible.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) has spoken of a culture of indifference, but the bill for disability benefits this year will be £5.4 billion higher than it was in 2010. Is there an exponential increase in the number of disabled people between whom payments are being spread ever more thinly?
Sarah Newton
We are absolutely determined to ensure that everyone with a health condition or a disability is supported so that they can lead as full and as independent a life as possible. That includes supporting people with a health condition or a disability who want to work into work. I am delighted that we have seen 600,000 more people with disabilities in work in the last four years. Of course, we want to ensure that those who are unable to work also get the support that they need.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
This is the latest in a long line of concessions forced on the UK Government by campaigners and the courts. In this case, I pay tribute to the efforts of the Child Poverty Action Group for achieving this victory for more than 70,000 disabled people in the face of the DWP’s “culture of indifference”, as described by the cross-party Public Accounts Committee. More than 70,000 disabled people have been denied money that they were due and knock-on support for between four and seven years. They were denied between £5,000 and £20,000, and support for the costs of prescriptions, dentistry and school meals.
Will the Minister advise the House on when this money will be paid out and whether it will be followed by compensation? Has the Department done any work to check whether its mistakes have had any other adverse consequences for those who have lost out, such as increased debt or mental health problems? In the light of the errors on ESA, PIP and universal credit, will the Department carry out a cross-departmental, cross-party review of its social security system to create one that is built on fairness, dignity and respect, as is happening in Scotland, rather than one that is subject to frequent legal challenge?
Sarah Newton
May I remind the hon. Gentleman that this action was due to the work of the Department itself? Because it is so important to us to make sure that people are not underpaid, it was our own work that led us to find this error and, as soon as we did, to put in place the actions to ensure that it was corrected.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point about the date on which we pay back the benefit, as I said in my statement, all the legal advice that we were given was around section 27. However, having listened to concerns raised by a range of stakeholders, we went back to look at that analysis. We really wanted to make sure that we were doing the right thing by our claimants, and that is when we came forward with the decision that we made yesterday.
In terms of the Department’s routine work, of course we welcome the fact that we have two very well-supported Select Committees. Only yesterday, I spoke to the Chairmen of the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee. I always read with great interest and care any reports that they do. As I said to both Chairmen yesterday, we will seriously consider all their recommendations and report back to them, as they requested, in October.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
May I wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday? I commend her for finding this issue, moving it on, and getting a solution to it. Does she recognise the important role that so many employers are playing in signing up to the Disability Confident scheme and recognising that people with disabilities are an important part of our workforce for the future?
Sarah Newton
I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. We must always recognise the really positive contribution that people with health conditions and disabilities make across the whole of society, including at work. I commend her for accepting the community challenge. I commend all Members across the House who will go out into their communities this summer and encourage more employers to provide work experience, internships and employment for the huge talent pool of disabled people that we have in our country.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that once a claimant has been identified and contacted about their under-payment, they will have access to a free phone line so that they can pursue their claim, and will be paid within 12 weeks?
Sarah Newton
Yes, I can make that commitment. We have already started to contact people and we are already making payments. Once we have contacted someone, we will make the freephone telephone number available to them, and we will pay them as soon as possible, but certainly within 12 weeks.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the fact that the Minister took action to make sure that the wrong was righted for those people who would otherwise not have had this payment from 2011 to 2014. I congratulate her on that. However, the real concern is that there were warnings from 2013 onwards, both from her staff in the Department and from agencies dealing with these people. She says that the Department found this out, but it took a long time to act. Many people have still lost out on passported benefits, some easy to calculate, like free school meals. Will she, in the light of the recommendations in our report, look closely at the impact of the passported benefits that were lost and consider a compensation scheme?
Sarah Newton
I thank the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Of course, the whole Department will take her report very seriously. The Secretary of State herself wanted to be here today, but she is making a very important speech elsewhere. That is the only reason she is not here herself to really underline the importance of what we are doing in the Department.
The hon. Lady raises a very good point about what more we can do to support frontline staff in the DWP who spot something wrong or feel uncomfortable with something that is happening—perhaps an unintended consequence—and to escalate their concerns so that they are heard by managers and those right at the top of the organisation. As a result of the work that the Secretary of State has been doing since she has been at the Department, with our new permanent secretary, new structures have been put in place to ensure that that escalation of concerns is appropriately considered across operations, policy and legal, and that appropriate action is taken. I believe that that action will prevent this from happening again.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s answers and the fact that £40 million has been paid out so far. She rightly highlighted the fact that claimants will get a free phone number to contact. Obviously, people listening may have concerns about what their own position might be. Will she update me as to whether she will be working with local advice agencies, such as Citizens Advice, and ensuring that they have information so, if people contact them, they too will be able to give out advice?
Sarah Newton
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. I work very closely with a range of stakeholders, including the absolutely outstanding citizens advice bureaux. We will ensure, as we do in all the work we do, that they are fully updated so that they can give their customers good advice. I say to everyone in the House and to everyone listening that if people are struggling to make ends meet or are uncertain about what benefits they might be entitled to, they should go to Jobcentre Plus. There they will be greeted by compassionate, well-informed members of staff who will want to help them.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
As a former shadow Minister with responsibility for disability rights—a very long time ago—I have a keen interest in this, and, as chairman of the Westminster Commission on Autism, a contemporary one. In my time, I have seen a lot of mistakes in this kind of area. The secret is to come to the House, to apologise fulsomely and to put it right. The numbers she mentioned mean a lot of people in every constituency. Will she ensure that she does something fast to compensate them, and to help Members of Parliament, who with Windrush and this issue have an even greater workload in helping their constituents?
Sarah Newton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his vital contribution. His work on autism, along with colleagues across the House, is really important. I always welcome opportunities to meet the cross-party group and I seriously consider all its reports. As soon as we identified the problem and how to sort it out, we were very open, coming to the House and updating it regularly, so that we can sort the problem out as soon as possible and provide Members with the information they need. I am first and foremost a constituency MP and I hold my weekly advice surgeries, so I know MPs’ vital role in supporting people through the benefits journey in our country.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
My hon. Friend is a diligent Minister and I welcome the steps that she has taken to ensure that this is put right, but will she confirm for the House that internal learning has taken place and that future processes will be improved as a result?
Sarah Newton
Yes, I can give that assurance. The permanent secretary has been scrutinised and questioned by the Public Accounts Committee. He has made all sorts of commitments to improve the internal processes of the DWP, and, as I outlined in a previous answer, those processes are up and running. This summer I will visit the operating centre that is undertaking this administrative exercise, and I will be reinforcing to the staff on the frontline not only the importance of their work but how important it is to speak up and speak out if they experience any problems. I will be listening.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I thank the shadow disability Minister for bringing the urgent question to the House. The Minister will know that the fact that at least £390 million is owed to tens of thousands of sick and disabled people—the most vulnerable people—is a shocking revelation. I have two questions. First, will the Minister give an estimate of how long it will take for the people affected to receive the money that they are owed? Secondly, with respect, apparently the DWP learned about this 12 months ago but it is only the media that has brought it out into the open. How does the Minister respond to that?
Sarah Newton
It was not the media that brought this out into the open; there was a written ministerial statement to this House. We have been acting at speed to make sure that we identify people we have underpaid, and we have already started to make payments. In the original statement, we said that we hoped to complete the exercise within the year, which takes us up to next spring. We are absolutely working as fast as we can to make these payments.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Minister has again been brought to the Chamber by an urgent question, not to make a statement herself. I want to mention that the 100th anniversary is coming up of when George Lansbury and the Poplar councillors went to prison because they refused to cut benefits for the poor and the disabled. Does the Minister feel ashamed that she has had to come here today to explain the culture of indifference in her Department, and what is she personally going to do about it so that the poor and the disadvantaged in our communities do not suffer any more under this Government?
Sarah Newton
I gently remind the hon. Lady that we made a written statement yesterday—the third statement we have made—and that we have been open with the House and will continue to be open with the House because this is a matter of such importance to us. I also respectfully point out that she should look at the facts. Each year, we are spending more money supporting disabled people and people with health conditions, and the benefits that support them increase each year. They are not subject to cuts; the rates are increasing each year.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
The all-party group on disability has heard that 28% of those in poverty are disabled, while a further 20% of people in poverty live in a household with a disabled person. Shamefully, nearly half of the poverty in the UK is therefore associated with disability. Does the Minister agree that significant errors of this gravity perpetuate this poverty, and that there must be compensation for the most vulnerable who have been affected?
Sarah Newton
Let me absolutely clear: I do not want anyone in our country to be living in poverty. Nobody on the Conservative Benches wants to see anyone living in poverty, which is why we have put so much effort since 2010 into lifting people out of poverty, including people with disabilities. We have been increasing benefits each and every year, and we will continue to do so. We are also increasing the amount of support for disabled people and those with health conditions who tell us they would very much like to work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I, too, thank the shadow Minister for bringing this urgent question to the House, and the Minister for a very comprehensive response and for righting the wrong. Well done, Minister. With some 70,000-plus people who have transferred to ESA from another benefit not being paid the full amount of ESA, does the Minister have any idea at this stage of the number of those in Northern Ireland who have been underpaid, and who is looking after the Northern Ireland applicants who are seeking reimbursements?
Sarah Newton
Every person who deserves their payment will be treated fairly and equally—I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman of that—but I will write to him with specific details about people in Northern Ireland.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The DWP—not the staff—is quick to point out and to recover overpayments, but it takes rather longer to correct underpayments. That has taken six years in this case, and underpayments are at the highest estimated level to date. What actions will the Government take to put that right and, more importantly, to make sure that it does not happen again?
Sarah Newton
I have repeatedly said that we are very sorry that this happened in the first place, and that we are doing everything possible to rectify the system—not just in this particular case, but to learn across all our benefits. Of course we take underpayments very seriously, and we have a well-resourced team that is taking up that issue.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The arrears being paid to people may be quite considerable in some cases. Will the Minister confirm to the House that these will be disregarded for their current benefit entitlement, because people should not lose out now for mistakes that the Department made previously?
Sarah Newton
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I am more than happy to put it beyond any doubt for people who are receiving payments for these underpayments that those payments will be disregarded for the purposes of other benefits.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Rather than waiting for this failing Department to contact my constituents about any underpayments, how can MPs make proactive inquiries on their behalf? Is the Minister aware that despite the MPs’ helpline for universal credit, some DWP offices are hiding behind general data protection regulation and saying that they cannot deal with verbal inquiries? Will she ensure that the MPs’ helpline does what it says on the tin?
Sarah Newton
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and as a constituency MP I understand the important role that we all have to play. I will ensure that he is able to raise constituency cases effectively and swiftly, and if he experiences any specific problems, he should please contact me so that I can rectify them.
Business of the House
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 23 July—General debate on strengthening the Union.
Tuesday 24 July—Debate on a motion relating to the Third Report Of Session 2017-19 from the Committee On Standards, followed by a general debate on matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment.
The business for the week commencing 3 September will include:
Monday 3 September—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 4 September—Second Reading of the Civil Liability Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 5 September—Remaining stages of the Tenant Fees Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Voyeurism (Offences) (No.2) Bill.
Thursday 6 September—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 September—The House will not be sitting.
I am also pleased to announce that there will be a debate on proxy voting in the second week of the September sitting.
As we head off for a much needed summer break, may I take this opportunity to wish Members across the House a peaceful and enjoyable few weeks, spending time with their constituents as well as with their families? Most importantly, I sincerely thank all our hard-working parliamentary and constituency staff, and the dedicated House staff, including the Clerks, Doorkeepers, catering staff, security, and all those who do so much to support our work. I wish them all a very restful and sunny recess.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming business, and for the debate on proxy voting, although I still feel that that could have been held next week, rather than waiting until September.
I am not sure why the Opposition half-day debate was taken from us last week when business seems so light for next week. There is no specific debate on Monday, other than on strengthening the Union. I am hoping that that will be expanded to cover all unions—the European Union, for example, or even trade unions—but I am pleased that the Government have found something for us to discuss next week.
The list of ministerial responsibilities has been published for June 2018. My parliamentary assistant has been very assiduous in marking up the list—the green colour represents the leavers, and yellow represents the remainers. As there seems to be lots of movement, will the Leader of the House ensure an updated June 2018 list of ministerial responsibilities before the House rises?
On restoration and renewal, the Shadow Sponsor Body has now been set up and we have a Chair. Sadly, however, the lovely Members in the other place outnumber Members in this place on the body, and I hope that when the legislation comes forward that will be rectified. Will the Leader of the House say whether there have been any draft instructions to consult, and when the legislation will come before the House?
Later, as the right hon. Lady has said, there will be a debate on the independent complaints grievance delivery report, and I congratulate everyone who took part in that report. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), the shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, will be responding. That is appropriate, given that she was at the first meeting in Downing Street, and led for the Opposition on the delivery review. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) who has used her great expertise as a trade unionist to enhance the quality of the discussion and report. I also add my thanks to all the staff, some of whom had to carry out their own jobs alongside working on this report. I thank all the experts and Members who have been involved and served on both review bodies.
I particularly want to thank the Leader of the House, and acknowledge her determination and commitment to seeing this through. It has not gone unnoticed that there will now be a workable solution. The culture in this place will change.
I am so pleased that the Prime Minister listens to business questions. Today, she is visiting the border. But it is quite confusing, isn’t it? There was an agreement. Then there was a White Paper, over which two Cabinet Ministers resigned because they did not like it. The Prime Minister has now agreed to the amendments, so it is not clear where that leaves the White Paper. If it is the same White Paper, why did the two Cabinet Ministers resign? Should we not have a second White Paper, the miserable Brexit plan mark II? What about the other White Paper on the withdrawal agreement, which was due to be published on 18 July? The Vote Office confirmed that the Government have cancelled it. When will it be published?
Will the Leader of the House look again the bizarre situation of the Government not voting against Opposition motions? We have got to the stage where we have an oral statement in certain situations, but yesterday two very important statements, on social care and school funding, were put out in written form. It is not right that we cannot hold the Government to account on those two most important matters. Will the right hon. Lady please review the situation? If the Government do not like the motions, they should vote against them.
The School Teachers’ Review Body report is usually published before the end of recess. Will the Leader of the House say when it will be published? Schools are already setting their budgets. They want to know whether they will be responsible for lifting the pay cap. They are already struggling with the funding formula, so I hope they will not be responsible for lifting it and that the money will come from central Government. May we therefore have a statement on the matter from the Secretary of State for Education?
Mr Speaker, I want to add my thanks to you and your office for their unfailing courtesy; the Deputy Speakers; the Clerk of the House for his judgments; the House staff; the Serjeant at Arms and his office; Phil and the Doorkeepers; Hansard; the House of Commons Library on its 200th anniversary for its fantastic independent advice, which has integrity running all through it; the police and the security; the cooks and the cleaners; and everyone who keeps this place in working order. I also want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) and everyone in the Opposition Whips Office for all their hard work behind the scenes, and of course everyone in my office.
Yesterday was Nelson Mandela Day. The Nelson Mandela Foundation is dedicating this year to fighting poverty, honouring Nelson Mandela’s leadership on and devotion to fighting poverty and promoting social justice for all. He said:
“It is easy to break down and destroy. The heroes are those who make peace and build.”
I wish everyone a peaceful recess.
Andrea Leadsom
I thank the hon. Lady for her very warm words about Nelson Mandela. She is exactly right to pay tribute to him. He did so much in the whole area of truth and reconciliation, and on the importance of peace instead of continuing to wage war against each other. He was so right and he will always be remembered for that.
The hon. Lady mentions Monday’s debate on strengthening the Union. There was some discussion yesterday about having the proxy voting debate on Monday. I genuinely feel that it is important we have that debate, so that issues can be raised: potential unintended consequences, and the very key points about when a proxy vote should be used and who it should be used by. I am very keen that all Members get the chance to do that and I am aware that many Members would not be here to take part in the debate if it were on Monday. I hope she accepts that. I will be bringing it forward as soon as possible.
I will look into ministerial responsibilities. I think the hon. Lady means for July 2018, not June 2018.
The hon. Lady also had a question about the Shadow Sponsor Body. We discussed this at House Commission. We are delighted that we do now have the Shadow Sponsor Body in place for the restoration and renewal of the Palace. It is of course right that there are four Lords Members of the Shadow Sponsor Body to only three Commons Members. As she will be aware, it was agreed that the Commons Commission would write to the Lords Commission suggesting that when the body is set up in statute that will be reviewed. She asks when the legislation will come forward. I can tell her that it has been agreed that we will bring forward a draft Bill, through joint scrutiny by both Houses, in the autumn. It is in draft form already. I have been working on it very carefully with the parliamentary counsel over the past few weeks.
I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the hon. Members for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and all those, including the shadow Leader of the House, who have worked so hard on this new complaints procedure. Today, Parliament can be proud; we are tackling our challenges and shortcomings and we want to be leading the world in treating everyone with dignity and respect. Following the debate later today, we will be turning to a new chapter, and I look forward to that.
The hon. Lady asks about the White Paper on the withdrawal agreement, and she will know that that will come forward in due course. We are not quite at the point of the withdrawal arrangements being finalised. It was very important that the Prime Minister’s White Paper following the Chequers agreement was brought forward. My views on that are on the record: I believe that it continues to uphold the will of the people.
The hon. Lady asks about voting on Opposition day motions. As I have made clear, we will continue to support the Standing Orders for Opposition days, and when the House does not divide and a motion is passed, the Government will come forward with very specific actions to be taken as a result of a motion passed by this House.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I, too, thank everyone who makes this Parliament work, and that relates to the question I would like to put to the Leader of the House. This House relies much on tradition and trust, and a number of things have happened recently that have disturbed me. I was quite ill when we were voting on the EU withdrawal Bill, and there were a lot of votes. I came in to vote and after a number of votes, the Labour Whips agreed to nod me through. That courtesy should be extended to everyone, and I do not think that happened recently. I am very concerned to hear that a pairing was broken, and I am very concerned that we tried to end Parliament two days early, which I think was for party political reasons. May we have a statement from the Leader of the House when we come back, or early next week, on this place and the fact that we must uphold the rights of this House and not hide behind small print because, otherwise, this place will not work?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is of course right to raise any concerns that he has, and I will always be happy to discuss them with him. As I said yesterday in the urgent question, a pair was broken. People were extremely apologetic. It was an error. In addition, I set out again that I absolutely uphold the rights and conventions of this House at all times, and will always continue to do so.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. Usually, when I get on my feet on a Thursday morning, I gently chide the Leader of the House about the performance of her Government this week. There might be the occasional rhetorical flourish, an over-emphasis here and there perhaps, or even a bit of exaggeration to help to fully describe the current predicament. This week, that is not necessary, because there simply is not a sufficient range of adjectives to adequately describe this dysfunctional Government, the current state of their Brexit disaster and their chaotic stewardship of prosecuting this mad enterprise. The chance of a no deal Brexit has apparently been raised from “possible” to “likely”. Let us remember what that means: endless queues at our ports, shops running out of food and hospitals without medicines. May we have an urgent and timely debate when we get back about what all this mad no deal Brexit actually means?
We are coming back next week, and I think we are all delighted about that. I do not know what the Leader of the House was thinking about by trying to adjourn this place five days early and how she thought for a minute that she would get away with it, given that, effectively, we have a leaderless country and an unprecedented crisis. Apparently, we cannot plan our recess to accommodate school holidays throughout the United Kingdom, but we can go into an early recess to help a beleaguered Prime Minister. We will be back to debate strengthening the Union—I presume that it is our Union, and not the associated union of beekeepers. Let us hope that the Leader of the House might clarify that.
After all these pious apologies yesterday about the breaking of pairing arrangements with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), there are stories in the press today that the Chief Whip told three Tory MPs to break their whipping arrangements. Will there now be a full inquiry into what exactly happened? I am just so pleased that the Scottish National party have absolutely nothing to do with this broken whipping arrangement.
There are all sorts of rumours today about the date of the Budget. Will the Leader of the House give us some clarification? Will it be September; will it be November; or will it be at the end of the year?
Finally, Mr Speaker, I wish you and all the staff of the House—all those who work in the place and make it easier for us all to do our jobs as Members of Parliament—a good holiday. I say to you all, “Enjoy it, because this will be the last year in which you will be in the European Union. Next year you will be classed as a ‘European other’, with all the travel misery that that is likely to bring as you go off to the costas and playas.”
Andrea Leadsom
Well, Mr Speaker, I rather like bees myself. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to raise the very important debate on Monday, which will indeed be about strengthening the Union of the four nations of the United Kingdom. I look forward very much to seeing all his colleagues in the Chamber as we discuss the means by which we can keep the United Kingdom together—stronger and better together.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the motion calling for an early recess. I can tell him that the idea was suggested by representatives of a number of political parties. It was discussed in the usual channels, and the Government decided to put it to the House so that the House could decide. On Tuesday, it became clear that there was no desire to do that, which was fine, and which is why the motion was not moved. This was about trying to listen to the views of the House.
I am very much looking forward to next week. We have some important business to get through—questions to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, and some interesting debates in Westminster Hall on, for instance, the remit of the Office for Budget Responsibility and nuclear investment—and, of course, we all look forward sincerely to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who for once is not present for business questions, but who is one of the stalwarts of the pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)
I know that you are aware that I go on about local government, Mr Speaker, but I should like to have another go at it now. We are going through a transformation at the moment. Nearly 100 members of staff of Taunton Deane Borough Council and West Somerset Council have applied for redundancy, and we are in trouble when it comes to actually manning the councils. Local government is under enormous pressure, so please may we have a debate in Government time on where we are going with local government in the United Kingdom?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend often raises local government in his constituency. No doubt he is pleased to learn that oral questions to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will take place on Monday, when he will be able to raise the issue directly with Ministers.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I can tell the House that I have some devoted friends who are keen apiarists. We should not mock the beekeepers.
Ian Mearns
Just in case Back Benchers are wondering why the Backbench Business Committee has not given them time for a debate on 6 September, as the Leader of the House suggested, it is because on 6 September the business will be agreed by the Backbench Business Committee but determined by the Liaison Committee, so the debate is not in our gift.
I note that in the future business section of the Order Paper—I have written to the Leader of the House about this—the business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 4 September, the day on which we return from the recess, is still shown as scheduled to begin at 9.30 am. That seems incongruous, and I hope it can be fixed. Members have to make travel arrangements before then.
Andrea Leadsom
I am looking to my officials, but I believe we have changed that. I believe the motion went through yesterday, but I shall have to check. I was pleased to try and help out, and if those times have not yet been changed, they certainly will be.
I can only agree with the hon. Gentleman: we all love bees. They play a very important part, and I think that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) should repent of his slightly anti-bee approach.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (David Rutley)
He must beehive himself.
Andrea Leadsom
He certainly must beehive himself, at all times.
Let me say again to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) that I look forward to visiting the great exhibition of the north. I think that he will have received my letter informing him that I shall be in his constituency next week and that I look forward to it very much.
Mr Speaker
The Leader of the House will be pleased to know that she is right: the list of future business publicly declared has not yet caught up with reality, as both the advice of the Clerks and the enthusiastic nodding of the officials’ heads alike testify.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
A few weeks ago, the Government announced that they were likely over the summer to consult on changes to the planning process for shale gas and fracking. There is a shale gas application in my constituency, and this is of concern to a number of residents in my part of the world. Will the Minister consider giving Government time for a debate on shale gas and, in particular, proposed changes to permitted development rights?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, and I am well aware that very often constituents have concerns. As an ex-Energy Minister, I can tell him that I am very supportive both of the concept of shale gas exploration and shale gas as a future source of revenue and energy security for this country and, importantly, of a very robust regulatory environment for shale gas. As he will know, the Government support shale gas exploration, and we are launching two consultations: one on the principle of including shale gas projects in the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime and the other on permitted development rights. We look forward to many stakeholders contributing to those consultations to ensure that planning decisions are fast but fair to all.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
Listening to the Leader of the House this morning and looking back at the record for yesterday, twice now she has told this place that what happened with the breach of pairing arrangements was a result of administrative error. If the report in The Times newspaper is to be believed, it was a result not of accident, but of design. So when she returns to the Dispatch Box, I hope that she will choose her words carefully, because she may have been set up to mislead the House, however inadvertently, which would be serious. [Interruption.] Before Government Members heckle, I will say that some silence and humility might be required, because the idea that pregnant women and new mothers will be cheated out of their vote and representation to save the skin of this shambolic Government is an absolute disgrace and an affront to the House.
To add insult to injury, we now have to wait until September for a debate—a debate—on what should be a sensible arrangement for proxy voting, so will the Leader of the House at least come to the Dispatch Box to confirm that when we debate proxy voting in September, it will be on a motion, because actions will speak louder than words and the Government have shown through their behaviour this week that acting according to courtesies and conventions is not enough because this Government, with their shambolic record, cannot be trusted?
Andrea Leadsom
The words of the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) stand for themselves; it is absolutely abhorrent for him to be calling me out in particular when I came to the Dispatch Box yesterday with exactly the regret and sorrow he is now falsely calling for. It is a deep regret to me that that breaking of the pair happened in error. I assured the House yesterday that it was an error that the Chief Whip and the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), had both apologised for.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there were three pairs on Tuesday. I myself was one of them; I did not receive any call from anyone telling me to vote. I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept that, because he is calling me something that is not acceptable parliamentary language. I have made absolutely clear my personal commitment to resolving this issue so that new parents can spend time with their new babies uninterrupted. What happened was an error that has been copiously and profusely apologised for, and the hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. There are strong feelings on this matter, and I have heard very clearly what the Leader of the House has said by way of her account. I know that she will not, however, cavil, or argue with me, when I say that I am the arbiter of what is parliamentary language, and no unparliamentary language has been used; I am clear about that and the Clerk is very clear about that. The hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has obviously irritated the right hon. Lady, but he used the word “inadvertently”. There is no breach of order; nothing disorderly whatsoever has happened. We do need to be clear about that.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know from her own constituency experience the problems that people affected by HS2 have in selling their property and not getting a quick resolution. There is no good resolution to this, and that applies even more to my constituents who are affected by the roadworks on the M6 and cannot get anyone to buy their property, the value of which has fallen precipitately as a result of the disturbance. When people are forced into a situation of being unable to sell their properties because Government action—whether in relation to road, rail, airports or anything else—causes the value of the property to plummet, can we ensure that there is justice for them and that they can sell their property at market value or get the appropriate compensation?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important point about compensation for those affected by Government projects. I encourage him to talk to the HS2 mitigation and compensation forum that I established—back in 2011, I believe—which takes forward particular issues for constituents who are seeking proper compensation for such problems, particularly with regard to selling their homes.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Under new data protection rules, subject access requests to GP practices and NHS services can no longer be charged for. I have received a deputation from GP surgeries in my constituency saying that this is already causing undue cost to them. May we have a statement, either from the Department of Health and Social Care or from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, to explain how they might be able to help with this probably inadvertent issue, because it is costing NHS services money that they can hardly afford?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue. I do not have the answer right here, but I encourage him to attend Health and Social Care questions on Tuesday, because I am sure that this will be something that Ministers will be keen to try to address.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Official figures show that house building is booming in Erewash, with the number of completed homes up by 75% and the number of homes under construction up by 70% on the previous year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a vindication of the Government’s housing policy and that it is good news not only for those in the construction industry in Erewash but for those who aspire to own their own homes? Will she grant Government time to debate the benefits to the economy and to the wellbeing of our constituents of building more homes?
Andrea Leadsom
I certainly congratulate my hon. Friend on the success in building new homes in Erewash. The Government are absolutely clear that fixing the broken housing market is a top domestic priority for us. Housing needs to be more affordable, and we want people to have the security of a home of their own, which means building many more of the right homes in the right places. We have set out an ambition to deliver 300,000 homes a year on average by the middle of the next decade, and we have an ambitious package of reform to support that.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Mr Speaker, you very kindly granted me an urgent question yesterday in relation to the breach of the pair involving my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on Tuesday night. You might recall that I indicated during that urgent question that I had received an apology from the Government Chief Whip, which of course I accepted, but that I did not quite understand how things had come to pass in this way. I indicated also that I would pursue the matter with the Government Chief Whip. I have to tell you and the House that, subsequent to the urgent question, I met the Government Chief Whip and that he offered me a fuller explanation, which I have considered very carefully overnight. Regrettably, I have to say that I still do not understand how this highly regrettable state of affairs came to pass, so today I have a somewhat novel request for the Leader of the House, which is that the Government Chief Whip should come to the Dispatch Box to make a statement himself.
I have been here long enough to know the conventions, Mr Speaker, and I know that the convention is that the Government Chief Whip does not speak in the House, but conventions are exactly that. Ours is a system of checks and balances, and if we take out a check we have to adjust a balance. What happened on Tuesday night did serious damage to the pairing system on which we have all relied over the years, and for that reason I suggest that it is necessary to re-establish the basis of trust and the confidence that agreements will be honoured that we should have this most novel departure. This is not a suggestion that I make lightly, but I hope that the Leader of the House will take it seriously and that this is something that we will see happen.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his measured words, and I am glad that he met the Chief Whip. As I made clear yesterday, I have been absolutely assured that it was an administrative error. I sought to explain to the House that pairing often involves an absence of an hour or two, so the administrative complexity of managing temporary pairings during the course of a day is significant. I also stated that, by virtue of my conversations with my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), it was absolutely clear to me that he was totally unaware that he was paired with the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). I texted the hon. Lady to make it clear that I will continue to ensure that her maternity pair is in place and I reassure the House that that is the case. I apologise again for the error and assure the House that it did not change the result, but I will redouble my efforts to ensure that the pairing system remains in place.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Like me, many in the House will be suffering from football withdrawal symptoms now that the World cup is over, but they need not worry for long, for as I speak the qualifying rounds of the Europa league and Champions league are under way. While smaller teams, such as Hibs and a couple called Celtic and Rangers, are already engaged, one week today sees the battle of Britain game between Burnley and the mighty and, some might say, famous Aberdeen take place at Pittodrie, with the Dons trying to win their first silverware since 1983. In wishing all those teams, but especially Aberdeen, all the best over the next few weeks as they try to qualify for Europe, will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the importance of our national game to local communities and our economy?
Andrea Leadsom
I am so glad that my hon. Friend has raised the matter of football again, because we have not talked about it much recently, have we? We would all welcome many more debates on football as our England team no doubt makes their way up the world rankings once more. I hope that the game between Aberdeen and Burnley next week will be a cracking match to watch, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising such an important subject.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have also been in the House for quite a long time, and I must tell the Leader of the House, for whom I have great respect, that Tuesday’s events were cataclysmic for this House’s reputation. We are supposed to be the mother of Parliaments, but my constituents think that there was skulduggery on Tuesday night. They do not get messages or texts from the Leader of the House; they read in the newspapers that something dodgy went on and they say, “Why can’t it get put right? Why couldn’t you have another vote?” This goes to the heart of the reputation of this House. It was one of the most important votes in the history of this House, yet something strange went on that was the responsibility not of the Leader of the House, but of the Whips. I say in all earnestness that things must be put right, and I associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) who thinks that the Chief Whip should come to the Dispatch Box.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman who, as he says, has been in this place for a long time knows that there is collective responsibility and that the Leader of the House speaks for the Government, and I have apologised for something that should not have happened. I have been clear about my personal regard for the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire and that I would not under any circumstances condone anything that would be seen as deliberately breaking a pair. I have been assured that such a thing did not happen and that it was a mistake.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
Blackrod Primary School in my constituency has recently been awarded the prestigious Artsmark platinum award. This Government have the right idea in supporting science, technology, engineering and mathematics in our schools, but can we have a debate on upgrading STEM to STEAM to fully appreciate arts, culture and creativity?
Andrea Leadsom
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Blackrod Primary School in his constituency on earning that fantastic award. The Government want all children to have a broad and balanced curriculum, and the creative arts play an important role. We are investing nearly £500 million of funding from 2016 to 2020 for a diverse portfolio of music and arts education programmes that are designed to improve arts provision for all children.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
NHS Property Services has been required to dispose of the Bootham Park Hospital site. The city urgently needs capacity for new health services, yet developers want to move on to the site to build luxury apartments—we have far too many of those. Can we have a debate about public interest in the disposure of public sites?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. Having been to her constituency, I know it is very beautiful and I totally understand that there is a lack of space for things like a new hospital. I encourage her to raise the matter with Ministers at Health questions next Tuesday by asking what they can do to try to help to protect that space.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Four weeks ago, Bishop James Jones published a report on the Gosport War Memorial Hospital showing that at least 560 elderly patients had inadvertently died as a result of opiate transfusions. I put it in layman’s terms by saying that at least 560 people were killed.
I immediately wrote to the Prime Minister asking that the relatives get the justice they deserve and that the Government implement a criminal inquiry. The term for the Prime Minister to respond to an MP is 20 days, and I still have not heard. Tomorrow is the 20th day. If I do not hear back from the Prime Minister about getting a public inquiry, will the Leader of the House allow a debate in the Chamber on this incredibly important issue?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely share the hon. Gentleman’s grave concern about those reported deaths due to opiates. He raises an important issue, and I recommend that he seeks a BackBench Business debate so that all Members will be able to share their concerns and the experiences in their constituencies.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Homebuyers in Woodsend in my constituency have suffered shoddy building work and very poor customer service from Persimmon, which informed them that it is not its policy “to deal with MPs” when I tried to intervene to help my constituents. May we have a debate on the recommendation of the all-party parliamentary group on excellence in the built environment for a mandatory ombudsman scheme for house builders?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady will have heard that roar of approval for her suggestion. All hon. Members are concerned about house building standards, and it is vital that house builders take seriously the need to provide quality products to those who, let us face it, often struggle to afford them. I recommend that she seeks a BackBench Business debate, because I think there would be cross-party support for raising these important matters.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Wales was due to get £2 billion of EU structural funds between 2014 and 2020, and those funds are to be replaced by the hitherto mythical shared prosperity fund. Forward-looking organisations are now thinking about their planning cycle post 2020, but they are hampered by the lack of any detail. Can we have an early debate on the shared prosperity fund, hopefully preceded by some detail as to its operation?
Andrea Leadsom
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the question of the shared prosperity fund, and I sincerely recommend that he raises it in Monday’s debate on strengthening the United Kingdom. He will, of course, be aware that there has been significant investment in the city deals and growth deals in Wales. Nevertheless, he raises an important point that I encourage him to raise with Ministers on Monday.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
We are approaching the school holidays, when many children will lose the important contribution that a free school meal makes to their overall sense of wellbeing. Will the right hon. Lady therefore make time for a debate early next week on how the Government can help plug that gap and better support provision to tackle holiday hunger?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a matter of great concern to Members right across the House: many children suffering nutritionally during the school holidays. I know of a couple of schools in my constituency whose headteachers worry about that, and the hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the issue. She might seek an Adjournment debate, if Mr Speaker were happy to grant one, so that she could raise the issue directly with Ministers.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Leader of the House for confirming which Union will be discussed in the debate on Monday—it is just as well it is not a debate on the Conservative and Unionist party being strengthened! I notice that almost all the business for the first week back is likely to be subject to the EVEL—English votes for English laws—procedure, so it is ironic that it comes on the back of a debate on strengthening the Union. Is it not time that we at least had a little balance in how the business is presented? Indeed, is it not time we simply got rid of the EVEL procedure altogether?
Andrea Leadsom
I am a fan of the EVEL procedure. The issue of devolved Administrations and the very many powers that have rightly been devolved to the individual nations of the UK means there is the important need for issues affecting only England or only England and Wales to be voted on by those relevant Members and not by all Members of this House. That is an equal and fair approach to what has been a very beneficial devolution settlement right across the UK.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House whether the Government still intend to publish a draft law of property Bill, which was announced in 2016? It is of particular relevance to the residents of Llandevaud, who next week will see their communal common come to auction because someone has bought up an old manorial title.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an interesting and particular question, and I genuinely do not know the answer to it. [Laughter.] There are lots of things I do know the answer to, but that is not one of them. If she would like to write to me, I can take it up with the relevant Department or of course Ministers will provide her directly with the answer.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
My constituent Lisa Conway recently experienced a burglary at her home. The police ascertained that access was gained to the property by using force to prise open a window. However, her insurance company, Policy Expert, refused to help because it said “forcible and violent” entry was not used to access her property. So may we have a debate on how we can stop companies such as Policy Expert exploiting our constituents through ridiculous legalese in these insurance policies?
Andrea Leadsom
First, let me say that I am really sorry to hear about that break-in. Having a home broken into is traumatising for families, and being treated in that way is just appalling. I certainly encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate, so that he can raise the particular concerns about that insurance company directly with Ministers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Assam state government in India has asked everyone to prove that they were in the country before 1971. Many of those who came to India without any paperwork are unable to do so. If residents cannot prove this before 30 July they will be declared illegal immigrants. Millions of residents do not have this proof because they had never needed it before. The very serious concern is that, as was the case with the Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar, this could lead to millions of impoverished Muslims being stripped of their citizenship and deported—or even worse. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this pressing issue?
Andrea Leadsom
This is a very serious issue and, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, it could have urgent and serious ramifications. I encourage him to take it up with Ministers directly in the short period before recess, so that he can find out exactly what they are able to do to help.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Safe Anchor Trust is a charity in my constituency that does wonderful work with people who are disadvantaged through social isolation, age, deprivation and physical or mental disabilities. I have seen at first hand the incredible work the trust does, and I am sure that the Leader of the House would be very welcome were she to take one of its wonderful boat trips. The trust is entirely reliant on volunteers and donations to survive. May we have a debate on how we can support such groups, which are such an asset in our communities?
Andrea Leadsom
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating that charity on the amazing work that it does. There are so many voluntary organisations and community-based societies that do so much for us all. I encourage her to seek a BackBench Business debate so that she and other Members can share the excellent examples in their own constituencies.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Can we have a debate or statement on the work of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the annual report and accounts of which are published today? The latest figures I have seen have shown a huge increase in the number of potential victims of forced labour: from 2016 to 2017 it rose by some 47%. This is the UK in 2018, and we have huge numbers of people in forced work. It is unacceptable and we need to speak about and debate it much more than we do.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is appalling that in this day and age there continues to be so much forced labour. I am sure he recognises that in her previous role the Prime Minister did everything that she could, including introducing the Modern Slavery Act 2015, to try to stamp out this absolutely appalling treatment of human beings. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue and I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can raise it directly with Ministers.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
We now know from the findings of the Electoral Commission that the Brexit result may have been bought and sold with dark money and gold by a sick parcel of rogues in these nations. Regardless of whether we debated or voted to remain or to leave, it is now being treated as a serious criminal matter, so may we have a debate in this place, as soon as possible after recess, about the validity, legitimacy and, indeed, legality of upholding the EU referendum result?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Electoral Commission is an independent organisation that has made its findings and referred the matter to the police for a criminal investigation, and it is not the policy of this House to comment on ongoing criminal investigations. I have no doubt that there will be many opportunities to raise the issue over the forthcoming weeks.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Last week, I visited the Endeavour unit at Parc prison in my constituency. It is a specialist unit set up for ex-serving military personnel and looks to use their experience to deal with reoffending. May we have a debate on Parliament’s and the Government’s ongoing responsibility to ex-serving personnel, and how we can utilise their capabilities, perhaps in reserve units?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the importance that we place on making sure that those who have served us in our armed forces have meaningful and useful jobs and lives when they leave the forces. I am delighted to hear about the work that is being done in her constituency to help them to help others to get off the offending route. The hon. Lady is right that we should do everything that we possibly can. She will be aware that the Government introduced and put into law the military covenant, to make sure that we support our armed forces as far as possible. I encourage her to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that we can talk about what more we can do to support the wonderful people who have given so much to our country.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
Last December, I launched the much-needed campaign for Lucy’s law, to ban third-party puppy sales in pet shops and to outlaw vile puppy farming. Since then, almost 100 Members from all parties have backed my early-day motion 695.
[That this House calls for the immediate ban on the sale of puppies by pet shops and other third-party commercial dealers; recognises that implementing Lucy’s Law will be a major step forward in putting an end to unnecessary animal cruelty and helping to eradicate forms of irresponsible dog breeding and selling, such as puppy farming, smuggling and trafficking; notes that irresponsible breeding practices, such as puppy farms, are enabled and even encouraged by the third-party trade in puppies that are sold away from their mothers and place of birth in locations such as pet shops; and acknowledges that Lucy’s Law will help to protect breeding dogs and puppies by making all breeders accountable and transparent, ensuring consistency with the Government’s advice that purchasers should see puppies interacting with their mother in the place that they were born.]
There was consensus in the Chamber after our debate on the related e-petition, so may we have a statement on the introduction of legislation? It is much needed to protect puppies from odious puppy farmers who seek to undermine their and their mothers’ welfare.
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that this is an incredibly important issue. When I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department was looking carefully at the matter, and we brought in new laws on licensing. There is also a knock-on impact for those who purchase the puppies and take them into their lives when they have been deeply damaged and traumatised early in their life. The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue and I encourage her to seek an Adjournment debate so that she can talk to DEFRA Ministers directly about what more can be done.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
For her summer reading, I offer the Leader of the House a copy of the newly published report of the all-party group on home electrical safety titled “Electrical products: setting the course for safety”. We are all acutely aware of the importance of protecting our constituents from fires caused by domestic appliances. When the House returns, may we have a debate on a Government strategy to reduce fires caused by domestic appliances?
Andrea Leadsom
That sounds like a very sparky report—[Interruption.] Sorry. Certainly, the hon. Lady is raising a very important issue. Household fires are devastating, as we saw in the tragic Grenfell disaster, and she is right to raise this very important issue. I sincerely hope that, come the autumn, she can at least seek a Back-Bench debate so that hon. Members can share their experiences.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
A veterinary practice in my constituency has plugged the skills gap by employing an Australian vet on a youth mobility visa, but the problem is that the visa runs out in September. It is well known that there is a shortage of vets in the UK, but the cap on tier 2 visas is causing vets problems in getting visas so that they can continue working. May we have a statement about the merits of exempting vets from the cap altogether, and, more importantly, about how I can expedite a decision so that Jock Patterson can continue working in my constituency rather than being sent home to Australia?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an important constituency issue, as he often does, and he is right to do so. I suggest that he takes up that specific issue directly with Home Office Ministers or, if he wants to write to me, I can do so on his behalf.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will know that the housing crisis blights communities across our United Kingdom. Will she find time for a debate on the pay, terms and conditions of the senior management of housing associations? Money should be put into building decent and affordable homes for all our constituents, not filling bosses’ pay packets. I want to know what the Government can do about this.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Alison Thewliss. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon; I call the Leader of the House.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) is very welcome to provide an answer if she should care to do so.
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important issue. He will be aware that housing is the top domestic priority for this Government. We are determined to deliver 300,000 new homes on average every year by the mid-2020s. It is vital that we provide more social and affordable housing. More than £9 billion is going into our affordable homes programme. He raises a very specific issue, which I encourage him to raise at Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government questions on Monday.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
May we have a debate on the failure of the Indian high commission’s consular services in responding to MPs and their constituents? I currently have two relatively simple cases that have been waiting for months, including a constituent who needs to travel to Kolkata for her PhD studies and has been issued with a visa for entirely the wrong dates. The consular services are just not responding; they have asked me to WhatsApp them rather than going through proper channels, and getting a response has been just about impossible.
Andrea Leadsom
I am very sorry to hear that. That is a challenge because I think what the hon. Lady is seeking is better administrative procedures in other consulates and, obviously, that is not something that the UK Government can influence. However, if she would like to raise that in a written question to Ministers, I am sure that they will take up on her behalf the challenge of trying to influence other consulates in London to the benefit of her constituents.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I have been battling for a number of years with Persimmon, the house building company, which has built some homes in my constituency whose gardens have been slipping into the drain. I have been battling for years, and it was only when I said to Persimmon that I was going to raise the matter on the Floor of the House that I was able to get a meeting with Simon Usher, one of its managers in Yorkshire. Since then, the matter seems to have gone cold again. I absolutely support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) for a debate, because I do not think that this is a lone case, and it certainly seems that having an ombudsman would be really effective and something that we would all use.
Andrea Leadsom
I can say to both hon. Ladies that when there is clearly cross-House support for a debate, I do try to seek Government time when I can. Obviously time is at a premium, but there is considerable concern about this issue across the House, and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) is absolutely right to raise it in this place. I encourage her to take it up with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on Monday at oral questions.
Diana Johnson
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful that you are allowing me to raise this point of order at this time, with the Leader of the House still on the Treasury Bench. It has come to light that PICT, which provides parliamentary ICT support to Members, has seemingly decided, without any prior consultation, to close down Members’ second email accounts, claiming it is due to a limited number of licences being available. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the second email account is a vital tool for MPs in their office management. I ask the Leader of the House to take steps to stop this from happening until there has been a proper consultation and there is proper understanding of what the decision means, and until alternative arrangements have been put in place to allow Members to manage their emails effectively.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Although, quite clearly, it is not a point of order for the Chair in connection with proceedings in the Chamber, it is a very important point affecting a great many colleagues in the House. The Leader of the House will have heard the point, and I will make sure that the matter is drawn to the attention of Mr Speaker. Let us hope that by these various means the matter also comes to the attention of those who organise our sometimes reliable and sometimes not reliable IT service.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I request your advice on whether there might be a way, prior to the recess, to bring clarity to this topic so that we know what we might need to plan for over the summer?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. Now that the matter has been raised, many people will want clarity as soon as possible. I will try to ensure that an answer is brought by tomorrow, and I am sure that Mr Speaker will also require that, in so far as he is able to do so.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would be a matter of great convenience to some of us to have all email accounts closed down.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman may say that; I could not possibly comment.
Relationships and Sex Education
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the consultation on the Government’s proposals for relationships education, relationships and sex education, and health education, copies of which will be made available on the gov.uk website.
Children and young people today are growing up in an increasingly complex world and living their lives seamlessly online and off. This presents many positive and exciting opportunities, of course, but also challenges and risks. In this environment, children need to know how to be safe and healthy, and how to manage their lives in a positive way. Ensuring that they have this knowledge also helps to tackle problems such as sexual harassment and sexual violence.
That was why, during the passage of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, the Government acted on the compelling case to make relationships education and RSE compulsory through regulations, and to consider doing the same for elements of personal, social and health and economic education. There was strong cross-party support then, and I am confident that we can continue to work together on these important reforms in that way.
Since the passage of that Act, we have engaged thoroughly with a wide range of organisations. Ian Bauckham CBE has been supporting the Department. With 33 years as a teacher and 13 as a headteacher, Ian has considerable experience in the education system. I thank him for his invaluable support and his advice to me and my predecessor.
Between November 2017 and March 2018, Ian led wide-ranging stakeholder engagement with groups representing teachers, subject specialists, parents, religious bodies, MPs and others. In addition, the Department launched a call for evidence to seek public views from adults and young people. More than 23,000 people responded, and the level of consensus has been encouraging.
I am pleased today to be able to announce the key decisions and to launch a consultation on the detail of the regulations and guidance. For relationships education and RSE, the aim is to put in place the building blocks needed for positive and safe relationships of all kinds, starting with family and friends, and moving out to other kinds of relationships, including those online. It is essential that we ensure that young people can keep themselves safe online—from the basics of who and what to trust, through to how personal information is used and can be used, and how to ensure that online relationships are healthy and safe. A guiding principle is that teaching will start from the basis that children and young people, at age-appropriate points, need to know the laws relating to relationships and sex that govern our society to ensure that they act appropriately and can be safe. This includes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender relationships, which are a strong feature of the new subjects at age-appropriate points.
The draft guidance sets out core required content, but leaves flexibility for schools to design a curriculum that builds on it as is right for their pupils, bearing in mind their age and religious backgrounds. It enables schools with a religious character to deliver and expand on the core content by reflecting the teachings of their faith.
I also propose to introduce compulsory content on health education. This supports the findings from the call for evidence and engagement process, in which giving children and young people the information they need to make good decisions about their own health and wellbeing—particularly their mental wellbeing—was a clear priority for many who responded. This directly supports our Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health, as well as our manifesto commitment to ensure that all young people are taught about mental wellbeing. The focus on physical health also supports our work on childhood obesity.
Financial education is already on the curriculum in maths and citizenship, and careers education is an important part of our careers strategy. For those reasons, I do not consider that further economic education needs be made compulsory. I am committed, however, to improving the provision of financial and careers education, and will continue to work with stakeholders to do so.
Many schools successfully cover this content in a broader PSHE framework. They should continue to do so, adapting their programme to the new requirements, rather than starting from scratch. Schools are also free to develop alternative, innovative ways to ensure that pupils receive such education, and we want good practice to be shared so that all schools can benefit.
We have previously committed to parents having a right to withdraw their children from the sex education part of RSE, but not from relationships education in primary or secondary school. A right for parents to withdraw their child up to 18 years of age is no longer compatible with English case law or the European convention on human rights. It is also clear that allowing parents to withdraw their child up to the age of 16 would not allow the child to opt in to sex education before the legal age of consent. I therefore propose to give parents the right to request their child be withdrawn from sex education delivered as part of RSE. The draft guidance sets out that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the parents’ request should be granted until three terms before the pupil reaches 16.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
That was Labour’s policy in 2010.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Do not interrupt a ministerial statement. [Interruption.] Order. Just do not interrupt it.
Damian Hinds
At that point, if the child wishes to have sex education, the headteacher should ensure they receive it in one of those three terms. This preserves the parental right in most cases, but balances that with the child’s right to opt in to sex education when they are competent to do so.
We are keen to hear as many views as possible through the consultation, and I encourage Members and their constituents to respond. The consultation will be open until early November and the final regulations will be laid in both Houses, allowing for a full and considered debate.
This very important change to the curriculum has to be delivered well, and although many schools will be able to adapt their existing teaching quickly, it is essential that schools that need more time to plan and to prepare their staff get that time. It is our intention that as many schools as possible will start teaching the subjects from September 2019. We will be working with schools, as well as with multi-academy trusts, dioceses and education unions, to help them to do so. All schools will be required to teach the new subjects from September 2020, which is in line with the Department’s approach that any significant changes to the curriculum have a year’s lead-in time. That will enable us to learn lessons from early-adopter schools and to share good practice further across the sector. We will be seeking views through the consultation to test the right focus for a school support package as we know that it is crucial for schools and teachers to be confident and well prepared.
Our proposals are an historic step in education that will help to equip children and young people with the knowledge and support that they need to form healthy relationships, lead healthy lives, and be safe and happy in modern Britain. I commend the statement to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice and sight of his statement. He is right that Members on both sides of the House have worked on these reforms, including my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), as well as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening), who first committed to implementing these changes.
There is much that we all welcome, but I hope that the Secretary of State will address some unanswered questions. Will he tell us which elements of this so-called mandatory subject are actually mandatory? If this knowledge is the right of every child, how will he ensure that it is available to all, and how will his Department deal with schools’ decisions to change or remove parts of the curriculum?
I welcome the statement that children have a right to decide that they want to receive sex and relationships education. All children should be empowered to make healthy, informed decisions, and to know that it is not wrong to be LGBT and not acceptable to experience gender harassment or violence. But can the Secretary of State assure the House that pupils will be able to opt in confidentially if that is their choice? There was only a passing reference to violence against women and girls in the statement, despite evidence of the scale of that problem in our schools and in society. As the curriculum will at all times be age-appropriate, will the Secretary of State tell us why and how the opt-out applies to that part of the curriculum, and will he ensure that children will have the right to opt in to these lessons? Children must know their rights if they are to exercise them throughout their lives.
The Secretary of State will know that nearly half of LGBT pupils are bullied at school, yet fewer than half of them tell anyone about it, and this leads to pupils skipping school. The statistics on suicide attempts are truly shocking. I hope that the Secretary of State is mindful of the trans community, who experience terrible bigotry, yet two in five LGBT pupils are never taught anything about LGBT issues at school. Can he guarantee today that LGBT issues will be integrated in the curriculum and not an optional extra?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments on health education and the inclusion of mental health, but will there be any additional resources for mental health support? Will there be any additional funding for schools’ new educational duties, or are they being given new responsibilities when their budgets are already under severe pressure?
Parents tell me that they want their children to be well educated, safe and resilient. I hope that this new curriculum will help us to achieve that, but can the Secretary of State tell us how he will assess the impact of these reforms to ensure that this is the case?
A curriculum must be supported by the teachers who teach it. Will there be any new teachers who are trained to deliver the curriculum, and what new training will be available for all teachers who deliver it? Schools across the country are waiting for the report of the School Teachers’ Review Body and the Government’s response, even as the clock ticks down to the start of the new academic year. Will the Secretary of State undertake to come back with a statement on that before the House rises next week?
Earlier this week, Mr Speaker congratulated the Mother of the House, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), on joining the illustrious few of us Members who are grandparents. I am the grandmother to a seven-month-old, and I want to see her growing up happy, healthy and safe. If the House gets this issue right, we can make that more likely. I hope that these reforms will be in place and working well long before she is in school, and I look forward to telling her that we all played a part in making that happen.
Damian Hinds
I thank the hon. Lady for the tone and content of her response. I join her in thanking and commending all those on both sides of the House who have been involved in the development of these matters over quite an extended period, particularly during the passage of the Bill that became the Children and Social Work Act.
The hon. Lady asked what was truly mandatory. The only part of the curriculum that it is possible to withdraw from is the sex part of relationships and sex education. If a primary school offered sex education—that is not mandatory, but if it were—the right to withdraw would also apply there.
The hon. Lady asked—it is a reasonable question—how we make sure this actually happens. Schools have an obligation to have regard to guidance, and they do. There is also, of course, the system of Ofsted inspection, which looks at the moral and spiritual development of children.
On how the right to withdraw will operate and the ability of children to opt in, there will continue to be, as I outlined in my statement, a parental right to withdraw. Its nature will change because the age-18 right is no longer consistent with legal precedent. There are cases where the parent wishes to withdraw the child from sex education and the child does not want that, but we are not expecting large numbers of those. Only a very small number of parents now withdraw their children from sex education; of course, there is sex education in most schools. In that case, the child would be able to access a term of sex education before reaching 16.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right about bullying, including bullying of children who are LGBT. A couple of things are very important and essential in that regard. The first thing is to be talking, from an early age, about the reality of bullying, but also, crucially, about some of the aspects of online bullying, which, by definition, is harder for grown-ups to understand than for children whose daily reality it is. It is also about having the core building blocks, from a very early age, of respect for others, kindness, getting on with people, and understanding that there are differences and that this is something to be celebrated.
The hon. Lady asked about mental health. We are putting considerable resource behind the mental health strategy. We have put out the Green Paper and we will respond before too long.
The hon. Lady asked about new duties being put on teachers and what support would be in place. She also asked specifically about the teachers’ pay award. I am not in a position to say something about that today, but it is, as she knows, a process that we are going through. On support for teachers and schools in delivering this new content, we will listen, through the consultation, to what schools tell us. I am open to what sort of support that should be, including how we work with initial teacher training and other training, but also, critically, with regard to the provision of quality materials. A lot of those already exist, but some may not and will need to be developed. We need to make sure that there is a repository where schools can go and reliably find quality materials for teaching these subjects.
The hon. Lady’s particular perspective, not only as a mother but as a grandmother, brings something additional to this matter. I join her in welcoming these moves forward and the benefits that they will have for all our children—and grandchildren.
Several hon. Members rose—
Diana Johnson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was expecting to be called last because of my outburst.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Lady is forgiven, and she has an important point to make.
Diana Johnson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
My outburst was because I was so flabbergasted that the Government have now adopted the position that this House was debating in 2010 when the last Labour Government were in power. I remember very well the Schools Minister, who is sitting on the Front Bench today, arguing absolutely against the proposals that the Secretary of State is now making. However, having just looked up the biblical verse saying that when one sinner repents there is much rejoicing in heaven, I am really pleased that we are now in the position today where the Government are finally doing the right thing. But why does it have to take another two years to get to the point where our children and young people can have access to the quality relationships and sex education that we want them to have?
Damian Hinds
I welcome what I think were the hon. Lady’s words of welcome for what the Government are bringing forward today. Look, this has been a journey. Society changes. It is 18 years since this guidance was last updated. A lot has changed in the world since then, including the online world, and it is right that we reflect that.
The hon. Lady asked why it needs to take two years for children to be able to access good-quality content. It does not. Many schools do much of this today. Through this exercise, we will ensure that it is done comprehensively throughout the system, while also increasing consistency and making sure that children can access quality materials. We will make sure that this is all available from September 2019. As for when it becomes compulsory, I have made a commitment to the profession to give it due time to prepare for significant changes like this. I think that is the right approach.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
In 2016, the Women and Equalities Committee called for compulsory relationships and sex education to help to tackle a culture of unacceptable sexual harassment in schools. I am so proud that this Conservative Government have listened and acted after a cross-party amendment to the Bill that became the Children and Social Work Act, so that, after a decade and a half of inaction by Governments of all colours, these proposals are before us today.
I pay tribute to the huge number of organisations that have campaigned on this over many years, including Girlguiding, the Children’s Society and Stonewall—the list goes on. There are also individuals who are behind why we are here today, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening). The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), who is in her place, has done huge amounts behind the scenes to make sure that this is happening today. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for continuing with this work, and the Minister for School Standards, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), for his tenacity in giving us improving standards in our schools and being able to embrace these sorts of ideas, which are challenging for Members across the House.
These are issues of child safety. How will we ensure that we do not have to wait another 17 years for this guidance to be updated? I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be thinking about that, but perhaps he could talk about it further. We also have to get the Government’s recommendations put into action, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) said, and avoid any further bureaucracy. What can parents do now to make sure that the schools that their children are in put compulsory relationships and sex education in place by September 2019 and do not create any further delay?
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend was correct to identify, as did the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), a number of individuals and organisations that have been instrumental in this process. She could of course have added herself to that list; I commend her for her work.
My right hon. Friend is right about the importance of children knowing about issues around harassment and sexual violence. This whole approach is about building up from the very basic building blocks of respect for others. Then, as things develop and children get older, yes, it is very important to deal with these matters. Page 22 of the guidance states: “Pupils should know” about
“the concepts of, and laws relating to, sexual consent, sexual exploitation, abuse, grooming, coercion, harassment and domestic abuse and how these can affect current and future relationships.”
The hon. Lady asked about how parents can ensure that this is happening in schools, but of course in many schools it is happening. It is important to say that. We want schools to publish their policies on these matters and to encourage parental engagement.
Finally, on updates, yes, it must not be another 18 years before that happens again. We will update the guidance about every three years, because the pace at which the world is now changing—the online world in particular—requires that.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the Secretary of State for making the statement. The issue is clearly a devolved one, but I have done a lot of work on financial education and its importance. It is a shame that financial education is not compulsory, because it is certainly an education that we all—every single person across the United Kingdom—need in day-to-day living. Financial education is not just about maths; it is about mental health, because being in debt at a young age or not knowing how to manage personal finances lies behind much of the depression, self-harm and suicides that we see among young people. Financial education is also key to relationships, because financial abuse can be a key component of domestic abuse. Being able to manage our finances independently is extremely important in ensuring that people can move on from those types of damaging relationships. Will the Secretary of State therefore look at the importance of financial education within the curriculum and ensure that everyone has the day-to-day living skills that they require for healthy and fulfilling relationships and lives?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is right about the importance of financial education, and both the maths and citizenship curriculums include financial education content, such as practical aspects of the sort that she outlined. Another thing in the consultation document, although it is not in the headlines of the description, is a question about what more we might do for 16 to 18-year-olds. Now that the participation age is up to 18, when record numbers of people go away from home to university and have to budget and so on for the first time, we are asking what more could be done for 16 to 18-year-olds.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
As has been said, education is a devolved area, but across the UK there is concern that in 2018 one in three young people made new friends online and that, sadly, one in four pupils reported being bullied online, and in the online world there is no respect for devolved or reserved boundaries or indeed for national borders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that keeping children safe online must be a priority of effective relationships and sex education?
Damian Hinds
I agree with my hon. Friend. The danger is that we grown-ups talk about helping children to make the distinction between the online and offline worlds, and how a social media friend is not the same as a proper friend, but for children growing up today I am not sure that there is a dividing line between the online and offline worlds—they are both an integral part of self. That makes it even more important to talk, right from the start, about the things that he mentions. From the very beginning, therefore, the curriculum includes online issues.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s statement. As he is aware, children and young people with learning disabilities are particularly vulnerable to bullying and indeed sexual abuse. What steps is he taking to ensure very good-quality relationships and sex education in schools for children with special educational needs, as well as in mainstream schools where children with learning difficulties are educated, to ensure that those children are properly protected as well?
Damian Hinds
This applies to all schools. In the consultation, I am very open to hearing from special schools, SENCOs—special educational needs co-ordinators—and others dealing with children who have particular needs and requirements in this area about what, if anything, we need to do, in particular about training or materials in that regard.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I, too, congratulate the Government on making progress on this important issue. There is cross-party agreement on its importance, and I hope that I played a small part with a private Member’s Bill that I promoted. In particular, I welcome the Secretary of State’s focus on mental health, but I will express two other quick concerns.
First, will PSHE and RSE be made available as free teacher subject specialism training courses? The training will be key, and we need to see it as part of the free teacher subject specialism.
Secondly, on withdrawing children from sex education, I do not think that the Secretary of State’s compromise works. All children in all schools should receive PSHE and RSE, and children’s rights and safety are at the heart of this. Let us not forget that the guidelines on female genital mutilation for health workers in schools already include withdrawal from sex education as an indicator of risk. I therefore gently ask him to look at the issue again. Children absolutely have to be at the heart of this policy and I am worried that his compromise does not do that.
Damian Hinds
I am happy to add the hon. Lady to the list of people who have played a part in this. People of course cannot withdraw from relationships education or from the sex education aspects of the science curriculum, and there are some aspects in the health curriculum, on puberty in particular. On the question of support for schools, the training needs and so on, we will look at all that through the consultation. I want to hear from schools about what they think is most important.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the statement by the Secretary of State. I am very pleased to have played a very small part in this, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) and the former Member for Crewe and Nantwich who did such great work on the Children and Social Work Bill—I was the Whip.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about child sexual exploitation. From what I understand about the parental opt-out, my concern is that it will contribute to some young women in particular having insufficient knowledge and understanding of what sexual consent means. They might not be able to understand what is taught to them about child sexual exploitation or abuse. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the consultation has scope to include organisations that are specialists in child sexual exploitation?
Damian Hinds
I must add the hon. Lady, too, to the growing list, and yes, and we have already been listening to those expert organisations, some of whom create their own materials to help in teaching, running assemblies and so on. To be clear, it is not possible to withdraw from the parts of the curriculum that are connected with knowing where to get help or about the dangers that exist online and off. As I said, in primary school everyone will be going through relationships education, which will include staying safe online and offline. Relationships education includes awareness of where to go for help and of what is acceptable and what is not. These days, consent is a much broader question than it was, because of the online world, sexting and all such developments, and all children will be made aware of those matters.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, welcome the statement, and perhaps I may add to the list of those who have campaigned for relationships and sex education in primary and secondary and for some of the updating that has now happened: in my role as shadow Minister with responsibility for preventing violence against women and girls, I have worked closely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper).
May I pick up on the particular point about prevention of violence against women? The Secretary of State alluded to some of the things that are in the guidance on abusive relationships, but there is evidence that a growing number of young people—teenagers and those just a little older—are subject to violent relationships. To what extent will resources be provided for specialist training and for organisations such as the Hollie Gazzard Trust—founded in memory of Hollie Gazzard who was 20 years old when she was killed by her ex-partner—to ensure that young people, boys and girls, understand the difference between an abusive and a healthy relationship?
Damian Hinds
Yes, this is fundamental. Understanding healthy relationships, what constitutes a positive relationship and what is not reasonable to have happen are the fundamental elements running through relationships education guidance. It starts with one’s relationships with family and friends, and as children get older it goes on to intimate relationships and so on. Specifically on the guidance, I am open to hearing from all organisations, including the one that the hon. Lady mentioned.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I, too, welcome the consultation. It is overdue, but I sincerely hope that the Government will press forward with it. I want to press the Secretary of State one more time on financial education. He may well have seen the harrowing BBC drama this week “Killed By My Debt”, the true story of 19-year-old of Jerome Rogers, who took his own life because of financial debt. The Secretary of State says that financial education should not be made compulsory because it is in other aspects of the national curriculum, but he will know that free schools and academies do not have to follow the national curriculum. How can he guarantee that all children, no matter what school they are in, have the skills they need to manage their finances?
Damian Hinds
I did not see the programme the hon. Lady mentioned, but I am very familiar with these issues. Before this job and before I was a Minister in the Government, I used to campaign on issues of financial education, and I very much welcomed the bringing in of more financial education and the shift to make sure that the GCSE included practical maths. As part of the process of looking at the aspects we are talking about today, I have been through that content in detail to check that it does in fact cover those practical aspects in exactly that way. Of course, all schools do maths, so there is not an opt-out in that sense. As I mentioned to the hon. Lady next to her—did I say this to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)? I do not know; it was a while ago—I am also considering whether there is more we need do about very practical life skills and preparation for adulthood for 16 to 18-year-olds.
Madam Deputy Speaker
My apologies. The prize for patience and perseverance goes to Kerry McCarthy.
Kerry McCarthy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I very much welcome this statement. It is important that we reflect on the fact that this is not just about providing protection for possible victims of sexual abuse, exploitation, bullying and unhealthy relationships, but about reaching out to potential perpetrators, which is why it is important that as many young people as possible are part of this programme.
I want to ask about physical health education, particularly education about food. May I urge the Secretary of State to look at the work of the children’s future food inquiry? It is being carried out by two all-party groups, and it will report early next year. It is one thing to teach children what healthy food looks like, but if they are living in food poverty and do not have access to healthy food, that will not go very far.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is right to identify the importance of the physical health parts of this programme. That touches on the obesity strategy, and we know that obesity is a serious problem that we have to face. This is really about empowering children to make good decisions about what they eat and about exercise; it is also about smoking and alcohol, and good decisions in such cases obviously involve just not doing them or, in the case of alcohol, not doing it to excess. Doing so from an early age is incredibly important. I will have a look at the report that she mentioned.
Points of Order
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) is perfectly in order to raise a point of order and I will come to her in just a moment, but I first call Madeleine Moon.
Mrs Moon
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, a written statement has been released by the Ministry of Defence on the modernising defence programme. It says very little apart from warm words and platitudes, but the issue of great interest across the defence estate is when we are going to have a contractual agreement on the airborne early warning and control capability—the new airborne warning and control system plane—which is vital to our defence and security. There is great concern that there may be an attempt to release the details of a military-to-military sale, rather than of an open tender, during the recess. May I seek your advice and guidance on the protocol, because if the Ministry of Defence is planning to award such a contract, it should do so while the House is sitting so that it can receive suitable scrutiny from Members of Parliament?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. She is right to use this opportunity in the Chamber to raise the point that concerns her, but I am sure she will appreciate that the time at which any Department releases information or the way in which it comes to a conclusion such as the one she has described is not of course a point of order for the Chair. However, she has taken this opportunity to put her point on the record, and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted it. I also have every confidence that if something of significance occurs during the parliamentary recess, the appropriate Minister will come to the Dispatch Box in the Chamber as soon as we come back after the recess. I certainly hope so, but if that does not happen, the hon. Lady will I am sure have a point of order to raise with Mr Speaker.
Wera Hobhouse
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During Exiting the European Union questions earlier, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), said:
“Manufacturing is at a record high”.
This is factually incorrect. The most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in April manufacturing output fell by 1.4% compared with the previous month, the sharpest fall for five years. Similarly, the UK’s trade balance deteriorated further in April, falling by £2.1 billion. I am still a new Member, and I am perturbed, but is it acceptable for Ministers to make sweeping, unsupported, incorrect factual statements, especially when they encourage us and others to stick to the facts? I would really like your advice.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising her point of order. She notes that she is a new Member. I am not a new Member, and over the decades I have heard hundreds of people use statistics in this place—
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have heard hundreds of Ministers, as well as non-Ministers, use statistics in this place, and every statistic is of course open to interpretation and to being used to put a political point of view, whatever that point of view might be. If it turns out that there has been a factual error, I am sure that the Minister in question will apologise to the House and to the hon. Lady, but if it is a question of the interpretation of statistics—in my experience, it usually is—then that is a matter for debate. The hon. Lady has, however, used the opportunity of raising a point of order to put her interpretation of the facts properly on the record.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now have to notify the House about Royal Assent to certain Bills. In accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2018
Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018
Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Act 2018
Northern Ireland Budget Act 2018
Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Act 2018.
Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 22 / Noes: 79 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am happy to inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of Sir Kevin Barron.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
I beg to move,
That this House approves the Second Report from the Committee on Standards, Independent Complaints and Grievance Policy: Implementation, HC1396, and the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme Delivery Report and its proposals for ensuring clear standards for all who work in or visit Parliament, and, in particular:
(1) endorses the Behaviour Code and the policies and procedures relating to bullying and harassment and sexual harassment associated with the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme set out in the Delivery Report;
(2) agrees the following amendments to The Code of Conduct:
(i) in Section IV (General Principles of Conduct), after paragraph 8 insert the following new paragraph:
“Parliamentary Behaviour Code
Members are also expected to observe the principles set out in the Parliamentary Behaviour Code of respect, professionalism, understanding others’ perspectives, courtesy, and acceptance of responsibility.”;
(ii) in Section V (Rules of Conduct), add the following new rule as Rule [17]:
“Respect
A Member must treat their staff and all those visiting or working for or with Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect.”;
(3) agrees the following changes to Standing Orders:
A. Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards)
(i) in paragraph (5), at end insert “save as specified in paragraph (5A) of this Order”;
(ii) after paragraph (5) insert new paragraph (5A) of this Order:
“(5A) It shall be an instruction to the Committee that before dividing on any motion, the Committee should hold an indicative vote of lay and elected members to ascertain the views on the motion of the Committee as a whole and of each member present; that such a vote should be conducted as if it were a formal division; that, as in a formal division, the Chair should not take part in the initial vote but should have a casting vote in the event of a tie; that after holding such a vote the results should be recorded in the Committee’s formal minutes, without question put; and that after holding such a vote the Committee may or may not proceed to a formal division of elected Members.”;
B. Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)
(i) in paragraph (2), at end add the following new sub-paragraph:
“(f) to consider cases arising from the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme”;
(ii) in paragraph (4), at end add the following new sub-paragraph:
“(c) in any case arising from the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme where the Commissioner has proposed remedial action within any procedure approved by the Committee with which the Member concerned has complied or, if the remedy is prospective, undertaken to comply”;
(4) recognises the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to consider cases arising from the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme; notes the arrangements about publishing the details of investigations of such cases to ensure complaints are handled confidentially as set out in the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme Delivery Report; and accordingly agrees that, for consistency and fairness, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should no longer routinely publish information about individual investigations before those investigations are concluded and accordingly agrees to amend sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (12) of Standing Order No. 150 by inserting “statistical” before “information” and leaving out “and matters under investigation”;
(5) recognises that Dame Laura Cox QC is conducting an independent inquiry into the allegations of bullying and harassment of House of Commons staff, whose Terms of Reference were published on 23 April 2018; notes that the inquiry relies upon past and present staff members coming forward with information in person or in writing; notes further that the inquiry, while not investigating any individual complaints or reopening past cases, will consider what options are available for resolving current or historical allegations and providing support to those affected; accordingly agrees that a further independent inquiry in similar terms be established, by the Clerk of the House in consultation with the relevant authorities in the House of Lords as appropriate, to consider allegations of bullying and harassment in respect of those individuals including MPs and their staff, where those allegations are not in scope of the Dame Laura Cox QC inquiry; and directs that the inquiry should report directly to the House in time for its findings to be taken into account in the 6 month review of the scheme established under paragraph (6) of this motion;
(6) endorses the proposal in the report that there should be reviews of the new arrangements at 6 months and 18 months, and invites the Leader of the House to propose the establishment of a review body, including staff representation, to the House of Commons Commission for their consideration and agreement, in consultation with the relevant authorities in the House of Lords as appropriate; those reviews should incorporate
(a) the findings of the independent review set up under paragraph (5) of this motion and
(b) the findings of the Dame Laura Cox QC inquiry which deals with matters relating to staff of the House;
(7) directs the Accounting Officer to meet those costs of the inquiry under paragraph (5) and the reviews under paragraph (6) falling to the House of Commons from the House of Commons (Administration) Vote.
Today gives us a new start. Since last November, Westminster has been rocked by allegations of bullying and harassment, and today we demonstrate our determination to put our house in order and ensure that everyone will be treated with dignity and respect in future. This debate and vote comes as a result of the tireless work and dedication of the programme team, who have driven the implementation of the working group’s proposals. The programme team was overseen by a cross-party steering group made up of staff representatives and Members of both Houses. To everyone who has been involved in this process and supported and provided advice, I am extremely grateful. Most importantly, we probably would not be having this debate were it not for the bravery and spirit of those women and men who have chosen to speak out about their personal experiences. We thank them for taking that step on behalf of everyone who has been treated wrongly.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
As the right hon. Lady would expect, I have talked to my staff about this policy and asked them whether they think it is a step forward. They do, but they also want the House to recognise the Unite branch and give it a role in the reviewing and implementation of the procedure, to embed union protection in the workplace. Has that idea been discussed or progressed?
Andrea Leadsom
That idea has been discussed a number of times through the working group. It was decided not to include that specific recognition, mainly because there are many different organisations in this place, all of which do a good job. Therefore, there is no non-recognition, but neither is there a specific formalised recognition of the Unite branch within the complaints procedure.
The motion asks the House to endorse specific changes that were identified in the working group’s report that was published and agreed by the House in February. Today, the principles of that report will become reality. First, today’s motion asks the House to approve the independent complaints and grievance scheme delivery report, and in doing so it will also ask the House to endorse a new behaviour code that makes it clear to all those who come here—whether an MP, member of staff, peer, contractor or visitor—the standard expected of everyone in Parliament.
Secondly, the motion asks the House to eliminate the threat of exposure that prevents many people from coming forward, by ensuring that all investigations are managed confidentially. Thirdly, it will provide the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards with a broader set of powers and make changes to the Committee on Standards, including to the voting role of lay members. Fourthly, it proposes that a further independent inquiry be established, with similar terms to the Dame Laura Cox inquiry, to hear historical allegations about Members, peers and their staff. Finally, the motion will make provision for a full review of those arrangements after six and 18 months.
In addition to the measures in today’s motion, the steering group has established two independent helplines—one to deal with bullying, and one to deal with sexual misconduct—as well as independent HR advice for staff, and there is an aspiration to improve the general culture of Parliament, including through a new programme of comprehensive training. Members, staff and the public can rest assured that this new independent complaints and grievance policy puts the complainant at the very heart of the process, while taking care to ensure that the principles of innocent until proven guilty are upheld. The ICGP will be fair and transparent, and I believe it will win the confidence of everyone.
Following an intensive period of implementation, today is the final parliamentary hurdle to getting this much needed new scheme up and running. This is the first step, not the final step, towards the culture change that we all want. That is why we have built in a six and 18-month review of the scheme, to ensure that it achieves exactly what we set out to do. Importantly, the six-month review will take careful account of the findings of the independent inquiry by Dame Laura Cox QC and the further independent inquiry that we are establishing today.
Let me turn to the key elements of today’s motion. First, the new behaviour code will apply to everyone on the parliamentary estate. It has been drawn up following extensive consultation with trade unions, staff associations and the public, who were asked for their views about what behavioural expectations we should have of those working for and within Parliament. It seeks to ensure that everyone in and working for Parliament is respected and valued and that we take a zero-tolerance approach to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. Unacceptable behaviour will be dealt with seriously and with effective sanctions.
Today’s motion will also make changes to the Standing Orders for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and to the Committee on Standards. We propose that the commissioners of both Houses keep their investigations entirely confidential until such time as there is a finding. That is crucial if individuals are to place their trust in the new system. There is clearly a balance to be struck between public interest in transparency and putting the complainant at the heart of the process by protecting their identity, and that is vital. In deciding whether to publish any findings, the PCS will also put the complainant’s wishes at the heart of the decision.
I thank, very sincerely, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) for the extremely thoughtful and collaborative way that he and his Committee came to their position. I must point out, however, that we have had to respectfully disagree on one issue, which is about whether confidentiality should also be observed during an investigation in non-ICGP cases. I would be the last person to want to avoid transparency, but for this scheme to succeed, it is vital that we achieve consistency. The amendment by the Committee on Standards would effectively mean that there is one process for ICGP cases and a different one for non-ICGP cases.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
As the right hon. Lady knows, we have agreed on nearly everything in the report. On this issue, however, I wish to put on record that I did not agree with the position of the group, which was to say that we did not want the amendment tabled by the Committee on Standards. Consistency is not the most important issue, and the optics of this House rolling back transparency are deeply worrying. I would far rather live with a bit of inconsistency, particularly since it essentially means that—quite rightly—MPs are under more of a spotlight. That to me is a much lesser concern than the fact that it looks to the outside world—indeed, to some extent it is true—that we are rolling back transparency at exactly the time we should be expanding it.
Andrea Leadsom
I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Lady for her considerable efforts on this scheme but, very respectfully, I disagree with her on that point. She and I have had a number of conversations about the matter, and we have always been clear that the confidentiality at the heart of this policy must be observed so that a complainant will have the confidence to come forward. As I am sure Members will appreciate, a difference in process between ICGP and non-ICGP cases will be lost on those who observe it, which will inevitably lead to confusion. People will not think, “Oh well, this procedure must be for one issue, and that must be for another issue.” They will just see the naming of an individual, and that will have repercussions for those who want to come forward in confidence to a complaints procedure, feeling that their confidentiality will be upheld.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I want to endorse what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) has said. I am a member of the Committee on Standards, and the right hon. Lady will be aware that I have added my name to the amendment. We already receive complaints about non-ICGP matters, and I do not think I have seen any evidence during my time on the Committee to suggest that complainants are deterred from bringing such matters to attention of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I am concerned, however, that reports often appear in the media, even before the matter has been formally referred to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Under the proposal by the Leader of the House, it would be impossible for anything to be on the record that would enable an innocent Member to rebut those allegations in the media. I urge her to consider the amendment, which, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) will soon say, is supported by lay members of the Committee, as well by as non-lay members.
Andrea Leadsom
I entirely respect the hon. Lady’s views, but I think that she might be slightly misunderstanding. We are talking about confidentiality during the process of the investigation only. Once an investigation is completed, in the event that there have been reports in the media, in a non-ICGP case—as is the case today—the report would be made publicly available. The steering group advocates that all investigations be carried out confidentially to ensure consistency, now that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is dealing with extremely sensitive issues that will inevitably be far more open to public scrutiny than in the past.
Right from the beginning, we have sought in this scheme to put the complainant at the heart of the process. All the evidence we have taken demonstrates that confidentiality is a key factor that will encourage victims to come forward. I cannot emphasise that enough. The evidence we have taken shows that, if we do not protect the confidentiality of victims, they will not come forward. We are already in a scenario where too many victims never come forward with their complaints, because they are afraid of being re-victimised by being accused of lying, causing trouble and so on. If we are serious about changing the culture in this place, confidentiality and consistency are vital elements. So again, in thanking the right hon. Member for Rother Valley for his careful consideration, I urge Members to vote against his amendment.
The motion will significantly extend the scope of the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to consider complaints arising from the scheme. The commissioner will be given access to a wider range of sanctions, enabling her to deal more effectively with many cases through apologies, training, behaviour agreements and so on, as well as ensuring independent oversight of investigations.
Finally, the motion sets out changes to the procedures of the Standards Committee, which will receive both appeals and the most serious cases for its consideration. Its voting system will be amended at its request, so that all members, including all lay members, will have a vote. Should the House accept those changes, detailed guidance will be available online immediately, but I want to outline briefly how the new scheme will work.
For anyone with a complaint, the first step is to contact a confidential helpline, where their issue can be considered and triaged. Where individuals decide to pursue a formal complaint, they will be supported to access one of two independent services: one to deal with bullying and harassment and a separate one to deal with sexual misconduct. Should a complaint have criminal implications, the steering group has agreed to establish an information-sharing protocol with the Metropolitan police to make them aware, in the interests of safeguarding and ensuring the scheme could not prejudice a criminal investigation, when such a complaint has been made. The protocol will maintain the confidentiality of complainants, who will decide for themselves whether to take their complaint to the police.
For each complaint, the telephone helpline and investigatory service will seek mediation and informal resolutions wherever possible or appropriate. Where that is not the case, an independent investigation will be opened. Complaints of sexual harassment or assault will have access to an independent sexual misconduct advisory service, which is a specialist service that can provide confidential, independent specialist and trained support in relation to sexual misconduct. In the case of complaints against Members of Parliament, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will oversee the independent investigation. She will apply sanctions as appropriate, or, in more serious cases, refer them to the Standards Committee. The Standards Committee can of course apply sanctions right up to a lengthy suspension, triggering the Recall of MPs Act 2015. Following a decision on any case, there is of course an opportunity for appeal.
When the working group report was published, there were two outstanding issues. I am pleased to be able to provide clarity on them today. First, when the working group started taking evidence last November, we were advised that House staff had access to the respect policy, which was considered to be entirely adequate for their needs. Since then, it has come to light that there have been difficulties with the respect policy, so the steering group has been clear about its desire to give all staff access to the new ICGP scheme. I am very pleased to tell the House that the House of Commons Commission has now agreed that staff of the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Digital Service should be able to access the ICGP from day one.
Secondly, while anyone can call the new helplines with a complaint, investigations under the new scheme can only go back as far as the beginning of this Parliament. The steering group is, however, determined that we should be able to help all those with complaints, no matter how long ago they occurred. Today’s motion will therefore establish an independent six-month long inquiry into historical allegations using similar terms of reference to the Dame Laura Cox inquiry. The findings of both inquiries will be taken into careful account when we undertake the full review of the ICGP after six months of its operation.
I want to conclude by making it clear that this is the beginning not the end of our efforts to change the culture of Parliament. With our new behaviour code, complaint scheme and sanctions, this is an excellent step in the right direction. Our ultimate ambition is for a culture where people can work and visit Parliament and take part in our democracy free from unacceptable behaviour and free from bullying or harassment and where individuals are free to thrive and make a difference. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Parliament. We want to be a role model for legislatures around the world in our determination to tackle our own challenges head on. Many millions of people across the world look to Westminster as a beacon of democracy and freedom. I hope that today will be seen as Parliament leading by example in our determination to treat everyone with dignity and respect. I commend the motion to the House.
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I echo the sentiments of the Leader of the House and thank the programme team and the cross-party steering committee. Some of the programme team are in the House today. I thank them for interpreting our ramblings in all the discussions—both agreements and disagreements. I thank all the specialist advisers, who were informative and progressive, and actually mentioned intersectionality before I had the chance to in a meeting. I thank MPs across the parties and the trade unions—it was a joy to work with all of them. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and the Leader of the House for her excellent chairing of the committee.
These codes are bringing Parliament into the 21st century. Behaviour or sexual harassment codes will not work on their own, but as a statement of principle, they are an excellent start with regard to our cultural intent, and they set the parameters in terms of behaviour. These codes are needed to encompass our shared mission.
I want to address a few points. Paragraph 18 on page 11 of the delivery report refers to promoting consistency and maintaining quality. Consistency and quality can be achieved only if there are clear and transparent guidelines, not a reliance on discretion. I hope, as discussed by the committee, that at the six-month review stage, we will look into removing discretion from the policy, as that opens the door to unconscious bias. The committee tried to use the most up-to-date language and safeguarding processes. This in itself will be a learning curve to everyone in this place and beyond. At the core of this policy is our mission to change the culture of this House, and, as the Leader of the House said, to make it a safe and progressive place to work.
Parliament is a unique place to work, with 650 micro-businesses in a macro environment of the electorate, our constituents and our constituencies. The constituency office is included in the codes, even though all the issues relating to it have not been resolved.
We have stressed the importance of diversity in the delivery of training and personal development. I think that means that we will be using smaller, specialist and perhaps unconventional providers in Parliament to ensure that we deliver on diversity of delivery. The report makes reference to unconscious bias training, and that is a case in point, because sometimes smaller providers specialise in such areas. It is also vital that decision makers receive additional training, as well as unconscious bias training. I am pleased to say that I look forward to attending the training pilot. As a trained trainer trainer, I will happily dust down my old skills and help the House to design the best training possible. Other Members of the House are encouraged to put their names forward to be part of the reviewing team for training so that we can get the best possible training for the House.
Everyone involved in the delivery of sanctions needs to be fully trained, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the members of the Committee on Standards and, of course, the investigators. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ role has been extended, so training is vital, and the bar for investigating MPs has now been lowered. That was a necessary step in changing the culture of this place, but it will in turn increase the commissioner’s workload. At the six-month review, we will probably have to look at whether more resources are needed for her department. The document refers to the good employer standard, and I hope that at the six-month review we will look at implementing employee appraisals. I am not sure whether we concluded our talk on whether exit questionnaires are now routinely used, but they are a vital tool to help an organisation’s culture change.
I want this House to be a beacon of good practice. The codes will apply to not only MPs, but all who work in and visit this place. The introduction of the scheme is the beginning of a sustained, well-supported and appropriately resourced approach to promoting a positive and supportive environment for those working in and visiting Parliament. That is something we should all embrace.
We must not lose sight of how much good happens in this place—the opportunities that are offered to people, especially young people, and the work of many, including Mr Speaker, to improve the intersectionality, diversity and inclusion of all, including the LGBT+ community in this place. We must continue to have a supportive environment for everybody who works and visits here.
It is imperative that we incentivise and promote good behaviour. Training and personal development should be viewed not as a punishment, but as a way of contributing to an inclusive and progressive Parliament. After all, who would not want to improve what they do and do it better? That is how excellence is achieved.
Trade unions are often the first port of call, and I feel that Parliament needs to have an official recognition agreement with trade unions. Unite, GMB, the National Union of Teachers and the Public and Commercial Services Union are just a few that have a substantial membership in this place. Trade unions play a key role in workers’ lives. They are also a safe place to go to raise concerns, and this process has been substantially strengthened by the input of trade unions. If we are serious about getting this right, trade unions are also central to it.
As long, hard and arduous as the process has been, it has been worth it in the end for the document that we have produced. It all started as part of the #TimesUp and the #MeToo campaigns, and I was part of the very first meeting when the Leader of the Opposition called on the Prime Minister to adopt a cross-party approach to tackle and address the culture of bullying and harassment in Parliament. The Prime Minister agreed with the Leader of the Opposition and today is the result. This process shows what can be achieved when there is a shared goal and a shared commitment. It also shows what can be accomplished when we all work together towards a common endeavour. We can achieve more together than we can achieve alone, and I look forward to the next steps and the successful implementation of the scheme.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I pay enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I think that nobody would contradict me if I said that without her skill, implementing this new procedure would simply not have happened. It is easy for all of us to call for action and say, “Something should be done,” but it takes a particular skill to actually deliver that, and I pay tribute to her for having dealt with all the factions that have been at play and bringing us to this successful conclusion today.
It is important that we lead by example in this place and that we act, because people have a right to feel safe wherever they work, whether that is in Parliament or anywhere. I pay tribute to the individuals, particularly the women, who have come forward and had the courage to speak out when many hundreds before them have not. My heart goes out to those who may be listening to today’s debate who have experienced sexual harassment or bullying in this place before these procedures have come forward. I hope that they can find some comfort in the fact that we are dealing with this in such a professional way. Parliament is overwhelmingly a good place to work, but there are instances when that is not the case. It is important for us and we have a responsibility to deal with that.
Although this is in a much broader context, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you do not mind my touching on the work of the Women and Equalities Committee. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), my fellow Committee member, will know—she is in the Chamber—we are looking at the issue of sexual harassment at work and the importance of recognising that the issues that we find challenging here in Parliament are part of a much wider context. It is a little disappointing that although back in 2007, organisations such as the Equal Opportunities Commission were looking at sexual harassment in work—it was one of its top-priority agenda items—the Equality and Human Rights Commission did not pick this up when it was established. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will know that the International Labour Organisation is bringing forward an international convention against sexual harassment at work. It began work on that in 2015. These are not new issues; they have been around for many, many years. I am glad that Parliament is leading the way and I hope that others will pick up some of the recommendations that we are putting forward today and, indeed, will be working on this themselves.
The Leader of the House is absolutely right to say that this is the beginning of a process. We need to keep some questions in mind as we move forward to reviews of the process in the next few months and years. It is important that we keep a close eye on the independence of the process from political parties and, in particular, the Whips. This process needs to be independent of that very intricate network that we have in this place.
I would also like to talk about confidentiality. All the evidence that was given to our Select Committee suggests that confidentiality is absolutely vital. The Leader of the House is entirely right to protect that, because the confidentiality of complainants is what matters. This is nothing to do with a lack of transparency regarding the behaviour of Members of Parliament. If we do not embrace that, this system will fail. It is important that others understand that, including perhaps those who have not looked at this issue in quite the detail that my right hon. Friend has. We are protecting the confidentiality of the complainant.
I would like to ask the Leader of the House a couple of questions. She touched on the issue of complaints about behaviour that predate the 2017 cut-off. This is vital. We ask companies and other organisations to deal with behaviour that is historical, yet it can feel as though this process does not take events that predate 2017 as seriously as those that post-date 2017. I understand the complexities of doing that, but will she reassurance me that any complaints that predate 2017 are dealt with in the same way with regard to confidentiality as those that are more recent? That is really important.
Perhaps my right hon. Friend can also think about ways in which we can give more advice to Members about how they deal with issues as they arise. That is another issue with which the Select Committee is having to deal. If an individual Member, or indeed a member of staff, witnesses sexual harassment or bullying behaviour, is that person obliged to report it, and if not, why not? We need to give Members that important advice, because we cannot allow bystanders simply to watch things going on without acting. This is a live issue. The Leader of the House may wish to read the Select Committee’s report when it is published next Wednesday—it deals with tackling the issue in the professions, where people are obviously obliged to behave in the right way.
In March, along with other Members, I attended a session of the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. There I met a member of the community delegation, who told us that members of the Canadian Cabinet were receiving training on sexual harassment that week. I should like some reassurance from my right hon. Friend that she can use her position to ensure that the same happens here, and happens speedily, right to the top of our organisation.
How we deal with bullying and sexual harassment really matters. This new process will build people’s confidence in the system, and as a result we may see an increasing number of complaints. That is not a sign that our organisation is in trouble. It is completely the opposite: it is a sign that the organisation is getting to grips with a problem, and gaining the confidence of its employees by talking about these issues more openly than has ever been the case in the past.
Again, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend. This is an extraordinary step forward for Parliament, and I hope that the Select Committee will be able to look at the reviews of the system as and when they are published.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who chairs the Women and Equalities Committee, and I look forward to the publication of her report next week. I think that it will make a useful contribution to the general debate that we are having about these issues in the House.
Let me start by thanking the Leader of the House for her opening contribution, and congratulating her on the leadership that she offered throughout the deliberations of the steering group. It seems a long time since the group was formed after all the party leaders had met. This has been quite a journey, as I think all of us who have been involved will agree. Certainly, during my 17 years in the House, I have not been involved in a piece of work that has been so detailed, so considered and so comprehensively reviewed, and rewritten on several occasions.
That says a great deal about the diligence of all the members of the group, many of whom are in the Chamber today, and the amount of work and effort that we have all been prepared to put in—particularly in trying to get down to London from Scotland on Monday afternoons in time for the meetings with staff. I think that that effort should be recognised. I also thank all the members of the secretariat who are sitting in their Boxes this afternoon for their hard work, and the commitment and the sheer effort that have gone into the delivery of this very good report.
The report is a joint piece of work which has involved Members of this House and the House of Lords, but, most important, it has involved members of staff and trade union representatives, as has already been recognised today. That is a novel and innovative way of working, and I cannot commend it enough: I think it is great. I think the involvement and buy-in of members of staff and their union representatives will give the report more credibility in the House, and that people will be reassured that it was designed not by Members of Parliament but—as the report says—by the parliamentary community. It was designed by the parliamentary community, for the parliamentary community. I hope that that will be recognised, and that the report will be accepted on that basis.
The report is a significant and ambitious piece of work, which I hope will help to redefine the culture in our Westminster workplace. Some appalling incidents and issues arose towards the end of last year, and we recognised then that something awful was happening in our workplace that had to be tackled. The efforts made by all parties in the House to do that properly should be commended. I think that the most important part of the report is the first sentence of the first paragraph, which states:
“It is vital that all those who engage with Parliament, whether working or visiting, are treated with dignity and respect”.
That is an obvious statement, but it cannot be repeated enough. It underpins every other part of the report, and every part of the work that we have undertaken.
In the last few months, we have tried to make sense of the motion that was passed in February, when the House agreed unanimously to proceed. The way in which the workstreams have been designed during those months has been very helpful and useful, enabling us to identify particular issues that needed to be addressed and ensure that there was a practical way forward. Hopefully, we now have a robust and effective regime that everyone in Parliament will be able to endorse and support.
That regime offers a strong foundation to promote better behaviour and improve the culture of Parliament. It delivers the commitments set out in the motion that was passed by the House in February, and, specifically, it helps to deliver a new behaviour code that recognises the need for Parliament to meet the highest ethical standards of integrity, courtesy and mutual respect. That has underpinned the work of the group over the past few months.
There will be an independent complaints and grievance scheme to underpin the code. There will be procedures to deal with reports of sexual harassment, which will include the provision of a specialist independent sexual violence advocate service and an independent specialist investigator. There will be a system of training to support the code, and work will be done to effect cultural change in order to support its principles. The Leader of the House is right: no other legislature in the world has attempted to do such ambitious work in this regard. Hopefully, it will set a standard for other legislatures not just throughout the United Kingdom but throughout the world, by showing what can be done when everyone gets together and tries to make progress.
There is always more to be done. As the report says, reviews will be held six and 18 months after implementation to ensure that we have made the necessary progress and can address the many issues that will doubtless arise. I am pretty certain that we have not managed to cover everything. I know that there have been many conversations and debates about other matters that could have been included in the report. I think that the reviews will be a useful starting point which will help us to establish whether anything needs to be covered further, and will, I hope, define and determine future work and inform the policies of the future.
Several issues consumed the group. For instance, we spent a great deal of time dealing with the issue of historic cases. I think there was general disappointment that the new scheme could not cover such cases, and we tried at least to do something to ensure that they could be taken up. Legal advice has, of course, been swirling around, and I invite Members to read, in the appendices of the report, about the advice that the group secured, so that they can reach their own conclusions.
I hope that what the Leader of the House has said about enabling people to come forward with historic cases will satisfy the House. It is disappointing that that could not be included in the scheme, but there is a route for such cases to be addressed, and I hope that Members will find that sufficient. We are well aware of the Dame Laura Cox review, and hope that it will inform some of the views that we will be able to take in six months’ time, when we presume that Dame Laura will be able to report to Parliament.
I think that the new direction offered to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is equally important. We concluded that the PCS remained the only viable authority for the assessment and handling of sanctions. Being asked to consider issues relating to behaviour and bullying will present new and significant challenges. However, the commissioner is entirely independent, and it is almost impossible to ensure that the independence currently enjoyed by the PCS can be replicated elsewhere. Obviously, the report contains new guidance on the operation of the PCS.
The chairman of the Committee on Standards, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), has tabled an amendment to the motion, and several concerns have been raised about transparency. That is just one of the tensions that emerged throughout our deliberations. I think that every member of the steering group was profoundly disappointed by the prospect of the loss of a degree of transparency to address the issue of confidentiality for those who might be minded to come forward. I will listen carefully to what is said by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) before I finally decide on my position, but I am veering towards what was said by the Leader of the House, and I hope to be able to accept her views on confidentiality. That has to be at the centre; everything has to start from that.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Would the hon. Gentleman be happy as a Member of this House if somebody went to the local press and said that he had been accused of breaching the code of conduct—not the new code of conduct, but the current one—and there was nobody to deny that an investigation was taking place, so he just had to accept the accusation?
Pete Wishart
In all honesty and candour, I would not be happy with that, but we are trying to secure that the starting point is confidentiality for the people who come forward. There are compromises and things that are uncomfortable and unsatisfactory, and perhaps in the six-month review—this is a request to the Leader of the House—we can start to look at this again. I understand totally both sides of this: I hate the idea that we are losing transparency on issues to do with the normal work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and we must try to address this further.
Kate Green
I understand the concerns about people coming forward, but for non-ICGP complaints, we have had a system for several years whereby, as soon as an allegation is made and it is open to investigation, it becomes public, and there is no evidence that that deters people from making reports for investigation, so I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider the amendment sympathetically. It does not mean that those who report allegations of bullying and harassment will not have their confidentiality protected; it is simply in respect of complaints that we have already investigated, over many years, and the way in which the Committee wishes to continue to investigate.
Pete Wishart
Again, I do not disagree with anything the hon. Lady says. That is why I am torn between both positions. I accept the need for consistency to ensure that confidentiality is at the heart of what we do, and I also want to deal with the issues the hon. Lady raises.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his considered words on this, and I want to assure all Members that this is not about rolling back transparency. I have asked whether the Standards Committee might consider a time-limited removal of that. I completely accept what the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said—that since 2010, the PCS has been able to name an individual on whom she is opening an investigation—but her role has significantly changed, and to have one process for non-ICGP and a separate one for ICGP is confusing. I asked the Committee whether it would consider dropping it for the first six months while the new procedure gets up and running, and it refused, which I find slightly astonishing. This is a genuine attempt—I do not think anyone would accuse me of not making a genuine attempt—to put confidentiality at the heart of the process for the sake of the complainant.
Pete Wishart
I have no issue with the Leader of the House on that; I accept that she has tried to do that, and I think we have all been trying to do so, but unfortunately we are at a point where there are disagreements among those of us who have been involved in this report, and we now see the amendment of the right hon. Member for Rother Valley and hear the concerns of the Standards Committee. I still want to hear from colleagues before I make a final decision, but I am veering towards the view of the Leader of the House on this. We must be consistent in how we deal with all these cases in this House.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have just checked Standing Order No. 150(12)(b) again, and its wording will not protect anonymity if there is no change. I am disappointed that the motion is not quite right and nor is the amendment. Therefore, because of the risk the amendment brings of breaching the confidentiality of a reporter in these cases, it cannot be supported, but we must address this issue in the six-month review and get it absolutely right.
Pete Wishart
That is a very helpful intervention, and perhaps the Leader of the House will confirm in summing up that this will be at the heart of the six-month review. Out of all the issues we have had to look at, this has been the most controversial and the most debated. If she can give an assurance to those of us in the group who are conflicted about this, that would go some way to assuaging my concerns, and perhaps those of Committee colleagues. I therefore ask for a solid commitment from the Leader of the House that this will be at the heart of the six-month review.
I want to address a couple of other important matters. The most important of them is training; this is a critical part of the report. The ideal situation is that the measures in this report are never deployed, and that means assisting Members and staff in how the code will apply. I am pleased that the features included in the training pack will be as follows: what constitutes bullying and harassment and sexual misconduct; the impact of inappropriate behaviours; the impact of power and unconscious bias on behaviours; ways to help prevent all forms of bullying and harassment at work; what to do if unacceptable behaviour happens; the role of the manager in preventing all forms of bullying and harassment at work; and informal and formal approaches to tackling unacceptable behaviours.
This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make the change needed to ensure that we all consider what we can all do to promote dignity and respect in our workplace. We encourage all members of the parliamentary community to support this scheme wholeheartedly and to uphold the important values it promotes. Some 15,000 people work in and around the parliamentary estate; I do not know how many visitors we get per year, but I suspect it is a greater number than that. We must make sure we serve them all and that anybody who has any contact with this House will be treated with the dignity and respect that underpin this report.
One thing that should unite everyone on the estate is the conviction that all who work here have a right to expect to work in an environment that is free from bullying and harassment, especially sexual harassment. There should be zero tolerance of any inappropriate behaviour. Parliament has to lead, because Parliament is the forum of our national debate and the centre of our democracy. We would shirk our responsibility if we did not tackle this issue and put out the strongest possible statement that such behaviour is unacceptable in this place. If we do not lead and establish solid procedures and processes to deal with our own issues, we will let down the people in every office block and every institution throughout the country, so it is our job to do this. We have to set the example, and I believe that this document does that. I hope the entire House wholeheartedly supports it.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment (a), in paragraph (4), leave out from “Report;” to the end.
I wish to begin by paying tribute to the work of the Leader of the House and her colleagues on the steering group. The Select Committee on Standards has worked very closely with the steering group on the various work-streams over the past few months. There is one issue over which we disagree, and I have tabled an amendment to deal with it, which I will come to shortly. Because I and some of my Committee colleagues have tabled that amendment, under the rules of procedure we are not able to put our names to the main motion; otherwise, I personally would certainly have done so.
I want to emphasise that, this one area apart, the Standards Committee is completely in accord with the steering group and its delivery report. We strongly support the work that has been done to bring Parliament into the modern age in terms of personal conduct. This is not about complicated rules or codes or Standing Orders; it is about ordinary human decency.
People should not bully or harass other people. They should not sexually harass them or abuse their power. That is obvious, and yet not everyone in this institution has behaved in a morally decent way. Parliament should be giving a lead on this, but we have been lagging behind. The Standards Committee made a big effort some years ago to expand the code of conduct to include some aspects of personal behaviour, but this was undermined when it came to be decided in the House by what I may call today “the forces of reaction”. Now we have another chance, and we must take it.
The Committee set out its views in a report published last week. This focuses on matters which are the direct responsibility of the Committee—in particular, complaints against Members and the role of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We have worked with the steering group to develop proposals to ensure that Members are properly held to account while maintaining an independent, fair, trusted and effective process.
We support the new parliamentary behaviour code. We propose that it should be incorporated in the Members’ code of conduct, alongside an additional rule stating that:
“A Member shall treat his or her staff, and all those working for or with Parliament with dignity, courtesy and respect.”
This will ensure that Members can be held fully to account for any instances of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment. The motion before the House today will achieve that.
We have given a great deal of thought to how the complaints process will work under the new system. Clearly it has to be sensitive, and supportive of the people who wish to bring forward complaints, but at the same time it must follow the principles of natural justice and be fair to the people who are complained about. We believe that the new system should build on the strengths of the existing system, in particular the role of the independent parliamentary commissioner, while tackling some of its weaknesses. We and the steering group propose that investigations relating to complaints against Members should be overseen by the independent commissioner.
In our report, we set out the background of the current commissioner, Kathryn Stone, who was recruited on merit through open and fair competition. She has a background in child protection and social care, and she has shown independent-mindedness in previous posts, including the particularly sensitive posts of commissioner of victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, commissioner of the Independent Police Complaints Commission and chief legal ombudsman for England and Wales. She also ran a charity for victims of crime, including sexual offences, for 11 years. I have had the privilege of seeing Kathryn in operation, and I have no doubt at all that she is a tough-minded person who will be fiercely independent in carrying out her new responsibilities.
The role of the Committee on Standards under the new system will be to carry out any appeal function that might be required. The ultimate decision on sanctions in serious cases will be taken by the House itself on the basis of a report on the case from the Committee, with the complainant anonymised and the report subjected to any redactions that the Committee considers necessary to protect the complainant. I know that some people are sceptical about involving the Committee because they think it will be a case of MPs marking their own homework. I have heard that view quite a few times in the media. I understand that point of view, but it does not reflect the reality of how the Committee operates. In particular, it does not take account of the crucial role of our independent lay members. There are now equal numbers of lay members and MPs on the Committee.
The lay members’ role is not widely understood. Our report gives more detail on this, and I urge Members to read it. In particular, they might like to look at the CVs of the lay members, which are set out in the appendix. They are members of the public, chosen on merit through open and fair competition, from diverse backgrounds and with a wide spread of experience and skills. None of them has been an MP, and nor are they in any way part of what people would call the parliamentary establishment. In general, the lay members work closely and harmoniously with the elected Members.
The Committee—like other Select Committees, and arguably more than most—proceeds by consensus. I have chaired other Select Committees in this House that have not had the type of consensus that the Committee on Standards works to. However, the lay members do not have voting rights—which we are aware of now—partly because of a concern that to confer such rights on them might open the work of the Committee to challenge in the courts. This concern is based on the ground that it is not a properly constituted Select Committee entitled to the protection of article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689. Notwithstanding this, any lay member has the power to append an opinion to a report of the Committee. That power has never been exercised, but it has been seen as an essential safeguard for the lay members’ independence. Any one of them could at any time express an opinion on any of our reports dealing with Members’ conduct, but they have never done so because of the consensual way in which we operate and because of the fairness with which we adjudicate against Members of the House.
Indeed, there have been only two occasions on which formal votes have been held since lay members first joined the Standards Committee. The most recent was in May this year. That led us to review our procedures, because there was clearly a flaw in the arrangements. Lay members can append an opinion to a Committee report but they do not have such a right if the Committee divides on a motion not relating to a report. As a general rule, this does not matter because most Committee decisions relate to reports. Reports are how we announce our decisions on individual cases. However, at the meeting in May, two votes took place on motions relating to the commissioner’s right to start an investigation. This drew attention to the fact that lay members had, in those unusual circumstances, no way of putting their views on record.
We have therefore introduced a new system of what we call indicative votes. This means that before the Committee has a formal vote involving only MPs, it should have a non-binding vote involving the whole Committee. We give more detail about this in our report. The motion before the House today will make this binding on the Committee, as we requested. In fact, the motion goes further than we requested, because it requires indicative votes to take place before all Divisions, including those on reports. We discussed this in the Committee last Tuesday and we are entirely happy with that. I should repeat that the vast majority of Committee decisions are taken by consensus. The point of the new procedure is to make it even less likely that things will be pushed to a formal vote. I certainly hope that that will be the case.
I should also mention that it would be wrong to think of the Committee as consisting of two opposing blocs: lay members and MPs. Except in relation to formal voting, both types of members are treated in exactly the same way and we work as a unified team. We are aware that indicative votes are an interim measure. Along with a majority of my colleagues on the Committee, I would like to see full voting rights given to lay members. We have called on the Government to bring forward primary legislation to guarantee that free speech in the Committee is protected by parliamentary privilege, as set down in the Bill of Rights 1689, in order to allow the extension of full voting rights to lay members. I hope that the Government will respond positively to this request.
Finally, I come to the one point of disagreement between the Committee and the steering group. This relates to the proposal in the motion to change the existing system under which the commissioner publishes details of ongoing investigations on her website. We entirely accept and support an extension of confidentiality in relation to complaints under the new system, particularly in relation to sexual harassment. There is a real need to ensure that victims of sexual harassment are given the confidence to use the new system, and confidentiality will play an important part in achieving that. We set out in detail in our report how this will operate, and we are in agreement with the steering group on that.
The difficulty for us arises from the proposal to extend confidentiality to complaints under the existing code that relate not to bullying and harassment but to financial misconduct or the abuse of House facilities. At the moment, the commissioner announces the names of Members when she launches an investigation, along with a brief statement as to the nature of the alleged offence. We can see from the commissioner’s annual report that the vast majority of complaints that go to her never get anywhere near to an investigation. They normally involved wild allegations that are made without substance or evidence, and they effectively go nowhere. Of those that are investigated, very few come to the Committee for adjudication. The commissioner rectifies people’s misapplication of the rules on issues such as the misuse of parliamentary envelopes, for example, so we do not see that this is a major issue for the House.
The rules were agreed by the House some years ago in the wake of the expenses scandal, and were seen then as an important way of demonstrating transparency and openness. I was on the Standards Committee from 2005 to 2010, and I was a winger during the expenses scandal. I can tell the House that there was a real need for openness at that time, and a real need to let the people of this country know that we were being transparent and open in our dealings on their behalf. We believe that transparency and openness should continue to apply. There is no doubt that if the House votes for the Leader of the House’s motion today without amendment, many people outside will criticise us for rolling back the openness that was agreed back in 2010 following the expenses scandal.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My question is simple. Under the plans proposed by the Leader of the House, is there any chance at all that an MP who is under investigation for sexual misconduct would be named?
Sir Kevin Barron
No, there is not, and I will go on to that. What the amendment does to paragraph 4 comes after the issue to which the hon. Lady just alluded. We are not going to stop anything. As I have said, confidentiality is crucial to the policy’s success.
Rachael Maskell
The reality is that this is about amendment of the Standing Orders, which govern the procedures of the House, so while I accept that the motion is not necessarily in the right place, without the amendment it could lead to the identity of a reporter being exposed.
Sir Kevin Barron
I will say—this is an aside—that I have been in this House for 35 years, and I have seen many allegations made against Members of Parliament for all sorts of reasons. Quite a lot of them come from the press, the television or stings in the media, and the idea that we have anything to shy away from in these decisions is not true. We agree that sexual harassment and bullying cases require confidentiality to ensure that people will come forward and speak out so that action can be taken. The Committee carefully considered the Leader of the House’s arguments for making the changes, and we understand why she has put them forward. However, we do not think that they outweigh the reputational damage that may arise if we go ahead with this proposal as drafted. It will be presented as MPs trying to cover up their misdoings.
The proposal is also good news for anyone who wants to smear an MP. They can simply tell the media that the Member has broken a rule and is under investigation, and, since the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will effectively be gagged, she will not be able to confirm or deny it. The rumour will continue and no one will have the authority to put the record straight. Members ought to remember that that could happen. On most occasions, that is how things work for the Committee on Standards as it operates under the current code of conduct.
The proposal goes beyond the independent complaints and grievance policy and is not essential to it. We do not believe that the publication of whether a Member is under investigation will cause irreparable damage to that Member’s reputation. I could cite the example of the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), who was recently under investigation by the commissioner following a complaint. It was in the national press and on national television, but it does not seem to have done his career any harm whatsoever because he was appointed Foreign Secretary last week.
The Committee was unanimous on the issue. All the lay members have written a joint letter to me, which has just been posted on our website, and I will read out the key paragraphs:
“Through our involvement in the work of the Committee we recognise the unusual, and sometimes precarious, nature of the role of MPs, the media interest they deal with on a daily basis and therefore, the importance MPs rightly place on their reputation. We also recognise the importance of the reputation of the House and the impact the actions and behaviours of MPs can have on how this is viewed.
Our experience to date suggests that publication of an announcement that an investigation is taking place does not cause significant damage to an MP’s reputation and, on a number of occasions, the matter is already in the public domain through the media. Therefore, in our view, the announcement can provide assurance that concerns are being handled independently and in a fair and impartial manner.
Our view is that the current practice followed by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards, and explicitly agreed by the House in 2010, creates the right balance between the individual reputation of MPs and the collective reputation of the House. Any proposals to limit this approach would be a detrimental step in continuing to build the credibility of the reputation of the House.”
I think those views make the case for the amendment very well.
The reason why the Committee on Standards has lay members is probably because, back in 1999, I was appointed as a lay member of the General Medical Council. Three Members of Parliament were appointed to it at that time, and I dealt with fitness-to-practice cases where doctors were in front of us, for example, and I thought that I played a constructive role. The first time that I said that the Committee on Standards ought to have lay members I remember a few sets of eyes widening, but the way that the lay members have operated for years now has been to the credit of this House. It certainly gives us a lot more credibility than if MPs were marking their own homework. When this motion is put to a vote, I hope that Members will recognise that lay members are helping us to change the culture in Parliament, just as the report does, which I do not take anything away from.
Obviously, the Committee on Standards will accept the decision of the House on this matter, and my colleagues on the Committee and I look forward to giving every assistance we can to the new complaints system as it is implemented. I repeat my congratulations to the steering group on its marvellous work. The acceptance of the report today marks significant progress towards building further public confidence in the standards expected of all Members of the House and shows our determination to uphold the rules if they are not met.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I want to add my voice to the many people who have spoken already and to the many voices who have called me since they met with the Leader of the House and saw the proposals—the voices of the many women and men involved who brought us to this point—in saying what a positive step forwards this is. As someone who has been a naysayer all the way through the process, I thought that it would never be good enough—there would have to be a million tick boxes to satisfy me—but what is outlined in this very detailed and quite long document is to be commended, and I feel confident that people will and should bring cases forward.
It will be a massive pleasure for me to no longer be the referral system for victims of violence in this building. I have been exhausted by the stories that I have heard since the situation started to break in October last year. I think that I am up to around 50 complaints about Members from a variety of people from different political parties and others who work in and around politics. It will be delightful to hand those cases over.
It would be wrong of me to say, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has already outlined, that I do not have concerns about historical cases, not least because most of the cases that caused us to do anything will not necessarily be able to go through this system. I have deep trust in the Leader of the House and in her desire to make this right and to make sure that wherever possible, regardless of when a situation may have happened, there are still ways for this system to look after, care for and respond to victims and to give them independent advice on how to manoeuvre around the system.
It has always been a part of our code of conduct, whether in 1864 or today, that we must not bring this House into disrepute, which is an enormously broad term. I would argue, and I do not think it is up for debate, that sexually harassing our staff brings this House into disrepute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) rightly said that we should all have great faith in the credentials of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, as well as in her attitude and tone. The way she works with Members of Parliament should fill people with hope for the system, and she has plenty of scope to take complaints from people who may not fall within the 2017 issue raised by this specific report, but there are still things in the code of conduct that have definitely been broken in many of the cases I have heard, so I look forward to the review.
It is brilliant that we have a six-month review, and it is a new way of doing things around here that, after we sign a piece paper on day one, we do not just believe that nothing has to change and that everything will be perfect. This system will absolutely be tested by the first person who goes through it.
Mrs Miller
Does the hon. Lady share my concern about how the amendment might incite idle speculation about the identity of victims, which we know could be devastating to those individuals?
Jess Phillips
I thank my friend, the right hon. Lady, for her intervention. I am not convinced by that argument. I worry about the identity of those who come forward being at risk in all such situations, and there are Members who have not behaved well in that regard and who have released things about people to try to shut things down. There are all sorts of reasons why we have to be very careful about how we handle this.
It is right that these cases should be anonymous, although I would never argue for the same in the criminal courts—I do not believe in anonymity for those accused in the criminal courts, which is a battle that many in this House seek to win. We manage in the criminal courts to maintain complete anonymity for victims and complete transparency for the accused. If that can be managed in a very open environment such as the courts, where the public can go in to sit and watch, I have faith that we can manage it here.
I have faith in the commissioner and in the Committee on Standards. However, I worry about how it looks that we are trying to pull back on transparency. To be completely honest, it seems to me like the deal had to be done to get this through. I put aside pretending that I think it is anything else.
The Leader of the House deserves complete and utter credit, because I am certain that she wanted exactly the system that I wanted. She has been vocal all the way through, and she realises how much this affects victims and how much it affects women as they go about their work. I have no doubt that, had it been entirely down to her sitting in a room, I would be having a ticker tape parade. To be honest, requiring anonymity was a deal done by somebody in a Whips Office or somebody on some committee that controls one of our political parties. I have no evidence to suggest that; I am enjoying my parliamentary privilege. Frankly, with the 50 cases I know of, there are a lot of people in this House who should be grateful that I do not enjoy my parliamentary privilege quite as much as I could—I leave it there.
It is important that the system has independent elements, including lay members, one of whom I know and trust incredibly well. She is a brilliant woman from Birmingham, and I feel safe in her hands. People could go through all sorts of different systems before they ever become a Member of Parliament, and one thing that needs to come from this is that the political parties really need to get their act together. The political parties are nowhere near as good as what is being presented to us today. Some parties have walked forward a little, and when I say walked, I mean dragged. I cannot comment on others, but I think that the Conservatives have been working on new systems.
I very much doubt that in any of the cases I have handled—they are numerous—people have been satisfied with the political parties and the processes they have gone through. Every day, I take complaints about the processes that people are put through by the political parties without an element of independence—by an element of independence, I mean the total foundation of independence. Neither the complainant nor the person who is complained against will ever feel protected by those systems, so I call on Government and Opposition Front Benchers to take back to their political parties what they have worked to achieve here in this place today.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke that, perhaps at the six-month review, we need to consider a whistleblowing or bystander element, because we all see all sorts of things going on in here. We need to be confident, our staff need to be confident, the Doorkeepers need to be confident and the people in the Lobby need to be confident in knowing whether or not they should be reporting such things. I seek to have that in future.
Once again, I commend the Leader of the House, the working group and the brilliant people who advised them, some of whom I deeply trust. Finally, a massive thank you to the victims who stepped forward, because none of us would be standing here without their bravery. They are considerably braver than we are.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I apologise for not rising to my feet quicker, but I was looking at Standing Order No. 150.
I should have started by saying what an honour and a privilege it has been to sit on the steering committee, albeit for an incredibly short amount of time, as I stood in for my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson). I am sure many will agree that not just in this process, but in her former role as a Minister, she has been an inspiration on such matters.
I also pay tribute to the Leader of the House, to every other member of the committee and, of course, to all the staff. I have been a Member for just over a year, and the committee has been a remarkably collegiate cross-party effort. The process has been wonderfully thoughtful and absolutely driven by the evidence. Nothing has been left unquestioned, and the tone and nature of this debate, which has caused me to go on the internet to look up paragraph (12) of Standing Order No. 150, is a credit to the process. We need to get into that level of detail.
It is crucial in all these matters that six and 18-month reviews months are held at those times and there is no dithering, but it was also crucial that we got going. There were points at which we felt, “There’s so much to do. Are we going to get this done by recess?” It was crucial that we did, and it is good that we have moved forward. When thinking about whether or not we support amendments, we need to think of the perhaps dozens or more victims who will consider coming forward as soon as the procedure has been published. They want to tell their story and have probably been waiting for the past nine months to get going on that. Above all, we must put them first. I do not think the 18-month review needs to be the last review. I wish to put on record that as the 18-month review will come exactly a year after the six-month review, we will then need a yearly review of procedures, because these things always change over time. It is important that we are never again left in a position where this place is behind the rest of the country. I want to see the process for such reviews written down somewhere, because we have left it that the 18-month review could possibly be followed by further reviews, and I would like to see that formalised.
Let me deal with the issue of historical allegations. We now expect a large number of people to come forward. I hope that they do come forward, because that is what they need to achieve closure. Regrettably, it feels as though it was more wrong to engage in some of this behaviour before the start of the last Parliament and, of course, it was not—for the whole of my life it has never been right to bully anyone or to sexually harass anyone. Of course, I know that that is not the sentiment of what the steering group was trying to achieve, but one must always read these things from the point of view of someone who is looking at the procedures for the first time. I hope that the inquiry will have enough teeth to achieve not only some closure and signposting, but, when possible, redress for the victim and punishment for the perpetrator.
Let me deal with the point about transparency, which was why I was frantically looking at my iPad. I do not want any of those potentially dozens of people coming forward to the House to feel that there is any chance that they could be identified, so I have played around with a few scenarios of how this might work in my head. Currently, neither the amendment, the Standing Order nor the motion absolutely guarantees that an MP’s name will not be published. We know how small our offices are, and this is one of the reasons why the optics are so bad. Most people out there do not appreciate that in my office I have just one parliamentary assistant. They think we have large teams behind us, but that is just not the case. In Portcullis House, these people’s names are written on plaques by the names of the MP, so it is easy enough for a journalist or anyone else to wander around, see one of these names and then try to catch the person in a bar outside. My concern is that if ever there was a chance that that could happen, that would be front and centre in the mind of a complainant considering coming forward.
I will not say more than this, but there have been two occasions in my life as a candidate when I was a victim of some sexual harassment, albeit not terribly and not enough that I took it to anything formal. I know that many other Members have done that, as have many other staff members in this place, who are particularly but not exclusively female. The No. 1 thing in my mind was, “This is hard enough to say, and it is hard enough to even admit to.” If there was any chance that I could have been identified, I certainly would not have then gone on to flag this through the right channels.
At the moment, there is that chance. I am not at all questioning the background of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or asking whether we are not all in agreement on this point. However, given Standing Order No. 150 as it stands—and even without any of the amendments to it—I am not entirely convinced that we have gone far enough with this. To echo what other Members have said, I believe that this needs to be front and centre of what we look at in the six-month review, along with things such as mandatory reporting from third parties who see such behaviour, as part of the culture change.
Victims need to come before optics. I have not come to this place just to do what makes me look good; I have come to this place to do what is absolutely right. I am not saying that others have not done that, but at the moment I am not totally convinced that we have got this 100% right for victims.
I shall end by talking about culture change. I am told that I am the oldest type of millennial that one can be, and this is my third career. I have worked in countless places. On walking into this building on the Monday after my declaration, which came on the Friday at 4 am, I found the induction and training for MPs and MPs’ staff to be the worst of any employer I have ever been to. That is partly because we employ ourselves; in essence, we are entrepreneurs, with mini offices. That was not something that I understood even as a candidate, even though one would think that a candidate would look at what they were getting into—I should point out that it was a snap election. People out there perhaps do not realise that about this place, but we do and we have known it for a long time. I thought for a while that perhaps that was because I am a Member from a smaller party and that the bigger parties would have stronger processes for induction and so on, but that is not the case.
The point about putting culture change at the heart of what we are doing through this grievance procedure is key, because if something gets to the point of a complaint, we have already failed, as someone has already been hurt somewhere. Leaving aside malicious complaints, if a genuine complaint is made and upheld, something has gone wrong. This should be the best place to work for anybody in the entire country, but we have lagged behind for a very long time. Let us stop that now and pass this motion. We should be immensely proud of the proposal. All political parties need to catch up, but it is not just political parties that need to act, because we should be a beacon of good practice for the rest of the country. Let that start today. I was pleased to put my name to the motion and I am delighted to have been part of the process. Let us never fall behind again.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Westminster is the first Parliament anywhere in the world to have tackled bullying, harassment and sexual harassment so comprehensively, and huge progress has been made towards making this place a safer, more respectful and more equal environment. I join those who have thanked all members of the working group for their contributions. In particular, I pay tribute to its chair, the Leader of the House, for her commitment to change, her leadership and her seemingly unending patience. I also want to thank the secretariat, our special advisers, the staff representatives on the group, and those who came to speak to us on behalf of their trade unions to increase our understanding of the issues we were seeking to address. As others have said, more than anyone else we need to thank those who were brave enough to come forward and put in the public domain the kind of experiences they have had to go through, because that has been a driving force for all of us to work with the urgency and commitment that we have.
The report, and its policy and procedures, are really important steps, and it is welcome that we have built in from the outset mechanisms to ensure this is the start rather than the end of an ongoing process—others have referred to those. Although we are rightly celebrating what we have achieved, we must be mindful of what more there is still to do. I hope that the Leader of the House will forgive me if I concentrate on the areas where I think we have further to go, rather than simply celebrating what we have achieved. That is not because I do not think we have achieved a lot, but if we are to be the best we can be, we still have a bit of a way to go.
I wish to start by discussing making the final stages of the new system more independent—truly independent. I know that every effort has been made to guarantee independence at the point when reports are made and investigations are carried out. I hope that that will give everyone in Westminster renewed confidence in the system, and that all bullying, harassment and sexual harassment will be treated with the seriousness and objectivity to which all workplaces should aspire.
The principle of full independence is still somewhat undermined by allowing MPs to play a role in final decision making about serious complaints involving colleagues. The motion goes some way towards addressing that, for example by recommending that lay members of the Standards Committee are allowed an indicative vote, but the final decision to trigger the recall of an MP will still be subject to a vote of the House of Commons and, at least as it stands, lay members of the Committee still do not have full parity with MPs. I note with much approval that the Chair of the Standards Committee, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron), is in favour of looking again at the role of lay members and has put on record that he is in favour of primary legislation to establish the absolutely equality of lay members in a Standards Committee vote.
Some aspects of the process are still left in the hands of MPs. One of the obstacles to further reform and making the system genuinely independent was concern that an MP might launch legal action if someone unelected had a say in a recall decision. I remain of the view that, with the right political will, that and other objections could be overcome. Recall rightly leaves the ultimate decision in the hands of the electorate, so a mechanism that, for example, gave the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards the power in some instances to trigger the recall process herself, could offer a way for MPs to be further removed from the process. I appreciate that that is a radical proposal and I do not expect it to find agreement in the House at the moment, but to my mind it is the logical consequence when we say, again and again, that MPs should not mark their own homework. Only such a radical proposal would ultimately ensure genuine independence from party political influence from start to finish.
I very much hope that the possibilities I have outlined, and others, to build on what has been achieved to date will be reviewed as a priority, because staff otherwise risk continuing to lose out through a system that still protects MPs just that little bit more. That risk is also there when it comes to the handling of historical complaints. It is important to be clear that the new independent inquiry will hear reports of historical complaints. The new system will allow those affected to access emotional support and signposting to next steps. That will mostly be either to party political grievance mechanisms, the police or, in the case of House staff, the previous Respect policy. It is widely agreed, however, that the Respect policy was not fit for purpose in respect of such issues. Historical complaints referred to the new process cannot result in outcomes or sanctions other than those that were permissible at the time of the incident. That is even more the case for behaviours that have clearly always been wrong, such as sexual harassment or bullying, but which Respect has been shown to be unable to deal with fairly.
Staff employed by MPs were never covered by Respect, and those not employed by their party have no prior system to have recourse to in the case of a historical complaint, if they seek more than the opportunity to be heard and to get emotional support. Those employed by political parties have that route but, as we know, there are signs that the promises made by every political party to get their own houses in order have not yet been properly fulfilled. In other words, the decision to impose an arbitrary 2017 cut-off point for historical complaints, alongside the independent inquiry, does not take us far enough. It leaves many people still unable fully to resolve their historical complaints.
There are some important and potentially game-changing provisions in the new policy and procedures, including those allowing multiple offenders to be identified and pre-2017 allegations to be referenced if a live case involves the same parties. But we should not let those real positives cloud the fact that some staff continue to be let down. The working group received legal advice noting the increasing difficulty of delivering fairness the further back in time one goes. That is true, but the advice also made it clear that, if there was enough political will, ways could be found to accommodate that. In some instances, for example, there may be written evidence that makes wrongdoing very clear. I hope that the six-month review will look again at the 2017 cut-off date and that historical allegations will come before whatever group is set up to look into allegations, because I do not think we have got it quite right yet.
Let me say a few words about promoting long-term cultural change. Although some voluntary measures have been put in place, reforms that will deliver real and meaningful culture change, such as compulsory consent training and meaningful good employer training for all MPs and peers, have been delayed until after the next election. Apparently, the justification is that nobody knew when they stood for election that they would have to undertake such training. To that I say that nobody knew that when they came to work in Parliament they might have to put up with furniture being thrown at them or being groped. Action after the next election—probably in 2022—is better than never, and Parliament’s committing to taking action at all obviously sends a powerful and positive signal, but it is still hugely frustrating that there is not more understanding of how a culture of mutual respect and accountability benefits everyone. I hope that that time will come, because we urgently need a politics that is more equal, transparent and ethical —one that tackles all kinds of bullying and harassment, and which in particular moves us beyond #MeToo and #TimesUp by helping to dismantle privilege and what are all too often male-dominated hierarchies. That will be possible only if we keep up the pressure and continue to face up to ongoing obstacles to change, which are, in too many instances, vested interests and political self-interest.
If we want genuine confidence in the new system and the ongoing commitment to transforming the Westminster culture, we need to signal clearly that we want to continue to learn and improve, and we also need to be less risk averse. This is about leadership and setting an example. We need continued bold action, and if there are fears that that will upset some of our more regressive colleagues, so be it, frankly. The new behaviour code, by which all of Westminster will be expected to abide, asks that individuals recognise their power, influence and authority and do not abuse them. I would have liked that to be included in the motion, as it goes to the heart of what we need to see.
Finally, let me address the amendment with which we are all grappling as we try to work out the best way forward. Let me say loudly and clearly that if I thought for a moment that by deleting the part of paragraph (4) of the motion proposed in the amendment we would in any way put at risk the confidentiality of victims in ICGP cases, I would not support it, but I do not believe that that is the case. I agree with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) that, in a sense, we are in a position of trying to weigh up options when none of them are optimal. None of them absolutely gives us everything that we want regarding a firm guarantee of confidence and confidentiality for victims. Right from the start of my involvement in this process, I have been among the foremost of people saying that individuals should have their confidence respected. That has to be the bottom line. I do not believe that the amendment would undermine that.
What is at stake is the issue of whether consistency is more important than transparency. To my mind, transparency is more important in this instance. Consistency is nice to have, but I think we can explain why there is a difference between the way in which we treat someone who fiddles their expenses or who fiddles paperclips, and the way in which we treat people who have made allegations of sexual harassment and bullying, with follow-up investigations. We can explain that inconsistency an awful lot more easily than I would find explaining why we were rolling back on transparency. I do not think this is about optics versus the protection of victims—if I thought that, I hope everybody would know that I would of course have the protection of victims as the overall objective—but I do share the sneaking suspicion voiced by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) that there are perhaps other forces at play that are leading us in this direction. I have no evidence of that either, but it feels like that is the more likely explanation for why we find ourselves in this difficult position.
I shall continue to listen to the debate, and particularly to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because she seems to be on top of the Standing Orders, but from what I have heard so far, I do not believe that the Standards Committee’s amendment would undermine victim confidentiality. If I did believe that for one moment, I would not support it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
We have had an excellent debate, conducted in very much the right tone. We exist in communities, not least this parliamentary community, so every decision that we make, action we take and word we speak has an impact. There are huge inequalities of power throughout society and, to date, that has also been true of this place. It is because of that inequality of power that we find ourselves where we are. It is absolutely right that we address how to put in place better systems to protect the most vulnerable in society and in our workplaces. We have all at least been caused to stop, pause, and reflect on our own behaviours, as well as those of people around us, and to ask serious questions about the leadership that this place provides.
Parliament holds the role of leadership across our nation and therefore it is incumbent on us to have the highest standards and to ensure that we reflect them in all that we do. The public watch us, which increases that responsibility. Perhaps we have witnessed or been recipients of inappropriate behaviour in private places. At the big display of Prime Minister’s Question Time, people witness, on a weekly basis, mobbing, belittling, mocking, name-calling and worse.
Given all that, are we surprised that bullying and poor behaviour are endemic across our nation? Such behaviour is endemic in workplaces. It is the biggest issue at work. A third of people in work today have experienced bullying in their working lives—72% by managers—and, of course, it has caused so many people to leave their jobs. In fact, 36% of people who have been bullied leave their employment. Heartbreakingly, we see so much bullying taking place in our schools: 40% of young people today have experienced bullying, and that is just in the past year. We have such a responsibility to set the bar high, and this is, I trust, what we have been doing during this process.
We also need to think about the wider impact on the economy: £18 billion is lost to the economy each year just because of bullying. Therefore, we have a big responsibility ahead of us. I want to thank third-sector organisations and trade unions for the amazing work that they have done to advance this issue. Parliament has arrived at this point because people had the courage to stand up and speak of their experiences in this place, and, of course, we have all paid tribute to those individuals today. I particularly want to thank the Leader of the House for the way that she has conducted our discussions and for her sheer determination to ensure that Parliament changes, and changes its culture. I also thank all members of the steering Committee—whether they be peers, MPs, House staff, trade unions, MPs’ staff and, of course, the officials, who I know have worked extraordinarily hard to reach this point.
We must see change. Today is all about how we can make that seismic change happen in this place. As we have heard, so many people are looking at us not just from the UK, but from around the world, as they reflect on their own Parliaments. Therefore, what we decide today will be of the utmost importance and culture change is at the very heart of that.
We must have permission to challenge and we must have confidence that, when we face challenge, the systems are there to protect us. That is why I very much welcome the behaviour code, which talks not only about looking at what is happening and how we behave, but about promoting our role. We have a responsibility not only to no longer be a bystander, but to speak up. We must not only ensure that our conduct does not include negative behaviours, but exhibit positive behaviours to one another. From your position, Madam Deputy Speaker, and from that of your colleagues in the Chair, I trust that you will remind us of that on a regular basis. We must ensure that we monitor the impact of this behaviour code on this place to ensure that it is doing the job that it is there to do.
We must recognise the power that we all have, how we use that power, and how misuse of power can cause such misery. I welcome the advances that have been made around sexual conduct and the fact that it has been put into the policy. Taking a zero-tolerance approach is the only way forward. Putting real specialism and expertise into our processes enhances all aspects of this and gives confidence to those who have experienced misconduct in any form.
There will be personal support for all those who report incidents. I certainly will encourage people to raise issues early; when issues are raised early, a resolution is more likely, particularly as the policy focuses on informal approaches. Of course, when the approaches are informal, we need to be very realistic about their impact, because we are still talking about an inequality of power. When we talk about mediation processes, we need to ensure that there are pre-mediation processes so that these processes do not cause further harm if they are exercised. Therefore, wisdom is needed across these processes.
That takes us on to the role of the independent investigation process. For me, this is the most powerful part of the proceedings before us. I am talking about the fact that the investigator is not only an expert in their field, but has no interest in anything other than bringing resolution and justice to the person making the claim. However, I do question—and I have done so at the steering group—the idea of having a commissioner for standards and an independent investigator. Surely, we should trust a true professional who is an independent investigator in fulfilling their whole role. They do not need somebody looking over their shoulder. They should be trusted, through their professionalism and their expertise, to carry out the role that they are trained to do. I trust that we will look at that relationship as time goes by to ensure that they can get on with their job.
I also want to raise the issue of confidentiality, which goes to the heart of the debate today. We have all been studying the motion, the amendment and, what for me is essential, the rulebook—the book that covers the way that this place works. That is why it is so important that we understand Standing Order No. 150. We need to change the rulebook, because no matter how much aspiration there is in the world, it does not bring governance. That is why it is really important that we ensure that good governance is enshrined in the rulebook. The motion has failed to achieve what it set out to do, as it opens up—or closes down perhaps—some of those opportunities. It means that those who have been reported for other reasons will also come under this rule. We could have been more nuanced in the way that the motion was written to cover just those who come under this procedure. I also have to say that if we go back to the rulebook under the amendment, it means, unfortunately, that there is risk in the system. The name of a victim of abuse, whether that is bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct, could come to the fore. I do not cast aspersions on the commissioner or the Committee, but I go back to the rulebook as that is our governance.
I have one or two other issues to address before I close. First, I have raised in the steering group the way that sanctions are applied. It is really important that we see equality in applying sanctions and ensure that there is a framework in place for their application. Therefore, I really hope that, at the point of the six-month and 18-month reviews, there is moderation of the penalties to ensure that there is equality in applying sanctions. We will have different people applying those sanctions. It could be that, owing to unconscious bias, some people experience lighter sanctions than others. It is really important that we review what the sanctions were. We also need to know whether they were adhered to and what their impact was. Then we must question what else should be done. I also want to raise the issue of ensuring that we have good data to support the process of review. By the time that we get to six months and 18 months, it is really important that we have a thorough understanding of the impact of the policies.
Another issue relates to non-disclosure agreements. It is important that we understand not only what their role can be in helping and supporting individuals, but how they can be misused. It will be incumbent on the six-month review to take up that issue to see how they have been applied in this House and across the parliamentary community. It may be that we need tighter governance around their use. Often, such agreements—compromise agreements—can be used to buy people off. That is often the failing, and we need to make sure that that does not occur and that people receive true justice.
On historical cases, which I believe all hon. Members raised on the steering group, we need to ensure that everyone has that sense of justice. Personal support will apply to everyone and all will have access to the informal resolution processes in cases that predate June 2017 and of course the legal channels and the ability to refer a case to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards will still exist. It is the formal process that people will not have access to, and therefore I welcome the additional independent inquiry for MPs, peers and House staff, but I ask whoever has that responsibility within the inquiry to look into such cases and determine that, if an independent investigation is needed, it is reviewed so that everyone can have the justice they deserve.
I believe that training should be mandatory, as hon. Members have said, and that waiting till the next Parliament will leave it far, far too late. We need to roll it out in this Parliament. It should commence this year. If it is not mandatory, of course, the very people who would perhaps most benefit from it may miss out. I trust that there will be tight scrutiny to ensure that all Member access it at the earliest opportunity and that a focus is given to adjusting the training as the learning continues. After all, this is not just about a process, but about a new culture that we must adopt, so it is important that everyone is engaged.
I welcome the move to a good employment standard, which, in itself, will bring much and long overdue change to how people are treated in this place. We need to take the best employment practices from across our nation to ensure that we do the right thing. We work in a highly pressurised and stressful environment, and it can be incredibly stressful at times for our staff, so it is only right that we do the best for them. Not only should the performance of our staff be monitored; there should be 360 degree feedback for us as employers to make sure that we also are doing the right thing and that staff feel empowered in that process and able to challenge.
In conclusion, these policies, the code and the training start here, should the motion be passed today. Our new journey together around a new culture begins in this place. We must not look back but press forward to create the right working environment for everyone. I particularly thank all the stakeholders involved in the process, but I ask the Leader of the House to seriously consider the role that trade unions can play in enhancing employment in this place. We have seen the valuable contribution they have made to systems to date. After all, it is they who represent people day and night—it is day and night—through supporting individuals with their bullying claims. When I was a trade union official, the biggest issue we dealt with was workplace bullying. It is vital, therefore, that we recognise the support trade unions provide—it is not just about the stereotypes and headlines.
Today, we mark a new beginning. I thank hon. Members for their contributions and trust we will move forward together.
Andrea Leadsom
With the leave of the House, I will make a couple of brief closing remarks. This has been an excellent debate and once again I pay tribute to colleagues from across the House for their efforts and contributions—it has been an extraordinary amount of work—and to the advisers, officials and the programme team who worked so hard. I also pay tribute once again to the victims who came forward with their testimonies and sparked this piece of work. On behalf of all the members of the steering group, I can say that we have been individually absolutely committed to achieving the change we are kicking off today. We can be incredibly proud of that.
We have, in particular, heard about the vital importance of the six-month review, and I draw all colleagues’ attention to page 34 of the report, which sets out some of the jobs that six-month review will have to do in addition to taking into careful account the work of Dame Laura Cox QC and the further historical allegation review that we are launching today.
I thank the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) and his Committee for their work. It took me considerable time and effort, however, to persuade the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Standards Committee even of the need not to name people when opening investigations into all ICGP cases as well as non-ICGP cases. I have asked that we temporarily suspend naming people when opening investigations for the purpose of giving ourselves a clear run at this, even if we re-implement the PCS’s ability to name non-IGCP candidates after six months. I really urge Members not to accept the amendment. We need a clear run at this, so we need confidentiality and consistency.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The ministerial code states:
“It is of paramount importance that Ministers should give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.
This morning at business questions, the Leader of the House again attributed the controversy surrounding the pairing arrangements this week to administrative error. However, according to multiple news sources this afternoon, it appears that the Government Chief Whip did instruct Conservative MPs to break their pairs, with one hon. Member quoted as saying—[Hon. Members: “Rubbish.”] Members of the Whips Office can shout “Rubbish” as much as they like, but they will hear what one of their own Members—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. The point of order must be heard.
Wes Streeting
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. They do not like to hear it, but here is what one Conservative Member is quoted as saying:
“Julian told me I was needed and told me to come in and vote. Of course he knew I was paired. I didn’t vote and honoured my pair, and he demanded to know why not afterwards. It then appears Julian told the prime minister it was all an innocent mistake”.
I have no reason not to believe that the Leader of the House is only relaying what she has been told to say. Given this, how can we compel the Chief Whip to come to the Dispatch Box to account for his actions, because if the trust of the pairing system has been abused in this way, he must surely now resign?
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), we would also like to inquire whether there are ways of addressing this issue. If an urgent question is submitted on the matter, then, with the Speaker’s permission, if the question is accepted, can the Chief Whip come to the Chamber to respond rather than hiding behind the Leader of the House?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Both hon. Members have made their views very clear, but neither of them made a point of order on which I can rule. I am sure that what the Leader of the House said at business questions was said in good faith and based on information that she had received. If she was intentionally inaccurate in anything she said, I am quite sure that she would take steps to correct the record. I do not think that we should rush to any conclusions based on what has been reported in social media.
With regard to the Chief Whip, it is certainly a convention that the Chief Whip does not speak in the House. However, first, it is a matter for the Speaker whether to allow an urgent question, as hon. Members know. It is then for the Government to decide who should respond and in what way. I think we will leave it at that.
Tobacco Control Plan
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Steve Brine)
I beg to move,
That this House considered the Tobacco Control Plan.
Last year—how time flies!—in response to a question from my shadow on the Opposition Front Bench, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), I confirmed my intention to publish a tobacco control plan for England. I published it and then we debated its lofty ambitions in this House. Today, on its first birthday, I hope that we can reaffirm the importance of the plan and welcome the progress that has been made, while recognising—as I always do at the Dispatch Box—there is much more to do.
Last year we announced an ambition to reduce the prevalence of adult smokers from 15.5% to 12%, of pregnant smokers from 10.7% to 6%, and of 15-year-old smokers from 8% to 3%. We also pledged to reduce the inequality gap in smoking prevalence between those in routine and manual occupations and the general population. Furthermore, we set out a long-term goal of a smoke-free generation, reducing adult prevalence to below 5%. We were very clear, however, that now—then or now—is not the time for more legislation. I am still of that view because there is quite enough for us to do in this House.
The UK has some of the toughest tobacco control laws in the world, and we are consistently considered by independent experts to have the best tobacco control measures in the whole of Europe. The plan recognised that smoking in certain groups is stubbornly high, although masked by the overall declines in prevalence. To achieve our ambitions, we need to recognise that smoking is increasingly focused on particular groups in society, and in particular areas. We need to shift the emphasis from action at the national level—hence no need for more legislation—to focused local action in support of smokers.
Pregnant smokers are one critical group. People with mental illness are also much more likely to smoke: a little more than 40% of people with serious mental health conditions smoke, which is more than twice the national average. I repeat: smoking among those with mental health conditions is more than twice the national average. We need to work across the system, as we are, to ensure that everyone is making their full contribution to deliver for those groups.
Earlier this year I was fortunate enough to visit the Maudsley Hospital, which has done an awful lot of very good and fruitful work in this area. I place on record my thanks to the team at the Maudsley for their dedication and hard work. It was good to meet them—staff and patients—and to thank them in person.
When I talk about working across the system to ensure that everyone is making their full contribution, that is what we are doing. Last month we published the tobacco control delivery plan, which sets out detailed commitments made by various organisations in central Government and the arm’s length bodies to help deliver on our 66 recommendations. We will be tracking delivery of those commitments, and adding to them, as we move through the lifetime of the plan.
Let me touch on the work that is under way. The Prison Service is making the whole prison estate in England smoke free—no ifs, and definitely no butts. Do you see what I did there, Madam Deputy Speaker? This is a huge achievement, and I would like to pay tribute to the hard work that has made it possible. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has supported the UK Government’s ratification of the protocol on illicit tobacco under the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control. This new treaty aims to eliminate all forms of illicit trade in tobacco products throughout the supply chain. The protocol has now been ratified by the necessary 40 countries and is in force.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
When the Health Committee looked at the issue of smoking in public places and took evidence from different institutions, the Prison Service felt at the time that it would be impossible for it ever to get to a situation in which it was smoke free. We should all look back and thank it for what it has done, which it told us years ago was impossible.
Steve Brine
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Those of us who have secure estates in our constituencies and go in and visit them regularly will be aware of just how much of a challenge this is, given how ingrained smoking is within the cohort. That relates to the point I made about specific groups. I think that the Prison Service deserves great credit. Suffice it to say that it has a lot of pressures on it, and in some ways it probably felt that this was the least of its worries and the last thing it could deal with, but it is actually very important. That is why I say we are working well across the Government, and the Prison Service is really pulling out the stops in its area. I thank him for that intervention.
To finish on the protocol, HMRC will continue to lead on it on behalf of the Government, working with my officials at the Department of Health and Social Care. Through the protocol, we are sharing our expertise as a leading tobacco control nation; this is not just about what we are doing domestically. We are funding the FCTC secretariat with £15 million over the spending review period to support tobacco control in 15 low and middle-income countries. I am very proud of that work, and I am pleased to say that we are already having an impact. Georgia introduced smoke-free legislation and a ban on advertising on 1 May. It seems strange to talk about banning advertising as a new measure, given how long a ban has been in place in our country, but it shows that other parts of the world have a long way to go to catch up. I am very proud that we are using our experience and our evidence-based experience to help countries such as Georgia to do so. I want to place on the record my congratulations to Georgia.
Domestically, Her Majesty’s Treasury continues to maintain high duty rates for tobacco products to make tobacco less affordable, which is absolutely right. Public Health England, for which I am responsible, and NHS England are working on a joint action plan to reduce smoking in pregnancy. A key part of this is helping midwives to identify women who smoke and help them to quit and to support the implementation of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on reducing smoking during pregnancy and immediately following childbirth.
PHE has been encouraging the use of e-cigarettes to help people quit. As part of this, the most recent Stoptober campaign for the first time highlighted the role of e-cigarettes in quitting. The best evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are helping thousands of people to quit and that they are particularly effective in the context of a smoking cessation clinic. PHE’s data website, “Local tobacco control profiles for England”—another snappy title I dreamed up—is helping local commissioners and service planners to identify where they are succeeding, where they face the greatest challenges and how they compare with their neighbours and the rest of England.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments in The Guardian newspaper this morning about the activities of one tobacco manufacturer that has been contacting or at least trying to ingratiate itself with NHS staff by helping them to quit smoking. Will he write to all trusts and clinical commissioning groups telling them that they should have nothing at all to do with this initiative?
Steve Brine
I already have and NHS England already has: we have already done so. We think that Philip Morris International’s move is totally inappropriate and totally contrary to the protocol. I do not think I could have been clearer either in the press or at the Dispatch Box today, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance to say so again.
All our local activity has the overall goal of helping people to quit smoking and stopping others starting in the first place, so how are we doing? Here is the score card. Publications by the Office for National Statistics and NHS Digital earlier this month show that we are making progress. Since 2011, the number of adult smokers has dropped by a fifth to the lowest level since records began, and we are fully on track to achieve our 2022 ambition for adults. Among 15-year-old smokers, there is good progress, and figures published last year showed that the prevalence of smoking has reduced by a further percentage point from 8% to 7% since the publication of the plan. The number of e-cigarette users in that group is also falling. Latest figures from the ONS annual population survey reveal that smoking rates among 18 to 25-year-olds are falling faster than in any other age group. Considering that that age is when most smokers start smoking, I am particularly pleased with that.
We are also making progress on inequality. Although routine and manual workers continue to have higher smoking rates compared with the rest of the population, the gap has narrowed slightly, from 26.5% at the publication of the plan to 25.7% as reported by the ONS earlier this month. Those are achievements to celebrate. Nevertheless, I must be honest with the House and say that progress on tackling smoking in pregnancy is disappointing, and in truth the figures have barely moved in the past year.
What shall we do in year 2 of the plan? First and foremost, I am determined to redouble our efforts to support pregnant smokers to quit. That will be best for them and for their babies, and we need people to understand that. Secondly, we will use the opportunity of the Government’s investment in the NHS, which the Prime Minister announced last month, to embed prevention and cessation more firmly into the culture of the NHS. Last month, the Royal College of Physicians, which has a proud record of groundbreaking reports on tobacco, published “Hiding in Plain Sight: Treating tobacco dependence in the NHS”. That weighty report calculated that the cost of current smokers needing in-patient care is £890 million a year. It points out that smokers are 36% more likely to be admitted to hospital at some point than non-smokers, and it makes the powerful argument that smoking cessation repays the cost from year 1. I welcome that report, and I will be making that case loud and clear as we engage with NHS England on the content of the 10-year plan that the Prime Minister has asked it to produce.
Thirdly, we will continue to engage with local authorities —they are now top-tier public health authorities up and down the land in England—on promoting smoking cessation as the best evidence-based means of quitting smoking. Encouraging the NHS to do more on cessation is emphatically not about removing responsibilities from local authorities. This is about creating a whole-system approach in which addicted smokers can access the support they need to quit. Public Health England will continue to provide local councils up and down the land with facts and advice on tackling smoking—for example, it will work with sustainability and transformation partnerships, which should be leading that whole-system approach in the constituencies of all English Members.
Fourthly, as I have mentioned, we will continue to raise tobacco duty to make tobacco less affordable, while also taking action to tackle the illicit trade in tobacco. Fifthly, we will maintain a careful watch on so-called novel tobacco products. The Government are keen to use the opportunity of newer products, such as e-cigarettes, to help smokers to quit, without undermining the key message that the best thing someone can do for their health is quit completely. As I said in the Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into this subject, we will continue to keep the harms of products such as heated tobacco products under review and continue to hold the industry to account. We have been explicit that the promotion of tobacco products is unlawful, as my recent letter to Philip Morris International makes abundantly clear—that letter was written before the one I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham).
Last but not least, we will continue to make the case for tobacco control internationally, building on our reputation as a leading tobacco control nation with credibility in that space. We have such credibility because our consistent work in this area goes back to the coalition Government, the previous Labour Government and the Conservative Government before them, and such consistency means that we are highly credible around the world. More than 7 million people a year across the globe die from smoking-related disease, and the UK Government can help make a dent in that toll by sharing knowledge and skills.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I pay tribute to the Minister’s brilliant work both since he became a Health Minister and before then. Will he comment on some of the scientific issues raised about addiction to nicotine, compared with the very harmful by-products that are a part of cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco products? Will he comment on whether it is nicotine or the by-products that are harming people’s health and causing the most damage?
Steve Brine
I think cigarettes cause the most damage, because of the tobacco and the nicotine. The carcinogenic properties of the former are lethal. That link was proven with the lung cancer study that started the ball rolling. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as the chair of the all-party group for the work he has done in this area. There are a lot of things that we know and there are a lot of things that we still do not know. Some people say that I do not go far enough to promote e-cigarettes and novel products, and some people say that maybe we go too far—I mentioned Stoptober. That generally suggests to me that we are in the right place. What I would say—I think that I said it earlier—is that an awful lot of research is still needed on e-cigarettes. One Member once told me that we should make e-cigarettes free on prescription to all pregnant women. The reason I did not say, “Yes, I think that’s a good idea” is that I still think there are risks to that product. I still think that the best thing people can do is to stop chuffing on anything, whether traditional cigarettes or so-called novel products. I thank him for his intervention, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say during the debate.
Alex Cunningham
I thank the Minister for giving way a second time. I join the tributes to both the Minister and the chair of the all-party group. There has been tremendous cross-party work on this issue—that has always been the case. The Minister mentions the role local authorities have to play. We all know the pressure they have been under in recent times. I wonder whether he could see a mechanism that would provide and ring-fence the funds to enable local authorities to fulfil their role. Currently, they are struggling to do so.
Steve Brine
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. On providing support to help smokers quit, as I said, we have moved from the national context of legislative work to local application. The challenge is that adult smoking rates vary considerably across the country—for example, they are 8% in Wokingham and 23% in Kingston upon Hull—so it is right that local councils have the flexibility to spend that money. There is some £16 billion in the ring-fenced public health grant during the spending review period, so there is a lot of money in the system. But am I happy with patchy services in areas where smoking rates are too high? No, I am not. That is why I have said that the Government have not made a decision on full business rate retention. I would be concerned about the impact that that might have. I would want all sorts of reassurances from local councils if I were to make that change. Do I think it right that local authorities can design services for their local area? Yes, I do.
The new Secretary of State and I have already discussed prevention, which is one of the three main pillars he wants to focus on. I have told him that the new investment of £20 billion that we are putting into the NHS is fantastic. Bluntly, we could have the money on the side of the bus three or four times over, but unless we get serious about prevention, in this space as much as any other, the NHS will continue to be under enormous pressure. Local authorities are a key partner for us.
I would also say, not least because the chair of the all-party group on community pharmacy is sitting behind the hon. Gentleman, that community pharmacists and pharmacies have a key role to play. They are an NHS centre on street corners up and down our land. Some of them provide really good work. The healthy living pharmacies I have seen help people to access the services they need. They provide a little bit of mentoring and support, using their experience to say, “Yes, you can beat this,” and signposting them to services, whether through the public sector or the third sector.
There is an awful lot that we can still do. That is why the 10-year plan will have prevention embedded at its heart, as the five year forward view said it would—and it did, but I do not think that it lived up enough to the ambition on that. Perhaps people would expect the Minister responsible for prevention to say that, but I am nothing if not consistent.
Tobacco remains the single biggest avoidable killer in our country today, causing a third of preventable cancers. It contributes to around half of health inequalities between rich and poor in our society and is a potent symbol of the burning injustices that the Prime Minister spoke about, which I think affect the life chances of poorer people up and down our land. The tobacco control plan represents the Government’s continuing commitment to tackling this epidemic. It was never presented as a panacea and it is still not a panacea, but it is a cracking good start.
Over the past year, we have seen some impressive progress, but I am absolutely not complacent. In World cup terms, I would suggest that we have made it through to the knockout stages, but nothing more. I hope to be able to demonstrate further progress in a year’s time, and no doubt we will discuss that again in the House. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions, and I am happy to introduce this important debate.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be here to speak about the tobacco control plan, which celebrated its first anniversary only yesterday, as the Minister said. We are here to discuss the progress of the plan so far in reaching the Government’s goal of a smoke-free generation by 2022. I start by thanking the Government for allowing time for this debate to take place after all the drama and commotion of this week. As the Minister said, my first outing as shadow Minister for public health was in a debate on this issue, and thanks to him, we have the new, updated tobacco control plan that we are debating today. I know that it holds a very special place in both our hearts and, like him, I look forward to the debate.
The Opposition welcomed the plan and its ambitious goals, but we remain concerned about how they will be achieved by 2022. It is true that smoking is now thankfully at an all-time low, but the Government must not be complacent—I know that the Minister is not—and must not quit when it comes to measures that reduce smoking rates.
There are still 7.3 million adult smokers in the UK but, shockingly, smoking is an addiction of childhood, with the vast majority of smokers starting to smoke before the age of 18. Between 2014 and 2016, more than 127,000 children aged between just 11 and 15 started to smoke in the UK. According to a recent study by the Society for Research on Nicotine & Tobacco, this amounts to 350 young people starting smoking each day. That is equivalent to 17 classrooms of secondary school children starting to smoke every day. The Government therefore have a huge challenge on their hands—as we all do in Parliament—to tackle smoking in childhood and to reduce the rate of children smoking to 3% or less.
Between 2013 and 2016, the rate of decline in smoking among young people slowed down and the proportion of 15-year-old regular smokers had fallen from 8% to 7% but, at this rate, we will fail to achieve the ambition for England of 3% by 2022. The Minister mentioned in his opening remarks that we really will need to accelerate our progress when it comes to the number of children taking up smoking. Tackling this issue will be the first step to achieving a generation that is not only smoke-free, but healthier.
Smoking remains the leading cause of preventable premature death, such as from cancer or lung disease, and accounts for around 100,000 deaths each year in the UK. Each of those deaths could have been prevented. In 2015-16, there were approximately 474,000 smoking-related hospital admissions, with smokers also seeing their GPs 35% more often than non-smokers. In 2017, 22% of hospital admissions for respiratory problems were directly attributed to smoking. In 2015-16, smoking-related respiratory diseases cost NHS England £167.4 million in adult secondary care costs. I am sure that the Minister agrees with me that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that every £1 invested in smoking cessation generates £2.37 in benefits. However, according to the King’s Fund, spending on smoking cessation services in 2017-18 was reduced by almost £16 million compared with figures for 2013-14. Furthermore, the Health Foundation has found that next year just £95 million will be spent on smoking and tobacco control services, which is 45% less than in 2014-15. Has the Minister made any assessment of the impact that those cuts will have on local smoking cessation services?
A study conducted by Action on Smoking and Health—ASH—and Cancer Research UK found that in 2017 budgets for stop smoking services were reduced in half of the local authorities in England, following reductions in 59% of authorities in 2016 and 39% in 2015. It is a wonder that there are any smoking cessation services left at all. What that means on the ground is that smokers who want to quit do not have access to the services that they need, and smokers who may need an extra push to seek help to quit are not getting that push.
Given that local smoking cessation services are on their knees, how does the Minister’s Department expect to reach the goal of reducing smoking rates to 12% by 2022? The Government’s own plan acknowledges that
“local stop smoking services continue to offer smokers the best chance of quitting”,
but cuts in local authorities’ funding have led to unacceptable variations in the quality and quantity of services available to the public. In my region of the north-east, the current smoking rate is 16.2%, which is down from 17.2% in 2016. That represents the biggest fall in smoking in England. It means that smoking rates in the north-east have fallen by more than 44% since 2005, when 29% of adults in the region smoked, and that there are about a quarter of a million fewer smokers.
It has to be said that that decline in smoking rates is due to the excellent programme Fresh north-east. I know that the Minister has commended the programme before, and no doubt he will take the opportunity to do so again. Its vision is to make smoking history and to reduce smoking prevalence in the north-east to 5% by 2025.
Steve Brine
I am happy to place on record my thanks for the work of Fresh north-east, whose representatives I have met. It is a good example of what I was talking about—local systems working together. It is not just about what local authorities commission and the state provides. Fresh north-east is a coalition consisting of the public sector and the third sector.
Mrs Hodgson
That is important, especially when, as the Minister has acknowledged, we are in such straitened times when it comes to local authority budgets. I am sure that Fresh north-east will be very grateful for what he has said.
Sadly, other areas are not as lucky. They do not have a Fresh north-east; if only they did. Stop smoking services are roughly 300% more effective than quitting by going cold turkey, but in some places the specialist services are being decommissioned altogether. For example, in Blackpool, smoking prevalence is 22.5%, while the average for England is 15.5%, yet Blackpool Council recently decommissioned its specialist smoking cessation service, citing a number of factors including public sector budget cuts.
That example leads me to my next point. Between 2012 and 2014, the healthy life expectancy for newborn baby boys in England was the lowest in Blackpool at 55 years. Again, the shortest life expectancy among men was in Blackpool too, at 74.7 years. Interestingly, in 2014, Blackpool had the highest smoking prevalence at 26.9%. Wokingham had the lowest smoking prevalence at 9.8%, but the highest healthy life expectancy of 70.5 years. That is a 15.5 year difference between healthy life expectancies, and while there will be several factors in play in these figures, it is clear that smoking is one of the largest causes of health inequalities in England.
Some 26% of routine and manual workers now smoke, compared with 10% of those in managerial and professional jobs. This has slightly increased rather than decreased the inequality from 2016. Some 28% of adults with no formal qualifications are current smokers compared with only 8% of those with a degree. It is these people—manual workers or those from low socioeconomic backgrounds—who suffer the most when the Government cut spending to public health services. I therefore ask the Minister what steps his Department is taking to ensure that these people are reached by local smoking cessation services. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that smoking rates have on widening health inequalities, and how does he intend to address them?
Finally, I move on to smoking in pregnancy. The Government’s ambition to reduce smoking in pregnancy to 6% or less by 2022 is laudable. In 2015-16 the rate was 10.6%. However, new data published recently showed that the rate of smoking during pregnancy in 2017-18 had increased slightly, to 10.8%. It is therefore deeply concerning that the Smoking in Pregnancy Challenge Group, which I recently met, has warned that this ambition is unlikely to be met unless urgent action is taken.
In 2010, 19,000 babies were born with a low birth weight because their mothers had smoked during pregnancy. Up to 5,000 miscarriages, 300 perinatal deaths and around 2,200 premature births each year have been attributed to smoking during pregnancy. In addition, many other children will be three times more likely to take up smoking in later life because they live in smoking households. If we are going to have a smoke-free generation in the future, the Government must take urgent action to ensure that rates of smoking in pregnancy fall. We must not forget that it will be those very babies who will become the smoke-free generation that we all hope to see.
The current target is to reduce smoking in pregnancy to 6% or less by 2022. If that is achieved, it could mean around 30,000 fewer women smoking during pregnancy, leading to between 45 and 73 fewer stillborn babies, 11 to 25 fewer neonatal deaths, seven to 11 fewer sudden infant deaths, 482 to 796 fewer pre-term babies, and 1,455 to 2,407 fewer babies born at a low birth weight. That is something to aim for, but it will only happen if the Government take urgent steps to reduce the number of women smoking during pregnancy.
Bob Blackman
On behalf of the all-party group on smoking and health, I thank the hon. Lady for speaking at the launch of our recent report. Does she agree that we must encourage not only pregnant women to give up, but their partners, too, so that pregnant women no longer have to face the challenge of not only being deprived of smoking, but of seeing their partner smoke in front of them? This should be a partnership for both parties.
Mrs Hodgson
That is a very pertinent point. We all know the damage of passive smoking. It is all well and good if the mother gives up smoking—that will definitely help her and the baby during pregnancy—but if smoking is still going on in the household, the children will still be growing up in an environment of passive smoking. I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point and for his excellent work as chair of the all-party group.
I welcomed what the Minister said about tackling smoking in pregnancy, but will he also tell us how he will target work to encourage younger women and women from more disadvantaged backgrounds to give up smoking during pregnancy? Teenage mothers are nearly four times as likely to smoke before or during pregnancy than those aged 35 and over. Young mothers are less likely to quit before or during pregnancy, and only 38% of mothers under the age of 20 did so, compared with 58% of mothers aged 35 or above. It is clear that the Government need to tackle smoking in pregnancy, and smoking in childhood, as a matter of urgency to achieve their ambition of a smoke-free generation.
The Minister and his Department have a huge challenge on their hands if they are to meet the ambitious targets set out in the tobacco control plan. I still welcome the plan as the right thing to do, as I am sure the Minister does. Anything that is worth doing is going to be hard. We have four years to go before the target date, and the Minister must now look at how the Government can properly fund smoking cessation services to drive down smoking rates and support those who need extra help to stop smoking. I look forward to the remainder of the debate and the Minister’s closing remarks.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), who has done excellent work already in her shadowing role. I know that she was also at the forefront of this debate before shadowing these matters. Equally, I pay tribute once again to the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), who set a precedent for future public health Ministers when, at his first outing at the Dispatch Box, he agreed to publish the long-awaited tobacco control plan. We should remember that it had been delayed for a year before it was published last year at the behest of my hon. Friend, probably much to the consternation of his officials.
I also want to pay tribute to the Minister’s predecessors, particularly the former Member for Battersea, Jane Ellison, who did a brilliant job of advancing many of the controls on tobacco that we now have in such a way as to ensure that they were delivered. I remember taking on the first debate on this subject in Westminster Hall, at which many of my colleagues were present. I think it was in September 2013, and it was the first debate after we came back from the summer recess. It took place at 9.30 in the morning, and I feared that I would have an hour and a half to fill by explaining why we should have standardised packaging for tobacco products. I have to say that both major parties were opposed to that idea at the time, but we were able to convince them otherwise and we changed the policy. That measure has now been enacted, which demonstrates the power that we on the Back Benches can have to change policy in a good way.
I must gently chide the Government, however, for taking over our Back-Bench debate. This means that we cannot pass the resolution that we wanted to pass today to encourage the Government not only to adopt smoking cessation policies but to resource them properly, to ensure that the plan is delivered. We understand that we are now having this general debate, however.
I declare my interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. We could go through the history of the progress that has been made, and the speeches from the Front Benches have shown us where we are today. I want to take us back to 1974, when I was sitting my A-levels. My late parents were both very heavy smokers. In those days, half the men in this country smoked, as did more than 40% of the women. It is hard to imagine, but in many ways it was considered healthy to smoke; it was somehow considered to be good for our lungs. Sadly, both my parents died five years later of cancer, so for me this is not only a health issue but a personal one. I do not want to see other people going through what my family had to go through as a result of using tobacco products in the way that they are intended to be used.
Smoking rates have dropped remarkably. As has been mentioned, the number of adult smokers has dropped from 7.7 million in 2011 to 6.1 million in 2017. The difficulty with figures, however, is that, as the population increases, we have to go harder and further to reduce the number of people smoking. Smoking-related diseases are the leading cause of preventable death, with 80,000 people a year dying as a result of tobacco products. In Harrow, part of which I have the honour of representing, we still have 14,000 smokers, which is difficult to understand given the encouragement to quit and all the health issues, and the cost to public services is estimated to be £37.9 million a year in just one London borough, out of 32, that has about 250,000 adults. It is clear that we need further action.
The good news is that the UK is one of the leading countries in the implementation of tobacco control policies. We are recognised as a leader in the implementation of the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, and I want to remind the House of article 5.3, which states:
“In setting and implementing their public health policies with respect to tobacco control, Parties shall act to protect these policies from commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry in accordance with national law.”
The guidelines on implementing article 5.3 have been agreed by the UK and advise Governments not to enter into any partnerships, whether they be non-binding or non-enforceable, or agreements with the tobacco industry, not to accept voluntary contributions from the tobacco industry, not to accept tobacco-industry-drafted legislation or policy or voluntary codes for legally enforceable measures, not to participate in corporate social responsibility or related schemes funded by the tobacco industry, and not to permit tobacco industry representation on Government tobacco control bodies.
Former MP Paul Burstow, my predecessor as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, is now the chair of the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust and co-chair of the Mental Health and Smoking Partnership. He wrote to the Minister about the letter sent by Philip Morris International, and I am pleased that the Minister has taken up the issue straight away. The company, which manufactures Marlboro cigarettes, wrote to say that it is
“keen to work with NHS Trusts and Foundations to see if we can support the NHS in helping its employees to stop smoking”.
I do not usually promote this publication, but an article in The Guardian today quotes me, Paul Burstow and the Minister making it clear that we do not want any interference from Philip Morris and that that company should not avoid its responsibilities under the code. I am delighted that the Minister has completely rejected the position of Philip Morris, which also states that it has
“written to the heads of all the NHS Foundations and Trusts in England, all Clinical Commissioning Groups, Simon Stevens, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care”
about the issue.
Most local authorities in England have signed up to the local government declaration on tobacco control, which is a public statement of the councils’ commitment to reduce the harm caused by tobacco. The declaration commits signatories to
“protect our tobacco control work from the commercial and vested interests of the tobacco industry by not accepting any partnerships”
and so on. However, local government officers have reported continuing efforts by the tobacco industry to engage with local authorities over tobacco control issues including, but not limited to, the illicit trade. We must be clear that the industry’s involvement is not required and not welcome.
I am delighted that, on 1 November 2017, the Minister made a clear statement in this House on the Government’s position, and I am delighted that will continue. I welcome his comments, both in his opening speech and in his letter. What else can he do to make sure that local authorities, the NHS and any other interested parties do not get sucked into this offer from Philip Morris?
On the risks we run, as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West said, one of the problems is that the plan and the targets might not be met. We have to encourage everyone to get to that point. The reality is that smoking rates among young people have started to level out. There is a risk that we will not hit those targets. The target to get smoking rates down to 5% or less by 2022 is good, but I would like to see it at 0%—no one smoking. We could then say that we have achieved what we wished to achieve.
We clearly have to encourage young people not to start smoking. As has been said, more than 350 young people a day take up smoking, and 60% of them go on to smoke for the rest of their life. The huge risk is that those people will fuel the tobacco industry for the future.
There is therefore a case for further control measures, including increased funding for the initiatives, and new legislation. Although it is not appropriate to allow the tobacco manufacturers to make voluntary contributions, if they are offering to give money to the NHS and to local authorities as part of so-called corporate social responsibility, the industry clearly has money to pay for the measures we need to control tobacco and to mitigate the harm it causes, so let us make the tobacco manufacturers pay.
At a time when public sector budgets are under pressure both at national and local level, the tobacco manufacturers, if they have money, should pay an increasing share of the cost of control, as an application of the “polluter pays” principle. That is the clear recommendation of the all-party parliamentary group, and I trust my hon. Friend the Minister will therefore advance that recommendation to the Chancellor.
Steve Brine
Consider it advanced. Time will be limited for the wind-ups, so I will address the point about young people. Earlier this week, I held a roundtable in the Department of Health with a number of charities working on drug policy and with reformed drug takers. One gentleman said to me, “The trouble was that I really enjoyed taking drugs. What I didn’t enjoy was the outcome of taking drugs.”
I have heard young people say that they really enjoy smoking but that they do not enjoy the outcome. We should welcome today’s statement by the Secretary of State for Education on the new work that will be done in schools on health and relationships education. Specifically, health education can help young people to understand the health consequences of smoking, even if they might enjoy the process of smoking.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I completely agree that health education is an appropriate way to consider the issue.
There is a model in the United States that we could introduce. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 gives the US Food and Drug Administration the power to regulate the tobacco industry, funded through what is called a user fee on manufacturers. The total amount to be raised is set out in legislation and apportioned to manufacturers on the basis of their share of the US tobacco product market. I ask the Minister to look at that US legislation as a way of introducing such a model.
The major recurring costs of tobacco control, and they are important, are mass media campaigns to discourage uptake and to encourage quitting. An approach such as the one in the US would: raise hundreds of millions of pounds a year from the tobacco industry; help to protect the business of legitimate retailers who obey the tobacco control legislation; help to protect Government tax revenues—at the moment, the excise tax raised £9.9 billion in 2016-17, but the loss on illicit tobacco was estimated to be £2.4 billion; pay for the mass media campaigns to discourage smoking, which we desperately need; and provide a source of revenue to local authorities, which could help to fund local tobacco control measures, including enforcement activity and the provision of support to smokers seeking to quit. Funding for trading standards has fallen substantially in recent years, from £213 million in 2010 to only £124 million in 2016, and the National Audit Office estimates that the number of full-time staff has reduced by 56% in seven years. So there are fewer people to enforce the rules that we want to see enforced. Such an approach could also support regional partnerships working to tackle illicit tobacco. The success of that has been shown in the north-east and north-west, which have concerted multi-agency enforcement activity and effective, evidence-based measures to reduce demand. So it is clear that we can deliver on this.
Polling conducted for ASH—Action on Smoking and Health—asked respondents how strongly they would support measures requiring tobacco manufacturers to pay a levy or licence fee to help encourage people to quit and prevent young people from starting to smoke. The net support for that was 71%, with only 9% opposing. So the Minister should impress on the Chancellor the need for this and the benefit of doing it.
One key issue that I wish to emphasise above all else is the need for mass media campaigns to shock people into realising how desperate smoking is and how damaging it is to health. There is nothing like seeing those sorts of mass campaigns for encouraging people to realise that they are responsible for their health. The analysis of these campaigns has shown that they are very effective but that they have declined in recent years. Public spending on such campaigns in the UK peaked in 2008-09 at £23.38 million, but now that has fallen dramatically, to only £1.5 million in 2016-17. Clearly, we need to encourage local authorities and the Department of Health and Social Care to use the opportunity to shock people so that they understand the damage they are doing. I therefore ask the Minister to look at mass media campaigns and ensure that they are used as part of the strategy.
Finally, let me say that my area now has a large number of people from the European Union who have chosen to come here to live in this country. If we go to many eastern European countries, we see people smoking everywhere; these places do not have the tobacco control that we have in this country. Those people need to be reached to encourage them to give up smoking and ensure they look after their own health. It is those people we have to reach out to fully. I look forward to other contributions from right hon. and hon. Members, and I am sure that the Minister will reply in suitable fashion.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in today’s debate, and I welcome the one-year anniversary of the tobacco control policy for England. A great deal of progress has been made in reducing smoking prevalence across the UK. As has been pointed out, whereas in 1974 more than half of adult males and more than two in five women smoked, the latest figures from NHS Digital suggest that smoking rates in the UK are now 15.1%. So I say congratulations on that achievement.
The figures on smoking prevalence in Scotland, where I come from, vary as between sources, but the Office for National Statistics has suggested a prevalence rate of 16.3% in 2017. Since 2010, Scotland has seen the largest decline in the proportion of smokers of the four UK jurisdictions, with a reduction of more than eight percentage points. That said, there are still about 10,000 smoking-related deaths per year and 128,000 smoking-related hospital admissions in Scotland.
The Scottish Government published their new five-year tobacco control plan in June. It goes a little further than the tobacco control plan for England, in that it not only puts forward a vision of a smoke-free generation but sets a date, 2034, by which we wish to achieve that vision. If Scotland is to achieve its vision, it requires action by the Westminster Government on issues that are not devolved, such as tax, illicit trade and smoking in the entertainment media. Page 14 of the tobacco control plan for Scotland commits the Scottish Government to
“continue to work with the UK Government to address the representation of tobacco use in the media.”
That is not something that the Scottish Government can do on their own.
A clear causal link has been established between exposure to smoking on screen in the entertainment media and smoking initiation in young people. The greater the exposure, the greater the risk of smoking uptake; yet smoking remains common in entertainment media viewed on screen by young people, including prime-time TV, videos, and films. A recent survey for ASH found that in all media for which questions were asked—TV, films, music videos, computer games and online—the 11 to 18-year-olds who had tried smoking were significantly more likely than those who had never smoked to report exposure to smoking imagery. The highest level of young people’s exposure to smoking imagery was in films, with 81% of 11 to 15-year-olds and 88% of 16 to 18-year-olds reporting seeing smoking. An analysis of UK TV programmes broadcast between 6 and 10 pm in 2015 found that 12% of all programmes featured tobacco use, which was the same proportion as in 2010. In both 2010 and 2015 the frequency before and after the 9 o’clock watershed was roughly similar. Only a very small minority of the content could be justifiable on historical accuracy or other grounds.
The relevant regulators are Ofcom and the British Board of Film Classification. Ofcom, which has a statutory responsibility to protect the under-18s, has much more stringent rules than the BBFC. However, both regulators appear to be more concerned about how smoking is depicted than the overall amount of the exposure taking place. Will the Minister endorse the following recommendations and ask his colleagues in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to put them into effect through revised Ofcom and BBFC codes? First, Ofcom and the BBFC should monitor youth exposure to depictions of tobacco use on screen on the channels that they regulate and publish the data in their annual reviews; secondly, Ofcom and the BBFC should revise their guidelines with respect to smoking on screen in entertainment media viewed by under-18s, to discourage any depictions of tobacco use and require action to mitigate any remaining exposure; and thirdly, if smoking features in any programme or film likely to be widely seen, heard or accessed by under-18s, an anti-tobacco advertisement must be displayed at the beginning and in any advertising breaks.
When I spoke in the debate on the tobacco control plan in October last year, I focused heavily on the illicit trade, which the Minister will remember, and encouraged him to ensure that the UK ratified the illicit trade protocol in time for the meeting in October this year, so I am absolutely delighted that the UK did indeed ratify it. In fact, we were the 40th country to do so and thereby triggered the entering into force of the treaty. I congratulate the Government on that.
However, the UK Government still need to do more to tackle the illicit trade. In 2016-17, the size of the illicit market for cigarettes had remained roughly stable since around 2010, although as smoking prevalence has declined significantly, it has made up a higher proportion of the total market. Because taxes have increased over the years, the total tax revenue lost as a result of illicit trade has grown from £1.9 billion in 2010 to roughly £2.5 billion today.
Articles 15 and 16 of the tobacco products directive 2014/40/EU provide for EU-wide systems of traceability and security features for tobacco products, to address the issue of illicit trade. There are a lot of good suggestions and lots of good work in that directive. Under the traceability system, all unit packets of tobacco products are required to be marked with a unique identifier, and relevant economic operators involved in the tobacco trade are required to record the movements of tobacco products throughout the supply chain and transmit the related information to an independent provider, with data storage contracts to be approved by the Commission. The data will then be made accessible for enforcement purposes to the authorities of EU countries and to the Commission. Under the security features system, all unit packets of tobacco products placed on the EU market will be required to carry a tamper-proof security feature, composed of visible and invisible elements, enabling authorities and consumers to verify their authenticity. It is therefore, in my opinion, essential to the control of the illicit tobacco trade that the UK should continue to participate in the EU tracking and tracing system after Brexit and that any such system implemented in the UK is independent of tobacco manufacturers as required by the illicit trade protocol.
A study for the tobacco control research group at the University of Bath, published just last month, exposes evidence that the big tobacco companies are still facilitating tobacco smuggling. The protocol explicitly requires Governments to take responsibility for control measures, rather than relying on industry self-regulation, which has failed so miserably to date. The industry must not be allowed to control the traceability system, either directly or indirectly through proxies.
In conclusion, will the Minister commit to the UK remaining in the EU tracking and traceability system for tobacco products after Brexit? Will he report on the UK’s progress in implementing the requirements of the EU tracking and traceability system, and will he confirm that the system of tracking and tracing of tobacco products, which will be adopted by the UK, will comply with the independence requirements set out in the WHO illicit trade protocol?
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I appreciate being called at this stage of the debate. I declare my role as a vice-chair of the all-party group on smoking and health. This was going to be a Backbench Business debate on a motion that I put forward to consider further action necessary to deliver the vision set out in the tobacco control plan for England 2017 of a smoke-free generation by 2022.
I am grateful to colleagues across the party groups for working with me to secure the original debate. I am also grateful to ASH and other organisations for assisting with my preparation today. I will read the original Backbench Business motion into the record so that the Minister can take it on board. It reads:
“That this House welcomes the Government’s Tobacco Control Plan published in July 2017; notes its ambition to create a smokefree generation and to reduce the prevalence of 15 year olds who regularly smoke from 8% to 3% or less; notes the slowing rate of decline in youth smoking prevalence and risk to progress; and calls on the Government to develop new strategies to ensure that it allocates the resources and the funding necessary to deliver on that ambition.”
I very much welcome what the Minister had to say today and the 66 recommendations that are coming forward to move things along. I want to summarise the key points that I had originally hoped to make in much more detail.
This is an important issue for me in relation to my home area, the borough of Stockton-on-Tees. The smoking rate has come down considerably: 15% of the adult population in Stockton are currently smokers. Some 31% of the households that have a smoker are below the poverty line. If they quit, 1,991 households would be lifted out of poverty, and residents of those households include 1,342 dependent children. Smoking costs Stockton-on-Tees approximately £37.4 million, it costs the NHS £8.5 million, and £24.1 million in lost productivity. Some 15.3% of pregnant women in our area smoked at the time of their baby’s delivery.
Furthermore, the analysis of the most recent youth smoking data by Cancer Research UK finds that more than 350 young people started smoking every day. That is the equivalent of 17 secondary school classrooms. At the current rate of decline in smoking cessation, we will fail to achieve the ambition for England that, by 2022, 3% or less of 15 year olds are regular smokers.
Health inequalities are growing: one in four people in routine and manual occupation smokes compared with one in 10 in professional and managerial occupations, and that gap is widening. The key points of the Backbench Business proposal were the need to do more to reduce smoking initiation in young people and to encourage quitting among adults. We must reduce young people’s exposure to smoking in film, television and other media. That issue was raised by the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) a few minutes ago.
There is substantial peer-reviewed evidence that shows a causal link between exposure to smoking in the media and starting to smoke and that young people are being exposed to smoking on screen in the UK. Government have a role to play in encouraging media regulators to take smoking seriously and to act in this area. The Government need to urge Ofcom and the BBFC to revise their guidelines with respect to smoking on screen in entertainment media viewed by under-18s to discourage any depictions of tobacco use and to require action to mitigate any remaining exposure. We can make it more difficult for young people to obtain cigarettes by increasing the age of sale to 21, introducing retail licensing for the sale of tobacco and properly funding regional activity to support enforcement.
In the UK in 2014, 77% of smokers aged 16 to 24 began smoking before the age of 18. Evidence from the US shows that raising the legal purchase age to 21 reduces the number of young people who start smoking, reduces smoking-caused deaths and immediately improves the health of young people. More than one third of under-age smokers buy their cigarettes from shops without a licence, which can be revoked if they continue selling—so tobacco retailers can continue to sell tobacco to minors or to sell illicit tobacco. A retail licensing scheme covering all levels of the supply chain from manufacturer to retailer would also help to protect the business of legitimate retailers who obey tobacco control legislation.
As others have said, Government need to do much more to support and enhance enforcement where there is illegal activity, but funding cuts have led to significant reductions in the capacity of trading standards departments, which are responsible for seizures of illicit tobacco and prosecutions for tobacco fraud. From personal experience, I know that the capacity simply does not exist. Time and again, I have alerted Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to tab houses selling tobacco illegally in Stockton, but those very same tab houses continue to sell. HMRC is the beneficiary of enforcement activity, as it protects tax revenues, so surely it should be required to fund the activity, which could be organised at the regional level, which is the most cost-effective way of doing it.
One of my principal concerns is the much higher incidence of smoking in disadvantaged communities and how we de-normalise it and tackle health inequalities by funding mass media campaigns, which the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about in detail. Some 83% of children who smoke regularly have family members who smoke, and this is magnified in disadvantaged communities, such as the town centre ward in Stockton. Public spending on these campaigns, however, has fallen from a peak of £23.38 million in 2008-09 to only £2 million last year. We need to reverse those cuts, as such campaigns are highly effective and can be targeted at poorer and more disadvantaged groups, which have the highest rates of smoking.
The “polluter pays” levy on tobacco manufacturers, which the all-party group on smoking and health supports, could help to fund mass media campaigns as well as other important tobacco control measures. It is time to consider the greater role for social media to amplify the impact of mass media campaigns. There is now the capability to target individual postcode districts with specific messages using, among other things, the promote tool on Facebook. We could help the 60% of smokers who say they want to quit smoking by funding stop smoking treatment and including inserts in tobacco packets encouraging quit attempts.
In 2017, the budget for stop smoking services was cut in half by local authorities in England. The NHS and local authorities need to collaborate more effectively to ensure that smokers, particularly vulnerable groups who tend to be more addicted and have greater difficulty quitting, have access to the help they need. I think the Minister alluded to that in detail—if one can allude to anything in detail—in his speech. Simon Stevens told the Health Select Committee a couple of weeks ago that local authority stop smoking services were not sufficient and that NHS England needed to do more to treat vulnerable groups of smokers under its care. He said:
“It is pretty clear that we will have to keep pushing harder on smoking, and smoking cessation is part of that. That cannot all be done through local authority commissioned services; we are going to have to look at whether the NHS can embed smoking cessation in more of the routine contacts that we have with vulnerable groups who are still smoking. ASH and the Royal College of Physicians have put out an important set of proposals in the last 10 days, which we will take a very careful look at.”
I very much welcome that, and I hope the Minister does too.
On the subject of pack inserts, research from Stirling University has shown that smokers of a variety of ages, gender and social grade support their use as an aid to encourage them to quit. The Minister said earlier that we did not need more legislation. Well, perhaps we do. We need legislation mandating pack inserts, which would provide an inexpensive and highly targeted means of supplementing on-pack warnings.
People with mental health conditions are being left behind in all this. Approximately 40% of people with a mental health condition smoke. Smoking is the main reason that people with mental health conditions die 10 to 20 years earlier on average than the general population. They tend to smoke more heavily, be more heavily addicted and find it harder to quit. It is not that they do not want to quit, but that they need more help to succeed. The Minister mentioned this in his opening remarks, but I hope that he will say a little more when he winds up the debate. I can help a wee bit—at least the people who are briefing me can.
To reduce smoking among people with a mental health condition, we need to ensure that all mental health trusts treat tobacco dependency alongside implementing smoke-free grounds; to have improved data on smoking rates and service provision for people with a mental health condition who smoke; and to empower and inform people with a mental health condition to take control of their smoking and to include them in the development of services. We need specific national targets for reducing smoking rates in people with mental health conditions, and shared plans between local authorities and the NHS to ensure that smokers get support and help in the community as well as when they are being treated as in-patients. We need to train all mental health staff in smoking cessation and to offer a range of alternative nicotine-containing products, including e-cigarettes, to those struggling to quit. Furthermore, as called for by the Royal College of Physicians and ASH, we need treatment for tobacco dependency to be embedded throughout the NHS, not just in NHS mental health trusts. This would improve treatment outcomes. The Minister knows all this.
Smoking exacerbates as well as causes disease, and helping smokers to quit can reduce NHS treatment costs and improve quality of life for patients. This includes pregnancy, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other respiratory diseases, cardiovascular disease, mental health, surgery, diabetes and HIV/AIDS, not to mention 16 different types of cancer. Advice and treatment can increase patients’ chances of quitting up to fourfold. It is about the cheapest and most effective healthcare intervention around, costing hundreds of pounds per successful quitter. But despite these impressive results, only 24% of patients diagnosed with lung cancer are offered advice to quit by their GPs, and only 13% are prescribed stop smoking treatment. The RCP has calculated that if all smokers were provided with help to quit, the NHS could save £60 million annually in hospital readmission costs and A&E attendances alone from year one onwards, once the cost of the treatment is taken into account.
There are many other aspects to this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East—I call him my hon. Friend, despite the fact that he sits on the Government Benches—talked about other nationalities living in the UK. We could talk in great detail about people from eastern Europe and the extremely high levels of smoking in those communities, but I want to finish with just two simple questions for the Minister. Will the Government seriously consider all the recommendations that I have outlined in the debate today? Will he commit to asking Simon Stevens, as chief executive of the NHS, to confirm that tobacco dependency treatment for all smokers, as recommended by the RCP and ASH, will be included in the plan for the NHS to be published in November? He knows, as we all do, that lives depend on it.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I speak as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and as a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, to which, as everybody knows, the secretariat is Action on Smoking and Health, which I have been involved in for over two and a half decades now.
Smoking continues to be one of the most pressing health issues in my constituency, despite decades of progress in this country. Most importantly, it remains an enduring cause of unequal life expectancy for my constituents—something that it is extremely welcome to see the Government acknowledge in the tobacco control plan. Different Governments over the years have not always acknowledged these stark issues, which have been around for decades.
In Rotherham, which is partly in my constituency, 16.2% of the population smoke, which is above the English average of 14.9%. In 2016-17, 17.1% of women were smokers at the time of delivery, compared with the regional value of 14.4% and the national value of 10.7%, so we have higher rates of smoking in pregnancy than elsewhere. In 2014-16, of the estimated deaths attributed to smoking per 1,000 of the population aged 35-plus, 1,487 were in Rotherham. If anything else was killing that number of the population in our constituencies, we would rightly be taking action, and more action than we currently do.
In 2016, there were 3,620 smoking-attributable hospital admissions in Rotherham. In 2017, 22.8% of routine workers smoked compared with 13.1% of those in managerial professions. Among people who have never worked, the smoking rate rises further, up to 24.8%. Each year, smoking in Rotherham costs society approximately £64.2 million. This cost is accrued in a range of social domains, including healthcare, productivity, social care and house fires. It used to be chip pans that caused more house fires in constituencies such as mine, but cigarettes have now taken over.
The total annual cost of smoking to the NHS across Rotherham is estimated at about £12.7 million, with £3.7 million of this due to 3,244 hospital admissions for smoking-related conditions and £9 million due to treating smoking-related illness via primary and ambulatory care services. In 2015, there were 24,924 households in Rotherham with at least one smoker. When net income and smoking expenditure is taken into account, 34% of households with a smoker fell below the poverty line. If those smokers were to quit, 2,173 households in Rotherham would be elevated above the poverty line. These are the stakes for people with this addiction in constituencies such as mine.
I have long supported a strong approach to tobacco harm reduction as an important plank in the strategy to reduce health inequalities. Smokers who are disadvantaged face many more barriers to quitting, including high levels of addiction. A properly implemented tobacco harm reduction strategy can address this, and obviously has been doing so in the recent past. The commitment in the tobacco control plan to support innovation is welcome. Since the plan was published, Public Health England has published an updated evidence review of e-cigarettes showing the growing evidence that vaping is less harmful than smoking and has the potential to support thousands more people to become smoke free.
As I said in the debate on this subject in Westminster Hall, this is the first tobacco control plan that has ever mentioned e-cigarettes. The recent report by the Royal College of Physicians on smoking and the NHS reiterated the RCP’s support for the use of e-cigarettes and encouraged wider use of these products within the NHS. However, smokers’ appetite for trying e-cigarettes seems to have slowed somewhat. Since 2013, there has been a tailing off in the rapid growth in the market. This coincides with a deterioration of public understanding about the relative safety of e-cigarettes compared with smoking.
Action on Smoking and Health has recently provided evidence to the Science and Technology Committee inquiry on e-cigarettes. ASH reported a moderate improvement in accurate understanding of the harms from e-cigarettes between 2017 and 2018, but 22% of current smokers still think that e-cigarettes are as harmful or more harmful than smoking. Yet Public Health England has said that they are now at least 95% safer than cigarettes. Clearly, more needs to be done to promote better health understanding of the relative safety of e-cigarettes. This should include addressing the lack of understanding also among health professionals, in addition to engaging smokers more in this.
I want to give a couple of brief examples of how e-cigarettes interact with smoking rates. The Minister has heard me say before that meeting the targets in the last plan and reducing adult smoking to its current levels was probably very much helped by smokers voluntarily taking up e-cigarettes. Some 2.9 million adults in the UK use e-cigarettes, more than half of whom have stopped smoking completely, so about 1.5 million people have stopped smoking because of e-cigarettes. ASH produced those figures for 2017. Likewise, 18% of smokers used e-cigarettes in 2017, and 23% of ex-smokers reported that they use or used to use an e-cigarette. One person in the UK switches to e-cigarettes every three minutes, allegedly.
I want to give a comparator and to refer back to my intervention on the Minister. I chaired the Health Committee in 2005, after we had fought an election on a manifesto commitment by the Labour party to introduce a ban on smoking in public places. I stood on that manifesto, but the ban proposed was not a comprehensive one. The Health Committee, of which I became the Chair, investigated smoking in public places. We went to Ireland to take evidence, because it had had such a ban for about two years.
I will now demonstrate the effectiveness of e-cigarettes by comparing smoking rates in the UK versus those in Ireland, where every other approach to tobacco control is identical to those in the UK, such as plain packaging, retail display bans and marketing promotions all stopped. In recent years in the UK, smoking rates have dropped by almost a quarter—according to the Office for National Statistics, 24.4% of UK adults smoked in 2012 and 15.8% in 2016—and the UK now has the second lowest smoking rate in Europe. In Ireland, which has exactly the same tobacco control as we put through this place over many years, smoking rates have stagnated: 23% of adults smoked in 2015 and 2016, dropping to 22% in 2017, according to Healthy Ireland stats. That shows how the use of e-cigarettes has been good in reducing smoking in this country.
According to Public Health England, e-cigarette use is associated with improved quitting success rates over the past year and an accelerated drop in smoking rates across the country. It said that e-cigarettes contribute to at least 20,000 successful new quits per year and possibly many more—we are not measuring them in those terms, although that is something that clearly needs to be done.
I will finish soon, but as much as I support the tobacco plan in all its targets and everything else, we still need to look at what is happening on the ground, as several other Members have said. I think that we would all accept that the availability of smoking cessation programmes is patchy to say the least.
ONS stats on smoking prevalence identify for us the five local authorities with the highest rates: Redditch, Thanet—so this is not necessarily a north-south thing as a result of deprivation, or there is clearly deprivation in Thanet as well, down on the south coast—the City of Kingston upon Hull, which I think was mentioned earlier in this debate, Glasgow City and Sunderland. The five local authorities with the lowest smoking prevalence rates are Christchurch, West Devon, Maldon, North Warwickshire and the Orkney Islands. In my view, we need to recognise those differences to get to the meat of the targets. We need to look beyond saying that this is a matter for local authorities.
“Feeling the Heat: The Decline of Stop Smoking Services in England” was a Cancer Research UK survey and report done in 2017. Its conclusions were that budgets for local authority cessation services ranged from nil to £1.7 million, or an average of £436,000 per local authority, and that 61% of local authorities offered specialist cessation services, with advisers offering one-to-one or group support and access to medication. Some have been replaced with a more general lifestyle service. Tobacco control was said to be a high priority by 57% of the local authorities—they say that, but have they the ability to do anything?—while 75% of local authority cessation services supported use of e-cigarettes, but only 50% of primary care providers did so. We need a consistent approach in line with public health and NICE recommendations. The last figure I will give from the report was that a third of local authorities had no budget for wider tobacco control activity, dealing with issues such as illicit and under-age trade.
I will finish with this point for the Minister. Given that we know the areas where there is evidence of high levels of smoking and therefore a high number of premature deaths from smoking, we need something more—in the current situation of austerity and everything else—than just saying that we want local authorities to get on with this. Having identified where such needs have to be met—this should definitely be ring-fenced—perhaps the national Government, or the Department of Health and Social Care, will find a way to look at this and make sure that we get the services where the need is greatest. I will leave that with the Minister. I thank him again for all he has done since he has been in office, and I hope that the success we want from this tobacco plan will take place.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the plan. As always, he is very active in health matters, and he certainly has a passion for this. I also thank right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken. Their information and evidence-based contributions have added greatly to the debate. Their knowledge is certainly greater than mine, but I must say that the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) have made significant contributions.
I am my party’s health spokesperson in this House, and I want to provide a bit of background about Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman referred to some of the facts from Ireland, and I will look at this from a Northern Ireland perspective. We in the Democratic Unionist party set out our health policies in “Our plan for a world class health service”. When we had a functioning Assembly, that was one of the things we were very proud of; I hope we will get back to those days very soon. One of the aims was to improve the health service, and one of the pillars and listed successful health outcomes over the past few years was a decrease in smoking.
We have clearly had a policy and a strategy to address this issue. In 2012, the Northern Ireland Public Health Agency published its public health strategy “Making Life Better” for 2012 to 2023. In 2015, it published “Tobacco Control Northern Ireland”, which stated:
“Smoking has been identified as the single greatest cause of preventable illness and premature death in Northern Ireland”.
The tobacco control paper noted that in 2014, about 16% or one in six of all deaths in Northern Ireland were attributable to smoking. Over the ten years to 2015, smoking caused between 2,300 and 2,400 premature deaths per year. That indicated how important it was to reduce tobacco smoking and its take-up.
Across Northern Ireland, the standardised death rate due to smoking-related causes in the most deprived areas was 54% higher than the overall regional rate and 129% higher than the standardised death rate in the least deprived areas, and relative health inequality was getting worse. A general theme coming through from all those who have made contributions is the take-up of smoking in areas of deprivation across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. There is also a related gender gap. The standardised death rate due to smoking-related causes was highest among males in the 20% most deprived areas, more than twice that of males in the 20% least deprived areas, and almost five times that of females in the 20% least deprived areas. According to the report, smoking cost Northern Ireland some £450 million a year.
We quite clearly had a big issue that we were trying to address, and I believe the strategy implemented through “Tobacco Control Northern Ireland” was a methodology to do just that. Reducing smoking prevalence remains central to Northern Ireland’s public health policy, and we clearly support what the Minister has said, and what other Members have said, because they also recognise that. Although health is a devolved responsibility, many other areas of public policy relevant to reducing smoking prevalence remain the responsibility of the Government in Westminster, and our contribution takes that into consideration.
If I may, I want to comment on e-cigarettes. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley very clearly outlined the advantages of e-cigarettes and vaping. Some of the figures are incredibly important. Vapour particles from e-cigarettes are 73% water, which means that they quickly evaporate into the atmosphere, and the evidence of experts shows that 99% of the nicotine is retained in the vapour. It is very important to appreciate the advantages of e-cigarettes.
According to the UK national health service, there is no evidence of direct harm from passive exposure to e-cigarette vapour, and if we look outside the United Kingdom, evidence from other countries—France is one example—suggests there is no harm from passive vaping, based on current scientific knowledge, facts and figures. In 2016, the UK Government issued advice to employers to encourage workplaces to adopt pro-vaping policies so that it would be as easy and convenient as possible for workers to switch. That was on the basis that international peer-reviewed evidence indicates that the risk to the health of bystanders from exposure to e-cigarette vapour is extremely low. Again, there is an evidential base. Not so long ago I asked the Department of Health and Social Care whether it would consider introducing vaping areas in hospitals. People who are visiting hospitals go outside to smoke, and those who want to vape do not necessarily want to go to those smoking areas. I hope that the Minister will consider that idea.
In Newtownards, the major town of my Strangford constituency, a number of shops sell e-cigarettes. I suggest that those shops function because of the take-up of e-cigarettes—that is why they can pay their bills and why they exist. Very often, someone walking down the high street in Newtownards and elsewhere can see puffs of smoke. They are almost taken aback, and then they get the smell of strawberry, raspberry or cashew nuts, and realise that someone is vaping.
I want to comment on that point because it is important. The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) mentioned the US, and a survey carried out there suggested that vaping flavours may discourage smokers from returning to cigarettes. It stated:
“The results show that non-tobacco flavours, especially fruit based flavours, are being increasingly preferred to tobacco flavours by adult vapers who have completely switched from combustible cigarettes to vapour products.”
That was a survey of 20,000 adult frequent vapers in the United States, and of those 20,000, 16,000 had completely switched from smoking to vaping, and 5,000 were dual users who smoked and used vaping products—I want to add that point to the debate, because we must consider those results and look at the best ways to tackle this issue.
Hon. Members have asked how we can advance our strategy further. The Tobacco Control Northern Ireland report stated that exposure to smoking behaviour
“continues to occur in films deemed by the British Board of Film Classification as suitable for children and young people…this tobacco imagery extends beyond the film industry into mainstream television broadcasts”.
More than 60% of incidences of tobacco use occur before the 9 pm watershed, thereby providing a possible source of young people’s exposure to tobacco. A clear causal link has been established between smoking initiation among young people and smoking on screen in the entertainment media. The impact is down to the amount of smoking that young people see, not whether it is glamorised or not. The greater the exposure to smoking—however it is depicted—the greater the risk of smoking uptake, and I am sure that the Minister will come back with his thoughts about that.
Will the Minister ask his colleagues who are responsible for the regulation of film and TV in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to work with the Department of Health and Social Care, and press Ofcom and the British Board of Film Classification to ensure that their codes effectively tackle the portrayal of smoking in films and television programmes that are likely to be seen by children?
In Northern Ireland, since 6 April 2016, retailers have been obliged to register with the Tobacco Register of Northern Ireland, with a final deadline of 1 July 2016. That built on a similar scheme already in place in Scotland—the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) referred to that—and a scheme is due for implementation in Wales. Lessons can be learned from such schemes, and I believe that we can learn greatly from the other regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and bring our thoughts together to do something collectively that will benefit us all. Although registration schemes have the benefit of enabling public health authorities to identify where tobacco is sold, as currently constructed they appear to have had limited impact in preventing the sale of tobacco to underage children, or the sale of illicit tobacco.
I know this point is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I would just like to put it on record. In Northern Ireland, paramilitaries are involved with illegal tobacco smuggling and cheap cigarettes flood the market. The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the customs authorities are involved in trying to address the issue, but if I may I would suggest that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs could be more involved across the whole of the United Kingdom.
In conclusion, will the Minister ensure that his officials and their counterparts in HMRC talk to their opposite numbers in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales about their experience of the retail register scheme, and the lessons to be learned from the experience of the devolved Administrations? We can look at live these issues collectively, bringing our knowledge from the regions we represent. Hopefully, out of that we can construct a tobacco control policy that can help us all.
Mrs Hodgson
With the leave of the House, I would like to start my closing remarks by thanking the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), the chair and vice-chair of the very influential and active all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, for their excellent speeches today and their leadership on this issue. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron). As we know, he has campaigned in this House for decades on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who speaks for the Scottish National party, and, last but by no means least, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It has been an excellent debate.
I will begin by touching on e-cigarettes, which I mentioned in my opening remarks and several hon. Members mentioned in the debate. For the first time, e-cigarettes were mentioned in the updated tobacco control plan, with the aim of maximising the availability of safer alternatives to smoking. There has been a significant increase in e-cigarette usage since the publication of the previous 2011 strategy. There were 700,000 e-cigarette users in 2012. That figure rose to 2.8 million by 2016. In 2016, Office for National Statistics data found that 470,000 people were using e-cigarettes as an aid to stop smoking, while an estimated 2 million had used the products and had stopped smoking completely. I am therefore pleased that Public Health England’s Stoptober campaign now includes e-cigarettes as a smoking cessation aid and that e-cigarettes have been found to be about 95% less harmful than smoking. We should encourage people to use smoking cessation aids, such as e-cigarettes, to help them to stop smoking, while keeping a watchful eye on any negative health outcomes, if there are any.
Earlier this year, I joined the Minister, Action on Smoking and Health, Fresh North East and a host of NHS professionals to launch the NHS Smokefree Pledge. During my speech at the launch, I said that smoking cessation should become a central theme of healthcare staff’s engagement with patients, making every contact count to help people to quit smoking. Has the Minister made any assessment of the success of this pledge so far and will the Government make any further assessment of how many people have quit smoking because of the NHS Smokefree Pledge?
While the proportion of adults who have never smoked cigarettes has increased over the past 30 years, from 25% of men and 49% of women in 1974 to 56% and 63% respectively in 2016, we must ensure that that steady increase continues. However, the deaths attributable to smoking continue. Of the 115,000 lung disease deaths each year, up to 58,500 are attributable to smoking. This includes 86% of all lung cancer deaths and 77% of all chronic obstructive pulmonary disease deaths. The UK currently has one of the highest premature mortality rates from lung diseases in Europe. Smokers are almost twice as likely to have a heart attack compared with people who have never smoked and about half of all regular smokers will eventually be killed by their habit. This is unacceptable.
The Government have a duty to ensure that their citizens are healthy, which means properly funded public health services and implementing policies that encourage healthier lifestyles. Will the Minister tell the House if further funding will be granted to local authorities to deliver public health services such as smoking cessation? I truly believe that the ambitions in the tobacco control plan cannot be achieved without adequate funding. I know that like me, he is truly passionate about reducing smoking rates and rightly passionate about achieving a smoke-free generation, so I look forward to his response.
Steve Brine
With the leave of the House, I will also respond to the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am aware that I am standing in the middle of the A14—almost literally—which is tonight’s Adjournment debate, but I will respond to the points that have been raised in this short and small but perfectly formed debate.
The shadow Minister—my good friend, the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson)—rightly mentioned the issue of pregnant women and smoking, to which I referred in my opening remarks. Public Health England and NHS England are working on a joint strategy at the moment, setting out recommendations for how local areas can work together to achieve our ambition on smoking in pregnancy. In a way, I guess that is given a greater impetus in the light of the flatlining figures—I suppose that is the accurate way of putting it. This work is part of the maternity transformation programme, which started in 2016 and which I know she is aware of. Public Health England will look at how its mass media campaign can more effectively reach young people, especially working-class women of reproductive age and their families and friends. I wanted to put that on the record.
The hon. Lady returned to the subject of smoking services. I repeat what I said during the debate: there are varying rates across the country, so it is right that local councils have the flexibility to respond. I will touch on the point that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) mentioned about this being all the responsibility of local authorities. There is a third way, he will pleased to know, as a Blairite—that has finished his career, I apologise. I put on record again that councils will receive £16 billion of the public health funding until the next spending review, when the spending plans will be announced. We expect them to use it wisely.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about the Back-Bench debate and the general debate. I will leave that matter for the usual channels, but the important thing is that we are having the debate, which is very welcome.
The shadow Minister spoke about smoking cessation training and those services. The success of our plan hinges on all manner of professionals offering help that works, which is why effective training on supporting smokers to quit is central to the tobacco control plan—from doctors and nurses in the NHS to physiotherapists in the community, to pharmacists, who I have mentioned, and to the health professionals who need to equip smokers with the capability, opportunity and motivation to quit for good. It often involves very brief advice and there is a lot of online training out there. Twenty minutes or so of online training can teach a professional how to have a short conversation with somebody with a smoking challenge, with proven results. I wanted to put that on record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East mentioned Philip Morris International and its kind proposal to help NHS trusts, which has been in the newspapers today. I thought I would place on record for the House that what it talked about in its offer to trusts was “operating a scheme that allows employees who do not quit to trial one of our range of smoke-free alternatives”. We have to give them 10 out of 10 for effort, but it is totally inappropriate and that is why we have written to all trusts to make it clear.
I understand my hon. Friend’s Budget 2018 proposal for the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the need for the money in respect of the polluter pays principle. I know that the Chancellor will have heard that. My hon. Friend talked about the need for hard-hitting campaigns. We do have them, of course, and they are an essential part of tobacco control. In England for several years now, we have sought the balance between hope and harm. Every January, we have the Health Harms campaign and in the autumn, we have our more upbeat Stoptober campaign, and 2018 will be no exception.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day), who spoke for the SNP, talked about the illicit tobacco trade protocol, and I thank him for putting on record that we indeed ratified the protocol on 27 June to eliminate the illicit trade in protocols. The first meeting of the members of the protocol will be in Geneva from 8 to 10 October.
The hon. Gentleman talked about track and trace. The tobacco products directive contains a commitment for member states to provide the track and trace system by May 2019 for cigarettes and roll-your-own tobacco. The European Union has published draft recommendations on the track and trace proposals, and we voted in favour of implementing the regulations. I would say that the EU measures go beyond the requirements of the framework convention on tobacco control, but many of its benefits arise from the exchange of information between nations, so it seemed sensible to us for the UK to align with the EU after exit in this respect.
Both the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk talked about smoking and the media. The Government do not interfere in editorial decisions. I think it right that content makers decide what to include in their programmes, provided that they comply with the broadcasting code, and I ask them to take their responsibility seriously. Obviously, as Members have said, they are regulated by Ofcom. Last month, it published a note to broadcasters reminding them of the rules in this area, and advising them on the depiction of branding and health warnings. The last time Ofcom found a breach of the broadcasting code related to smoking was in 2015, so I think that broadcasters take the code seriously.
Many Members mentioned the British Board of film Classification, which I know well and which is a well-managed organisation. Its guidelines were last updated four years ago, in 2014. Consultation on the new guidelines began late last year, and they are expected to be published early in 2019.
There was a lot of talk about e-cigarettes, which were partly dealt with at the beginning of the debate. Public Health England will update its evidence report on e-cigarettes and other novel nicotine delivery systems annually until the end of the current Parliament in 2022, and we will include that in our “quit smoking” campaign messages about the relative—I underline “relative”, if Hansard can underline—safety of e-cigarettes. I enjoyed the comparison that the right hon. Member for Rother Valley made with Ireland: I thank him for that.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that not everything could be done by local authorities. We have not said that it should. I have made it very clear to Public Health England that where we have more work to do is where they should target their help and support, but there is also a new grant to support the tobacco control plan. The Government have launched a competitive scheme whereby organisations can apply to undertake work to support the plan’s ambitions. The grant is £140,000 a year for three years, from 2018-19: a total of £420,000 is available. Applications are currently being assessed, and we will contact the successful applicants in the autumn. I will find out some more details and send them to the all-party group.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—as always!—asked whether we would introduce vaping areas in hospitals. Public Health England advises that the smoking of e-cigarettes should not be routinely treated in the same way as smoking tobacco, but it is true that it is for NHS trusts to make their own policies. Some, including the Maudsley, have designated areas both indoors and outdoors.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
It is up to the Minister. He said that he wanted to speak for only one minute.
Mr Deputy Speaker
It was the Minister who suggested that he wanted only one minute in which to sum up. The fact that we are late does not matter to me.
Alex Cunningham
Let me tease the Minister on three matters. One, what are we going to do about the “tab houses”? Two, what is his position on cigarette pack inserts? Three, what is he doing to do about the fact that mass media campaign funding has been cut by 90% in the last 10 years? We need that funding in order to be effective.
Steve Brine
I will write to the hon. Gentleman about his first two points. As for the mass media point, the hard-hitting campaigns that we conduct through the mass media are incredibly powerful. Last year’s campaign showed a gentleman rolling a cigarette with roll-your-own tobacco made of blood and gore. That was very hard-hitting, and it had an incredibly good response mechanism when we tested it and when we rolled it out. In this year’s campaign, “between hope and harm”, I think the hon. Gentleman will see a good balance of that mass media campaign that he talked about.
I realise that that was more than a minute, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is so much to say about this subject! It is so exciting.
Let me end by reaffirming the Government’s commitment. What everyone has said today has been very kind. Yes, I am committed to this subject, but ultimately we will be judged on our record. We are committed to making further sharp reductions in smoking prevalence, not so that we can meet the ambitions of the plan, although that is all very nice, but so that we can make a difference to people’s lives, because as the right hon. Member for Rother Valley said, if our constituents were dying in these numbers in road accidents we would be calling for crossings.
We want to make the smoke-free generation a reality to help people’s lives and to make a difference. Tobacco control is a key priority for us, and it will be a key priority for the 10-year plan that the Secretary of State and I will be working on with NHS England. I was interested to hear the comments of Simon Stevens at the Select Committee, and I agree with Simon, not for the first time.
I thank all Members who have spoken for their contributions—and it is amazing how far a minute can go, Mr Deputy Speaker.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Tobacco Control Plan.
Use of Chamber (Women MPs of the World Conference)
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the events organised to celebrate women’s suffrage and to mark the centenary of the Representation of the People Act 1918; recognises that the Women MPs of the World Conference provides a unique opportunity to gather parliamentarians from across the world to engage in discussions about equal representation and bring about social change; and accordingly resolves that parliamentarians who are delegates participating in the Women MPs of the World Conference should be allowed to hold a debate in the Chamber of this House on a day in November other than a day on which this House is sitting or a day on which the UK Youth Parliament is making use of the Chamber.—(Mims Davies.)
A14 Cambridge-Huntingdon Upgrade
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to consider in the House the very important issue of the problems caused by the diversions implemented during the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon upgrade. This really matters to my constituents. One has contacted me today to say they have moved house because of the upset, and another emailed me this morning promising to tune in to this debate from where they are hiking in the Arctic circle; I hope it does not disappoint.
This road upgrade is important and long overdue. It is managed by Highways England, which I was pleased to meet some weeks ago when I went on site to discuss these issues. Anyone driving along the A14 at the moment, albeit often in a queue, cannot fail to be impressed by the scale of the works. Given that regular users have often been in queues over many years, and that there have been too many accidents and delays, most are agreed that the works are essential, and that, despite the current misery being caused, there will be substantial benefits. Let me also say at the outset that at my meeting with Highways England I was impressed by the knowledge and dedication of the many people involved; it is a huge and complicated operation, and everyone wants it to go well.
The purpose of this debate, however, is to highlight the unintended consequences for many who are affected during the construction, and to question whether enough is being done to mitigate those consequences. In my view, my constituents are paying a very heavy price in terms of their current quality of life to possibly improve the lives of others in the future. That is not fair, and I trust the Minister will hear that message loud and clear, and offer not just sympathy and kind words—which I am sure she will—but real action to stop the misery currently being endured.
The existing A14 trunk road between Cambridge and Huntingdon is well known for congestion and delays, and around 85,000 vehicles use this stretch of the A14 every day, many more than the road was originally designed to take. Around a quarter of this traffic comprises heavy goods vehicles, well above the national average for this type of road, and this adds to the need for an upgrade. It is a key east-west freight route—freight which many of us believe would be better off on the railways, but that is a debate for another day.
I will start by running through the history of this upgrade. The A14 has a chequered history over the Cambridge to Huntingdon section, with plans to upgrade going through various announcements, cancellations and re-announcements. I pay tribute to John Bridge of the Cambridgeshire chambers of commerce, who has devoted years of his life to campaigning for these improvements; indeed, there probably should be a bridge named after him. And I will now give an abridged account of what has happened.
Proposals were first made to widen the A14 between Bar Hill and Huntingdon in the late 1980s and were reviewed in 1998 as part of the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study, or CHUMMS. For many years, CHUMMS became a part of many of our lives. In 2005, the Highways Agency, as it then was, unveiled plans for widening the road from Fen Drayton to Fen Ditton, with the route unveiled in March 2007. This was originally planned to be completed and in use by 2016—what a wonderful thought—and the cost at that time was between £690 million and £1.2 billion, a far cry from the £2 billion-plus that we are now having to pay. Around this time, the Labour Government of the day also approved the guided bus route, designed to relieve some of the pressure on the road. It was controversial, not least because it was only guided until it met city-centre congestion;. It is the longest guided busway in the world but has cost much more than anticipated, although it has taken some of the strain and is now very heavily used.
When the coalition Government came to power in 2010, the scheme was duly cancelled by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Administration. After much lobbying, we then had an interesting diversion when local councils were urged to make contributions from their declining funds, which the ever-helpful Liberal Democrat administration in Cambridge declined to do. David Cameron then famously told BBC “Look East”—I think he was speaking to Andrew Sinclair at the time—that the scheme would not be built unless the A14 became a toll road, but, like a number of things David Cameron said, it did not turn out quite as planned, as his suggestion provoked a furious backlash across eastern England.
There was further prevarication, before the scheme was officially cancelled—until a new version was developed the following year. In November 2012, the scheme was reported to be back in action, and it was mentioned in the June 2013 spending review. In May 2016, the then Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Sir Patrick McLoughlin), approved it, and it is now due for completion in March 2021, by which time the country might well look rather different.
Those were the funding sagas that we dealt with. At the same time, various planning objections were lodged, which added further delays, but the scheme is clearly essential, and the Huntingdon flyover is now in a serious state of disrepair, so it was clear that something had to be done. However, this means that it is now much more expensive than it would have been in 2010, and many more years of misery have been endured since then. It is clearly a relief that the scheme is finally under way, but it is unacceptable that people in Cambridge are being made to suffer because of problems with the diversion, particularly through this long hot summer. Of course, many people outside the city are also suffering, particularly in the surrounding villages, but I will focus my remarks on my constituents who have made their experiences and feelings very clear.
This upgrade, although necessary, is unrelenting, with Highways England telling me that overnight road closures will continue five nights a week until September. Highways England’s official overnight diversion strategy adds 30 or more miles to the journeys of those driving lorries across the country, taking them along a strategic diversion route that includes the M11, the A505 and the A11 back to junction 36 on the A14, so it is unsurprising that some drivers choose to short-cut through Cambridge, along Kings Hedges Road, Milton Road, Victoria Road, Newmarket Road, Histon Road and Huntingdon Road.
However, this short-cut is unacceptable as it disrupts the lives of my constituents—to whom I am grateful for making me aware of the situation—particularly tireless local campaigners such as Doug Whyte and Elaine Gristwood, who recently presented me with a petition from local residents who are affected. This involves virtually every house along the route, and I in turn presented the petition to Highways England. They and residents on other routes have explained the effects of the diversions on our communities. Heavy goods vehicles are driving through small streets that are profoundly unsuited to heavy loads, such as Victoria Road, and it cannot be right that my constituents cannot sleep with their windows open owing to the noise, that children have had trouble sleeping through the racket on the nights before their exams, or that constituents have reported health problems, including one who got in touch to say that the increased fumes along Kings Hedges Road had had health implications for her husband, leading to asthma attacks. I also want to pay tribute to local Labour county councillors Jocelynne Scutt and Claire Richards, who have worked tirelessly with residents to try to find solutions to this problem.
I want to quote a few pieces of correspondence that I have received from constituents. One woman has told me:
“Adequate amounts of sleep are impossible with lorries thundering past every minute, and this is severely affecting my quality of life, mood, and effectiveness at work. My whole flat shakes every time an HGV goes past. It’s like a miniature earthquake, and I’m worried the building is not designed to deal with this kind of strain.”
Another has told me:
“Before the A14 closures I had laid down a brand new driveway for my property; this included laying down concrete for it. Due to the HGVs going down the road it has created cracks in my brand new driveway, and with the lorries going down the road frequently it will just get worse. So on top of not being able to have a peaceful night sleep, the house shaking causing things to break in the house, the outside of our house is also cracking.”
It is clear that the situation cannot go on. We need stronger disincentives for the HGVs that ignore the official diversion and hurtle through the city’s streets. Of course, I have considerable sympathy for the drivers who have a maximum number of hours that they can drive before legally needing breaks, and I understand the time pressures on them and their employers and the extra costs that long diversions bring, but the improvements in future journey times and fewer delays will help those hauliers. They will benefit in a way that my currently suffering constituents will not. Many of my constituents were initially forgiving of the disruption, accepting that it was part of the A14 upgrade, which they appreciate is vital.
Daniel Zeichner
A lack of information from Highways England about when and for how long the disruptions would last created a great sense of frustration for them. Information communication has improved a little throughout the process, but it could have been got right from the outset.
When the works began, the original problem was that the signage for the diversion was widely felt to be inadequate, and it was argued that drivers were failing to divert because they just did not understand the signs. The signage has been improved, but it should have been better from the beginning. Now that it has improved, it seems that too many drivers are just ignoring it, and those who choose to ignore these signs should face consequences.
I have so far not been particularly critical of those involved in the project, but I have to question why, months after it started, we have only now been promised data on how effective or not the diversions are. Anecdotally, I am told that residents are counting over 100 HGVs an hour in the middle of the night, and Doug Whyte contacted me this morning to say that he was being kept awake last night by heavy trucks passing every few minutes. Why should residents be doing the counting? On a £2 billion project, will the Minister tell me why Highways England is not collecting that data and making it available? I am told by the county council that an HGV counter has been installed on one road but not others, yet we still do not have that data—despite repeated requests. Only with that data can we tell whether improved signage has or has not had any impact.
Frankly, Highways England should have been able to predict the problems that we are seeing and should have established base data before it started and then monitored it, and I hope the Minister will explain why it did not do that. If she cannot, I will offer her a cynical view that I am hearing: no one cares unless local people kick up enough fuss to force others into action. Will the Minister please guarantee counters on all the affected roads, and will she promise to publish the data on a weekly basis? Does she have any of that data this afternoon? How many HGVs does she expect to be using Kings Hedges Road, Milton Road, Huntingdon Road, Victoria Road and other roads this evening? I hope she has an answer, because expecting Doug and Elaine to stay up all night counting trucks is really not good enough.
What else could be done? The county council has considered temporary traffic orders, but considering them is not enough. It needs to get on and do it to at least give some of these areas relief. What of enforcement and the role of the police? We know, sadly, that traffic policing has virtually disappeared under this Government, and that is backed up by the fact that Highways England offered to pay for more policing for the diversion. Even with that offer, however, it seems that there simply are not enough officers to make it a possibility. Even if we could get the enforcement in place, are the fines sufficient to act as a disincentive to those taking shortcuts? Perhaps we need to name and shame the hauliers who consistently break the rules. There is a whole range of things that could be done but, as it sometimes seems with this Government, there is so little action.
Beyond all that, there is the wider issue of the complexity of local governance and the mix of authorities with responsibility for the project. Highways England is responsible for national roads and motorways, the Conservative-run Cambridgeshire County Council is responsible for local roads, and the Conservative Mayor and combined authority have strategic transport powers. My sense is that those at the combined authority do not think it has anything to do with them, and the county council does not have the resources necessary to give the project the attention it deserves.
Even more dispiriting is Highways England’s continuing failure to communicate properly. BBC Radio Cambridgeshire, in particular Dotty McLeod on the breakfast show, has kept residents informed and tried to explain what is happening, but Highways England consistently refuses to appear on the programme to respond. I pay tribute to journalists such as Jozef Hall and his colleagues for trying to pursue Highways England, but we have a problem when we have to resort to BBC journalists driving out in the middle of the night to find out what is going on because those responsible are refusing to answer questions.
The Minister will doubtless say that Highways England is an independent agency. Well, I say it was this Government who created that independence, and they did not absolve themselves of responsibility by so doing. It is public money, and there should be public accountability. I hope we can have an assurance from the Minister that, in future, Highways England will make itself available to answer questions on local media, just as local politicians have to.
My conclusion is that these problems could be resolved if there were the will and the resource to do it. I ask the Minister to intervene to end the misery. The suffering of the past few months cannot be undone, but it does not have to be extended. This project is in itself expensive, and, as I have said, it is more expensive now than it would have been if it had been completed years earlier, but for a fraction of the overall amount being spent the harm being done to my constituents could be mitigated. Signage, monitoring, TTOs, policing and proper governance are all key, and they should have been priorities from the start, but resourcing has made it all much more of a struggle.
I would like the Minister to commit now to properly resourcing a framework that means HGVs will follow the proper diversions. Drivers who do not, should be named, shamed and fined to protect the people of Cambridge who are currently left unprotected. I have been in conversation with Highways England for months, and it does not seem able to solve this problem. I have written to thousands of constituents to explain the situation and to ask for their views and experiences.
It is fundamentally unfair that our city’s roads will suffer damage and, more importantly, that the physical and mental health of my constituents will be affected owing to the Government’s neglecting to create the frameworks necessary to make sure that people follow the rules. I trust that the Minister will commit to sorting this out and that lessons will be learned from this sorry saga so that similar mistakes are not made on other schemes in the future.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate on the A14 Cambridge-Huntingdon upgrade, and on taking us all the way to the Arctic circle. He must have noticed, as you will have, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), the Minister who has responsibility for roads, but I will do my best to respond to all the points that have been raised. Anything I am unable to cover will no doubt be addressed in writing.
The hon. Member for Cambridge diligently raised the concerns of his constituents about this subject and particularly the impact of road diversions through Cambridgeshire as a result of the scheme’s construction. He has continued to lobby behind the scenes, too, and he has commented on his meetings with Highways England to resolve the A14 diversions.
I will use this opportunity to outline what Highways England is doing to reduce the impact of the scheme’s road diversions on local residents. I will discuss those road diversions in some detail, but I begin by reminding hon. Members of the strategic reasons for the scheme and by providing an update on Highways England’s good progress in delivering these much needed road improvements.
In 2013, the Government committed to improving a 21-mile stretch of the A14 between Cambridge and Huntingdon, which the hon. Gentleman no doubt supports. This section of road is one of the busiest parts of the strategic road network between the midlands, East Anglia and the port of Felixstowe. It is vital in connecting businesses, communities and families across Cambridgeshire and beyond, and it is a crucial corridor for international freight. However, it is a long-standing congestion hotspot and an area of concern for local communities.
In delivering upgrades to the A14, Highways England and the Department for Transport have acknowledged that demand on the A14 is taking an increasing toll on both drivers and local residents. Commutes between Huntingdon and Cambridge are severely congested. Small villages on either side of the road suffer from increased traffic due to drivers rat-running to avoid traffic delays on the A14.
The existing A14 is not fit for purpose. In recognition of the problems, the A14 improvement works were included as a major project in the five-year road investment strategy that the Department published in December 2014. Local authorities and local enterprise partnerships have together committed £100 million towards the £1.5 billion cost of the scheme. That contribution will help to deliver a scheme that meets the needs of the strategic road network and local people. The scheme will provide benefits to road users and local communities by making the following improvements: 21 miles of new three-lane dual carriageway road; a new 450 metre viaduct; the removal of the existing unsightly viaduct in Huntingdon town centre; two new footbridges at Swavesey junction and Bar Hill; and more than 18 miles of routes suitable for walking, cycling and horseback riding.
The Government and the Department firmly believe that the scheme will create a positive legacy by connecting communities and unlocking regional and local economic growth, while combatting congestion and improving road safety in the area. The A14 upgrade will reduce community severance and relieve congestion on a critical part of the network, making travel and commuting easier, safer and more reliable. Increased capacity will result in fewer accidents on this stretch of road, and the inclusion of better designed grade-separated junctions will further improve safety. The scheme will combat congestion by separating strategic and local traffic. That is vital, as a 26% increase in traffic growth is predicted for the region by 2026, with Cambridgeshire’s employment forecast to grow by 16% between 2012 and 2031.
Changes to the old road will improve air quality and reduce traffic noise. Highways England has been taking significant steps to ensure that the environment and wildlife of the local area are protected throughout construction and, where possible, will benefit from the scheme. As part of the scheme, Highways England will be delivering 2.7 sq kms of new habitat for wildlife and, you will be interested to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, installing 240 bat boxes and a variety of bird boxes—I am glad that you approve. The scheme also provides an opportunity to improve conditions for walkers, cyclists and equestrians through new crossings. This will restore and build new links and pathways, which will better connect communities.
The scheme will help to create a positive legacy in Cambridgeshire, enabling residential and business developments in the area. To date, the scheme has created jobs during construction, with the new highways college in West Anglia being opened to give up to 200 local people the skills needed to get the road built. After the road opens, it will help to connect residents to employment opportunities. Having outlined the key strategic reasons for the scheme, I am pleased to report that Highways England is making good progress—about 50% is complete—and is on target to meet an open-for-traffic date in 2020. That is with the investment of £1.5 billion.
Let me turn to the specific subject of this debate. The hon. Gentleman has concerns that traffic diversions during the construction of the road are increasing noise and pollution for residents on and off the official diversion routes. I assure him that the Government and Highways England are committed to ensuring that the delivery of the scheme causes the minimum inconvenience to local residents. I believe that from September there will be a step change in diversions, which will lead to improvements.
The issue of lorries and other vehicles not following the recommended road diversions was raised, and Highways England has been working hard to develop measures that will help to reduce these impacts and encourage more drivers to use the preferred diversion routes. Highways England is working closely with Cambridgeshire County Council and partner organisations to minimise the impacts as much as possible. When closures are in place on the A14 between junction 36 at Nine Mile Hill and junction 31 at Girton, the strategic diversion route directs traffic south of Cambridge to use the M11, A505 and A11—those are two sides of a triangle. However, alternative routes are required for non-motorway traffic and for traffic travelling to local destinations when the strategic diversion would not be considered acceptable Those routes take traffic further into and around Cambridge city centre and include Kings Hedges Road, Newmarket Road and Milton Road.
Highways England has no powers to prevent road users, including those in HGVs, from taking other routes that they have a legal right to access as an alternative to the official strategic diversion route. Highways England is working proactively to encourage strategic traffic to follow the official diversion route, including by giving weekly briefings to regional media, parish councils and local organisations, as well as through posts on social media.
Highways England is working closely with all agencies. The dialogue commenced during the development consent order process, as part of which diversion routes were discussed and agreed. A project team meets the police and local authority at least once a month to discuss traffic management. There are more than 40 road signs, with some including instructions not to follow sat-nav systems, and up to 13 mobile variable-messaging signs. Overhead signs are in use further afield on the strategic road network.
The A14 project team is working with the Road Haulage Association and Freight Transport Association so that diversion information can be shared with their members. Highways England is working with Cambridgeshire County Council to implement speed signs and HGV counters to assess the additional numbers of HGVs that are using key routes when the A14 is closed. Cambridgeshire police is aware of the issues being raised and has agreed to check for non-compliance with speed or weight restrictions at key sensitive locations.
The hon. Gentleman asked about data. I assure him that the project team volunteered to introduce measures to tackle the magnitude of the problem. Between 20 June and 12 July, traffic counters recorded between four and 21 lorries per night above the normal levels experienced when road diversions are not in place. The data will be shared publicly on a weekly basis. The hon. Gentleman should have received an email update; if he did not, I will work with the Department to ensure that he receives weekly updates on the data, which he can share, should he wish.
In conclusion, I reaffirm the Government’s commitment to delivering the A14 upgrade on time and within budget. We must ensure that the delivery of such major road schemes puts local stakeholders’ concerns at the forefront of our work. I am confident that Highways England will deliver a scheme that meets the needs of strategic road network users and will minimise the disruption to local people.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
School funding in Tiverton and Honiton
Parking (Code of Practice) Bill (First sitting)
Thursday 19th July 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 View all Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning and welcome to the Public Bill Committee for the Parking (Code of Practice) Bill. I have a couple of preliminary announcements. Can Members please switch their electronic devices off or to silent? I remind Members that teas and coffees are not allowed during the sitting. We will now begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 1
Parking code
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Mr Bailey, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to see you in the Chair. I have a soft spot for the part of the country that you represent, not least because it made some of the classiest and most desirable cars ever made. My favourite car of all time is the Jensen Interceptor, which was of course made in West Bromwich, so it is appropriate that you are in the Chair today.
I also thank all Committee members, who are not conscripts forced to be here by the Whips, but are here because they have an interest in the subject we are considering. I am most grateful to them. I also place on the record my gratitude to the hon. Member for Makerfield, who is leading on the Bill for the official Opposition. She has apologised for not being here today due to other commitments, but she has made it clear that she fully supports what I am trying to achieve with the Bill. I am most obliged to her for that.
The heart of the Bill is clause 1. It requires the Government to create a new mandatory code of practice across the private parking sector, which will end the inconsistent and unfair treatment of British motorists by rogue parking operators. It is important that motorists know when they enter a car park that they are entering into a contract that is reasonable, transparent and involves a consistent process. Poor signage, unreasonable terms, exorbitant fines, aggressive demands for payment and an opaque appeals process have no place in 21st-century Britain. In short, self-regulation has not worked, which is why the Bill is necessary.
It is necessary because of incidents that have happened to motorists like Mr O’Keefe, who was driving on a private industrial estate looking for a particular retail outlet. He could not find where he wanted to go, so he stopped for 15 seconds in a lay-by to check his satellite navigation settings. He was caught by a passing security van equipped with a camera, and a week later he received a ticket for £100 for stopping in breach of a sign situated further back on the road, which he later realised he had passed at 30 mph. The parking company agrees with his version events—it does not dispute the facts—but is still pursuing him, and he continues to receive threatening letters.
Even homeowners have been hit, like the residents of a Salford block of flats who in just one month had more than 200 tickets issued to them for parking in their own car parks. They were given one day’s notice to display their newly issued permits. The firm responsible posted warning letters through residents’ mailboxes just one day before the introduction of the new scheme. However, many residents were away—some at work, some on holiday—and, despite having a right to park there, their cars were ticketed.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is my very good friend, for introducing the Bill and for giving those examples. Often when such problems occur—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has faced similar problems—people write to their Member of Parliament. I wrote to one particular company, New Generation Parking, which never bothered to even reply to me, as a Member of Parliament. That kind of arrogance has to stop. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, as I think he did on Second Reading, that the Minister should make sure that a requirement to respond to Members is in the code of practice?
Sir Greg Knight
I would hope that the code of practice would lead to every parking organisation behaving in a business-like and proper manner, and treating motorists fairly. One of the reasons that the Bill does not set out the code of practice is to allow wide consultation and to take into account points such as that just made by the hon. Gentleman, who is my honourable Friend. It is important that we have the widest possible consultation to ensure that the code of practice, when it is crystallised, formulated and produced by the Minister, is as wide and as comprehensive as possible.
If I could mention one other case, a pensioner mis-keyed her number plate into an automated machine when paying for her parking and got one digit wrong. On returning to her car, she discovered that the innocent mistake had resulted in a ticket. On appeal, she was able to point out that it was an honest mistake. She was also able to prove that no other car on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency database had the registration number that she had keyed in. The parking company still demanded payment. In my view, the Bill is sorely needed.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
As well as examples of poor practice, does my right hon. Friend agree that there are some examples of good practice? I returned to my car last week at the car park I use when I come to London every week and, for the second time, I saw that a parking ticket was stuck to my window. I realised what I had done: I had forgotten to pay the fee when I left for London the previous Monday. I opened the plastic wrapper of the parking ticket and instead of being a parking ticket, it had a note inside saying, “Did you forget?”. So there are examples where people do the right thing. They realised that I was a regular customer of theirs.
Sir Greg Knight
I am grateful for that example. My hon. Friend clearly has an unknown admirer, because I doubt that happens on many occasions.
The advisory code of practice is currently being formulated. I am grateful to the Minister, because after the House gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, he immediately started consulting on what should be in the code of practice. I have been to some of those consultation sessions to listen to what other people are saying. The code, although not yet ready for publication, is coming along very well indeed.
A summary on the code is available and has been distributed to Members. I will refer to a few aspects of it. There will be obligations on the operators of private car parks in the code, which will include the type of “equipment and technology used”, “clear signage”,
“clear and accessible displays of the terms and conditions”,
and the requirement that there be a transaction period and a grace period.
We need to ensure that a motorist has a choice before committing him or herself to park in a particular car park. With the advent of CCTV cameras, in some cases what happens is that a vehicle registration plate is recorded upon the motorist entering the car park. The motorist then sees the terms that apply to the car park and decides not to park there, but gets a ticket because the car was seen going in and coming out. That cannot be right. There must be a grace period of five or 10 minutes—perhaps even longer in a multi-storey car park—which would allow the motorist to change his or her mind.
Mr Goodwill
Thank you. I myself witnessed a situation in Haworth. There was a notorious parking firm operating using clamps, which have now been outlawed. In that case, a couple who had parked their car went to a nearby shop to enact a small transaction in order to get some change. In that short time, they were blocked in by the parking company vehicle and clamped. They can no longer clamp, but these scoundrels are reverting to other methods, which my right hon. Friend’s Bill will prevent.
Sir Greg Knight
That is indeed the case. I am moving down the coast; I am now going to Clacton.
Giles Watling
I want to pick up on the notice of free parking, which my right hon. Friend brought up. In a particular scam in Clacton last year, some 400 tickets were issued in Ravensdale car park, which had a very large sign that said, “Free parking”. In very small print, hidden round the back, were the terms and conditions that nobody saw. People expected that they would be able to park for free. It was a scam; some 400 tickets were issued and many were challenged. A certain local councillor, Councillor Richard Everett, was very strong in fighting those tickets and got a lot of money back for people, so it is worth fighting. I support the Bill, because this must never happen again.
Sir Greg Knight
That is just the sort of case that I would expect the code of practice to cover. I now move inland to South West Bedfordshire.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
We had a similar case in Dunstable to the one my right hon. Friend described. The Quadrant car park in the middle of Dunstable was, on some occasions, completely full. Cars that came in, tried to find a parking space and, on seeing no space, drove out again were being issued with tickets. I managed to get that issue resolved after communicating with the company. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that sort of thing should not happen and causes unnecessary distress?
Sir Greg Knight
My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am grateful to him for giving that example.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing forward the Bill. I had a similar experience to the hon. Member for Cardiff West, who highlighted the fact that these parking firms rarely engage with MPs. It was only after I named and shamed the parking company in the House that it started to respond to me.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons the Bill is important is the impact this issue has on tourism? As the MP representing Newquay, every week I get letters from tourists who come to Newquay, only to find a fine waiting on their doorstep when they get home. They then write and complain to me, as the MP, saying that they will never come to Newquay again because of the way they have been treated. These measures, therefore, are important in supporting our tourism industry and ensuring that people feel welcome to come to places such as Newquay.
Sir Greg Knight
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I can concur, as I too represent a tourist area.
Andrew Selous
To elaborate on the excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay, the proper functioning of a car park in a friendly, courteous and correct manner is essential to the health of our town centres. If people are scarred by receiving tickets, they will not come and shop, and keep our town centres going and our small businesses in business.
Sir Greg Knight
My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Turning to the rest of the Bill, clause 3 requires the Secretary of State to review the code from time to time, which I think is necessary, because just as new rules are introduced, new loopholes are found by those who wish to get around the regulations that apply to them. Clause 4 requires the code, when it is finalised, to be published. Clause 5 gives details of the effects of the parking code. I am pleased that it makes it clear that the parking code itself will be admissible in any court proceedings. If a parking company takes a motorist to court and it is then revealed that it failed to follow the statutory code of practice, I would expect the courts properly to take that into account.
Over 19 million journeys every day end at a parking space. This is an issue that affects all voters, regardless of geography, class or age. The Bill seeks to introduce transparency and fairness.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. It is a pleasure to be here with other members of the Committee today. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has done so much work to bring the Bill forward. I am pleased to support him in his effort.
This matter has long been of concern to me. I have looked with interest at all the clauses of the Bill and the draft code that the Minister helpfully sent out. I hope that we can engage with him over the coming weeks and months to ensure that the code is as robust and tough as possible, and that the Bill provides the review that is necessary, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to ensure that further loopholes are not found and that companies do not seek to avoid the code.
My constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth, which neighbours that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, has a huge number of apartment units and is one of the most densely populated constituencies in Wales. There are many multiple apartment blocks that have large parking areas outside and parking is at a premium. Understandably, some restrictions are needed to ensure that the rightful owners or renters of parking spaces—or their visitors—can benefit from the exclusive use of their space.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman mentioned solicitors’ letters. Does he applaud the provision in the Bill that parking companies should not send letters that look like they have come from a solicitor when they are just from the parking company?
Stephen Doughty
I applaud the fact that the Bill addresses that issue, and indeed I will discuss the issue of solicitors shortly.
There are other areas where the activities of such companies are a huge problem. I have had many complaints from taxi drivers in my constituency, who are regularly harassed and prosecuted when, for example, they are parked in a supermarket car park in one of the out-of-town shopping areas in my constituency, waiting to pick up an elderly constituent with their shopping.
The other area is hospital parking, and I want to single out one company for some pretty shady practices. That is ParkingEye, about which I have received multiple complaints regarding multiple hospitals from people with serious medical conditions, NHS staff and others who have been caught. I have a letter here from a constituent who was a medical student working in the oncology department at University Hospital Llandough in my constituency, who had applied for a permit. There had been some mistake with the email address so, unbeknown to her, she ended up with huge fines from that company and no recourse. My team and I have engaged on behalf of many constituents to try and get their fines overturned, but sometimes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West said, the companies do not even respond. We cannot get through to them. It is not possible to get a straight answer from them. I very much hope that the code of practice will address those issues.
Kevin Brennan
On ParkingEye and hospital parking, at St David’s Hospital in my constituency, where parking is free, patients are nevertheless required to fill in the vehicle registration number on a computer screen in reception, and even when assisted by the receptionist they have received parking notices because the system is not working properly. There have been dozens and dozens of cases like that in my constituency casework.
Stephen Doughty
Indeed. Among others, I have details with me of the case of a constituent who had travelled to St David’s Hospital in my hon. Friend’s constituency, as many of my constituents do, and been caught up in exactly that situation.
I mentioned that I wanted to talk about solicitors’ firms. It is very clear to me that there is collusion between parking companies and solicitors’ firms—so-called roboclaims companies. They are often set up adjacently and involve the same directors and personnel. Incidentally, the same personnel get involved in the so-called appeals bodies. I hope the Minister looks closely at that. What discussions has he had with the Ministry of Justice and the Solicitors Regulation Authority?
Steve Double
Does the hon. Gentleman share my view that it appears that achieving a certain level of fines is part of many parking firms’ business plans? Without collecting fines, those businesses would not be viable.
Stephen Doughty
Absolutely; that is exactly the point. Essentially, it is a money-making enterprise that takes advantage of motorists up and down the country. They operate in a very business-like fashion, which is why I call them roboclaims companies. A lot of the operation is automated. Fines are issues and the companies assume that a certain number of people will pay them. The rest are automatically referred into a legal process involving bailiffs and others, and all the companies are interconnected.
The companies are jamming up parts of our legal system. A number of cases were being processed by Northampton Crown court. When people tried to contact the court to get information about their case, they were unable to get through on the phone lines because there were so many cases.
What discussions is the Minister having with the Ministry of Justice and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which I met a few months ago to raise concerns about a number of named companies, and which has advised me that it is looking at the practices of those firms and whether they are operating in an appropriate way?
One individual who wrote to me about this said:
“I now pretty much know exactly how the parking companies and in particular the IPC have been running this scam for the past 5 years. Basically both of the appeals processes are a complete and utter sham, (and part of that sham is Gladstones Solicitors itself).”
I should be clear that that is Gladstones Solicitors in Knutsford—other companies might have a similar name. The letter continues:
“The appeals process at Excel/VCS is run by a team of minimum wage office workers with no legal knowledge or experience whatsoever, who are given 6 minutes to read an appeal, and 12 minutes to reply. Most of these replies are obviously cut and pasted from existing templated replies (sometimes referring to issues which are not part of the motorists appeal), with a few lines added in to make it look specific to your claim. The IAS (Independent Appeals Service) which the IPC offers as a second chance appeals service is also very similar, cut and paste answers, dubious legal statements etc… It is claimed by the head of the appeals service (retired Judge Bryn Holloway) that this is a completely independent fair process, it is not.”
The letter mentions two individuals—Will Hurley and Bryn Holloway—and concludes:
“This is a typical example of the clear collusion between the IPC, their members and the IAS…all to the detriment of the motorist”.
When the Minister is putting the code of practice together, I urge him to consider on a cross-Government basis what we can do about roboclaims companies and solicitors’ firms that profit, often in shady ways, off the back of people who are just going about their daily lives and business.
Will the Minister say more about information? A number of examples have been given. Far too often, individuals entering car parks do not see the notices and requirements. Visitors to residential parking places often have no clear information about how to park. Somebody came to the block where I live to do emergency boiler repair work—it needed to be carried out immediately to avoid serious damage—and returned to their van to find that they had been fined. I know of people on emergency medical appointments and carers who have been caught up. It is not appropriate and we need to look at what discretion can be applied in such cases. We also need to look at the information provided at entry.
Lastly, will the Minister say something about the devolution aspect? We are dealing with the DVLA. The Bill makes it clear that it applies to England, Wales and Scotland, but obviously some of these matters cross into devolved Administration territory. I am sure that there would be warm support for a unified approach across the United Kingdom, but what conversations has he had with the Welsh Government and others about how the measure can be applied? People cross borders and travel around the country. Solicitors and the DVLA are obviously UK Government matters, but transport and highways issues are often devolved, and Wales has a different local government system.
Sir Greg Knight
The hon. Gentleman has made the very good point that it should be the norm that a motorist can read the sign listing the terms and conditions before entering the car park, but does he agree with this point? On some occasions that will not be possible, such as when the car park is in a conservation area, and that is why the transaction period is necessary—because where a motorist does have to enter a car park to see what the terms are, they should also be able to go out again without incurring a fee or fine.
Stephen Doughty
I completely agree. Indeed, I am aware of individuals having been fined just for spending two minutes in a car park and coming out—perhaps they just made a wrong turn. That is of course an absurd situation, so I wholeheartedly support the measures in the Bill. I have looked at the draft code of practice. There are a couple of areas where I would like to make suggestions to the Minister offline, and perhaps the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, about how we could tighten it up even further. I hope that the Minister will be able to have conversations with us going forward, but I commend the Bill and very much hope that we can deal with these awful companies and their associated legal agents and ensure a fair deal for motorists and residents up and down the country.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I, too, commend the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire on his success in getting the Bill this far. My Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill was parked just after his at Second Reading. He avoided the chop; I did not. But there is no bitterness: this is an extremely important Bill.
I will say to the Government that it is three years since the consultation document “Parking reform: tackling unfair practices” was published. It has been a long wait. I think that really the Government should have responded and introduced legislation, but in the absence of a Government who are able to deal with the pressing problems of the day, I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill. I agree with much that is in it.
It is important to state at the outset that huge numbers of people drive every day—I think the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of 19 million cars on the road every day—and the vast majority of people manage to find somewhere to park and do it successfully, and many in the industry work very professionally and very well. There is sometimes a danger in these debates that we hear only of the awful experiences. They are awful, but the vast majority of people, and the vast majority of people in the industry, are doing their best to make the system work successfully, so it really is the rogues that we are trying to deal with here.
I think that the number of people who get a parking charge notice each year is between 1% and 1.5%. Obviously, it is never good to get one, but we do need a regulated system. There is no such thing as free parking; there are always costs associated with it.
I also pay tribute to the advice that I have had, over the few years I have been following this issue closely, from the British Parking Association, which is a reputable organisation trying to achieve decent standards and a proper outcome for members. It has been looking for this kind of code for many years, and I very much hope that we will be able to get it on the statute book as soon as possible, because the longer we go on in the current situation, the greater the number of people who will suffer.
I have one major query for the Minister. The point has been raised with me by many people in the industry. At the heart of this is the information that the DVLA passes to operators; the major sanction through this measure will be to stop rogue operators getting that information. Unfortunately, that will not solve the entire problem. That does not mean that we should not do it, but we need to be aware; we should not raise expectations too high, because I am afraid that the real rogues will carry on. They will just stick one of these things on people’s windscreens and they will not even need the information from the DVLA. I am told that some 30% of people just pay up, because they are intimidated.
Giles Watling
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that because of the very large amounts of money that can be involved in such scams—a company called Smart Parking was involved in one such scam on my patch, in Clacton—organised crime can get involved, which can be intimidating? This is not that much different from the old Denver boot that used to be put on vehicles some time ago, indiscriminately across the country.
Daniel Zeichner
I am grateful for the intervention. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. At the bottom end of this, we are dealing with some very difficult people, and I am afraid that their not having access to DVLA information will not stop them trying to extort in this kind of way. That is one of the things on which I hope the Minister will have something to say. It is not an easy problem to resolve, because this is a complex area of contract law. The question is always, how will we enforce the Bill’s provisions? If they are not enforced, passing the legislation makes us feel better, but it does not necessarily resolve the problem on the ground. My thinking is that we have to get to a point where motorists have confidence that they can ignore some of these intimidating tactics. In my view, that is the only way that we will be able to get around it.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman mentions ignoring intimidating letters. Of course, if the company does not have access to DVLA information, which if it does not abide by the code of practice it will not, it will not know the owner of the car. A person may or may not respond to the ticket put on the window, but the company will not be able to follow it up with letters.
Daniel Zeichner
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, but the problem is that about 30% are intimidated. That is the problem, and the point I am making is that until we can give people confidence, we will need a very strong message and very clear designation. I do not know whether the Minister has given any thought to how we might go about that, but it is certainly where I would like to go with it ultimately. Until we do that, the numbers will remain significant, and I fear we will still get complaints in our postbags about the practice.
With that caveat, I think that the proposals are a significant step forward. I am sure that they will get support across the House, and the sooner we see them in legislation the better.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rishi Sunak)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I do not want to detain the Committee for long, but I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire on introducing the Bill, and more generally on his work to highlight this issue, which affects millions of people every day.
I was pleased to speak on behalf of the Government in support of the Bill on Second Reading. I pay tribute to all hon. Members for the important contributions they have made, both today and on Second Reading, highlighting the unfair practices that are being carried out every day, affecting their constituents. We heard then, and we heard again today, that Members are doing their absolute best to stand up for their constituents and to highlight these practices, which need to be stamped out. Indeed, that is what the Bill is designed to address.
I will turn briefly to some of the specific questions raised by hon. Members, but first I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, who, in a previous guise as a Transport Minister, himself took steps to tighten up practices in the parking industry. Those steps have already been mentioned today, and he was far too modest to take any credit for them, but we should pay tribute to him for tightening up the rules regarding the unfair use of automatic number plate recognition and clamping.
The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth spoke passionately today, as he did on Second Reading, about the issues affecting his constituents. I am pleased to say that in general, all the issues that he raised are likely to be covered by the new code of practice. I would be delighted to meet him when we return from the recess to discuss any further points in more detail, but he spoke well on Second Reading about threatening solicitors’ letters. What he said stayed with me, and I am determined to ensure that the code of practice has specific guidance on that point, which affects so many people.
Stephen Doughty
I appreciate what the Minister has said. What discussions has he had, or will he have, with the Ministry of Justice and the SRA? Just to convey the scale of this, another firm that I mentioned, called BW Legal, regularly issues 10,000 county court judgments a month, and is known to have issued 28,000 in one month. A significant proportionate of them relate to parking. They are jamming up our court system, and are often totally unjustified.
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I am pleased to tell him that we will engage directly with the MOJ and the SRA. To date, I do not believe that we have done so, but we will happily do that. He makes a very good point about the impact on the court system. More broadly, on the point that he raised on Second Reading and today about county court judgments and, in his personal experience, letters going to previous addresses, I am relatively confident that we can address that in the code of practice by including some clauses about reasonable efforts by parking operators to find a more up-to-date address.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the appeals process, which of course should be independent. I am pleased to tell him that, as part of the code of practice in the Bill, it will be scrutinised, funded through the levy. That will ensure independent scrutiny of the appeals process, as well as the associations and operators, to ensure that appeals are working not in the manner that he highlighted, but in one that is fair to those who need to avail themselves of such a process. He talked about information, which many other hon. Members talked about, and of course the code of practice will outline the information that should be standardised on tickets and signage, so that there is good practice and consistency across the industry.
On the devolved Administrations, I am pleased to tell Committee members that the Welsh and Scottish Governments are represented on the working group that has been engaged in developing the code of practice, and are in extensive dialogue with the team in my Department, to ensure uniformity of execution of the Bill and to confirm that all the various matters have been put in place as required.
I have an update for the Committee. The explanatory notes are out-of-date with regard to the legislative consent motion. Originally, the advice from the Scottish Government was that that would not be required, but that advice changed and they believe that they require it. That motion has now been passed, so I am pleased to say that the Bill will have force in Wales and Scotland, and that all legal requirements have been satisfied in that regard.
I pay tribute to the experience of the hon. Member for Cambridge in transport matters. He has spent a considerable time in the House weighing in on such issues, so it is a pleasure to have his experience on the Committee. I will touch briefly on the issues he raised. He made a good point about rogue operators. I am confident that not having access to the DVLA will deal with the vast majority of problems that hon. Members have mentioned, because the lifeblood of trying to extort money from people is having access to their details.
By standardising tickets, complaints processes, fees and lots of other things, the code of practice will offer us the opportunity to educate the British public when the Bill has passed. From that point forward, one will be able to say to the people of the United Kingdom, “This is what tickets should look like. These are the various things that you should expect to see on them”— whether that is a kitemark or something else. In that way, through consumer education, we will hopefully ensure that they will be able to check for some kind of mark or language that would not be on rogue parking tickets. By bringing everything together in a standard way, that education process can happen in a way that it cannot today. I hope that that will deal with most of those issues.
I am also happy to look at the law that already exists to tackle people who are doing things that are presumably illegal, such as trespassing or interfering with other people’s private property. As I said, however, the huge opportunity comes from the code of practice, which standardises behaviour and practical things such as the information contained on signage and tickets, so that we can get to the point where people know what to look for on a parking ticket.
Mr Goodwill
Does the Minister agree that one reason why people often fall into those traps is that local authorities are generally very straightforward and honest with people in their parking areas, and offer free parking that is free? For example, in Scarborough, all parking is free for tourists after 6 o’clock.
Rishi Sunak
I am sure everyone watching the Committee will have heard that advertisement to visit my right hon. Friend’s constituency. Near to my own as it is, I also encourage them to visit the Yorkshire Dales and the North York Moors.
Kevin Hollinrake
While we are on the subject of Yorkshire, as well as putting on record my thanks to APCOA Parking at York railway station for letting me off my parking ticket, I ask the Minister to join me in recognising the fantastic efforts of Malton Estate. It owns private car parks in the centre of Malton and gives two hours of free parking throughout the day. That has incentivised more shoppers to come into the town, and is one of the reasons why Malton is now Yorkshire’s food capital.
Rishi Sunak
I pay tribute to the car parking practices in Malton that my hon. Friend describes. It is evidence of what my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire said, which is that good, honest and fair car parking is vital for the health and wellbeing of our town centres and high streets. We all want to see it encouraged across our constituencies.
Kevin Brennan
I will resist the temptation to advertise the delights of Cardiff, although they are great and many. We are all grateful to the Minister for sending us the draft advisory code of practice summary in advance of the sitting. Paragraph 12(b), which covers complaints handling, states:
“There should be a requirement to issue an acknowledgement or full response to a complaint in a timely manner”.
Does he agree that if a parking company failed to respond to correspondence on such a matter from a Member, and if that wording is included in the final code, it would, in effect, be in breach of the code of practice?
Rishi Sunak
I should have mentioned that the code of practice includes the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised both on Second Reading and in Committee. This is just a summary of the code of practice. The details, including timescales and exactly what will be required, will be fleshed out. However, in broad brushes, he is right: the code of practice is there to be adhered to. Parking operators will be audited as to whether they are adhering to it, partly by the trade association that they belong to and partly by an independent scrutiny body that will be funded by the levy. There will be sufficient scrutiny of operators’ behaviour in this regard, and replying to correspondence will be one factor considered when their behaviour is evaluated.
Stephen Doughty
The Minister is being very generous with his time. I have one specific question about paragraph 4 of the draft code of practice summary, which covers clear signage and surface markings. We have talked about clear signage, but surface markings are also important. For example, at the entrance to blocks of flats in Cardiff there is often a barrier. However, around Cardiff City’s football stadium—they are in the premier league this season; many people will be coming to watch—it is not often clear where the public road ends and private land begins. Football fans are often caught out, suddenly finding themselves on private land on the boundary between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West.
Stephen Doughty
The stadium is in my hon. Friend’s constituency; the road where many people park is not. People often get caught out without realising that they are on private land, because no clear boundary is indicated between the public highway and the private land. Will the Minister look at that issue?
Rishi Sunak
I do not want to get drawn into that intra-Cardiff debate; I will leave the hon. Gentlemen to conclude that after the Committee. I am happy to look into the issue that the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth mentions. Cardiff is wonderful and is represented here in force, but I think Yorkshire is slightly more represented. Yorkshire Members remind everyone to visit the delights of Yorkshire over this summer.
In conclusion, I thank Committee members for their constructive comments, this morning and on Second Reading. I look forward to working with not only my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire but all Committee members to bring this important piece of legislation on to the statute book as soon as possible, so that we can start to right the wrongs that so many of our constituents have had to endure. This is a fantastic example of Members from all parties working together to solve a practical problem that will make a meaningful difference to people’s everyday lives.
I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Sir Greg Knight
I thank all colleagues who have contributed to the debate. Each has brought to bear some of their and their constituents’ experiences of unfair practices, which emphasises that the Bill is overdue and necessary. I also thank the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, who cannot be here because of other proceedings but who has indicated his support on behalf of the Scottish National party, so the Bill really does have all-party support. I thank the Minister for his diligence, help and assistance.
I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
Sir Greg Knight
May I thank you, on behalf of the Committee, for your superb chairing of our proceedings, Mr Bailey? I also thank you for your comments before the Committee started that, if you were not chairing it, you would like to be a Committee member, because you support what we are trying to do. I am most grateful for that. However, I accept that the Chair is totally impartial.
Kevin Brennan
I know that my friend, the right hon. Gentleman, would also like to thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and everybody else responsible for looking after us during this lengthy proceeding.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Offensive Weapons Bill (Fourth sitting)
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
We will continue by hearing oral evidence from the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. We have until 2.30 pm for this panel. Welcome to our witnesses. For the record, could you introduce yourselves?
Tony Dale: Thank you very much for the invites. My name is Tony Dale, and I am the head of research at USDAW.
Doug Russell: My name is Doug Russell, and I am the national health and safety officer for USDAW.
The Chair
If you wish to take your jackets off, because it is very hot in here, please do.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Q
Tony Dale: We have a number of points to make. Basically, we are very supportive of the principles behind the Bill. Our union represents 436,000 members, a large number of them in low-paid jobs. We have members who live on working-class estates and who see the damage done by the growing knife culture and acid attacks, so we are supportive of the aims, but with any age-restricted sales legislation, it is often our members who are expected to police it. It is our members who have to stop people and ask them for proof of age or to deny people sales, be that of knives, alcohol or a range of other products. As a result, our members are being placed more and more on the frontline. I think it is right to have extended legislation on this, but it will be our members who will be placed on the frontline and will face abuse and, at times, violence.
Louise Haigh
Q
Tony Dale: Last year, we did quite an extensive survey, of just over 3,600 shop workers among our members. Some 67% of the shop workers interviewed said that they had been abused in the past year, 42% said they had been threatened, and growing number of people had actually been assaulted. The numbers are significant, and we are speaking out. We have over 300,000 shop workers in membership, so we are dealing with a significant number of people. Abuse and violence against shop workers is at a significant level and, interestingly, it is on the increase. We have been running the survey for quite a number of years and we have gradually seen it increase. The abuse figure increased from 53% the year before to 67%.
Doug Russell: To put that in context for this discussion, 30% of them reported that the trigger for the violence or abuse was dealing with age-restricted products and having to ask somebody for identification because they might be under age. It is clearly a significant problem in terms of the numbers. Last year, we and the National Federation of Retail Newsagents commissioned a survey with a group called Under Age Sales, and based on that there are probably about 6,000 incidents a day of people facing abuse or threats from challenges associated with age-restricted products.
Louise Haigh
Q
Doug Russell: It is one of the biggest factors. And it is not just us: the Association of Convenience Stores, the British Retail Consortium and everyone else who has done research in this area says it is up there as the first or second main cause of violence.
Louise Haigh
Q
Tony Dale: We need to change the culture. There seems to be a culture among a small element of the shopping public that you can have a go at shop workers—you can abuse them and threaten them.
One of the important things in the Bill is about extending restrictions on the sale of knives. It is currently not an offence for somebody under 18 to attempt to purchase a knife. Knives are age-restricted, so it is an offence for a shop worker to sell that knife to the individual, but it is not an offence for the individual under 18 to attempt to buy it. They can attempt to buy a knife one morning, and if that does not work they can come back in the afternoon and try again. That is a contradiction we would look to deal with.
If we are, quite rightly, to look at restricting the sales of products and have more age restrictions on the sale of products, we need to look at increasing the protection of shop workers who are on the frontline of trying to police that. We have been campaigning for it to be a specific offence to intimidate or assault a worker enforcing the age restrictions covered by this Bill and other legislation.
It is a two-pronged approach. First, it should be an offence for the under-18 youth to attempt to buy age-restricted products, and secondly the shop worker should have specific protection from violence and abuse while carrying out the legal obligations under the Bill and other legislation on age-related restrictions.
Louise Haigh
Q
Doug Russell: There has always been an argument that existing legislation covers all forms of assault. There are some aggravating factors listed in the sentencing guidelines under the assault legislation, one of which includes, if I remember rightly, assaulting a public servant who is in the course of serving the public at the time of the assault. The trouble is, that is one of 19 aggravating factors attached to the sentencing guidelines and there are 11 mitigating factors to be taken into account as well—and that is only when it gets as far as a court and a judge or magistrate is interested in bringing sentencing at the end of the process. In practice, we are told by our members—this is backed up by retail employers—that many cases do not get as far as the courts, so they do not get the chance to apply those sentencing guidelines. Even when they do, those guidelines are not applied as effectively as they should be and the sentences passed are not strict enough to reflect the damage done to the shop worker.
Louise Haigh
Q
Doug Russell: There are three things: it would help to clarify the law, make sentencing a simpler process and hopefully encourage more prosecutions to take place. This is all stuff that would have to be discussed with the Crown Prosecution Service and the Ministry of Justice. If those two work together and we see people getting more of the sentences they deserve for physically attacking or seriously threatening somebody in that situation, I think it would have a deterrent effect in the long run as well.
Tony Dale: There would be a publicity impact as well. If it was a specific offence to assault a shop worker involved in policing age-restricted sales, retailers could advertise that—they could put up zero-tolerance, respect for shop workers posters, notices and so on. While many members of the public think certain people are more protected and should not be abused, quite rightly, such as the police and firefighters, it seems that shop workers are open to abuse—they are fair game.
I think all workers in public-facing businesses should get additional protection. In the context of the Bill there is an opportunity. By widening the range of products that will be subject to age-restricted sales, such as corrosive substances, there will be an opportunity to say, “We will do three things. First, it will be an offence to sell it to someone under 18. Secondly, it should be an offence for somebody under 18 to attempt to buy it. Thirdly, we will give special protection to shop workers who are denying asale to someone under 18.” It seems to me that that is a consistent approach.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Q
“Attempt to purchase corrosive substances and knives underage.”
That should be criminalised. You have talked about that, but we heard in evidence this morning and previously concern about criminalising younger people, who are sometimes forced to make decisions that they would not necessarily take by themselves, perhaps by being goaded or pushed into a place. Could you speak to that a little bit?
Doug Russell: I am aware of that argument. It is one that we have had with various people over the years. Part of the problem is that the law in this area is a bit confused and confusing. In England and Wales, if you are under 18 it is illegal to try to purchase alcohol, and it is illegal to purchase a firearm or an air rifle. The latter is of particular relevance to the Offensive Weapons Bill: obviously, the restriction on firearms and air rifles is because they can be used as an offensive weapon. In Scotland, it is also an offence to try to purchase tobacco products if you are under 18, because in Scotland they had that debate and they decided that they wanted to send a clear message out to young people that society considers it wrong to take up smoking. Therefore, they made that a penalty, as well.
It is a question of the messaging you are giving to young people, which is crucially important. It would be better if there was more consistency across more of those age-restricted products, to make it clear that it is an offence to try to buy. Otherwise, as Tony said, you will end up in a situation where a young person intent on buying this stuff for the wrong reasons just goes around and tries it on in various different stores until they find somebody who, for whatever reason, gives in and gives them the product.
Paul Scully
Q
Doug Russell: If you talk to trading standards people in Scotland, they say the impact has been that the ban on selling and buying cigarettes for under 18s has been more successful in Scotland than in England and Wales. The number of test purchases they have done that have gone wrong has gone down substantially, and they believe that the number of underage people who are buying these products has gone down substantially as well, so they think it has had a positive impact.
Paul Scully
Q
Doug Russell: They are told it is illegal to buy as well as to sell. That is the crucial thing.
Paul Scully
Q
Doug Russell: It is a question of making it quite clear, which is to do with the seriousness of the offence and the sentencing that would follow from that offence. The emergency workers Bill that is going through Parliament at the moment has got some interesting ideas on how that would work in practice. The point is that if the assault quite clearly happens as a result of somebody trying to enforce the law by asking for ID and refusing a sale to somebody who might be underage, that should attract a stiffer penalty.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
Q
Tony Dale: Most of the members we represent work for large retailers, so the training does take place. One of the big problems that we have is that it is an extremely difficult bit of legislation to police. Guessing the age of many young people, and where they stand in the spectrum from 16 to 30 or whatever, can often be extremely difficult. Sometimes just being good at your job or attempting to do your job thoroughly can lead to a reaction from customers. I have been behind people in a queue who have been asked for ID for buying alcohol, and the person reacted quite strongly, saying it was ridiculous, that they were 28, and who on earth would challenge them? That person was just doing their job.
Quite often, those situations are quite difficult to train for. The task facing shop workers is very difficult, because it is not just the task of stopping the sale to people under 18. It is also the more difficult one of identifying who is under 18. I think training has taken place to the extent that it can, but you are talking about quite difficult levels of managing conflict. I think even the best-trained police negotiator would have difficulty sometimes in dealing with those situations.
Doug Russell: One of the findings from the research that we commissioned with the National Federation of Retail Newsagents was that when shop workers were asked what the main reason was that they would be reluctant to ask somebody to provide proof of age when they thought they should be doing so was the fear of violence. They feared that they would get abused or threatened, or even worse, if they challenged somebody. Ironically, that has actually been made more difficult by the training, because the training that is widely implemented now is the Think 25 policy. If you think somebody looks like they might be under 25, you should be asking them for proof of age, because that gives the seller a bit of a buffer to protect them against unintentionally selling to somebody who is under 18. Of course, that means lots of people who you are challenging for ID are going to be old enough to legally buy the product and if they happen not to have ID on them at the time, that is the kind of situation that Tony was describing where they can kick off. Legislation to back up the fact that you have got to do that, and that if it does go wrong, society will look after you, is quite an important message to send to shop workers.
Tony Dale: One other point is that in that sort of conflict situation, we are expecting shop workers to police the situation. They are in a position of authority, and if they sell the product to somebody under 18, they will be committing an offence. We need to do more as a society to say that those shop workers are in a position of authority. Creating a specific offence of attempting to assault a shop worker who is trying to carry out that check would be entirely legitimate.
James Morris
Q
Doug Russell: Yes is the answer to that, but it is very difficult to prove. In our surveys, we do not specifically ask about weapons; we just ask about physical attacks, because we have pretty short contact time with the people we are talking to. We have seen physical attacks double over the last year, from 4% to 8%. The British Retail Consortium does an annual retail crime survey and it has also seen a rise in serious assaults, and I think the rise in the use of weapons is reflected in the findings of its survey.
There is also a business victimisation survey done by the Home Office and it has come up with some amazing figures for the increasing use of weapons in attacks. Unfortunately, because the survey is done by statisticians, they keep pointing out the fact that these changes are not statistically significant. I think there has been more than a trebling of incidents, but for whatever reason the Home Office’s statisticians still say it is not statistically significant, which I cannot quite understand, although I am not a statistician. But everybody who collects this evidence has been reporting an increase in the use of weapons in these circumstances.
Tony Dale: When we come to do the written submission, we can definitely look into that and see what information we could find out about it for you.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Q
Doug Russell: It would be. Obviously, now big retailers are increasingly going down the route of making it more difficult for customers to get their hand on the product until they have been age-checked and it is a safe transaction. The problem with it, of course, is that all sorts of bladed things are being sold and it is about where you draw the line. Kitchen knives are quite clear, you wouldn’t want somebody to pick a nine-inch blade off the shelf, unpack it from its packaging and then use it as a weapon, which has happened in some of the stores where our members work. However, when it gets down to safety knives, razors and things like that, it does get a bit more complicated. But, yes, we would be in favour of that, certainly.
Tony Dale: That is something the retailers are going towards more often, in the sense of having a range of knives that are behind a counter. Obviously, with the corrosive material there will be a question about other materials, such as bleaches and so on, and we may well need to look at how access to that material is restricted.
However, there is also the issue of the people who are working behind the counters at the cigarette stalls, which would be the age-restricted stalls. That is where an awful lot of abuse takes place. When people are turned away, that is a possible area of conflict as well, and abuse is increasing. Quite often, behind those counters you only have one or two people on their own, isolated from the rest of the store, so that has its own problems as well.
Paul Scully
Q
Tony Dale: If it was mandated to be removed into?
Paul Scully
Either under lock and key, or behind the counter—whatever.
Tony Dale: I think we would welcome that, because there is an issue that you have dangerous weapons. You could have knives or corrosive materials, and so on, easily available on the store floor, which brings its own problems. I also think that if there are age-restricted products, to have those clearly marked and identified and away from the shop floor brings with it an increased recognition that they are age-restricted products, and sometimes at the moment there is not that recognition.
Paul Scully
Q
Doug Russell: No, we represent the workers only.
Paul Scully
Just the workers. One of the things I noticed when I went round last year—one of the issues, I suppose, for retailers—is that the more difficult you make it for someone to access the product, to feel the product, or whatever, the less likely they are to buy it. So you have the defence aspect. You want to protect your workers. You want to ensure that people are not just swiping the knives to use them then, which is the whole point of the Bill in the first place, but you do not want to get in the way of businesses selling something because it is on open display. How do you get that balance?
Doug Russell: It would be a different selling relationship, wouldn’t it? A lot of these products—things like knives and bladed weapons, for example—are sold in DIY outlets. It would be a move away from the big B&Q-style warehouse, where everything is out on display and you wander around lost trying to find what you are looking for until you find the right thing, and you can never find an assistant to ask for help when you need it. It would make it much more of a human interaction.
There would have to be somebody there to deal with the customer who wanted it, and you would probably end up with better customer service, because that person would know what they were talking about, and could advise you on the right thing to buy and check that you were legitimately buying it for the right purpose along the way. That would actually be a better exchange. It need not be bad for businesses; a different model of business would just develop if those restrictions were in place.
Paul Scully
Q
Doug Russell: Are you talking about delivery to the customer away from the store?
Paul Scully
Yes. What might happen to the people who are actually out and what about if there are unintended consequences?
Doug Russell: I don’t see any. Given the rise in e-commerce and e-shopping, it is a very important issue. For our members who work for Tesco, who work for their .com service, for example, it is already the policy that they cannot deliver to somebody who is underage. There has to be an adult in the house when a delivery is made. That should be the kind of principle employed by everybody in that area.
The trouble is that increasingly the partial delivery service is being hived off to a kind of Uber-economy approach, where the last person who does the delivery from the hub to the individual customer is some private individual who is getting paid so many pence per parcel to do it, and is working effectively as a self-employed person in that circumstance. It is very difficult to train and police them, and make sure that that side of the business is looked after. However, for all the big supermarket that do home deliveries, the staff who do that are trained about age-restricted products, and are expected to abide by the same principles now. It is not a particular problem.
The Chair
There are no further questions, so thank you Mr Russell and Mr Dale. We will now move on to our final panel of the day.
Examination of Witness
Chief Inspector Emma Burroughs gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Thames Valley police. We have until 3 o’clock for this session. If the bell rings for a Division in the Chamber we might have to go out for 15 minutes and then come back and conclude. I hope that it will be after the evidence session, but we cannot be sure. Would you please introduce yourself?
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Good afternoon. My name is Chief Inspector Emma Burroughs, and I am a serving police officer for Thames Valley police, based in the Reading police area.
Louise Haigh
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: In Reading, given the large train station and the accessibility, we have seen almost a 250% increase. We are talking extreme numbers, where we are seeing two or three county lines coming together and almost having what we would call a bit of turf war—so, an area where they all want to supply their drugs. As that demand increases, they have to change their tactics to see how they can be the dominant gang. That has resulted in the need to arm themselves with knives.
We have seen an increase in open fighting in Reading. That is not in alleyways or places that are obscure to the public; it can be in the main shopping areas of Reading at 4 o’clock in the afternoon where you have children catching buses home from school and people shopping. There seems to be no concern about what they are doing. They are very driven by their task.
That comes back to their age group. The majority of people who we are dealing with at the moment range from those as young as 12 years old to 16 or 18-year-olds, who are being tasked by the top-level people in a certain area to go to areas such as Reading and deal a certain amount of drugs, then to return to hand over a phone and what cash they have made, and then to wait—almost on a shift basis—for the next individuals. Because of that threat, we have seen an increase, in using our stop-search powers, of those arming themselves with knives, or of offences where robberies and so on have taken place and they have been in possession of knives.
Louise Haigh
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Yes. The figures have gone from 52 to about 280 at the last count—they are the rolling 12-month numbers. We have seen the number of offences or stop checks where people have a weapon increase.
Louise Haigh
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: We have what I would call a kitchen knife or a bread-carving knife, up to flick knives. We are now seeing more and more of the new zombie knives, which are serrated with the circles. They seem to be more prevalent among what they are arming themselves with.
Louise Haigh
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Absolutely, in particular for the zombie knives, which are now mentioned for stop and search.
Louise Haigh
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: As with everything the police are trying to do at the moment, it is that preventive element—that early intervention. Why do so many young people now feel the need to arm themselves? We are trying to backtrack through their lives and adverse childhood experiences—I do not know if that is common terminology for everyone. Why are they behaving like this? What has happened in their previous life to make them behave like that? Are they a looked-after child? What traumas have they suffered? What level of violence have they suffered? What sort of home life have they suffered? We are trying to see if we can get in at a much earlier part of their lives, potentially when they have initially been made a looked-after child, to try to deter them away from this and give them the support elements.
We have success stories at Reading where we have intervened with county lines boys, understood where they are with their issues and managed to rehouse them and get them back into education. Some have gone into foster homes, some into care homes, to get that stability back to help them to address the trauma that they have suffered, which reached a point at which they could not cope and therefore resorted to working for county lines.
Louise Haigh
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: The issue we have in Reading is that there seem to be a number of spaces in looked-after children’s homes, so we have quite a lot of children who come from, for example, Croydon and Lambeth. Then it gets into, “We’re Reading social care or Reading social services, and that’s Lambeth,” and that poor child gets mixed up in the politics of, “We only look after Reading.”
For us, it would be about greater working relationships, so it does not matter where they initially lived or have gone missing from, we will actually look at the individual and say what is best for that young child—forget the boundaries and different financial implications if you house a looked-after child from Lambeth in Reading. That is the bit that we find a challenge at times—the dialogue and the information sharing.
Louise Haigh
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Mostly, yes.
Louise Haigh
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Whether it is the lower availability of firearms that we are hearing about through intelligence reports, or from some of the work we do with schools, where I know that it is described as the social norm that every child must now arm themselves, so whether it is that they feel it is the right thing to do—or the media attention. Reference has been made to the new—it is not new, but it seems to be fairly new for a number of children—“Fortnite” game that people may be familiar with, which talks a lot about the weapons. Those of you who know about the game will know that you can stab someone in it, and you do not bleed and you do not die. That is why, when we interview children and ask why they have knives, some say it is fine and that nothing will happen. We have dealt with domestic incidents involving a mother and child, in which they have re-enacted “Fortnite” because they think it will be fine. We not only have the social media films, potentially, but we have online gaming.
It is cyclical. I recall two or three years ago when we had a real push on knife arches. You could not get into schools or licensed premises unless you went through a knife arch, which would pick the knife up. Those are perhaps not being regularly tactically used. We may need to look to licensed premises to reintroduce those. However, it seems they feel that, because of the threat of violence against each other, that is the only way they can arm themselves.
Louise Haigh
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Definitely. We employ that at Reading. It is about early engagement with a child who is either beginning to truant, whose behaviour is changing or who has a lack of interest in education. It is also that visible presence and being able to hear about, after maybe seeing a bullying incident in the playground, what is actually behind it and what is the level of violence. We recently had two 14-year-olds who unfortunately used knives that they had taken from their home economics class to threaten each other and to cause injury, because that was the next level that they felt they needed to go to, because of what was happening in their bullying cycle.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: It is probably mixed. Some of them openly buy them themselves. A lot are ordered through the internet. We know that vulnerable adults are, if you like, employed by county liners to purchase them on behalf of children. There is a variety of measures. As with everything, we will never prevent it, but some of the Bill’s recommendations will make it slightly harder to happen. They will have to be more creative, which sometimes puts people off, because it becomes a bit too much work.
Mary Robinson
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: It will very much be preventive as to what we can actually do to stop knives getting out and about. There will be greater, tighter controls on the sale. Having listened to the previous witnesses, it will actually make it difficult; they will be behind the locked cabinet, if needs be. They will not be able to readily buy them over the internet and have them delivered to their home address.
Also, the Bill will give further stop-and-search powers. Yes, that power exists, but the Bill will open it more to knives and will have that element. The only other thing—I cannot remember the specific clause—is that it will make being threatening with offensive weapons an offence, which is a bit broader, because sometimes you struggle with what substantive events have occurred.
Mary Robinson
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: We work very closely with British Transport Police. The issue is that, for a stop and search, you have to have the relevant grounds. A lot of the time, there is very little intelligence. It is more that, after there has been an incident or a coming together, they are subsequently stop-checked. Only last week we used the section 60 powers because there was information that two gangs were going to come together. Unfortunately, while that prevents the fight from taking place, it does not prevent the stage before, when they initially come into that area with knives. Unless the train station has stringent checks, like security at an airport, for people coming in and out of Reading train station, that is not prevented.
Mary Robinson
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: No, not at the moment.
Mary Robinson
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: At the moment we are predominantly finding class A—heroin and cocaine. There is some cannabis, but we would probably say that that is more the lower level—what we call local dealers, within Reading. It is predominantly opiates and cocaine at the other end.
Mary Robinson
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Yes, we do. We have quite a strong media strategy at the moment on not only the dangers, but the vulnerability involved in getting them in the first place.
Mary Robinson
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: It is probably too early to tell. We are working closely with a community safety partnership to understand that we need to get that messaging out. We have a couple of charities in the Reading area for people who self-refer for drug and alcohol abuse, but it has only been since around April, so we cannot gauge the benefits at this time.
Paul Scully
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: We obviously had the guidance that we had to ensure the grounds were there, but for an area such as Reading that has not had a significant impact, because of the visibility of individuals who meet the profile. We have had clear intelligence that they have come to Reading to deal and we have had information from a phone, so for us, the grounds have been sufficient, but I know there have been concerns over whether we are complying legislatively on stop-and-search. In Reading, we have continued the level of stop-and-search, primarily because it is very evident, but I know that in other areas of Thames Valley police, where it is not, there has been a decline in stop-and-search with confidence.
Paul Scully
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: We do a lot of work with education on the preventive element, to ensure that people know the dangers, to try to identify those children that we think are being exploited for that reason, and to put in the interventions on the trauma side of it, as has already been mentioned. Are we seeing any signs? Accessibility is a main factor, but having the intelligence picture to work up that chain and prevent the drugs from coming in in the first place is a huge issue, given that the demand is clearly there from people wanting to buy the drugs.
Paul Scully
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: In the areas where we have a very stringent approach—what we call the knife arches, the checks and the engagement—the acids would not be picked up. Not that you could detect them in that way, but it is allowing the stop-and-search to identify those issues, seize the substances and have a substantive offence. As we know with many legislative things, our criminals can be one step ahead of us. If there are increased restrictions on knives, what would their next tool be? It will help us to have that very early testing, the ability to seize items that we suspect are acids, and for it to be part of the stop-and-search if they are found in possession of them.
Paul Scully
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Not at the moment. We have seen them in all age groups, from the young individuals right up to some of our local street robbers—local criminals—who are arming themselves; those are people in the mid-40s age range. At the moment I would not say there is a clear profile. It is just that a knife that, potentially, we did not see six months ago is now being seized and found in house searches.
Paul Scully
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Very much so—within education, to say, “If you do stab someone, they will be seriously injured.”
Paul Scully
“This is what it is like?”
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Yes. It is definitely within education. I know there is a lot going on regarding the impact of the addiction and mental health elements. I know a hospital near us has seen children come through who have been classed as having an addiction, so it is working through from the mental health element. If you mention mental health to parents, it clearly sets different alarm bells ringing when they understand that. We have had conversations with numerous parents over some behaviour issues that we have been called to, which are classed as a domestic, but when you have chatted to them and understood it is because they have asked their child to get off “Fortnite”, then you talk to them about addictions. There is education through a different route.
Paul Scully
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Yes. What is a normal family? But yes.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: On a personal note, in Reading, we have monthly headteacher meetings where this is very much on the agenda. From my personal experience, we have a good partnership working arrangement with schools, because of the trauma approach we take in Reading, but I would not say that is consistent—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Chief Inspector, you were at the beginning of an answer to a question from Mr Morgan. Would you like to pick up where you were?
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Yes. I was talking about schools and where I am currently working, while reflecting that I have worked in other areas of Thames Valley police, Slough and south Buckinghamshire, and we did not have the same engagement from schools. To some extent, some schools did not even want a visible police presence in their schools. I was reflecting back to when the Prevent agenda was introduced and every school had to do Prevent training. Yes, it is a different element, but because it was going to happen for the same need, such as the knowledge of weapons and the impact, we should come out to schools and have that engagement from them.
Stephen Morgan
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Absolutely. Once again, if things are very clear, it is the strategic body to drive it and ensure accountability.
Stephen Morgan
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: Trying to be optimistic, at the end of the day we are never going to totally resolve the issue, but we have got to try to make life harder and put ownership back on the various bodies that are involved, whether that is retail, education or the police. It is preventive, and it will all help. I cannot quantify, but I think anything where we have greater powers, greater opportunities and greater seizure powers can only be beneficial to what we are trying to achieve.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: We can only educate on the difficulties. I have talked about incidents where officers have attended, and then we have talked about the area from a problem-solving point of view. There are some sites where parents have left their credit card details and the children can just log on. I would not say Amazon, because I am not sure you could—I am sure you could buy a knife off there, but once people’s credit card details are stored, parents need to be careful with password protection. We ask, “How on earth was this ordered?” and they say, “Well, they’ve got access to my account. I just let them log on and buy whatever they want. I did’t realise it was going to be a weapon.” Likewise with the downloading of games, they say, “I didn’t realise—I just allowed it.” It is the element of parents’ trust of their children. Actually, they could prevent it.
Nigel Huddleston
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: No, definitely not. I know that Thames Valley Police, and I am sure other police forces, have done a big media drive to talk about how you protect and put in restrictions. The generation in our mid-40s to 50s did not have it in our education at that point. Our children, who do, are far more educated on that system than we are. It is about whether people have been brought along with that, but we are really trying to give guidance. There was a big Facebook media campaign to say, “This is how you put those restrictions on,” to support them.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: We find it is under-18s. I think we have had one incident—I am talking only about Reading at the moment; I am not certain of the whole Thames Valley figures—where an assault has taken place with an acid, but we have seized items where liquid has been transferred to a drinks bottle, and it has been subsequently tested and found to be acidic.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: The ones we have been told about so far bought them themselves from shops. They used a bleach, or a particular cleaning product—I think there was an oven cleaner that was a very strong corrosive substance, which was subsequently used.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: I would hope that the sale in itself should be the initial restriction, but it depends to what extent. If you look from household bleaches right up to the last thing we heard about, which was this oven cleaner, they are readily accessible. It is about how the restriction works—whether it is like alcohol, which obviously has to be age verified, but then you have the issue that if they know that that check is there, they will steal it by other means.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Chief Inspector Burroughs: From the evidence we have so far, it is much more under-18s. I would say, from the evidence base we have at the moment, that 18 is a suitable age.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank Chief Inspector Burroughs for her evidence today, and all our previous witnesses as well. That brings us to the end of the oral evidence sessions on the Bill. The Committee will meet again to begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill at 4.30 pm on my 66th birthday, Tuesday 4 September, but I will not be in the Chair on that occasion.
Offensive Weapons Bill (Third sitting)
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Chair
Before we continue to take oral evidence, Members, please feel free to take your jackets off, as it is very hot in here. That applies to witnesses, too, if you want to be cooler and more comfortable—the air-conditioning in this building is erratic. I remind Members and all visitors in the Gallery to switch off their mobile phones and other electronic devices or switch them to silent.
We will now resume our oral evidence sessions and hear evidence from the British Association for Shooting and Conservation. Welcome.
Christopher Graffius: Thank you.
The Chair
Before I call the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters in the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme order agreed by the Committee. For this session, we have until 12 noon. I would be grateful if the witnesses introduced themselves for the record.
Christopher Graffius: I am Christopher Graffius, director of communications and public affairs at the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and I am a keen shooter.
Bill Harriman: Good morning. My name is Bill Harriman. I am director of firearms at BASC. I am also in my own right a forensic firearms examiner, and I am a keen collector of antique firearms.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Q
Christopher Graffius: Yes.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: No. I have read it and gone over it in detail, and—I am trying to think how one can say this nicely. One of the problems with rifles that are firing over 10,000 foot-pounds—in particular the .50 calibre, at which this legislation was first aimed—is that very few people have seen one, even fewer have handled one and fewer still have pulled the trigger on one, and there tends to be a lot of myth around them. I am afraid that much of what you were told was either misleading or inaccurate, and often it was quite ridiculous. May I give you some examples?
Louise Haigh
Please do.
Christopher Graffius: You were told—I am reading from the minute of the evidence—that the effective range was 6,800 metres. That is a nonsense. If you fired the rifle at 35°, the furthest the bullet could possibly reach might be that, but that is certainly not its effective range. Its effective range is more like 1,500 to 2,000 metres, or less than a third of what you were told. The effective range of a rifle is what an average, competent shot can hit a target at. You must remember that with something like the .50 calibre, out at 1,300 yards, which is less than a mile, the bullet drop can be 24 feet, so you are 24 feet off-target irrespective of what the wind will do to your shot.
You may be aware that the longest-ranged sniper shot in Afghanistan by a British soldier was about 1.5 to 2 miles. That was not done with a .50 calibre; it was done with a .338 Lapua, which would not be affected by the Bill. He missed nine times before he hit. Firing at those extreme ranges is incredibly rare and you have to be incredibly well trained to it; it just does not happen in civilian circumstances. In fact, the range at which a target shooter—a civilian target shooter—would shoot is 1,000 yards. The world championship in .50 calibre is 1,000 yards. You were told twice that.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: Well, that is another problem with the evidence that you were given. Your witnesses went to great lengths to talk about things being extreme or military, but you must understand that many rifles that are not affected by the Bill can fire at those ranges, and that virtually every calibre in common civilian use started life as a military calibre. The most common rifle in civilian hands is a .308, which is the same as the 7.62 NATO—and I could go on. Virtually every calibre in civilian use began life as a military calibre, because that is where rifles are developed. They are then changed, given a sporting round and used in hunting or target shooting. That is another very important point.
A lot of what you have been told about the destructive powers of this rifle in military hands is because it is using ammunition that is illegal in this country for civilian use. The text of the Home Secretary’s letter to MPs says that their penetrative powers mean that with the right ammunition, they can penetrate body armour worn by soldiers. In this case, the right ammunition is incendiary and is designed to penetrate such targets. In civilian terms, that is illegal; what they use is target ammunition.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: I am not qualified to answer that, because I have never seen a vehicle or a person shot with one of those things. In civilian use, they are used for paper targets.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: I am particularly concerned because it will take away a legitimate, lawful and safely conducted sport, at which we do particularly well in the world championships. It also establishes a principle in law, via muzzle energy, which could be used to threaten even more commonly used calibres. That could seriously damage shooting in the future.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: Yes, of course we are concerned about that. We want to prevent even one firearm being stolen from a legitimate source. I note their comments about the number stolen, but in terms of the nearly 2 million firearms in civilian hands, 204 is not a great many. That is something we are working on: we work with our members to ensure that they keep their guns securely, we issue advice to them, and we happily work with the police to achieve that aim.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: I would advise you to let those who work with the certificate holders work with the police to minimise those thefts.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: No, I did not mention that.
Bill Harriman: That was me.
Louise Haigh
That was you, Mr Harriman. Sorry. Some 30% of the guns used in firearms offences last year were of an obsolete calibre. We discussed that with the National Crime Agency and the National Ballistics Intelligence Service on Tuesday. Do you think the laws relating to antique weapons can be improved to prevent that figure from being so high?
Bill Harriman: At the moment, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 is being implemented. The way to tackle that is not to prosecute based on whether or not something is an antique. That is going to be defined in law for the first time, which I think is very good; it gives a lot of clarity. I do a lot of cases where there is no clarity about whether something is an antique. You then need to go towards the intent of the person who alleges that his firearm is an antique, and then apply the second limb of the law—does he keep as a curiosity or an ornament? If he does not, it then drops into the section in which it would come normally, and in most cases it would be a prohibited weapon, which carries a mandatory five years. The law is being looked at now, and I think it is sound in its basic intent.
Louise Haigh
Q
Bill Harriman: I can think of none. Intent is very important, although hard to prove, I grant you. It is one thing to say that somebody has something, but it is what they are going to do with it that counts. Off the top of my head, I do not have a problem with that.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: I think a very small number. We are probably talking about 150 rifles. The police, who have better records of licences, identified 129, but there will be more rifles than that, and of course that does not include Northern Ireland, which the Bill also covers. I warn the Committee against legislating on the basis that it is only a small amount. These people’s recreations and activities, which they have conducted perfectly safely and in accordance with the law, are important. I would hope that Parliament is here for everyone, and not for the majority over the minority.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: I do not accept that they would do more damage than anything else. All rifles in the wrong hands are dangerous. All rifles, even down to the lowly .22, would penetrate the body armour normally issued to police, which is an anti-stab vest. All rifles are dangerous. As I mentioned, that longest sniper shot was not even done with a .50 calibre; it was done with a .338 Lapua, which is not actually covered by the Bill.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: I have no issues with the proposals in the Bill on bump stocks; I think you are quite right to do that. When it comes to the energy, though, there is no ballistic relevance to that energy limit. Indeed, it is quite possible that the rifle can be altered so it comes underneath that limit. If you try to legislate by limit, it may be possible to alter the rifle to comply with that.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Q
Bill Harriman: One way I would always go at security is what people refer to as dispersion in separate units. You have the stock and the barrel in one steel cabinet, the bolt somewhere else—preferably in another room—and the ammunition somewhere else. You have to do three things to get the rifle, its component to make it function and the ammunition with which to fire it. I go back to what a Crown court judge said to me in, I think, 1991: security is a series of difficulties presented to a burglar. The more difficulties you present by dispersing things, the better the security is.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
Q
Bill Harriman: There are these types of firearms that are licensed by chief constables to certificate holders who have satisfied the good reason test that is enshrined in law and who use them legitimately for target shooting, and I believe that they are favoured by some disabled people because they are slightly easier to use.
Kevin Foster
Q
Bill Harriman: I think the term “rapid firing” is always a bit difficult to define, because one man’s rapid fire is another’s very slow fire. I go back to the previous comments about bump stocks, which really do push the firing rates up, as far as I am aware. I have to say, though, that I have not actually seen a bump stock in this country, and I believe that when people here wanted to examine one, they had to buy one in. I have not seen one of those, but I have seen these rifles being fired. And while the firing rates might appear to be quite high, I think that the rates are very much lower than, say, those of a military rifle or perhaps a rifle fitted with a bump stock.
Kevin Foster
Q
Christopher Graffius: My comment would be that when Parliament sets a limit, the industry then seeks to comply with that limit, and that is precisely what has happened with these rifles. I have never seen one of these weapons used, but I would say that anyone who possesses one legally in this country has been determined by a chief constable to be to safe to possess it, and his security is adequate. That is quite a substantial test for any rifle. The owner must also have good reason to possess it, and that may well be a disability.
Kevin Foster
Q
Christopher Graffius: I would be sorry to see people who have been judged capable of owning these weapons securely and safely having them removed by Parliament, and their recreation lost.
Bill Harriman: May I also say that the good reason test in the legislation is actually quite hard to satisfy and the onus falls on the certificate holder to prove that they have a good reason?
Kevin Foster
Q
Christopher Graffius: No, I do not think so. I can see no legitimate reason to have those weapons, including for target shooting. I fear what happened in Las Vegas: we have an example there of a bump stock being abused to kill large numbers of people. It is interesting to reflect that that bump stock turned a rifle that was not an automatic rifle into virtually an automatic rifle. If the murderer had been using a .50 calibre, it would have been a bolt action rifle and he would not have fired anything like that number of shots, because the .50 calibres in domestic possession are single-shot rifles.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Q
Christopher Graffius: It would mean that Britain would not compete internationally, for example, on .50 calibre and it would mean that people would have a legitimate recreation destroyed, and I think that would be a great shame. People get very passionate about their shooting, as I am sure members of the Committee do about their own hobbies, and to have it removed is always a tragedy.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Q
Christopher Graffius: First, I would want to say that you talked about illegal antiques, but no .50 calibre rifle legally held has ever been used in a crime in this country. I know that when that is said, people often refer to the rifle that was used by the IRA to snipe at British soldiers during the troubles. That was illegally imported from America; it was not legally held in this country. That is the first thing I would say.
The next thing I would say is that range is important. There has been an attempt to convince you that these things are somehow extreme, when lots of rifles that the Bill does not affect can shoot at long ranges. Range is not what makes a rifle dangerous. It is putting it in the wrong hands, and the bullet being fired at you.
You ask what else we should do. What we should do is strive to ensure that the licensing system works properly, that customs work efficiently and that illegal weapons are not imported into this country. You are probably aware that only 1% of the firearms used in non-airgun firearms crime are rifles. I am not aware of any prosecution for attempting to import a .50 calibre from overseas. I am not aware of any illegal discharges of .50 calibre. I really think that that is the wrong target.
If you look at illegal firearms crime, 42% of it is done with pistols and those were made illegal two decades ago. The vast bulk of firearms used in illegal crime is the stock that has been there for many years and illegal weapons brought in from overseas. I urge you to look at ways that you can improve our border controls against illegal importation, and police powers and resources to seize illegally held guns.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: I am aware of the case, but no one can be sure as to whether it was fired by the criminals. You do not clean a rifle after every shot, so there may be residue in the barrel from the last shot legally taken by the owner. So we do not know whether it was fired.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: Well, criminals shorten barrels on lots of long guns. I think they made a mistake in doing it on a .50 calibre, because the noise, the recoil and everything else would have been quite substantial—if they did fire it, but we do not know that.
Bill Harriman: I do not actually think they knew what they had stolen. Having spoken to the man who was unfortunate enough to have his gun stolen from his house, he believes that it was simply opportunist and they stole what they could carry away. They simply grabbed this thing. I think it was abandoned.
Louise Haigh
Q
Bill Harriman: I think it is illustrative that one was used and it was not the .50 calibre; it was a smaller one. These things are very large. They are not the sort of thing that you can tote around the streets very easily.
Louise Haigh
Q
Christopher Graffius: Many dangerous weapons from civilian, police and military sources have fallen into criminal hands. That is always worrying, and we must always work to stop it, but the .50 calibre that fell into criminal hands from a legal source was never used in the commission of a crime, and no other .50 calibre has, precisely because it is not well suited to be used in a crime. To give you an example, the average weight of a Steer .50 calibre rifle is 30 lb. My rifle, which is a .308—the same as the NATO rifle—can shoot well over 1,000 yards and weighs 8 lb with the scope.
Bill Harriman: To pick up on that, as a young man, in the days when I was in the Territorial Army, I used to complain bitterly about being made to carry the squad light machine gun, which weighed 22 lb—and that was running around with it.
The Chair
Q
Christopher Graffius: No, I think we have covered everything, thank you.
Bill Harriman: Thank you.
The Chair
In which case, Mr Graffius and Mr Harriman, thank you for coming this morning. We will move on to our next witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Baroness Newlove and Anne Longfield gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Baroness Newlove: I am Baroness Newlove, the Victims’ Commissioner for England and Wales. I also come at this from a personal perspective, having lost my late husband to gang-related violent crime.
Anne Longfield: I am Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner for England.
The Chair
Thank you very much. The acoustics in this room are quite difficult, so could everybody speak up? It is a long way for some of us to hear.
Louise Haigh
Q
Baroness Newlove: The reason why I am so passionate is that I used to work in the court rooms—I used to take evidence down. When you go the other side, so to speak, and go through something personal, the way that you are treated certainly does not make you feel that the justice system is there to protect you. More importantly, my three daughters witnessed every kick and every punch to their father. They had to do cardiopulmonary resuscitation—he was choking on his own blood—and they were 12, 15 and 18. I then had to turn his life-support machine off, knowing full well that he had just got over stomach cancer, which nearly killed him, so you can imagine the trauma that we went through, and are still going through after 10 years.
I respected the court room, and still do respect it very passionately, but a lot went on around us. My daughters gave evidence and their clothing was removed. My sister took them to a VIPER—Video Identification Parades Electronic Recording—parade, which is just head and shoulder identification shots, and my sister was told to turn around and stand in the corner by defence solicitors. I think it is absolutely appalling. My children were asked to sit on their hands, and told, “Don’t fidget. If you want a break, let the usher know, but you’re not to cry.” Yet the defendants in the dock—aged from 15 to 18—were, I have to say, mollycoddled and coached. We had one adjournment for a dental appointment. In the court room there were no family rooms. It was a very volatile situation.
I didn’t have a vision for this, but when anybody says, “You really don’t know what it’s like,” I can assure you: I am a gobby northerner and I am still going through that criminal justice system. It saddens me today that I have people in my office crying, because of the lack of respect and dignity.
Louise Haigh
Q
Baroness Newlove: It can come from individuals or non-communication. It can also come from the system itself, where they are expected to behave in a certain manner and they are the last port of call to find out information. Through social media, I have known verdicts in the Royal Courts of Justice before the judgment was supposed to be public. I have three daughters who live in the north and I am having to coach and tell them that it is not what it seems.
I have just been on the radio about a rape case today regarding a victim of social media. She has been trolled and basically told, “I hope you do get raped,” because the case was acquitted, “and I hope you kill yourself.” For me, it is the whole process. It does not help when individuals do not make it easy for you to go and ask questions.
Louise Haigh
Q
Baroness Newlove: With the victims’ law, I keep challenging, because it has cross-party approval, and it has been in the manifesto twice. For me, it is about the practical issue and not just legislation. Victims do not have legal rights; they have a code of practice. We have been told by legal people that that is up to persuasive guidance. That is not good enough in my eyes and it is not good enough for the victims that I see on a daily basis around the country. I want to ensure, also, that they have the same rights as an offender—not to take away the balance of the rule of law, but to give them the same rights, so that they have the communication, they know somebody they can speak to and they can get the right information. They are not always given the right information.
That is why I want to have a victims’ advocate, not to interfere with the adversarial system. It should be someone who is qualified and paid to do the job. Volunteers do a great job, but—no disrespect—you do not put a volunteer with a defendant in the dock. When they are convicted, you do not put a volunteer with a prisoner.
I am sorry, but if you are really taking victims seriously at this end of the criminal justice system, we need that qualified advocate to build a relationship from beginning to end so that even if they don’t go to court, there is somebody there who will take that pressure away—so that people are not feeling suicidal, as I did. That will also help them to get support and rehabilitation. We always speak about rehabilitation of offenders. What about rehabilitation of victims? They lose their education, welfare and homes, as I did. The issue is not just legislation, but the practical skills. If they need legal aid, I would urge the Secretary of State for Justice to give legal aid where it is necessary. That is a huge issue, I know, but it is a stepping stone and it is a work in progress. A law has to be put in place now to protect the rights of victims.
Louise Haigh
Q
Baroness Newlove: As you know, police and crime commissioners now have the funding for victim services. Some areas have Victim Support as their agency; others have chosen to go with Citizens Advice or to make their own, such as Vera Baird has done with Victims First, and we have victim hubs along the way. That works fine, if it works well for victims. But some of the victims I have met actually on visits to PCCs have never been involved in the support services. While the police say they do their best, it is quite interesting to listen to victims where the police are not coming out.
For me it is about that advocacy; it is not about signposting and it is not about putting everything on the police’s shoulders. There has to be a professional in place. The framework I am looking at—working with Vera Baird and Martyn Underhill, who is looking at the advocacy role—looks at a court advocate, a mental health advocate and a general advocate. I am looking at a general advocate, who would be there to introduce themselves at the victim’s pace.
Victim Support is under austerity measures. It can work well, but there are gaps and I do not want there to be gaps. They can send volunteers to them, but, while they do a tremendous job and they are all of a set age, I want to have a professional, because it makes you feel that you are being put parallel to the offender.
Louise Haigh
Q
Baroness Newlove: Yes.
Louise Haigh
Q
Anne Longfield: This is an area of work that I have undertaken; we have just moved into the second year and have published second-year statistics. I was concerned that there were vulnerable children who were carrying risks that often were invisible. We can see them when they come into contact with the state in care or child protection, but there are a raft of children who are carrying risk that we would all be concerned about if we knew, but who often are invisible. They become visible when they hit the headlines, but at that point, the crisis has already hit.
My analysis team has undertaken an extensive piece of work that looks at severe disadvantage, bringing together data from across public datasets in a comprehensive framework of vulnerability, with 40-odd groups. We are also doing further analysis on where there is multiple disadvantage and around particular family disadvantage. The idea is to get one set of understandings of vulnerability, but also get that to be recognised when look at how we reduce those risks.
We found that, actually, about 2 million children are living in high-risk households—that is, families who either have an addiction to alcohol or drugs, have a parent with severe mental health problems or have experienced domestic violence in the household over the last year. So there is significant risk. We have been quite conservative with these estimates; they do not look in any way to exaggerate.
As you say, of those 2 million, around just more than half a million are in the social services child protection and care system. We think that about 1.5 million are not getting any visible form of support. Some will get troubled families support of some kind, but we think there is a group in there who are not getting the early identification and support that they would benefit from to enable those problems not to escalate.
You mentioned the gangs figure; around 70,000 children self-identify as being in gangs. Of those, 30,000 are 10 to 15-year-olds. Many more know people who are in gangs. We think those statistics demand reference, not only because they are children who need support now, but to better understand the policy response, which needs to be multifaceted and long term and to start from birth.
Louise Haigh
Q
Anne Longfield: The system we have at the moment does not see a child as a whole. One of my frustrations is that no matter how good a policy intervention in one Department is, it only fixes one set of symptoms; it does not look at the causes overall. Huge amounts of energy and effort—and sometimes distraction, I have to say—get taken up with particular initiatives that are in a health box, school box or crime box. Actually, none of us is as conveniently neat as that.
Human beings are complex; vulnerability affects every aspect of our lives and we know that it comes out in different ways. To really tackle the causes of vulnerability, we believe that there needs to be a joined-up approach nationally but importantly locally, too.
Louise Haigh
Q
Anne Longfield: A recognition of the flaws in seeing it within segments in Departments is the first step. We also need a recognition of the divisions that are sometimes brought by different slices of money at the local level.
One of the things that I am really keen to look at is how we can maximise the potential of the new multiagency safeguarding arrangements coming into place now. They have got a year to develop their plans. They require the police, CCGs and children’s services all to be at the table. They are much stronger than the previous safeguarding arrangements. The guidance is very clear that the work has to be seen within the context of safeguarding. It is not just about the risk being carried by a child and family, but the wider risks to the community from violence, gangs and the like.
Within that, there is a distinct possibility of looking to a group of agencies that have clear responsibilities in an area. The mechanism has to look in the first instance at a risk assessment and coming up with a plan. Within that, they should be asked to come up with a 10-year plan that will reduce violence and risks in that area, which they can evidence over time. That is not as explicit as I am putting it at the moment, but it is a recommendation that I put forward that we believe would provide a mechanism to start to move beyond the short-term crisis response that so many areas are in.
Louise Haigh
Q
Anne Longfield: There is now a requirement for schools to work together. It is much more explicit about that. Many schools that contact me are very worried about what they know is happening with the pupils in their schools. I have had some very good examples of schools that are doing positive work. A headteacher from alternative provision in Manchester is doing fantastic work. She believes that half of the pupils in her school are in gangs. She is doing it on her own. She is having to identify the problem, work it out and put forward measures that I think are very strong, but she has not had help or guidance with that.
The message to schools is that it is important that they are involved in this board and this area-wide activity and plan. For those new boards, it is important not only that they are informing schools what they are thinking, but that they are actively engaging with schools as part of the solution.
Louise Haigh
Q
Anne Longfield: The fact of the matter is that we have not had this data before. I can only do this because I have particular powers that mean I can gather data and datasets from public bodies. I am in a position where I have an overview. My starting point is the child. I cannot say that there is an increase in totality. What we do know is that there are very concerning increases in various groups of vulnerable children. I would certainly say that an increased number of children are being marginalised, and I think the context of that marginalisation is becoming more and more concerning.
The children that have been marginalised are those who have been excluded from school and are outside the mainstream. There is new data today on the annual exclusion figures, which show a 64% increase over the past four years in the number of children excluded from school. It is 17% in the past year. Once they are outside that mainstream, they start to be in a system where they have fewer safeguards around them.
The safety net is gone. Three quarters of the children will be persistently not at school—there will be persistent absence. They are there, identified for those who wish to target them and prey on them. The children who are being pushed out or are falling out of the mainstream are increasingly marginalised. The stats show that. In terms of those that are in custody, 89% have been excluded from school. I could fill the next hour with those stats but I do not really need to because they speak for themselves. I am very happy to share them with you.
Louise Haigh
That is really shocking. Thank you both so much for giving evidence today. You have both provided really invaluable evidence. I should have said that at the beginning.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
Q
I am assuming there is obviously a difference between the qualifications one would need to support victims of a different ages; but really I am trying to get a sense of what kind of person you would be looking for and, also, what their duties would be, in your experience. Would it be explaining what is happening in the court system? Not everyone will know. Would it be administrative help with filling out forms or giving advice on finances? I am trying to get a clearer picture of the case you are making, which I think is a strong case.
Baroness Newlove: Yes, everything you have said is a mixture of what we are looking at as the role; in fact, my team are doing a rapid assessment at the moment.
Tulip Siddiq
Would you mind speaking slightly louder? Sorry, I cannot hear; the acoustics are quite bad.
Baroness Newlove: On what I am looking at for a victims’ advocate, one of the reviews I will be doing at the end of the year is a rapid assessment, looking at victims’ advocacy, because it is very important. While I mean a paid professional, I have not fine-tuned that yet; that is why I am working with Vera Baird and Martyn Underhill and looking at the framework of an independent domestic violence adviser or independent sexual violence adviser—because you have got the framework there.
I appreciate that if we are going to start from that basis, the issue will be down to costs, whoever is in government. I do not want to duplicate what we have already got out there, because the roles of IDVAs and ISVAs are very important to the relationship with the victim and also important to empower the families, because it is family members who have got to pick up as well. That is why I think it should be paid.
If they are over 18 it can be a lot easier, but if they are under 18 we have to look at the skillsets, and that is probably why you are looking at youth workers. I know there is some evidence about whether we should make them qualified. I think anybody who comes in front of a child should be qualified, should be accredited; and more importantly the reason why I want to have a victims’ advocate is that there are gaps in victim support agencies—not Victim Support, the organisation: victim support services.
If victims do not feel there is an organisation out there to support them right through, they set up on their own. That is not a bad thing; they come from a good place, but actually nationally and centrally that is a bad thing for them to have to do. We have got no national standards. We have got no accreditation system. It is not very professionalised and you would not put that in front of a young offender, or an offender who is over 18. I am trying to professionalise a system that is basically run, majority, by volunteers and good will.
Money is very tight, so I want to make sure that the money is used wisely. That is why, looking at that—and it follows right through; you have asked us if it is explaining court, if is about finance: it is the whole package. They are signposted at different stages from different organisations. One will say, “Why don’t we do this?” Victim support in some areas do not fill in the criminal injuries compensation; I am actually in the throes of doing a review on a victim’s journey. Some areas do but some areas do not. It is very much a postcode lottery. Each regional area looks at things differently. Lancashire PCC’s victim support service gave a counselling service to victims of terrorism—completely out-of-the-box creativity. I want to ensure that this role is looked at professionally and respected. Also, what it is bringing to the forefront is that independent domestic violence advisers—the court environment do not respect them as a professional. We are losing skilled workers who are essential to people who have been sexually abused and domestic violence victims. That is why we are looking at the role of the ChISVAs, as they are now called—the children and young people’s independent sexual violence advisers—to help the youth. If they are not known as a role now, why are they not? They are literally being taken away out of the courtroom environment. If we have a victim’s advocate who is qualified enough to do that, we can start to have that stepping-stone and better mileage in understanding the victim’s journey. Does that give you a flavour?
Tulip Siddiq
Yes; that was very comprehensive, thank you.
Baroness Newlove: Hopefully, a rapid assessment will give us a few more teeth to go forward.
Vicky Foxcroft
Q
Anne Longfield: One of the things I have put in place over the last couple of years is a measurement of the stability of children in care, because stability is key to ensuring that children can begin to get over and move on from some of their experiences before care and start to build themselves into their journey toward adulthood. Stability is the biggest thing that children have come to me to talk about. It is the thing they say they would benefit from and want most, but it is not there for many of them. We know that placement moves are far too frequent, that school moves are far too frequent, and that most of them experience a constant movement and change of social workers. For too many children in care, all the people who we all know are really important in our lives, the trusted adults who are there to help you and to build relationships with, are constantly changing.
We know there is a particular group of children who are particularly marginalised from the relative—it is relative—stability that most in care will experience. That particular group is children with the most complex needs, who will ping or pinball around the system. It is in their teenage years that they are most likely to be at risk of that. They will be the ones with complex needs; they will be very challenging for schools, foster families and residential homes, but none the less they are put at higher risk by being pinged around and not supported or helped. Essentially, there is a gradation of risks for children in care. The vast majority will be relatively stable—not as stable as I would wish them to be, but compared to the instability of that high-risk group they are not so much in the spotlight.
The issue with that high-risk group, which involves a number of thousands of children, is that we know who they are. I suppose that is part of the message about knowing who the vulnerable children are. We know where they are. There are trigger points and clues within their lives as they grow up that things are going very wrong. That starts very early on. Talk to most early years workers, and they will be able to tell you the children they believe have carried the highest risks. It goes into school. It emerges often in teenage years, when they may be excluded from school, especially as they get into the midpoint within secondary school. Then they are in a pupil referral unit, alternative provision, custody or care.
Those children are almost going down a funnel toward a crisis point. At every point there are trigger points where interventions could help to bring down those risks and prevent children from graduating to that next dreadful stage. There is not a system in place that is established and consistent enough, in any real way, to enable us to identify those children and have the help in place to prevent those risks escalating and to treat those difficulties. The issue we really need to understand is that many of those things are preventable and treatable, and knowing that, my argument is that we must.
We also know—although it is not all about money—that because the funding in local authorities is very tight at the moment, half of all the money that goes into children’s services budgets is going on the 72,000 children in care. If you add in those on child protection plans, it is three quarters, which means that there has been a 60% drop-off for youth services and Sure Start, which are where many of those children and families are picked up and helped. There is a context that this is happening within, which is why it needs to be flipped on its end, in my view, in terms of a proactive determination to reduce risk and intervene early.
The Chair
Before we take any more questions, may I suggest that some questions should be about the actual Bill? We have had some general discussions so far, and I have been very tolerant, but it is probably time to focus on the Bill.
Nigel Huddleston
Q
Anne Longfield: I do not want to veer off too much, but the intervention will clearly be different at different ages, so you would not have the same intervention with a two-year-old who was at risk because of family factors as you would with a fifteen-year-old who had already been in custody once and was in danger of reoffending. There would be different interventions.
In the longer term, there is much work that needs to be done with families in the early years, which can reduce those risks and help to give children the resilience and the external support to grow up in a stable environment. As children are going into school, much can be done to build their skills with extra support, support within the classroom and added support around the school, along with help for families.
When you get to the point where children are at a distinct risk as a group, when they are excluded from school, there is very difficult behaviour and they are getting into trouble with the law and the like, and when there is the kind of violence we have seen in communities, you are talking about specific interventions that draw together agencies. There is an element of disruption—you disrupt the pattern and have trusted adults there who can start to talk about the different narratives and look at activities that disrupt.
You are looking at interventions at the age of seven and eight within primary schools that, again, offer different narratives and help children to develop their own sense of confidence and self-belief. The confidence, self-belief and resilience to be able to say no and walk away from being in a gang—frankly, a lot of kids will say they do not feel they have any choice, because the violence is so extreme and the organisation is so forensic—start early, at the end of primary school.
It is breaking a cycle. I was shocked to find out—I know that I am forever joining the dots and there is always something new to find out—that in a young offenders institution I visited lately for 16 and 17-year-old boys, a fifth of them were already parents and had babies. That is why I talk about that constant life cycle and being able to intervene at different points.
Essentially, you have to make it the day job of every agency that comes into contact with them, so the relevant people are around to help. This is not about putting everything on teachers and making them the last people standing on this. It’s really about being able to understand who can identify who those kids are, who can help and what you can do. By the time you are talking about prevention—last-chance prevention almost—you are talking about significant help to bring mental health problems down. You are talking about real help to look at options, resilience, confidence building, self-belief, respect, relationships, and all of the things that so many of those children will not have had from their own family circumstances, or indeed as they go through school, because a lot of these children will not have been in school since primary school.
Nigel Huddleston
Q
Anne Longfield: Of course. There is a strong educational element. On the kind of work I was talking about in relation to seven and eight-year-olds, what I have seen happening in a very positive way has been in the final years of primary school with ex-probation officers who have gone into schools and actually talked to children in a relatively grown-up way about violence and the impact of your actions, and they have talked about being able to understand and have some empathy with those that you will have an impact on. Who will be affected if you attack someone? Family; community; and not just on one day, but forever.
All the evidence shows that the final year of primary school is a really powerful moment to put in alternative narratives, not only about what is good, what is cool and what is the thing to be, but about building empathetic skills and resilience skills. In a workshop that I was in, they started on a Monday and said, “What do you think is the best weapon you have?”, and of course everyone said the most powerful weapon: a knife, a gun, whatever. By the Friday, after five sessions, they said, “Your brain.” Having a sense of agency, using your brain and knowing some tactics to get out of difficult situations was what they felt they gained from. The kids were overwhelmed by it and thought it was fantastic.
Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
Q
Baroness Newlove: A victims’ law would make victims feel they have legal rights. The majority of victims, or most victims that I see, believe they have no legal rights when they listen to the courtroom system. Sadly, I met some victims who had lost their daughter to murder. They felt the system was very much offender-focused and all about the rights of the offender. They felt that the police and the defence had to abide by the offender rules in the courtroom. That is why I believe that if we have legal rights for victims, they will feel that they are very much part of the process and will not feel that their loved ones are just a piece of evidence.
As my daughter said when she was 18 and gave evidence, her father was on a map and he was Man A. She has never forgotten that. That is the whole point. I appreciate, Chair, you want to go back to legislation, but in this legislation there is no wording about victims. Although I welcome the Bill, it is about the crime. We are talking about offenders and how we can make the message sterner, but there is no information or wording about the victim. If you are serious about both, you must ensure that that is looked at. If you look at offenders as victims as well, they need to know that they can be protected from going down the criminal path.
Stephen Morgan
Q
Baroness Newlove: I have done this work now for 10 years. Before I became a baroness in the House of Lords, I went and did my homework. I have been into prisons and youth offender institutions, and I have also worked with medics on first aid. I have spoken to young gangs about knife crimes, and 10 years ago it was about how they cut the person. It was the designer cut—it was a weapon of message. Now we are seeing that weapons have got even worse, with the shape of them. They are absolutely appalling.
Talking to victims of knife crime, they feel that there are two sides. Why are they carrying a weapon? To feel protected—yet they kill another human being. It does not add up for them. Also, if they live in an area where there is high knife crime—I have met families in Hackney who have lost family members from that—they do not understand why they have the ability to get hold of a knife in the first instance.
They also believe that we need to educate them. I met a very good group of medics who carried out first aid for young people who were in gangs—this was in a youth offending centre. Young people have this thought that if they just stab someone once they will not die—it is just a warning. Actually, as the consultant said, you can die from a wound in your big toe. I thought then—this was seven years ago, and I know we are talking about medics now for the programme—that that was a good idea. They were not only teaching them first aid so they could help their friend in the gang, and get them to A&E, but getting to understand their language. When they come into A&E they freeze up, and they could be a pure victim stuck in a gang environment. That has always hit home for me.
I am delighted that we are looking at medics, but more importantly, if we are looking at education to stop this, victims say, “Why are we not educating them more about the graphic detail?” They will go on an Xbox and think it is great to shoot and knife people, but it is not life—you can pause. Unfortunately, in life somebody will be injured. In education, it is very important that we bring first aid back into our classrooms as mandatory. First aid helped my daughters to help their father. Helping these gangs with more creative first aid will educate them, and make them feel that they have some tools.
Also, if these are pupil referral units—PRUs, as we say—why are we paying so much money to these individuals to then shove them in a room? They probably do not have academic skills but have practical skills to use a knife in a practical way to get a job. I get really infuriated when I have been round and seen victim services helping these families to cook, to wash and to raise their family in the best way, and the schools feel it is quite right to send their PRUs to them, but not to pay them the premium money that the school gets. That is where victims keep asking me, “Why are we not doing enough on early intervention to stop that?” I think it is commendable of victims’ families—the people who have lost somebody —to help people.
Stephen Morgan
Q
Baroness Newlove: What worries me with acid attacks is that medics have said that they do not want to report them. They are very scared, and the offender finds it the easiest weapon, as such. They are not born with this weapon, but this liquid seems to be easy. We have to pull out of that and highlight the horrible acid attacks and what they do, and be stronger on sentencing as well. Liquid is quite easy to throw, but is devastatingly effective on victims. The system they go through is more life threatening than anything.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Anne Longfield: On an attempt to purchase?
Stuart C. McDonald
Yes.
Anne Longfield: I want to do anything possible to reduce the violence, both from children and on children, but I do not want to criminalise them. I want to do as much as possible to intelligently act on these triggers, but I know that when we criminalise children there is one path. We know that over the last two or three years, there has been a doubling of children, under 18, who are in prison because of knife crime. Once they are in there, we know that 68% reoffend, so there is one route. My position is firmly on preventing that from happening, and using that as a trigger.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Anne Longfield: I do not think it would be an effective solution to what I want to see.
Mary Robinson
Q
Anne Longfield: I do believe there is a link between children being marginalised and outside school and an increased risk of being involved in violence and knife crime. There has been a huge increase in the last five years—a significant increase of 64%. When children get into PRUs, they cost us a lot more—£30,000 a year, which is six times as much a place—so on social and economic grounds this is completely unsustainable. They often have a twilight timetable, which means a couple of hours here and there, which means they are getting all the benefits of contact with those who wish to get in contact with them and none of the benefits of stability from any kind of provision.
The first thing is to reduce the number of children who are falling out of school. In my view, mainstream schooling should be mainstream. Some areas have done very good things to keep children in schools, and the default needs to go back to keeping kids in schools. The kind of things you see in some of the best alternative provision—some is good—are about close relationships with parents, agreed ways of walking to school, agreed leaving times, phone calls if they are not there, and extra support, one-on-one tuition and the like. All of those things. That could be delivered within a school context, but of course a lot of schools think they do not have the incentives for that because they will not be judged on it, which is why there must be a change in what we look at in terms of judgment around schools.
Keeping children in school is really important, as is increasing the quality of the provision of those out of school and being clear about the purpose of them being there, and—it sounds ridiculous—having a much greater focus on the kids’ outcomes when they are there. This is not a warehousing exercise for children who are a bit difficult and too difficult and complex for a school; it is about children’s futures. That just does not work in the PRU system. It is set up to fail, and if you end up in that situation it only goes one way. You had the St Giles Trust here the other day, which is well respected, and it says that 100% of the children and young people it works with on county lines come from PRUs. Clearly 100% is a lot—it is a big figure—but we get the sense of scale in that.
The headteacher who wrote to me had a whole raft of things in place across her alternative provision. She had training for teachers, a whole school approach, relationships with family members and specific activities in the classroom to bring down the rhetoric and language around gangs, because there is a whole language around street violence that breeds violence, and a whole way of looking at things, showing that retribution is not the only way forward, teaching young people life skills that will take them away from violence rather than towards it. I have yet to visit that place, but that is a good example of where a school knows there is a problem and is proactively doing very good, responsible things.
In different areas there is a hotch-potch in responses. In some areas the police will look to scrabble a bit of money together—often only a few hundred pounds—to put on sessions and workshops in schools, but sometimes they find it difficult to get that money. They are often working with the police and crime commissioners, but again there are limited funds. They are often not well set up to start working with feeder schools for hotspot secondaries. All that is new territory for a lot of police forces. That is why a longer-term collaborative approach is the way forward. There is not a magic bullet for this, and we cannot police or legislate our way out of it. Although that is clearly important, this has to be a long-term process that looks at an alternative approach for those children and recognises where help is needed.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Q
Baroness Newlove: Unfortunately, my role and my budget only allow me to go to Wales, so I cannot say I have seen them personally, but my team are looking at rapid assessment. That is why it is important to see where it works well with support. I could not say without evidence and without having looked at it, and of course doing that takes a lot of resources, but at the end of the day, if we cannot get it right here, we have to look elsewhere. This is about humanity at the end of the day.
Karin Smyth
Q
Baroness Newlove: There will be places. The USA has victim advocates, but there are different county lines and county issues there. That is why I am looking forward to rapid assessment, which we looked at in “What works”—the international evidence assessment of the four pillars. I think it will be on the basis of that that we look at the support mechanisms right through. I can always send you that report when it is available.
Karin Smyth
Q
Anne Longfield: There are certainly urban hotspots in terms of violence, and clearly London is one of those, but we have seen over the last few years that that is increasingly affecting every area of the country—perhaps not the extreme violence and murder that we have seen in London, but certainly things like county lines. At one point, that largely involved drugs being exported from urban areas to coastal towns and the like; now, every police force in the country says they have county lines in their area. The strong message from that is that none of us should think it is something that happens just over here or in particular communities—in urban areas that are the most disadvantaged. The prevalence may be higher there, but this actually happens in every area now. We know from the NCA that there are more than 1,000 county lines around the country.
Any of us would be shocked by the viciousness and tenacity of that business model, which is based on extreme violence. Young people who live in areas where it happens sometimes say, “I’ve got no choice. Joining isn’t a lifestyle choice to me—I can’t see any other way. I don’t have the protection of a family. I don’t have the kind of consistency at home that gives me the safety net and the resilience to be able to fight this.” They want to belong. They want to be protected. Someone from St Giles said the other day, “Kids pick up knives like you might pick up car keys before you leave the house.” It is on that level of normality. We need to understand that and then act in a very determined way to ensure that it does not remain normal going forward. It cannot be right.
Again, there are reachable, teachable moments, but this is a concern for anyone—every police force in every area of the country—because the business model is very determined and it acts very deftly, so if there is a blockage here, it will go a different way. County lines, which are based on violence and coercion, now work in a way that recruits young people from a local community, and they are the ones who go out to sell and deliver the drugs, and report back to a base, sometimes hourly, with photos to show how they have been doing. That should be a concern for all of us, which is why I talked about the new safeguarding arrangements. They are in every area and they have a consistent responsibility and requirement to pull those agencies together. They all have to write a plan based on what they know the risks are, and we should be explicit about violence and knife crime as part of that plan.
Kevin Foster
Q
Anne Longfield: Certainly many agencies now look at young people up to the age of 25. We know that 18 is often quite an arbitrary age, because children are still developing. In terms of mental health, for instance, most of the mental health care that is most effective looks at under 25s, so—
Kevin Foster
Q
Anne Longfield: We are working on the basis of 18. I do not have any opposition to 18. I just put before you the fact that 18 is not always the most effective age in terms of improving outcomes for children and their communities.
Kevin Foster
Q
Baroness Newlove: I think it will send a message to victims of acid attacks. At the moment, people use acid to injure people, and it is an easy thing to do, because there is no custodial sentence for it. We have to make it clear, but we also have to look at the sentencing. It is a life-changing injury, which costs a lot to the state in healthcare, so we have to have a good sentence. The whole Bill has to mean what it says on the tin, and that is why this is important, but the sentencing guidelines have to follow through. We already have knife crime legislation and it does not have that effect.
Kevin Foster
Q
“when the offence was committed, the person…was aged 16 or over”?
Are you content with that provision? Is it appropriate?
Anne Longfield: Again, for 16 and 18-year-olds the response needs to reflect the age of the young person. If they are criminalised at that stage, they will only go down one track. I would prefer a way that triggers a response. I am not looking to be soft on people who are perpetrating crimes in any way, but if we are looking for an effective response, it has to be robust about that.
Baroness Newlove: Can I add to that? I know somebody else who has gone through it. If you have an offender who is 16, or under 18 years old, a victim who is 18 years old is seen not as a child but as an adult, and they will then get an adult provision. We are messing around with ages here. There is no clarity for victims of that age. That is my worry—that it will not have the right effect for victims to feel supported.
Kevin Foster
Q
Baroness Newlove: I do not have any evidence to produce on that. That is not my area, so I would not like to add anything.
Anne Longfield: No, the young people I talk to are not as involved in this area. I do not have particular evidence to offer.
Kevin Foster
So not a particularly strong view either way on those provisions. Thank you.
Louise Haigh
Q
Anne Longfield: Where do I start? My starting point will always be prevention. I do not want kids to be in prison; I want them to be elsewhere and I do everything I can not to have them there. While they are in there, I acknowledge that some young people say it is the first time that they have felt safe. Those who work with them say that when they know that the average time they are in custody will be 14 weeks, all they can do is stabilise and move on. I want to have a system that can respond to individuals, so my instinct is not to go down the mandatory minimum sentences route but to look at individual cases.
Baroness Newlove: As Victims’ Commissioner, I have to say that victims tell me they want mandatory; only then will it be effective.
Louise Haigh
Q
Baroness Newlove: It was across the party for a victims law to be produced in the manifesto, but I am independent as the Victims Commissioner. It is something I keep speaking about.
Louise Haigh
Q
Baroness Newlove: Yes, that was in the manifesto.
The Chair
Are there any more questions about the Bill? No. In that case, I thank the witnesses for coming. It has been a very useful session.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Paul Maynard.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Backbench Business
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Perinatal Mental Illness
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered perinatal mental illness.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I and my colleague on the Select Committee on Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), are delighted to have secured this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.
Nothing can prepare someone for the challenge of becoming a new parent—the sleepless nights, the new responsibility and the feeling that they suddenly have to put their old life on hold. As I have found since becoming a parent, a few months before my 40th birthday, raising a newborn child can be hugely rewarding. There is little that compares with the joy of seeing a child grow and develop. For most of us, it is a deeply fulfilling experience. Still, becoming a parent can have a dramatic impact on many people, in terms of both the stresses they experience and the impact it has on their relationships and their emotional wellbeing.
I will talk about how the Government can act to improve the lives of thousands of mothers in England who do not receive adequate support for perinatal mental health problems. The perinatal period is the time during pregnancy and the run-up to a birth, and the time immediately following the birth of a new baby. As a general practitioner as well as a parent, I have worked to provide mothers and newborn babies with the support and care they need in the perinatal period. It is a crucial time not only for the mother, but for the development of her child. It is also a time when great pressure is placed on mothers to care for their baby and simultaneously to be happy, excited and on top of life.
According to the mental health charity Mind, about one in five women experience mental health problems during pregnancy or in the year after they have given birth. Those mental health problems can come in many different forms—from eating disorders, to post-traumatic stress disorder, to anxiety and depression. If left untreated, the mental illnesses that these women experience can affect their whole lives, their ability to cope with being a parent and their relationships within and outside their families. The illnesses can affect attachment and bonding with the baby. At their extreme, perinatal mental health problems can lead to suicide and to long-term health problems for a child.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I understand that one fifth of parents stated that they were not asked about their mental or physical health during the six-week post-natal check-up. Does my hon. Friend think that might be because GPs are massively overburdened and simply do not have the time to deal with this essential issue?
Dr Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I will refer to it later in my speech. I think the pressure on GP services that she has identified is one reason, but there are some other reasons to do with training and perhaps resources.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this important debate. To support his case, I will describe the case of Libby Binks, a very brave constituent who came to my surgery. She described how she went through the six-week check without any consideration being given to her wellbeing, despite the fact that she was clearly in distress and had post-natal depression. A health visitor came in at a later stage and filled in a questionnaire with her, which clearly showed she had post-natal depression, but nothing whatever happened until her child’s first birthday. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to make more of that six-week check in particular, to ensure that the mother’s wellbeing, as well as the child’s, is taken into consideration?
Dr Williams
I thank the hon. Gentleman for relating the experience of his constituent, which is, sadly, shared by too many other women. Of course, there are many dedicated health professionals who do identify mental health problems, but too many women say that they slipped through the net.
I will talk about why perinatal mental health problems are so important for a child. The first 1,001 days of a child’s life, from conception to the age of two, are absolutely crucial to their social, emotional and cognitive development. Put simply, those 1,001 days are when a brain is built and shaped. During that time, 1 million new neuronal connections are made every second in that child’s brain. When the environment the child experiences, whether inside or outside the womb, is happy, relaxed and stimulating, he or she learns and develops those connections in the brain. The baby grows and adapts in a positive environment.
However, many of the symptoms of mental health problems do not provide that ideal environment. Stress raises the level of cortisol, which can cross the placenta and affect a foetus. When someone is severely depressed, perhaps they do not smile, so a baby does not see the warmth, the love and the reciprocation that they need from their mother. When someone is anxious or has an obsessive compulsive disorder, a baby sees, learns and repeats actions from the environment they are experiencing from birth. They learn to behave like their mother.
A mum’s mental health problem can have such a significant effect on a baby that academics describe it as an adverse childhood experience. Adverse childhood experiences, or ACEs, are stressful events that occur in childhood.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I was interested to hear the evidence put forward by the National Childbirth Trust to the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences that depression among 16-year-olds is usually linked to their mother’s pregnancy. I realise that the research is more complex, but given the worrying rise in the number of children and young people with mental health problems, is he as concerned as I am that one quarter of women are unable to access specialist perinatal services in the UK?
Dr Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for making several points, including that a child whose mum experiences mental health problems is more likely to develop mental health problems themselves. Despite significant Government investment in specialist perinatal mental health services, significant inequalities remain throughout the country and there are still areas where, as he said, one quarter of women with significant mental health problems are not able to access specialist facilities. I hope we will get the chance to talk more later about access to specialist services.
Other adverse childhood experiences include domestic violence; parental separation or divorce; being a victim of physical, sexual or emotional abuse; physical or emotional neglect; or growing up in a household where there are adults experiencing alcohol and drug problems. Mental health problems in a mother can have as significant an impact on a child as some of those other problems. The term ACEs was originally developed in the US, but other studies have reported similar findings in England and Wales. Those ACEs have, as my hon. Friend has said, been found to have lifelong impacts on health and behaviour. They are relevant to all sectors and involve all of society.
An ACE survey of adults in Wales found that, compared with people who had experienced no ACEs, those with four or more were more likely to have been in prison; develop heart disease; frequently visit their GP; develop type 2 diabetes; have committed violence in the last 12 months; and have health-harming behaviours, such as high-risk drinking, smoking or drug use
Children’s exposure to adverse and stressful experiences can have a long-lasting impact on their ability to think and to interact with others, and on their learning. Health and societal inequalities that develop during early years stick with children for life. That is why I chair the APPG for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences. It is also why the identification and treatment of maternal mental health problems is not only important for the individual mother but crucial for all of us in society.
National Childbirth Trust research shows that as many as half of new mothers’ mental health problems are not picked up by a health professional. That is not to say that health professionals are not asking—they often are. There are many fantastic nurses, GPs, midwives, health visitors and others who provide care during pregnancy and during the post-natal period. However, those services, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) has said, are overstretched. We all know how hard-pressed GP services are. The Government have acknowledged the problem and have promised to recruit an extra 5,000 GPs by 2020. However, they are failing miserably and are struggling to even maintain GP numbers. NHS Digital reports a decrease in full-time equivalent GPs from March 2017 to March 2018.
Perhaps a little less well known is the dramatic fall in the number of health visitors. Since 2015, there has been a loss of more than 2,000—almost a 20% drop—so each health visitor has to work harder. I commend health visitors for the work they do but, overall, women are experiencing a drop in services.
Staff numbers are part of the problem, but there are many other reasons why the problems of almost half of women with perinatal mental health problems are not identified. Stigma, and the societal pressure to be seen to be coping, makes it hard for some women to disclose that they have a mental health problem. Also, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has said, health services do not always ask women about their mental health in the most sensitive way. That is sometimes because they are pushed for time and sometimes because they have not been trained to sensitively and gently probe behind the “I’m okay” response that people are primed to give.
As a result, the hidden half of new mums with mental health problems struggle on alone, often afraid to reach out for help. The overwhelming majority of women who experienced a mental health problem said that it had an impact on their ability to cope or look after their children, and also on their family relationships. The mother of a woman suffering from post-natal depression told me:
“As a parent, watching a child go through that and feeling unable to make it better is a horrible experience. Health professionals need to make sure that husbands, partners and the family know about the likelihood of such depression…and know where to get support and help.”
Perinatal mental illness has an immediate effect not only on mothers; it can have lasting consequences for relationships in the wider family. With the added pressure to be a perfect mother, and the expectations from many that come along with that, it is no wonder that so many women feel unable to cope. One constituent described this to me:
“I remember comparing myself to the younger mums who would turn up to the mother and baby groups looking fresh and without a care in the world, making motherhood look like a walk in the park. Although my son was thriving, I felt like I was failing, because I wasn’t like the young mums or the ones in those perfect baby ads. I didn’t want to share my feelings because I felt I’d been a failure in comparison to them. I believe the pressures of our professions and the guilt of parenthood traps us into a dark place.”
It is often the most vulnerable who receive the least support, with evidence suggesting that those in areas of higher deprivation are less likely to be asked about their mental health. In dealing with this issue, the Minister has the chance to fulfil two parts of her ministerial brief, because investing in perinatal mental health will help to improve mental health and reduce health inequalities.
I have described the problem, but what are the solutions? Identification is key. Regardless of what services may or may not be out there—from specialist mother and baby units, to secondary care perinatal mental health teams, to cognitive behavioural therapy and the prescription of medication—half of women with the problem are not even identified. That is where I believe we need to start.
The disinvestment in health visiting is significant; there can be no solution to the problem while health visiting is not properly resourced. Will the Minister say what she intends to do within her Department to ensure that local authorities are adequately funded and supported so that there is investment in crucial services for children aged 0 to 19, rather than the cuts that we have seen in the past three years?
However, there is another, relatively low-cost opportunity to identify the hidden half. About six weeks after giving birth, new mothers see their GP for a six-week baby check, with many practices also offering a maternal health check. Official National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance encourages doctors to do that and inquire about a mother’s emotional wellbeing, providing an opportunity for them to spot the development of any mental health problems. That check could be the last time a mother sees a health professional for a routine appointment in which there is the opportunity to focus on the mother, rather than her baby.
While some women get an excellent six-week check, showing its potential, other women miss out. A fifth of women questioned in a recent NCT survey said that they were not asked about their emotional or mental wellbeing at that appointment. Some women’s checks are all about their baby. Why do all women not get the check that they need? Despite the six-week baby check being part of the GP contract, for which they receive funding, doctors do not receive any funding for the check on the mum. It is a credit to many practices that they offer the checks without funding, but making the time for a full appointment can be challenging, meaning that there is little opportunity to encourage a mother to talk about how she feels, which takes time. A rushed appointment can make many, like the constituent of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, feeling dismissed, or like it was a tick-box exercise.
One woman I heard from recently said her appointment made her
“feel like she was a burden”.
Another of my constituents spoke movingly of her experience:
“I knew there was something very wrong almost as soon as my son was born. Nothing I was ‘supposed’ to be feeling was happening. All I wanted to do was cry. I was feeding him and taking good care of him, but I felt empty inside, and so sad. I can’t remember anyone asking me how I was. I only saw my health visitor once, and that wasn’t in private so there was no opportunity to confide in her.
I told my GP I had postnatal depression and that I needed some help. He told me ‘you have a good family, you should be grateful—you need to pull yourself together.’ I don’t think I have the words to explain how damaging that was. I felt too ashamed to see him again so I changed to another medical centre. My first appointment was with a GP who listened to me. I found the courage to confide in her and she offered me support straight away. I remember very little of my child’s first year of life and I’m sure that is because of the trauma and deep depression I experienced.”
That could have been prevented if my constituent had been seen early on in the post-natal period, and if that first GP had delivered open, supportive questioning that reassured her, rather than made her feel ashamed.
Another constituent told me:
“I sat down with my GP, who had a check-list printed out and placed on his desk. He ran through the questions at a rapid rate, didn’t listen to my answers at all and placed ticks in the boxes after he asked the questions—not based on my reply. Hopefully a separate check for mothers can be achieved, as mothers just want someone to talk to who will not judge them for their feelings.”
About 30% of women diagnosed with post-natal depression still have depression beyond the first year of childbirth. If problems are not identified and treated early, they can worsen and develop into a much more severe mental illness. That underlines the need for an early check. If depression was recognised and treated appropriately within the perinatal period, it could prevent some effects that are much harder to treat in the long run.
Lyn Brown
I am sorry to intervene again. I intended to make a speech, but I am needed elsewhere, so I will ask a question. I have a lot of time for the Minister and I am wondering how we can help her to make the necessary case to the Treasury. Is it not true that if we look after the parent and the child as early and as well as possible, that will save massive amounts of money in the long term? This is an invest-to-save opportunity, and it would be welcome if the Government took it.
Dr Williams
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I have avoided, as much as I can, talking about money in the debate—not all of this is about money, but there are many opportunities to make a massive difference. If we can draw a direct link between a mum’s experiencing mental health problems and the damage that that may do to her child—it increases the child’s chance of developing health problems and even of being involved in crime later in life—there are certainly opportunities to invest to save.
We must not forget, either, that perinatal mental illness has serious consequences for the mother. Suicide is the leading cause of direct maternal deaths occurring within a year after the end of pregnancy in the UK. It is at least possible that if an effective six-week check were in place, some of those deaths would be prevented. Of course, this is, as many hon. Members have said, a complex issue. Diagnosis and treatment are complex, but in addition some health services undoubtedly do not give women the care that they need. Women feel that they are still being dismissed, stigmatised and ignored. However, we should not blame the individual GPs and health professionals who carry out the checks; we should look to change the guidance, the system and the structure in place.
From its research, the NCT has made three recommendations. The first is to fund the six-week maternal post-natal check so that GP surgeries have the time and resources to give every new mother a full appointment for the maternal check. At the moment, although the check focusing on the baby is contracted for and there is funding available for it, there is no requirement for a six-week check on mothers. Checks on mothers, if they are done, are often compressed into the baby’s check, so conversations about mental health may be rushed or sidelined completely.
A constituent got in touch after I said that I was going to speak in this debate. Her response was surprising. She said:
“After the birth of my first child, I suffered terribly with post-natal anxiety—something I didn’t even know was a thing. I don’t remember anyone ever picking up on how I was feeling and no one ever really asked.
Then after the birth of my second child I believe I was depressed. When he was born I didn’t feel anything which then made me feel guilty”—
a common theme—
“and I struggled to bond with him over the first year.”
She then said:
“I believe I met you”—
meaning me, because I was working as a GP in the constituency at the time—
“at my six-week check with him and I remember you asking how I was feeling. After telling you I think I may have needed to”
get some extra help
“for more therapy, you agreed it was a good idea and told me to come back”
for follow-up. She continued:
“I think women need to know where they can go for help and what signs to look out for. I was too scared to tell anyone that I didn’t feel any bond with my son because I think there’s still such a stigma around mental ill health.
I do think the idea of a separate appointment for the mother would be a good idea and more signposting to support groups, how to self-refer, confidential information and advice.”
That experience with my patient, who is now my constituent, demonstrates the value of making time to identify and explore perinatal mental health issues. It might be argued that GPs should be doing that anyway, even if it is not contracted for. I would respond by saying that some are and some are not. GPs do many things that are not in their contract. But the only way of getting true national coverage and the time needed to do a proper job is to resource it.
Kevin Hollinrake
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that £365 million has been set aside for perinatal mental health services. He is not too far away from North Yorkshire himself, and North Yorkshire has just secured £23 million of that to help with perinatal mental health services for new and expectant mothers.
Dr Williams
I do give credit to the Government for making investments in this area of provision. We started from quite a low baseline. There has been significant investment. Too many women are still missing out on these specialist services; the coverage throughout the country is patchy, but I acknowledge that things are improving. However, if we are not identifying half the women with perinatal mental health problems, that is a significant problem in itself.
The investment required to identify problems through the six-week check is estimated by the NCT to be about £20 million a year. That is a very small amount in the grand scheme of the NHS’s budget, but it could make a huge difference to many new mothers. Secondly, in addition to the funding for the six-week check, the NCT recommends improved guidance for GPs on best practice on mental health, specifying a separate appointment for the maternal six-week check and the best methods of encouraging disclosure of maternal mental health problems.
A separate check involving supportive, open and encouraging questioning would provide an opportunity for women to come forward with any problem that they may be having. It might also help to eliminate some of the feelings of stigma or shame; 60% of women said that they felt embarrassed, ashamed or worried about being judged. Just because it is in a GP’s contract does not mean that a doctor has to do the work; with the right training in place, it can just as effectively be undertaken by a practice nurse or other suitably qualified healthcare professional. What is important is that it forms part of the ongoing relationship that a new mother has with her GP practice.
The third NCT recommendation covers NHS investment in and facilitation of GP education. It is important that GPs are trained to recognise the symptoms of post-natal depression and differentiate them from “the baby blues”, which resolve on their own; and it is crucial that mothers are reassured and valued, not dismissed.
These three relatively straightforward measures—a contractual obligation, guidance, and training—could make a huge difference to many women’s and children’s lives. They could eliminate some of the preventable problems encountered by women suffering from perinatal mental illness. The average cost to society of one case of perinatal depression is estimated at £74,000. With an already overstretched NHS under immense pressure, these measures could alleviate some of the stresses placed, later, on mental health services; they will inevitably have to deal with the consequences of undiagnosed and untreated perinatal mental health problems.
With this debate, we are already raising awareness and challenging some of the stigma surrounding perinatal mental health, but we also have a unique opportunity to do something practical to address the problem. Negotiations for the new GP contract begin in September, and by holding this debate today, we want to gain wider support for these important recommendations to be included in the new contract.
There are many other areas of perinatal mental health that I hope we get the chance to explore in this debate. We have already discussed the availability of specialist perinatal mental health services. I hope that we also talk about the variable access to psychological therapies, which are excellent in some parts of the country; in other parts of the country, women struggle to access those services, too. I am very grateful to the other hon. Members who have come today to speak and contribute.
I consider myself to be a fortunate father, one whose experience of parenting has so far been very positive. Many parents are not so lucky. When I hear the heartbreaking stories of women whose post-natal depression has blighted their and their family’s experience of parenthood, I am reminded of just how fortunate I have been. I am also acutely aware of how damaging it will be to wider society over the longer term if we do not improve the way in which we handle this issue. We need to bring the hidden half of these women out of hiding. Post-natal mental illness is not just a problem for new mums. If we fail to tackle it, we risk failing the next generation of children, too.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is an enormous pleasure to follow my colleague on the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams). I commend him for a tour de force of a speech, which was extremely comprehensive. I will not speak for as long as he did and I will try not to cover the points that he did, because this is a large area and there is a lot to say about it.
It might be a little surprising to some that two men are opening this debate on perinatal mental illness, but I strongly disagree with anyone who thinks that we should not be, because the strapline of the Maternal Mental Health Alliance is that this is “Everyone’s Business”. That is exactly what it is. We need men advocating and agitating, if this issue is to be taken seriously and dealt with properly.
The Health and Social Care Committee and the Education Committee, in a report earlier this year in response to the Government’s Green Paper on transforming children and young people’s mental health, included a contribution from our excellent Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield. In evidence to both Select Committees, she said:
“I would like to see a comprehensive starting point that looks at children from birth and pre-birth onwards, and recognises that problems develop along the way; and the earlier and the nearer to home they can be treated, the better it is going to be for the child.”
I think that is a really important point. While there is a lot to be commended in the Government’s Green Paper, we know that in early intervention the earliest years are key.
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have allocated an extra £20 billion to the Department of Health and Social Care. That gives us an enormous opportunity. Quite properly, the Government are not rushing decisions on how that money will be spent. We will be thoughtful and considered, to ensure that we make wise choices. For my money, prevention and early intervention would be a good use of that money. I am sure that the Minister will push hard in the Department, to ensure that this area is prioritised.
The hon. Member for Stockton South, who spoke so well, talked a lot about the GP checks. I want to press the Minister on how this is supposed to be working at the moment, so that we can learn from it and get it right when the GP contract is renewed in September. My understanding is that Ministers have made it clear that all GP surgeries must offer a six-week post-natal check, to assess how a woman has experienced her transition to motherhood, which includes a check on her mental health. Further, I understand that GPs who opt out from doing so receive a reduction in funding. Until fairly recently, Ministers had been informed that only four practices in England had opted out. Given that information from the Department of Health and Social Care, and given that we are paying for that service and it is supposed to be happening, how is it that 22% of the women in the National Childbirth Trust survey said that they were not asked about their emotional or mental wellbeing at their appointment? Are we, as taxpayers, paying for a service that many GP practices are not providing? I ask the Minister to address the oversight and accountability of GPs in this area.
I realise that we need more GPs. The good news is that 3,157 medical students qualified as doctors and went into general practice this year. That is the highest number ever. We are increasing by a quarter the number of medical students we are training in this country and not before time, because other countries have been training more than we do. Globally, we need 2 million more doctors. I want to see a lot more British doctors—bright British children able to come into this fantastic profession. Of course, we are grateful for the doctors we have from all over the world, but we need to train more of our own and that is exactly what we will do.
The reality, which I understand, is that a lot of GPs, because of the pressures of the job, are working part-time, not full-time. I learnt recently that the average GP works four days a week, rather than five. We also know that a number of them are leaving general practice in their mid-50s, which is a crying shame. We cannot afford for them leave in their mid-50s. We cannot force people to work as GPs, but in their 50s they have so much experience and they are so needed. There is an issue of making the role of the GP less stressful and more enjoyable. In general, the Government need to think more about ensuring that public servants across the board have greater job satisfaction, so that they enjoy and look forward to going to work each day. If we have more GPs and they are less stressed, they should be able to do this work better.
I do not think I received a briefing from the Royal College of General Practitioners for this debate—perhaps I missed it. I am grateful for the briefings we had from a number of Royal Colleges and different organisations, all of which have been extremely helpful, but it would be good to have the full involvement of the Royal College of General Practitioners in addressing the incredibly important issue of perinatal mental health. Hon. Members are absolutely right to raise the training issue.
Earlier this week, I chaired the all-party parliamentary group for supporting couple relationships and reducing inter-parental conflict. We were looking at the issue of loneliness. New parents are one of the groups in society who often feel quite alone, if they do not have all the support networks that we would ideally like them to have. Someone at that meeting said that raising mental health touched on GPs’ anxiety that they would open a Pandora’s box of issues that would take them some time to deal with. GPs generally work to 10-minute appointments. We need to ensure that they have the time, in a relaxed environment, to go into these issues properly. It cannot be done in a rush or on a tick-box basis.
I want to pay attention to the important role that fathers and the partners of women with newborn children have in this area, because it needs to be properly recognised. Unsurprisingly, mothers report that fathers are their main source of emotional support. Yet fathers can sometimes feel left out and not as fully involved as they could and should be in dealing with perinatal mental illness, while the mother of the child wants the father to be involved. We have not always done as well in that area as we should.
I understand that there is evidence that a father’s involvement in pregnancy increases the likelihood that a woman will receive pre-natal care in her first trimester by 40%. The Royal College of Midwives also reports evidence that teaching massage and relaxation techniques to fathers to assist during labour is an effective way of increasing couple satisfaction and decreasing post-natal depressive symptoms, as well as providing psycho-social support for women. We also know that the mother’s relationship with her partner is a key determinant of antenatal maternal stress. This suggests the importance of assessing and addressing a range of attitudes and behaviours on the part of expectant fathers—not just domestic abuse but their own mental health, substance abuse, hostility, infidelity, rejection of the pregnancy and so on. Those issues must be dealt with, because they will have a huge impact on the wellbeing of the mother.
As I have said, poor paternal mental health has an impact on maternal mental health. Research suggests that a father’s mood and anxiety disorder can exacerbate the effects of a mother’s poor mental health and escalate the risk of a child developing emotional and behavioural problems, while fathers with better mental health can provide a buffer against the negative impacts. Fathers and partners are very important, and I am grateful to the Centre for Social Justice for pulling together some of that research.
Again, I am grateful to the Centre for Social Justice for drawing my attention to Greenwich Mind, which is a practical example of a service that provides answers to some of the issues that I have described. It works in partnership with Tavistock Relationships and other local providers to run post-natal support groups and parenting workshops in local children’s centres for parents with or at risk of depression. Those activities specifically focus on the co-parenting relationship, not least in terms of how it is affected by adjusting to parenthood. Evaluations show that relationship quality and mental health improved as a result. That is an example of a good service that we need to see more of.
We must remember the wise words of the hon. Member for Stockton South about the impact that maternal mental health has on children’s development. The health and mental wellbeing of our children is key. I also serve as a vice chair of the all-party parliamentary group on adverse childhood experiences. We are a bit behind the curve in this area in England. The research in America is overwhelming. As an English Member of Parliament, it concerns me that the understanding of it is better in Scotland than in England; the same could be said for Wales and Northern Ireland. I look forward to the time when England is at the same level of understanding.
I will not repeat what the hon. Gentleman said about the earliest years of a child’s development, but those issues really matter. The wellbeing of the mother—indeed, of both parents—in those early months is critical for how our children develop and for giving them the best chance to flourish.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), and I thank the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) for setting the scene so well. He obviously has a passion and a knowledge of the subject—not just as a father, but from his previous job. I have a knowledge of it through people who work for me and who I have social involvement with, including the lady who writes all my speeches—she is a very busy girl—who always wanted to be a mother and had two miscarriages. I am very conscious of her story, and I will tell that today.
The wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), Lindsay Robinson, who set up a charitable group in Northern Ireland, has also given me permission to tell her story, which I will do in the way she told it to me. It is important to record those stories. We have come together on a Thursday afternoon to tell the story of why perinatal illness is very real, and to think about how we can help, which is the real reason for being here. I always say that we try to provide solutions so we can do things better. For the record, I should say that I have already apologised to the Minister and the shadow Minister, and to you, Mr Davies, for having to leave early, because I am committed to a later debate.
The work of the NCT is vital and a great support to parents all over the world. In Northern Ireland, we have three active branches that offer local mums, dads and families vital information, resources, connection points, community and friendship when they need it most. I thank the charity for the time and energy it has put into the research for the #HiddenHalf campaign, which has focused our attention on the issue of maternal mental health. It is clear from its work, and that of all those in the maternal mental health arena, that too many women go undiagnosed and unsupported. This debate must be a way to address those issues verbally, and we look forward to the Minister’s response about how she will help us.
NCT’s #HiddenHalf statistic that the problems of almost 50% of women who were surveyed, and who struggled, were not identified by a healthcare professional and that they did not receive any help or treatment is shocking. We must work together to change that. All the hon. Members who have spoken so far have reiterated that point.
My parliamentary aide, Naomi Armstrong-Cotter, who is also a local councillor, has spoken out in a personal way about her experience of miscarriage, of successful pregnancies afterwards, and of the fact that a leaflet handed to someone is not enough to give them the tools to deal with the emptiness of that loss. Our local paper, the Newtownards Chronicle, gave her an opportunity to tell that story; coincidentally, that appeared last week. Her plea was for greater support during and after pregnancy; for a network whereby someone did not have to search for help, but it was ready and waiting; and for follow-ups to be given more effectively. She is now blessed by God with two children, and I have no doubt that her family’s support kept her life together when she was having great difficulty trying to adjust to what was happening to her.
My party fully supports the #HiddenHalf campaign and I attended an excellent event in Parliament two weeks ago to raise awareness of its work on the issue, where I heard stories from mums whose lives have been marked by the illness and by not receiving the timely help that was necessary to make a difference. The event was hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East, who understands only too well the devastating impact that maternal mental illness can have on women and the wider family unit. He was the other half who lived with the difficulties that his wife Lindsay was having. She struggled and suffered for two years before getting help. She has given me express permission to use her experience in this place to highlight the failings and the need for a brighter future.
From her experience, Lindsay spearheads the campaign in Northern Ireland for mums, dads and their families to get the support they need and deserve via her movement, “Have you seen that girl?” At the event that I and others attended, the impact of the NCT NI volunteers was clear. She also plays a role in the Maternal Mental Health Alliance’s Everyone’s Business campaign, of which NCT is also a part. Many charities and bodies have come together to offer support.
From the point of view of the two ladies whom I have referred to—my permanent parliamentary assistant and speechwriter and the wife of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East—the Church has also helped. It is important to have a faith and to have access to that at an important time.
Having met Lindsay—I spoke to her this morning, just before she left here—I understand that 80% of Northern Ireland still does not have access to specialist perinatal mental health services and that funded community-based peer support is limited. I understand that the Minister is not responsible for Northern Ireland, but from a Northern Ireland perspective, unfortunately, I would be surprised if we were not behind the rest of the UK, which is not good. We need to be up alongside and equal to other countries across the United Kingdom, as the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire said, but treatment and support is a postcode lottery with too many mums and families being let down when they are at their most vulnerable.
The campaign for change is based on three areas. There should be provision of a mother and baby unit. Unlike in England, Scotland and Wales, a mother and baby unit is not available in Northern Ireland, which is disappointing—nor is it on the whole island of Ireland. The Minister is not responsible for that either, but it shows hon. Members that across north and south Ireland, we have not moved to make that happen. That means that mum and baby have to be separated should in-patient treatment be required. That is a very negative thing. I want to give a perspective on where we are in Northern Ireland and also say what has happened there recently. Some headway has been made—not enough, I have to say, but some at least.
The situation is simply not good enough and can have further negative effects on the mum and the family. There are five health trusts in Northern Ireland, but such specialist services for mothers are currently only available in one: the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust. Although that trust’s services are fantastic, they cannot meet the needs of the whole population of Northern Ireland; that would be impossible for one trust. Mums and families outside the Belfast trust’s area also deserve access to specially designed care and support.
Community-based peer support is also important. I am informed that currently great support is provided in the community and in the voluntary sector, often by mums themselves. How often do mums all come together to support each other? My wife had great support when we had our children; that was not only family support but support from other mothers who had had children at the same time. Again, however, in Northern Ireland we are without proper funding to successfully grow that kind of work.
I make a plea. I am aware of the NCT’s Parents in Mind programme, which is running very successfully here in England—on the mainland—and doing tremendous work. MPs from the mainland will know that and welcome it. NCT Northern Ireland volunteers are keen to source funding to bring that programme, or a similar one, to parents in Northern Ireland. We look forward to the day when that happens. For many parents, peer support is a lifeline, offered by those mothers who have faced a similar battle and who are keen to receive training so that they can provide help to others.
I am also aware from my party colleagues in Northern Ireland that Lindsay Robinson and Tom McEneaney, working with the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, led a team of campaigners to meet the all-party working group on mental health at Stormont; although Stormont and the Northern Ireland Assembly are still not functioning as they should, meetings still take place. The campaigners presented the information and asked all the Northern Ireland parties to sign a consensus statement, pledging their commitment to action all of the issues that I have mentioned as soon as possible. I am delighted that my party—the Democratic Unionist party, for which I am the health spokesman—has signed up to that, and I am assured that other parties have also signed up to it. We are keen to meet further with the team and give them our support. I hope that we are considering a strategy that will take us right through the next period, hopefully with a functioning Assembly. However, the strategy will certainly work, whether or not the Assembly is up and running.
I will close now, Mr Davies; I am always very conscious that there are other speakers to come. In closing, I again offer my full support to the NCT’s #HiddenHalf campaign and its goals here in England—on the mainland—and I thank the NCT for its continued support for the campaign in Northern Ireland. The NCT is supporting our campaign in Northern Ireland and we thank it for that, because it is very important that we have that support. As I have said often, we are better together—the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—with all regions working on things that are of mutual interest to us all. I understand that the NCT is fully behind all that is happening and will become further involved in the coming months, and I look forward to that.
Also, I commend Lindsay Robinson and all those who have been campaigning in Northern Ireland for improvements to maternal mental health. We know that they are making a difference, both to the parents in their communities and also with decision makers. However, we must also take action in this House. We must do what we can to honour the bravery of those who lay their experience on the line for people to see and bring about changes that support mothers and families across the UK.
Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South on securing this debate and other Members who have spoken or who will speak; I look forward to hearing all the contributions to the debate.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this debate.
We should judge the success of our society by how we treat our new mothers—it really is that simple. I am here today to speak up for better-quality, more consistent and well-funded services for perinatal women.
I am not a new mother. In fact, my youngest teenage son is sitting just over there in the Public Gallery and Members may be able to tell from his towering 6-foot frame just how long it has been since I was recovering from giving birth to him, the second of my two gigantic children. Even so, I remember those special early days for all the many wonderful, and some horrible, reasons that all mothers will know.
We do not discuss post-natal truths enough in the UK. Women will sometimes share with their friends the gory details of their experience of giving birth, but we rarely ever see in the print media, on TV, or in films what happens after a baby is born. If the fairy tale does not end when Cinderella weds her prince, as most fairy tales do, it most certainly has ended by the time Cinderella has entered her third trimester and is waddling around the palace. Nobody wants to hear about Cinderella’s third-degree tear, the fact that her boobs leak, the possibility that she may experience incontinence, or the fact that, even though she has a wonderful, healthy baby in her arms, she just cannot stop crying. But fairy tales are out of date and so is the fact that we do not talk about perinatal experiences—both external and internal experiences—with the honesty we need.
Things are changing, however. After all, we are here today saying that what is on offer to post-partum women in the UK just is not good enough. It is outrageous that women in one quarter of the UK are still without access to specialist perinatal mental health services. How can the mental healthcare of new mothers still be a postcode lottery? It is not as if mental health changes are uncommon after a woman has given birth. In fact, 81% of women say they have experienced at least one perinatal mental health condition either during or after their pregnancy.
I know from talking to friends, family and, indeed, constituents how imperative perinatal mental health support is. We must remember that three quarters of women who say they have experienced a perinatal mental health condition had no previous history of mental health problems. For those who have experienced mental health problems before giving birth, changes to the brain’s chemistry post-birth, combined with post-partum isolation, can trigger the return of symptoms that they had previously experienced, often in their teenage years.
Speedy referrals and access to early treatment is vital for those who experience mental health issues during or after pregnancy. What is so worrying is that it takes more than four weeks for 38% of women in the UK who are referred to be seen. In fact, there are cases of women suffering post-partum who have the courage to seek help from their doctors and health visiting teams but who still have to wait beyond a year for help after referral. That is a whole year that these women are waiting for help in what is often one of the most turbulent, joyous, change-filled and complicated times in any mother’s life. Any service that keeps people waiting for more weeks that I can count on the fingers of one hand is completely unfit for purpose.
We must close the funding gaps that cause huge waits—it is reassuring to hear that the Government intend to do that—and end omissions in service provision. We must also ensure that maternity services do not remain overstretched and understaffed. We must bring back full bursaries for midwives and related healthcare qualifications, which will allow staffing gaps to be filled with the much-needed new caring talent that will have the capacity to offer continuity of care to high-risk women in pre and post-natal moments of vulnerability. The erosion of higher education bursaries, especially for nurses, midwives and other healthcare students, was yet another example of this Government knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing.
There is another reason why we must act and act soon. A study by the department of anthropology at the University of Kent, which is in my constituency, shows that post-partum depression discourages mothers from having more than two children. The decision to have children, or the decision to have more children, is a woman’s choice alone. However, that choice must be made without the pressures and limitations that come with poor funding of post-natal care. A choice made through fear is no free choice at all.
I completely echo colleagues’ calls for there to be much greater depth in the maternal six-week check. The baby’s check by the doctor and the mother’s check by her doctor must be separate. A woman’s six-week check cannot be limited, as I so often hear it is, to a few rushed questions. I have been told of women being asked only about the contraception they plan to use, with no questions at all about their physical or mental wellbeing. I have heard from friends that their doctors simply asked them, “Are you feeling okay?” That is not a proper question. As any mother will say, the moment their new new-born is in their arms, the definition of what was previously considered “okay” is thrown of out the window. Time must be put aside for proper, in-depth questions and for real insight.
After all, as we have already heard, according to the Royal College of Midwives 42% of women with post-natal depression never even mention it to a healthcare professional, and three quarters of those women stay quiet because they feel guilty about having such thoughts. Moreover, many women are led to believe that serious mental health issues are merely a bout of the baby blues. We urgently need proper training and proper conversations to create an environment where mothers feel safe, well-informed and able to talk about any difficult experiences.
I acknowledge that even the most thorough six-week check for women would not always pick up on everything. Post-natal depression can sometimes manifest slowly. One study suggested that the majority of women experiencing symptoms did not report them until six months post-partum or later. To tackle that, I urge that the maternal mental health check by health visitors at three to four months is reinstated. Even taking more time at that early point when a woman is sat with her GP at the six-week check will save lives. A couple of weeks ago, I attended the NCT’s #HiddenHalf event, where several brave women attested to just that.
Andrew Selous
Has the hon. Lady had a chance to look at the clinical evidence base for the effectiveness of the three to four-month check? Is she aware of a good base of evidence from clinicians that it is a sensible use of money at that point?
Rosie Duffield
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I have not looked at the issue in that kind of depth. I have been working on it with local women and local groups who suggest that it would be good to reinstate it. I will look into it further.
The women at the #HiddenHalf campaign event said that their lives had been saved by a fortuitous visit to the right GP at the right time, but they know they were the lucky ones. The mother’s six-week check must also allow time for a full physical health check to prevent long-term and often totally avoidable health complications resulting from difficult deliveries. Furthermore, it is my belief that a course of pelvic floor physio should be provided for every single woman who has experienced a vaginal birth, as happens in France. I am working with a group of women on health policy for post-partum women. This debate focuses on the perinatal health symptoms of the hidden half, but many of the mental health conditions that health visitors report are triggered by the physical trauma of a difficult birth and women having to reconcile themselves to a completely new sort of body.
Those of us here today will not stop campaigning and raising the issue until the situation changes for new mothers and new families who need our help. We should get the full truth of post-natal motherhood out there and become a country that can rightly say, “There’s lots of help here for you. We will assist you and your families for as long as it takes. We are here to champion and celebrate you in being the happy, healthy, supported mother that you ought to be able to be.”
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) on securing this excellent debate, which perfectly brings together my personal and political lives. I am a mother of four and, like the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), I had them 20 years ago so I know what it feels like to have children completely outgrow me.
This issue does not go away. When I speak to mothers in my constituency, I know that the issue of perinatal health is as alive as when I was a young mum. Some things are getting better, but others are getting worse, particularly because of the time that health professionals can give to people who come to a surgery or the time that a health visitor can give to someone in their home.
I am here because I serve on the all-party group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences. ACEs are well known in the United States, and the APPG is doing excellent work with the WAVE—Worldwide Alternatives to Violence—Trust. I also pay tribute to the #HiddenHalf campaign group, which came to the APPG the other day and specifically campaigned on the additional six-week check-up for mothers after childbirth.
Pregnancy, childbirth and the first year of a baby’s life is one of the most life-changing experiences in a woman’s life and her partner’s life. It is meant to be amazing, exciting and wonderful. All the folklore and our societal expectations are around how wonderful all that is. Actually, it is a time of profound change. In my experience, it is not only physical change, but mental change. Most women who have experienced pregnancy and childbirth will testify that a big mental change happens, too. All women are at a vulnerable point at that time in their lives. Apart from the physical exhaustion, there is the pressure to prepare and provide for another person’s life. All parents ask themselves how they will cope, how it will all work out, and whether they will love this new being.
While medical attention is focused on the physical health of the mother, the unborn child and, later, the born child, little medical attention is given to mental health during pregnancy and after birth. We are missing out on a vital aspect of health, with enormous consequences for the mother and the child. The APPG is concentrating on this particular issue: adverse childhood experiences and what affects a child’s health from the start.
We know how vital the first 12 months are for a new baby. An enormous amount of development is happening not only physically, but mentally and emotionally. If a mother is mentally unwell—for example, if she is depressed or suffering from anxiety—she will not bond properly with her newborn baby. She cannot give the baby the attention it needs, and the child will suffer. We know that a lack of attention during the first 12 months puts a child at a severe disadvantage for the rest of their life. To address that, they will require a lot more intervention later on, with a lot of extra resources. It therefore makes utter sense to focus our attention on a mother’s mental health before, during and after pregnancy. No woman can be expected to be in perfect mental health during those profound changes in her life. Even mild mental health problems can lead to much bigger problems, with severe consequences for mother and child.
I fully support the call for a six-week check-up in addition to that which already exists and which focuses mainly on the baby. The additional check-up should focus on the mother and her mental health. In my experience, I was never asked how I felt; I was expected to get on. If anybody had asked me, I would probably have cracked up and cried—and why not? It would have brought out that I felt utterly exhausted, inadequate and isolated. I felt that I was letting people around me down. I would probably have been reassured that that was normal, and people would have kept an eye on me.
We still do not know enough about mental health, but as with physical health, early detection and intervention are key. Sometimes symptoms go away on their own, but unlike with physical health, many people will not go back to their doctors if mental health problems do not go away. Those problems can fester and grow bigger. With a six-week check-up, we have a chance of early detection and early intervention. To conclude, let us ensure that all new parents receive the full support they need and deserve. It will be of great advantage to us all.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. First, I thank the National Childbirth Trust for its work and campaigning on this issue and the hon. Members for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) for bringing this issue to the House. I thank all the Members who have spoken so passionately. There were common themes on access to support, expectations on mothers and being able to talk about post-natal depression.
Perinatal mental illness is crucial for families, and I welcome the calls for a more comprehensive six-week check and the implementation of the other recommendations made by the NCT. Other Members have talked about their experience, so I will mention my own, which was largely fine, other than the stress of being a new parent and being responsible for a new baby. Those things are overwhelming. New parents are given a tiny baby and they leave the hospital with it, and then they have to look after it for the rest of their life. That is quite a big deal, and we downplay it a little bit in society.
My pregnancies were trouble-free and my babies were both well, but in reflecting on this issue, I remembered vividly having panic dreams in which the baby had gone out of the cot. I would wake up in a huge panic, and everything was fine, but it reminded me that we are surrounded by all these hormones and feelings, and it is difficult and stressful, and we do not support mothers enough through that.
I was very glad of the support from the team at Bridgeton Health Centre and Townhead Medical Practice—I want to put it on the record that they were absolutely fantastic. However, when it came to the six-week check, I questioned the efficacy of getting people to fill out a tick-box form about their mental health. It seems to me pretty obvious that if someone did not want to disclose a mental health issue, they could easily fill in that form so that it passed, and nobody would ask any further questions. People have to actively seek help, at a time in their life when they do not know what is normal and hormones are flying all over the place. I hope that that can be improved, and that the check can be more detailed. At the moment, it is too easy to miss the key signs, as hon. Members have mentioned. It was good to hear the hon. Member for Stockton South talking about the feedback that he had from a patient. I hope that more doctors are like him, asking those questions in a way that will draw proper answers, and that time can be given to such things.
Conversations about mental health in society have changed a lot. However, as the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) mentioned, how we talk about these things has not changed quite enough. I was struck by Serena Williams’ comments about her experience of post-natal depression. This is a woman who is known for her strength and resilience, and for being an athlete, champion and star. She struggled just like anybody else would, and found it incredibly difficult, but has been able to work through it. As we saw with her recent performances, she has come back very strongly, but we are all very vulnerable in those circumstances, and we cannot be complacent about how difficult it can be.
Research from the National Childbirth Trust found that only 50% of women get the help that they need at that key intervention point, and that stigma and embarrassment continue to be rife. The NCT report also highlights the genuine fear that women have—46% in the survey—of the consequences of a healthcare professional thinking that they are incapable of looking after their baby. Certainly in Glasgow, where there are many cases of social work intervention in families, women are scared that if they confess to any weaknesses, they will lose the care of their child. That might not be the case, but the fear is enough to stop women coming forward.
Socioeconomic factors are in play, and perinatal mental health problems are a major risk factor in poor outcomes for children and mothers. Mothers in areas of higher deprivation are far more likely to experience repeated mental health problems and predicted future problems. There is thought to be a direct causality between poor mental health and children’s development. A longitudinal survey in Scotland showed that children whose mothers were emotionally well had better social, behavioural and emotional development than those whose mothers had brief mental health problems. Those children had better development than those whose mothers had repeated mental health problems. That can affect children’s transition to school and their subsequent development and attainment. I recommend looking at the work of Scotland’s former chief medical officer, Sir Harry Burns, who has spoken passionately about the impact of children’s mental health and of parental mental health, and the consequences that it can have.
In Scotland, we have moved towards a nationally co-ordinated systemic approach. The Scottish Government’s new mental health strategy for 2017 to 2027 focuses specifically on allowing children to start their lives with good mental health. The Scottish Government have funded a national managed clinical network on perinatal mental health to the tune of £173,000 per year. It is the first MCN covering mental health in Scotland. The network will provide a focus, enabling us to improve standards for all children and new mothers across Scotland. The MCN is multidisciplinary, involving specialists in perinatal mental health, nursing, maternity and infant mental health. The establishment of the first network for mental health is part of the Scottish National party Government’s determination to give mental health parity with physical health. I understand that such clinical networks work in other parts of the health service and have a proven track record of driving up standards of care across the board.
I have seen figures that suggest that one in eight babies in Scotland are born to a parent who has experienced mental health issues, so it is significant and widespread. We know that perinatal mental health problems do not only affect mothers; they have a wider impact on the family. The MCN is taking forward a work plan addressing that, which includes assessing current provision across all levels of service delivery in Scotland. In the longer term, that will ensure that all women, and their infants and families, have equity of access to the perinatal mental health services that they need right across Scotland, where we have huge rural areas, many islands and various geographical challenges to overcome.
In its review of the current provision, the network will pay particular attention to the pathways into care for women who may live some distance from an existing mother and baby unit, and will make recommendations on improving access where difficulties emerge. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke passionately about the issues that that causes in Northern Ireland and in Ireland more widely, where women cannot access mother and baby units and the support that they need. It must be even more stressful if a woman has to travel over the sea to get to a unit that provides the support they dearly need. In doing so, they will lose contact with family networks that could also support them.
Another core remit of the MCN is to determine what training midwives, health visitors, primary care and mental health professionals—
Alison Thewliss
I see we have had a change of Chair, Mr Rosindell. It is good to see you.
As I was saying before we were interrupted by the vote, the managed clinical network aims to ensure equitable co-ordinated access to mental health provision for pregnant and post-natal women. It seeks to understand current provision and promote improvements in local services, including access and options for families, professional expertise and effective service delivery. Beyond that, it will seek to contribute to improved early years health and development for infants, as part of a broader Scottish Government intention for improved early intervention. The MCN will make fuller recommendations before the end of this year on what services should be available in all board areas to meet the needs of women and their families.
The most exciting part about that for me was the women and families maternal mental health charter, “My Right to Good Care from NHS Scotland for my Baby, my Family and Me”, which was launched on 4 June. The charter has nine points, which I want to put on the record. They are, first, the right to be at the centre of my care, so that I have the information I need to make the best decisions for me, my pregnancy and my infant’s future health; secondly, the right to be seen by staff who have the appropriate level of knowledge and skills to assess and care for me; thirdly, the right to preconception and pregnancy advice and care if I have a pre-existing mental health condition; fourthly, the right to access expert advice and care about my maternal mental health when I require it, wherever I live in Scotland; fifthly, the right to have priority access to talking therapies during my pregnancy and post-natal period; sixthly, the right to be admitted jointly with my infant if I need in-patient mental health care; seventhly, the right to discuss my maternal mental health without fear of stigma or being judged; eighthly, the right for my family to have the information they need to help me and to get help for themselves; and ninthly, the right for my baby to have parents who are supported with their mental health. All these are very good points, which are the bedrock of what we should see in a mental health service for women and infants.
I cannot end my speech without mentioning my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities. The discussion in this country about breast feeding versus bottle feeding has become increasingly divisive. I do not want to venture into it, but a cause of many issues is the pressure on women to have the perfect, glowing, spotless, white-bloused-in-a-perfect-home version of breastfeeding, but that is unrealistic. It is more like chaos surrounding a knackered mother with all the surfaces covered in vomit and soggy muslin cloth—or maybe that was just me.
The hon. Member for Stockton South mentioned the perfect baby ads that we see and the idealised images of motherhood. We put pressure on mothers all the time without necessarily supporting them with being a mother and with the learned skill of breastfeeding. By not providing that support, we set women up to fail. Many carry that very personal pain around for a long time. It should not be that way.
Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady is making a very compelling case. I am sorry that I was unable to attend the start of this debate, but I commend Members on both sides of the House for bringing us together to discuss these very important matters. Does she, like me, worry that the reduction in antenatal services and services for new mums and dads, particularly in our children’s centres, increases the challenges that new parents and expectant parents face?
Alison Thewliss
Absolutely. I visited a children’s centre in Blackpool and spoke to people involved with the Breastfeeding Network, and they said they had seen the peer support service cut suddenly. That service was crucial, because it was doing the job that the community services and health visitors did not have time to do. It was providing early intervention and support with mental health issues and all the other things that mothers need. I understand that the hon. Lady is very committed to this issue. Early intervention services are absolutely crucial. Children’s centres—somewhere that women can go—are so important, because going to them is an easy first step for women to take. They are not scary; they are accessible and are right on the doorstep—or they certainly should be.
The Breastfeeding Network cites evidence that breastfeeding can have a preventive effect when it comes to mental illness. It said:
“A large scale research study published in 2014 showed that mothers who planned to breastfeed and who actually went on to breastfeed were around 50% less likely to become depressed than mothers who had not planned to, and who did not, breastfeed. Mothers who planned to breastfeed but who did not go on to breastfeed were over twice as likely to become depressed as mothers who had not planned, and who did not breastfeed.”
Providing support for women’s breastfeeding goals is absolutely crucial. If women want to do it but are set up to fail, that can have a serious negative impact. The positive impact of the oxytocin, the bonding and the skin-to-skin contact can be crucial in helping women and children through what can be a very difficult period.
Women on antidepressants are given the often erroneous advice that they should stop breastfeeding. Some 15% of enquiries to the Breastfeeding Network drugs in breastmilk helpline, run by the amazing Wendy Jones, are about that very issue. Evidence demonstrates that giving up breastfeeding is not necessary in many cases, and that if a mum stops breastfeeding before she is ready, that can have a further negative effect on her mental health. I encourage the Minister to look at the drugs in breastmilk helpline and perhaps find some funding for that voluntary service, because GPs and pharmacists often rely on it to give advice to women.
The key to all of this is support for women in how they decide to feed their baby and in the choices they make in life. There is a real postcode lottery. I encourage the Minister to examine this further and to speak to the UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative, which has been cataloguing come of the cuts.
In Glasgow, support also comes from the community, in the shape of groups such as Glasgow South PANDAS, run by Lauren Tonner. The group meets regularly and allows parents to talk about their concerns. As we have heard, it can be difficult to open up, but NCT research shows that opening up and seeking help generally leads to much better outcomes. I encourage those experiencing challenges to find a way to take the first step towards accessing support. It is important to state and restate that women in that situation are not alone. There is always support there for them, and there must be ways of ensuring that women understand that. Handing them a leaflet is not good enough; there must be support and talking therapy.
My wider concern is that we are not supporting women enough anymore. When they go into hospital to give birth, they have to leave very quickly. Community services are often not there, and families are more fragmented and further apart nowadays. That is an issue particularly for women with insecure immigration status, those who have not been in the UK very long, and those who are living in communities where community resilience has broken down and people do not know their neighbours well enough to ask for support. A friend of mine told me recently that she had wonderful neighbours who were there for her when she had her baby, which made a big difference to her when she was struggling. We need to do all we can to help women who are struggling to put food on the table, or are struggling with other aspects of life, such as maternity discrimination and all the other societal pressures on them. All those things contribute to post-natal depression and women’s poor mental health.
I hope UK Ministers and my colleagues in Edinburgh can share best practice and seek to remove barriers to support for women experiencing perinatal mental health issues. We owe it to every family to ensure that having a baby is a time when women can feel safe, supported and cared for.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing this important debate and on how they opened it. We have heard contributions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield), the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). We also heard interventions from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) and, just a moment ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger).
Pregnancy, birth and becoming a parent can be a special and rewarding time for many people. As we have heard, it is a time to celebrate new life and the start of the exciting journey into parenthood. However, for others, the stress and upheaval of pregnancy and becoming a parent can trigger existing mental health problems or spark new ones. Perinatal mental health issues can include severe mental health disorders that require severe immediate hospital treatment, such as postpartum psychosis. It may affect only two cases in 1,000, but it is a very serious condition and can put new mothers at risk of harming themselves and their baby. The issues can also include most common mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and panic attacks. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South spoke very well about the impact of those mental health conditions on the child’s development.
Given the expectation that pregnancy and becoming a parent should be a joyful time, women who experience those conditions can feel even more stressed and unhappy, and often that they are somehow to blame for their condition. A study by the Boots Family Trust in 2013 described some of those experiences. One mother said:
“I avoided friends at all costs as I lost the ability to communicate and became very isolated”.
Another said:
“I’m currently into my second pregnancy and think I am suffering from depression…I feel scared and feel like I have trouble bonding with this pregnancy…I don’t know what is wrong with me.”
We know that one in five women will experience mental health problems during pregnancy. Given the high prevalence of mental health issues in new and expectant mothers, the woman I just quoted should not have had to feel like something was wrong with her. We have heard many excellent examples in the same vein in this debate. One way to prevent women from feeling isolated or somehow to blame is by identifying those mental health issues and ensuring the proper support is put in place. Unfortunately, as hon. Members said, too often that does not happen.
Hon. Members rightly highlighted that identification is a major barrier to accessing support for mental health issues. I join them in congratulating the National Childbirth Trust on its #HiddenHalf campaign. The research underpinning that campaign shows that nearly half of all the mental health problems that new mothers experience are not picked up by health professionals.
As we have heard, early intervention is key. The sooner issues are identified, the quicker people can access appropriate support, and that surely drives better outcomes. It is simply not good enough that only half of perinatal mental health issues are picked up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South detailed, GPs should offer a post-natal check about six weeks after the baby’s birth. We have heard that a properly delivered check-up can have a transformative effect on new mothers who are experiencing mental health problems. Research by the National Childbirth Trust found that women directly questioned by a GP about their mental health were almost seven times more likely to disclose a mental health problem. If mental health problems are left untreated, they can escalate into much more severe mental illness.
The National Childbirth Trust also found that 95% of women who had experienced a mental health problem felt it affected their ability to cope or look after their children or family relationships. As we have heard, the six-week post-natal baby check is mandatory, but the maternal check was left out of the GP contract. As a result, the maternal check is often not done at all or becomes a rushed conversation at the end of the baby check. In one third of cases, the maternal check was estimated to last three minutes or less.
The National Childbirth Trust recommends that the Government fund the six-week maternal post-natal check so that GPs have the time to give every new mother a full appointment for the maternal check. As we have heard, the National Childbirth Trust also recommends an improvement in the guidelines for best practice around maternal mental health, including a separate appointment for that maternal six-week check, and they recommend better methods of encouraging disclosure of maternal mental health problems.
I have looked at the NHS England guidance, which states:
“There are no set guidelines for what a postnatal check for mothers should involve.”
It also states:
“The following is usually offered, though this may vary according to where you live...You will be asked how you are feeling as part of a general discussion about your mental health and wellbeing.”
We can and must do better than that.
I have already mentioned the pressure on women to feel happy after the birth of a child and how mental health issues can lead to their feeling that there is something wrong with them. It can often lead to women putting on a brave face. One woman, responding to the Boots Family Trust survey, said:
“I was terrified to admit to any health professional as I was scared they would take my son away.”
That is exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and it demonstrates the challenges that GPs face in identifying mental health issues. Merely asking how a new mother is feeling is no substitute for a properly trained staff member identifying mental health issues and knowing how to encourage disclosure.
The National Childbirth Trust recommends that NHS bodies should support and invest in initiatives to facilitate and further develop GP education on maternal mental health. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham touched on the fact that investment in perinatal mental health would result in savings. It is worth thinking about how much that might be.
The statement from the Royal College of General Practitioners about perinatal mental health said that post-natal depression, anxiety and psychosis carry an estimated total long-term cost to society of about £8.1 billion for each one-year cohort of births in the UK, and 72% of the cost relates to adverse impacts on the child. That reinforces the very important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South made earlier. More than a fifth of those total costs—£1.7 billion—are borne by the public sector: mainly NHS and social care. I hope that that all helps to give the Minister ammunition. Sadly, the average cost to society of one case of perinatal depression is estimated to be £74,000: £23,000 relates to the mother and £51,000 to the impact on the child. There is every reason to try to make the case being made in the debate today.
We must make sure that, where a diagnosis has been made, appropriate treatment and support is made available. According to the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, a quarter of pregnant women and new mothers cannot access specialist perinatal mental health services that meet the full National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. Only 7% of the women who reported experiencing a maternal mental health condition were referred to specialist care. It took more than four weeks for the 38% of the women who were referred to be seen. Shockingly—we have heard several examples—some women waited up to a year for treatment. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury talked about such an example. In fact, it was recently revealed that there were only 131 specialist perinatal beds in the whole of the UK, with none in Northern Ireland or Wales.
We know that pressure on mental health trusts comes from money earmarked for mental health services being used to pay for other areas of the NHS. The Labour party would ring-fence mental health spending so that funding for mental health services is not siphoned off to pay for other priorities. In this debate we have heard much detail of the #HiddenHalf campaign. The Opposition support that important campaign and we would look at implementing it in government. We call on the Government now to make resources available so that every mother is given the perinatal support that she deserves. It is important that we also include that commitment to ring-fence mental health spending so that the funding that is meant to be for mental health services does not go to other priorities in the NHS.
The Government have made some commitments on perinatal mental health, and I am keen to hear from the Minister, if we have time, what progress has been made. The five-year forward view for mental health set a target to ensure that by 2021 at least 30,000 more women each year would be able to access specialist mental health care during the perinatal period. Given that we are now halfway through that phase of the five-year forward view for mental health, can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made towards that target and whether NHS England is on track to meet it?
In autumn 2017, at the maternal mental health ministerial roundtable, a number of commitments were made to improve perinatal mental health services. They included a commitment that the Department of Health would work with health system partners and other Government Departments to deliver improvements in perinatal mental health services, and a commitment that NHS England would expand specialist mental health services by 2021 to meet the needs of women in all areas. We have heard, as we hear in so many debates on health and social care, about very unfortunate postcode lotteries, so how is NHS England doing in expanding those specialist services to meet the needs of all women?
Luciana Berger
My hon. Friend is making a strong case, as have other colleagues, about the inconsistency of the availability of perinatal mental health services. Although there has been some investment, there are still many areas where there is no sufficient, adequate or indeed any immediate access, and mothers still have to travel too far across the country to access a bed if they need one in a mother and baby unit. Does she share the concern expressed by the British Medical Association that there is a 20% difference in referral rates in some areas, which illustrates the inconsistency of care? When the issue is so critical not only for the mother but for the child in its lifetime, that is something that the Government should urgently address.
Barbara Keeley
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is very important that the Minister tells us now or after the debate what is happening to expand the services so that we do not have what are almost deserts, where women have to travel either to get a bed or to get the service that they need.
Finally, there was a commitment in autumn 2017 that NHS Health Education England would support the roll-out of GP perinatal mental health champions across England. I am sure it would help if there was in every area a perinatal mental health champion speaking up for their own area. Will the Minister tell the House what progress has been made on these important commitments?
I want to conclude on a wider point about women’s mental health. Women are more likely to suffer from mental ill health than men, and yet too often women’s specific mental health needs remain a blind spot. Research by Agenda, the women’s mental health charity, has shown that mental health trusts are too often failing to consider women’s specific needs. Only one of the 35 trusts that responded to a freedom of information request by Agenda had a strategy on gender-specific mental health services.
Fourteen years ago, the Labour Government launched a comprehensive women’s mental health strategy to address the specific mental health needs of women. Sadly, that strategy was ditched by the coalition Government, and women’s mental health has since slipped down the policy agenda. The Mental Health Foundation has described it as being “almost invisible” in Government policy.
We have had an excellent debate today in which many useful examples have been given and many good points made. There is a strong feeling that we want to help the Minister do something about this issue. Will she in future match Labour’s commitment to have a national women’s health strategy that would work to deliver the targeted support that women and girls need?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Rosindell. The debate has been excellent. I have enjoyed listening to all the speeches, which, without exception, have been thoughtful, constructive, and, in the case of people who have been through motherhood, very honest and gritty about the reality of the situation that we face. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) for making as articulate a speech as possible on the issue. It covered the whole breadth of subjects that we need to consider. It was a real pleasure to listen to him. I will say the same about my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). I am pleased to see two men leading the charge on this subject. It is an important message that this is not a woman’s problem; it is a problem for society and for families. Ultimately, if we do not tackle it, society picks up the tab. It is great that two male Members of the House are leading the charge.
Many themes have come up in the debate, and I will try to address them all. I will begin by tackling the issue of the first 1,001 days. A number of hon. Members present are members of the all-party parliamentary group for the prevention of adverse childhood experiences. We recognise that the period from conception to age two is vital for every child’s development, and that is why we are prioritising and focusing on ensuring that there is sufficient perinatal mental health support at that stage. On the wider issue of adverse childhood experiences, the hon. Member for Stockton South mentioned that having four of them makes someone more likely to end up in prison. This is about the best kind of early intervention—for me, that is a no-brainer. We can identify those young people or children who are most at risk of falling out of society. Therefore, we should look at how best we can intervene early to support them.
Luciana Berger
I am delighted to hear the points the Minister has made about the importance of the first 1,001 days and the nought-to-two agenda. On that basis, might we expect the Government to respond to their Green Paper consultation on young people’s mental health by putting in place measures to support and help under-fives?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As I have often said, the real focus of the Green Paper is on schools and measures that we are taking with the Department for Education. However, the hon. Lady and others will be aware that we have committed to extra funding for the NHS and we are working with NHS England on what we can all expect with that extra funding. I am open to representations as we develop that 10-year plan as to what else we can do in this space. As we are in discussions with NHS England, I cannot make any commitments but this is exactly the time when we should rigorously be testing policy suggestions and interventions that we might be able to deliver.
Dr Paul Williams
It was reported in the Health Service Journal two days ago that the chief executive of the NHS, Simon Stevens, has outlined five priorities for the 10-year plan and that one is reducing health inequalities. Does the Minister think that a serious focus on reducing health inequalities—particularly those that are embedded from the beginning of life—should be a focus for the 10-year plan?
Jackie Doyle-Price
The hon. Gentleman earlier used the phrase “spend to save”, so the answer is yes, because obviously if we make interventions earlier and they help people to help themselves, there is a long-term saving to the NHS. That is the exact spirit in which we are entering the 10-year plan for the NHS. I look forward to hearing suggestions from the APPG—get in touch with us soon.
I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate and hope that we can go forward with the shared objective of doing the best we can for new mothers. By that I mean not only improving services, but giving support in general to women who are going through the experience of motherhood. As many Members have said, we are offered a fairy tale fantasy about how everything is perfect and wonderful, when actually there is a lot of associated vomit, pain and misery—joyful as the experience is overall. We need to tackle the taboo, because the fact that we think that everything is a perfect fairy tale means that the pressure on those women who are struggling makes them feel like failures. They are not: it is all entirely normal.
I am always struck by the fact that one in three women suffers from incontinence. People do not know about it, because everyone suffers in silence and just gets on with it. I often ask, “How would it be if one in three men suffered from incontinence?” We would hear about that a lot more. We need to be generally more open and give women the message: “Do you know what? It is normal to feel you are struggling, and feel miserable, because you have gone through a life-changing experience and a physical trauma. It is inevitable that it will affect your mental health.” Giving them the message that it is normal is half the battle, because they will realise that they are not a failure but just need to manage and work through the situation. We need the right services in place to help them.
Andrew Selous
Is the Minister aware of the Best Beginnings “Baby Buddy” app, which has videos of parents sharing their experiences to help reduce the isolation some parents feel? It encourages women to take the time to look after themselves and their relationships, if they are with a partner. Does she agree that that is practical? It is free and lottery funded. It is not making a profit, as far as I am aware. I think it is run by a charity. Things like that can be helpful to mothers who might otherwise be quite isolated.
Jackie Doyle-Price
That sounds like a good resource, not least because it means women can get access to help in a more anonymous, less threatening way. We need sufficient tools to be available for women—and families, for that matter.
We have heard constantly throughout the debate that women are not always asked about their mental health in GP health checks. For that matter, they are not always asked about their physical health either; it is all about the baby. One of the challenges we have in improving the way in which we deliver health comes from the fact that an NHS practitioner faced with a patient will focus on the immediate problem and not the patient’s holistic needs. There is a need to consider mother and baby together. A baby cannot be looked at in isolation. The role of the mother, and the relationship with the mother, is part of the child’s welfare. We need to spread better practice in that regard.
Andrew Selous
I agree very much about looking at the mother as well as the baby, but does the Minister agree that, where there is a relationship with a partner, dad must not be left out, and that working on the couple’s relationship is a key matter, given that mums probably look to their children’s parent more than anyone else for emotional and practical support?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank my hon. Friend for being my conscience—we absolutely must not forget dad or partner, or for that matter the wider family. Members have expressed concern about the declining number of health visitors, and the beauty of having a health visitor is exactly the fact that they develop a relationship with the family and can talk to dad as well. Quite often, dad feels excluded from the process.
Wera Hobhouse
Valuable and important as that exchange is, the point about the #HiddenHalf campaign is that often attention is diverted away, because the baby and the dad are there. #HiddenHalf is looking for quality time for the mother in particular. I want that space to be preserved, however much is done by the GP. It is important that a woman who has gone through the trauma that the Minister described is able to feel, “Someone is just looking after me.” It is important to recognise that.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I agree and do not think the two points are in conflict. We need both—we need the wider package of support.
The theme we have been considering—of women not always being asked about themselves, and its being all about the baby—is not confined to the issue of perinatal mental health. Women face that across the board with respect to their health. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) spoke about a women’s health strategy and women’s mental health. I co-chair a women’s mental health taskforce with the chair of Agenda, and in the coming weeks we will present our report on a year-long piece of work. It will have information about tools to enable the health service in general better to support women’s mental health. I am also doing more to raise the whole issue of women’s mental health, because I feel strongly that women are often disempowered in health settings. We need to give them the tools to take control of their own care and to feel empowered to engage in good conversations with medical professionals, to benefit their health.
We have heard anecdotal accounts of women’s experiences, and what has come across is the arrogant behaviour of some medical professionals. They see a large number of patients and they are not always sensitive to how best to communicate with certain individuals. We need that practitioner-patient relationship to work a lot better, particularly in the case of women. I am open to representations from everybody about what tool we can use.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) is no longer in her place, but I have been impressed by her work on hysteroscopies with women. We are developing tools on that. I reassure all Members that women’s health and the way in which the national health service can better serve women are high on my agenda. I am not going to stand here and say that the world is perfect, but we have made perinatal mental health a priority in the five year forward view. We are midway through that review, so I should give Members an account of how far we have got and what more needs to be done.
To go back to 2010, the situation was really quite poor. Only 15% of localities had fully fledged specialist services in the community, and 40% of communities provided absolutely no service at all. People talked about a postcode lottery; clearly, we could not allow that to continue. We need to work towards universal provision. We are implementing the recommendations of the five year forward view for mental health taskforce, which reported in 2016. From 2015 to 2021, we are investing £365 million into perinatal mental health services. NHS England is leading a transformation programme to ensure that, by 2021, at least 30,000 more women each year are able to access specialist mental healthcare during the perinatal period. In May, NHS England confirmed that, by April next year, new and expectant mums will be able to access specialist perinatal mental health community services in every part of the country. We are making progress. The key to that is community provision.
Barbara Keeley
I asked the Minister a specific question: we are halfway towards the deadline for the 30,000 target—does she know how that target is going? Has there been an improvement of 15,000?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I will write to the hon. Lady with some detail on the figures, but the point is that the access is there. Obviously, it will take time to become embedded. We have a good direction of travel to deliver against that commitment and we will continue with that. Community-based provision is key, but we also need to ensure that there are sufficient specialist perinatal mental health beds in mother and baby units for particularly severe cases. NHS England has taken a more strategic approach to commissioning, so that there is a level of access that does not involve wide-scale moving out of area.
As ever with transformation programmes, change takes time, but we are on track to meet our commitments. We are investing £63.5 million this financial year to support the development of those specialist perinatal mental health community services across England. Our pace of change is to enable 2,000 more women to access specialist care. Last year that was exceeded, so we should maintain the pace that we planned in the five-year forward view.
I have visited one of the new in-patient mother and baby units in Chelmsford, where there are four new beds. That centre is expanding its capacity. As well as opening new centres, we are expanding the capacity of existing ones to give more support. In Devon, the trust opened a four-bed mother and baby unit in a reused space in April this year while the new unit is being built, so we still have that provision even though there is not the physical space. By the end of this financial year, we will have expanded the capacity of those beds by 49% since 2015 and there should be more than 150 beds available for mothers and babies in those units.
We are also expanding psychological therapy services, which successfully treat many women who experience common mental health conditions such as depression and anxiety disorders during the perinatal period. We have set an ambition for at least 25% of people with common mental health conditions to access services each year by 2020-21, including extending provision to ensure swifter access for new and expectant mothers. However, as we have heard today, getting perinatal mental healthcare right is not just about expanding specialist services in isolation. Many professionals in different parts of the health and care system are well placed to support women in the perinatal period. NHS England is working with partners to ensure that care for women is integrated and joined up effectively. More than £1 million was provided in 2017 to enable the training of primary care, maternity and mental health staff, to increase perinatal mental health awareness and skills.
NHS England has also invested in multidisciplinary perinatal mental health clinical networks, which will include GPs across the country to support that strategic planning, working across services to ensure that those wider services are in place. The role of GPs is central in identifying when someone is suffering from perinatal mental illness, and to ensure that those women are directed towards treatment. The role includes monitoring early-onset conditions, including pre-conception counselling, referring women to specialist mental health services, including access to psychological therapies, and specialist perinatal community teams where necessary.
I am aware of the NCT’s #HiddenHalf campaign; I am grateful for its campaigning on this important issue. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends post-natal checks for mothers and new-born babies. NHS England expects commissioners and providers of maternity care to pay due regard to the NICE guidelines. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire raised this issue and said that, since this was part of what we should expect from GPs, it seemed anomalous that so many mothers and babies were not getting such checks. We make clear to GPs what we expect of them, as part of their contract, but ultimately we rely on clinical commissioning groups to ensure that GPs deliver against the obligations that we expect of them. This is not the only case where this happens—many GPs are not delivering learning disability health checks either. We need to be clear with NHS England that we expect that obligation to be delivered.
Dr Paul Williams
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire referred to a maternity additional service that only four general practices have opted out of. Is the Minister aware of what period of time that additional service covers?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I will come back to the hon. Gentleman, but this area requires further exploration because we need to be clear about how we deliver on those things.
Dr Williams
I will gladly tell the Minister: the period of time covers pregnancy but ends 14 days after birth. Whereas it may be very appropriate for a GP to provide care during that time, the additional service that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire referred to ends 14 days after birth. We are talking about a different issue: the opportunity to do a check six weeks after birth. There is no commissioning of that check at the moment. It is helpful that the Minister says that she expects commissioners to commission that check, but is that a commitment from the Government to ensure that commissioners are funded to be able to commission that six-week check?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I was coming to that—I was just dealing with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire.
Moving on from the NICE guidelines, we clearly expect GPs to do their part in identifying and supporting women. We are aware of the campaign, but any changes to GP contracting arrangements to specifically include the six-week check-up would need to be negotiated with the GP committee of the British Medical Association. Those negotiations are taking place and will be completed by September. I cannot give any firmer commitment than that, other than to say that we obviously want to see GPs make their contribution.
Barbara Keeley
I just want to reiterate what I said earlier: the Opposition support that campaign and would look at implementing it in government. I outlined that the NCT put a cost of £20 million on it. Clearly, the Minister could have that figure checked out, but it is balanced against the £1.2 billion extra cost to the NHS and social care of perinatal mental health problems in every one-year birth cohort. There really is a point here about investing to save further down the road.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank the hon. Lady for that. As she says, if we are talking about £20 million in a broader settlement, that clearly should be under consideration given the outcomes that could be achieved on the basis of the evidence we have seen. I am not negotiating the contract, but we will have the outcome of those negotiations in the not-too-distant future. Members on both sides of the Chamber expressed very clearly the view that they want GPs to be able to do more to support new mothers. That message has been well noted, and I thank Members for making it. They said they wished to give me as much as assistance as they could in my battles on these things, and they certainly made a very strong case.
I want to come back to health visitors. I am a firm believer that health visitors are uniquely placed to identify mothers who are at risk of suffering, or are suffering, perinatal mental health problems and to ensure they get the early support they need. In fact, I visited the Institute of Health Visiting only a couple of weeks ago and heard a moving story from a new mum who had gone through a mental health crisis. It is striking that she had experienced all the feelings we have talked about—she felt there was something wrong with her, she could not bond with her baby, and she got more and more depressed and withdrawn about it. The other interesting thing about that case was that it was dad who felt utterly powerless to do anything. Only their relationship with their health visitor enabled them both to reach out for help.
I am under no illusions about the importance of health visitors. I was privileged to meet so many fantastic advocates for them as part of the NHS’s 70th birthday. They are our eyes and ears in so many ways, and they are our intelligence network in tackling adverse childhood events. I am full of praise for the important job they do in supporting new parents and families through a child’s early years. I am really pleased about the success of the Institute of Health Visiting perinatal and infant mental health champions training programme. Those 570 champions play a crucial role in spreading good practice and early identification of mental health problems.
Some hon. Members raised concerns about the decline in the number of health visitors. There was a substantial increase in the run-up to 2015, and there has been a fall since. I am bothered about that, so I will look at how we can encourage local authorities to alter that situation, recognising that in some areas local leaders have realised that health visitors can do so much more to deliver better outcomes for their communities. Blackpool, for example, has substantially increased the number of visits. I am really looking forward to seeing the outcome of that work, so that we can encourage that good practice in other local authorities.
I reiterate my thanks to all Members for their thoughtful comments and questions, but I especially thank the hon. Member for Stockton South and my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire for securing the debate. I am very proud of our direction of travel in delivering and transforming perinatal mental health services so that we ensure that more expectant and new mothers are able to access high-quality mental health support, but we should never be complacent about that. I look forward to continuing the transformation programme.
Dr Paul Williams
I thank all the Members who stayed here to contribute to the debate. I also thank the organisations—particularly the National Childbirth Trust—that contributed to filling our minds with useful information. I am proud to have brought this issue to Parliament as a man. As many Members said, this is not a women’s issue—it affects us all, and it needs to be taken really seriously. As the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said, it is everyone’s business.
We have discussed a very vulnerable time in a woman’s life—the time when she is most likely to develop a mental health problem. We heard about the impact of such problems on a woman, her family and particularly her child. It is heartening to hear that the Government are listening, and I hope that that continues to manifest itself in action—particularly on the GP contract negotiations, but also on the many other things that could be done to improve the lives of these women, their families and their children.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered perinatal mental illness.
Written Statements
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Electoral Integrity
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
Today, the Cabinet Office published its evaluation and it shows that Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking delivered successful voter ID pilots. We know that because the evidence shows that the majority of voters who turned up to vote without ID returned later with ID without problem. When surveyed, polling station staff overwhelmingly judged that they had been able to successfully deliver the ID requirements in their polling stations, with 99% satisfaction rates among administrators in four of the five local authorities—Bromley, Swindon, Woking and Gosport—and 97% in the fifth, Watford.
Locally issued ID was made available free of charge whenever an elector was unsure they were able to produce the required ID. In one local authority, this was issued to 10 people who were homeless. They were also able to use the ID to register at the local jobcentre. The amount of voters who felt the security of elections improved increased consistently in the areas where electors had to show photographic ID. Confidence and satisfaction in the process of voting itself significantly increased post-election day where voters had to show photographic ID.
Overall, voters’ views of election day were largely positive across all of the pilots and the main reason for not voting was that people were too busy or had other commitments.
Alongside the Government’s evaluation, the Electoral Commission will publish their evaluation on the voter ID pilots today.
Peterborough, Slough and Tower Hamlets tested additional measures to improve the security and integrity of the postal vote process and ensured that additional guidance on preventing electoral fraud was given to every postal vote applicant. The local authorities found value in the pilot as an elector engagement exercise, given the positive feedback they received from electors in reaction to being contacted.
Electoral fraud is not a victimless crime. We owe it to voters to ensure they know their voices are being heard and their right to vote is being protected. We have worked with the Electoral Commission and Crimestoppers to support the “Your vote is yours alone” campaign that ran alongside the local elections to encourage the reporting of suspected electoral crime.
The improvement we will make to the security and integrity of our voting process in Great Britain will bring us in line with many other countries where voters provide confirmation of their identity and where there is a reasonable expectation that someone’s vote should be properly protected and that doing so guards democracy and confidence for everyone.
Indeed, within the United Kingdom, the experience of Northern Ireland, where paper ID has been required since 1985 and photo ID since 2003, illustrates that there should be no issue for voters—once the requirement has become established.
I am absolutely clear that requiring voter ID in polling stations is a timely and reasonable measure that will sustain confidence in our voting process and we are inviting expressions of interest from local authorities to run further pilots at the local government elections in May 2019.
We are committed to improving the security of everyone’s votes, strengthening our elections and ensuring that people have confidence in our democracy, while putting equality and inclusivity at the centre of our electoral system.
[HCWS888]
Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012: Annual Report
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Robert Jenrick)
The annual report to Parliament under the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012 for the period 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018 has today been laid before Parliament.
The report is prepared in line with the requirements set out in the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012 that the Government report annually to Parliament on the financial assistance given under the Act.
Copies are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
[HCWS895]
Securing the Tax Base
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)
The Government are fully committed to doing what is necessary to protect the Exchequer and maintain fairness in the tax system. Therefore, the Government are announcing today that legislation will be brought forward later in the year which corrects a number of loopholes and omissions.
VAT offshore looping arrangement
The Government are announcing today that secondary legislation will be introduced later in the year to tackle VAT avoidance which takes advantage of a particular type of offshore looping arrangement, as well as examining further measures to tackle variations of this type of avoidance. By taking this action, the Government will maintain fairness in the tax system and will protect up to £100 million of future annual tax revenues. The Government are also considering additional measures to protect further tax from being lost on variations of these schemes, which could be adopted extensively across the VAT exempt sectors.
Offshore looping avoidance
Providers of financial services generally cannot reclaim the VAT they incur on their costs because their services are VAT exempt. An offshore loop is a cross-border structure that enables these VAT costs to be recovered by routing services primarily carried out in the UK via a body located in a non-VAT territory. Those services are then used to provide insurance and other financial services back into the UK market. This is contrary to the intention of the VAT system and distorts competition to the disadvantage of domestic UK suppliers.
Targeted action
This measure addresses a particular version of offshore looping which is currently found almost exclusively in the insurance sector and involves looping supplies via non-VAT territories. While this scheme is currently the subject of litigation, the Government have decided to legislate to put the issue beyond doubt and prevent any ongoing distortion of competition through use of this scheme.
The Government will amend UK law using secondary legislation later in the year. This will reduce the scope of the current VAT relief for exporters of financial services by excluding financial intermediation in supplies made ultimately to UK customers. This will mean that the UK providers of these financial services will no longer be able to gain a VAT advantage by acting as an agent for an overseas associate when the services are in fact being provided to their UK customers. The draft legislation and explanatory note will be published today and will be available on the gov.uk website.
Further action
The Government are also examining further legislative options for closing other versions of avoidance schemes involving such arrangements. This would ensure that revenue is protected in the future and that the system is fair for all and that those that seek to benefit from this type of arrangement do not get an unfair advantage.
Another variant of offshore looping, involving the provision of repair services to insurers, was addressed in 2016. Alongside that, the Government also considered further action, particularly in respect of the application of the VAT use and enjoyment provisions, but concluded that further change was not merited at that time. However, given the additional risks since identified, the scope of the options now under consideration will be much broader, including the use of measures outside of the UK VAT system altogether. Further details will be set out as part of the normal tax-making process.
Interest for late payment and repayment of taxes
Additionally, the Government are announcing today that they will introduce retrospective legislation in the Finance Bill 2018-19 to correct omissions from enactments that enable HMRC to charge interest for late payment of taxes and to pay interest on repayments to taxpayers. This legislation will also include interest charged as part of the diverted profits tax regime. By taking this action, the Government will guarantee the integrity of the tax base.
The legislation will apply retrospectively to cover all relevant interest charged or applied and will not change either the interest rate or amounts charged or repaid by HMRC to date. The legislation will apply to all taxpayers and any existing or future claim or appeal where these omissions have been identified.
The main taxes affected are corporation tax, stamp duty and stamp duty land tax. Further detail can be found in the accompanying draft clause and explanatory note.
[HCWS889]
Modernising Defence Programme
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
In January, together with the Prime Minister and Chancellor, I launched the Government’s modernising defence programme (MDP). The Ministry of Defence (MOD) is now able to share our headline conclusions. Throughout the MDP, the Department has worked with colleagues across Whitehall, with academics, subject matter experts, allies and partners and ran a public consultation exercise.
The MDP was launched after the national security capability review acknowledged the increasing security challenges we are facing. Its purpose was to deliver better military capability to meet the increasing threat environment and value for money in a sustainable and affordable way. Defence protects our people, projects our global influence, and promotes our prosperity. And, at this key moment as the UK leaves the European Union, defence and the armed forces will continue to deliver security in Europe and further afield, helping to make global Britain a reality.
Threats and risks to national security have diversified and become more complex since 2015. Although we anticipated many of the threats and risks we now face, we underestimated the pace at which they would intensify and combine to challenge UK national security at home and threaten the rules-based international order that has delivered peace, security and prosperity over many decades. And, we did not fully understand the ways in which they would interact with each other.
Alongside this, the character of warfare has changed since 2015. We are in a period of constant aggressive competition between states, often developing into undeclared confrontation and, in some cases, proxy conflicts. Technology, especially digital technology, is developing at a breath-taking pace, making pervasive many capabilities once only imagined in science fiction.
Our adversaries are working to take advantage of this contested environment by systematically identifying and exploiting our vulnerabilities and those of our allies and partners. Peer and near-peer states are investing heavily in both conventional and emerging technologies, and are increasingly adopting hybrid or asymmetric approaches to gain advantage. This has included attacking our digital networks and those of our allies, and operating in unconventional and legally questionable ways. Broader developments in the world including demographic change, increasing urbanisation, the risk of pandemics, resource and environmental pressures will all contribute to a global strategic context which will become more complex.
All this means that the challenges to our national security and prosperity—and to our allies’ and partners’ security and prosperity—are increasingly complex, ambiguous, destabilising and potentially catastrophic.
Work in the first phase of the MDP has reviewed this changing strategic context and how our armed forces need to be able to respond. We have reviewed our existing capability plans, and begun to shape new policy approaches and identify investment priorities, and through workstreams, we have developed a blueprint for a major programme of top-down transformative reform to defence. In all of this, we have been guided by the three key roles that our armed forces should be able to fulfil in the 21st century:
Contribute to strengthening global security through our leading role in NATO, and provide the structures and capabilities to defend the UK;
Meet the challenges of the wider threats to international security and stability, including through operations and activities alongside our global allies and partners. Defence must be engaged and outward looking, meeting the challenges of our age, from state-based competition and confrontation, violent extremism and terrorism, instability and crises in Africa and Asia, illegal and irregular migration, serious and organised crime, to climate change and environmental disasters.
Act independently, when appropriate, to protect UK interests and citizens overseas, leading multi-national operations and developing strong defence relationships with partners around the world.
Headline conclusions
1. Our armed forces need to be ready and able to match the pace at which our adversaries now move.
The pace at which our adversaries can act against us has grown quickly since SDSR 2015. Today, our adversaries disguise their actions by launching attacks that are hard to attribute, or by operating below the conventional threshold for a decisive, collective response. Whilst our armed forces already protect us against these challenges every hour of every day, we need to be able to respond to this new character of warfare, both in the traditional land, sea and air domains, as well as in the new domains of space and cyber. The MDP will make sure that the armed forces can continue to protect our prosperity and security, while reinforcing Britain’s place in the world.
To defend our national security, we should make the best possible use of the unique mix of hard and soft power that makes the UK a major global actor: from our economic levers to our wider diplomatic and cultural influence on the world’s stage. This integrated, collective approach to national security is captured in the Government’s fusion doctrine. Defence has a vital and increasing role in underwriting it, including through contributing to deterring and disrupting hostile state activity, delivering the CONTEST counter-terrorism strategy in the UK and overseas, or supporting wider security and prosperity objectives.
The armed forces have a unique network of alliances and friendships spanning every corner of every continent. We have made significant progress in making defence more “international by design”, and we will look at how we could do more. We have already strengthened relationships with key allies and partners, including through ambitious capability collaborations, and we will seek to go further still. We will consider our global defence network, to make sure we have the right military and civilian staff deployed around the world. We will seek to optimise our programme of world-class international education and training, which is so highly valued by our allies and partners, and gives the UK competitive advantage and strategic influence across the globe. And we will continue to lead multinational forces and deepen our relationships across the globe.
Most importantly, we need to make sure we can respond rapidly to future crises on our terms. Our elite and high-readiness forces are critical in this regard, enabled by collective training and our high-end exercise programme. We will consider how we can rebalance our training and equipment to mainland Europe, the far east and the middle east and review our overseas basing to improve our interoperability with allies and partners. NATO’s readiness initiative will also play an important role in this endeavour. Equally, our ability to respond rapidly will depend on an improved understanding and anticipation of the strategic confrontations that define this era: we will therefore build a strategic net assessment capability in the MOD. Strategic net assessment looks across all dimensions of competition—political, economic, military, resources—to assess how the choices of both friends and foes may play out over the short, medium and long term. Its conclusions can be used to develop more nuanced and better-informed strategy, so we can better anticipate our adversaries’ actions and counter them more effectively.
As outlined in SDSR 2015, protecting our security safeguards our prosperity, so our armed forces will continue to provide the assurance and reassurance for our global trade and development commitments, and support our ambitions for global Britain. As we continue our commitment to defence investment we will consider a much more agile approach to the development of future equipment, with a clear focus on the increasing flexibility required to maintain strategic advantage over our adversaries.
2. A fighting force fit for the challenges of the 21st century
We intend to modernise our force structure so that it is better able to meet the increasing threats we face. The key design principles of Joint Force 2025 are right: we want armed forces able to operate with agility and pace in the information age. Our armed forces need to be able to meet a full range of missions now and into the future. This includes, if necessary, warfighting operations under NATO article 5 and further afield.
We need to be able to meet future threats and face down our adversaries to continue to protect our prosperity and security. We may need to accelerate elements of the programme to meet the most acute threats sooner. Equally, we might want to introduce new capabilities or equipment that provide significant advantage in the immediate term. We intend, in each case, to look to the right balance of conventional and novel capabilities to meet the threats we face.
Alongside this, we will consider how to improve our resilience, so that our networks and systems across defence are protected against cyber-attack and infiltration, and our submarines can continue to avoid detection. We will also strengthen our equipment, training and facilities, like the investment we are making in a chemical weapons defence centre to counter chemical biological radiological and nuclear threats like we saw in Salisbury and Amesbury. Through advancing our resilience we will make sure our forces and bases are better protected.
A fighting force fit for the challenges of the 21st century also means our armed forces need to be able to operate in the space domain. So, to guide future investment in our satellites and wider space capabilities we will publish a space strategy.
To operate effectively in the information age, we need “information advantage”. Conflicts of the future will increasingly be won and lost based on who uses information technology most effectively: sensors, computing, communication, cyber and machine learning, artificial intelligence and autonomy. We will consider how to enhance our ability to collect, analyse, disseminate and act very rapidly on the vast quantities of data that characterise the contemporary operating environment. That will allow us to understand how our adversaries are thinking, how they may choose to act against us, and how we can deter or defeat them.
We are also looking at how to update the way we fight. For much of the last two decades, the UK has been conducting or contributing to significant overseas operations, in Afghanistan, Iraq and the wider middle east. Our adversaries have learned a lot about how we operate, and how they can disrupt our preferred methods. So, we are considering what a more active and dynamic approach to operations in all five domains—land, sea, air, space and cyberspace—should look like.
At the same time, we will consider how to modernise our approach to technology and innovation. By taking a more co-ordinated approach to technology and experimentation, with better central oversight, we may be able to pursue opportunities for modernisation more aggressively and accept higher levels of risk pursuing novel ideas. We intend to invest in a series of “Spearhead” initiatives on key new technologies and increase our spending on innovation, science and technology. Pursuing this approach will allow us to become quicker at turning advances in research and development into strategic advantage. In support of this, we will publish a “Defence Technology Framework”, setting out the Department’s technology priorities so that we can focus efforts and guide strategy, investment and plans across defence as a whole.
And we should also ensure that we use the combined talents of our whole force of regulars, reserves, civil servants and industry partners more effectively. The character of conflict and the world of work more generally are changing, so defence will need to up-skill our people, harness the advantages offered by reserves, and reflect the expectations of the modern workforce.
3. Transforming the business of defence to deliver a robust, credible, modern and affordable force
We are re-setting and re-energising the way MOD is led, organised and managed, with clearer responsibilities and accountabilities to deliver better value for money. We will embrace approaches, processes, technologies and best practice with a proven track record of success elsewhere. We will encourage a culture of experimentation, and change our acquisition and commercial processes to better support the rapid and incremental adoption of new and emerging technologies.
To help create financial headroom for the additional modernisation, we will consider how to deliver greater efficiency by adopting ambitious, digitally-enabled business modernisation. In parallel, we will consider removing existing areas of overlap and duplication within our force structure and burden-sharing more effectively with allies and partners.
We intend to adopt a more collaborative and demanding approach to our relationship with industry, centred around an agreed set of productivity, efficiency, skills and innovation challenges that we need to meet together. At the same time, in the next stages of our work we will consider what we might do to grow even further the already considerable contribution that Defence makes to UK prosperity. The important work conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne) in his independent report can inform these considerations.
Conclusions
The first phase of the MDP has looked to set the direction we intend to take. It has clarified three key themes we should consider in the next phase: first, our armed forces need to be ready and able to match the pace at which our adversaries now move. Secondly, our armed forces need to be a fighting force fit for the challenges of the 21st century. And, finally, we need to transform the business of defence to deliver a robust, credible, modern and affordable force.
The Prime Minister, Chancellor and I will continue to work closely throughout the next phase of the MDP, and I will keep the House updated as decisions are made.
We will continue to meet our commitment to our partners and maintain a full spectrum of nuclear, conventional and cyber capabilities to match our global ambition. With one of the largest defence budgets in the world, and the highest in Europe, our defence budget is increasing in real terms by £1 billion a year during this Parliament. The stage is now set for the next phase of this programme of work to ensure UK defence and our armed forces can continue to keep our country safe, our people and interests around the world secure, and help ensure that the UK can continue to play a major role on the world stage.
[HCWS883]
Service Personnel
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Gavin Williamson)
On 12 March 2018, I announced that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) would be looking to mitigate the impact of income tax rises in Scotland affecting thousands of armed forces personnel in Scotland. New income tax bands and increased tax levels for tax year 2018-19, as compared to the rest of the UK, will result in the majority of military personnel living in Scotland, those earning more than £26,000 per annum, paying more tax this year by comparison to their counterparts living in the rest of the UK.
It has been decided that for this tax year the MOD will make a financial mitigation payment to all those regular service personnel negatively impacted by Scottish tax by £12 a year (or £1 a month) or higher. However, it has also been decided the amount of mitigation provided will be capped at £1,500. The financial mitigation payment will be paid retrospectively after the end of the tax year. It will be grossed up to ensure that when income tax and national insurance deductions are made the value of the payment closely matches the difference in tax experienced up to the £1,500 cap.
The MOD will continue to review the situation and decide each tax year whether the impact on UK armed forces warrants an offer of financial mitigation to support service personnel in Scotland.
It is estimated that these payments will be made to up to 8,000 regular service personnel and will cost the MOD in the region of £4 million in financial year 2019-20.
[HCWS885]
Contingent Liability
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Jeremy Wright)
A minute has been laid before Parliament regarding the live broadcast of the England men’s team semi-final match at the 2018 football World cup in Hyde Park on 11 July, and specifically in relation to incurring a contingent liability.
The Department for Digital, Media, Culture and Sport (DCMS) directed the Royal Parks (TRP) to host an event which showed the live broadcast of the England men’s team semi-final match at the 2018 football World cup on large television screens in Hyde Park on 11 July. The Department provided an indemnity agreement to the TRP; in order to meet the short timescale to organise this event, it was necessary to give commitments in relation to such liabilities urgently.
DCMS agreed to indemnify TRP for net costs and there is an agreement regarding any such indemnity costs between DCMS and the Greater London Authority and the Football Association.
The Treasury approved the proposal in principle. Authority for any expenditure required under the liability will be sought through the normal Supply procedure. A full departmental minute has been laid providing more detail on this contingent liability as provided to TRP on 8 July.
[HCWS891]
Relationships and Sex Education
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Damian Hinds)
Children and young people today are growing up in an increasingly complex world and living their lives seamlessly on and offline. This presents many positive and exciting opportunities, but also challenges and risks. In this environment, children and young people need to know how to be safe and healthy, and how to manage their lives in a positive way. Ensuring children and young people have this knowledge contributes to Government’s effort to eradicate problems like sexual harassment and violence.
We have engaged thoroughly with a wide range of organisations, supported by experienced headteacher Ian Bauckham CBE. Between November 2017 and March 2018, Ian led a wide-ranging stakeholder engagement process with many experts. In addition, the Department launched a call for evidence to seek public views from adults and young people—over 23,000 people responded and the level of consensus has been encouraging. We are pleased today to be able to announce the key decisions and launch a consultation on the detail of the regulations and guidance.
For relationships education and RSE, the aim is to put in place the building blocks needed for positive and safe relationships of all kinds, starting with the family and friends, and moving out to other kinds of relationships, including online. It is essential that we ensure young people can keep themselves safe online, from the basics of who and what to trust and how personal information is used, through to how to ensure online relationships are healthy and safe.
A guiding principle is that teaching will start from the basis that children and young people, at age appropriate points, need to know the laws relating to relationships and sex that govern society to ensure they act appropriately and can be safe. This includes LGBT, which is a strong feature of the new subjects at age appropriate points. The draft guidance sets out core required content, but leaves flexibility for schools to design a curriculum that builds on this and is right for their pupils, bearing in mind their age and religious backgrounds. It enables schools with a religious character to deliver and expand on the core content by reflecting the teachings of their faith.
We are also proposing to introduce compulsory content on health education. This supports the findings from the call for evidence and engagement process, where giving children and young people the information they need to make good decisions about their own health and wellbeing—particularly their mental wellbeing—was a priority. This directly supports the Green Paper published jointly by the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care on children and young people’s mental health, as well as our manifesto commitment to ensure all young people are taught about mental wellbeing. The focus on physical health also supports the Government’s activity to tackle childhood obesity.
Financial education is already in the curriculum, in maths and citizenship, and careers education is an important part of our careers strategy. For these reasons, we do not consider that economic education should be made compulsory. We are committed, however, to improving provision of financial and careers education and will work with stakeholders to do so.
We know that many schools successfully cover this content in a broader PSHE programme. They should continue to do so, adapting their programme to the new requirements rather than starting from scratch. Schools are also free to develop alternative, innovative ways to ensure that pupils receive this education and we want good practice to be shared so that all schools can benefit.
We have previously committed to parents having a right to withdraw their children from sex education in RSE, but not relationships education in primary or secondary. A right for parents to withdraw their child up to 18 years of age is no longer compatible with English case law or the European convention on human rights. It is also clear that allowing parents to withdraw their child up to age 16 would not allow the child to opt in to sex education before the legal age of consent.
We therefore propose to give parents the right to request their child be withdrawn from sex education delivered as part of RSE. The draft guidance sets out that unless there are exceptional circumstances, the parents’ request should be granted until three terms before the pupil turns 16. At that point, if the child wishes to have sex education, the headteacher should ensure they receive it in one of those terms. This preserves the parental right in most cases, but also balances it with the child’s right to opt in to sex education when they are competent to do so.
This is a very important change to the curriculum that has to be delivered well, and while many schools will be able to quickly adapt their existing teaching it is essential that those schools that need more time to plan and prepare their staff get that time. It is our intention that as many schools as possible will start teaching the subjects from September 2019. We will be working with those schools, as well as with MATs, dioceses and education unions, to help them to do so. All schools will be required to teach the new subjects from September 2020. This is in line with the Department’s approach to any significant changes to the curriculum and will enable us to learn lessons from the early adopter schools and share good practice across the sector. We will be seeking views through the consultation to test the right focus for a school support package as we know that it is crucial for schools and teachers to be confident and well prepared.
We are keen to hear as many views as possible through the consultation, which will be open until early November, and the final regulations will be laid in both Houses, allowing for a full and considered debate. There was strong cross-party support for the introduction of these subjects we are confident that we can continue to work together on this important reform. We believe that our proposals are an historic step in education that will equip children and young people with the knowledge and support they need to form healthy relationships, lead healthy lives and be safe and happy in modern Britain.
[HCWS892]
OSCE
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I represented the United Kingdom at the 24th Ministerial Council meeting of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) held in Vienna on 7 and 8 December 2017, hosted by Austrian chair-in-office, Sebastian Kurz. The Council is the top decision making body of the OSCE and was attended by Ministers from across its 57 participating states. A number of new commitments were agreed, including on combating trafficking in human beings, on small arms and light weapons, and on reducing the risk of conflict stemming from the use of information and communication technologies.
In my intervention at the Ministerial Council, I reaffirmed the United Kingdom’s support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders. I condemned Russia’s destabilising actions in eastern Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea, and we co-sponsored an event in the margins of the Ministerial Council for Crimean Tatar leaders. The United Kingdom is the second largest contributor of secondees to the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM), which plays a crucial role in monitoring the ceasefire and events on the ground. I paid tribute during my intervention to SMM paramedic Joseph Stone, who tragically lost his life on patrol in April 2017. The United Kingdom continues to call on all parties to ensure the safety both of our monitors and of civilians in Eastern Ukraine.
The 2017 Ministerial Council discussed the continuation of the structured dialogue launched in 2016, aimed at reducing risk of military conflict. We welcome the dialogue as an opportunity to rebuild trust among all stakeholders of European security in the OSCE area. The process will take time, but we value the work done so far, including discussions on threat perceptions, challenges to the rules-based order, military-to-military contact, and trends in military force postures and exercises. At the Ministerial Council, the United Kingdom delivered a statement on behalf of 29 allies restating the importance of enhancing military transparency, and of full implementation and updating of relevant commitments.
The OSCE is a vital forum for addressing the “protracted conflicts” which remain a threat to European security, and during the Ministerial Council I reiterated our firm support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Government welcome progress on confidence-building measures relating to the conflict in Moldova agreed in the 5+2 format meetings in Vienna in 2017 and in Rome in 2018. We also continue to support the Minsk co-chairs in their efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
The Government remain committed to the security and stability of the Western Balkans. We provide over 5 million euros per annum to OSCE’s extensive field presence in the Western Balkans through assessed contributions and also give extra budgetary funding to support work on media freedom, electoral reform, safe storage of small arms and light weapons, strengthening the rule of law, and processing of war crimes cases. The office of the OSCE’s representative on freedom of the media chaired a discussion on media freedom at the Western Balkans summit in London on 9 and 10 July. The Government also support security and stability in Central Asia through our assessed contributions and through extra-budgetary funding to OSCE field missions, supporting work in areas such as judicial independence, rule of law, border controls, counter-terrorism, cyber-security, and freedom of religion or belief.
The United Kingdom is using its second year chairing the OSCE human dimension committee to support the 2017 Italian chairmanship and promote discussion of issues relevant to everyday lives across the OSCE area in the field of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democracy. 2018 meetings have covered issues such as human rights defenders, freedom of religion or belief, and Roma and Sinti girls’ education. The committee has also addressed cross-dimensional issues such as human trafficking and violence against women. The Prime Minister’s special envoy on post-holocaust issues, Lord Pickles, spoke at an OSCE chairmanship conference on anti-Semitism in Rome in January and a UK-led event on racism in Vienna in May. Throughout this period, the United Kingdom, with EU partners, has continued to raise human rights concerns at the OSCE. At the Ministerial Council, the UK joined a declaration by 44 states expressing concern at deteriorating respect for human rights and space for civil society in parts of the OSCE region.
OSCE work on arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation, along with counter-terrorism and cyber-security, plays an important role in pursuit of our security objectives. We continue to promote efforts in the OSCE to strengthen and modernise conventional arms control in Europe, based on principles such as respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, reciprocity, transparency, and host nation consent. We welcome the OSCE Ministerial Council decision to reinforce and expand efforts to reduce the threat posed by small arms and light weapons and stockpiles of conventional ammunition.
I was able to underline the UK’s commitment to European security, the OSCE and to multilateral co-operation when I met the new OSCE secretary-general, Thomas Greminger, during his visit to London in May.
Slovakia has begun preparations for its OSCE chairmanship, which starts in January 2019. We look forward to working with them to promote shared priorities, uphold shared principles and commitments and to increase security and co-operation in Europe.
[HCWS879]
Jordan: Policing Support
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
The United Kingdom is strongly committed to supporting Jordan’s security and stability. Through a Conflict Stability and Security Fund project worth £9 million over two years, the UK is helping the Jordanian Public Security Directorate (PSD) and gendarmerie to develop its community policing, critical incident response and investigative counter-terrorist policing capabilities. The support delivers against the objectives of Her Majesty’s Government, in particular our security objective, on building Jordanian capability to enhance both its own security and its ability to tackle internal and regional threats in a manner compliant with human rights.
In order to reach this objective, the British embassy in Amman is granting equipment totalling £742,853.24 for support to the PSD and gendarmerie. This includes infrastructure, vehicles, and IT equipment (hardware and software).
The provision of this assistance is fully in line with this Government’s security and stability objectives in the middle east. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials carry out regular reviews of our programmes in Jordan to ensure that objectives are being met, and that value for money is being achieved.
[HCWS880]
British Council: Tailored Review
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
I am announcing today the start of a tailored review of the British Council, the UK’s international organisation for cultural relations and educational opportunities. Established by Royal Charter in 1940, the British Council builds relationships and understanding between the people of the UK and other countries.
As a non-department public body (NDPB) sponsored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), the British Council is required to undergo a tailored review at least once in every Parliament. The principal aims of tailored reviews are to ensure public bodies remain fit for purpose, are well governed and properly accountable for what they do.
The review will provide a robust scrutiny of, and assurance on, the continuing need for the British Council—both its function and its form. It will then assess the governance and control arrangements in place to ensure they are compliant with the recognised principles of good corporate governance and delivering good value for money. The structure, efficiency and effectiveness of the British Council will be considered throughout the review.
A challenge panel, chaired by a FCO non-executive director, will examine the findings of both stages of the review.
The review will follow guidance published in 2016 by the Cabinet Office: “Tailored Reviews: Guidance on Reviews of Public Bodies” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tailored-reviews-of-public-bodies-guidance. The terms of reference for the review can be found on gov.uk.
In conducting this tailored review, officials will engage with a broad range of stakeholders across the UK and overseas, including across UK Government, devolved Administrations, foreign Governments, business and civil society, as well as with the British Council’s own staff and management.
I shall inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed and copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS881]
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008: Remedial Order
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
We are today laying a revised non-urgent remedial order, which will enable a sole applicant to apply for a parental order, which transfers legal parenthood after a surrogacy arrangement.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) published its report about the initial draft remedial order on 2 March 2018. The Government have carefully considered the issues raised in the report and have accepted the recommendations made by JCHR. We have taken additional action so that the revised order ensures that a biological parent in a surrogacy arrangement is not blocked by their relationship status from obtaining legal parenthood.
Surrogacy has an increasingly important role to play in our society, helping to create much-wanted new families for a range of people. The UK Government recognise the value of this in the 21st century where family structures, attitudes and lifestyles are much more diverse.
The revised remedial order reflects an equal approach for a sole applicant or a couple in obtaining legal parenthood after a surrogacy arrangement. The order will allow a six-month period where an existing sole applicant can retrospectively apply for a parental order for a child born through surrogacy.
It will be for the Joint Committee on Human Rights to further scrutinise the revised order, take views from parliamentarians and stakeholders and advise the Government and Parliament on the appropriateness of the order. The Committee will have 60 days to undertake these considerations and then make recommendations to Parliament, before debates in both Houses.
[HCWS893]
Gangmasters Licensing Authority & Disclosure and Barring Service: Annual Reports
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
Today the annual reports and accounts for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority 2016-17 [HC 1402] and the Disclosure and Barring Service 2017-18 [HC 1367] are being laid before the House and will be published on www.gov.uk. Copies of both reports will also be available in the Vote Office.
The 2018-19 business plan for the disclosure and barring service is also being published today and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House and will be made available on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS884]
Immigration
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
I am today publishing a consultation paper on the design of a compensation scheme that will help to right the wrongs suffered by those of the Windrush generation who have faced difficulties and suffered losses as a result of measures that are in place to tackle illegal immigration [Cm 9654].
I have been very clear both that the Government deeply regret what has happened to some of the Windrush generation and that we are determined to put it right. A series of measures are in place to help achieve this. We are supporting those affected directly to gain confirmation of their immigration status. The Windrush taskforce, established in April, has provided documentation to over 2,000 people to demonstrate their right to live in the UK. We are conducting a lessons learned review, with independent oversight and challenge, to look at what happened and what the Home Office can do to ensure that it acts differently in future. Today I am also fulfilling the commitment to publish the terms of reference and methodology for that review by the summer recess and a copy of each will be placed in the Library of the House. The review aims to complete its findings by the end of March 2019 and I can confirm that the findings from the review will be published.
We also committed to establish a compensation scheme for those who have suffered loss as a result of these difficulties. On 10 May I launched a call for evidence, to help us understand what went wrong, when and the effects it has had on people’s lives. That closed on 8 June and we received over 650 responses. I have been moved by the stories people have told. There has been genuine suffering, which should never have happened. I am also inspired by the way many of the respondents moved halfway round the world to help rebuild the UK, and established their homes and lives here. It is also clear from these stories that these are strong communities which support each other and contribute significantly to the life and prosperity of the UK.
I want to move quickly, but carefully, from this initial call for evidence to the next stage. Based on the call for evidence and the independent advice we are receiving from Martin Forde QC, we have designed a consultation exercise to help us build and set up a compensation scheme. We are suggesting the scheme should be open to anyone who would be eligible for assistance of any type under the existing Windrush scheme being operated by the taskforce, and we are consulting on the types of losses and impacts that we should compensate for.
We received representations to extend the initial call for evidence and therefore I am keen to ensure that the consultation exercise is thorough and allows sufficient opportunity for everyone who wants to respond to do so. The consultation will last 12 weeks, closing on 11 October 2018. We are encouraging responses from a wide range of people, but particularly the communities affected. I am working with the Caribbean high commissioners to ensure the consultation reaches the right people abroad. The consultation document will be accessible online and offline. My officials will promote the consultation using appropriate media channels including social media. Throughout the consultation period we will engage with key stakeholders and community organisations to encourage responses, providing copies of the document and guidance for it to be completed, along with the offer of dedicated events with Home Office staff within community groups to facilitate responses. The independent adviser to the scheme, Martin Forde QC, will be talking directly to individuals affected and their representatives, as well as community leaders.
Following the consultation my priority will be to establish a scheme which will pay appropriate compensation as soon as possible. In the meantime, we will continue to offer people direct support to establish their immigration status.
[HCWS887]
Independent Office for Police Conduct: Annual Report
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
I am today, along with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), publishing the 2017-18 annual report and accounts for the Independent Office for Police Conduct [HC 1331]. This will be laid before the House and published on www.gov.uk. The report will also be available in the Vote Office.
[HCWS886]
Grenfell
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (James Brokenshire)
Hon. Members will have been moved by the strength, courage and dignity demonstrated by those affected by the Grenfell Tower fire during the commemoration that took place last month marking one year on. I wanted to update the House before the summer recess on the critical work the Government are undertaking in response to the tragedy and broader building safety work.
First, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government continues to work closely with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to ensure the bereaved and survivors are given the support they need. This includes practical, long-term emotional, and, in some cases, mental health support to ensure all the bereaved and survivors are settled and comfortable in new permanent accommodation.
The latest position is that of 204 households from Grenfell Tower and Walk who need rehousing, 200 households (over 98%) have accepted an offer of either permanent or temporary accommodation, and 142 households have now moved in, of which 96 have moved into their permanent homes and 46 households are currently living in good-quality interim accommodation. The number of households in hotels has reduced to 40, with 19 in serviced apartments and three living with friends and family. My Department is working closely with the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to ensure that the properties acquired for the survivors are safe and ready to move into and I have been assured by the council that the majority of that work is now complete. Twenty Four properties that have been accepted by residents are still being finalised and the vast majority of these are expected to be completed over the summer. I am also continuing to focus on the support that is available to those moving into their new homes through working with the Council to provide a strong package of resettlement support. This includes a range of elements, from helping to provide furniture, packing and removals, support to join community groups in a new local area, and drop-in counselling sessions.
Our support and commitment to the bereaved, victims and wider community remains steadfast.
Secondly, I wanted to update the House on the work we are doing to ensure residents of high-rise buildings are safe and feel safe, now and in the future. The Government are committed to learning lessons from the Grenfell fire and delivering far-reaching change to ensure similar devastation cannot happen again.
In the days following the tragedy, we set up a building safety programme as part of our response. Key initial actions to guide and support this work included:
establishing an expert panel, chaired by Sir Ken Knight, and an industry response group to advise on and support urgent safety and remediation work; and
commissioning an independent, forward-looking review of the building regulations and fire safety system, led by Dame Judith Hackitt.
The report by Dame Judith, “Building a Safer Future”, was published on 17 May. As I said in my statement to the House that day, its publication was a watershed moment for everyone who has a stake in ensuring the people living in buildings like Grenfell Tower are safe, and feel safe. Dame Judith called for major reform and a change of culture. The onus should clearly be on everyone involved to manage risk at every stage, and the Government should do more to set and enforce high standards. The Government agree with that assessment and support the principles behind the report’s recommendations for a more effective system.
As Dame Judith acknowledged, delivering fundamental system reform—including changes to the law—will take time and, as I said in May, I will set out our detailed implementation plan in the autumn. But we can, and must, start changing the culture and practice right now. We are therefore delivering key elements of the report.
First, I am pleased to announce that my Department is today publishing the clarified building regulations fire safety guidance (“Approved Document B”) for consultation. The revised guidance will be easier to use and reduce the risk of misinterpretation by those carrying out and inspecting building work. It is a vital first step on the road to reform. A link to the consultation is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fire-safety-clarification-of-statutory-guidance-approved-document-b.
I am also placing the documents in the Library of the House.
I am clear we will not hesitate to go further than the Hackitt recommendations where we deem it necessary. Not only have we launched a consultation on proposals to restrict or ban the use of so-called desktop studies (assessments in lieu of tests) for cladding materials, as recommended by Hackitt, but we have also launched a consultation on proposals to ban the use of combustible materials in the exterior wall construction of high-rise buildings. I have also listened to calls from a number of colleagues, experts and organisations that a wider review of “Approved Document B” is necessary to ensure the guidance reflects innovations in the construction sector and the latest understanding of fire behaviour and protection. With this in mind, I am today announcing the Government will carry out a wider technical review of the guidance on fire safety. We will publish a call for evidence in the autumn inviting views on the technical issues and further improvements that could be made in the approved document.
Reforming the regulatory system requires change across all its aspects. In relation to building safety, I can announce we will introduce a mandatory requirement on landlords in the private rented sector to ensure electrical installations in their property are inspected every five years. This will help drive up standards across the private rented sector and reduce deaths and injuries due to electric shocks and fires caused by electric faults.
We are committed to establishing a more effective regulatory regime for fire and building safety. We have started work with building control bodies, National Fire Chiefs Council, the Health and Safety Executive and others to consider options for a joint competent authority and stronger regime as per the recommendations in the report, and we will set out our implementation plan in the autumn.
The Hackitt review identified a lack of leadership within the construction and fire safety industries as a contributory failure on building safety. I want the construction industry to drive action on building safety now, leading from the front and changing practice and behaviour. We know there are many who are already doing the right thing, and I want to encourage more in the industry to do the same.
I am pleased we have already had support on this and today I can announce that Willmot Dixon, Kier, L&Q and Salix Homes have agreed to be the first of the early adopters on building safety. This is a commitment to prioritising building safety. These organisations will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to trial ways of working in line with the Hackitt recommendations and assess benefits in the buildings they are constructing or managing. We would welcome others in industry coming forward to join them.
We also need to ensure residents are given a voice in the system. This is necessary to provide reassurance and recourse across all tenures by providing greater transparency of information on building safety; better involvement in decision-making through the support of resident associations and tenant panels; and a no-risk route of escalation and redress. This was echoed in feedback from tenant events held to inform the social housing Green Paper. We are considering options for addressing these concerns, including through the forthcoming Green Paper.
I can also announce today I intend to set up a residents’ reference panel for the life of the building safety programme. This indicates our commitment to residents, and ensures policy is grounded in the experiences of those who live in high-rise buildings.
The Hackitt review also called for the construction and fire safety industries to show more effective leadership in raising the competence of those working on high-rise buildings. I have been pleased to see both the construction and fire sectors come together quickly in the response to this challenge set by Dame Judith, under the stewardship of the Construction Industry Council. We remain in close contact with the industry to see the progress of their proposals on competence, and will stand ready to provide support as required.
I also welcome the work of the Home Office and National Fire Chiefs Council on setting up a new independent fire standards board to produce and own professional standards for fire and rescue services in England. This forms part of the Government’s fire reform programme which will make services more accountable, effective and professional. Work is under way to form the board by late summer, with work on the first standards beginning shortly thereafter.
To provide additional oversight of the industry’s work, I intend to set up an industry safety steering group. This group will hold industry to account for making cultural change happen, and I can announce today that this will be chaired by Dame Judith Hackitt.
Our focus on delivering the systemic reforms envisaged by the Hackitt review will not distract from the critical work of ensuring people are safe in their homes. Guided by advice from our expert panel, we continue to work closely with fire and rescue services, local authorities and landlords to identify high-rise buildings with unsafe cladding, ensure interim measures are in place to reduce risks, and give building owners clear advice about what they need to do to make buildings safe.
My written statement of 28 June provided an update on our work to identify, test and remediate unsafe cladding systems on high-rise buildings. I announced in that statement the further steps I would be taking to promote swifter action by building owners to remove potentially unsafe cladding on private sector high-rise residential buildings. I expect to chair the first meeting of the new private sector remediation taskforce which will oversee this activity before summer recess. Since 28 June two additional roundtables have been held with industry to work on solutions for individual building owners who cannot resolve building remediation themselves. This work with industry will continue over the summer.
We will also take further steps to ensure there is clarity for building owners about the circumstances in which buildings should be remediated. These steps will include the production of clear guidance about the circumstances in which decorative or small amounts of aluminium composite material cladding should be remediated. My Department has also written to all relevant building owners to remind them of their responsibilities and I am pleased to be able to report that the National House Building Council has accepted a warranty claim for the New Capital Quay development. I call on others to follow their lead.
Further to my update on building safety on 16 May, my Department is continuing to monitor and facilitate action taken by those who purchased Manse Masterdor fire doors. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government is working with the Local Government Association and National Housing Federation to provide advice and support to building owners with these doors.
In my update of 16 May, I also reported that Synseal, the company that took over the Manse Masterdor business, was working with trading standards to ensure its products met relevant standards and had withdrawn its composite 30-minute fire door range. Following further testing of their fire doors, Synseal has informed my Department it has withdrawn its composite and timber fire door range from the market as it does not consistently meet the minimum standard. Based on advice sought from the expert panel, Synseal has written to all customers of Masterdor Ltd (a subsidiary of Synseal) asking building owners to review the fire risk assessment of their buildings to determine how quickly these doors should be replaced. The expert panel has advised me there is no change to the risk to public safety and the failure of Masterdor Ltd fire doors remains a product standards issue which is being overseen by trading standards. My Department is working closely with trading standards on this issue.
Local fire and rescue services continue to provide advice locally and the National Fire Chiefs Council, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, are monitoring assessments and the action being taken by customers of Manse Masterdor and Masterdor Ltd.
The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will continue its investigation into the wider fire door market, where we are testing doors from at least 20 suppliers over the next six months.
Nothing is more important than ensuring that people are safe and feel safe in their homes. We have made progress but there is much left to do. I shall provide a further update to the House on this work in the autumn.
[HCWS890]
EU Trade Agreement Impact Analysis and Process
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Trade Policy (George Hollingbery)
I am pleased to announce that my Department will today publish an impact assessment for the EU-Singapore free trade agreement (FTA). I have separately written to the scrutiny Committees in both Houses of Parliament such that they can consider this evidence as part of their important review of this agreement. A copy of this impact assessment will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Negotiations with Singapore concluded in October 2014. The European Commission has now presented the final negotiated texts to the Council of the European Union (Council). The Council will now decide whether to adopt the necessary Council decision authorising signature and conclusion, with a vote in October 2018.
The agreement is expected to promote bilateral trade and economic growth between the EU and Singapore by eliminating most tariffs and reducing non-tariff measures that businesses face when trading goods and services and when investing.
I will also today lay the European Union (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership Agreements and Trade Agreement) (Eastern and Southern Africa States, Southern African Development Community States, Ghana and Ecuador) Order 2018 to designate the Ecuador-EU Andean accession and these economic partnership agreements as treaties in accordance with the European Communities Act 1972.
The EU, Ecuador, Colombia and Peru signed the protocol of accession of Ecuador to the EU-Andean free trade agreement (known as the EU-Andean FTA) on 11 November 2016. The protocol has been provisionally applied since 1 January 2017.
On 28 July 2016, the EU signed an economic partnership agreement (EPA) with Ghana. The EPA has been provisionally applied since 15 December 2016.
On 10 June 2016, the EU signed an economic partnership agreement (EPA) with six countries from the Southern African Development Community (SADC): Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa and Swaziland (now known as Eswatini) (the “SADC EPA states”). The EPA has been provisionally applied since 10 October 2016, except in the case of Mozambique, where it has been provisionally applied since 4 February 2018.
On 24 August 2009, the EU signed an economic partnership agreement (EPA) with the eastern and southern Africa countries: Madagascar, Mauritius, the Seychelles and Zimbabwe (the “ESA countries”). In July 2017, the Comoros signed the agreement, and they are currently in the process of ratification. The EPA has been provisionally applied since 14 May 2012, except in the case of the Comoros, where it will be applied pending ratification by the government of the Comoros. These agreements require ratification by the EU member states to come fully into effect.
I will lay this order concurrently with the laying of the text of the agreements as Command Papers under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act for scrutiny. This is in effect the start of the formal process of ratification of the agreements in the UK.
These agreements will boost the economies of the UK, the EU, and partner countries by promoting trade and economic growth. The European Union’s economic partnership agreements (EPAs) have a development focus that goes beyond trade, by including co-operation and assistance for partner countries. They aim to promote trade—and ultimately contribute, through increased trade and investment, to sustainable development and poverty reduction.
I will also lay before the House an explanatory memorandum to this order. This explains the background and rationale of the agreements and ratification. At the same time, we are publishing our economic impact assessments of these agreements. Copies of these documents are being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The Government remain committed to supporting the EU’s ambitious trade and development agendas including the EU free trade agreements they are putting in place. The UK ratification of these agreements while the UK is still an EU member state is a sound demonstration of this commitment.
The Government have been clear they will seek a seamless transition to replicate the effects of the agreements when we leave the EU in line with our policy.
[HCWS882]
WTO: UK Goods Schedule
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
I have previously informed the House that in order to fulfil our obligations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) as we leave the European Union we will prepare UK-specific schedules of concessions and commitments. I have today sent to the secretariat of the WTO the UK schedule for goods and I will place a copy in the Library.
This schedule replicates, as far as possible, our current obligations. We see this as a technical exercise for which the WTO’s 1980 procedures provide the appropriate legal mechanism. That will be our first step.
Presenting our own UK schedules at the WTO is a necessary part of our leaving the EU. It does not in any way prejudge the outcome of the eventual UK-EU trading arrangements.
[HCWS878]
Legal Aid (Inquests)
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lucy Frazer)
The Secretary of State for Justice and I are today launching a call for evidence which seeks information on the experience of bereaved families at inquests.
An inquest is a distinct judicial process. It can be a traumatic ordeal for the bereaved, both in hearing how their loved ones died and through the frustration in the search for answers. That search for the truth, the answers to the unknown questions, is important in helping the bereaved to understand and make sense of tragedies such as this.
The inquest itself is meant to be an inquisitorial process, and as such most inquest hearings are conducted without the need for publicly funded representation. That must be right to ensure they are as accessible as possible to both the bereaved and the wider public. Of course, early legal advice may sometimes be needed and helpful. That is why we have protected early legal advice to support the bereaved in preparing inquests, ensuring that it remains within the scope of legal aid. It may also be that publicly funded representation at the inquest hearing itself is necessary in certain exceptional circumstances, and if that is the case it should be provided.
Recently, concerns have been levelled against this existing availability of legal aid for inquests. In the light of this, the Ministry of Justice is conducting a review of the current system. This call for evidence forms a key part of this work.
The central aim of this paper is to consider what is needed to ensure that bereaved people have access to the necessary levels of support they need to understand and properly participate at every stage of the proceedings.
The paper seeks to widen our existing evidence base. In particular, we are interested in finding out more about death in custody cases, and cases where there is state involvement in the process. It also seeks to better understand the circumstances in which families may require legal representation to allow for a fair inquest process, and whether changes need to be made to current eligibility criteria.
The paper also includes questions on what can be done beyond the provision of legal aid, to make inquests less adversarial and more sensitive to the needs of bereaved families. This includes looking at the number and actions of lawyers and the style of questioning adopted.
Responses will be used to help us consider whether changes need to be made to existing policies. Any prospective policy options will be presented in a public consultation.
The Government welcome responses from bereaved people, charities, arms-length bodies, the legal profession, experts, and professionals across the system who have experience or involvement in the inquest process.
The call for evidence exercise will run for eight weeks to 31 August 2018.
A copy of the consultation paper will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available online at: www.gov.uk.
[HCWS894]
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Freedom of Religion or Belief
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Berridge
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans, if any, they have to appoint an Ambassador on Freedom of Religion or Belief.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I draw attention to my interest as declared in the register.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, on 4 July, I was greatly honoured and humbled to be appointed by the Prime Minister as her special envoy on freedom of religion or belief. I assure noble Lords that I will continue to mobilise the diplomatic network to give due attention to this priority and to strengthen bilateral and international engagement as part of its diplomatic engagement with host Governments. I shall also work with parliamentary colleagues to ensure we leverage all expertise and experience, as well as strengthening collaboration with civil society and religious faith groups in pursuit of the common objective of protecting and strengthening freedom of religion or belief.
Baroness Berridge
I am sure your Lordships will wish to join me in congratulating my noble friend on his recent appointment, but might also share my concern that this adds to an existing seven areas of ministerial responsibility plus his being the Prime Minister’s special representative for preventing sexual violence in conflict. On 18 April, in your Lordships’ House, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott accepted that having two part-time staff in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office working on freedom of religion or belief was resource-light. Will my noble friend please outline what additional resources he has been allocated to fulfil this additional mandate?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I thank my noble friend for her kind words. I look forward to working with noble Lords across the House, which I know has immense expertise and experience in this respect and to strengthening our work in this area. My noble friend is right to draw our attention to resources. I assure her that, in taking on this role, my discussions with the Prime Minister and others were important. It is an important priority and, in that regard, I believe that my role as Minister for Human Rights will add strength to it. Having a ministerial office in support of an envoy role will also strengthen access. As for specific support, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that this is a cross-government initiative. I am delighted to announce that we will be getting additional resource through colleagues from the Department for International Development, who will support me in this important work. This is in addition to the existing resource at the Foreign Office. We will also be strengthening our focus on this important priority and post.
I am also delighted that I will be working on the domestic agenda, because it is important we strengthen our work in that area. It is entirely apt, therefore, that I am joined by my noble friend Lord Bourne, who, as many know, is the Minister for Faith and Communities in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I too extend my congratulations and those of the Lords spiritual to the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, on this appointment. Does he agree that in several countries of the Middle East, where the Christian faith has existed since the time of the apostles—Iraq, Syria and Egypt among them—the scale of persecution renders the condition of the remaining Christian communities one of great humanitarian priority?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I absolutely agree with the right reverend Prelate. I assure him that one of the primary motivations behind my right honourable friend appointing me to the role is exactly that: the increasing concern about the plight of Christian minorities across north Africa and the Middle East. There are always, however, glimmers of hope in that grey cloud. Recently, I visited Tunisia and Algeria. As the right reverend Prelate may know, because of our diplomatic efforts and those of others, Algeria has announced the reopening of two of the churches it had closed. As I arrived, I was pleased to be informed that a third church that had been closed has now been reopened. Christian minorities in that part of the world and beyond are an important priority and part of my role.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has a long track record of upholding Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—the right to believe, not to believe or to change your belief—and I join others in the House in welcoming his appointment to this important role. Will he explain the difference to us between the idea of having a roving ambassador, which is the subject of the Question, and having an envoy? Given that the call for an ambassador on freedom of religion or belief was in the manifesto of both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party in the past, what is that difference? Where does it clash with ministerial responsibilities—for instance, upholding DfID policies or issues around declarations of genocide? How will the Minister’s responsibility as a Minister clash with those of the independence that is required a special envoy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
First, having special envoy status strengthens the role. Many countries around the world have employed ambassadors and they continue to make representations to Governments. Being at the heart of government, I believe that I will be able to influence policy on exactly the kind of points and issues that the noble Lord raises. I assure him that I have represented this particular area in my wider brief as Minister for Human Rights, and the ability to influence the direction of policy and statements that are made is an immense privilege. To do that within government as well as being an envoy to the Prime Minister will, I believe, open further doors.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I completely accept the ability of the noble Lord to wear many hats and I think everyone in this House will admire the way that he has carried out his previous responsibilities. But the key here—he is absolutely right—is that it is a cross-Westminster, cross-departmental responsibility. Can he tell us a little more about how as a Minister for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office he will ensure that there is co-ordination across Westminster and Whitehall departments to ensure the effective implementation of this policy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
That is a very important question and I assure the noble Lord that that will happen both in terms of ministerial engagement and with officials. We are currently setting up the structures on a cross-departmental basis. There is already strong working between DfID and the Foreign Office. But I want to extend that further from a local government perspective in terms of the initiatives domestically and in education. In that regard, I shall be meeting my noble friends Lord Bourne and Lord Bates later today to discuss the framework. That ministerial engagement will happen on a regular basis.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, I also recognise the excellent work that his predecessors, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Warsi and Lady Anelay, from this House have done on inter-faith relations. I am glad that he recognises the links between the domestic agenda and the international agenda. Does he see part of his role to explain to significant foreign Governments the extent to which what happens in their countries spills over within Britain, whether it be the actions of fundamentalist Christian groups in the United States or fundamentalist Muslim groups in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord speaks from his own wide experience and I pay tribute to his work during the coalition Government in this respect. He is of course right. I join in his acknowledgement of the role that both my predecessors, my noble friends Lady Anelay and Lady Warsi, played in strengthening this role. We should be proud of the fact that we in the UK have incredible diversity of communities, of faith and of those with no faith. That is not something that we hold back from. It is an incredible strength that we have in our incredible nation and we need to protect it.
It is right that we raise these important issues bilaterally with Governments elsewhere. But I also believe, as I said in my original Answer, that working with colleagues across your Lordships’ House and in the other place, strengthening the role of civil society and of faith players in what we do domestically and internationally, will be a vital part of how we can strengthen and consolidate our position on standing up for all beliefs and none, not just in the UK but around the world.
Housing: Short-Term Lets
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that people offering their properties for short-term or holiday lets have a legal right to do so under their freehold or leasehold agreements or any other legal restrictions on the use of their properties.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I should mention my interests as set out in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, individual leases and tenancy agreements are matters for landlords and tenants. Where permission under the contract is required to sublet but is not obtained, landlords have legal routes to enforce the contract. Yesterday I met again representatives of the Short Term Accommodation Association and strongly encouraged them to continue their progress on driving up standards and promoting industry best practice. I continue to encourage my noble friend to meet the STAA, and I am pleased to hear that it has been in contact with her to discuss her concerns.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in wishing my noble friend a happy birthday earlier this week, and hope she will enjoy many more.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Recently he told the House about a scheme introduced by Westminster City Council which is going quite well. Can he give us an update on that situation and tell us whether any borough can now apply for the right to introduce a similar scheme? If not, when will they be able to do so?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend is correct to say that considerable progress has been made between the Short Term Accommodation Association and Westminster City Council on sharing information. There is a legal issue involving the Data Protection Act, which lawyers are working through, but, as I say, progress has been made. The Short Term Accommodation Association has also issued to residents in Westminster a “considerate nightly letting charter” to describe best practice, a document many noble Lords may have seen. The Short Term Accommodation Association wants to talk to other London boroughs. I think it has been in touch with the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which I know is my noble friend’s borough, and yesterday its representatives were due to meet with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets as well to discuss these issues.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, on holiday lets, does the Minister accept that under the system being used by most local authorities there is the potential for extensive fraud, with the bill being picked up by the ordinary taxpayer? Will the Government look into this and take action to stop the process currently being used?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I am due to meet the noble Lord to discuss some of his concerns and I look forward to that. I am not sure, but I think he is probably referring to tax treatment. We are certainly looking at tax issues in this area and related to second homes more widely. My honourable friend Rishi Sunak, the Minister in the other place, is currently looking at this. Again, I look forward to discussing some of the noble Lord’s individual concerns.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister tell the House when the Rough Sleeping and Homelessness Reduction Taskforce last met? Further, will he ask it to consider the impact of Airbnb on homelessness, given that it has been estimated by Inside Airbnb that in London alone, nearly a quarter of secure tenancies that could be available are now affected by Airbnb?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I will have to write to the noble Baroness on the precise date of the last meeting of the Rough Sleeping Advisory Panel. I know that it is active in looking at these issues, but I will give the noble Baroness an update on the position and place a copy of that letter in the Library.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, does not this problem require a rather different approach? Should the planning system not be given the powers and necessary funding to ensure that the abuses which have so often been raised by the indefatigable noble Baroness and others in this Chamber can be dealt with?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, on planning, the position at the moment throughout the country, except in London, is that it is open to householders to provide short-term accommodation in their homes, so there is no particular planning issue on that point. As regards London, as I have said previously, there is an enforcement power that lies with London boroughs which has been used, probably on many occasions, to prevent issues coming to court. As the noble Lord will appreciate, there is also in leases in appropriate cases, as exemplified by cases such as Nemcova, the opportunity for landlords to enforce the provisions. If there is a wider issue in this regard, I would be very happy to engage with the noble Lord, but I am not convinced that there is.
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that under the European Commission, Airbnb is in contradiction of consumer rights? Is he prepared to tell us what the Government’s stand on that is?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what he does in this area and more widely on homelessness and housing issues. I am not quite sure what he is getting at when he says that the European Commission has drawn attention to Airbnb being in breach of a particular provision. If it is, I am sure it will face the full rigour of European law in so far as it would apply. I am convinced that Airbnb is acting totally within our laws, as are other short-term accommodation providers. We are trying to ensure that they can share information; as I say, that is an issue relating to the Data Protection Act. If they are unable to do that and if the lawyers cannot crack the problem, we would have to look at the necessity of amending the law. From what I hear, I believe we will not need to do that.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, the remit of the Law Commission is to ensure that the law is fair. It has just done some excellent work on leasehold reform. Is there not a remit for it here? Could it not intervene in some way to examine the extent to which planning law is working?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I absolutely agree that the Law Commission does excellent work, as the noble Lord informed us. Being independent, it comes up with its own programme and the Government react accordingly. If the Law Commission feels that there is a job to be done here, we will await its work in this area.
Railways: Transport for the North
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Scriven
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to grant powers to Transport for the North to manage all Northern railway infrastructure.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Transport for the North became the first statutory subnational transport body in England on 1 April, taking on a strengthened role as a statutory partner in advising the Secretary of State on national rail investment and taking over the co-management of the Northern and TransPennine Express rail franchises. TfN can seek approval for additional powers if it can demonstrate, with consent from its members, that they can be exercised more effectively and efficiently.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Does he agree with many people in the north that with regular cancellations, two-carriage trains, dangerously busy trains at peak times, reductions in service and overall poor management and treatment of customers, the franchise given to Arriva Northern needs to be either split up or taken away altogether?
Lord Young of Cookham
Having sat through previous exchanges, I am well aware of the anger in the north at the disruption to services following the introduction of the new timetable. The top priority has to be the stabilisation and restoration of the services to which people are entitled. On the noble Lord’s question about the franchise, the Government have instituted a review that will be completed by the end of the month to see to what extent GTR and Northern were in breach of their contracts. A range of sanctions are available if that turns out to be the case. My initial view is that much of the problems in the north was due to Network Rail being late with infrastructure and late in delivering the timetable. We must await the outcome. So far as splitting the franchise is concerned, the franchise is due to run for some time. There is a real risk of further disruption if the franchise were to be taken back on board now and then split. The top priority is to get stability, and then to make further progress with the substantial investment that is now planned by the Government.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that although Network Rail was late with its electrification of one route, many other faults have contributed to the present problem? Some very good people in Network Rail are trying to do some enhancements on the east-west route, which should be applauded. My worry, which I put to the noble Lord, is that Transport for the North needs to decide what it wants, and its members need to decide what services they want. I have had many discussions with them and, as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, I am very concerned that they are trying to cut out rail freight going across the Pennines in order to get one or two more passenger trains. They should look at the whole thing in the round and then talk to Network Rail about what is possible and come up with a coherent plan—which they do not have at the moment.
Lord Young of Cookham
The noble Lord makes a very good point. We have a national network and it is crucial that we preserve its coherence and integrity. That is one reason why one cannot devolve entirely responsibility for infrastructure to Transport for the North—the very reason given by the noble Lord. On what TfN wants to do, it has been there for only three and a half months. Looking at its business plan, it is now in the process of starting work this financial year on the business case for further devolution. As I said in my initial reply, if it wants more powers, the Government are very happy to look at that, but having given it responsibility under the statutory instrument, it is now up to TfN to come up with a statutory plan, advise the Secretary of State and, if it wants to, bid for more powers.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend not now accept, in the midst of all this muddle of competing authorities between one person and another and one board and another, that what is desperately needed is to put the ownership of the track and of the trains in the same body, whether it is in the public or the private sector?
Lord Young of Cookham
My noble friend makes a good point: that it is important to bring responsibility for the trains and responsibility for the track closer together. If he looks at the proposals in, for example, the north, he will see that Network Rail is now setting up a board there to work closely with the train operating companies and the passengers to integrate train and track. However, I am sure that my noble friend is not proposing major primary legislation to undo the privatisation for which I and others bear some responsibility.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister referred to east-west links across the Pennines. He might have seen the campaign launched in the north of England in February to reopen the Hellifield link, which I raised with him on a previous occasion. That link would restore passenger services on a line used every day for freight, for the first time since 1962. It would link Lancashire with Yorkshire and open up the possibilities of daily travel services to Skipton, Leeds and further north to Bradford, but also to Carlisle and Lancaster. Is that not something that could be done at relatively low cost that would make a huge difference to the connectivity of the northern areas?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am sure that the noble Lord is right, but one of the things TfN has responsibility for doing is to look at the various bids in the north and come up with a list of priorities. If, when it does that, it puts the scheme that the noble Lord referred to right at the top of its priorities, that would carry weight with the Secretary of State.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, would it not be a better solution to have a coherent system of devolution of powers, including transport, to all the regions of England? Will the Government look at this? If they do not do it soon I can assure them that it will be brought in by a Labour Government. The way things are going, that cannot be far away.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, we have not had to wait for a Labour Government to devolve major powers to, for example, Manchester and other parts of the country. We have introduced metro mayors and combined authorities. We will continue to do that. People will not have to wait for this illusory dream that the noble Lord just referred to.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, following the surprisingly interesting intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will the Minister agree that privatisation of the railways has been an unmitigated disaster and the worst example of any large country in Europe of a very badly run system? Is it not now time for radical solutions, as we warned as MPs at the time when the noble Lord was one of the Ministers in charge of railway privatisation in the Commons in the early 1990s? What we now need is root-and-branch reform, with public ownership of the railway system itself but with private investors as well.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am very glad that my franchise runs out after seven and a half minutes. I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord. We have seen a doubling of passenger traffic on the railways. Crucially, we have created a railway operating industry, which we never had before. We had a monopoly with British Rail. If it was not any good there was nothing you could do about it. We now have competing train operating companies and we have unlocked private investment in infrastructure. I wholly reject the negative proposition that my former noble friend put forward.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, with rail passengers’ satisfaction with their journeys falling, the Commons Public Accounts Committee describing the Department for Transport’s management of two major franchises as completely inadequate, the Department for Transport admitting its part in the current new timetable shambles as a sponsor of the Thameslink programme and a member of the Thameslink Industry Readiness Board, and with the Secretary of State’s decision that an independent inquiry into the Thameslink 2018 new timetable problems is to be conducted by the Office of Rail and Road and led by the chairman of the Office of Rail and Road, with two out of five members also being members of the board of the Office of Rail and Road, while the role of the ORR is one of the matters to be assessed, does this not show the need to get more local, regional and accountable decision-making over our fragmented railway network to mitigate the damaging effect of the involvement of the current Secretary of State?
Lord Young of Cookham
I reject the implication from the noble Lord that somehow the ORR is not the right body to do this. It is an independent body with the detailed knowledge of the railway industry that is needed; it was not directly involved in the timetable; it is supported by a panel of, I think, five independent members; and I think they are the right people to look at the role of all those involved in the recent debacle over the timetable. It will produce an interim report in September and a final report in December and I hope that, when it comes out, the noble Lord will feel that he might review the negative criticisms he has made of the composition of the body.
Broadband Speed
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s place in the annual ranking of global broadband speed and of the impact of low broadband speeds on the United Kingdom’s ability to compete globally after Brexit.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I believe that the right reverend Prelate refers to the recent cable annual ranking; however, broadband in the UK is far better than suggested in the report. Ofcom recently found that average download speeds in the UK are more than 46 Mbps and, thanks to £1.7 billion of public investment, superfast broadband is available to more than 95% of premises in the UK, which is one of the best rates in the world.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
I thank the Minister for his reply. Having said that, it is not just about the levels we are at; it is the fact that we have dropped down the league—that is the point about this report. We were 31st in global broadband speeds; we are now, just one year later, 35th. We lag behind countries such as Madagascar, Latvia, Bulgaria and so on. We need access to full fibre if we are to get ahead in the technological revolution post Brexit. Therefore, will the Minister explain to the House why currently just 4% of premises are connected to full fibre and why the Government have failed even to set a date to respond to the National Infrastructure Commission report, which has set out a pathway to achieving nationwide full fibre access by 2033?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The right reverend Prelate is certainly right to highlight full fibre, because it is the way forward. The House will know that in May 2018 the Chancellor announced the Government’s full fibre rollout, the plan being for 15 million premises to be connected by 2025 and for a nationwide network by 2033. Full fibre will enable speeds of more than 100 Mbps. DCMS will publish a report shortly in response to the report that the right reverend Prelate raised, setting out how we will reach these targets.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, is not the problem with this issue the USO, which the Minister has not so far mentioned? It is hopelessly unambitious at 10 Mbps; it settles for fibre to the cabinet, not fibre to the premises; and it uses a hopeless metric of properties connected— the noble Viscount just mentioned that—thereby disadvantaging SMEs, people living in flats and terraced houses and those in rural areas. Can he confirm that he is backing the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s other call this week, which is to switch off every copper phone line in the UK so as to force telecom firms to improve their rural broadband speeds?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I had not heard that, but, in relation to the USO, it is very much a safety net, as the noble Lord will know. It is a legal right for those who have not got suitable broadband coverage to have a minimum of 10 Mbps. The statistics show that 3% of premises will be eligible for the USO, which is a lot less than was originally anticipated.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, does the UK’s place in the global broadband rankings take account of service inside the Palace of Westminster? Could the powers that be consider encouraging the appropriate House authority to ensure that wireless internet boosters are better placed, in order to provide appropriate service?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I shall certainly take that back and ensure that it is included. The opportunity has been given to me to say that the UK compares well with member states in the EU in terms of overall connectivity. We rank seventh, ahead of large member states such as Germany, France and Italy.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend acknowledge that an increasing number of innovative businesses, which can contribute greatly in the future to the wealth of our country, are situated in remote rural areas, often in disused farm buildings? It is very important that we speed up the connection of full fibre broadband to rural and isolated communities.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend is right. An additional £30 million of funding is available through Defra, which has allocated grant funding from the Rural Development Programme for England, targeted at helping the very businesses that my noble friend has raised to be sure that they have proper broadband coverage.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
Picking up on that question, does the Minister not agree that hard- to-reach rural communities will lose out because of the £3,400 cost cap placed on the USO provision arrangements? Are people in such areas to be denied broadband access or do the Government have a cunning plan?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The cunning plan, to reassure the noble Baroness, is perhaps in the marvellously worded “barrier-busting task force”. This is designed to help relax planning laws and to roll out, particularly in rural areas, faster broadband.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend extend the voucher scheme for rural areas which is due to expire on 31 December and be mindful of the rural businesses in North Yorkshire that do not reach even 2 Mbps and are currently taking advantage of the scheme?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I reassure my noble friend that in places that my noble friend has alluded to the minimum megabit per second legal obligation will come into force.
Business of the House
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Tuesday 4 September to allow the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.
European Union Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
Employment and Support Allowance
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, by leave of the House, I shall repeat as a Statement an Answer given to an Urgent Question in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, in 2017 my department identified an error that had resulted in some claimants being underpaid employment and support allowance between 2011 and 2014 while their claim was being converted from incapacity benefit, a legacy disability payment. The department proactively informed the House of this problem in December 2017 through a Written Statement before briefing the media.
On 15 March this year, I tabled a Statement setting out how this work to correct the underpayments was progressing. I explained that the department would supply 400 staff for this exercise to ensure that we identified as quickly as possible any cases where underpayment had occurred.
Yesterday, I tabled a further Statement to confirm that this work is now under way. Staff are reviewing cases, contacting claimants and making payments; so far, we have paid out more than £40 million in arrears.
As outlined in yesterday’s Statement, the department has analysed the relationship between “official error” and Section 27 of the Social Security Act 1998 in regulating how and to what point in time arrears can be paid out. As a result of this analysis, we will now pay arrears to those affected back to their date of conversion to ESA. Where we have already corrected cases by paying backdated arrears up to 21 October 2014, we will review these cases again and pay any additional arrears that are due prior to that date.
As planned, my department will be contacting all those we have identified as potentially affected. Once an individual is contacted and the relevant information gathered, they can expect to receive any backdated payments within 12 weeks. Once contacted, individuals are provided with a dedicated free phone line on which they can contact the department to discuss their claim”.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer—another day, another DWP mistake. Back in 2011, 70,000 sick and disabled people were underpaid thousands of pounds after they had been migrated from incapacity benefit to contributory-based employment support allowance, without the possibility being recognised that they had paid enough stamps to entitle them to non-contributory ESA. The result was to deny them access to additional premia that they might have been able to get had the Government done that correctly.
The error here is that the Government have now accepted their mistake but have decided that people’s payments could be backdated only to 2014, because in 2014 a tribunal judgment made it clear that the Government had been doing this the wrong way. Yet again, therefore, it took a small charity to go to court to judicially review the department. And yet again, at the very last minute the DWP caves in and says, “Fair enough, we will now backdate payments to 2011”.
This raises a couple of questions. The scale is enormous: the National Audit Office said that the decision not to go back before October 2014 would have resulted in that group of disabled claimants losing out to the tune of between £100 million and £150 million. Individuals might be entitled to up to £10,000 of wrongly underpaid benefits.
There is a pattern to this. Six reviews are in progress to identify disabled people who may be entitled to back-payments, five as a result of legal cases against the Government. I therefore have two questions for the Government. First, why did it yet again take a tiny charity—the CPAG, to which I pay tribute—to use money donated to it to go to court to get Ministers to do the right thing? Secondly, there is the systemic issue: the PAC, in its report on ESA, and the NAO, in its report on universal credit, described a department that was defensive when dealing with outside organisations, and unwilling to listen to warnings about problems that were occurring. What steps, therefore, is the Minister’s department taking to make sure that in future it listens to warnings—from inside and outside—and does not wait until someone takes it to court?
Baroness Buscombe
I thank the noble Baroness for her response. I turn straightaway to her point about restricting—as it were—the payments. Initially the department believed that we were legally restricted to calculating repayments from 2014 due to a statutory rule—Section 27 of the Social Security Act 1998—which governs the position with regard to payment of arrears when a court of tribunal finds that the department has made an error of law. Following a thorough investigation, however, we realised that this interpretation was incorrect. We have made this very clear in previous Statements to the House and we have made it clear that we have been working extremely hard to do everything we can to correct a mistake that should never have been made in the first place. We believed, however, that the law prevented our paying benefit back to the date of conversion. We now understand that we can do that. We have listened to a range of opinions, including those of the CPAG, undertaken a thorough investigation of the legal position and realised that the law that dictated that we could not do this in the first place was wrong.
We want to be sure, therefore, that we pay back everything that is owed. I would add that the staff have been working extremely hard to put this right and to help everybody who may have lost out from these payments since the whole process of migrating people from incapacity benefit to ESA began in 2008.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the reduction in the departmental expenditure limit that the DWP has experienced over the past five to 10 years has not contributed to this error? She has just said that the DWP is now putting 400 staff on the case. I have a serious concern about the extent to which staff shortages are occasioning these massive administrative blunders that cause not just inconvenience but serious financial difficulty to large numbers of the population. Can she confirm that passported benefits will also be paid by way of compensation, because some of the people who have been left out in these underpayments have also lost out on free dentistry, NHS treatment, travel and free school meals, to the extent that it would accumulate to large sums of money each year, in addition to not getting the benefits to which they are entitled?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, let me make it clear that we do not believe that this is attributable to staff reductions at the Department for Work and Pensions. We still have over 70,000 employees. We have also been working hard to do more since 2010. Since this Government came to power, we have spent £5.4 billion a year more than we were doing in 2010 to support people with disabilities. We continue to do so while upping our game and, yes, demanding more from our employees, who are working extremely hard. That is to ensure that we have the proper resource and the staff to make sure that we can review all these cases at pace. We have already started making payments—over £40 million in arrears so far—so we are doing everything we can to ensure that people get the support they are entitled to and at pace.
Based on my meetings with the Minister of State for Disability and our Permanent Secretary, who made a robust case for delivery by our department in front of the Public Accounts Committee last week, I can say that the department is working hard. Yes, we are doing more, so noble Lords could say we are a little stretched, but we are proud of what we are doing and delivering. We want to get this right. On passporting benefits over to UC, we are making sure that people will not lose out in what they are entitled to.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, in the part of Gwent where I was born, the letters “dwp” form a word. It is pronounced “dup” and means stupid or daft. Could that account for why the accounting officer at the Department for Work and Pensions says that he does not understand all the letters that his office sends to claimants? If the author of the letters does not understand them, how on earth are the claimants supposed to do so?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I hear noble Lords laughing but this is no laughing matter. I take great exception to the suggestion that I am working for anything that could be described as a dump. I am the lead Minister for the correspondence that goes out to claimants and we work through that correspondence with a fine-toothed comb to make sure it is in clear English, polite, responsive and on time. Since I have been in office, we have been at 100% in terms of our timing. We are doing everything we can to support so many people, particularly those with disabilities and health conditions, to improve and transform their lives. I therefore will not listen to the noble Lord talking about—
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, no, somebody in the department may have said something but, as far as I am concerned, I am proud to work for the Department for Work and Pensions.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I am sure that most of the House accepts what the Minister says: the department is working extremely hard and trying very hard to get these things right. I do not think that is in doubt, but is it not also the case that each of these underpayments affects the quality of life of a very vulnerable person? Sometimes that degree of distress undermines their quality of life. Can the Minister continue to do all she can to ensure we all recognise that at the end of this process is somebody who will be much damaged by underpayments of this kind?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his question, which gives me an opportunity to say that my honourable friend in another place, the Minister of State for Disabled People, Health and Work, is working tirelessly not only to do the job but to do so in an exemplary fashion. She absolutely understands that each individual life is affected when we get it wrong—where there is a mistake. As she said in another place only an hour ago, one mistake is one too many. But the reality is that we are working hard and we have wonderful staff who are very proud of what they do.
I am a little afraid of saying this in case it is misunderstood but, on underpayments, I should be clear that no one suffered a cash loss. We did not take any money away. That does not excuse the mistake that was made. The reality is that we needed to ensure that underpayments from the transfer were corrected as quickly as possible, and we continue to do so.
Higher Education
Lord Norton of Louth
That this House takes note of the value to the United Kingdom of higher education as an export.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to move this Motion. I declare my interests as professor of government at the University of Hull and chair of the Higher Education Commission, a body that draws together academics, parliamentarians and figures in business and education. The commission has just concluded a study of this very topic and will be publishing its report in September.
The export of higher education refers to transactions between UK residents and non-residents. In economic terms, it covers the income from overseas students studying in the UK as well as the income from students studying at overseas campuses and centres established by UK institutions of higher education. The economic benefit to the nation is enormous. However, the benefit extends beyond the economic to the educational and the political, and I shall address each in turn. As an export, higher education is a success story, but there are challenges. On the surface we may look in a strong position, but that position is under threat. I wish to identify the problems and what steps may be taken to protect our world status.
Higher education contributes massively to the British economy. It is not just the fees paid by students who come to the UK to study but also the money spent while here. There are different models for estimating the contribution to the UK economy. The recent analysis by the Higher Education Policy Institute and Kaplan International Pathways estimates that the net impact of a cohort of first-year international students over the period of their study is in excess of £20 billion. Given various omissions such as tax and national insurance contributions, the report concedes that this figure is likely an underestimate. In terms of transnational education, TNE—that is, the delivery of programmes in a country outside the UK—there has been a notable increase in the student intake. According to DfE figures, the revenue brought into the UK in 2015 from TNE was £1.7 billion, a substantial sum although a fraction of the income achieved from overseas students in the UK. Our universities need overseas students and so do the towns and cities in which universities are based. Income contributes to local employment. Spending by overseas students may make the difference between success and failure of commercial areas adjacent to university campuses.
Whichever model one takes, it is apparent that higher education is a major exporter, benefiting the UK economy significantly. This is recognised by the Government, who are keen to see the value of international higher education reach £30 billion by 2020. However, as we shall see, they are pursuing policies that militate against achieving that goal rather than facilitating it.
The value of overseas students studying in the UK is not just economic. Overseas students bring a range of experience and perspectives that can add value to courses. That is a good in itself, but their presence is essential to making some courses viable. That is especially the case at postgraduate level. According to HESA data, in 2016-17 more than 40% of postgraduate research students were from overseas. The majority of all postgraduate research students in physical science STEM subjects are non-UK citizens. There is a marked dependence in some of our leading research universities on overseas postgraduate students.
The benefit is also political. Studying in the UK builds up a body of good will towards the United Kingdom. The export of higher education is arguably the biggest contributor to UK soft power around the globe. The Committee on Soft Power and the UK’s Influence, in its report Persuasion and Power in the Modern World, observed that students,
“gain exposure to ‘UK norms and cultural values’”,
and are overwhelmingly,
“‘positively orientated’ towards the UK”.
Graduates of UK universities are to be found around the globe, occupying leading positions in business and government. They constitute a valuable and, indeed, unmatched resource for the United Kingdom. However, there are problems. One should not be misled by the increase in enrolment in recent years. We are already losing out to our competitors—they are outstripping us in the recruitment market—and the situation is likely to get worse in future years. It depends how you crunch the numbers, but it is possible that Australia has already overtaken the United Kingdom as the number two destination, after the United States, for overseas students. There are clear indicators that we are beginning to lose out to the USA, Australia and Canada, which are aggressively recruiting overseas students.
Between 2011-12 and 2015-16, enrolments in the UK increased, but only by 0.8%. In the same period, global mobility grew by 16.6%. An increase in enrolment by Chinese students has masked a fall in students coming from other nations, not least India. Since 2006-07, there has been a 45% fall in enrolment by Indian students. Dependence on Chinese students is not sustainable, given that the 18 to 22 year-old population in China is set to decline over the next decade. Chinese universities are also developing and may attract students to study at home. In short, unless action is taken, we are going to see our competitors further outstrip us and we are going to jeopardise the benefits that derive from the export of higher education. That is a threat to the economy, our HE system and our global influence.
What, then, are the reasons for failing to keep up with our competitors? The excellent Library briefing for the debate highlights three principal issues. The first is including overseas students in the migration figures. We are told that there is no cap on the number of students who can be recruited, but they are included in the migration figures, which the Government are committed to reducing. Two justifications have been offered by the Home Office for keeping overseas students in the migration figures. One is that it is complying with the UN definition of migration. That is not a compelling argument; it is not the universal practice to adopt that definition and there is no obvious political case for doing so. Survey data show that the public recognise the difference between migrants and overseas students and are not opposed to separating them.
The second reason relates to overseas students as consumers. A few years ago, I was chairing a meeting of the All-Party Parliamentary University Group addressed by the then Immigration Minister, who argued that students should remain in the migration figures because, like others who moved to the UK, they consumed health and other public services. However, as a member of the audience immediately pointed out, the difference is that students pay to be here. Another difference is that they go home after they have graduated. Again, a few years ago I met some ambassadors from Gulf states who were keen to make the point that 100% of their young people who came to study in the UK returned home after graduating.
The second problem listed in the briefing is arguably just as, if not more, important than including students in the migration figures, and that is in the form of post-study work visas. The 2012 changes have impacted upon recruitment, putting the UK at a notable disadvantage in the international market. The modifications since have caused as many problems as they have solved. Our competitors offer much more attractive opportunities to undertake post-study work. As the report cited in the Library briefing concludes, the changes in the visa arrangements have impacted undergraduate recruitment negatively and significantly.
Then there is the third problem: withdrawal from the European Union. This has created uncertainty as to the position of non-UK EU students who are already in the UK and those who may be contemplating applying. The Government are alert to the problem, but it is not clear how they propose to ensure that we remain attractive to EU students. The Migration Advisory Committee has been commissioned to provide an assessment of EU and international students. The Government White Paper released last week refers to reciprocal arrangements to,
“facilitate mobility for students and young people”,
but it is not clear what the position will be for students from EU member states wishing to start courses at UK universities from 2020 onwards. The Government recognise the challenges, but it is not yet apparent how they intend to meet them. The longer the uncertainty, the greater the difficulties for UK universities in attracting students from 27 nations to study in the UK.
What, then, are some of the steps that can be taken to protect and enhance the export of higher education? There is a case for working cross-departmentally to develop and implement a strategy for enhancing the export of higher education. There need to be improved post-study work options and streamlined visa processes to put us at least on a par with our competitors. We should roll out an improved tier 4 pilot, based on recruiting from target countries. The current pilot has caused significant problems, suggesting that some universities are to be trusted and others not. We should reduce the burdens placed on tier 4 sponsors. There is also a strong case for the UK to set a target for international student intake, as other countries have done, and measure progress against the target.
Essentially, a fundamental culture shift on the part of the Home Office is required. There needs to be a major enhancement of the Britain is GREAT campaign by the Department for International Trade, the British Council and the Department for Education to ensure that the message goes out that the UK not only welcomes international students, but values them and is prepared to match its competitors in generating an attractive environment in which to study. I have also previously suggested that more of DfID’s budget should be given over to providing educational vouchers that would enable qualified students from developing countries to study at UK universities. After graduation, the students would go home to help the development of their country. This constitutes an investment in the home country, clearly of benefit to that country, as well as of benefit to UK higher education and the UK’s global reputation. Chevening Scholarships provide a valuable example of what we can do. It would also be a plus for DfID in that there would be a clear audit trail.
It will be helpful to have confirmation from my noble friend Lord Younger that the Government are alert to the problems—the serious problems—and to hear from him what concrete plans the Government have to create a strong, attractive environment for those who wish to benefit from higher education in the United Kingdom. How exactly will the Government ensure that we match the United States, Australia and Canada in recruiting overseas students, to the benefit of the British economy, UK higher education, and the United Kingdom’s global influence? I beg to move.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, whose experience and reputation in this field are outstanding. I declare an interest in that I was once the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. It is an interest only in the sense that I was in a position to deal with the complaints that we received from international students.
Year by year, complaints from international students were higher in number than their proportion of UK students as a whole, so we started to look into why that was, and how our universities might be falling short in serving them. For that reason, I propose to concentrate today on the experience that we offer international students. Much has been and will be said about visa problems—I note that they are acute—but, even if they are resolved, we will not continue to be number one in attracting foreign students, which we are, unless we offer them a teaching and social experience that lives up to our reputation, and makes their stay here worthwhile.
Visas and formalities must be made student-friendly. From the numbers point of view, the experience may be more of an issue than the visas. One-third of our over 440,000 international students are Chinese. Some 42% of our postgraduates are from non-EU countries; our non-EU students outnumber those from the EU by nearly 3:1. Applications from EU students rose by 3.6% in 2018. We have a plentiful pool of students from around the world. The Chinese supply is almost inexhaustible—for now—regardless of Brexit. The clue to our attraction lies in the nature of our universities. British universities are superb in their attention to every single student with all their problems—unlike the failings reported to me by students who went to Europe and found relatively poor support and accommodation.
The USA is the first choice for British students wanting to go abroad, so it is not wholly visas and money that determine the traffic but language, high reputation and experience—albeit that scholarships are attractive, as they need to be here, too. The traffic is many times higher in students coming here. Where would an able EU student go, if not here? There is not a single non-British EU university in the Times Higher Education ranking of universities until you get to about number 34. Even if the fees go up, the choice for a bright EU student will remain the UK or the USA, where the visa problems and expense are most likely even greater. I am not saying we should be complacent—far from it. There is evidence that we are not treating our foreign students as we should, and our reputation could vanish if we do not improve it.
Our universities need to understand that foreign students, however bright, may have been raised in an entirely different teaching culture. We assume that Asian students, for example, must know the norms of English academic writing. Little training is given and they are expected to follow our habits of citation and referencing, to be critical of professors, and to be competitive rather than collaborative, as they may have been in, for example, China. Universities here need to be sensitive to the influence on foreign students of culture, language, identity, knowledge and their peers, and not to be too ready to accuse them of plagiarism. The solution is more mentoring and induction when they arrive, having checked that their command of the English language is good enough, which is sometimes not the case. Universities have to help foreign students settle in, whether that is by means of alcohol-free freshers’ weeks—which frankly would be advantageous for all students—buddy schemes, arriving in the same week as home students, which is a good idea, mingling with them in accommodation, and in general doing everything to avoid segregation into national groups, which happens when there are significant numbers arriving from one country and they are not integrated as soon as they arrive. London colleges are particularly problematic, with their scattered campuses, high travel costs and concentration of foreign students in large groups.
Universities need to make honest promises to overseas students and have direct communication with them. Sometimes they are recruited to come here by intermediary agents whose aim is to attract as many as possible, and who may promise undeliverable studies. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator used to get complaints that foreign students would come here to study with a particular professor, only to find, when they arrived, that he or she had gone on sabbatical, or even died. Sometimes they complained that equipment promised and needed for scientific research was broken or not available, or that universities were not helpful with visa and financial issues. Promoting inclusive societies and clubs is very effective in settling international students and making them feel welcome. We must avoid making them think that, once they have paid their fees, they are not of much interest.
What do we do for students who cannot afford to go back to their home countries in the vacation and who know nobody here? I draw attention to the valuable work of an organisation called HOST UK. It is a charity with a UK-wide network of some 1,500 volunteer families who welcome overseas students into their homes for short visits at weekends and over festive seasons. It is the only nationwide organisation providing this much-needed service of integrating overseas students into the community. The benefits of those HOST visits for the UK, in terms of promoting international friendship and building new relationships for the future, are incalculable. The welcoming of international students will become even more important following our withdrawal from the EU as part of the process of building new international relationships. Will the Government undertake to maintain and increase support for HOST UK through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office?
Sadly, I met a student from Paris recently, who told me that he and several classmates had decided to study in London to escape the anti-Semitism rampant in French universities. For example, earlier this year the Jewish student building at the Panthéon-Sorbonne campus was vandalised. He said that he was upset to find that the atmosphere was as bad, if not worse, at his London college. I have spoken about this before, and your Lordships will know that fears of anti-Semitism, especially associated with universities and the Labour Party, are worldwide news, and will deter some from coming here, albeit a small number. It needs to be tackled.
The UK is one of the world's leading study destinations because of the first-class experience that our universities can and must continue to offer. The International Student Barometer finds the UK number one for overall satisfaction, reputation and quality, employability, making good contacts, quality lectures, laboratories, and a supportive environment. Indeed, one might call it “the highest level of special”—had that phrase not already been commandeered by someone else.
Foreign students are valuable to us not merely as an export, and we must hope they never see themselves in that light alone. They are valuable because they bring their diverse talents to enrich the home student body and because of the research they do. Oxford University spin-outs have an estimated turnover of £600 million annually; 45% of the founders or co-founders are from outside the UK, as are 77% of the founders of start-ups. We need to reach out to our foreign students, graduates and researchers with financial assistance. I need only mention the astonishing success of the Rhodes scholars, who now come from a wider range of countries; the scholarships offered by Oxford, for example, to Indian and Russian students; the Gates scholarships at Cambridge; the Weidenfeld-Hoffmann scholarships offered at Oxford; the joint collaboration between Oxford and Chinese students in biotechnology and health; and the work on tropical diseases with researchers from the Far East. We want them because they take home a good impression of the UK which we hope will last a lifetime.
Will the Government maintain and increase scholarships for international students—such as, the Chevening and Commonwealth Scholarships—as the benefits clearly outweigh the costs? Will the Government also pursue full associate country status with Horizon Europe to keep the research flow going? The foreign students are our friends and collaborators; they have enriched us in the past and we owe them a great deal. We know what it feels like, because I am sure that many of your Lordships, like me, have been foreign students abroad. We appreciated those instances when we were made welcome and made lifelong friends, and came to love the countries where we studied.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and in doing so I declare my interests as set out in the register. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Norton on securing this debate. It is always an important time to talk about these issues. I also congratulate him on having developed one of the greatest government courses at university anywhere on the planet.
I also very much look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester. It is always good to know that more wisdom will be drifting up from the Bishops’ Benches to this Back-Bencher.
We have 10 minutes per speaker; in many ways, I could do this in 10 seconds. I say to my noble friend the Minister to take international students out of the net migration figures and, alongside that, end the visa vapidity.
I am fortunate to be chancellor of BPP University. We have hundreds of international students who come and enrich our student community every year. When they graduate, some stay; many go back to their home nations. Whether they stay or go, they make a positive contribution and 96% of them are in employment within six months of graduating from our institution. There are 58 current world leaders—Presidents or Prime Ministers—who studied at British universities. I say to my noble friend the Minister: are they not 58 good reasons why we should seriously consider our approach?
I have drawn previously in debates on the excellent words of Prime Minister Modi of India, who summed up this problem quite clearly: “You want our trade, you do not want our children”. The message that we want to send from Parliament, and the one that we should want to send as a Government, is that we want your trade but we also want your children. We want the brightest and the best from all around the Commonwealth, the European Community and the world to come and study and be part of our higher education communities and part of our country.
As my noble friend Lord Norton said, there is an educational case and there is absolutely an economic case. If one were to approach a Government Minister and offer her or him a £20 billion-plus boon for the British economy, that would be a pretty exciting proposition. We have that in international students. Furthermore, over 200,000 jobs are supported through this brilliant business.
Quite rightly, in the current situation we are looking at sector deals in aviation and automotive. Let us consider higher education, yes, for its educational good but also for its economic impact. We need to look no further than this House and this debate to see the benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, came as an international student. Can my noble friend the Minister consider curry without Cobra? If anything demonstrates the educational, economic, social and cultural benefits of international students, it is what the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has brought to this nation.
From the statistics we learn, which will not come as a surprise to most of us, that we do not have a problem of mass overstaying by international students, draining our public services and pulling our country down. Initially, you could not rely on the statistics because they were not comparing like for like. We all suspected there was not a problem. We now know categorically that there is not. What problem are the Government seeking to solve by continuing to include international students in the net migration statistics? As my noble friend Lord Norton put it, it does not cut it to say that there is no cap on international students if they are included in a statistic which the Government are making all efforts to bring down.
It is a difficult point to make, but I think that we need to face it: there is good immigration and there is less good immigration. However, what you need with any immigration policy is clarity, transparency and consistency, and none of the study data, research or surveys gives any reason for having international students in those net migration statistics. When it comes to visas, we do not need counsels of prevention; we need counsels of prudence.
As a nation and as a Government, we decide and choose—we can plot that path. We should say to all nations, individuals and young people, “Ignore the rhetoric. Ignore what you are hearing. Believe this, because this has to be the truth. As a nation, as higher education institutions, we want you and we need you. Come and be part of our academic communities. Come and be part of our cities. Come and be part of making a better and brighter Britain”.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my colleague and friend, the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on securing this debate and introducing it with characteristic eloquence and learning. I shall be succeeded in speaking by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester. I look forward to his maiden speech and welcome his presence in your Lordships’ House.
Whenever we talk about education, I am always a little worried and my worry has not been assuaged today. When we talk about education as an export and about competitors and markets, it all sounds like a civilised form of the slave trade. We are out there recruiting more and more students, and the question is: how can we make more money out of them? That is one way of looking at the issue. Happily, it is not the only way, but, sadly, it is one way in which to downgrade our higher education, thinking of higher education almost entirely in terms of how many students can be educated and how much money it can bring in.
I want to begin by alerting your Lordships to this danger and point out that the case for the presence of overseas students is not entirely or even exclusively economic; it is a fourfold case. It is based on economic grounds, obviously, but also on educational grounds, on soft power and on cultural grounds. Those are the grounds that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, briefly talked about, and I want to expatiate a little on them.
The economics are fairly simple. In 2016-17, we had 442,000 non-UK-domiciled students, of which 307,540 came from a non-EU background. If you take just first-year students and not the total number, the figures are even more striking: 235,315 were from overseas, and they made up 23% of all our first-year students. These students come from a variety of countries, but it is striking that China beats them all, with 66,415 students coming from there. The next largest cohort is from the US, with 10,885—noble Lords will see the difference between those figures. India comes third, with only 9,720 students, which is a fall from 12,280 four years earlier. It is also striking that 25% of all postgraduates are from overseas. If you look at certain areas such as business studies, the number goes up, and can be as high as 55%. In computer science, the number is as high as 42%. If one looks at the total on and off-campus contribution of these students, it comes to something like £25.8 billion, which is a massive contribution to our economy. It also creates just over 170,000 jobs. That is the economic case, which is obvious.
I turn now to the educational case. Of our academic staff, 28% were born overseas. In STEM subjects, 31% of our academic staff are from overseas. There are lots of research projects that simply would not continue unless overseas students were involved, and there are several courses that simply would not be taught if overseas people were not involved. That is the educational case, and I could go on.
The third case is soft power. As I have already told your Lordships, I do not like the term “soft power”: if it is too soft, it is not power; if it is power, it cannot be that soft. Nevertheless, using the accepted language, soft power means influencing people such that they think well of us—not in a flattering way, but in the sense of good will. Obviously, higher education achieves this. Students sit at the feet of masters. They learn a great deal and they go away thinking well of us. They establish international contacts and they go away and occupy important, high-up positions in their own country. As a result of that, they are able to oblige us in other areas when we need their help, and, in formulating the policies of their Government—economic, financial, political or other—they are able to think of our interests.
The fourth case for overseas students, and the one I am very keen on, is the cultural case. Each overseas student interacts with at least 20 to 25 local students and, in so doing, sensitises them to a different outlook, broadens their sympathies and helps to create a multicultural society to match the multicultural world in which we live. It also opens the minds of local students to the variety of human experiences and to how human beings can live and think very differently. It leads to new literary, artistic and culinary output: think of curry and Cobra—I must say that curry and Cobra is a good combination, but other traditions may be just as good. Foreign influences come in freely, interact with local factors and generate new fusions and new ways of looking at things. I know from my own experience as a professor of many years that lots of students from abroad come here largely because they think Britain is a multicultural country, where they will be able to interact with students from Africa, Asia and elsewhere. They would not find that sort of thing in many other European countries.
Given all the benefits of overseas students, why do we have reason to worry? Why are we debating the subject today? Here, I think the noble Lord, Lord Norton, put his finger on it. First, compared to other competitors, we are doing very badly. In India, for example, we have failed. I say this as one who was privileged to be vice-chancellor of a very large university in India for three years, and I regret that the great educational benefits we could confer on students from India are not available to them simply because they cannot meet our conditions.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, applications from Chinese students will decline in time. This is partly because China is smart at organising its universities—much better than India and many other countries. I know from my experience that it has built great universities, where a large number of Indian students go. In fact, some Indian doctors did not make it to Indian medical schools or British medical schools, but went to Chinese medical schools, learned in English and then went back to India. In dentistry, accountancy and other areas, Indian students are moving to China in large numbers.
Thirdly, the variety of students is shrinking. We used to get students from a variety of countries, but increasingly we find that, under the impact of our rules, the number of countries from which our overseas students come is in decline. There is also the influence of Empire. Three generations have gone since decolonisation took place and the Empire ended. The halo surrounding British universities has begun to decline and more and more students from India, Nigeria and elsewhere now think of American rather than British universities.
Given the kind of challenges that we face, what should we be doing? We can do a great deal and I want to run through half a dozen ideas. First, the whole business of including students in the immigration figures is ridiculous. Students do not come as immigrants. I came here 59 years ago as a student. I could have gone back but decided to stay on. I did not come as an immigrant and did not see myself as an immigrant.
Secondly, since 2012 the post-study work visa has been abolished. As a result, tier 4 students cannot work for two years after completing their studies and they feel that that is a hardship. A large number of Indian students are deterred precisely by this.
Thirdly, we need to increase the number of grants and scholarships to overseas students so that more of them are able to come. This is not a gift. If noble Lords look at the number of Indian doctors who come here, each one saves us around half a million pounds, because it costs that much to educate a doctor. We are getting these doctors free, fully trained, at the expense of the Indian taxpayer. If we can benefit from that in this way, surely we can increase the number of scholarships and grants to overseas students.
Fourthly, there must be a national strategy of the kind that France has, where they decided to double the number of students from India and China in the next two or three years. There has to be a national strategy.
We should also create a hospitable, not a hostile, environment for immigration—noble Lords know what I mean. A hostile environment discourages people. If they come here and do not benefit from either the state or our universities, then something has to be done. Our own universities have to be more proactive and put on imaginative courses that attract students from overseas. The experience of overseas students in our country must also improve, so that they can benefit from being here and do not suffer ill-treatment of any kind. I remember that an Indian student in Australia was badly treated and the result was that hundreds did not go. So it is important that students coming from overseas should be well treated.
Finally, there is the Indian diaspora of nearly 2 million people. What use are we making of this diaspora in attracting overseas students? There are ways in which that can be done and it has been done in Canada, such as by welcoming overseas students when they come, celebrating their festivals and enjoying their holidays, and in that way making them feel part of and integrating them into the local community.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I begin by recording my thanks for the welcome and encouragement that I have received both today and on so many occasions since being introduced into your Lordships’ House.
I came to the See of Chichester in 2012 after ministry in inner-city parishes in Plymouth and Leicester, as the priest administrator of the Shrine of Our Lady of Walsingham in Norfolk, a canon at St Paul’s Cathedral, and all-too-short a time in the diocese of York as Bishop of Whitby, which was always about more than Dracula and goths. In each context, the Church’s contribution to learning and the arts has been a significant element of my ministerial experience, perhaps exemplified most strikingly by the centuries-old work of St Paul’s Cathedral School, which today offers choristers a free education in music of an international standard. Many choristers have become professional musicians in adult life, sustaining and enriching Britain’s cultural life.
I often feel overwhelmed by the scale of this inheritance and by the best accomplishments of my predecessors. Bishop George Bell made Chichester famous for its contribution to learning and the arts, and he was building on solid foundations. In a tenure of just four years, his predecessor, the remarkable Bishop William Otter, established a teacher training college that has joined with another local institution to become the University of Chichester. Otter was inspired by the tradition of learning nurtured by Christian Europe, and from which, even post Brexit, the Church of England will continue to draw. His academic credentials lay in the founding of King’s College London in 1829 as an explicit expression of Christian commitment to higher education.
It is no accident that today the arts form a central part of the university’s life in Chichester, drawing on rich resources in the cathedral’s outstanding musical tradition, the art in Pallant House Gallery and the Chichester Festival Theatre, presently enjoying summer performances of “Me and My Girl”. The theatre runs a vibrant youth theatre for more than 800 people of school age. Its workshops for young people and adults with special needs represent a remarkable achievement of social inclusion.
This inheritance in Chichester demonstrates that in a creative, balanced and economically sound society, the arts, science, engineering and technology need each other. As we consider the value to the UK economy of higher education as an export, the Church of England, a foundational stakeholder in higher education, is also concerned with the quality and scope of the offer we make to overseas students. The Church of England holds fast to the question of what education is for, believing it right to ask how learning gives moral value to economic activity. It is right to pay constant attention to the flourishing of human life and society. Further, particularly with foreign students in mind, the work of our chaplaincies not only addresses their pastoral, emotional and financial needs, but also ensures the dignity of their access to religious worship, which is particularly important to their identity. The Church of England is of course also concerned with the right to nurture the wisdom that will govern well our stewardship of the earth.
The benefits of access to learning and the arts can and must be open to all, especially in areas of deprivation in this country, where they provide unique opportunities to combat some of the symptoms of social dislocation and its consequences, and to build greater levels of racial understanding. I was delighted to learn that it was back in the 1950s that the Glyndebourne Festival took a production of “Fidelio” into HMP Lewes as part of a rehabilitation programme for prisoners, seeking to build the social integration for which we still long.
However, the challenges to sustaining this access and integration through higher education are substantial. Last year saw a 39% drop in the number of A-level music students and a 31% drop at GCSE. The impact of this is catastrophic in higher education as an export and its maintenance of our place as a world-class centre for music and the arts. Moreover, fears that there is growing social segregation in access to the arts are strengthened by the realisation that only one in 10 pupils from a disadvantaged background in Hastings or Eastbourne in my diocese will go to university. In this context, the University of Chichester seeks to make a distinctively positive contribution to the arts and to economic regeneration locally where it is most needed, and as an international export offering an experience that is always more than money can buy. One example of the university’s commitment is the new engineering and digital technology park in its Bognor Regis campus, which aims to serve the Hampshire and West Sussex coastal region—an area seriously disadvantaged by low levels of skills, business growth and earnings. Only one in five people in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has higher-level qualifications.
Finally, I believe we should demonstrate a duty of care for students, locally from home and international students, that stretches beyond the academy. At present, 40% of Chichester’s graduates leave the region within a week of completing their courses because affordable accommodation is unavailable. This is a crippling outcome for the future economic and cultural life of provincial towns and cities such as Chichester. Similarly, we have a duty to sustain the relationships we are building with overseas students who are our exports to ensure that the bonds of learning and culture forge a greater sense of international trade and security that will build a peaceful and better future.
I have no sense of being equal to the noble achievements of my worthy predecessors but, encouraged by your Lordships’ welcome, I look forward to playing an active role in the work of your Lordships’ House in the years to come.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, when the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the then Bishop of Durham, made his maiden speech in the House, he spoke in a business debate. I said to someone, “What is he doing speaking in a business debate?” They replied, “Don’t you know that he was a very successful trader in the oil business for many years?” He spoke with great authority.
Today, we welcome to these Benches the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, who spoke so eloquently and superbly about higher education. He spoke about some of his career: he is Dr Martin Warner; he studied at St Chad’s College, Durham, then St Stephen’s House, Oxford; he has worked in the Midlands, Norfolk, St Paul’s Cathedral, where he was treasurer, and York; he is a regular contributor to the Church Times; he is a cyclist; he enjoys the arts; and, most importantly, he is well known for his hospitality and welcome. He has written five books, one of which is Between Heaven and Charing Cross. I think that he was being prescient and talking about the House of Lords.
In a recent interview, he was asked,
“Aren’t you more of a chief executive than a bishop?”
He responded:
“I’d certainly resist the chief executive title—but there are certain systemic and structural issues here which I must address. The word shepherd means someone who takes care of their flock, just like a parent is in charge of a household”.
He was then asked about government cuts. He said:
“For priests, their priority is their work, particularly in areas of deprivation and need. They see first hand what the impact is of government policy … Often they are there to pick up the pieces”.
He illustrated that clearly in his speech today. In that interview, he also said:
“A priest lives in often tough places where no other professional person would live”.
I hope that he will not find this House such a tough place and will, from the Spiritual Benches, temper us on the temporal Benches with his wisdom in the years to come.
I am the president of UKCISA—the UK Council for International Student Affairs—which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year. At our conference, I stated that,
“the benefits which international students bring to the UK are both ‘enormous’ and ‘priceless’ … this is a view which is widely shared not only by an increasing number of leading politicians but also by the British public in general. International students enrich our campuses and communities”,
and the experiences of our domestic students,
“bring talent and new perspectives to our lives, build links for us all around the globe and help us to contribute to a more prosperous and indeed more peaceful world”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, Universities UK estimates that international students bring £26 billion to the UK economy.
As chancellor of the University of Birmingham and chair of the advisory board of the University of Cambridge Judge Business School, I am active in this sector. I am the third generation of my family to be educated in the UK. Generation-long links are built when foreign students come here. My son is at a British university and my daughter is about to enter a British university. Its universities are the jewel in Britain’s crown. We are renowned for them. In Birmingham degree ceremonies, I often say to the graduands, “When you graduate, walk out of the door and turn left. In front of the vice-chancellor’s office are the pictures of the 11 Nobel Prize winners from Birmingham”. That is more than most countries. Trinity College, Cambridge, has more Nobel Prize winners than France. Cambridge has the highest number of Nobel Prize winners in the world.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for this debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for his kind words about Cobra beer. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, in his opening speech, the soft power of our universities is amazing. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke about the 58 world leaders. It is not the United States of America that produces more world leaders from international students than any other country; it is the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, spoke about Prime Minister Modi saying, “You want our trade and you don’t want our children”. I was in India when that happened. It was very embarrassing.
Despite our excellence, we do this punching above our weight. We do not invest as much as a percentage of GDP as the United States of America. When it comes to research and development and innovation, we invest 1.7% of GDP compared with Germany and America, which invest 2.8%. Just to match that we would have to spend £20 billion more a year, yet, with less than 1% of the world’s population, this country produces 16% of the highest-rated research papers around the world. We do this not sitting in isolation, but in collaboration. This is where Brexit is a huge threat and uncertainty. Our ability to attract international students is linked to our excellence, which is achieved partly through our collaborations in Horizon 2020 and the Erasmus scheme, from which more than 200,000 of our students have benefited. But this excellence is threatened by Brexit. Students will never get a chance to travel in that manner. More than 725,000 benefit annually through Erasmus.
I am currently Bynum Tudor fellow at Kellogg College at the University of Oxford. Some 45% of students and 48% of academics at Oxford are from countries outside the UK. Some 50.7% of Oxford’s research publications involve international collaboration. The same exists for Birmingham and for Cambridge. Where Brexit is concerned, the bigger threat is not just losing out on the funding—can the Minister confirm that we will keep getting that funding?—but the loss of collaboration, which we are worried about more than anything else.
Yes, the UK is a large destination for international students, but, as has been pointed out, we have probably slipped from second to third in the world—the United States is always number one. We have 450,000 students, 130,000 of whom are from the EU. UKCISA looks after the interests of all of them. The Brexit uncertainty is a huge problem. The Government have given an assurance for those 130,000 EU students for the next academic year—of course they have to; they have no choice but to do that—but what will happen after that? Will the Minister tell us?
I am also co-chair of the All-Party Group for International Students. Our secretariat is supported by higher education. There is no question about it: the UK puts out a hostile impression regarding international students. The post-graduation work visa was removed. I remember being in this House when we brought in the post-graduation work visa for two years. It came in in 2008 and was removed in 2012. In the meantime, the demand for international students is increasing by 8% a year.
The policies are perceived to be hostile. When the Prime Minister was the Home Secretary, she made the statement that international students should leave the day that they graduate. The headlines in India were: “Take our money and then get out”. India feels discriminated against. The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, spoke about India. The fast-track scheme has existed for a long time for student visas for countries such as America and Canada, and 11 new countries were added, including China. India was excluded. Will the Minister tell us why and whether it could be included?
The public are for international students. They do not see international students as immigrants and do not mind them working for a while after they graduate. Why will the Government not introduce physical, visible exit checks at our borders? The Government have lost control of illegal immigration, which we all think should be controlled. If we had those checks, we would have more control. Will the Minister acknowledge that international students do not overstay? Less than 5% of them are now proven to overstay.
The All-Party Group for International Students is conducting an inquiry into international students, with various themes, including the classroom, research, community and policy aspects. It will report in the autumn. We are talking about universities, but that inquiry also covers schools, foreign language institutions, further education institutions, pathway institutions, independent higher education institutions and universities. The spread of our offering to international students is phenomenal. We are one of the best in the world, but Exporting Education UK produced a report in 2016 that suggested that, across all education, the UK has lost £9 billion simply by not keeping up its market share.
Is the Minister aware of the latest UUK report released this morning, Five Little-known Facts about International Student Mobility to the UK, which analyses the shifts in international student enrolments? It contains a table that sums it all up, which describes post-study work opportunities and growth in enrolments. If we look at post-study we see that countries such as Australia allow two to four years, Canada allows three years and Ireland allows 24 months. They all have targets for international student recruitment: we should have targets to increase the numbers of international students. We do not have specific targets. Australia has a target of 720,000 by 2025. Canada has a target of 450,000 by 2022. Look at their growth rates over the past three years: Australia, 18%; Canada, 27%; 43% in the case of Ireland. We are losing out. The global appeal of UK higher education is a national asset, and preserving and building on it should be a national priority.
To conclude, we need to remove international students from the net migration figures. This creates a terrible perception: our competitor countries all exclude them. Does the Minister agree that this should happen? We should have a target to increase the number of international students. We should bring back the two-year post-graduation work visa. We should bring the Indians into the fast-track stream from which they were excluded. Now is a great opportunity: with American policies being hostile, we should jump at that opportunity now. Yesterday I was speaking at the Embassy Education Conference at King’s College London on the 100th anniversary of Nelson Mandela’s birth. Mandela said:
“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world”.
We have that most powerful weapon in abundance.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. His introduction of this debate comes at just the right time, shortly after the Prime Minister’s recent specific guidelines for EU withdrawal. For these, in turn, can focus us all the more sharply upon the best means and approach for sustaining and augmenting the value to the United Kingdom of higher education as an export.
I warmly congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his excellent maiden speech. Looking it up this morning, I discovered that he is the 77th Bishop of Chichester. His earliest predecessor, Saint Wilfrid, was already in office in the year 681, thus nearly 700 years before we began to develop our own two Houses of Parliament here in the 14th century.
In my remarks today, I will briefly connect three aspects. First in this context are the key priorities which we must secure within current EU negotiations. Secondly, there are certain internal adjustments of our own that we should make. Thirdly, in exporting UK higher education, and despite Brexit, we must now also aim to give a strong lead in Europe and beyond.
As we know, within Europe the Government have already guaranteed UK participation in Erasmus and Horizon 2020 for the next three years—the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to this. However, the United Kingdom ought to remain within these schemes indefinitely. Since, from this month, our EU negotiations on all matters can be against a much clearer background, that applies not least to our request and endeavour to remain within the Erasmus and Horizon 2020 European schemes indefinitely. Can my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie therefore affirm that that is what we will now seek to achieve?
Then there are necessary adjustments of our own which we should make. Last year in its excellent report Exiting the EU: Challenges and Opportunities for Higher Education, the Education Committee of another place drew attention to some of these. Its advice is to be heeded if we really want to retain and increase the numbers of international students coming to the United Kingdom from both EU and non-EU states.
Its prescription for visas is backed up by a recent London Economics report. This identifies a 20% decline in international undergraduates: that is the extent to which the change to visa arrangements in April 2012 has undoubtedly put them off coming to the UK to study in the first place. As a result, does my noble friend agree that, as already advocated by a number of noble Lords, there is a compelling case for reintroducing that which previously applied, which is that tier 4 students could stay on and work for two years after their studies?
Another disincentive derives from the inclusion of international students within net migration figures. Such inclusion is paradoxical in three respects. Fewer students apply since, as so classified, they feel unwelcome. At any time, not least post Brexit, a UK Government will obviously find it all the harder to demonstrate a reduction in net migration, at present announced as restricted to 100,000 per year, if international students are included as migrants when they do not have to be at all. Furthermore, the UK economy is thereby denied the well-evidenced and considerable supplements from those disincentivised international students who otherwise might have studied here and then stayed on to find jobs.
So far, the Government profess to be constrained by the United Nations definition, which describes a migrant as someone changing their normal place of residence for more than a year. Nevertheless, does my noble friend the Minister concur that the Government are perfectly at liberty to decouple students from official migration statistics in any event? As pointed out by my noble friends Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Holmes of Richmond, to do so is entirely consistent with the implied objective of this debate, which is to consolidate and build up the value to the United Kingdom of higher education as an export.
For international students, guaranteeing that the same fees and loans will still apply; a regional growth fund to replace and exceed European structural funding; and a forward-looking strategy to link higher education with future trade deals are all further recommendations which could be made quite easily as useful and necessary adjustments. Is my noble friend therefore of the view that they should be?
In 2014-15, it was estimated that international students accounted for roughly £25.8 billion in gross output to our economy. They greatly assist us socially and culturally, too, thus developing the UK’s soft power overseas, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh. However, recently and regrettably, those heartening records have worsened; our market share slipping against that of rival English-speaking countries such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, as well as against European countries, which now offer more courses in English.
Fortunately, we are still in an enviable position. Time and again, as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth emphasised, we learn that international students in the UK develop an awareness and respect for our culture, governance, institutions and history; recent analysis indicating that 95% of UK university international graduates are favourably disposed towards the UK. Consequently, students returning to their home countries stand to become the UK’s greatest ambassadors and supporters.
Be that as it may, from abroad we are often perceived as half-hearted and lukewarm hosts. We have to correct that image and prove differently. Certainly, we must negotiate with the EU to remain in the Erasmus and Horizon 2020 schemes. We should also make necessary internal adjustments, as already outlined, to encourage more international students from all states across the world.
Yet the intervention of Brexit and its current timetable need not hold us up, for it is largely irrelevant to whether, when and how we might grasp the nettle. This we should do with conviction and straightaway, so that the value to the United Kingdom of its export of higher education can be continuously sustained through a positive and consistent response from overseas.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, I declare my interests as found in the register, particularly those relating to higher education.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for securing this debate and for outlining some of the key issues, but begin by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester on an excellent maiden speech, with its characteristic blend of deep pastoral concern, learning lightly worn and a keen appreciation of the importance of education. He and I share the pleasure of having a Cathedrals Group university in our dioceses. I am sure that my right reverend friend will contribute greatly to the deliberations of this House.
We know that this is a time of significant and rapid change in our universities, and some might well see it as a tempestuous period. It is therefore important to remind ourselves that our higher education sector is a national asset, attracting almost 450,000 students from outside the UK and consistently figuring in the top 200 institutions across the world—34 of those are British. Oxford University has been in the top position for the past two years in the Times Higher Education world rankings.
As the university APPG pointed out in 2017, and as other noble Lords have emphasised, in purely financial terms education is the UK’s fifth largest service exporter, with higher education contributing some two-thirds of its value. In addition, the strength of our international reputation generates other benefits: one in 10 world leaders has been educated in the UK; international students are more likely to recommend study here to others; and increased research and commercial links flow from joint activities such as transnational education ventures. We should note, however, that countries such as Australia are overtaking us, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, confirmed.
At an individual level, some 76% of home students believe that studying alongside their international peers has given them a wider, more rounded world-view. At an institutional level, it is striking that over half of our research publications—the outward expression of our astonishingly high research standing—are co-authored with international colleagues.
This indicates that there is another dimension to what we export through our work in higher education. It is the underlying conviction that education is a good in and of itself and that aside from any economic or financial benefit—real and important as they are—the disciplined pursuit of truth and wisdom is crucial to forming the people and the society we aspire to be, and to become. That, in turn, implies that higher education also serves a common, a public, good and contributes—or can and should contribute—to the flourishing of local, national and international communities.
Historically, the Church has played a major part in fostering institutes of learning, whether in the person of my distinguished predecessors who founded colleges in Oxford, or the Victorian pioneers of teacher training colleges. The latter became the Cathedrals Group universities, which now educate one in three primary teachers, along with students of social work and nursing, health professionals and members of other vocational professions dedicated to public service.
The local economic impact of higher education is undeniable. To give some concrete illustrations, the diocese of Winchester is home to about 65,000 students across many institutions, including the Bournemouth universities, the University of Southampton, Southampton Solent University and the University of Winchester. The latter, established in 1840 to train teachers who would in turn teach in schools for the poor, employs over 700 staff in the local area. In a recent evaluation, even this smallish university was found to contribute £266 million a year to the local economy. Other noble Lords will be able to give, and have already given, equally striking examples.
This local economic impact, however, points to a wider impact. Today’s debate is about the value of higher education as an export. Yet the American economist Robert E. Lipsey—not to be confused with the equally distinguished Member of your Lordships’ House—has pointed out that calculating the value of international trade in services, including education, is by no means straightforward even if restricted to purely financial metrics. That perhaps makes it even more important not to ignore the value of the transformative power of higher education and the significance of human flourishing, which I now see reflected in the mission statement of the Office for Students. It says:
“We want every student to have a fulfilling experience of higher education that enriches their lives and careers”.
That is a great export for international students to take home. The invitation and welcome international students receive in the UK is part of what they will take with them. We therefore need to ensure that our higher education is as accessible as possible to international students—as many speakers have already urged—so that higher education can enrich their lives and careers. I too, therefore, urge Her Majesty’s Government to introduce more flexible arrangements for international students.
Baroness Greenfield (CB)
I add my welcome to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and congratulate him on his insightful speech. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on initiating this important debate.
My personal experience of the higher education sector has been as a tutor and lecturer in medicine at Oxford University and also—until 2013—as Chancellor of Heriot-Watt University, which has flourishing overseas campuses.
Many universities now have senior posts dedicated to globalisation and their international relationships, and I shall take this activity as defining “the export of higher education”. Initially, this role was largely about ensuring that international students settled in well to the host institution and country, but over time it has expanded to include targeted recruitment abroad, with academics and marketing staff travelling overseas to advertise to and interview prospective students, and the development of courses specifically designed for students from abroad to study in their home country, sometimes led by online provision, but often through the development of satellite campuses.
The value of what the UK has to offer is considerable. The biggest international league table for assessing that is the Times Higher Education world university rankings, which lists the top 1,000 universities, representing no more than 5% of the 20,000 higher education institutes internationally. Ranking positions are derived from 13 different performance indicators, and the list is subject to external auditing. Overall, European institutions occupy half of the top 200 places, with the Netherlands, Germany and the UK being the most represented countries. The UK has 12 universities in the top 100 and three in the top 10—Imperial, Oxford and Cambridge—with the latter two in the top two positions.
Comparisons of data from the UK with those from the US, which holds the most places in the top 100, along with Germany and the Netherlands, indicate that the UK differs from its nearest European competitor—Germany, with 10 universities in the top 100—in having significantly fewer full-time students and a significantly lower staff to student ratio. UK universities do not, however, differ from their US counterparts in terms of the number of full-time students, the staff to student ratio, the percentage of international students or the percentage of females.
The UK universities, however, have a significantly greater so-called international outlook than the US universities, and compared with Germany and the Netherlands. International outlook is evaluated by how much a university is concerned with the development of a multicultural community of students and staff, the preparation of its students for global political and social environments, and the development of international alliances in research, education and business. It appears, then, that the UK higher education system is well positioned and well primed to be an international export; it is already world-leading, with a global outlook.
Why should the UK export its higher education? First, data from 2017 show that 30% of all academics in the UK are already international. This situation, however, is not yet being optimised in terms of developing a global, context-driven and internationalised curriculum. Secondly, in 2015 the Quality Assurance Agency suggested that the large numbers of international students studying at UK universities highlighted a great opportunity for them to be involved in shaping global and intercultural teaching and learning through co-construction of the curriculum.
Thirdly, many developing countries are experiencing a rapid growth in the number of students seeking higher education, and there is a strong appetite for qualifications from English-language, western institutions. American, Australian, British and Canadian universities are often seen as providing more modern and practical educations than those of local institutions, thus improving graduates’ prospects of finding well-paid jobs. Despite this, the cost of studying abroad may be prohibitive for some, while the cost of studying at a satellite campus is manageable. The US, in particular, has found that since 9/11 students from certain Middle Eastern countries have felt less safe in the States but are happy to study at satellite campuses. The same may be true of the UK since 7/7 and in the light of the Brexit referendum.
The fourth reason for exporting UK higher education is the potential collateral benefit to UK home students from international collaborations through, for example, study abroad programmes, where they may be hosted at their own satellite campuses, thus removing any concerns about credit transfer or quality of educational provision. Research has shown that governments and universities hold the view that students who study on internationalised campuses demonstrate greater knowledge of international events, perspectives and methods. It has been further observed that these students are viewed as better prepared to contribute positively to local, regional, national and international progress because they develop the skills deemed necessary for a modern workforce and global conditions, such as second-language acquisition, cultural awareness, international contacts and adaptation skills. Additionally, this is in line with the Europe 2020 priority of inclusive growth and the headline statistic of aiming to achieve 20% of graduates having spent a study or training period abroad by 2020.
Fifthly, a further collateral benefit comes in the form of research collaboration and the provision of a steady supply of students from abroad joining the university as postgraduate students. At present in the UK, international students make up 60% of those studying at postgraduate level. However, if this is their first experience of studying in UK-style institutions or in English, they can face considerable challenges. In contrast, if they have studied at satellite campuses they may be better placed to settle into their UK university campus at postgraduate level.
President Clinton once remarked that the nations of the world had progressed from isolation to interaction—albeit positive or negative—and were finally on track for integration. Higher education is an increasingly globally integrated activity. The UK needs to ensure that it plays a central part in maximising all the opportunities it will indubitably bring for everyone.
Lord Smith of Finsbury (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as master of Pembroke College, Cambridge. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, on his choice of subject and on an excellent opening contribution to this extremely good debate. I greatly enjoyed the contribution from the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Chichester in his maiden speech. I trust that we will hear much more from him as part of our discourse in the years to come. I was particularly impressed by his reference to some of his distinguished predecessors. I recall, however, that one of my predecessors as master of Pembroke was Bishop Nicholas Ridley, who was burned at the stake by Queen Mary. I have to observe that I trust this practice will not be revived in current times.
The starting point for our discussions on this subject has to be that our best universities are globally significant institutions. Not many things these days that we do as a country are genuinely world-beating. There is the BBC, our best and greatest museums and galleries, our theatre and our artistic endeavour, but I believe that our best universities head that list. Cambridge, Oxford, Imperial and UCL are consistently in the top 10 universities worldwide; many others are in the top 100. This is because of the robustness of the educational and teaching experience provided to students, and the quality of research undertaken.
However, part of this success is down to the opportunities that we offer for international students to come and study here. The numbers, of course, vary from institution to institution. In Pembroke, 20% of our undergraduates and some 60% of our postgraduates come from abroad. Those opportunities bring a whole range of benefits, as many noble Lords have mentioned in this debate. They bring in essential income for our universities. Especially in STEM subjects, home fees simply do not cover the full cost of providing the education that is offered. Overseas students also bring in essential income for the entire national economy but in many ways there are much more important non-economic arguments.
First, attracting the best and brightest students from wherever they come, including from across the world, enhances the sense of aspiration that each cohort of students has; it means that they wish to learn even more strongly than they might otherwise do. Secondly, the social, cultural and educational benefit from mixing with fellow students from a wide variety of backgrounds is enormous. Our students learn about other cultures and other life experiences. They develop a better understanding of the wider world because of the contact that they have with international students. Thirdly, as has been mentioned many times, the soft power impact of the experience gained by international students while here is something that they carry with them for the rest of their lives. They go on to run countries, businesses and organisations. Over the last 40 years, I have met leaders from around the world who had experience here as international students and feel positively about the UK as a result. Fourthly, many of the big issues that we face now are global in nature: climate change; migration; global health; and the effectiveness of development policies. These things cannot and should not be studied in isolation. They are things where international engagement is essential if we are to understand and resolve some of these problems effectively.
Why, then, are we as a country making it so difficult to sustain this engagement with international students? First, of course, there is the madness of Brexit. Not only do we suffer the diminished standing around the world that we now have as a result of our decision, but EU students in particular are now wondering whether they are really welcome here. The Government have of course guaranteed the fee levels for those undergraduates starting this year and next but there is uncertainty beyond that. We are already finding locally that the numbers of applicants are beginning to fall. Secondly, we have the equal madness of insisting on counting international students within the overall net migration statistics. Almost every contributor to this debate has mentioned this as a serious problem. No one thinks it is sensible, not even the Minister’s department. It appears to be only the Prime Minister who is adamant that it should continue. The reality is that students come for three years and then go back home, enhanced by their experience and feeling warm about the UK. There are very low levels of recidivism in terms of overstaying; students study and return. The case for counting students separately from the overall migration totals is overwhelming.
When we turn to postgraduate study and subsequent research, the picture is even clearer. There are real benefits for the quality and content of research, the collaboration and the benefits that can bring, and the advancement of knowledge and understanding. One of the worst things that anyone has said in recent years was, “We’ve had too much of experts”. The need for knowledge, expertise, the analysis of real evidence and attachment to fact rather than theory are the building blocks of future success as a nation. Research and the role of our universities in it is the way that we do that. Again, Brexit is making all this infinitely more difficult. Access to European research funding is likely to be much harder after Brexit, while UK universities have of course especially benefited from European funding in this respect—way beyond what would be a per capita proportion if we were not able to get that research funding in such quantity.
The ease of research collaboration has been mentioned, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. Most ground-breaking research now is not done in isolation by a single academic in a single institution; it requires collaboration across national boundaries. Within the EU at the moment, this is easy; it means regular contact, the sharing of ideas and discoveries, attendance at workshops and conferences—there is ease of collaboration. If we go ahead with Brexit—especially if it is a no-deal Brexit, which I fear looks increasingly like the only option that will be on the table—this will all become infinitely harder.
Then, for those coming here from elsewhere around the world as research students, post-doctoral assistants, research fellows and early-career lecturers, there is a complex struggle to get the appropriate visa and navigate the bureaucracy. I have three particular pleas on this. First, ease the tier 1 route for exceptional talent. Secondly, expand the tier 4 pilot scheme, which is especially important for master’s students. Thirdly, if we end up with a hard and horrible Brexit, make it a priority to ensure swift visa provision for master’s students, research students, post-doctoral contributors and academics coming here to teach.
I have one other brief thing to say. Some UK universities have established satellite campuses abroad. This would not be appropriate for Cambridge colleges, where the importance of location and face-to-face contact is so crucial, but for some universities it is a vital part of their sustainability. What is potentially more important, even for the wide spread of universities, is the development of twinning arrangements and partnerships with universities or faculties around the world, not just with the Stanfords, MITs and Harvards but with universities in Africa and Asia and across the rest of Europe. The potential for shared projects and exchanges of academics, students and researchers is huge. Let us try to make this easier rather than more difficult.
In summary, our universities are strong. They have much to offer the world, and as a result they have much to offer the UK’s economy and society. Let us remove the obstacles that are currently making all this harder. There is so much to be gained.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Norton for the opportunity to discuss this important topic today, and I thank noble Lords for the opportunity to speak in the gap for a quick four minutes. I welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester and congratulate him on his eloquent maiden speech.
As we approach Brexit, there will be a great deal of interest in how the UK can maximise opportunities to trade and engage with a wider range of international partners as well as securing and maintaining strong relationships with our European partners. That is vital if we are to continue to enhance the future prestige and prosperity of UK higher education. Education is already a major service export for the UK but there is substantial capacity left to grow. We need to invest to maintain our current position as the second most popular global destination for international students and as the leading provider of transnational education. In encouraging our international students to study in the UK, much more has to be done to increase the number of UK students who benefit from overseas work or study experiences as part of their university degree. As it is said, globally mobile students can be some of our most rewarding and powerful ambassadors, welcoming people to our outward-looking UK. I am also pleased that the Government recognise the important contribution made by students and academics from EU member states to the UK’s world-class universities.
The global UK must be a country that looks to the future. There is much at stake. The challenge now is to emerge from this period of uncertainty with a clear strategy coupled with a bold ambition for the sector’s future growth, and of course prosperity. Along with free trade agreements, such a strategy must enhance opportunities for UK higher education after Brexit but, alongside this, ensure that such agreements do not push back previous strong collaboration and expose UK universities to unnecessary risks. However, a modern university must be globally engaged—recruiting staff and students from across the world; making strong partnerships with international organisations; providing an intercultural education and thereby producing graduates with the experience to work across cultural boundaries; promoting international research; and producing outputs of international significance that have great impact. A bold forward-looking strategy must take advantage of the global reach of modern universities and therefore ensure that higher education plays a strategic role in the much-awaited future trade deals. Data confirms the increasing value of higher education as a major export industry; to lose that would be, at the very least, regrettable.
Importantly, this highlights the immense economic contribution of international students coming to study. It is not just their economic benefit that is so invaluable; international students from the EU and beyond contribute to a diverse student body and a thriving society, culture and economy as well as on campus in local regions and across the whole UK. To achieve a key aim of the industrial strategy to drive up exports, universities have the potential to grow and sustain this market further, but we must streamline the visa process.
Universities have a huge and increasingly significant impact on the UK economy and jobs. Higher education in the UK is a world-class sector. Our universities rank among the best and produce highly regarded research, making them attractive to international students and staff. Their value is there for all to see.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for initiating this debate. I agree with his comment that our world leadership in higher education is under threat. I also congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester on his maiden speech. When I was training to be a teacher at St Katharine’s Church of England College in Liverpool, I went on a field trip to the Anglican college in Chichester and had a wonderful time—so I have happy memories of Chichester.
The noble Lord said we were in danger of losing our world status and that it was under threat. You have only to look at today’s BBC news online to see a story entitled “Australia overtaking UK for overseas students”. It states:
“Researchers at UCL’s Centre for Global Higher Education say the UK is being pushed into third place behind the United States and Australia. Australia has been rapidly expanding its international student numbers”.
And how about this for a comment:
“The British Council says it shows the UK needs to ‘look again’ at its policies towards overseas students”?
Well, there’s a thing.
I have listened with great interest to noble Lords’ speeches on the economic value to the UK of higher education as an export. Last night I was at the chancellor’s dinner at Hope University in Liverpool—a gold-rated university, the Minister will be pleased to know. It is Europe’s only ecumenical university, where Roman Catholics and Anglicans come together. I sat next to the professor who headed up the faculty of science. He was from India and was also a Hindu priest. Hope Voices sang, and in the choir was a Nigerian woman who is going on to do her master’s at the college. There were young people from all over the world. I thought, “Isn’t this absolutely wonderful?” Forget for a moment the economic importance of overseas students—I shall come to that—is it not wonderful that we are being enriched culturally by people from different backgrounds, different faiths and different countries? I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, that to make that work we have to look at how we welcome, encourage and support those students. They have come to a different culture, and we have to make our culture welcoming for them, just as we accept and welcome their culture.
This morning we learned about Australia overtaking us in the recruitment of overseas students. An export market worth £25 billion is very significant—and the £3.4 billion that it brings to London each year supports a whole range of employment. For a whole variety of reasons, we are no longer a major manufacturing country but have to concentrate on high-value, low-volume exports. Higher education is one of the highest-value industries—but, of course, lowest in the volume of physical goods that it produces.
We are still among the world leaders in higher education, where our domestic universities are some of the most attractive places to study for students from around the globe. One in seven overseas students at a Russell group university brings in £1 million—but it is not just Russell group universities; it is universities right across the country. It is also about universities going out to other countries to establish campuses. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, seemed to say, “Well, Oxford and Cambridge wouldn’t do that, would they?” But actually it is really important that perhaps they should do that. I welcome the fact that Liverpool University has a campus in China and that many other universities have campuses throughout the world, including in China, India and the Middle East. That encourages the opportunity for us to grow that market.
The export market in higher education is important to us. Higher education is labour intensive, of course, but does not require massive capital investment: building a faculty requires much less capital than a new car-manufacturing plant demands. On the question of capital, it is our human capital that is our greatest asset, and we must nurture and encourage it.
I know that this debate is about higher education, but earlier this week we discussed the importance of introducing primary children to the world of work—not, you understand, a return to sending youngsters up chimneys but raising every child’s career aspirations. More and more of our young people will be needed to fill the jobs in our higher education sector, whether as academics or support staff. Indeed, it is not just the higher education export market that is growing in size and influence; a number of independent schools are building schools in the Middle East, China and India.
In China, for example, there is a growing demand for English education, and more and more Chinese early-years settings are introducing a curriculum based on our early-years foundation stage, employing teachers and experts from England to train Chinese early-years professionals. I was speaking to a colleague only this week about his recent visit to southern China, where he was promoting the English education system, which is proving enormously attractive to a growing number of Chinese parents.
Our higher education export market is not, of course, just about balance sheets. As is too often the case with matters educational, we are reduced to talking about numbers and the cash value of education. It was Margaret Thatcher who embedded the idea that getting a better place in a popular school was like buying a popular washing machine. The concept of education as a commodity like any other seems strange to me.
We have heard plenty about the quantifiable economic benefits of a strong HE export market, but I would like to return to the soft—if that is an acceptable word in our Brexit-focused world—benefits of being a world leader in higher education and in education more widely. One potential threat to this market is our exit from the EU, if that ever comes about. However, there is already some anecdotal evidence of what you might call academic planning blight, as we struggle to remain in some pan-European research projects. Alistair Jarvis, chief executive of Universities UK, said:
“The downturn in the UK’s participation in Horizon 2020, the EU’s programme for research and innovation, is concerning. It highlights the urgent need for clarity on the UK’s participation in Horizon 2020 beyond Brexit and, while the UK is still a member of the EU, the need to communicate that the UK’s universities and researchers are still eligible to participate and apply for funding through EU research and innovation programmes. The UK benefits enormously from access to the vital networks, funding and talent Horizon 2020 provides. It allows researchers to collaborate with world-leading experts on life-changing research, with knock-on benefits for the economy, society and individuals in the UK”.
It will never be possible to quantify, but, in European consortia planning meetings, post- Brexit complications might well mean that it is simpler not to include UK partners. If we do ever leave the EU, we will have to try even harder to maintain our position as a world leader. In terms of our global efforts, we are not, of course, without competitors. As I mentioned at the beginning of my contribution, we are now third, behind Australia, in attracting overseas students, and Canada is rising up the ranks of chief exporters of HE. Going from gold to silver to bronze position will be hard enough to accept, but we must certainly avoid being knocked from the HE export podium altogether. Scandinavian countries are also getting in there.
Apart from the numbers, of course, foreign students still bring a very valuable diversity to our education system and to the communities they live in. We are not yet doing enough to attract students from Africa, South America and Asia, where there are increasing numbers of students seeking to study abroad.
I will quickly raise two other points. As well as attracting students, we have to make sure that our universities have academic integrity, which means that we have to look at all the sorts of issues that might affect that integrity—essay mills, contract cheating, and bogus colleges and private colleges that attract overseas students and provide appalling facilities. If we do not get that right, other countries will say, “Don’t go to the UK because this is what happens when you do”.
Finally, we hear a lot about global Britain. If you had a business generating £25.8 billion to the economy and brought in world research and development while culturally enriching our society, you would do everything that you could to nurture and develop it. Yet it seems that, perhaps for political expediency, the Government are hell-bent on allowing our competitors never mind to get a foot in the door but to push it wide open. I hope that the Minister will tell us not just where we are but where we hope to be and how we are going to get there and ensure that this hugely important market grows for this country.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, it is entirely appropriate, given his distinguished academic reputation, that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, secured this important debate, and it is fair to say that the quality of contributions that it has drawn today more than justifies that initiative.
I congratulate, too, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester on a fine maiden speech, in which he highlighted the benefits of learning in general and in higher education in particular. I look forward to hearing more contributions from him in the months and years ahead.
There can be no doubting the value to the country in terms of the wealth generated by the higher education sector. All noble Lords have cited those figures, and I do not intend to repeat them. It is, however, worth while emphasising that, last year, the Department for Education said that, in 2014—the most recent year for which accurate figures are available—the total value of UK higher education sector exports and transnational education activity was in excess of £12.4 billion. The sector brings economic, cultural and academic benefits to these shores and, as my noble friend Lord Parekh said, the presence of overseas students opens the minds of UK students to different cultures, broadens their outlooks and enriches them in general. The benefits are generated by modern as well as ancient universities and, as this debate concerns the UK, it should not be forgotten that they are felt in every country and region, in terms of jobs both on and off campus as well as the wider local economies, particularly small businesses.
Two weeks ago, noble Lords debated part-time and continuing education and the role of the Open University and that is also relevant to today’s debate, because the value of distance learning extends not only around the UK—the Open University works with 27 overseas partners in 20 countries. The bullish comments in the Times today by Sir Michael Barber augur well for the much-criticised Office for Students strengthening the sector’s reputation. The figures brook no argument as to the importance of the contribution that higher education makes to the UK economy—all the more reason, then, to ensure that that contribution is not diminished in the years ahead. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said, diminution is already happening, although the impression gained is that the Government do not share the concern and are not aware, or at least not fully aware, of the risks that face the sector.
Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, emphasised, the main threat stems from the fact that we are leaving the European Union. More than two years on from the referendum, the Government still have no credible or coherent plan for what life after the EU will, or even might, look like. It is not that the Government have not been warned. In April last year, a House of Commons Education Committee report noted the “significant uncertainty” caused in the higher education sector by the UK leaving the EU. The committee highlighted areas for the Government to prioritise, including: improvements to the immigration system to ensure better movement to and from our universities, which would involve the removal of overseas students from net migration figures; continued involvement in research frameworks, such as Horizon 2020, and planning for domestic funding for a scenario where access fails; and continued involvement in Erasmus, or a home-grown replacement, with an ambitious mobility strategy for universities. Fifteen months later, none of these crucial issues has been meaningfully addressed, let alone resolved.
That report also recommended that the Department for Education, in co-operation with the Home Office and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, should publish a contingency plan for higher education to prepare for a no-deal situation. I have to say that, as the shambolic last few days have illustrated, there are a significant number of Tory MPs who are determined to bring about a no-deal situation, irrespective of the terrible costs that that would entail and the jobs and livelihoods that it would destroy. In their response to the report, the Government said:
“we … encourage the sector to continue to think about what it could do to best prepare for our exit from the EU–whether in mitigating potential risks or in taking advantage of new opportunities”.
I am sure that there were many in the sector who thought that a rather patronising suggestion; it is fairly clear to me that the higher education sector had worked out for itself the necessity of mitigating potential risks or taking advantage of new opportunities. That is what many have been doing since probably the day after the referendum, and many have made considerable progress.
However, the options available to higher education institutions remain restricted by the Government’s intransigence on the issue of international students coming to the UK. In 2014-15, international students paid almost £5 billion in tuition fees to UK universities, which is, I understand, around 15% of their total income. Yet the Government send out the message that international students are seen as part of this country’s perceived “immigration problem”, because they insist that students remain in the Government’s net migration target. The noble Lord, Lord Smith, said that only the Prime Minister seems to continue to believe that this is appropriate. That may date back to her being the Home Secretary who introduced the measure and may now risk losing face if that were to change. But surely we want the UK to be regarded as a welcoming place by young people choosing where to study.
In recent years, the UK higher education sector has suffered a decline in market share, and global competitors—as we have heard—are developing attractive offers to students that this country has not effectively responded to. The risk is surely that the UK will be left behind, which is a situation that, as a country, we simply cannot afford in either academic or financial terms. The noble Lord, Lord Norton, referred to the decline in the numbers of students from India. That should be a worry to the Government, given the size of India, or so we would have thought, but apparently not. Last month, in a Written Question, I sought to ascertain why, when more countries were included in the expanded low-risk tier 4 visa category for overseas students, India was not among them. The response from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, was that the decision was arrived at,
“taking into account objective analysis of a range of factors including the volume of students from a country and their Tier 4 immigration compliance risk”.
That is a not very veiled comment on the trustworthiness of students from India, which I think is a disgraceful slight on that nation.
Can the Minister say what initiatives the Government intend to take to increase the numbers of international students in both short-term and full-time study in the UK and to ensure that the UK is seen as a welcoming country to students globally? Do Ministers and officials from the Department for Education and Home Office meet to discuss the issue of international students and the net migration figures? The Government have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to provide an objective assessment of the impact of EU and international students, which is due to report by September. That is two months away and the Government will then presumably require further time to consider the report. The clock is ticking towards our exit from the EU, and it is unlikely that any change in policy on this issue will be able to influence student applications until the 2020-21 academic year at the earliest. Meanwhile, competitor countries will not be standing still; they will be seeking to capitalise on our indecision.
Labour believes that there should be no national target to restrict the numbers of students coming to the UK. As a minimum—as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and others have said—the Government should immediately remove overseas students from the net migration target. Many prospective EU students are now inquiring about studying in the UK from 2019, but Ministers have so far failed to clarify their status beyond 2020. What are the Government doing to address the longer-term status of EU students? Any changes to free movement rules for EU nationals, such as applying to them the visa requirements that currently apply to non-EU nationals, would give rise to a substantial barrier to entry on the grounds of immigration status to EU nationals. This would not just affect the top universities. Barriers such as this would reduce the UK’s attractiveness as a destination for study, making it more difficult for specialist institutions such as London’s Guildhall School of Music and Drama to attract the most talented from important European centres of training.
Postgraduate study and work are also important factors. Will the Government consider suggestions made by Imperial College, 60% of whose students and 40% of whose staff come from outside the UK, that the tier 4 pilot scheme for master’s students should be expanded, or that a new post-study work visa for the best STEM graduates—another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton—should be introduced?
The ability to collaborate across borders with people from different backgrounds, cultures and nationalities is what drives the world’s best universities. As many noble Lords have said, the UK has many of the world’s best universities, and the Government’s lack of planning stands to threaten not just their status but those of all higher education institutions in the UK. The higher education sector stands exposed, and we are already beyond the point when the Government should have begun taking decisive action. Many in the sector will be following this debate and hoping that the Minister is about to give them some encouragement that the void in government policy is about to be filled. We await his words of wisdom, and of hope, with much interest.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth for tabling this debate to take note of the value to the United Kingdom of higher education as an export. I am reminded of my own undergraduate days spent in a small city on the East Neuk of Fife. Let me start by unashamedly congratulating my old alma mater, St Andrews. Today, that city welcomes students from over 140 countries worldwide. I know that many other university towns and cities do the same. It is a remarkable demonstration of the global reach of our higher education institutions in the UK.
Talking of cities, we have rather done the rounds this afternoon. We heard about Winchester, with its cultural and educational focus, and, from the noble Lord, Lord Smith, about Cambridge and Pembroke—but above all, we heard about Chichester. I was particularly pleased to hear the right reverend Prelate’s warm, interesting and informative maiden speech about this remarkable city, a place where I spent every summer as a boy. In the way that he marketed that great city to us, he provided us with an educational insight. Chichester’s excellent mix of arts, science and cultural and theological life clearly remains a great asset. Speaking of which, the right reverend Prelate will clearly add considerably to the contributions to this House. I also note the excellent appreciation that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, gave to the right reverend Prelate’s speech.
Universities generated a £52.9 billion gross value added contribution to UK GDP in 2014-15. Yes, that is a large figure, representing 2.9% of all UK economic activity, and international students are a very important part of that. As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, said, we attract the brightest and best from around the world, and that has been a theme of today’s debate. According to the latest data, in one year alone they contributed an estimated £11.5 billion to the UK economy through only tuition fees and living expenditure. This means that higher education generates more output than many other sectors, including advertising and market research, legal services, computer manufacturing, basic pharmaceuticals and air transport, to name a few.
Statistics published by the DfE earlier this year estimated that the total value of UK education exports and transnational education activity was £19.3 billion in 2015. That is an increase of 22% since 2010. Higher education accounted for 67%—£12.9 billion—of this exports value. Let me attempt to define what we mean by value, although my noble friend Lord Norton covered it with his customary experience and was very thorough. There is, of course, a financial aspect—the money that education exports bring to institutions and the UK—but, as he said, there is also value in the cultural diversity that international students and internationalised institutions bring. For example, our world-renowned research base is enriched and better connected. International alumni form a resource to market our higher education offer around the world, as well as becoming ambassadors for the UK. International education collaboration also helps to generate diplomatic good will and soft power for the UK.
The UK is very successful in attracting students from around the world. Indeed, only the US attracts more than we do—although I took note of the points made about Australia. Perhaps this is unsurprising given the UK’s excellent higher education reputation around the world. Eighteen UK higher education institutions feature in the top 100 of the QS World University Rankings 2018, and four in the top 10. International and EU students make up an important part of the student body. There were 135,000 EU students and 308,000 non-EU students in the academic year 2016-17. So it is encouraging that the latest data show a 2% rise in the number of UCAS applications from the EU and, separately, a 6% increase in university-sponsored visa applications for non-EU international students. We also recognise that international and EU staff are important for the UK higher education sector. Non-UK nationals made up 30% of academic staff in 2016-17 and 10% of non-academic staff. These numbers have been growing steadily.
I want to address some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Smith and Lord Storey, about the importance of how international students are welcomed to the UK. This has to include the initial welcome, the introductions that are made, dealing with any language issues that might crop up, support when they first come, and ongoing advice that might be needed. Some noble Lords might say that the same should apply for UK students, but I am obviously talking about international students here. I reinforce the point that we very much welcome international students. We hope that they enjoy their time living and studying in the UK. In a recent report by UUKi, the UK ranked top among its competitor nations in the five key measures of student experience, including overall satisfaction, arrival and orientation, and support services. Some 91% of international students across all levels of study reported that they are satisfied with their experience in the UK.
The noble Lords, Lord Parekh and Lord Bilimoria, asked what action the Government were taking to welcome the Indian diaspora, which is a fair point. I recognise that we have had a period of reduced numbers of Indian students. That is why I welcome the 30% increase in the number of study-related visas granted to Indian nationals to 15,171 in the year ending March 2018. This follows a targeted programme by the British Council in India to welcome Indian students to the UK, but there is more we can do.
UK universities are also forging ahead with innovative ways of delivering their services overseas. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned our reach to China. The University of Nottingham was invited to become the first foreign university to establish an independent campus in China. Lancaster University is the first British branch campus in Ghana and the only one of its kind in sub-Saharan Africa. UK universities are often at the forefront of pioneering alternative forms of international provision, including online learning, blended programmes and joint degrees. These opportunities are open to our universities because they offer a high-quality education to students from around the world. Only a couple of days ago, I had the pleasure of hearing directly about the work of the Open University—a pioneer in distance learning and flexible study.
Research in the UK is world class. The noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Greenfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Smith, alluded to this area. The UK is home to 0.9% of the global population but of 4.1% of the world’s researchers, and it accounts for 2.7% of global R&D expenditure. At the same time, we produce 6.3% of articles, 9.9% of downloads—I can give an explanation later about what that means—10.7% of citations, and 15.2% of the world’s most highly cited articles. The UK places a high value on international engagement. Over 51% of all UK publications in 2014 were internationally co-authored, with a diverse range of countries. The UK’s share of international co-authorship has been increasing annually from 2010.
Continuing to work with international partners is critical. Our research strength and our innovation have been built upon a history of collaboration—a word we have already heard, when the case for collaboration was made strongly by the noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria and Lord Smith. Collaboration has helped the UK to become the centre of excellence that it is today. That is why the Business Secretary, Greg Clark, has launched a prestigious, £900 million UK Research and Innovation future leaders fellowship scheme, which is open to the best researchers from around the world. This investment will fund at least 550 new fellowships for global business talent. Our investment of £65 million makes the UK a major partner in the world-leading deep underground neutrino experiment—the first international “mega-science” project on US soil. Programmes such as the global challenges Research Fund and the Newton Fund help us to foster international collaboration as we work together to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time, such as clean energy and automation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, asked about Horizon Europe and if we will maintain involvement. We wish to explore association with innovation and research programmes, including Horizon Europe and Euratom research and training. We intend to engage fully and constructively in the design of these programmes, and we welcome the chance to discuss these specific arrangements with the European Commission.
There are other benefits of higher education exports that are perhaps more difficult to measure, yet no less critical. International students in the UK add to the diversity of the student body, contribute to the academic debate and help to create a more global mindset for our own young people. Higher education exports also make an important contribution to the UK’s “soft power”—which is probably not the greatest term, but I think that we probably have to live with it.
Students from all walks of life return home having built a positive experience and knowledge of the UK—as my noble friend Lady Redfern said—not to mention important alumni networks and lifelong friendships. Indeed, studies suggest that many world leaders attended higher-level education in the UK. That came out in the speech from my noble friend Lord Holmes. These personal connections with Britain help to build long-term social, political and trade links with other countries—and what value that brings the UK in terms of diplomatic and soft power.
I turn now to what the Government are doing to support education exports. The sector is making great efforts to promote and expand HE exports. The British Council, Universities UK International and individual universities all do this vital work. It is right that the sector itself plays a leading role, but the Government are committed to supporting its ambitions. We believe that we are in a very strong position with our global market share, but know that we cannot rest on our laurels in the face of international competition. I picked up many messages concerning that in the Chamber today. Australia, New Zealand and Canada are now seeing increases in overseas students, as are European countries that are increasingly offering courses in English. That is why we established the Department for International Trade education sector advisory group. Chaired by the Department for International Trade, Ministers from both the DIT and the DfE attend this group, along with organisations representing all areas of the education sector. It ensures that the Government understand what the sector needs and that we work together to boost UK education exports.
The DIT supports UK business by organising trade missions and inward delegations to the UK, and by publishing export opportunities online to inform the UK education sector. My noble friend Lord Norton raised an important point about the marketing of universities. I reassure him that we actively promote study in the UK through the GREAT campaign, which was mentioned, and through the British Council, which promotes the UK in over 100 countries, connecting millions of people.
To answer the point of my noble friend Lord Holmes, not just on India but perhaps all countries: we want you and your children. We can offer curry—I say this from my particular position—as well as a well-known beer brand.
My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth asked what more we can do to boost the GREAT campaign. We are always looking for ways to make it even more effective. The Department for International Trade and the DfE are working closely with the sector to explore how best to boost exports in education, including through programmes such as the GREAT campaign.
I know that the sector wants to know what EU exit will mean for its students. To help give certainty, we have given guarantees on student finance for EU students starting courses in the 2019-20 academic year or before, and assurances on research funding. The noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Smith and Lord Watson, asked what assurances the Government can give about students for the following academic year. We recognise how important it is that students and institutions have information on student support eligibility before course applications open. Applications for courses starting in the academic year 2020-21 do not open until September 2019, but we will ensure that students and institutions have the information they need well in advance of this date.
My noble friend Lord Dundee asked about the reintroduction of post-study work for tier 4 students to stay and work for two years of the study. He will note that the Government closed the post-study work route under tier 1 of the visa system in 2012 to tackle the large numbers of fraudulent applications and graduates remaining unemployed or in low-skilled work. Graduates can stay on to work in the UK by switching into a number of easy routes such as the tier 2 skilled worker visa, which over 5,000 students did in 2016.
The noble Lords, Lord Holmes, Lord Norton, Lord Parekh, Lord Smith, and nearly every Peer who spoke in this debate, raised the important issue of student numbers being kept within the net migration target. What I am about to say will not necessarily be new to noble Lords, and I am certain that we could have a long and full debate about it. However, I have listened to the points raised this afternoon, and they will be passed on. I say again that migration statistics are independently produced by the ONS. Like other migrants, international students who stay for longer than 12 months have an impact on communities, infrastructure and services, so they are included in the net migration statistics to provide necessary data. However, this does not act in any way to their detriment. There is no limit on the number of genuine international students who can come to the UK, or any plans to limit any institution’s ability to recruit them.
To help inform decisions on the future migration system, the Government have commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to provide an objective assessment of the impact of EU and non-EU students by September. This has provided an important opportunity for the sector to feed in views, and I am pleased to see that it has actively engaged with the review.
In the meantime, we continue to support the competitiveness of our world-leading HE providers: for example, by rolling out the tier 4 pilot, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Norton, which streamlines the visa process for postgraduate students at 27 universities. Just as importantly, it gives them extended leave of up to six months to find a graduate-level job. I hope that, if the pilot is successful, it can be rolled out further so that more institutions and their international students can benefit.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked a question about maintaining academic integrity by stopping contract cheating. I know that he works tirelessly on the subject, and we recently had a short debate in this House on it. We believe that the best approach to tackling this issue is, as he knows, with a sector-led, non-legislative initiative in the first instance, and we are working closely with the OfS and the QAA’s new academic integrity advisory group—I believe the noble Lord is a member—to evaluate the effectiveness of the guidance. We remain open to the future possibility of legislation, but certainly there is no guarantee of that.
I begin my concluding remarks by saying a few important words about where we are with higher education. I strongly believe that the UK continues to be an attractive destination for students globally, which is reflected in the continuing high numbers of overseas students who choose to study here. We are highly competitive in the global mobile student market, second only to the US in the number of international, EU and non-EU students that we attract, but we are not resting on our laurels.
On the back of the Higher Education and Research Act that we took through last year there will be the provision for a faster and simpler route for high-quality new providers to enter the sector and gain degree-awarding powers. We want to ensure that those with new and innovative ideas for setting up institutions can do so and make as much of these opportunities as possible, which of course encourages students from all over the world.
Lord Bilimoria
I appreciate, as I think do all noble Lords, the thorough way in which the Minister has answered so many of the questions we have raised, and we appreciate the British Council and the GREAT campaign. But I asked an important question about India being excluded from the 11 countries that were added for the fast-track scheme for student visas. In fact, yesterday the attaché from the Indian High Commission was very upset about that. A clear answer to that question was not given.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I recall that the noble Lord raised that point. I do not have a definitive answer, but I will write to the noble Lord to give him a full answer as to why that has happened and what the Government are doing about it.
In the spirit of new providers starting up, I mention once again the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology. It exemplifies the diversity and innovation of the offer we believe we have in the UK, which we must support the sector in showcasing to the rest of the world. We are rightly proud of what our universities contribute to research, academia, the economy, and the enrichment of lives across the globe, and we are committed to promoting the UK’s offer of excellence in higher education around the world.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken in this debate. There have been some excellent contributions, including the splendid maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester.
There has been a clear message throughout this debate. I recall how a few years back I initiated a debate on the need for an evidence-based drugs policy, and in replying, the Minister said that opinions on the subject were divided. Afterwards someone pointed out that in fact there had been no division of opinion in that debate—everybody was agreed—and that the only person who had taken issue was the Minister.
It is quite clear that the export of higher education is a vital resource for the United Kingdom. It is a public good at any time but it is especially important today when we need to strengthen our economy, bolster research in our universities and enhance our influence internationally. As various noble Lords have stressed, overseas students enrich our universities. I benefit enormously from my own postgraduate students who now span the globe—one went on to be his country’s Minister for Finance. Higher education adds to our global reputation—we benefit enormously and our students benefit enormously from the interaction with those students.
I thank my noble friend Lord Younger for replying to the debate. I suspect with my noble friend you are actually preaching to the converted. The problem is not with the Department for Education, the Foreign Office or the Department for International Trade, it is essentially with the Home Office and I appreciate that my noble friend may have been limited in what he could say. The key point, which has clearly come over, is that unless action is taken, we are going to find ourselves at an increasing disadvantage, not only in recruiting non-EU students but also ones from EU states.
I reiterate that there has to be a culture shift on the part of the Government and especially the Home Office. I hope my noble friend will deliver on what he said and convey the message he has heard in this debate to his colleagues in government and ensure that what we have said is heard clearly and loudly. If he does, he will find that he has very strong support.
Referendums: Parliamentary Democracy
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Higgins
That this House takes note of the impact on parliamentary democracy in the United Kingdom of the use of referendums.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, our debates on Brexit have made frequent reference to referendums, but it seemed to me that the time had come to take a rather wider view of this issue. I am glad to see that a number of noble Lords who have added their names to the speakers list today take a similar view. I look forward with great interest to their comments, particularly the maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Pickles. He will give us a more up-to-date perspective on the view of those in the House of Commons on these issues than some of us who moved from the House of Commons to your Lordships’ House a long while ago.
There is certainly no lack of background briefing on this issue. The House of Lords Library has produced a splendid note, and only this month a massive tome, a report of the Independent Commission on Referendums, was published. In addition, there have been reports by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee of the House of Commons. The latter makes a particular study of the results and the effect of the Brexit referendum.
They all draw a certain amount of attention to the history of referendums in this country since 1975. Referendums were used very successfully by Hitler. Both Churchill and Attlee criticised the idea of them and, notably, Mrs Thatcher described referendums as,
“a splendid weapon for demagogues and dictators”.
While that reflected the immediate context of the time, I think there are still considerable concerns about the way in which referendums affect our democratic system. They are certainly popular with the electorate—perhaps to some extent reflecting the unpopularity of politicians —with the idea that they somehow get a direct feed in, even though in this country I believe we have politicians who are less out of touch with the electorate than in almost any other country in the world because of constituency meetings and so on.
I am concerned that the idea of referendums is constantly referred to as democratic. One can see the arguments in favour of that view but, in fact, it is not what we normally mean by democracy in this country. What we fundamentally believe in, I think, is the idea of representative parliamentary democracy where we elect Members of Parliament and, as Burke pointed out, they then take into account the views of their constituents together with their own judgment on any particular issue. One of the problems with referendums is the extent to which a Member of Parliament or a Member of your Lordships’ House can take into account the views which were expressed. This is somewhat inhibited if a major part of a decision—almost a central part of it—is taken by a referendum. It is noticeable that very few Members of Parliament have stood up and simply said that they reject the decision of this or that referendum.
The crucial issue here is whether the referendum is regarded as binding. I took part at great length in the debates in your Lordships’ House on the referendum Bill. What was clear at that time was that it proposed an advisory referendum, not a binding one. It is clear since then that the Government have regarded it as binding. The effect of that on the extent to which Members of Parliament can express an independent view is obviously very important.
The Prime Minister, soon after the result of the referendum, said very clearly we must “respect” it. Respect is a very interesting word. As far as the last referendum is concerned, there are lots of reasons for not respecting it. It was not a representative democracy, passed by an overwhelming majority of the population. It was a majority of those voting but quite clearly a lot of people did not vote because they realised that they did not fully understand the issues. Therefore, the argument that we must respect it also has to be seen against the background of a campaign that was riddled with lies from beginning to end—not least on the question of the Brexit premium. In addition, there is the recent discovery of the extent to which the finances of the leave campaign might have affected the result. To conclude that we must respect the result is very doubtful.
As far as that is concerned, we have to take into account whether it is binding or not. As I say, it is in danger of undermining rather than helping our democratic system. The report that I referred to from the House of Commons points out that critics of referendums warn that they may undermine parliamentary democracy, particularly so when there is a clear difference of view,
“between … a majority of the public and the majority of parliamentarians”.
It points out that this is probably the situation with the Brexit decision. So this, again, must give us some concern that referendums do not really help the operation of our democratic system—in fact, quite the contrary. I conclude from that that there are some serious problems that we have to face if we are to continue with the use of referendums, and there is a very strong case for the committees of both Houses to look at the issue in great detail.
One thing I am absolutely clear about is that I do not think there is a case for a second referendum on Brexit. We can do without another one, as it would again produce a very confused result. The right course of action at this stage is for Parliament to assert how the pieces of the chaos that have resulted from the referendum, not least in the last few days, can be put right. Parliament really must assert its influence more strongly over the way in which things develop in the present situation. Therefore, the case for referendums becomes increasingly doubtful. At all events, I think that we need to tighten up the rules.
I was surprised to discover in the briefing the existence of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, which I had not previously come across—I may not be alone in that. That could perhaps be amended to cover certain issues. I will always regret that during the passage of the referendum Bill through your Lordships’ House, I did not put down an amendment to cover thresholds for both the turnout and the majority. We might have been in a very different situation today had I done so, but I thought that if I did, it would inevitably make the result of the referendum mandatory rather than advisory. None the less, I think that there is a case to be made, perhaps by the relevant committees, for saying that we should not have any referendum in future without thresholds for the turnout and the majority.
I conclude by saying that we certainly need further study by the committees to sort out the present problems that I have referred to. However, I am also influenced by the fact that I spend a considerable amount of my time in the Netherlands, which has had a rather bad experience with a referendum relating to Ukraine. It has been a real problem for the country, so the political coalition in the Netherlands has decided to introduce a measure to ban, flat out, the use of referendums, including advisory referendums. As I said, the difference between advisory and mandatory referendums is very blurred. As I understand it, this had already gone through the lower House of the Parliament in the Netherlands, but there was then a move to have a referendum against having a ban on referendums. This was obviously rather controversial. The result is that there have been further disputes and the matter has gone to the Supreme Court, which has come to the conclusion that you cannot have a referendum banning the use of referendums. That, as I understand it, is the present situation and we will have to wait to see what any appeal against the Supreme Court decision brings.
That brings out the important point that we should consider to what extent the use of referendums in our country undermines the normal representative parliamentary system, in which we have such faith and which I think is unequalled in the world, not least in protecting minorities. One of the great problems with referendums is that they take no account whatever of minorities. They have been described as the dictatorship of the majority, and I think that that is indeed the position, not least as far as the latest referendum is concerned.
I believe that we should consider all these issues very carefully and I hope that the debate will seek to clarify them further. Given the amount of interest in this issue by way of background papers and so on, this is clearly an appropriate moment for us to consider to what extent we should continue to use referendums and, if we do, in what form. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, time is very tight in this debate, and I respectfully ask all noble Lords to comply with their speaking times.
Lord Parekh (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for securing this debate. We have had three national referendums so far and quite a few regional ones, but none of them has led to the kind of controversy that has arisen from the last referendum. There are two factors to that: first, it dealt with one of the most important events in our history, which is unscrambling the arrangements that we have had in place for the last 42 years; and, secondly, the result was totally unexpected—at least, unexpected by those who called it. Therefore, there is a danger that our debate on the place of referendums in a democracy could be clouded by our views on that referendum. In order to avoid that, I want to decontextualise the debate and talk almost entirely about the place of referendums in a democracy, irrespective of what happened with the referendum on the EU.
Our political system is parliamentary democracy, not parliamentary sovereignty, but I think that the two are often confused. First, it is a parliamentary democracy in the sense that the power lies with the people, and it is articulated not directly by the people but through the representative institution—namely, Parliament. Therefore, it is a democracy first and it is parliamentary second. It is a parliamentary democracy because it is democracy as articulated through the instrumentality of Parliament. Therefore, as a parliamentary democracy, people remain sovereign. Popular sovereignty, as in any independent state, is a basic principle of a political system, and that is true of our system as well.
Secondly, to talk of parliamentary sovereignty implies that the monarch has no role, but you cannot call a Parliament unless the monarch calls it, and the monarch is not a part of Parliament.
Thirdly, Parliament is subject to certain conventions and procedures. Unless those procedures are met, it is not properly constituted and its deliberations and decisions do not count as laws. Therefore, Parliament is not sovereign, and it is misleading to say that it is. Given that we have a representative democracy, the question is: what is the role of a referendum?
Here, I take a slightly different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, because I am a keen supporter of referendums, provided that they meet certain conditions and are conducted in a certain way. Nearly 95% of parliamentary or representative democracies in the world practise referendums, and the fact that Hitler used them does not necessarily make them a weapon of dictatorship. For example, in a parliamentary democracy people might feel that Parliament does not represent them or that the political class, made up of different political parties, is already thinking in a certain way and acting on assumptions that people do not share, as I think happened in this case. What do people do in that situation? How do we elicit their views?
In that context, I think that people have a right to speak if they feel that the Parliament does not fully represent them. If they have a right to protest or demonstrate, they also have a right to express their views, and the only way they can do so is through a referendum. If people feel that they want to disown the political class, or if, on an issue of fundamental national importance, they feel that Parliament does not represent their views, how do people speak? They speak through protests and so on, or else through referendums. A referendum, with all its limitations, is a valuable constitutional device. It gives voice to people’s feelings and gives them a chance to express their views. It forces them to think, because a clear-cut issue is presented to them. It centres on a specific issue and is not won or lost by which political party is in power, as general elections are. More importantly, everyone feels engaged by it, and people feel committed to the decision that is taken because they have all thought about it individually and participated in it.
That referendums have a place in a parliamentary democracy is beyond doubt—as I said, we have already had three referendums so far. The important thing is to be clear about what the place of a referendum is: to constitutionalise it. It cannot just be an ad hoc convention by which a referendum takes place. It must be regularised and constitutionalised to give it a definite place in our constitutional system. This would mean laying down the conditions under which a referendum can be held and the manner in which it should be conducted so that information is provided to the people. It would indicate where a referendum is politically binding and where it is not, and where it should have a threshold or a supermajority provision. Once referendums are constitutionalised in this way, they would become an important part of our constitutional system and could be easily reconciled with any kind of parliamentary democracy that we happen to have.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, in discussing referendums we have very much to put our discussions in the context of declining popular support, in this country and elsewhere, for parliamentary democracy. It is a real problem we all face, and we see it as it stretches across the rest of the democratic world. In Britain, we have a situation in which the people—and newspapers—who campaigned very hard for the restoration of British parliamentary sovereignty have, for the past two years, insisted that the “will of the people” as expressed in one referendum must override parliamentary scrutiny and further debate. We have disillusion with elites and with the establishment—with representatives, as such—and the rise of “authentic” charismatic figures who are seen to represent the people, even though they usually do not come from the people. We see that not just in Britain but elsewhere. When I see the Daily Mail giving large coverage to Jacob Rees-Mogg attacking the establishment as a man of the people, I feel that we are almost in a surreal world. But that is where we are, and the public school-educated journalists of the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph busily attack the metropolitan elite, even though they are all members if it; meaning, of course, that what they are attacking is those who think that evidence, debate and discussion are important to democratic politics and not simply emotion and gut feelings. That is the problem that faces us and into which context we have to put the future of referendums.
Membership of political parties has declined. In 1970, 5% of our voters belonged to political parties, the largest of which was the Conservative Party. In 2010, it was 1%. It has recovered a little since then, although in some unpublished figures, the Conservative Party is now the fourth largest political party in Britain after the Liberal Democrats and the SNP. It certainly ought to worry us that the governing party has become a central political machine funded by large donors without the roots it used to have among the population.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
That is a matter for the noble Lord.
We have a broken two-party system. In many other countries, the old parties have begun to break up and new parties are emerging, but ours are held in place by a voting system and by their privileged access to funding. We have a situation in which political education in this country is extremely poor—almost absent. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said that we believe in parliamentary democracy. However, my experience of the referendum campaign is that many people expressed deep confusion about the quality of democracy and the issues at stake because we have not tackled the question of how to educate our masters, as Disraeli said we needed to do, so many years ago. One reason I have been converted to the idea of the voting age being 16 is that it would encourage schools to get into political education in a much more active way. We all know how delicate and difficult that is, but we need enormously to prioritise citizenship, an understanding of the rights and obligations of citizenship, what we mean by the rule of law and what we mean by representative democracy.
It does not help that local democracy has been undermined and its funding cut back, and that we now have fewer elected representatives in England than in any other democratic country. We have seen the professionalisation of political campaigning, the rise of what the Russians call political technology, and the very slick way in which the anti-AV campaign and the Brexit campaign—both led by Matthew Elliott—used the peripheral, almost irrelevant, question of funding for the National Health Service to discredit other matters. That was very well done and very clever, given that it was not central to the issues. The influence of big funders—often offshore and occasionally foreign funders, and occasionally also dark money—is clearly something that we need to look at.
Where does that take us? Like the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I have read the various reports. I was very impressed by the Independent Commission on Referendums and I strongly agree with many of its recommendations, including that referendums are best to ratify a decision which government has taken rather than to start a debate about what we might do if the population expressed a preference for X rather than Y. The last thing one should do, of course, is have a referendum to avoid the governing party having to take a decision first. That is what happened two years ago and is, after all, what happened in 1975.
I also agree with the commitment that referendums need to be embedded in a longer process of debate and negotiation, as far as they can be. Citizens’ assemblies and other things are mentioned, and in Britain we face the problem that we have a more highly educated electorate but they are less interested in politics. They want to listen to us on the radio or television only for 30 seconds at a time, rather than the two to three minutes we used to get 20 or 30 years ago. There is a real problem in getting complex politics across. I also agree that referendums need to be restricted to major constitutional questions. I further agree that referendums need to be tightly regulated. The report says rather optimistically that they need to be fair, but what we have seen in the context of the last two referendums—most recently in 2016—is that regulation needs to be not only clear but quickly imposed. Here we are, two years after the referendum, and the questions of where some of the money came from and whether the limits were exceeded still hang in the air.
Where are we as a result of all this? Referendums have become a part of the British constitution—we cannot take them away again—but they should be used rarely. Our democratic system is much shakier than it used to be, and politicians across all parties need to co-operate to repair and strengthen it. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: parliamentary democracy is the worst of all systems of government, except for all the others. And I am not at all sure that plebiscitary democracy is any better than parliamentary government.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I worry that we are all going to say the same thing. I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. What worries me is that there are strong forces at work, putting pressure on our unwritten constitution, and we do not have answers as to how to meet them. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on this timely debate. I am very pleased that we shall hear two maiden speeches, one from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, who has relevant local government experience, and one from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who brings to these Benches his wealth of constitutional knowledge.
We are proud—are we not?—that our constitution is not written down. Everyone else has to write it down, but we can get through without that. Indeed, one of my predecessors as Cabinet Secretary once said in evidence to a Select Committee, “Oh we make it up as we go along”, and there is a sense in which that is true. I remember on one occasion I asserted as Cabinet Secretary a principle—it does not matter what it was—as a long-standing convention and got away with it. My staff pointed out to me later that there was no reference to it in any textbook or other document anywhere. I had invented a long-standing convention on the spot. That plastic quality of our constitution is in some ways a huge advantage. Although we talk about our constitution over the centuries, the reality is that it changes the whole time.
If we look at the last 40 years, we have had entry to the Common Market, which was a huge constitutional change. Local government used to be an independent tier of democracy, but over the last 30 or 40 years it has become an agent of central government in many areas. When Secretary of State, Mr Charles Clarke actually asserted that it was an agent of central Government. Nicholas Ridley predicted it before the poll tax came in. That is a big change. “Where are the riots in defence of local democracy?”, I asked local government when that was happening, and there was no answer.
Similarly, Mr Blair’s years were a period of extraordinary change. There was devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They were all different in concept and in content, but no one remarked on the inconsistency. We had reform of your Lordships’ House, freedom of information, the Human Rights Act and a whole raft of big change and yet nobody really noticed it. That is the truth: in this country no one is interested in the constitution and we tend to do big change as if we were under anaesthetic. We wake up decades later and wonder whether we meant to do what we did. It is happening with Europe at the moment, but devolution is another area. We tend to think about it only after it has happened and we should have thought about it beforehand.
Referendums have slipped in in this way because social pressures lead to big change in the constitution. Successive Governments, from time to time, have found it convenient to have referendums—not necessarily for the right reasons. We have similarly found—as Brexit illustrates—that we have had the referendum without paying much attention to the legislation for it and then we woke up and wondered what we meant by it. We must first look at the pressures that led to this demand for referendums. When I first entered the Civil Service, most informed policy debate took place within—though I have no evidence for this—5,000 to 10,000 informed MPs, civil servants, professionals and so forth in a small social space. But the social space is now tens of millions of people who have discovered that it is much more satisfying if they express themselves on social media rather than wait every five years to vote. That pressure is much bigger than the answer that referendums will provide.
We have to accept that referendums have come, but we should have a clear understanding that they should be the final step in a long process of democratic debate so that everyone is familiar with what comes forward and has had a chance to discuss it. It should be the final blessing on what has been done but no great shock, and everyone should be clear, with all the options, what will happen if they vote for them. We cannot have options put forward in a referendum where no one knows what they mean at the beginning of the process. The process is the wrong way round on Brexit. We should have the referendum only when we know what we are voting for. That is the fundamental point.
It is also nonsense to say that Parliament cannot overturn the democratic will of the people. Parliament is sovereign. We are a monarchy, not a republic. The Queen in Parliament is where sovereign power lies. I will not develop that because I am at the end of my speech, but the fundamental importance of accepting that Parliament is sovereign and that referendums can only be advisory is important, however difficult that is.
We are at the beginning of a process. Let us now look at the constitutional change that is coming and get it right before we implement it ever again. Governments should never offer an option in a referendum that they think would be damaging. How can you possibly defend, in the national interest, offering the public an option that you think will do them damage? But that is what happened with Brexit.
Lord Pickles (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I stand to address your Lordships’ Chamber for the first time. It is some 26 years since I made my maiden speech in another place and, even more dauntingly, it is 40 years since I made my maiden speech in Bradford City Hall. I was born in Keighley in a two-up, two-down in terraced housing close to the River Worth—and I can say that it is more than distance between the River Worth and this gilded Chamber. Somebody of my background was extremely unlikely to find themselves in this Chamber. However, my grandfather told me at the age of 15 that I would become a Member of this House.
Let me explain the background. On both sides of the family we were Labour voters. My great-grandfather helped form the Independent Labour Party at the beginning of the 20th century and my maternal grandfather was a Christian Socialist of the old school. He was a railwayman and it was his proudest day when the Labour Party under Clement Attlee nationalised the railways. I cannot help but feel that my grandfather would be very pleased with the present Government on the east coast line.
My grandfather was a keen supporter of Harold Wilson and George Brown and I continually argued with him—not, as you might think, as a prototype Selsdon man, but because Labour was not good enough. I was a Communist. My room was festooned with posters of Marx and Engels. I had Das Kapital and I read the Communist manifesto. For my 14th birthday my parents bought me Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution, which I read from cover to cover. I must tell noble Lords, with some distress, that a few years ago I tried to read it again and felt a little like Bertie Wooster being given the task by the most formidable of all his fiancées, Florence Craye, of reading Nietzsche. Bertie concluded that it was an excellent remedy for insomnia. Noble Lords will recall that Jeeves thought that Nietzsche was “fundamentally unsound”. Much the same could be said of Mr Trotsky.
But before I realised that, I was arguing that the Labour Party had betrayed the working classes by what the Wilson Government were doing and my grandfather said, “The trouble with you, young Eric, is you’re gullible: I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you didn’t end up as a ruddy Tory”. Then he went on—it pained me at the time and I am sure that it will pain noble Lords—“I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you didn’t end up with those half-wits in the House of Lords”. So here I am—the black sheep of the Pickles family, albeit with an ermine collar. My grandfather was a great man and I still treasure the Bible he gave me over half a century ago. Along with my parents, he was responsible for a very firm moral compass.
Besides my interest in the Conservative Party, which I am delighted to inform noble Lords has recently seen a massive increase in its membership, I have always been interested in social cohesion and the groups that make up the United Kingdom. At an early age, in the mid-1980s, I was co-chairman of the Joint Committee Against Racism with the late Labour MP Jo Richardson, whom I remember with great affection. Goodness knows what she would make of the current situation—but I will leave that for another time.
Whether it was in the Joint Committee Against Racism, or as leader of Bradford Council, chairman of the Conservative Party, Secretary of State or in my current job, I was always bolstered by some good advice given to me by my noble friend Lord Lawson of Blaby when I was a very young Conservative. I was at an event at which he explained what it was like to be a Secretary of State. Somebody asked, “How do you keep that up? How do you keep that rhythm going?” He said, “Because one day I know it will end”. Admittedly, ending in this place has a certain finality about it, but I have always felt that if you are given an opportunity to speak out, you must say what you think is right and make a difference.
I will briefly make a couple of remarks to my noble friend Lord Higgins, who taught me an awful lot when I was a very young MP. I cannot help but feel that Richard Nixon, who perhaps was not the greatest parliamentarian, had it about right: once you squeeze the toothpaste out of the tube, it is just about impossible to get it back in. All the very fine distinctions that have been made make not a jot of difference to the public. They have voted and the distinction is different. Even Charles de Gaulle, somebody I admire perhaps more than anybody, came unstuck on a referendum because the French public answered an entirely different question.
In conclusion, were my grandfather to look on the fine bunch of men and women that I see before me, I think he would regard his judgment on your Lordships’ House as a bit harsh. I think he would feel that I was in very good company.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, it is a real and genuine pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Pickles. I have heard many maiden speeches in this House but I have never heard one quite like that. I learned a lot about his early years. Of course, he has had a most distinguished career in local government as leader of Bradford Council, a Member of Parliament —you could not wish for a more assiduous constituency MP than him—and a Cabinet Minister. Whatever job he has had, he is always refreshingly down to earth and direct, as we have heard. He has a clear and analytical mind. He is prepared to grasp nettles and bring about change when change is needed. He does all this with a twinkle in his eye. His great talent is his capacity to diffuse any political situation through his sheer presence. He brings great experience and expertise to this House and we warmly welcome him.
As others have said, today’s timely debate is thanks to my noble friend Lord Higgins. The Motion before the House tactfully talks about the impact of referendums on parliamentary democracy. “Tension” might be a more accurate word, because that is what we experience today. We know how it happened: after the 2015 general election, Members of Parliament exercised their judgment—as they should in a representative democracy—and voted to call a referendum. In a general election, voters delegate to politicians the responsibility for making complicated decisions; in many ways, the politicians delegate that responsibility to the voters in a referendum, at least up to a point. The question on the ballot paper was very simple: “Do you want to remain in the EU or do you want to leave?” The complicated question of how we leave the EU was not on the ballot paper, so it was left to the politicians to answer it.
The problem is that politicians cannot decide among themselves, which has resulted in Members of both Houses claiming that they have somehow been able to divine what people voted for: to take control, leave the customs union, not leave the customs union, not be worse off or whatever. Frankly, we do not know what they voted for, because people vote the way they do for hundreds and thousands of different reasons, many of them absolutely bizarre. The idea that everybody reads every line of every manifesto or piece of political literature is fanciful. Politicians are now grappling with what form Brexit should take and are beginning to call for a second referendum. “Let the people decide”, they say. “Do they want the form of Brexit that would be on offer or would they prefer, on second thoughts, to remain in the EU after all?” I am totally opposed to a second referendum. Let me explain why.
One of the great things about this country is that, every four or five years, millions of people go to their local village hall, library or school, take a pencil stub, put a cross on a scrap of paper and put it in a tin box. The next day, the most powerful and ruthlessly ambitious people in the land walk out of Downing Street and government without a drop of blood being shed. It is one of the glories of our democracy. It works by consent: people who do not like the result accept it, which is the foundation of our democracy. But if politicians say, “I know you voted to leave in the referendum, but don’t you think you might have made a mistake? Would you like to reconsider your decision?” then the political class undermines that referendum’s validity and the very foundation of our democracy.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on securing the debate, which, as others have observed, is timely. A man who secured a silver medal in the 440 yards relay in the Commonwealth Games in 1950 knows how to pace himself. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, on his maiden speech with all its fascinating revelations. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, shortly.
Of course, I acknowledge that the United Kingdom cherishes a parliamentary democracy. That key point, and all that flows from it, has been powerfully argued by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It is the genius of this country that over time we have made use of ancient yet enduring institutions and constantly evolving constitutional practices to serve a thoroughly modern society. The Church was present in the counsels that predated Parliament and the estates that first gathered here. It has witnessed both the supremacy of the other place and the extension of the franchise. We are being looked down upon in stone effigy by those who witnessed Magna Carta, including two archbishops.
Parliamentarians have, at certain key moments, embodied the sense of the nation and articulated what needed to be said on local and national issues—as, indeed, on matters of global importance. We have sought and seek to legislate for the better welfare of our fellow citizens and we do so with our time, expertise and wisdom. We do so in this House upon our honour. Our role is to scrutinise, challenge, debate, consider and legislate. At the end, we offer our labours as a contribution to the parliamentary process and to Her Majesty for her consent.
Referenda are historically alien to the British constitution. However, the introduction of plebiscites into the British system is now a development, albeit regrettable, that we have to live with. We have legislation specifically on national referenda in the 2000 Act, such are their permanence.
It is worth considering why this has occurred. I identify at least two reasons. One is to determine intractable issues that people will not otherwise allow a Parliament to determine. In 1975 and 2016 it was, at least in part, to manage party divisions over our relationship with the key European bloc and bring certainty to a long-running issue. It came into play in the referendums on Scottish independence in 2014 and on Scottish and Welsh devolution in 1978 and 1997. As in some other countries, we now allow for key constitutional issues to be determined in referenda. The voting system referendum of 2011 was another example.
The second reason is not unrelated to the first. It is an understanding that, since democracy is the participation of the citizen in the politics of the community, referenda offer the widest and most direct form of such participation. They carry with them the sense of final arbitration of block votes on binary questions. The problem with binary question voting in a national ballot is that it invites the voting population to do what parliamentarians undertake in the context of debate and continuing process—mastering a complex topic. For referenda to continue—there is no sign of them going away—there needs to be on each occasion a mechanism, such as a Joint Committee or commission, responsible for public preparation on the issues. While there was extensive prior coverage lasting years and high-quality debate before the 1975 referendum, neither was evident in 2016.
Binary questions do not resolve complex matters of public policy, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury made clear in this House on 7 March last year, during the Report stage of the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. A referendum acts like a surgeon’s knife in amputation at a static point in time. By contrast, parliamentary deliberation evolves after each general election, facing each matter before it in scrutiny, argument and debate. A simple question determined by a slim majority leaves virtually half our nation permanently without a voice in the matter, in a way that a Parliament never does. As is said in Proverbs, chapter 21, verse 5:
“The plans of the diligent lead surely to abundance, but everyone who is hasty comes only to want”.
For both Houses of Parliament, the continued option of referenda poses a challenge. We need urgently to recover a sense with the public that we address the really important matters and do not shy from or endlessly postpone them. If we can find the means to communicate the importance of public policy and something of its texture in the media, the appetite for this innovation in the British constitution may wane. I sincerely hope that it does.
We are contending with matters that are the most momentous that this country has faced, certainly since 1940. There are those who, at the very time we need the sort of deliberation I have expounded, have sought to close down debate in this place in a plea that all is decided in a referendum and that the rest is for the Executive to determine. Such an approach is injurious to parliamentary democracy as evolved in this nation and I hope that we in this Chamber and in the other place will resist this misguided attempt.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in such an interesting and topical debate. I thank everybody who made my introduction to your Lordships’ House so enjoyable, including my supporters, the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and those—in particular, Black Rod and her staff—who have started to explain to a rather slow student both the geography and the procedures of this astonishing and remarkable place.
I am proud to associate myself with the town where my wife and daughters were born and where I have lived for most of my adult life. Since Anglo-Saxon times, Ipswich has prospered from trade with Europe, frictionless or otherwise. It stands also for global Britain, having manufactured the first railway locomotives used in China. Another distinction was lost without too many regrets just last week: the record of Ipswich Town Football Club in providing the England team with each of the managers to have taken it to a World Cup semi-final.
But my origins lie far from East Anglia, in non-conformist Yorkshire and in Scotland: in a small business in Skipton run by my Yorkshire grandfather, William Mason, a motorcycle champion, who later filled the sermons he gave as a Methodist lay preacher with the geology, physics and astronomy he loved and knew so well; and in the Kinloch Anderson company, best known as a kilt maker in Edinburgh and now in Leith, which this year celebrates its 150th anniversary in its sixth generation of family management.
My mother and father forsook their own family businesses for a new one—schoolteaching and, later, headmastering. Among their pupils at different schools in Scotland and England were the heir to the Throne and future Labour and Conservative Prime Ministers. I hope that that is a cause for congratulation, but in any event, with no prospects of equalling that achievement, I turned instead to the law. Since then I have scratched a living in a range of courts, as advocate and part-time judge, but I am most familiar with the courts of the European Union.
Opinions of course differ on whether the EU has contributed to the unprecedented peace and prosperity enjoyed in our continent over the past 70 years or merely coincided with it. But on almost any view, the European project constitutes the most advanced expression the world has yet seen of the international rule of law—a state of affairs to which British judges and lawyers have contributed with distinction, including my own mentors, the late Lord Slynn of Hadley, Sir David Edward and Mr David Vaughan QC, who sadly died earlier this year.
Change came for me in 2010, when I was invited to succeed the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his remarkable work as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Since then, in that capacity and others, I have spent most of my time in the invigorating if sometimes treacherous waters of counterterrorism, counterextremism and investigatory powers. This has left me with a deep appreciation for those who work in intelligence and law enforcement to keep us safe, both in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and indeed abroad. We think of the three police officers whose great and exemplary bravery was recognised only today. I have appreciation for others as well, not least the British Muslims who have impressed me on so many occasions with their energy, generosity and desire to contribute fully to the life of this country, and finally for your Lordships’ House, whose real and beneficial influence on the law in these areas inspired me to fill out the application form to join your number.
That leads me to this debate. In translating the result of the recent referendum into a position that commands assent in Parliament, we seem to be in some difficulties. No doubt those difficulties have many causes, but our current predicament highlights for me two linked issues relating to the use of referendums in a parliamentary democracy. The first is the problems that are bound to arise when opinion in Parliament opposes major constitutional change and the majority of the people demands it. It was instructive to learn from the University College report, at paragraph 2.47, that the usual practice in other countries is for constitutional change to need the endorsement of Parliament before it is put to the people.
Secondly, it is surely at the least highly desirable that irreversible constitutional changes should be made not just on the say so of a bare majority of those who voted on a particular day but by the settled will of a clear majority of the electorate. That is all the more important when, in contrast to the usual practice in other countries, a referendum is the sole decision point for such a change.
To this end, mechanisms such as voter turnout thresholds and supermajorities—a familiar feature of corporate governance—are available. The Constitution Committee of this House recommended in 2010 that such safeguards should not be ruled out. I was delighted to hear the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, make a similar point and was disappointed that the otherwise excellent University College report stopped short of endorsing these mechanisms, even in exceptional cases.
I am exhausting my ability to be uncontroversial and I have just exhausted my time as well. I thank noble Lords for their welcome and their indulgence.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, we are indeed fortunate to have listened in a single debate to two such distinguished maiden speeches, each delivered with great style, wit and charm. I am particularly pleased to follow my noble friend Lord Anderson and thus be the first to congratulate him. I confess to no surprise at the excellence of his speech: periodically during my years as a judge he used to come before us and make dazzling appearances; not invariably with success, but that was probably our fault and not his. He is described in the main reference book appraising members of the Bar as the—the, not a—leading EU public law expert, with,
“an incredible level of analysis and mastery of presentation … charismatic and charming”,
and,
“a spectacular advocate”.
His huge contribution to public life, as the Government’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation for some years, until February last year, needs no emphasis from me. It is well summarised, surely, in the citation for his knighthood, awarded just a month ago in Her Majesty’s Birthday Honours List:
“For services for national security and civil liberties”.
To advance both those twin imperatives, wrongly thought by some to be in conflict, is surely a singular achievement. This House is going to benefit immensely, I suggest, from the expertise and wise judgments of my noble friend Lord Anderson, and we greatly look forward to his future contributions to our debates.
Turning to the issue of the debate, referendums, I first join with others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on securing and so skilfully opening this debate. I should begin by confessing to having written a “Thunderer” article in the Times on this question in April, headed, “Britain needs one last referendum before we ban them”. A few days later I was confronted in a corridor by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, has already referred. He asked me if it really was me who had written this piece, and when I acknowledged that it was he said he hoped I realised how stupid it was. Did I recognise, for example, that 20 years ago the referendum held on both sides of the border in Ireland had been integral to the success of the Good Friday agreement? I was, I confess, rather shaken by that encounter and I have become rather less clear in my view that once, by a further referendum, we have, as I suggest we should, obtained the public’s view on whether, after all, we should Brexit, we should, as I said in the article,
“legislate to ensure that never again will our parliamentary representatives feel bound by a referendum to sacrifice their own mature judgment on the altar of public opinion”.
My more up-to-date views are these. First, referendums are, I suggest, by their very nature a risky and dangerous way of determining important political issues. I will not quote again the famous quotation from Margaret Thatcher, but they are a populist device, all too often ill-informed and dangerously repressive, and they ride roughshod over minority interests. Of course, all that was notoriously true in Nazi Germany, as has been observed. Nevertheless, with appropriate safeguards there may be occasions when, perhaps as a prelude to major constitutional change, a referendum is indeed appropriate. The Good Friday agreement is, I am inclined to accept, a good example of that. So too, I think, was the vote on Scottish independence and possibly—although here I put a particular emphasis on safeguards—the vote on membership of the EU.
By safeguards I am really talking about the various ways of protecting representative democracy from the obvious deficiencies that we can now see to have afflicted the 2016 EU referendum. That gave the public a deceptively binary choice, to be made by a bare majority and in circumstances where, although in strict legal theory the result was advisory only, politically it was really compelling, as has been acknowledged, at least to the extent of requiring an Article 50 notification to begin the Brexit process, although not, I would argue, to the extent of pre-empting any further, final referendum once the available terms become clear.
Possible future safeguards, obviously interrelated, for any future referendum would, I suggest, include the following. First, we should require more than a bare majority of those voting before giving effect to a vote for change. Secondly, we should spell out as precisely and truthfully as possible the actual likely consequences of a choice either way. As my noble friend Lord Wilson put it, any referendum should follow, not precede, a full public debate on the questions at issue. Thirdly, we should make it plain that the result of the referendum will be treated as advisory only. The weight of such advice, the respect in which it is held, would depend always on the clarity of the choice offered to the electorate, the extent of the majority, in both absolute and proportionate terms, and indeed the relevance of subsequent events.
Taking the present situation, surely there are here highly relevant subsequent events. They include, do they not, the increasing likelihood that leaving the EU will prove altogether more difficult, and possibly damaging, than many of those who voted for Brexit can possibly have supposed; the discovery of substantial breaches in electoral law by those campaigning for leaving; and of course the mere passage of the two years, which of itself has enfranchised many of the younger generation, who plainly wish to remain.
Three suggestions have been made. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, is that we simply slavishly follow the referendum, however imprecise may have been the decision then taken: it was to leave and we should do no more than follow that. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested that parliamentarians could properly now ignore the referendum utterly. I suggest that there is a real risk of forfeiting public trust in the political process if that course was taken. Thirdly, it is suggested that we should ask the public and respect their view on the deal now available by a further referendum, and that is the course that I support.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Higgins on initiating this debate. Although we have variously discussed and legislated for referendums, we have little experience of debating the merits of referendums qua referendums. There is a tendency to advocate a referendum as a means of achieving an outcome that may not be achieved through other processes.
Referendums are offered as tools of democratic expression. They are, however, in conflict with responsible government. Government can be held accountable to electors for the decisions that they take and the outcomes, but how can the electorate hold themselves accountable for the outcome of a referendum decision? Decision-making through referendum is, strictly speaking, irresponsible.
The form of a referendum is also problematic. As the right reverend Prelate mentioned, voters are faced usually with a binary choice. The stark choice between A and B leaves out a choice between A-plus and A-minus and between B-plus and B-minus and option C. That relates to another fundamental problem—my noble friend Lord Sherbourne has touched on this. We know how people vote, but not why. Did those voting for A prefer A-plus or A-minus? The 2016 EU referendum appears to have generated a remarkable body of mind readers. We keep hearing from some that the 17.4 million who voted to leave voted for a hard Brexit. We hear from others that, in fact, electors voted for a soft Brexit. We know definitively that a majority voted leave. We do not know definitively why they voted leave. Survey data may suggest the reason or reasons, but polls are a form of political intelligence and are often given a weight that they cannot bear. There is no way authoritatively to resolve that dilemma. Even if one holds a second referendum, it will not reveal why people voted the way they did in the first.
The EU referendum reveals other problems. Referendums are advocated on the basis that they generate debate and a more informed electorate and that they produce a decisive result, perhaps for a generation. I contend that the 2016 referendum debate was not notable for a high level of intellectual discourse. It was a confused debate and indeed an exercise, on both sides, in how not to conduct a referendum debate. It did not clearly resolve the issue. As with other referendums, no sooner does one have a result than those on the losing side start finding reasons why there should be another referendum.
There are thus powerful arguments to be made against referendums. The problem, as several noble Lords have said, is that it is now too late to close the lid on this Pandora’s box. Referendums are part of our constitutional architecture. In my view, they are a rather ugly feature, but we have them. Given that we have them, the challenge is managing them effectively with a clear set of rules that are applied consistently.
To listen to some Members of your Lordships’ House, one would think that this House was not involved in passing the EU referendum Bill. Objections are expressed to implementing Brexit on the basis that the majority for leave was small and that therefore it should not be implemented. That is to apply retrospectively rules that we did not embody in the referendum Bill. The time to argue over supermajorities or turnout thresholds was when we were discussing the details of the Bill. It is now rather too late to discover that one provided for the outcome to be determined by a simple majority.
We could have made the referendum binding, as we did with the 2011 AV referendum. I presume that the Government set their face against doing so because that would be to concede that the leave side might win. We are thus in a position where some argue that we should not implement the result of the referendum as it was advisory. I have always made the point that it would be perverse for Parliament to legislate for a referendum and then ignore the result.
Dicey provided the classic definition of parliamentary sovereignty. What is often overlooked is that he made the point that legal sovereignty rested with Parliament but that political sovereignty rested with the people. He wrote:
“The electors can in the long run always enforce their will”.
Arguing that Parliament can set aside the outcome of the referendum is politically naive and potentially dangerous. If we do not intend to abide by a referendum outcome, we should not legislate for one.
The position that we are in shows the problems with referendums. But we are in the situation we are in. If we are to have referendums, let us anticipate and determine clear and agreed rules. The report of the Independent Commission on Referendums, set up by the UCL Constitution Unit, to which reference has already been made, has just been published. It identifies clear criteria for holding referendums and its proposals merit serious consideration. I hope that the Government will take the proposals seriously so that, in future, we can argue over the merits of a case and not muddy debate with arguments that cannot be resolved over process and motivation.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, whenever I listen to the noble Lord, Lord Norton, I always think how immensely fortunate we are in this House to have somebody who approaches matters of this kind with so much clarity and convincing analysis.
I thank most warmly my old personal friend, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for having given us the opportunity to discuss this matter today. I have always been persuaded that the constitution in the broadest sense belongs to the people and that we are the practitioners. But of course it is not as simple as that, because what has evolved with our constitution—and it is just as well to have been reminded by a former Cabinet Secretary that it is changing every day—is that we have representative democracy, and we have very firmly as the pillar of our democracy the concept that communities send representatives, not delegates, to Parliament. Of course, they are morally and intellectually party to the manifesto to which they subscribe, but in Parliament they are expected to use their judgment and wisdom in the interest of the people. That is very precious if democracy is going to work.
Going with that is the concept of consensus. Within whatever constraints come out of a general election, there is a certain limit on absolutism. Other views have to be taken into account; no Parliament can be binding on its successor. Others may come and change the situation. This leads to give-and-take and modification, a process of self-education in Parliament about the issues faced and the solutions advocated.
After quite a long time in Parliament, I feel more strongly than ever that parliamentary democracy will work successfully only with strong, clear political leadership. It is essential for leadership to spell out to people what the issues really are, their implications and what is needed to put them right. We cannot abandon that process to the media and the ill-prepared public.
I must recognise, however, that the people were given the opportunity to express their views in a referendum. I cannot for the life of me see how—in the light of all that has emerged since, all the discussions and all the realities that have been revealed—we can possibly seal such a significant change in our constitution without the people having had an opportunity to endorse again whether they accept what is being put forward. I am not sure that I favour another referendum. However, if not a referendum there must be a general election before the situation is sealed, because the people must have had an opportunity to hear the arguments and to listen to contrary points of view on what should be done, before making their decision.
I do not think that it was right to go down the road of a referendum, and I am uneasy and a bit disturbed by the rationalisation that is now going on. With great respect to my noble friend Lord Parekh, I question how you constitutionalise that process: I do not believe that referenda and parliamentary representative democracy can work alongside each other. One is about intelligent and critical debate and outcome, cut and thrust and building consensus and so on, and the other, when it comes down to brass tacks, is about oversimplified, emotional decisions.
Forgive me for coming back to this theme pretty well every time I am on my feet, but one of the saddest things about the whole referendum process is that anyone who thinks and experiences life in this country knows that we are totally interdependent with the rest of the world: defence, the economy, security and migration all require an international approach—working out what is the best way forward in the interests of our people by working together. That is why I believe that we must seek the endorsement of the people through a general election in which these issues can be fully debated.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, decades ago my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood said that the British constitution was not worth the paper it was not written on. Now we have a more dysfunctional constitution than many of us have ever seen. I do not concur with some of the sentiments expressed to the effect that this wonderful unwritten constitution kind of dynamically works. It is in danger of failing to work and letting us down very badly. If our Parliament does not understand that and start to think about it, we may find that centuries of evolution can be crushed in a very short time.
I want to refer to two different referendums that we had on constitutional issues. In the Scottish referendum on independence there was at least a semblance of a framework. I will claim some credit: it was during a period of coalition, with a Liberal Democrat Secretary of State for Scotland who recognised that there needed to be a shape to that referendum. The shape took the form of the Edinburgh agreement, where all the parties agreed on the principles and the outcome, and that it would be accepted as a once-in-a-generation decision. That was not enforceable but was nevertheless part of the agreement.
It also forced those calling for the referendum—the nationalists—to at least set out, in a very long White Paper, the basis of what kind of independence they were asking the people to vote for. Much of the detail of that White Paper was challenged—and was very challengeable—but it was at least a framework. It forced them to say things such as, “We would operate with the pound sterling”, which exposed the fact that, as we had no central bank and required the authority of the remaining part of the United Kingdom, that was a basis on which independence would not fly, and almost certainly determined the outcome of the referendum, which was to remain part of the United Kingdom. If a process even vaguely approaching that had taken place with the Brexit referendum, there might have been a difference in the context of the debate and the outcome.
History will treat David Cameron very harshly, because to put a question to the people that involved an answer which you had no idea how you could deliver was the most appallingly irresponsible and cavalier, short-term political approach to the destiny of our nation. History will not forgive him for that. We now face a situation in which the majority of people in Parliament and in Government believe that we are embarked on a decision that will deeply damage our country for many years—if not generations —to come. I do not mean just economically: I mean politically, in terms of our standing and influence in the world.
It is essential, therefore, that we look at how we are abusing our constitution, and if we use instruments such as referendums we find ways of putting them into proper contexts. They should probably be reserved mostly for constitutional issues, and a two-stage process may be the only way you can make them work where there is a binary decision. That involves asking people in broad terms which way they want to go, but with a clear undertaking that, having set out the course, the mechanism will then be developed before they are again asked, “Is that still something we should follow through?” I find it ironic that of all the parties in the country at the moment, the one that is most enthusiastic about campaigning to give people a referendum on the outcome is my own party, the Liberal Democrats when we are the party that least needs the referendum. We were completely united from start to finish that it was the wrong thing to do and we should not do it. It is the other parties which are split and may have to go back to the people to get a resolution of their own difficulties, because they are not capable of resolving them themselves. There just seems to be an irony about that.
The position that we need to develop is: if we are routinely to use referendums in future as a means of determining a position, the first thing we have to be clear on in law is whether it is a consultative, advisory referendum or a binding referendum. If it is the latter, before the question is put you have to be able to tell people what the implications or consequences of either of the answers are in detail. The argument we are now faced with is that having had a referendum, anybody who suggests that we should do anything other than implement that referendum—even though we have no idea in what way to do it—is frustrating the will of the people and despising the democratic process. I think it is offensive to suggest that. I do not blame people who voted leave in the context. They were told lies and left to make all kinds of judgments. They were voting for all kinds of reasons, as has been said. It is not my view that they got it wrong, or anything else. Some of them might be absolutely certain that they know what they want and would vote for it again.
However, I believe categorically that when we know that the nation is facing a serious potential mistake, the very least we have to say to people is, “First, we have to be able to agree a course of action, so if we do not have one we cannot have a referendum”. But we are all faced with a situation where literally none of us has the slightest idea what will happen to our country next week, next month or by next March. Yet we turn around and claim that we represent the people and can somehow or other deliver for them, and that we are bound to implement their decision, even though we do not know what it means, because we did not think about that when we asked them the question.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is absolutely right to have initiated this debate. It is essential that the country thinks hard about how we work our constitution and use instruments such as referendums in ways that do not take our country from disaster to catastrophe.
Lord Eames (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for making this debate possible. A week ago the report of the independent commission on referendums, which has already been referred to, was published. When I was invited to be a member of the panel that produced that report, I went into those sessions with two human emotions. The first was that I came from a part of the United Kingdom where the people had spoken with such force in the Good Friday agreement referendum—and I also came from a part of the United Kingdom which had voted contrary, by a majority, to the rest of the United Kingdom on the Brexit issue. There I had two contrasting human pictures of the power, purpose and result of a referendum.
What did I find? I found that in all our discussions in that panel, which comprised politicians, the media, academics and people who had experience of referendums, and which resulted in 70—I say again: 70—recommendations in the report, what came through time and time again was that there is a human side to the dilemma of the referendum issue. Let me explain briefly what I mean. Having been Anglican Primate in Ireland through all those years, and being absolutely involved in the events that led up to the Good Friday agreement, to feel the people speak with the volume that they did when the possibilities and results of all the discussions were made known was not only an emotional endorsement but a constitutional endorsement of the way forward. You could not be in the position that I was in and not be totally overcome by the power of what was possible by having a referendum and giving the people the choice.
The difference between the two referendums was that the people knew what we were proposing as the way forward. There had been preparation, education, discussion and dialogue, and when the first referendum was held and the Good Friday agreement, or Belfast agreement as it is sometimes referred to, was put before the public, they were in a position to say, “This is what we want. This is the way we are prepared to go”—and there was no disillusionment as to the possible outcome. Moving on to the second referendum, there is a part of the United Kingdom that by a majority decides one way and finds that, when the whole picture becomes plain, it is in a minority. The democracy that we all believe in said, “Fair enough. Northern Ireland has expressed its view but the referendum says, ‘This is the view of the United Kingdom, so we go this way’”.
I cannot overemphasise the degree of confusion that exists in Northern Ireland today, not only about the border, and not only about the fact that so many of the consequences of Brexit will be felt by us first in the United Kingdom, but about the fact that we have learned two lessons about referendums from the examples that I have given. It was therefore no surprise to me that there were three consequential suggestions from the independent commission’s report:
“First, we should seek to ensure that referendums fit as well as possible into the rest of the process of democratic policy-making, so that there is effective preparation for any referendum and the choices available to voters are as clear as possible”.
The last speaker reminded us of the significance of that in the Scottish situation.
Secondly, we suggest that,
“referendum campaigns should be conducted in a way that is fair to both sides and enables voters to access the information that they want before deciding how to vote”.
The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, reminded us of the significance of that point. The third suggestion is that,
“the rules around referendums should be updated for the digital age, so that transparency is maximized and it is harder for the system to be abused”.
In making a plea from my own experience of the two contrasting consequences of the process of referendums, I suggest to the House that not only should this independent report be seriously considered but that the House should understand that there are different facets of how the population of the UK approach a referendum situation.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for initiating this debate. He talked about things being riddled with lies. The finances of the Leave campaign have just come to light, and there are people calling out for the whole thing to be rerun because of that. I congratulate my noble friend, whom I have known for many years, the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, on his excellent maiden speech; it was fantastic to hear his story. I also welcome the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, my noble friend on the Cross Benches. I am sure that both noble Lords will make a phenomenal contribution.
The whole idea of referenda is that they are simple yes/no questions. The interpretation by the Prime Minister and the Government is that the people voted to take back control of our laws, our borders and our money and that therefore we will leave the single market and the customs union and there will be no more ECJ—simple, cut-and-dried red lines. We have had only three UK-wide referenda in our history, including the one in 2016. The 1975 referendum on the European Community was not a vote to join; we had already joined in 1973. The referendum was on whether or not we should stay in. Similarly, the AV referendum in 2011 was for no change, based on the idea that, “You know what you have with our current system; this is what you’ll get if you go for AV”. Then of course there have been eight referenda on devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
We have to remember the results of those other two UK-wide referenda: in 1975 it was 67.2%, a two-thirds majority, while in the 2011 AV referendum the result was 67.9%, another two-thirds majority. What were we doing—were we asleep when we passed the referendum Act and did not insist on a two-thirds majority threshold? I am not advocating a written constitution but in every country that has one, if you want to change that constitution there is invariably a two-thirds hurdle, and Brexit means changing the constitution in a huge way. Referenda should be used only in very rare circumstances. The Constitution Committee has given some examples, which I shall come to.
In 1945, the Labour leader Clement Attlee responded to Winston Churchill’s wanting to hold a referendum to extend the wartime coalition by saying:
“I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism”.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, Margaret Thatcher said they are,
“a splendid weapon for demagogues and dictators”.
Then Margaret Thatcher spoke about this whole concept of representative government, where elected representatives—not delegates of their constituents but representatives—make decisions in the interests of their constituents and the country as a whole. We keep hearing about the 17.4 million but what about the 16.1 million people who voted to remain? That is a huge minority. That is the other point about the representative system of democracy: it protects minorities and ensures that their interests are taken into account. Here you have the tyranny of the majority on a one-off vote with a permanent effect.
Look at the effect that that has on MPs. If you look at the list of what the Daily Mail calls “mutineers”—the rebel MPs, the brave Nicky Morgans and Jonathan Djanoglys—you can see that many of them have constituencies that voted to leave, but they believe that it is in the best interests of the country to remain. So this has really challenged the whole concept of parliamentary democracy. To top it all, people were given four months to decide on an issue of such complexity—from February to June 2016. Then there is the asymmetric reversibility of referendums. There is a big difference between the consequences of voting for the status quo and a vote for independence or withdrawal. A leave vote is irreversible, whereas with a remain vote you can always come back again and have a vote to leave.
Here is the crux of it all: I am told that it is undemocratic to challenge the will of the people. No, no—it is very democratic. In a normal electoral cycle, every four or five years you make a decision and, if someone wins by 50.1%, they have won. Five years later, as Keynes said—and even David Davis says that a democracy cannot be a democracy unless you can change your mind—you can change your mind and you can vote them out and have something else, after the facts have changed. That is real democracy, not holding people to something permanent. On top of that, you have the youngsters who were not allowed to vote. The demographics have changed in these two years; there are two years’ worth of 16 and 17 year-olds who are now eligible to vote—and there will be more by the time we come to next year.
Things have changed, the facts have changed and our economy has changed. It was the fastest-growing economy in the western world two years ago; now Europe is growing faster than we are. The timing of the referendum was absolutely wrong; the migration crisis was at its peak and it frightened people. And then there is the reason for the referendum. Why did David Cameron do it? It was for the right wing of his party and for UKIP. Things have changed. Where is UKIP today?
My conclusion to this is that, in having a referendum, we should have had a threshold. Now we have the consequence where there are three options. The first is that we may have a hard Brexit, which will be unacceptable to this Parliament and the people of this country. Secondly, we could have a soft Brexit, with the EEA option, which is where we might end up—the least-worst option. That might be acceptable. The third option is that we might end up remaining. In my view, there is no option, and we are headed for something—call it a second referendum, call it referendum part 2 or the people’s vote. That is most likely to happen and is probably the most democratic solution to the conundrum that we have brought upon ourselves.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with many of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. There has been a subtext to every speech in this very remarkable debate, introduced so splendidly by my noble friend Lord Higgins. The subtext has been, “I wouldn’t have started from here”. I have to say to myself as well as to everybody else that we are indeed where we are.
We have had two very fine maiden speeches in this debate. My noble friend Lord Pickles made a gently but wonderfully idiosyncratic speech that we will all remember. It was a potted autobiography, and all the better for that. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made a very fine speech. I am just sorry that he was not appropriately dressed for it, in view of the fact that he comes from a family of kilt makers.
This is an incredibly serious matter. I was very taken by the reference to the Netherlands by my noble friend Lord Higgins. I would love to have a Bill before your Lordships’ House stating that there will not be any more referendums. But, again, they are now part of our system. We could of course have one that would have one question: do you wish to continue to live in a parliamentary democracy? I believe that a parliamentary representative democracy is really inimical to the concept of a referendum, but we have to accept that there will probably be other ones.
Let us remember that it is our duty to learn from our mistakes. We made mistakes when we passed that Act without inserting requirements for a specific majority, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, suggested we might have done—but we did not. The lesson that has come out of this debate more clearly than any other is that a referendum should be to ratify what Parliament has decided. That is in fact what the referendum of 1975 did. I took part in it; it was an intelligent debate. I had Labour Members of Parliament, colleagues, staying in my own home and taking part with me in meetings in my own constituency. Everybody knew what it was about. We had entered what was then the European Economic Community and were deciding whether to endorse that particular decision. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, has just reminded us, we endorsed it with more than a two-thirds majority. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, also talked about Northern Ireland but, again, that was endorsing—ratifying—something that had in effect already been decided.
Any referendum Act—and there is a need for one—should have two principal objectives. First, the referendum should be to ratify what Parliament has decided and, secondly, as with those countries that have a written constitution—to which the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, and others referred—there should be a threshold, as we had in 1979, and a percentage. No referendum should ever be judged as an instruction from the people unless there is a very large majority indeed. The majority of 2016 was something of a generational majority; my grandchildren were in tears because of what my generation had done to them. We cannot rerun it. I am not one of those who will advocate a second referendum, but I really do recommend that we heed the lessons of our recent past.
I have always been a great student of the English Civil War. I have known the facts for a very long time, since I taught them as a schoolmaster. In the last few months, I have come to understand the emotions. Parties have been torn apart and friends have said things to friends that a friend should never say. I really do believe that that is because the result was so close. We have to learn these lessons. I suspect that Mr Cameron, who chose the wrong time for the referendum, when people were confusing migration and immigration—remember that dreadful Nigel Farage poster of the Syrian refugees—made a promise not thinking that he would have to deliver. I think he still felt that he would be to some degree dependent upon Liberal Democrat votes, which was not something that would lead to a referendum.
As I said, we are where we are. We have got to make sure that such a division never occurs in our country again. In the next few months, we have to try to heal the wounds—which are quite deep—that have already been caused.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, we have had a debate of enormously high quality from all speakers today—a very special occasion. I hope, therefore, that I shall not be the exception, because I share the joint feelings of remorse and dismay about what has happened in this country, and the way that we have lost our way as a result of it. I am not decrying the result of many millions of votes—far from it. I am a great believer in collective democracy of that kind, but we have lost our way as a result of what really was a mistake made by people who have now been described as all having voted for the same reasons, but who did so for all sorts of different reasons. This is a national tragedy of unrivalled proportions that fills me with great gloom as well as a determination to try to help, in a modest way, to rectify the huge mistake that this country made in 2016.
In the meantime, however, this House has gained two excellent new stars in the firmament. We thank the noble Lord, Lord Pickles—whom I have always admired and whose career I followed as much as I could from a distance when he was in the House of Commons as a distinguished Member and, finally, a Cabinet Minister—and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. We thank them very much for their history, their remarks, and their commitment to this new place, which I hope they will not find too eccentric. I was particularly grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the breadth of his vision, and that important explanation about the European Court of Justice. I have always been an enthusiast for the European Union. I make no apology for that now and I have never reduced that view. In fact, it is now even more important to the health and welfare of all the member states than it ever was in the past.
We are lumbered in this country with the tragic misfortune of having five or six extreme, right-wing newspapers, owned by owners who, by the way, conveniently do not pay UK personal taxes and live as tax exiles, and who inflict on us long, boring editorials about the need for patriotism in Britain. For some reason, they have focused on anti-Europe as a main theme for their papers, which become comics and magazines rather than newspapers; they become propaganda sheets rather than genuine purveyors of news. It is the only European member state that has this tragedy and I regret it. I blame and feel bitter about the Murdoch experiment in this country, which did so much damage, and overlapped with other newspapers in the way that they dealt with things—we have to contend with that as well.
It is invidious in such an array of high-quality speeches to single any one out, but I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his words of great constitutional wisdom. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, for what he said; I am tempted more and more to agree with him that the lack of a written constitution is a disadvantage rather than a plus point. We have always been proud of being different from the others in saying, “No, we don’t need a written constitution”. However, as the former Cabinet Secretary pointed out very clearly earlier in the debate, that has now become a mistake and a liability, and somehow we have to get through this.
As others have said, this is the first time that a referendum has been inflicted on the country without any particular rationalisation of why the country should vote either one way or another—except the emotional thing about staying in or leaving the European Union. It is totally different from the 1975 referendum. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. When we worked reluctantly with the Conservative Party on that, we disapproved of the referendum idea, but we all worked for a good result—there was one and the country settled down.
Why has this country remained the bad member of the European club? It is a club of friendly, sovereign countries working together, using majority voting sometimes and unanimity at other times, building up the European Union by treaty, and increasing the collective sovereignty of the whole body—as well as the individual sovereignty of the member states—whenever they make a collective decision. Most member states regard that as a good thing. Why has Britain been the unique exception to this and had this strange attitude that, somehow, it is them against us and they are doing us down? There is this hostility to the European Commission as well. It is one of the smallest civil services in world history, running on the instructions and requests of the European Parliament—which is democratically elected on an increasing turnout, and has more influence in the 50:50 system of legislation—the Council of Ministers and sovereign member states.
That is what we need to emphasise as we approach, I hope, the resolution of this ghastly crisis. The Government is in disarray and I am afraid the Prime Minister has made mistakes in handling this matter since the referendum result. I still wish her well in coping with it but, none the less, we have to deal with it and solve it, and restore the feelings and confidence of the people in our political system by restoring the sovereignty and strength of our parliamentary democracy.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, we have been treated to two most memorable maiden speeches, and I think we will all enjoy in future the contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich and Lord Pickles. We are also hugely indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, for introducing what must be one of the most topical debates ever to have come before your Lordships’ House. In that connection, we are also extremely grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and his colleagues, who produced this great work. I went to the launch last week and listened with interest to his contribution today, and I shall make some more references to that report in a moment.
The quick answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is that if representative democracy was as effective and democratic as we are entitled to expect in a mature country such as ours, we probably would not need referendums. We need them because it is not, I am afraid, as perfect as we should like. That point was made eloquently and thoroughly by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire.
The Report of the Independent Commission on Referendums is remarkable for a number of reasons, but its membership deserves some mention. It was high-powered and cross-party, and included important leavers and remainers. I think that Parliament—and government—will have to look carefully at its recommendations. There are 70 of them; I have been through them and ticked the great majority of them enthusiastically. The Minister, having recognised on Tuesday that the present legislation was frankly not fit for purpose—I think I am quoting him fairly from our exchanges—will acknowledge that we will all have to look at this work very carefully. It picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, just now: we must learn from mistakes. The commission’s report goes through those mistakes with admirable clarity.
The comparisons made by my noble friend Lord Bruce with our previous referendums—in Northern Ireland, which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, referred to, and in Scotland—were absolutely critical. That, too, was picked up by the independent commission. I could give many examples from its recommendations, but clearly time is not on our side. However, I will pick one or two, because they are relevant to all the discussions that have taken place in your Lordships’ House this afternoon.
First:
“Referendums are best suited to resolving major constitutional issues, such as those relating to sovereignty. They work best when they are held at the end of a decision-making process to choose between developed alternatives”.
That point was made eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Wilson. Secondly:
“Any legislation enabling a pre-legislative referendum should set out a process to be followed in the event of a vote for change. If a government does not produce a detailed White Paper on the proposals for change, a second referendum would be triggered when the legislation or treaty implementing the result of the first referendum has passed through the relevant parliament or assembly”.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and other noble Lords are perhaps sceptical of the value of a second referendum, but the independent commission makes a solid point there.
Thirdly—a detailed point, but very relevant at the moment:
“Imprint laws that apply to printed campaign materials should also be extended to apply to online campaign materials. This would allow voters to identify the source and legitimacy of political advertisements”.
And finally:
“The Commission has made various recommendations that require amendment to the legislative framework for referendums called by the UK parliament. It hence recommends new legislation to amend the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act … 2000 and bring these changes into effect”.
I could quote many other recommendations, many of which have been echoed on all sides of your Lordships’ House this afternoon. However, I will now concentrate for just a few minutes on what happens next.
In contrast to his colleague in the Commons on Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Young, clearly accepts that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. The repeated advice of the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner, with the continuing inquiries of the DCMS Select Committee in the other place, make this all too evident.
Occasionally it is alleged that the margin of the outcome of the 2016 referendum could not be due to the improper use of online campaigning; the Minister himself has drifted somewhat in that direction on previous occasions. The jury is out on that point: the margin was less than 4%, a 2% swing would have taken it to remain, and for every 17 people who voted for Brexit, 16 voted to stay in the EU.
I am sure that the Minister—who is always extremely well informed and briefed—has studied very carefully the authoritative report published recently by the Constitution Society, Data and Democracy in the Digital Age. He is nodding. The figures quoted there are very persuasive. Between the elections of 2015 and 2017, the Conservatives increased their expenditure on online platforms, data agencies and consultants from £2.2 million to £3.9 million; and Labour from £368,000 to £1.7 million. In the 2016 referendum the remain campaigns spent nearly £4 million and the leave campaigns some £4.5 million. Of course, those are only the returns that were recorded. They can give us only a hint of what others may have spent illegally—including, of course, the Russians, the so-called “dark money”, to which reference was made earlier in the debate.
This week’s report of the very thorough investigation by the Electoral Commission adds to the urgency for greater transparency and more effective penalties for breaking the law. If those big sums are being spent in that way—legally or illegally—either those who provided them have been fooled into investing in something that is a complete waste of money or a lot of very clever people have got the wrong end of the stick. I do not believe that and believe therefore that those very considerable sums were spent with the intent to have real influence.
In the last few days we have had the report of the investigation of the Electoral Commission which adds to the urgent demand for greater transparency and for more effective penalties for breaking the law. The two main leaver gangs stand accused—officially—of both lying and now cheating, and the modest fine is laughable. Knowingly spending an illegal £500,000 and more and being fined £61,000 cannot be accepted as appropriate.
If this vast expenditure has insignificant impact then, of course, it may be that it does not really matter—but clearly it does. Parliament will have to legislate for the digital age and, in particular, we need to improve the defence mechanism to prevent foreign interference. The source and legitimacy of all forms of support—in kind as well as in cash—must be reviewed, and here the role of American billionaires may be as influential as that of Russian state-sponsored bots.
There is unanimity among our statutory advisers and other interest organisations that the law needs updating urgently. The Minister himself referred again on Tuesday to his party’s 2017 statement, recognising the,
“broad consensus that election law is fragmented, confused and unclear”.—[Official Report, 17/7/18; col. 1140.]
He also reminded your Lordships that we cannot just take down the previous Act from the shelf—there is an Act for each referendum—because, despite the recommendation of the independent commission that there should be generic law covering all referendums for consistency, we have not got it.
It surely is necessary now to start the process to find a consensus on what needs to be done. The work of the independent commission gives us a very good start. We could start now to draft the main amendments and new clauses that would be likely to command that consensus—inside and outside Parliament—so that we can be ready for whatever may be needed in a few months’ time.
I do not think that we are in a process at the moment that can end up simply with a political fix—an agreement to do whatever in a few months’ time within the political system. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton, reminded us earlier, political sovereignty rests with the people. If you once ask them a question and then decide you may need to change that a bit in future, it will not be sufficient just to bring it back to Parliament. However much we revere and respect the sovereignty of Parliament, we will have to think about how the people feel as well. After all, yesterday even the normally cautious and sceptical Times reported increased support for, and an increased likelihood of, a further poll. I believe that it would be simply irresponsible for the Government not to start work now on updating the referendum legislation.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the great danger in speaking late in a debate with so many thoughtful contributions and such experienced noble Lords is that the old adage rings true: perhaps everything has been said but not yet by everybody. Therefore, being one of the last speakers, I feel somewhat apprehensive.
I genuinely and warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on securing such an interesting and valuable debate. I also thank the House of Lords Library for providing an excellent briefing. It is a pleasure to speak in a debate in which I have heard two first-rate maiden speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Pickles, and I have form on debating, in that we had neighbouring constituencies when we were both in the other place. I rather like the sound of his grandfather, but I expect that it will be a vain hope to tempt the noble Lord back to his political roots. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is known to many noble Lords through his former work as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, at which he distinguished himself. With his speech today, he distinguished himself in your Lordships’ House as well. We are very grateful to have two such impressive additions to this House and we welcome them both.
Despite the general title of this debate, it was inevitable that it would focus on the 2016 referendum on our EU membership. There are several issues to address in talking about the general subject of referendums and parliamentary democracy: why do we have referendums in the first place; what is their interaction and relationship with the democratic process; and can we do better in future? Quite often a high moral objective is attributed to referendums. Proponents assert that they are an opportunity to break away from decision-making by the so-called elite so that the people can have their say, but the reality is that they are rarely used because the Government want to seek public opinion; they are more likely to be used for reasons of political management, and it is interesting to look at the three UK-wide referendums that we have had.
In 1975, a referendum was held on whether to stay in the Common Market. Harold Wilson inherited a divisive policy after Ted Heath took the UK into the European Community. All the indications were that people wanted to remain in the Common Market, so there was little risk in having a referendum, but by having a public vote and allowing his Ministers the freedom to support whichever option they chose, although the debate was quite heated and difficult at times, Harold Wilson avoided a damaging split in his Government and his party, and he reinforced his own political position.
The 2011 vote on the voting system under the coalition Government sought to manage the relationship between the Conservatives and their Liberal Democrat coalition partners.
In 2016, we had the EU referendum, which has since proved to be very controversial and divisive, and it is on that that today’s debate has focused. In 2011, the coalition Government introduced legislation which had first been proposed by Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. It was rejected by the two other parties, which then provided for a referendum should a new treaty transfer additional powers to the EU. However, there was no political will to maintain that position. I was interested to hear from noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, as it was Nick Clegg as the Lib Dem leader who campaigned for an in/out referendum on membership, and then 81 Conservative Peers defied the Whip to support such a poll. With that growing dissent in his own party and an electoral threat from UKIP, David Cameron made it a manifesto commitment. Therefore, again, it was for political management. Similar to 1975, it was a straightforward yes/no vote about remaining in the EU or leaving. I think that that referendum has brought much of the theoretical discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of referendums to life, particularly given the closeness of the result.
A number of questions have been raised today. Do referendums undermine or enhance parliamentary democracy? Do they provide a tool or a tactical device for Governments, especially authoritarian ones, or can they be a check on Governments’ powers? Are they a genuine means of engaging the public or are they dominated by the elite and by well-funded groups? Does the legitimacy of a yes/no question do justice to complex issues? Also, in the same way as it is often difficult to disaggregate why voters vote in a particular way in elections, can we be confident that a single referendum question is really the issue on which people make a judgment?
The most challenging of all the issues is the interaction and relationship with the democratic process. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, opened the debate with the wise question: can any referendum result be binding on a Parliament? The dilemma here is that, for any referendum to have any legitimacy with the electorate and to get them to take part, the public have to be given some authority. But can that legitimacy or authority extend to overriding parliamentary democracy and representative government and, if so, how can that be judged? Would it be by the national result or, if the voting was counted in that way, by constituency?
Let us be honest: few people call for or support a referendum unless they think they will win it. The decision whether or not to proceed with a referendum lies with the Government and Parliament, so they are likely to take place only when the Government of the day decide that it is in their interests and that they will win.
Throughout my political life, I have argued that democracy is about more than voting: it is about participation, engagement and education, and, as your Lordships’ House is only too aware, it is about scrutiny and compromise. That becomes almost impossible if it is a binary choice in a referendum. Democracy is not a finite act that is exercised with one stroke of a pen. When votes are cast in a referendum, in order for them to be respected by the elected representatives, it should be done in a way that unites rather than divides. Elected representatives have to act in the context of their wider responsibility to the country and to their constituents. They have to, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, translate that decision into legislation.
We all understand the inevitable tensions both before and since the 2016 referendum. But there can be no excuse for the way in which some newspapers and journalists expressed their view that those who did not agree with them were not acting in the national interest. Comments as extreme as calling people “traitors”, and worse, deny the very foundations on which our democracy is founded.
That was not all about the referendum. There was of course something else going on, symptomatic perhaps of wider changes in the world, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Wilson, that fed into much harsher personal attacks on social media. Often, this was in the form of tweets from those hiding behind a pseudonym, but occasionally it was done in person. The worst of all examples is the murder of our parliamentary colleague Jo Cox.
What is the way forward? When the Independent Commission on Referendums reported earlier this month, it was able to reflect not just on the last referendum but on others that have taken place. Two paragraphs of the report have been raised in this debate, and I think they are key. In one, the report says:
“In some circumstances, referendums can exist alongside the structure of representative democracy without difficulty. Where a referendum takes place on a precise proposal for change that has already been worked through the representative process, it can make and legitimise a final decision”,
and,
“strengthen representative institutions by enhancing the connection between representatives and voters”.
That is because the voters know exactly what they are voting for. The report adds:
“By contrast, where a referendum takes place on an imprecise proposal, difficulties can be created. As a consequence, parliament can find itself left with an instruction from voters, but with wide disagreement on what that instruction means. That is particularly so if those who called for the change are not among those responsible for its implementation”.
Essential for the legitimacy of any referendum is clarity of choice, an understanding of the implications of that choice, and confidence in the quality of information and the integrity of those providing such information. That is even more pertinent now, following the finding on the Vote Leave campaign’s actions. In 2010, having examined the issues, our constitutional committee was clear that a national referendum was appropriate only in a limited range of constitutional issues. However, I think that much greater caution will be exercised in future, not because of the outcome of the 2016 referendum but because, as a number of noble Lords have said, of the lack of clarity around what was voted on. Because of that, everyone can claim that they know why people voted. That has led to a weak and divided Government, and we are probably in a position where there is no majority for any option currently on the table in the House of Commons. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, talked about a lack of public confidence; this referendum has decreased our confidence and trust in politicians rather than increased it. With the referendum, the public expected politicians to sort it out but they are failing to do so.
There is probably just one issue that Baroness Thatcher and Clem Attlee agreed on many years ago which was that they feared that it was not democratic if the loudest and richest had the greatest say. They made the point that government is not just about the will of the majority but about protecting minorities.
I hope the Minister can respond on this. It is clear that in future we need greater rules and criteria that are fit for purpose, including on how social media and modern technology can be used and abused in these proposals. It is clear that the legislation needs to be updated but it has to bring clarity to what is being asked for and honesty and integrity to the arguments, which do not denigrate experts.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Higgins on his choice of subject, which is even more topical today than when he chose it, and on the speech he made introducing it. I also thank all noble Lords who took part. As the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, it has been a very high-quality debate. In the time available, which has been curtailed somewhat—I make no complaint about that—I may not be able to deal with all the points.
I congratulate my noble friend Lord Pickles. This is the second time I have admired his maiden speech; on 5 June 1992, the newly elected Member for Brentwood and Ongar addressed the other place for the first time on housing and the importance of owner-occupation. He may recall one sentence from a moving egalitarian speech:
“what is good enough for the toffs is good enough for the workers”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/6/1992; col. 1058.]
Then he may have identified himself with the workers, but today? Who can say? He is well known to many of the cognoscenti of electoral matters for his report Securing the Ballot, which has informed many of our debates. We are delighted that we will now have his direct, earthy input.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on his maiden speech; like my noble friend he has a distinguished career in public service and his contributions have already informed many of our debates. Again, as European and security issues move towards the top of the political agenda, we are delighted to have him and look forward to his future speeches.
Looking at the list of speakers yesterday evening, I noted that half are former Members of the other place, as were all three Front-Bench spokesmen. Speaking for myself, I was always worried about what my noble friend Lord Sherbourne referred to as the tension between parliamentary democracy on the one hand and government by referendums on the other—an issue that ran through our debate. It was mentioned by, among others, my noble friends Lord Higgins and Lord Cormack, the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who mentioned plebiscitary democracy. For example, a majority of MPs could make it clear in their election addresses that they opposed capital punishment, but then be faced by a referendum that went the other way. But the only way that the law could be changed was if MPs voted to change it, setting Parliament against the people. In a sense, that is what has happened in the EU referendum, as we know that the majority of MPs voted remain but were confronted with a different verdict from their electorate—a point made by my noble friend Lord Higgins to which I will return in a moment.
Having said that, I do see a case for referendums on whether people want to remain under this Parliament’s jurisdiction, as with the referendum on whether Northern Ireland should stay in the UK or the referendum on Scottish independence, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and others. I believe those are in a category of their own and a valid case can be made for them under the principle of self-determination. Since 1973, 11 referendums have been held in the UK, and the majority of them have been related to the issue of devolution. As the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said, most of those were not controversial. I also make an exception for what I call direct local democracy—local referendums on issues such as council tax increases and neighbourhood plans.
Following the series of mainly non-controversial referendums on devolution in the late 1990s, we passed the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act—PPERA—in 2000. That enshrined in law a broad framework of rules to regulate for consistency and fairness in the conduct of any referendum held as a result of an Act of Parliament, whether taking place nationwide in one or more of the UK’s constituent nations or in any region of England. Again, I shall say a little more about that in a moment.
I turn now to the EU referendum, which has been at the heart of today’s debate. There was a referendum which decided that we should stay in the EU, so arguably a referendum was needed if that was to be overridden and we were to leave. Many noble Lords have opposed the EU referendum, arguing that it undermined parliamentary democracy by asking people a binary question on a highly complex matter instead of relying on people who had the time and capacity to master the issues. The argument against referendums was well put by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark who brought the good book into play to reinforce his argument. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to referendums as “risky and ill-informed”, while my noble friend Lord Norton used the word “irresponsible”, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, made it clear that he was opposed to them. Some of the arguments risk patronising the electorate. The high turnout at the referendum did indicate a high degree of engagement and there was certainly no dearth of information for those who wanted it.
Two themes have emerged in the debate, one of which was repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith: that there was a lack of clarity as to why people voted as they did. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, mentioned that. All sorts of reasons have been prayed in aid; it was a cry for help for people who felt left behind by globalisation, or it was a protest in parts of the country where people felt that their public infra- structure was under threat from immigration. A whole range of reasons was given, but there was no lack of clarity as to why people voted as they did.
The other major theme running through our debate is that if you have a referendum, you should know what you are voting for, a point made with force by the report of the UCL commission about which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, spoke—that if you have a referendum, you should know in advance exactly what the outcome will be. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, in the case of UCL commission, it recommended that if that was not the case, you should have another one downstream when the result would be clear.
A number of noble Lords have argued that we should never have held the referendum. The problem with that argument is that membership of the EU has been a major political issue for 40 years and it has split our two largest parties. Prior to the 2015 general election, the only way a voter could indicate a very strong preference for leaving was by voting for the UK Independence Party—never likely to form a Government—and the only way a voter could indicate a strong preference for remaining was by voting Lib Dem. With respect to those who have spoken for that party and with whom I enjoyed working in coalition, it was never going to form a Government either. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, took the view that the only way to resolve this long-running, contentious issue at the heart of our democracy was to grasp the nettle and hold a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, made it clear that he thought that was a mistake and explained why. However, a general election could never give a clear verdict on this single issue, whereas a referendum does provide a clear expression of preference. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said that we should resolve this by having another general election, but with great respect, I am not sure that another general election would resolve this particular issue.
Before the EU referendum, the Government were clear that they would respect the outcome and defer to the will of the people. The present Government have respected that view and are now committed to the UK leaving the EU. Like most noble Lords, I campaigned for remain and I was disappointed by the result. It might have been different if the EU had shown more flexibility on freedom of movement before the referendum was called, if remain had fought a better campaign, and if some politicians had not spent quite so much time and energy over the years making disobliging remarks about the EU. The result also might have been different—dare I say it?—if the Labour Party had been led by another leader.
Although I voted to remain, I respect the result of the referendum and I agree with my noble friend Lord Higgins: it is now for Parliament to proceed and deliver the results in the way it thinks best. To that extent, Parliament remains supreme. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, referendums are not legally binding, so to that extent they cannot undermine parliamentary sovereignty. However, as my noble friend Lord Norton and others have said, while referendums may not be legally binding, they are politically binding with a cost involved in ignoring the outcome.
Confidence in the EU referendum outcome has recently been affected by allegations of electoral malpractice and foreign influence, and charges of criminal activities due to campaign overspends—a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. That rules have been breached is rightly a cause for concern but that does not mean that the rules were flawed. Of course, we should look again at the penalties, as said by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. It is also my view that neither the breaches nor the alleged interference on social media could account for the majority of 1.3 million; I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, disagrees but I cannot substantiate my view by science. Although he quoted yesterday’s Times, it also came to the conclusion that the outcome would have been the same.
Where do we go from here? Previous Governments have chosen to bring forward stand-alone legislation for each referendum, which provides this House and the other place with the opportunity to amend legislation to include some of the suggestions that we have heard during the debate, such as thresholds for turnout and majorities if so desired. At the moment, the Government have no plans to depart from this approach, which has been the approach of previous Governments.
Many noble Lords put the debate in the broader context of how we engage with the public. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, mentioned other means of communicating the growth of social media. He also drew attention to what I call the changes in the terms of the trade of politics—declining party membership, the rise in populism and the growth of social media—which form the background to any review that we might undertake of the legislation. On that point, a number of noble Lords suggested that we needed to revisit the legislation in the light of the experience of recent referendums, the growth of social media and some of the evidence referred to by noble Lords. I have a lot of sympathy for that view but, at the risk of repeating what I said earlier this week, we need a bit of time to absorb the important report of the Independent Commission on Referendums, launched on 11 July, to which a number of noble Lords referred. I was very impressed by the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, on how two referendums in the same part of the United Kingdom can have different outcomes depending on the context in which they take place.
We need to have a good look at the commission’s recommendations, many of which are aimed at the Government. We should await the DCMS report on fake news to understand the impact of social media on elections; it has taken evidence from some of the key players in the referendum. We need the Intelligence and Security Committee’s report on the influence of Russia on the recent referendum and general election. We need the result of the Information Commissioner’s inquiry into breaches of data protection laws by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, together with any outstanding Electoral Commission reports. When we have those important documents, it will make sense to stand back and take on board all their points—and those made in today’s debate—to see how the legislation can be strengthened and updated. Many helpful suggestions have been made today.
In the meantime, the Government will continue to work with the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders to protect the integrity, security and effectiveness of referendums and elections. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, the Government will do what they can to build a consensus on any changes to the legislation that are needed. I thank all noble Lords for their collective eloquence and wisdom.
Lord Higgins
My Lords, I was delighted and surprised to be fortunate in the Motions ballot. I am glad that my choice of subject produced a debate of such exceptional quality, even by your Lordships’ high standards, particularly with two outstanding maiden speeches from my noble friend Lord Pickles and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
The Minister’s reply is very important. What has come out very clearly is that our experience of referendums, since they started and more recently, shows that there are a great many lessons to be learned and mistakes to be avoided. As my noble friend on the Front Bench just said, it is worth considering all the points made today and then seek to codify them to some extent, so when we next come to consider whether we should have a referendum and how it should be carried though it will be precisely on that rule book.
In that sense, I hope that this will be a memorable debate. I am most grateful for all the kind remarks that colleagues have made about me. I am very glad that this has been a debate that should have value in future, as well as reflecting what has happened in the past.
Relationships and Sex Education
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat a Statement made in the other place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the consultation on the Government’s proposals for relationships education, relationships and sex education—commonly known as RSE—and health education, copies of which will be made available on the GOV.UK website.
Children and young people today are growing up in an increasingly complex world and living their lives seamlessly online and off. This presents many positive and exciting opportunities, of course, but also challenges and risks. In this environment, children and young people need to know how to be safe and healthy, and how to manage their lives in a positive way. Ensuring that they have this knowledge also helps to tackle problems such as sexual harassment and sexual violence.
That was why, during the passage of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, the Government acted on the compelling case to make relationships education and RSE compulsory through regulations, and to consider doing the same for elements of PSHE. There was strong cross-party support then, and I am confident that we can continue to work together on these important reforms in that way.
Since the passage of the Act, we have engaged thoroughly with a wide range of organisations. Supporting the department has been Mr Ian Bauckham CBE. With 33 years as a teacher and 13 years as a head teacher, Mr Bauckham has considerable experience in the education system. I put on record that I thank Ian for the invaluable support and advice he has provided to me. Between November 2017 and March 2018, Ian led wide-ranging stakeholder engagement with groups representing teachers, subject specialists, parents, religious bodies, MPs and others. In addition, the department launched a call for evidence to seek public views from adults and young people. More than 23,000 people responded and the level of consensus has been encouraging.
I am pleased today to be able to announce the key decisions and to launch a consultation on the detail of the regulations and guidance. For relationships education and RSE, the aim is to put in place the building blocks needed for positive and safe relationships of all kinds, starting with family and friends and moving out to other kinds of relationships, including online. It is essential that we ensure that young people can keep themselves safe online—from the basics of who and what to trust, through to how personal information is used and can be used, and how to ensure that online relationships are healthy and safe. A guiding principle here is that teaching will start from the basis that children and young people, at age-appropriate points, need to know the laws relating to relationships and sex that govern our society to ensure they act appropriately and can be safe. This includes LGBT relationships, which are a strong feature of the new subjects at age-appropriate points.
The draft guidance sets out core required content, but leaves flexibility for schools to design a curriculum that builds on it and is right for their pupils, bearing in mind their age and religious backgrounds. It enables schools with a religious character to deliver and expand on the core content by reflecting the teachings of their faith.
I am also proposing to introduce compulsory content on health education. This supports the findings from the call for evidence and engagement process, where giving children and young people the information they need to make good decisions about their own health and well-being, particularly their mental well-being, was a clear priority for many who responded. This directly supports the Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health, as well as our manifesto commitment to ensure all young people are taught about mental well-being. The focus on physical health also supports work on childhood obesity.
Financial education is already on the curriculum in maths and citizenship, and careers education is an important part of our careers strategy. For these reasons, I do not consider that further economic education needs be made compulsory. I am committed, however, to improving provision of financial and careers education, and will continue to work with stakeholders to do so. I know that many schools successfully cover the content we have been talking about in a broader PSHE programme. They should continue to do so, adapting their programme to the new requirements rather than starting from scratch. Schools are also free to develop alternative, innovative ways to ensure that pupils receive this education, and we want good practice to be shared so that all schools can benefit.
We have previously committed to parents having a right to withdraw their children from the sex education part of RSE, but not from relationships education in primary or secondary schools. A right for parents to withdraw their child up to 18 years of age is no longer compatible with English case law, nor with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is also clear that allowing parents to withdraw their child up to age 16 would not allow the child to opt in to sex education before the legal age of consent. I therefore propose to give parents the right to request that their child be withdrawn from sex education delivered as part of RSE. The draft guidance sets out that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the parents’ request should be granted until three terms before the pupil reaches 16. At that point, if the child wishes to have sex education, the head teacher should ensure they receive it in one of those three terms. This preserves the parental right in most cases, but balances it with the child’s right to opt in to sex education once they are competent to do so.
We are keen to hear as many views as possible through the consultation and I encourage Members and their constituents to respond. The consultation will be open until early November and the final regulations will be laid in both Houses, allowing for a full and considered debate. This very important change to the curriculum has to be delivered well, and while many schools will be able to adapt their existing teaching quickly, it is essential that schools that need more time to plan and prepare their staff get that time. It is our intention that as many schools as possible will start teaching the subjects from September 2019. We will be working with those schools, as well as with multi-academy trusts, dioceses and education unions, to help them to do so.
All schools will be required to teach the new subjects from September 2020. This is in line with the department’s approach that any significant changes to the curriculum have a year’s lead-in time, and will enable us to learn lessons from the early adopter schools and share good practice further across the sector. We will be seeking views through the consultation to test the right focus for a school support package, as we know that it is crucial for schools and teachers to be confident and well prepared. I believe that our proposals are an historic step in education that will help equip children and young people with the knowledge and support they need to form healthy relationships, lead healthy lives and be safe and happy in modern Britain. I commend the Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for arranging a briefing with his colleague the Schools Minister, Mr Gibb, yesterday for myself and other noble Lords.
The guidance has a 15-week consultation period, which I presume starts today. Six of those 15 weeks will be taken up by the school holidays, when parents, children and teachers tend be doing other things, so it is not really much more than a nine-week consultation period, which is pretty short. Will the Minister consider starting the 15-week consultation when schools return in the first week of September?
That said, we welcome the guidance and the fact that the Government listened to, and have acted on, the amendments tabled by noble Lords and MPs during the passage of what became the Children and Social Work Act. The guidance required for young people going through school today is quite different from what was required even 10 years ago. As the parent of a seven year-old, I am pleased that some of these issues are to be addressed at both primary and secondary school level.
It is vital that young people understand that certain what might be termed “difficult” subjects can be discussed openly, from grooming and the use of the internet to the meaning of relationships and what is appropriate or inappropriate sexual activity, to sexual orientation, bigotry—and perhaps the bullying that emanates from that—and transphobia. It is vital also that mental health, healthy eating, the need for exercise and issues involving alcohol and drugs will all be covered in schools via this guidance—again, that is a most positive development.
I have some questions for the Minister, most associated with the mandatory nature of the guidance. The right for parents to withdraw will surely become an issue and will, I imagine, be exercised by a significant number of parents, although I hope not too many. Can the Minister clarify how the issue will be dealt with after the “three terms before the pupil turns 16” cut-off? That is not clear in the Statement, which says:
“The draft guidance sets out that, unless there are exceptional circumstances, the parents’ request should be granted until three terms before the pupil reaches 16”.
Just before that, the Secretary of State says:
“I therefore propose to give parents the right to request their child be withdrawn from sex education delivered as part of RSE”.
So my question is: after the three terms before the child turns 16, will parents have no right to withdraw their child from sex education? What if the school is a faith school that does not recognise 16 as the age of consent for sexual activity? What will happen if a child of 16 opts to ask for information on sex education, which the guidance says all of them can do? Will the faith school then be legally obliged to provide that sex education even if it does not wish to do so? In that situation, how will a child seeking sex education be expected to proceed? Also, will schools be required to inform all children and parents as to what information they are entitled to? Clearly, nobody can access their rights if they are unaware of what they are.
Further, can the Minister confirm that the guidance will apply to all schools—maintained schools, grammar schools, academies, free schools, faith schools and independent schools? It is my understanding that it will, but only the first two of these types of school follow the national curriculum. How will the Department for Education know that children are receiving relationships and sex education in line with the guidance? Ofsted does not check independent schools, so who will, and how does the DfE intend to monitor all schools and ensure that the guidance is being complied with?
Finally, what resources will be made available to schools in addition to those that they already have? Many schools are facing huge budget pressures and cannot be expected simply to assume other responsibilities and the costs of training or teaching materials simply on the basis of what they have at the moment. Clarification on that point would be most welcome.
Parents want their children to be fully educated with the facts about all aspects of their own safety. What plans does the DfE have to ensure that teachers receive the necessary training to enable them to deliver guidance effectively? Already, teachers have heavy workloads. It is important that they are resourced to do this job properly, so what do the Minister and his department envisage as necessary by way of additional resources for teachers?
I hope that the Minister can answer those questions, but I should be clear that we offer our support for this guidance and its important aim of ensuring that young people are properly equipped for the challenges that they will face in keeping safe and healthy as they grow up.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome this Statement and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. It is a very welcome first—perhaps not historic—positive step forward in equipping our children and young people to cope with life in a modern society.
I think it was David Cameron who, referring to Europe, said that we should “stop banging on” about it. I am, however, glad that on this issue so many Peers, MPs and organisations outside Parliament did bang on for some considerable time. That banging on has meant, in the end, that the Government have taken note. It is right to congratulate not just the present Government but the former Secretary of State, Justine Greening, who did a lot of work to get to this stage. I particularly remember meeting Edward Timpson, the then Children’s Minister, who was very clear in his view about this topic.
The importance that not only our party but young people, parents and teachers attach to this subject is clear from the 23,000 responses to the call for evidence. While there is no definitive tally of similar calls for evidence, I am confident that this number would be near the top of that particular league table. I have looked through the consultation, and I am glad that, as most school terms finish tomorrow, sufficient time has been allowed for schools to respond in the autumn.
It is quite interesting how the world, and government policy, have moved on in the last five years, but it is disappointing that what the noble Lord, Lord Nash, the Minister’s predecessor, said in this House five years ago—
“The Government believe that PSHE is a vital part of a broad and balanced curriculum and that excellent PSHE provision is part of the life-blood of all good schools”—[Official Report, 24/4/13; col. GC 426.]
—has not led to a commitment to go one step further and make PSHE a statutory part of the curriculum. I certainly do not accept that economic education is covered by the current provision in careers, maths and citizenship, as the Statement claims. It is welcome that students can decide, from the age of 15, to opt in to sex education even if their parents do not want them to. However, there is still a discussion to be had about whether one term of sex education in the year before the age of consent is sufficient.
Liberal Democrats believe there should be an independent standards authority to pilot, phase in and resource policy changes. Such an authority would be better able to monitor the introduction of RSE than either civil servants or Ofsted. A broad and balanced curriculum for life, as the Liberal Democrats would like to see, would also include mental health education, first aid and emergency life-saving skills and financial literacy, in addition to relationships and sex education. The Welsh Assembly has already introduced a new RSE curriculum on the basis of extensive research and consultation. What discussions have the Government had with the Welsh Minister?
In 2013, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, informed us:
“I agree that we need to improve the focus on this area through teaching, schools and ITT providers”.—[Official Report, 18/6/13; col. 136.]
I cannot, however, find any mention in the Statement about who will provide the resources to train teachers. Initial teacher training had been totally fragmented, and I am sure that head teachers will be trying to work out how to provide the high-quality CPD to bring their staff up to speed with yet another new demand on finite and shrinking resources.
I have three questions that I hope the Minister will be able to clarify. First, the Statement says that RSE will be prescribed core content for all schools. The phrase that I am unsure of—perhaps the Minister will explain how it would work—is that it,
“leaves flexibility for schools … with a religious character to deliver and expand”,
on that content. I am not sure how that will work in practice and what it means.
My second question has, I think, been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Watson. It is important not just to introduce this measure in 2019-20 but to make sure that it is of good quality, with qualified teachers and good resources. What funding has the Minister set aside to invest in high-quality training and continuous professional development?
Finally, the Minister says that financial education should not be made compulsory, as it is already covered in the national curriculum in maths and the careers strategy. The national curriculum, however, is not compulsory in academies and free schools. Are we planning to make it compulsory for those schools, so that this subject will be taught?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their questions on this subject and for their broad support. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for joining us yesterday and for the contributions that he made in that meeting. I hope that I will be able to answer most of their questions.
On the consultation period, the reason that we decided to issue the Statement today, ahead of the school holidays, is that most multi-academy trusts are open over these holidays. They cover half of secondary school pupils, so we felt that it was better to get the information out there sooner rather than later to enable them to get focused on the subject.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I am sorry, but that answer is not particularly helpful. Half of them may be open during the holidays, but that means half of them are not. Why should the maintained schools sector be treated less favourably? I am really surprised at that answer.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the point is that the subject is already being considered by the sector. That is why we have given it a 15-week period, which takes us to the next half-term. I was trying to answer the noble Lord’s question about why we issued it today rather than, say, on 1 September. Another thing we expect to see is a lot of schools introducing this from September 2019, which will be a year ahead of the statutory requirement. We expect that a lot of those early introducers will be the bigger chains, which are already further developed in this area.
The noble Lord also asked whether schools will be required to tell pupils and parents about the policy. It is clear that schools will be required to publish policies on their RSE and RE curriculum, and the guidance sets out what should be included in that notification.
On the right to withdraw, a parent may still request the withdrawal of their child in the three terms before they reach the 16 year-old age group, but if the child wishes to receive education, the school will be required to provide it. That is the case for all schools. To put that in perspective, 99.5% of children currently participate in the sex education that is going on in schools, so we do not feel that it will be a sensitive issue. Again, however, in the consultation we are asking for views from all respondents. If they feel that we need to improve the guidance, we are open-minded about doing that.
Regarding the materials and resources for schools, we are certainly committed to ensuring that schools are supported and ready to teach these new subjects to a high quality. Many schools are already doing that, so they will be able to adapt quickly to teaching the new subjects. But many schools will require some support, and we are asking questions in the consultation about where the help will be most needed. To support schools, we will ensure that there is a repository for quality teaching materials covering these new subjects. We intend to work closely with the unions, the MATs, the dioceses and subject associations to ensure that the right support is available for schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, also asked whether the guidance will apply to all schools, including independent schools, and how we will know that the subject is being delivered in those schools. The guidance for relationships education and RSE will apply to all schools, including independent schools. PSHE is already a compulsory subject in independent schools and we will work with the Independent Schools Inspectorate, which already addresses these areas, to ensure that it covers the area adequately when it inspects.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who asked about the level of training that we will give to support teachers in these new areas. We will certainly amend the initial teacher training. In fact, perhaps I might give the noble Lord a list of the specific subjects that will be covered in the new areas. I think this gives a bit of context to the areas that teachers will address. The noble Lord will see from the list that much of this is already going on and this is just a way of codifying it. The subjects are: mental well-being; healthy friendships; LGBT; respectful relationships, including addressing inappropriate behaviour, harassment and exploitation; online safety; consent in all types of relationships, including sexual relationships where appropriate; tolerance and respect for others; the impact of viewing harmful content or sexually explicit material; and the law in relation to abuse, exploitation and harassment. That gives a flavour of the subjects, and I think they will be intuitive for the majority of the profession.
Schools will be encouraged to teach PSHE and may cover content that they feel their pupils need. The PSHE Association has today strongly welcomed our approach. I have a quote from the association that may provide some reassurance:
“The government’s commitment to mandatory health and relationships education is welcome and a major step forward. Damian Hinds has shown outstanding leadership in guaranteeing young people an education that supports their physical and mental health, wellbeing and relationships”,
and it goes on. We have made the association a key stakeholder in our discussions.
I think I addressed the topic of support to schools in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, but I reiterate that we want to use the consultation to finalise our plans for the support that we provide to schools. It would be a bit premature to commit to a particular budget on school support before we get to the detail of the support that they feel they would like.
Lord Storey
Before the Minister sits down—perhaps he could write to me on this, because it is quite difficult to give a verbal answer—I get that the core RSE content will be prescribed for all schools, but then there will be flexibility for schools with a religious character to expand on that content. Could he write to me about how he sees that working in practice?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I will write, but, to give the noble Lord some reassurance, two of the bodies that have been most effective in handling sex education have been the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England education service. Both have model ways of dealing with this, and part of that is early engagement with parents so that they do not feel that they are being railroaded into it and it is done in an inclusive way. I shall write with more details.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and for the meeting that he held beforehand, which I managed to get to even if my noble friend did not.
Whenever we go through this, we may find that the three-terms exemption to parents being able to remove their children is where the potential conflict is going to occur, and where it is going to be difficult to manage the balance between the right of parents’ controls and the rights of the child. I am quite in sympathy with what the Government are doing and probably agree with it; I am someone who more or less likes everything that is there. A little more might have been more to my taste, but we support what the Government are doing. However, the people who are going to have to implement this are the teaching staff. Have the Government given any guidance as to whether a parent has to be informed if a student opts into this process having been previously excluded? If there is an objection, what sort of support are we giving to the teachers and headmasters when they encounter some form of conflict? This may well be a tiny minority of people, but it will be a very vocal one because—let us face facts—it always has been. Have the Government given any thought to how we support teachers through that process, ensure that what they are doing is the law of the land and not something the teacher has decided upon, and make that clear to the parents of students who are in conflict over this? That is a point that will ultimately affect what happens on the ground.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his comments and indeed for his contribution yesterday. He asks a very practical question. This is something that needs to be handled sensitively, and we will be looking in the consultation response for any sense that we need to strengthen the guidance to schools. Broadly speaking, head teachers are experienced at engaging with parents, particularly on difficult topics, so we trust them to put the right processes in place for their schools. We will see if there is a sense in the consultation that they do not feel well enough supported, and if that is the case then we will address this point further.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Will the end of the consultation period be followed swiftly by final government decisions? Clearly, it is important that things proceed quickly, since new arrangements take effect in September 2019. I thank the Minister for clarifying, too, in response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that independent schools will be covered by these new arrangements. It seems to me extremely important that all elements of our school system participate in what is now going to be established.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
Yes, we are keen to get on and do this, and the plans at the moment are that the results of the consultation response will be published on GOV.UK within 12 weeks of the consultation closing. We will make an announcement on the draft regulations and draft statutory guidance at the start of next year. At that point, we will, if appropriate, make clear any changes to the draft statutory guidance and regulations prior to parliamentary debates, during the passing of the associated regulations.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful that the Government are going to make progress in this important area. I thank the Minister for spelling out the content of the teacher education aspect, which has partially answered the question that I wanted to ask. Some of us have raised on a number of occasions the issue of the increase in violence and harassment against young girls in schools. In particular, there is the fact that a lot of young boys get their sex education from pornography online. They are getting sex education, but it may not be the appropriate sex education. This issue of violence is becoming endemic, and I wonder whether we are a little bit mealy-mouthed in all this in talking about internet safety and harms. In the content that the Minister quoted, he talked about illicit internet information, or something. Should not we call a spade a shovel? Perhaps I am influenced by listening to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pickles. We are talking about a serious increase in pornography available at school level. I hope that people recognise how difficult it will be to tackle. If we do not make it clear that these sorts of issues are included, I wonder whether some people may miss it as an important aspect.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. The key point that I would like to make is that this is the first change to this part of education for 18 years, which is extraordinary when you think that 18 years ago very few children owned a mobile phone, and Facebook did not even exist—so this is a major step forward to bring us into the 21st century. The Secretary of State said today that this would be kept under review every three years or so, to make sure that we were keeping on top of any further developments that occur in the online world. I gave the noble Lord, Lord Storey, a taste of some of the things that we are including, although I did not give the whole list. To give the noble Baroness some reassurance, it includes strengthened content around areas such as relationship focus and bullying, including cyberbullying. We are very alert to this—it is so important.
I can tell you a terrible story in my own life as an academy sponsor. Last year, in one of our schools a young girl of 16 went on a date with a boy. They ended up in bed together, and the next day the boy boasted on Facebook, and the girl was so mortified that she hanged herself—dead. That is the reality. That boy will have to carry that for the rest of his life, and a young girl lost her life. So there is no one more passionate about this than me.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I declare my interest as the chair of the All-Party Group on Sexual and Reproductive Health. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and I too think that Justine Greening deserves great commendation for having started this, and that Nick Gibb deserves credit for taking it through. This is clearly a very carefully worded document and I very much welcome its main intention.
There are just two things that I take the opportunity to pick up. The first is about pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. There are very few people who are expert in the field of developing materials and delivering training for talking to people with disabilities, including learning disabilities or disabilities such as deafness. Can the Minister say whether the Government will make sure that, during this consultation, young people with disabilities and the people who work with them are included? They are often very isolated; it is difficult enough to talk about some of these matters if you are in full command of your communication, and sometimes teachers find it intensely difficult to speak to people with disabilities about these matters. There is a lot of evidence that these young people end up relying on the internet and coming away with really strange ideas, because they have been looking at the wrong sort of stuff. It is an area that has to be handled with great sensitivity and care.
Secondly, I welcome paragraph 33 of the draft guidance, which is about the inclusion of LGBT, and I note the way in which it has been drafted. It is my understanding—and I ask the Minister to correct me if I am wrong—that there is no general guidance for schools about transgender issues, including what happens when you have trans teachers or trans pupils. There are bits and pieces of guidance that individual schools and authorities have developed—most notably Cornwall County Council—but I do not think that there is any general guidance for schools. Am I right that this is the first time that any kind of guidance on trans will be in schools? Will the Minister consider that in a bit more depth?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
The noble Baroness raises two important questions. First, on SEND, just to reassure the House, the whole thrust of these changes is for the teaching of all pupils, including those with special needs. In the debate in the other place today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made particular reference to reaching out in the consultation to special schools, SENCOs and others on how we can support the needs of pupils with SEND to ensure that we have the correct materials available for them. Likewise, on the LGBT question, I do not know what the existing materials are, but one reason for not bringing this in sooner, as some people would like, is to give us the time to start developing best practice, particularly across these sensitive areas. As I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Watson, earlier, we expect quite a few schools to be starting this in September 2019, which will give us time to develop good practice and make it available across the whole system.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
My Lords, with the permission of the House, I would like to return to a point that I asked the Minister about when I spoke earlier, which is the issue of faith schools. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, raised a similar point. If there is any difficulty in making this guidance effective, that is most likely where it would occur. The point I specifically asked was: what happens where the school itself effectively does not recognise that sex education should be delivered at, say, the age of 16 and puts pressure on the parents to ask that their children opt out, and yet one or more of these children decide that they want that? The school, as I understand it, would be legally obliged to provide that sex education but would be very uncomfortable about doing so. Can the Minister say a bit more about how faith schools will be expected to act in those circumstances to make sure that they comply with the guidance?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
Yes, of course this is a very sensitive area, but I think we have to be clear that there is a requirement for faith schools to enter this mandatory process. However, schools with a religious character can teach these subjects according to the tenets of their faith. In schools with a religious character, the distinctive faith perspective on relationships may be taught, and balanced debate may take place about the issues that are seen as contentious. For example, a school may wish to reflect faith teachings about certain topics, as well as how their faith institutions may support people in matters of relationships and sex. As I mentioned as part of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, we find that two of the most effective organisations in dealing with these areas tend to be the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England. However, we do invite responses in the consultation if there is still a sense of ambiguity.
Warm Home Discount (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 June be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations extend the warm home discount scheme until 2020-21, ensuring over 2 million low-income and vulnerable customers receive a £140 rebate on their energy bills in winter, when they need it most. This is vital support and a key policy for tackling fuel poverty.
The best long-term solution to alleviating fuel poverty is to improve the energy efficiency of a home, bringing down the cost of heating it. The Government are committed to tackling fuel poverty and improving energy efficiency. We have launched a number of interventions to help us achieve this. In the Clean Growth Strategy, we stated the aim to upgrade all fuel-poor homes to band C by 2030. In March, we consulted on focusing all of the energy company obligation funding—£640 million per year—on low-income and vulnerable households. We have committed to the continuation of funding for domestic energy efficiency until 2028, at least at current levels—an investment of £6 billion over the next 10 years—and we have consulted on proposals to strengthen the existing minimum standard regulations in England and Wales so that private landlords make improvements to F and G-rated homes before letting them. This is part of our wider, long-term aspiration to improve as many homes as possible to band C by 2035.
The energy efficiency improvement of homes takes time, however, and some properties, especially those that are harder to treat, may be left behind. Energy bill rebates through the warm home discount, therefore, continue to play an important role. Through the Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill, which I hope will receive Royal Assent in due course, we are taking action to protect 11 million households currently on the highest energy tariffs. Under the warm home discount, around 1.2 million low-income pensioners in receipt of pension credit guarantee credit receive £140 as an automatic rebate on their energy bills. Over 1 million low-income and vulnerable households receive the rebate following an application to a participating energy supplier. In recognition of the success of the scheme, the 2015 spending review committed £320 million per year to the scheme— rising with inflation—until 2020-21. The current regulations underpinning this scheme expired in April and the regulations in front of us today extend the scheme until 2020-21. This extension to the regulations will not inhibit the reform of the scheme in future. We intend to consult later this year on a number of changes from 2019-20, including expanding the successful data-matching process and so removing the need for consumers to apply. We will want to look at ways in which we can achieve the most effective targeting of the scheme by making the best possible use of the data available to us. To do this, we needed primary legislation, and I am delighted that the data-sharing powers we needed under the Digital Economy Act 2017 are expected to come into force before Summer Recess.
Meanwhile, the regulations we are debating today introduce a key change to the scheme. More energy suppliers will be required to offer the warm home discount to their customers. We will give smaller suppliers enough time to put the right processes in place, while giving a clear signal to the market. So, the threshold will reduce gradually, from 250,000 down to 150,000 customer accounts between 2019 and 2021. The impact of the threshold will be reviewed and, should the scheme continue beyond 2021, we expect it to be reduced further.
It is important to note that these regulations do not make significant changes to the scheme eligibility for this coming winter. This winter we want to prioritise the safe and timely delivery of the rebates. That will mean that all eligible pensioners on pension credit guarantee credit will continue to receive £140 off their bills. These regulations make only small changes to eligibility for the broader group—the part of the scheme for which customers have to apply—by including universal credit recipients who are in work with low earnings, and to reflect welfare changes.
We believe there is more room for more innovative, industry-led projects to identify fuel-poor households and to provide the most suitable package of advice and measures. Recognising this potential, we are increasing the spending cap on industry initiatives from £30 million to £40 million. We are also expanding the list of activities allowed under industry initiatives to include the provision of financial assistance with energy bills for households not eligible under the core group or broader group. This could be households not on the benefits system but particularly at risk of fuel poverty, including those where someone has a long-term illness or disability. This will be limited to up to £5 million overall and up to £140 per household—equivalent to the value of the rebate.
We want to ensure that industry initiatives funding focuses on support to reduce bills for the long term, such as through energy advice and energy debt assistance. These regulations will continue to reduce the cap on the spending allowed on debt write-off from £12 million to £10 million—or 25% of the increased cap—and to continue to reduce it in future years, to £8 million in 2019-20 and £6 million in 2020-21.
In conclusion, the regulations extend the warm home discount until 2020-21. These affirmative regulations provide vital support for low-income and vulnerable customers to keep warm for the next three winters. The changes that we propose to make will mean that more suppliers will be required to provide assistance to their eligible low-income customers, and that suppliers can spend more on industry initiatives to provide innovative and long-term energy bill support to households in need. I commend these regulations to the House and beg to move.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, obviously, we welcome the extension of the warm home discount, which has been successful. It has been in operation for seven years, and it benefits those in fuel poverty, so a further three years is welcome.
I noticed what the Minister said about energy efficiency. We on this side could not agree more that energy efficiency is massively important, and we welcome all and any measures the Government might take. However, we also encourage the Government to reintroduce the zero-carbon homes standards. When you have the opportunity to build new homes, it seems a pity not to reduce the need for heating and expense in that way. Two million low-income and vulnerable households have benefited, and the main elements remain in place and intact. I do not know how widely this consultation is marketed, as there were only nine individuals out of a total of 60 respondents. While the changes are not earth-shattering, that is a very small number for an issue that affects every household in the country.
I was pleased to see that the Government took notice of the concerns, and although they have agreed to reduce the threshold for suppliers, in the end all suppliers should be able to offer it or should offer it. At the moment, people are having to choose between keeping the warm home discount and saving by switching, and it seems that people would rather keep the warm home discount, even though savings might be larger than £140 by not doing so. However, we welcome these regulations.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his extensive introduction. I am happy to approve the regulations. The warm home discount, which comes through ECO, is one of the instruments used to support households in fuel poverty. The regulations extend the WHD scheme after its seventh year through years eight, nine and 10 until 2021.
The scheme also comes as a subset of the renewable heat incentive, which the House approved in May this year. This is also set to expire, in many regards, in 2021. Therefore, I repeat what we said on that occasion: that plans must be made and signalled for a long-term solution for heat decarbonisation, to provide certainty and clarity beyond this looming cliff edge.
Meanwhile, it is to be welcomed that these regulations provide continuity for the next three years until 2021. I agree that the best long-term solution for reducing household fuel poverty and bringing down the cost of heating a home is through improving energy efficiency. In this regard, I recognise the ambition to upgrade as many homes as possible to band C by 2035—but that is quite some distance away.
The interlinking of these measures was referred to by the Minister in his opening remarks. Will he provide any update specifically on the supposedly major push towards decarbonisation following the end of these schemes in 2021 as part of the clean growth plan?
Turning to the regulations, there are a few adjustments and amendments to the scheme that we would like to understand better. The WHD scheme has suffered in recent years from applying only to obligated energy companies which have more than 250,000 customers. While competition can be encouraged through more entrants into the market, can the Minister confirm with any figures whether there has been a noticeable cluster of suppliers just below this threshold? In that regard, I welcome the amendment to reduce the threshold progressively. Has the Minister’s department looked into the impact of thresholds on companies to determine whether ameliorating measures could be introduced?
These arbitrary boundaries have produced other anomalies, which the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, drew attention to in her remarks. While encouraging switching as a way to increase competition and reduce customer bills, many households have fallen foul of the eligibility criteria of the WHD scheme when changing suppliers that are on either one side or the other side of the threshold. Sometimes households have become victims of companies gaming the threshold by being moved compulsorily from obligated to unobligated companies. Reducing the threshold is helpful but does not directly help households caught by this bureaucracy.
I suggest to the Minister that measures could be looked at to alleviate the problem. At least, will he look to commit price comparison websites and switching advisers to adding the calculations necessary for WHD to apply when displaying or promoting alternative tariffs? The loss of the right to WHD on switching could negate any benefit and would further undermine the public’s confidence that the energy market works for them. With these comments, I am happy to approve the regulations.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their general welcome for these regulations, and their recognition that they allow us to continue with what we have been doing over this winter for a further three winters, but also to consult on the changes I announced earlier.
The noble Baroness asked how the consultation was marketed and whether we had enough responses to it. We worked very closely with consumer organisations, including Citizens Advice, but I will look at what she had to say and see whether we can improve in future and reach out to more people.
I noted the comments that both noble Lords made about energy efficiency. I also noted their general welcome for our progress in this area and the fact that we want to push along. It is obviously the right thing to do to make all homes as energy efficient as possible, and we will continue to do that.
As regards their comments about the thresholds, I remind both noble Lords that under the scheme other suppliers below the threshold will continue to be able to volunteer. I gather that there were three voluntary smaller suppliers. As I said in introducing the regulations, we will continue to reduce the threshold and will review it again after 2020-21. If the scheme were to continue, there would be a view to potentially setting the threshold to a minimum level of zero if the evidence supported that approach.
I particularly noted the point that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, made about some companies gaming the system. Therefore, it might be right to reduce it to zero in the future. However, for the moment, if we continue with the gradualist approach that I announced in introducing the regulations and review it in the future, I suspect that that will be the better way of proceeding so as to give new suppliers time to prepare in terms of both processes and pricing. I hope that that deals with most of the questions that noble Lords asked.
Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Disclosure of Protected Material after Specified Period) Regulations 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 June be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the UK’s offshore oil and gas industry is one of the country’s great industrial successes, but it has faced numerous challenges, including ageing infra- structure and growing international competition. In this context, in 2013 the Government asked Sir Ian Wood to conduct a review of the sector, specifically looking at how the economic recovery of offshore petroleum could be maximised. One of the key recommendations from the Wood review was the need to ensure that industry has timely and transparent access to petroleum-related information and samples. These can include, for example, data about infrastructure or reservoirs, or pieces of strata acquired in the course of drilling a well.
The Government committed to implementing the Wood review and included various powers in the Energy Act 2016 covering information and samples related to the offshore exploration and production of petroleum. These included a requirement for relevant persons within industry to retain certain information and samples for a specified period, as set out in the Oil and Gas Authority (Offshore Petroleum) (Retention of Information and Samples) Regulations 2018. Information and samples plans were also introduced to safeguard information where licence events, such as termination, occur.
The Oil and Gas Authority was given powers to require relevant persons to provide it with petroleum-related information or samples which they hold and which the OGA might need to discharge its regulatory role and to deliver the objective of maximising the economic recovery of offshore petroleum. The regulations we are considering today form the final piece of the picture: once information or samples have been acquired by the OGA, the regulations enable it or a subsequent holder to make such material available after a specified period.
The Energy Act 2016 places a general prohibition on disclosure of protected material, subject to certain exemptions. One of those exemptions permits the OGA or a subsequent holder to make protected material available at such time as may be specified in regulations. The protected material to which these regulations apply includes information about geological surveys, wells drilled, petroleum production and other reports and computerised models of the subsurface or a reservoir. It also includes samples of petroleum, fluids or strata acquired or created when drilling or producing from a well. Other relevant categories include information about installations, infrastructure and pipelines associated with offshore petroleum development.
Following a recommendation of the Delegated Powers Committee, the Energy Act 2016 included a list of factors to which the Secretary of State must have regard when determining the appropriate period after which protected material may be made available under the regulations. In summary, the requirement is to consider: first, whether companies have had sufficient time to satisfy the main purpose for which they created or acquired the information or samples; secondly, the potential chilling effect of requiring disclosure on discouraging future activity; and, finally, the benefit to industry and the economy in making such information and samples more widely available.
Each of these factors has been taken into account when setting the period after which different types of information and samples can be disclosed. The periods vary from immediate disclosure of very basic information which is not deemed to be sensitive, such as the fact that a survey has been carried out of a particular area, to 15 years for raw information from such seismic surveys, reflecting the fact that they are carried out at significant cost for commercial purposes. While care has been taken to ensure that the specified time is set appropriately, there is no absolute requirement to publish the material, and the OGA could consider representations where there are particular justifications for keeping information confidential for a longer period. However, in doing so, the OGA would need to weigh up the impact on delivering the statutory objective of maximising economic recovery of the UK’s offshore petroleum.
These are very technical regulations and the proposals they are based upon were subject to consultation with industry and other interested parties by the Oil and Gas Authority. The OGA has published a consultation response detailing how feedback received had been reflected through making appropriate adjustments to certain proposals; for example, excluding more subjective information from immediate release. The OGA will provide guidance on its application of these regulations before they come into force.
As petroleum licence conditions permit publication of certain information and samples after set periods, the additional impact of disclosure under these regulations is expected to be marginal. As such, a full impact assessment is not required. Other costs on industry will be due to familiarisation with the new regulations.
In conclusion, the Oil and Gas Authority considers that improvements to information retention, reporting and disclosure processes, including through these regulations, are critical to achieving the statutory objective of maximising economic recovery of the UK’s offshore petroleum reserves. The changes are expected to make an important contribution to the OGA’s vision for the industry, which indicates that maximising economic recovery can create £140 billion of additional gross value for the UK. In addition, they could potentially facilitate the reuse of reservoirs and infrastructure for other purposes, including carbon capture, utilisation and storage. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
My Lords, the legal obligation to retain specified classes of information and samples and specifying when such obligation ends is important, and these regulations will deliver that obligation clearly. What it also indicates, I hope, is that it is important to make the samples and analysis public, as opposed to keeping them hidden. That means that the exemptions such as commercial sensitivity should be very few and should be monitored to check that they are not used inappropriately.
The principal objective for timely and transparent access to petroleum-related information and samples was, as the Minister said, one of the recommendations in the 2014 Wood review. Making access to information a better process—I have a very similar speech to the Minister’s—can only help the industry. It is estimated that a potential £140 million in additional revenue may result from the more timely management of samples and analysis. Is it million?
Baroness Featherstone
I was not sure; I have written “billion”, but I thought that was an awful lot.
Lord Henley
Someone said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon we will be talking about real money”.
Baroness Featherstone
It is an industry that probably works in billions—way above my pay grade. We have no particular comments on the regulations per se. They seem fit for purpose and the consultation responses appear to have been taken note of.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instrument before the House today. I understand that it is among the last necessary to commence the provisions of the Energy Act 2016, and I am happy to approve it. As the Minister said, the Act set up the Oil and Gas Authority following the 2014 Wood review into the future of the UK’s offshore petroleum industry with the objective of maximising economic recovery—MER—of offshore petroleum reserves. With powers to offer necessary information, the OGA, through these regulations will now be able to make this information public after a specified period.
I am grateful that, through this MER, the Minister can confirm—with the noble Baroness—that the petroleum industry could create £140 billion of gross value added for the UK and create many thousands of jobs. Most notably, information disclosure could facilitate the reuse of reservoirs and infrastructure most necessary for the development of carbon capture and storage, previously damaged through the Government’s cancellation of CCS projects. Remarks from the Minister in his reply confirming the Government’s commitment to help economically viable ways to develop CCS would be most welcome.
The success of these regulations is very much dependent on the OGA’s ability to assess the commercial sustainability and confidentiality of any pertinent information that it proposes to disclose. The memorandum gives confidence that the Government and the regulator have worked extensively together through consultations and reviews to reach a satisfactory point whereby companies can share and the OGA can publish information sensitively, in a balance between the objective of maximising economic activities and the company’s economic interests. I understand that the appeal mechanisms are included in further provisions of the Energy Act and, if the OGA and the industry can develop a modus operandi to the satisfaction of both parties, that is to be applauded. Will the Minister commit to reviewing and making a statement on this in due course as the success of MER is transparently demonstrated?
One aspect of this was not highlighted by the memorandum. Some information revealed—for example, in relation to seismic survey results—could be sensitive and relate to national security. Are provisions in place for the Government to instruct and advise against the disclosure of certain information by the OGA? In its objective to maximise economic recovery, the OGA will certainly make information available that is of much use and interest to academics, researchers and companies generally in the sector. How does the OGA propose to make this information available? Will it have one preferred method? Will the Government work with the OGA not only to ensure that the information is made easily accessible and well publicised, but that it is effective? Will this be on an international basis? I would be grateful if the Minister could outline how Parliament will be kept updated on the progress of MER.
With that, I am happy to endorse the remarks of my honourable friend and shadow Minister in the other place, Alan Whitehead, that,
“this is a well-crafted set of regulations that should greatly enhance the ability of the industry and the general public to understand what is happening in the North sea, and, where appropriate, to be supplied with that material in a reasonably timely fashion”.—[Official Report, Commons, Eighth Delegated Legislation Committee, 17/7/18; col. 6.]
Lord Henley
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for their comments, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for repeating what his colleague said in another place. He made it clear that these are, as he put it, well-crafted regulations. It is always gratifying to those of us who move these instruments in either House to hear that, but it is equally gratifying for our officials, draftsmen and others. I will make sure that those remarks are brought to the attention of those who are responsible for producing these regulations.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for stressing that the aim behind these regulations is to reinforce the aim of the 2016 Act of maximising economic recovery. I shall therefore repeat the figure: we think that there is the chance of creating some £140 billion of additional gross value for the UK, which is very important to us all. It is also important for the oil industry in the north-east of Scotland, as we discussed only the other day when a noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches asked a Question about the oil industry in Scotland. Maximising economic recovery is important.
I shall deal with the points made about carbon capture and storage. The noble Lord will understand that this has great potential in terms of helping to decarbonise the economy and maximising economic opportunities for the UK. Obviously we want the UK to become a global technology leader in this area by working with global partners to reduce costs and accelerate deployment. We set out in the clean growth strategy a range of actions in both the domestic and the international arenas to unlock the potential for CCS. Again, we are investing quite large figures—£100 million; I stress that it is £100 million, not billion—in innovation in this area. We should do what we can in this area.
The noble Lord also asked about a review. I should remind him that the Energy Act put an obligation on the Government to review the performance of the OGA every three years, and obviously that will include the disclosure provisions. On whether the Government can stop the publication of certain things, the OGA can advise against disclosure using powers under the Energy Act if national security requirements come into play. On how information and samples will be made available when published, the OGA is progressing plans to set up a national data repository for digital data in 2019, which will enable this type of data to be stored securely and sustainably. It will allow access and disclosure to be controlled by the OGA with information becoming accessible to the public once published. Other summary information and production information will be made available on the OGA’s open data pages on its website. Again, that will be available to academics at the proper time.
I think that those comments deal with all the questions that were put to me. I can confirm that, as I made clear in my opening remarks, this is the last piece of the jigsaw in relation to these matters following the Energy Act. I think that this is also the last occasion before the Summer Recess on which those of us who either speak for BEIS or respond to energy or BEIS questions from the Opposition Benches will be likely to perform. I therefore wish the noble Baroness and the noble Lord a happy holiday, and beg to move.
Royal Assent
Thursday 19th July 2018
(6 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 109-I Marshalled list for Third Reading (PDF, 62KB) - (12 Jun 2018)